Articles Tagged with Edward T. Kang

Published on:

NAPABA-300x300KHF managing member Edward T. Kang and associate Kandis L. Kovalsky are both presenters at an upcoming CLE on emerging issues in Emoji Law as part of the 2019 National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) Annual Convention, taking place in Austin, Texas, November 7-10. They will be joined by Elaine Edralin Pascua of TrueBlue, Inc. and Carolyn Enciso Sieve of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP. Ireno A. Reuss III will serve as moderator. The program will take place on Friday, November 8th from 1:30 – 2:45 PM.

Emoji use is increasing, and courts—like us—are learning how to interpret them in the context of a trial, in the workplace, and in a plethora of practice areas. Continue reading →

Published on:

Edward T. Kang, EsquireIn the July 27, 2017 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, KHF Managing Member Edward T. Kang writes on Being Careful What You Say in Settlement Discussions.

Be Careful What You Say in Settlement Discussions

By Edward T. Kang

Published on:

In 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

Published on:

In the September 2016 edition of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today (LPT), KHF’s Edward T. Kang authors the Diversity & Inclusion column, Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession.

LPT, a monthly online publication of the ABA’s Law Practice Division, is distributed to nearly 500,000 lawyers and law students across the globe each month. Current and past issues can be accessed at www.lawpracticetoday.com.

Published on:

The common interest doctrine (CID), also known as the community-of-interest doctrine, is an exception to the general rule that attorney-client privilege (ACP) is waived when privileged information is shared with a third party. The CID allows attorneys representing different clients with the same or substantially similar legal interests to agree to (and do) share privileged information without waiving the ACP.

For the CID to apply, (1) there must generally be co-parties (that is, co-plaintiffs or co-defendants—but the CID may also apply to communications between parties and nonparties, and sometimes in nonlitigation matters), (2) the co-parties must be represented by separate counsel (the CID is different from the co-client (or joint-client) privilege, which applies when multiple clients hire the same attorney to represent them on a matter of common interest), and (3) the co-parties must share a common legal interest, not merely a common commercial interest. Courts are divided on whether interests must be legally identical or somewhat less than that, such as substantially similar. And, of course, there must be an agreement among attorneys to share information.

If the above requirements are met, separate counsel for separate parties (or clients) may share information without waiving the ACP. In other words, the CID only protects communications between counsel, not between parties. Communications between parties are protected under the CID, however, if counsel is present during the communications. Continue reading →

Published on:

On March 22, 2016, KHF client Vizant Technologies received a $2.25 million judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In the case, Vizant Technologies, LLC, et al. v. Julie P. Whitechurch, et al., Vizant asserted claims for breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships.

Continue reading →

Contact Information