| « January 2006 |
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 | 31 | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| Today |
Blog::Navigation
Blog::Editing
Bookmarks::Blogroll
Bookmarks::News
Site notes

Thursday January 19, 2006
Confusion Even Among Attorneys I have been attending various classes and seminars on Compliance, eDiscovery and ILM, one recently with my father, who is a practicing attorney in California. I would not recommend this activity. My arm is sore from him hitting me and saying this applies to you! Actually there are several new cases in the litigation area that have come out since Zubulake and its rulings. These new cases appear to be extending and clarifying the rulings in Zubulake. I am also surprised to note that few general counsel and/or risk managers are unaware of these developments. One area that a recent lecturer made and that I heartily agree with is that notice of a pending litigation may not start when the defendant receives a summons. A simple article in a newspaper can serve as notice or even imputing notice due to the egregiousness of the behavior on the part of the defendant. That gets scary. And the plaintiffs bar is all over this. As my dad says, this appears to be a bunch of bull but bull you have to pay attention to.