Getting Serious: Why Companies Must Adopt Information Governance Measures to Prepare for the Upcoming Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

[W]ithout a corresponding change in discovery culture by courts, counsel and clients alike, the proposed rules modifications will likely have little to no effect on the manner in which discovery is conducted today

Inviting Scrutiny: How Technologies Are Eroding the Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct, but its protections are eroding. Always narrowly construed, its zone of protection is becoming even smaller, particularly for in-house counsel. This is due to organizations’ inability to address the impact that technological innovations have had on the privilege. In many instances, new and disruptive technologies are assaulting the privilege as a result of unsuspecting corporate practices. This Article details how technology advancements coupled with heightened judicial scrutiny have chipped away at the protections the privilege affords to internal counsel. The historical basis for increased court scrutiny of in-house counsel’s privilege claims is detailed. With respect to technology, e-mail is spotlighted as a principal causation element in this process.1 In addition, the Article explores how social networking sites, cloud computing, and corporate “bring your own device” policies all have the potential to undermine the privilege assertions of in-house counsel. Finally, some best practices are discussed which, if followed, can help prevent further erosions to such claims

The New ESI Sanctions Framework Under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments

The debate over the necessity, substance, and form of the proposed e-Discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) has been ongoing for over four years. Since the Duke Conference convened in May 2010, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules (Committee) has been working to address many of the perceived shortcomings in the current Rules regime

New Utah Rule 26: A Blueprint for Proportionality Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Article published in the Michigan State Law Review

Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): Results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up

AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety as well as predictive factors of dry rate and freedom from surgical revision in patients underwent AUS placement. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still considered the standard for the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, data reporting efficacy and safety from large series are lacking. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 16 centers in Europe and USA. Only primary cases of AUS implantation in non-neurogenic SUI after prostate surgery, with a follow-up of at least 1 year were included. Efficacy data (continence rate, based on pad usage) and safety data (revision rate in case of infection and erosion, as well as atrophy or mechanical failure) were collected. Multivariable analyses were performed in order to investigate possible predictors of the aforementioned outcomes. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-two men had primary AUS implantation. At 32 months mean follow-up overall dry rate and surgical revision were 58% and 30.7%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients without previous incontinence surgery had a higher probability to be dry after AUS implantation (OR: 0.51, P = 0.03). Moreover institutional case-load was positively associated with dry rate (OR: 1.18; P = 0.005) and freedom from revision (OR: 1.51; P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that AUS is an effective option for the treatment of SUI after prostate surgery. Moreover previous incontinence surgery and low institutional case-load are negatively associated to efficacy and safety outcomes.status: publishe