FMG’s attorneys and staff respond to the hotlines for Ascot Insurance Miscellaneous Professional Liability (MPL) and Employment Practices Liability (EPL) Risk Management. These hotlines may only be used by Ascot policyholders with an active Private or Non-Profit Management Liability Policy.
If you are calling for specific legal advice for risk management or a potential claim that will necessitate our first establishing an attorney-client and privileged consultation, you will need to first submit a request for consultation form and agree to the terms of our consultation. Please note that no attorney-client relationship will be formed nor exist, between the Ascot insured (“you”) and Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, (“FMG”) unless and until (1) you complete the below Request for Consultation Form, (2) you agree to the terms and conditions of the engagement as set forth in the attached agreement (3) FMG advises you there are no conflicts in connection with the potential consultation, and (4) FMG accepts the request and agrees to consult with you.
In the event FMG accepts your request, you will thereafter be eligible for 1 hour of legal consultation free of charge. Please note, the activities and/or tasks to be completed (within this unpaid hour) are solely within FMG’s discretion.
Fees & Billing: In the event FMG accepts your request, you will thereafter be eligible for 1 hour of legal representation free of charge. Any additional representation beyond the complimentary hour is conditioned upon your prior acknowledgment and agreement in writing to be responsible for and pay any additional legal fees and expenses at the agreed-upon Ascot agreed hourly rate beginning at the time of your acceptance. In other words, you will not be charged for any fees beyond the 1-hour free consultation, unless and until you agree to additional paid consultation and services.
*Please review and agree to the below terms and conditions of representation if my request for consultation is accepted by FMG.
Click the appropriate Ascot policy type below to access the consultation form:
BEWARE THE BELIEF YOUR RESPONSE TO AUDITOR IS A COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME
5/4/23
By: Tim Soefje Some lawyers may create more potential professional liability over the coming months by drafting a single letter in response to their client’s independent auditor’s request for information than they will throughout the entire rest of the year. The problem arises primarily because after 40 years of writing these letters to independent auditors,…
Third-Party Litigation Financiers: A Trend Towards Automatic Disclosure
5/3/23
By Gabriel Canto and Sharlynne M. Mate Third-party litigation financing is the practice of obtaining litigation financing through a third-party financial institution (i.e. “the financier”). Although there is no universally accepted definition of third-party litigation finance, such agreements share several common traits: (1) a cash advance; (2) made by a non-party; (3) in exchange for…
Tackling Unauthorized Messaging in the Financial Sector
4/20/23
By David Chang With the growing prevalence and rapid evolution of alternative communication channels, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is now emphasizing the requirement for broker-dealers to retain business-related messages across all mediums. FINRA’s approach mirrors the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) actions, as it focuses on enforcing record retention requirements for off-channel communications. …
Important Principle of Insurance Law Reinforced
4/20/23
By Donald Patrick Eckler Applying Florida law, the 11th Circuit in Shiloh Christian Center v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 22-11776, has reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer, instead holding that the subjective intent of the parties to exclude named windstorms from a property insurance policy did not trump…
4/19/23
By Jody Cappello and Tara Sheldon In Jones v. Walmart Store No. 2585 et al., the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut addressed the burden a plaintiff must meet to establish an adverse employment action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. In Jones, an Assistant Operations Manager worked at a…
We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Boat – The Rise of AI-Enhanced Phishing Attacks
4/19/23
By Curt Graham While hard at work, an unexpected email arrives with an urgent request: “This is your boss. I lost my company credit card and I need you to send me your card information immediately.” By now, most of us cannot be tricked by easy-to-spot phishing attempts like this. However, with the rise of…
The Importance of the Case Within the Case in Legal Malpractice Actions
4/18/23
By Patrick Cosgrove and Meaghan Mahon Legal malpractice defense attorneys know they must make the plaintiff prove two cases – the legal malpractice case and the “case within a case”, requiring the plaintiff to prove the merits and damages of the matter underlying the alleged legal malpractice. On March 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of…
4/17/23
By Paul Boylan and Ryan Giggi In Abdulky v. Lubin & Meyer, P.C., decided on March 28, 2023, the Massachusetts Appeals Court disposed of a professional malpractice case by invocation of the principle that expert disclosures used on summary judgment must be admissible at trial. The Court specifically held that expert disclosures must be competent and…
Connecticut Appellate Court Expands and Provides Guidance for Wrongful Conduct Rule
4/13/23
By: Janice Lai and Brayson Grant On February 14, 2023, Connecticut’s Appellate Court expanded the application of the Wrongful Conduct Rule which was first adopted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2014. In Lastrina v. Bettauer, 217 Conn. App. 592 (2023), the plaintiff appealed from the granting of defendants physicians’ motion for summary judgment where…