Electronic Wills: Are These The Wills You’re Looking For?

Darth Vader

As the world awaits the premier of “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” we are reminded once again of one of the franchise’s enduring themes: the replacement of human beings by technology and robots. Whether or not the “Star Wars” droids replace or assist people, it is clear that technology’s integration into society, in a galaxy however far away, speaks to our collective, cultural trajectory.

Technology has crept its way into the legal world in many, often helpful ways. In many jurisdictions, tomes of land records are available online and may be located with a few clicks. Contracts can be electronically signed. Closings happen remotely. At an even more basic level, word processing and computers have made writing agreements and other legal documents immeasurably more efficient. Typewriters and dictation machines are mostly a thing of the past. Similarly, electronic legal research has made writing briefs less painful.

Trusts and Estates is a field of law wherein technology has not yet completely taken over. While several jurisdictions accept electronic filing of probate documents with the Court, the electronic signing of last wills and testaments is not universally accepted. In fact, the idea is often met with wariness.

When signing a last will and testament, depending on the state, the execution ceremony includes a testator’s series of statements indicating to the attesting witnesses that one is able to converse in the English language, one does not suffer from any incapacity and one is not under undue influence. The reason for the recitation is not only to confirm one’s testamentary wishes, but to dissuade future individuals from contesting the document. The witnesses, at least two people in the same room as the testator, often sign an affidavit, before a notary, attesting to the testator’s capacity and general disposition during the signing. Many practitioners make it a point that the testator, witnesses, and notary all use the same pen, so as to demonstrate that all were around the same table at the same time.

In recent years, there has been a movement to depend less on attorneys and the in-person executions traditionally associated with a last will signing in favor of an electronic ceremony. The Uniform Law Commission — a nonprofit association — has established the Uniform Electronic Wills Act, which  endorses the execution of electronic wills. Seemingly the impetus for recognizing electronic wills instead of written ones is to make execution of the document more affordable, accessible, and easy. Many avoid executing this important document because of price, time and inconvenience. Although software programs have existed for years to assist in writing one’s own last will, new electronic will legislation allows a testator to execute the document using an online notary, witnesses who may not be present in the same location, and encrypted technology.

As a practitioner who sees abuse among the elderly and impaired in the form of undue influence and diminished capacity, executing last wills in front of a computer screen without any attorney oversight is concerning. Having an attorney supervise the process from initial consultation to will execution insures that the true intent of the testator is relayed in the testamentary document. There is a reason why many jurisdictions hold a presumption that a last will and testament supervised by an attorney is duly executed. There is a reason why attorneys follow a specific ritual when supervising the execution of a last will. Further there are reasons why attorneys keep copious notes about meetings with clients. While attorney-supervised wills can be contested, a will executed without an attorney involved is certainly worthy of additional scrutiny. For younger clients, the concerns may be different. Estate planning attorneys are trained to ask pertinent and specific questions that self-drafting programs  may not address, such as children with special needs, disinheritance, tax, and contingency clauses.

The State of Florida’s electronic will statute takes effect on January 1, 2020. According to the Florida statute, the online notary asks the testator the prescribed questions that an attorney in-person would inquire, including, who is present in the room, whether the testator is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and whether the testator is being unduly influenced. The notary electronically notarizes the last will and corresponding record.

This new law is not without concern. In 2017, former Gov. Rick Scott vetoed a prior bill authorizing electronic wills because of concern as to the safety of the testator as compared to convenience. In this instant law, a provision disallows vulnerable adults as defined in F.S. 415.102, to electronically execute a will. Postmortem litigation as to whether a testator was a “vulnerable” person under the law is likely to ensue.

As with any industry, the introduction of technology can cause some fear, anxiety and maybe even confusion. As practitioners, our challenge is to cautiously explore new ideas and act efficiently for our clients, all while zealously advocating for them. These are lessons we learn from Star Wars as Princess Leia pleads to her human advisor, “Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You’re my only hope,” albeit through the holographic technology of a droid, R2-D2.


Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com

Former Judge Alex Kozinski Faces Lawsuit Over All That Stuff That Made Him Resign

Alex Kozinski (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Just when you thought it was safe to stream porn to your computer and make your clerks watch, a new lawsuit might give you pause if decency and common sense hadn’t already.

When Judge Alex Kozinski bolted from the federal bench just in time to put an end to any inquiry into allegations of decades of sexual misconduct, it looked like the end of it. Like the Duke boys crossing the county line, retiring from the federal bench offers complete and total protection from the long arm of justice. Kozinski’s strategy was so elegant, the Third Circuit’s Maryanne Trump Barry pulled the exact same move once the New York Times started looking into the creative approach she and her brother took with the IRS.

