For Immediate Release

For more information, contact: Tim Kolly  | Director, Center for Law and Public Policy P: 312.698.6220 |  E: tkolly@dri.org

The following is a press released issued by DRI on February 23, 2018

GDPR: It’s Coming, It’s Expensive, and It’s a Serious Problem for American Businesses

DRI Guide Provides Free Help in Addressing Requirements of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation

CHICAGO ­– (February 23, 2018)— Warning that there is little time to prepare for the May 25^th deadline, DRI–The Voice of the Defense Bar, is publishing a guide to the hefty requirements of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and how to meet them. The publication was produced by DRI’s Center for Law and Public Policy.

Titled “What Is GDPR? If You And Your Clients Are Still Asking That On May 25, 2018, You May Have a Serious Problem” the guide explains the long reach of the regulation (it’s global), the serious and expensive preparation required for it, and the hefty financial penalties (up to 20 million Euros) for non-compliance.

The regulation applies to anyone who offers goods and services in the EU, or gathers, processes, stores, or uses data on EU citizens. “To show how extensive the reach of the GDPR is,” says DRI President John Kuppens, “consider the following example. Let’s say a “mom and pop” bookstore in Ohio sells a single book to a customer in France. By virtue of collecting payment information, the bookstore is now required to abide by the extensive and onerous requirements of the GDPR. I have to say that I’ve never seen anything like it.”

While the guide was produced for DRI’s 22,000 defense attorney members, as a public service, DRI is making it available free to the public on DRI’s web site at www.dri.org. As a practical tool, the publication includes a 3½ page checklist for users. “Just considering that the checklist is three and a half pages long with close to 50 steps to be accomplished, ought to tell American businesses, including law firms, that they need to seriously dig in to meet the May 25^th deadline,” says DRI Executive Director John R. Kouris. “I say that from experience because we here at DRI are also subject to the GDPR because we have European members.”

The guide states that the GDPR applies to entities whether they have three employees or 300,000. An Irish official has warned that affected entities “whether they are big or small, public or private, the consequences for non-compliance will be significant.”

The guide in its entirety may be found here.  Its co-authors are DRI members Susan Gunter (Canada), Laura Fey (United States), Judy Krieg (United Kingdom), Winston Maxwell (France), John Magee (Ireland), and Tobias Schelinski (Germany). All are available for comment through Center Director Tim Kolly using the contact information above.

###

About DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar

For more than fifty-five years, DRI has been the voice of the defense bar, advocating for 22,000 defense attorneys, commercial trial attorneys, and corporate counsel and defending the integrity of the civil judiciary. A thought leader, DRI provides world-class legal education    

News Release

For Immediate Release                   For more information, contact:

                                                                                   Tim Kolly  312-698-6220 |  tkolly@dri.org

Supreme Court Decision in Alignment with DRI Brief in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers

CHICAGO ­– (February 22, 2018)— In a decision in alignment with an amicus brief filed by DRI, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers. The case involved applicable law governing whistleblower protection. The brief was filed by DRI’s Center for Law and Public Policy.

The case involves a former employee’s claim that Digital Realty ended his employment in retaliation for his internal complaints about purported misconduct. The plaintiff, Paul Somers, did not complain to the Securities and Exchange Commission about the alleged misconduct.  After his termination, Somers sued Digital Realty claiming that Digital Realty retaliated against him in violation of the whistleblower-protection provision in the Dodd–Frank Act.  Given that Dodd–Frank defines “whistleblower” in a way that is limited to individuals who have actually complained to the SEC, Digital Realty moved to dismiss.  The district court denied the motion and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision.  Both courts concluded that the whistleblowers protected by Dodd–Frank include individuals who make internal reports.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision deepened a circuit split with the Ninth and Second Circuits adopting the view that Dodd–Frank protects internal whistleblowers and the Fifth Circuit concluding that the definition of whistleblower contained in the statute is dispositive.

In its brief, DRI emphasized that Congress has provided a comprehensive administrative remedy complete with an administrative appeal process for internal whistleblowers under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002.  Sarbanes–Oxley provides protection for such internal whistleblowers, but requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies before a plaintiff can file a lawsuit and, unlike Dodd–Frank, does not provide for double back-pay awards.

DRI submitted that Congress did not evidence any intent to circumvent this administrative scheme when it adopted Dodd–Frank, and that Dodd–Frank should not be interpreted to apply to internal whistleblowers who are already protected by Sarbanes–Oxley. 

