Kang Haggerty NewsIn his April 2016 civil litigation column in The Legal Intelligencer and the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Edward T. Kang discusses and compares the relative merits of jury and bench trials based on analysis of data and comparative studies on the outcome of cases categorized by choice of fact-finder. While jury trials may seem the norm according to the media, bench trial is the less publicized alternative that lawyers and their clients must also consider. Learn more about the consequences of this pivotal decision: jury or no jury? READ MORE
Articles Posted in Publications
Legal Intelligencer: Unspoken Consequences of Working in a Family-Friendly Firm
by The YL Editorial Board
Class Action Rule Changes Are (Likely) Coming to Federal Courts
In August of this year, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure released a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perhaps the most notable of the proposed amendments are those relating to Rule 23, which governs class actions. Rule 23 has been substantively amended four times since its adoption in 1937, and most recently in 2003. The proposed amendments affect the following aspects of Rule 23: method of notice to class members, settlement approval, objections of class members to settlement and appeals.
Notice
The proposal includes an amendment to Rule 23(c)(2)(b) to clarify the proper methods of notice to class members of a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) (common questions of law or fact predominate over those pertinent to only individual class members and the class action is superior to other forms of action). Currently, Rule 23(c)(2)(b) requires notice by “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” which could plausibly be read to permit notice through electronic or other means. But many courts have stated that this subsection of the rule requires notice by first class mail. The proposed amendment would clear up this confusion by allowing notice to be perfected “by United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” This proposed amendment is meant to clarify that modern methods of communication, such as email and social media, are permissible means of providing notice to class members. The proposed amendment reflects the reality that many people do not check their U.S. mail as regularly as they used to before the advent of electronic mail.
Legal Intelligencer: Women In the Profession Roundtable
by the YL Editorial Board
Litigating the Legal Malpractice Case
Pennsylvania Bar Institute
Accountants Have No Duty of Care Toward Third-Party Investors, or Do They?
In 2001, Anderson was one of the “Big Five” public accounting firms. Founded by Arthur Anderson, whose motto was “think straight, talk straight.” The Anderson firm was one of the most respected accounting firms in the world. A year later, Anderson was found guilty of obstructing justice for destroying Enron’s financial documents. Anderson shut its doors in the United States that same year and surrendered its licenses to practice certified public accounting. A few years later, Anderson settled with various Enron investors who brought claims against Anderson for its role in the Enron fraud. Since the Enron/Anderson scandal, the law relating to an accountant’s duty to nonclients has changed.
Traditionally, an accountant owes no duty to a nonclient. For instance, an accountant who prepares a financial statement containing material misrepresentation would not be liable to a nonclient, such as a bank, who relied on the financial statement to its detriment. As seen in the Enron/Anderson case, however, the landscape of accountant liability is changing. If the accountant aided in the commission of the fraud, or where the accountant knew the third-party nonclient (e.g., a bank) would be relying on the statements, the accountant may be liable to the nonclient.
Aiding and Abetting a Fraud
Legal Intelligencer: Associate Salaries: What Am I Worth?
by The YL Editorial Board
Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession
Law Practice Today
Legal Intelligencer: Child Abuse Bill: A First Step, But Debate Must Continue
by The YL Editorial Board
The Defend Trade Secrets Act and Its Impact on Trade Secret Litigation
Businesses develop mechanisms and procedures to cut costs, increase efficiency and otherwise set themselves apart from their competition. Methods and inventions developed to achieve these goals are often considered to be trade secrets of the business, and many businesses remain vigilant to guard their assets against a possible threat—for example, a departing employee who takes the business’s trade secrets and other confidential information and uses it to compete against the former employer.
To this end, businesses have lobbied for uniform federal legislation both to support businesses’ rights to protect their trade secrets and to ensure that their proprietary information will be adequately protected, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the matter arose. In 1979, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) was proposed by the Uniform Law Commission in an effort to provide uniformity of trade secret law across the nation and streamline trade secret litigation. Because states were free to adopt the entire act, adopt some of it, or reject it outright, many states adopted only portions of the UTSA, while customizing other sections of the act. The disjointed acceptance of the UTSA and, consequently, a divergence in courts’ interpretation of the UTSA essentially negated the “uniformity” that the UTSA sought to achieve in the first place. When facing a novel issue under the UTSA, for instance, many courts would look to their states’ “precedents” before the adoption on the UTSA rather than looking at sister courts’ treatment of the issue under their versions of the UTSA.
In a renewed effort to harmonize trade secret law, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which was enacted on May 11. Generally, the DTSA: creates a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, thereby permitting plaintiffs to assert their claims in either state or federal courts; grants the right to seek an ex parte seizure of an alleged misappropriator’s property in an effort to contain the misappropriated trade secrets; and requires that employers provide notice of the whistleblower immunity contained within the DTSA where trade secrets or other confidential information is available to employees, consultants, and independent contractors.