His fall from grace didn’t last all that long, with a rehabilitation tour starting roughly a year after he left the bench. He got invited to fancy law parties again, and even got back into the Ninth Circuit, this time as an advocate.

A new lawsuit seeks to turn back the page on Kozinski’s second act to the unresolved matters of the first. The long, twisted road that led to Kozinski’s resignation is dotted with appearances by attorney Cyrus Sanai, a litigant who Kozinski attempted to publicly embarrass in an op-ed, prompting Sanai to engage in research that led him to discover Kozinski’s porn stash. Sanai’s first misconduct complaints were brushed aside until the Los Angeles Times published a story about Kozinski’s files prompting the judge to file a misconduct claim against himself, staying Sanai’s most recent complaint at the time and sending the investigation to the Third Circuit. After the Third Circuit cleared Kozinski, the Ninth Circuit censured Sanai for bringing his complaint and referred the matter to the State Bar. A judge later dismissed most of the State Bar claims. After Kozinski was embroiled in the Me Too claims brought to light in the Washington Post, Sanai filed a motion to vacate the censure — it was never addressed.

Yesterday, Sanai filed a lawsuit against Kozinski, as well as the judges and court personnel that he alleges provided succor to Kozinski throughout this ordeal. In a nutshell, he argues the censure and efforts to disbar him remain palpable damages and that Kozinski’s resignation cannot shield Kozinski from responsibility for those harms.

As for Kozinski’s supporting cast, Sanai argues that the Judicial Council doesn’t even have the authority to issue a censure or sanction of any kind and wants those efforts condemned as abuses of power.

In a statement to The Recorder, Sanai explained that the monetary damages he seeks, while important, aren’t really his biggest concern. What he wants to see is serious reform to avoid abuses like these from occurring in the future.

And, of course, an end to the rehabilitation tour. “Kozinski needs to be removed as a lawyer. He’s a danger to due process.”

Regardless of the ultimate success of Sanai’s claims, it’s worth taking pause to realize that we have a judiciary set up to essentially bar clerks alleging harassment from having their harasser investigated and requiring a man who just happened to stumble upon the server at the heart of those claims to bring the complaint. He may have brought his initial complaints for wholly different reasons, but right now, Cyrus Sanai is an accidental proxy for a number of former clerks. It’s a responsibility he seems more than willing to shoulder.

(Read the full complaint on the next page…)

Earlier: The Biglaw Firm Taking Disgraced Former Judge Kozinski To Dinner
Disgraced Former Judge Alex Kozinski’s Rehabilitation Tour Continues With Oral Argument
The Rehabilitation Of Disgraced Judge Kozinski Has Begun
Breaking: Judge Kozinski Is Retiring Effective Immediately
More (Yes, More) Allegations Against Judge Kozinski. Reading Them Will Make You Feel Gross.
Maryanne Trump Barry Pulled A Kozinski
Above The Law’s Dangerous Love Of Federal Judges


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Border Protection … For Design Patent Infringement?

The holiday gifting season is upon us. As any parent of young children knows, it seems that each year brings with it the must-have toy of the season, as with the hoverboard craze of a few years ago, or the Tickle Me Elmo mania that gripped the country back in 1996. In this age of mobile phones and third-party selling on platforms on Amazon, it is not hard to imagine that a phenomenon like Tickle Me Elmo would be hypercharged in the current environment, even as online shopping would provide less fodder for newscasts hoping to run video of hysterical parents storming the doors of the local Target at some ungodly hour on Black Friday. While I can’t claim to know what the hit toy or toys of 2019 will be, I can certainly bet with confidence that at least some of them will be imported from countries such as China. Along with a host of counterfeit or “replica” items that may not be exact copies but are perhaps good enough to pass muster with an overtired 4-year old at a busy Christmas or Hanukkah party. Until they get teased for having a “weird” one when they show the knockoff to a friend.

As is the case with all profitable items, the brand owners importing this season’s hot toys have an interest in policing infringing or counterfeit goods using whatever tools they have at their disposal. Due to the compressed nature of the holiday shopping season, however, traditional legal avenues like lawsuits or letter-writing campaigns are not promising in terms of delivering results that can help keep an original brand owner as the only source of the hit item. Especially in this age of overnight knockoffs and online direct-to-customer express ordering and shipping.

In short, brand owners looking to maximize their profits from a short-lived hit item (as well as brand owners who sell perennially popular items year-round) have an interest in getting more immediate results when they attempt to enforce their intellectual property rights. Particularly where the prime sell-through life of the product will have passed in the amount of time it would take just to get to an initial conference in a filed lawsuit, for example.