The Supreme Court’s decision preserves the critical distinction between the Dodd–Frank and Sarbanes–Oxley anti-retaliation provisions—the former intended to protect individuals from retaliation for making reports to the SEC. The Supreme Court’s decision vindicates DRI’s position that the two statutes protect different interests, and Dodd–Frank should not be interpreted to provide whistleblower protection to internal whistleblowers, much less greater rights than provided under Sarbanes–Oxley.

Brief author Matthew T. Nelson of Warner Norcross & Judd, Grand Rapids, Michigan, is available for interview or for expert comment through DRI’s Communications Office.

For the full text of the brief, click here.

###

About DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar

For more than fifty-five years, DRI has been the voice of the defense bar, advocating for 22,000 defense attorneys, commercial trial attorneys, and corporate counsel and defending the integrity of the civil judiciary. A thought leader, DRI provides world-class legal education, deep expertise for policy-makers, legal resources, and networking opportunities to facilitate career and law firm growth. For more information, log on to www.dri.org

For Immediate Release

For more information, contact: Tim Kolly  | Director of Public Policy P: 312.698.6220 |  E: tkolly@dri.org

DRI Announces Its 13^th Annual Diversity Law Student Scholarship Competition

Two $10,000 Scholarships to Be Awarded

CHICAGO ­– (February 6, 2018)—DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar announces its 13^th annual Law Student Diversity Scholarship Program. The program is open to rising (2018-19) second- and third-year African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, LGBT and multi-racial students. The goal of these scholarships is to provide financial assistance to two worthy law students from ABA-accredited law schools to promote, in a tangible way, the DRI Diversity Statement of Principle.
 
All rising second- and third-year female law students are also eligible, regardless of race or ethnicity. Any other rising second- and third-year law students who come from backgrounds that would add to the cause of diversity, regardless of race or gender, are eligible to apply. 
 
To qualify for this scholarship, a candidate must be a full-time student. Evening students also qualify for consideration if they have completed one-third or more of the total credit hours required for a degree by the applicant's law school. 
 
Two scholarships in the amount of $10,000 each will be awarded to applicants who best meet the following criteria: 

• Demonstrated academic excellence 
• Service to the profession 
• Service to the community 
• Service to the cause of diversity

Click here  to access the scholarship application and information. Applications must be received by DRI no later than, March 30, 2018.

###

About DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar

For more than fifty-five years, DRI has been the voice of the defense bar, advocating for 22,000 defense attorneys, commercial trial attorneys, and corporate counsel and defending the integrity of the civil judiciary. A thought leader, DRI provides world-class legal education, deep expertise for policy-makers, legal resources, and networking opportunities to facilitate career and law firm growth. For more information, log on to www.dri.org    

Don't forget to register for next Tuesday's CLE program Mild Traumatic Brain Injury:  Unpacking the Science.  The program is being presented by two outstanding attorneys, Brandon Woodard & Gregory Kendall.  You can register online at KY-Def.org/Events or mail your check and registration form Reg Form TBI 022718.docx to the KDC office to arrive by Saturday, February 24th.  $15 for KDC members, $70 for non-KDC members.

• by DRI
• Feb 20, 2018, 08:36 AM

CHICAGO ­– (February 19, 2018)—The only national poll of average Americans on the civil justice system has found the majority of them are not willing to rely on either computers or non-lawyer assistants for legal advice. This is the conclusion obtained in the latest DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System conducted in December by AmeriSpeak, a polling firm of NORC at the University of Chicago. 

The poll results are highly relevant to the legal profession and the judicial system given the conversation surrounding the application of artificial intelligence and the rise of low-cost legal counseling services that employ non-lawyer assistants. 

“There are many consumers of legal services in the U.S.” says DRI president John Kuppens. “Because most of the debate about the justice system takes place among lawyers, jurists, and policy-makers, DRI thinks it important to find out what the average person thinks  about our civil justice system. You would probably get different answers to our questions if they were being asked of corporate purchases of legal services.” 

When asked if they would be comfortable relying on legal advice provided by a computer, two-thirds (66.7%) of those polled said “No.” When asked the same question about receiving legal advice from someone who did not attend law school, the response was overwhelmingly negative (85.4%). Of those that responded “yes” to either question, their confidence was limited to transactional services like preparing a will or handling a real estate closing. 

In another question regarding artificial intelligence, respondents were asked if they would rather have their cases decided by a computer generated formula, a judge, a jury, or an arbitrator who may or may not have legal training, The vast majority (87.1%) preferred a judge or jury. Only 5.1% would opt for a computer generated formula.

“This underscores the importance of the DRI poll,” said Steve Puiszis, chair of DRI’s Center for Law and Public Policy. “Without the science of professional polling, any conversation about consumer preferences on legal services and other aspects of the judicial system are just a matter of speculation or personal bias. The DRI poll is a scientific reflection of popular opinion.” 

Puiszis noted “there are important societal questions reflected in the DRI poll. All stakeholders in our civil justice system should be concerned about access to justice for those who need it. Corporations generally don’t have access to justice problems but individual citizens may.” So, are current alternatives like low-cost computer-based services an acceptable solution to those in need? For many average Americans the answer is “only in some cases” according to the DRI poll. Likewise, the overwhelming number of average Americans still want human beings adjudicating their cases. 

The poll of more than 1,400 households was conducted by AmeriSpeak, a polling firm funded and operated by NORC at the University of Chicago.  AmeriSpeak® is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the US household population. Randomly selected US households are sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame, and then contacted by US mail, email, telephone, and field interviewers (face to face). AmeriSpeak panelists participate in NORC studies or studies conducted by NORC on behalf of governmental agencies, academic researchers, and media and commercial organizations.

###

About DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar

For more than fifty-five years, DRI has been the voice of the defense bar, advocating for 22,000 defense attorneys, commercial trial attorneys, and corporate counsel and defending the integrity of the civil judiciary. A thought leader, DRI provides world-class legal education, deep expertise for policy-makers, legal resources, and networking opportunities to facilitate career and law firm growth. For more information, log on to www.dri.org

KDC welcomes its two newest members:

John Hardesty of Blackburn Domene & Burchett, PLLC, Louisville.

Michael G. Erena of Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP, Louisville is a University of Kentucky Law School graduate.  Mr. Erena practices in the areas of Auto, General Liability, Insurance Coverage, Premises Liability, Real Estate Transaction Liability and Tort.  He is sponsored by KDC member, David E. Crittenden.

The Fall-Winter 2017 edition of KDC's member publication, Common Defense, is available on the KDC website under the Members Only section.  You'll have to login to access the publication.

Angela L. Edwards to be named Chief Executive Officer of Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company of Kentucky  

Louisville, KY – Angela L. Edwards will join Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company of Kentucky on February 5^th.  She will assume the position of Chief Executive Officer on July 1, 2018. 

During this interim period Ms. Edwards will work closely with Asa P. “Pete” Gullett, Lawyers Mutual’s current Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, the company staff, and the Board of Directors. Upon assuming the position of Chief Executive Officer, and in partnership with the Board of Directors, Ms. Edwards will be responsible for company policy, planning, and directing day-to-day company operations.

Mr. Gullett will step down from his position on July 1^st. He will continue to work at Lawyers Mutual as assistant claims counsel, offer CLE presentations, and be a resource on legal malpractice matters for Kentucky lawyers. 

Lawyers Mutual President Ruth Baxter, said, “The Board and staff are pleased to welcome Ms. Edwards.  Her leadership and experience in litigation, malpractice defense, and finance ensure a strong foundation for understanding company operations and the unique mission of the company to serve the Kentucky Bar.  We are pleased that Pete Gullett will continue to offer his expertise and service to the organization in his new role as assistant claims counsel.”

Prior to joining Lawyers Mutual, Ms. Edwards was a partner in the Litigation Department of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP.  She practiced in the areas of ERISA litigation, commercial litigation, and accountant and attorney malpractice defense litigation.  Ms. Edwards received a juris doctorate degree from the University of Kentucky College of Law and her bachelor’s degree in Finance from Transylvania University.   She currently serves on the Visiting Committee of the University of Kentucky College Of Law.  She is on the Board of Regents for Transylvania University, and the Board of Trustees for the University of Kentucky.  She has served as a commissioner of the Executive Branch of the Ethics Commission and President of the Louisville Bar Association. 

Located in Louisville, Lawyers Mutual Insurance of Kentucky (LMICK) is the only professional liability insurance company created by Kentucky lawyers for Kentucky lawyers. Since issuing its first policy in 1987, Lawyers Mutual has stayed true to its fundamental mission of assuring that Kentucky lawyers have available liability insurance at competitive rates, provide outstanding claims service, and support the Kentucky Bar with risk management information and CLE programs, featuring ethics and malpractice prevention themes.

For more information, contact Nancy Meyers at 800-800-6101 or visit www.lmick.com.

DRI Submits Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in China Agritech Inc. v. Michael Resh, et al.

Seeks Overturn of Lower Court Decision Involving Tolling of Statutes of Limitations

CHICAGO – (February 7, 2018) — DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar has filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging the Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit opinion expanding the decades-old doctrine for tolling of limitations periods on individual claims while the putative class action was pending and until certification was denied. The brief was filed by DRI’s Center for Law and Public Policy.

Decades ago, the Supreme Court created a limited equitable tolling rule for federal class actions. Under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, (1974), and later in Crown, Cork, & Seal Co. v. Parker, (1983), the filing of a timely putative class action under Rule 23 pauses the limitations clock for individual prospective class members until class certification is decided. If certification is denied, each individual plaintiff has whatever is left of the limitations period to seek relief on his or her own behalf. The Court found that this rule serves the efficiency goal of Rule 23 by preventing multiple protective suits by individuals before the statute of limitations expires. American Pipe tolling, as originally conceived, is of limited duration, and therefore reflects what the Court then believed to be an equitable balancing of competing interests.

This Ninth Circuit’s decision, however, expanded this doctrine to allow an individual whose limitations period was tolled during the pendency of an earlier action that was denied class treatment to file a new action, not as an individual action only—as addressed in American Pipe—but as a putative class action. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling therefore permits the indefinite suspension of statutes of limitation by class action plaintiffs through repetitive, serial class action filings.

The potential for abuse and unfairness inherent in the “stacked” tolling that the Ninth Circuit’s approach allows is considerable. A business that defeats class certification achieves no finality, even if the federal statutory limitations period has expired. The plaintiffs’ counsel (or new counsel) may try again and again, shopping the case from judge to judge in hopes of obtaining a better result or coercing the defendant to settle to buy peace. Individuals who through lack of diligence or strategy failed to seek relief in timely fashion can have their claims “carried along” by successive class action filings indefinitely. And the businesses that are the primary target of class actions have no fixed date after which they can count on being able to close their books on potentially devastating financial exposure.                    

DRI’s brief urges the Court to overturn this harmful precedent, which ignores the equitable principles and necessary balancing of interests that gave rise to American Pipe tolling in the first place. As the brief explains, class actions cast an ominous cloud over businesses, increasing uncertainty over litigation risk and exposure, often pressuring businesses to settle even non-meritorious claims. Relying on actual survey data, DRI’s brief highlights these and other negative consequences to American businesses and the economy from a rule indefinitely extending statutes of limitation for class action filings.

Brief co-authors were Robert L. Wise, Bowman and Brooke, Richmond, VA, and Susan E. Burnett of Bowman and Brooke LLP, Austin, TX, with assistance from Amanda Heitz. The co-authors are available for interview or expert comment through the contact information above.

The complete text of the brief can be found here.

###

About DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar

For more than fifty-five years, DRI has been the voice of the defense bar, advocating for 22,000 defense attorneys, commercial trial attorneys, and corporate counsel and defending the integrity of the civil judiciary. A thought leader, DRI provides world-class legal education, deep expertise for policy-makers, legal resources, and networking opportunities to facilitate career and law firm growth. For more information, log on to www.dri.org

2018 DRI Law Student Diversity Scholarships Application Deadline is Friday, March 30, 2018  DRI announces its annual Law Student Diversity Scholarship program, open to rising (2018–19) second- and third-year African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, LGBT and multi-racial students. All rising second- and third-year female law students are also eligible, regardless of race or ethnicity. Any other rising second- and third-year law students who come from backgrounds that would add to the cause of diversity, regardless of race or gender, are eligible to apply. Students who are members of the American Association for Justice (AAJ), law school or law student members of AAJ, or students otherwise affiliated with or employed by AAJ are not eligible for DRI Law Student Diversity Scholarships.  To qualify for this scholarship, a candidate must be a full-time student. Evening students also qualify for consideration if they have completed one-third or more of the total credit hours required for a degree by the applicant’s law school. The goal of these scholarships is to provide financial assistance to two worthy law students from ABA-accredited law schools to promote, in a tangible way, the DRI Diversity Statement of Principle.  Two scholarships in the amount of $10,000 each will be awarded to applicants who best meet the following criteria:  Demonstrated academic excellence Service to the profession Service to the community Service to the cause of diversity Applications must be received by DRI no later than Friday, March 30, 2018.

The 2018 Law Student Diversity Scholarship winners will be notified in advance and officially announced at the DRI Diversity for Success Seminar and Corporate Expo, June 14-15, at the Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile, in Chicago, IL. Click on the image for more information.