Practitioners often choose to practice in the Commercial Division because of its well-documented efficiencies. Thus, many were happy to hear that Chief Administrative Judge Larry Marks issued Administrative Order 270/2020 (“AO 270/20”), which incorporated features of the Commercial Division into the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme and County Courts (the “Uniform Rules”). My colleague
Too “Privileged” To Be Held Liable for Defamation, Says the Commercial Division
“Relevant statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are afforded absolute protection so that those discharging a public function may speak freely to zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard.”
Professionals, including attorneys, and individuals may find themselves subject to a defamation lawsuit. Attorneys, however, may sometimes rely on absolute or
“Single Breach” vs. “Continuing Wrong”; the Continuing Wrong Doctrine Prevails, Saving Plaintiff’s Claim from Dismissal
A cause of action accrues, triggering the commencement of the statute of limitations period, when “all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief” (Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.). The “continuing wrong” doctrine is an exception
Court explores the balance between a lawyer’s obligation to investigate the facts, and a lawyer’s reliance on what the client chooses to disclose or not disclose
Pursuant to Part 130 , attorneys are obligated to undertake an investigation of a case. But is an attorney responsible for ignorance of facts which the client neglected to disclose? “No,” says the Commercial Division.
In a recent decision by Justice Andrew Borrok, the Commercial Division discussed this very issue. In Morgan and Mendel
To Redact, or Not to Redact, That is the Question
Summons and Complaint ✅
Service of Process ✅
Answer ✅
Discovery ☐
You now have to collect, review and produce documents pursuant to the preliminary conference order. And so, in collecting documents from the various custodians, it appears some of the documents contain truly “irrelevant” material. However, parts of the document are indeed responsive. Can
Remote depositions in the wake of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic? Here’s how
The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread impact on litigation, with some courts and most cases coming to a screeching halt. Some courts have responded with Orders or rules (Massachusetts Sup. Jud. Ct. Order OE-144 [March 20, 2020]; Wisconsin S. Ct. Order [March 25, 2020]; Florida S. Ct., No. AOSC20-16 [March 18, 2020]), while others have
Plaintiffs Cannot Rely on the Doctrine of Anticipatory Repudiation As Plaintiffs Are Already in Material Breach of the Contract
A life lesson you likely heard growing up applies to contracts: take a hard look at yourself before criticizing others. By the same token, a party who is in material breach of a contract cannot succeed on a claim alleging an anticipatory breach by the other party.
Hyperlinks Requirement in the Commercial Division . . . The Latest Proposal from the Advisory Council
Following the lead of several federal courts, hyperlinks in legal briefs in the Commercial Division appear to be well on the way! The Commercial Division Advisory Council (“Advisory Council”) has announced a new proposal, which was put out for public comment, mandating hyperlinks. The proposed amendment to Rule 6 of the Commercial Division Rules
Brief Introductory Call with a Law Firm is Not Enough to Disqualify It From Representing Another Party in the Lawsuit
Lawyers often get phone calls from prospective clients seeking guidance on various issues – general legal inquiries, asking a variety of general questions about laws, codes, regulations, and statutes, or questions concerning a pending or anticipated litigation. But a brief introductory conversation with a prospective client regarding an issue cannot disqualify the attorney from representing
Economic Justification for the Win – Defeating a Tortious Interference Claim
Consider this situation: You are a shareholder of a company who is about to enter into a contract with a third party. But you know that this is a bad deal that will negatively impact the company. Your immediate reaction is to stop this deal from materializing because you have a vested interest in the