Complicating matters for brand owners is that much of the manufacturing of infringing and counterfeit items originates overseas. In some cases, third-party sellers from overseas try and sell those products directly to U.S. consumers through online platforms such as Amazon. In those situations, brand owners are reliant on Amazon’s existing mechanisms to help stem the tide of infringing products. As I have written previously, Amazon’s processes are pretty favorable for brand owners when it comes to taking down products listings for (blatant) trademark or copyright infringement, whereas trying to enlist Amazon’s help enforcing a utility patent can be a more quixotic experience. At the same time, we have had success for clients that own design patents in having infringing listings taken down quickly by Amazon, if only because design patent infringement analysis is (wrongly) considered relatively simple. Just compare and if it looks the same, there is infringement. (In fact, determining design patent infringement is a much more involved process, as has been noted by leading authorities like Sarah Burstein, who I have had the pleasure of interviewing on these pages. More on that below.)

For design patent owners, having the ability to easily police infringing goods on Amazon and other online marketplaces is great. But trying to enlist the help of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to stop design-patent infringing goods from being imported has long proven a stiffer challenge. In fact, the only existing way to do so is to obtain an ITC exclusion order, an expensive and arduous legal process that is simply incompatible with stopping the fast-moving infringement that plagues hit holiday-toy makers.

Recently, however, a number of senators have introduced the Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019, which aims to empower CBP to police design patent infringement by allowing CBP to stop imports of infringing products without the need for an ITC exclusion order. In effect, just like CBP personnel can stop importation of a product that infringes on a trademark or copyright, so would they be able to likewise determine whether a product infringes a design patent and stop importation of that product. For brand owners that own both trademarks and design patents around hit products, this legislation, if passed, would be a boon, freeing them from the need to first undergo an expensive legal proceeding to enlist CBP help. It would also help squeeze out bad actors who get around CBP’s existing IP policing mechanisms by importing products without the counterfeit (or trademark infringing) labels, only to attach them in the U.S. post-Customs release. Considering the benefits to IP owners, it is not a surprise to see a coalition of brands (e.g., Nike — which has struggled in the ITC in the past) and IP-owner organizations such as the IPO supporting the bill.

While empowering CBP to enforce design patents may seem like an excellent way to help stem the tide of counterfeit products into the U.S., it does not come without risk. Great care would be needed to avoid gaming of the system by design patent owners, in terms of having CBP adjudicate infringement against competitors without the legal protections afforded by an ITC or District Court case. Similarly, determining design patent infringement is not as simple as it may seem, particularly with the ever-changing legal developments that are rife within every IP field. That said, perhaps there are ways to pilot some kind of CBP-based design patent enforcement mechanism that will balance out the due process risks with the important goal of stopping counterfeit and infringing products from harming U.S. IP owners. We can hope that Congress will look carefully at how design patent infringement determinations are made both in court and in private fora like Amazon for guidance on how best to involve CBP in a similar endeavor. Ultimately, we can hope that legislative process yields a positive result on this issue. If only because hit toys deserve secure borders, so that no kid is disappointed with a cheap knockoff.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.


Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Federal Judge Demands Resignation Of ‘Eat A Bowl Of Dicks’ Lawyer

You had to know that no judge was was going to be happy that a litigant appearing in their court was getting internet-famous for the insults he hurled at opposing counsel.

For the maybe two people in the legal world that somehow missed the exploits of Christopher Hook, a plaintiffs’ lawyer in California, let me catch you up. Hook is squaring off against a legal team at Sheppard Mullin, led by partner Peter Klee, in an insurance dispute over about $200,000. But Hook’s bold language in settlement negotiations made him an Above the Law star. Hook’s bon mots include “eat a bowl of dicks,” “let the long dick of the law f*ck [your client],” “cumstain,” and  “limp dick mother f*cker.” From Klee’s declaration in support of a motion for sanctions:

Now that we’ve got that fun refresher done, we can focus on the latest development. Yesterday there was a hearing in the case, and U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II of the Central District of California told Hook bluntly, “You just trashed your profession.” He went on to demand Hook resign from the profession, as reported by Law.com:

Wright, a former deputy sheriff in Los Angeles County and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, told Hook he had acted “like a gangster.”

“Tell you what, slick, this profession does not need you,” the judge said. “I am going to do what I can to remove you from this profession.”

He then asked Hook to resign.

“I will not do that,” Hook responded, prompting Wright to interject.

“Shut up,” the judge said. “I want you to resign from this profession.”

Judge Wright also took issue with Hook’s assertion that his emails were protected by the First Amendment and the litigation privilege:

“You honestly believe the First Amendment extends to anything?” Wright replied. “You did go to law school, right?”

As you might imagine, Wright ordered Hook to pay fees and costs:

At the end of the hearing, the judge told Sheppard Mullin’s lawyers to submit the fees and costs they want from Hook. Hook said he would agree to pay them.

“You’re going to pay for this,” the judge told Hook. “You’re going to write a check. That’s just the first thing. This is not going to be over.”

As he left the courtroom, Hook reportedly apologized for his actions, but it just might be too little too late.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

An Originalist Case For Presumptive First Amendment Protection Of Pornography

Unlike most other “Western style” democracies, the United States has recognized that government, and its officials, should be denied the power to make “principled distinctions” on matters of “taste and style.” Even what might be called vulgar or indecent expression is, nevertheless, presumptively protected from government interference by our First Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps becauseabsolutism is what freedom of speech actually makes impossible,” the law also recognizes exceptions to the presumptive protection in specific contexts, circumstances, and, perhaps most importantly, in certain U.S. Supreme Court-defined categories.

One rather obvious example where government has reasonable subject restrictions, such as with sexually explicit material, is in public schools. However, even in the public school context viewpoint restrictions remain presumptively unconstitutional. Another rather obvious area where government has regulatory power over sexually explicit expression is within broadcast media, but relatively recent cases have suggested government cannot utilize this regulatory power with vaguely broad standards.

A historically unprotected, Court-defined category of speech is the obscene. The obscenity category is based on a theory of harm regarding morality and secondary effects. Current obscenity law applies the standard established in Miller v. California that tests:

“(1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court denied extending obscenity categorical restrictions for minors to include violent material. In fact, in an opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court denied that state legislatures could strip First Amendment protection based on a finding that “certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated.” All that seems to matter is whether speech fits into already recognized categories, and the Court seems highly resistant to expanding such categories any further.

This obscenity jurisprudence could make the more recent push by conservatives to wholesale ban pornography appear constitutionally bleak. In fact, the Court has already recognized pornography or what the Court defines as “material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to ‘Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas” as presumptively protected material when it comes to adults. The response by conservatives to the challenges presented by more recent jurisprudence, is to question whether “a persuasive originalist argument that the First Amendment protects hard-core porn” exists. As it just so happens, I was recently successful in publishing just such an argument.

The starting point from an originalist perspective of free speech to me begins with the Sedition Act of 1798. The Sedition Act passed by Congress and signed by President John Adams made it a crime to publish or speak out against the government of the United States, the Congress, or the president, “with the intent to bring them into contempt or disrepute.” Because debate over the passage of the Sedition Act in Congress pitted nearly every Founder against one another, it provides a useful understanding over the original intent behind the free speech guarantee.

The disagreement over the meaning of free speech during the Sedition Act debate was dictated by each political side’s vision of the role of the new government and faith in the citizenry at large. Many on the Federalist side, including John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, believed government must be superior to the people, and government censure against the effects of expression was necessary to maintain such superiority. In opposition to the Federalists, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, were those who believed government was, in all ways, subservient to the will of the people, who, consequently, must possess the inherent right to speak without the threat of government interference. It is important to emphasize the dispute over the issues debated by Madison and the Federalists remains largely unsettled. However, I do not have to take a side in order to extract fundamental, originalist principles from the struggle over the Sedition Acts.

As my Article puts it [citations omitted]:

“Regardless of whether one finds the Federalist or Madison’s more Info-Libertarian interpretation more convincing, two principles emerge from the Sedition Acts debate that apply to free speech legal doctrine. First, it has long been common knowledge to scholars that all forms of speech maintain some level of guaranteed protection from prior restraint. Secondly, as the next section will demonstrate, any restriction that seeks to censor speech because of the danger it imposes to society must include an evidence-based test of the link between the speech and the danger asserted. The reason only these two principles survive with any certainty, is that they were the only premises both sides of the debate generally agreed on.”

The next section then goes into detail regarding how the Federalists and Republicans amended the Sedition Act to include an evidence-based procedural standard required to demonstrate harmful effect in order to ensure a measured degree of constitutional fairness.

This evidence-based standard, even during the period of the Founding when our fears regarding human expression were far greater, nevertheless resulted in limiting Sedition Act cases to extremely rare, but highly publicized trials — trials that a substantial amount of evidence suggests were based on political considerations rather than cases of actual immediate danger. Even obscenity cases during the nineteenth century were relatively rare events and became even rarer the more our understanding about human behavior increased. And if one were to apply an evidence-based standard to the claimed linkage between porn and certain dangers today, the evidence, and therefore the originalist argument, is entirely stacked against you.


Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Saudi Aramco **Is** Worth $2 Trillion (In Saudi Arabia)

Zimbabwe uses purple cows to combat ‘fly of death’ – The Zimbabwean

With hotter temperatures recorded in the Zambezi Valley, northern Zimbabwe, the flies that carry sleeping sickness to humans and nagana to animals are projected to move to higher, cooler areas, where there are more farmers and cattle.

Scientists have had to find a new cheap and effective solution to stop them.

A fly’s-eye-view

For years, they’ve used a sort of bovine scarecrow made of insecticide-treated black or blue fabric stretched between a frame with a small bottle of artificial cow scent used to attract the flies.

To the eye of a tsetse fly, it’s a stationary cow. And the flies, which feed on the blood of animals, receive a lethal dose of insecticide when they land on the fabric.

But now the scientists have discovered that using violet polyester material on the targets is more effective at attracting the tsetse flies, even without artificial cow scent. Polyester has also been found to be more durable, and to hold insecticide better.

“We calculated how a fly’s photoreceptors would respond to a variety of coloured fabrics to establish the attractive properties of different colours from a ‘fly’s-eye’ view,” said study leader Roger Santer, a zoologist at the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth University in Britain.

“We then deliberately engineered a polyester fabric to be more attractive to the flies, based upon those principles, and tested its effectiveness against savannah tsetse flies.” The findings were published on 12 December in the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

‘Important step forward’

The researchers found that violet polyester attracted 50 percent more female tsetse flies than black cotton or blue polyester used on traditional targets. Santer and his team called it a scientific breakthrough that could improve the lives of people across Africa.

The field tests were done at Rekomitjie Research Station in the Zambezi Valley.

RFI met veteran Zimbabwean tsetse researcher and one of the co-authors of the study, Glyn Vale in his book-lined study in Harare.

“Admittedly, it [violet fabric] is only 50 percent better. But what that means is that you can reduce by a third the number of targets you’ve got to deploy,” he said. “Economically, it’s an important step forward.”

The cheapest way to combat tsetse flies is to treat cattle with insecticide. But for that to be effective against incursions of the fly, at least three or four large cattle per square kilometre need to be present at all times, explained Vale.

That doesn’t allow for cows wandering or being herded away. Hence the need for fixed targets.

It’s hoped that the violet colour will be equally effective in trapping other members of the tsetse fly family, including riverine flies that live in countries further to the north and spread most human forms of trypanosomiasis – the other name for sleeping sickness.

Millions at risk

Tsetse flies are found in an estimated 10 million square kilometres in sub-Saharan Africa. Not only do they put millions of people at risk of the disease they kill large numbers of cattle, a key source of wealth.

In 2018, a team of researchers that included Vale published a study using data from Rekomitjie Research Station that appeared to show a correlation between the decline in tsetse fly numbers there over the previous 27 years, and a rise in mean daily temperatures.

The presumption is that the tsetse flies could move out of the valley if climate change makes higher areas more suitable.

“The trouble is that in the cooler areas is where there is a lot of farming and cattle,” explained Vale. “Then of course you want to be sure that you’ve got the cheapest, most economical, most practical means of dealing with this.”

Judging by the success of this latest research, purple cows may be the answer.

Morning Docket: 12.17.19

(Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

* Harvey Weinstein is trying to delay a civil lawsuit because he is suffering from back injuries. [New York Post]

* Coca-Cola is looking for a new general counsel. They should make candidates take the “Pepsi Challenge.” [Corporate Counsel]

* A partner at Duane Morris has been suspended from practice for inflating bills and billing for work that was actually completed by associates. [The American Lawyer]

* A Louisiana woman has been charged with pretending to be a lawyer and stealing millions from an individual with developmental disabilities. [New Orleans City Business]

* Arrests have been made in connection with an incident where anti-semitic graffiti was found at Yale Law School. [Yale News]

* A lawsuit alleges that a police officer tried to ask out a woman he was taking to jail. The back of a police cruiser is not an appropriate place to find love. [Charlotte Observer]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

I’m Not Reading This — See Also

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

The 2019 LDO Survey reveals how law departments are leveraging legal operations, including insights on: Artificial Intelligence ,Technology, Effectiveness, Legal Project Management, and more.
Join us on December 11th at 1pm ET to learn more!

The 2019 LDO Survey reveals how law departments are leveraging legal operations, including insights on: Artificial Intelligence ,Technology, Effectiveness, Legal Project Management, and more.
Join us on December 11th at 1pm ET to learn more!