By Jaime Bochet
Of the Legal Staff
Welcome to your daily round-up of stories in today's edition of The Legal Intelligencer. Click the links below to access stories directly, or head to The Legal homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)
As is the case every Tuesday, today's paper is especially full, because it includes our Pennsylvania Law Weekly section, which includes analysis pieces, our Verdicts & Settlements section, and contributed columns by Samuel Stretton (Ethics), Matthew T. Mangino (Criminal Practice), David Mandelbaum (Environmental Law) and Cliff Rieders (Civil Practice).
But let's begin with The Legal.
Topping today's front page, reporter Zack Needles writes that the height of the recession, many midsized firms said they were poised for an influx of work that typically goes to larger firms in better economic times. But did that flood ever come? And, if so, will it stay?
Sharing the top of the page, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel has a decision from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas: Judge Allan L. Tereshko, who threw out the case of Illinois residents who allege that brain cancers and tumors were caused by exposure to a toxic chemical, has refused to recuse himself from the case and rejected the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
Below the fold, senior staff reporter Gina Passarella has the third in her weekly series on e-discovery. Preservation is far and away the most-cited trouble spot of e-discovery. (Click here to access all the articles in the series in our special Online Only package!) It's an area that can land both the client and the lawyer in hot water and one, lawyers say, is fraught with broad, vague standards. So should clients simply preserve everything at the first sign litigation may be forthcoming? David J. Walton, the co-head of Cozen O'Connor's e-discovery task force, said, "Lawyers have to have the guts to make the tough judgment because if you say preserve everything to a client of any size, it will overwhelm you."
Inside, in our Page 3 Regional News section, Gina has a business of law story from the West Coast: Fox Rothschild's latest acquisition has all the buzz words of the current lateral market — Los Angeles, intellectual property, China. And for the firm, the acquisition of three-attorney IP boutique Chan Law Group met all of the points on its merger checklist.
The Legal's contributed columns today include an article on damages by Jeff Willoughby and Jim Stavros of Forensic Resolutions, who write that lost profits can be a minefield for practitioners; and a commentary by Alva C. Mather of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, who thinks a new bill entangles Pennsylvania in liquor makers' relationships with wholesalers.
Today's Pennsylvania Law Weekly section begins with a follow-up piece by reporter Ben Present, who writes that, in light of the announcement that cameras will be filming state Supreme Court proceedings, appellate lawyers are welcoming the development with open arms.
Also on the PLW front page, Editorial Intern Jen Zimmerman writes that nearly two years after Pennsylvania established its first veterans court in Lackawanna County, the initiative has burgeoned into a "more than satisfying" specialty court program aiming to help veterans who are struggling with readjustment to civilian society.
The PLW has much more, so head to the main website of that section to check out even more.
Have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole? E-mail me or any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal!