Much ink has been spilled over the last couple of years, including here at New York Commercial Division Practice, on the topic of practicing law remotely in the COVID (and likely post-COVID) era. As we all brace for the coming wave of Omicron, which may well be the fastest spreading virus in human history,
As we all are acutely aware, during the last 21+ months, the normally slow-to-change practice of law has been thrust into overdrive, forcing lawyers and courts to quickly pivot from a largely in-person practice to virtual.
New York courts in particular have done an incredible job expanding access to litigants online by, among other things,
As we’ve mentioned time and again on this blog, since its inception in 1995, New York’s Commercial Division has continued to not only be a leader in developing and shaping commercial law, but it is also on the forefront of instituting rules with the goals of fostering litigation efficiency, cost reduction, and implementation of technology
In March 2020, the New York State Courts and attorneys’ offices all over the state shut down as part of the public’s broad effort to slow the spread of the Coronavirus, and the legal profession quickly transitioned to remote operations. Remote team meetings, court appearances, arbitration hearings, networking events, and depositions were all borne from the necessity imposed by closed offices and social distancing.
Despite the sometimes steep learning curve associated with the remote conferencing technology and systems, remote proceedings became surprisingly effective. Lawyers who once swore that there was nothing like being in the same room as their adversary found that, in many cases, the Zoom or Teams suite works just fine. As a consequence, one need not look beyond the pages of this blog to see that for many, remote practices are here to stay. Commercial Division Rule 1 now allows attorneys to request to appear remotely, saving client costs and avoiding the unnecessary risk of infection. In February, we wrote about the Commercial Division Advisory Committee’s proposed rule authorizing and regulating the use of remote depositions. The proposed rule has received favorable comment.Continue Reading Even as Pandemic Wanes, Remote Depositions Remain the New Normal
New York’s Commercial Division has continuously taken the lead as an innovative forum, proposing rule changes that are aimed at increasing efficiency and overall effectiveness of the litigation process. In the past several years, discovery challenges surrounding electronically stored information (“ESI”) have taken center stage in a majority of cases before the Commercial Division. Understanding
[I] irrevocably release and forever discharge [the Company] . . . from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, claims, complaints, liabilities, obligations, charges, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, damages, expenses, counterclaims, cross-claims, [etc.] whatsoever, in law or equity, known or unknown, [I] ever had, now have, or may have against the [Company] from
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
The New York Commercial Division continues to be a beacon of innovation with a recent amendment to ComDiv Rule 6, now requiring bookmarking and hyperlinking within briefs and affidavits filed with the court. The amendment is no doubt welcome news to an overburdened (and underbudgeted) court system already well-known for its efficient administration of
To be sure, much has been reported on here at New York Commercial Division Practice concerning Commercial Division innovation — including in the areas of courtroom technology and, more recently, in adapting to the “new norm” of virtual practice in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we observed a few months back, the
Your client has just asked you to commence an action against a corporate entity in a New York state court. But, the defendant is not incorporated in New York, and does not maintain a principal place of business in New York. Further, the incident underlying your client’s claim did not occur in New York, nor