FMG staffs the Bell & Clements IP LPL Risk Management Hotline. This hotline is only for insureds of Bell & Clements who have an active policy of insurance.
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 Bell & Clements 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 2 hours of legal consultation free of charge. Please note, the activities and/or tasks to be completed [within these unpaid hours] are solely within FMG’s discretion.
Fees & Billing: In the event FMG accepts your request, you will thereafter be eligible for 2 hours of legal representation free of charge. Any additional representation beyond the complimentary hours 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 Bell & Clements agreed hourly rate beginning at the time of your acceptance. In other words, you will not be charged for any fees beyond the 2-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.
Massachusetts Appeals Court Rejects Double Taxation Argument
2/16/23
By Sean Andrés Rapela and Ben N. Dunlap In Murrow v. Bd. of Assessors of Bos., the petitioner Murrow, a Boston taxpayer, asserted the City of Boston (the “City”) cannot tax both the common area of a condominium, owned by the unit owners, and her easement interest in a parking space on the same land.…
Florida Supreme Court Finds Appraisers Cannot Have Pecuniary Interest in Outcome of Appraisal
2/15/23
By Jessica Cauley and Jonathan Schwartz The Florida Supreme Court weighed in and resolved a conflict between district courts regarding appraised property claims and held that an insured’s public adjuster, who accepts an assignment on a contingent fee basis, is not a disinterested appraiser under a standard homeowners insurance policy. Parrish v. State Farm Florida…
2/9/23
By: Jessica Gray Kelly & Ryan Giggi On February 2, 2023, Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) upheld a real estate broker’s right to recover lost commissions after her clients breached an oral exclusivity contract and purchased a home on their own. The decision, Biping Huang v. Jing Ma, clarifies that exclusive broker contracts need not be…
CHATGPT AND COVERAGE B: What Copyright Liability Exposures Could AI Users Face?
2/9/23
By Alexia R. Roney and Matthew F. Boyer Previously, we introduced you to ChatGPT and the concept of an AI Chatbot application here. This week, we discuss the legal exposure that comes hand-in-hand with the internet – copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1201-1205. ChatGPT…
California’s Attorney General Is Investigating Mobile Apps’ Compliance with the CCPA
2/8/23
By: Robert Buckley California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s recent press release puts companies that are subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) on notice that they should determine whether their mobile apps comply with the CCPA’s requirements. On January 27, 2023, Attorney General Bonta announced an “investigative sweep” that involved “sending letters to…
Illinois Supreme Court Shifts BIPA Landscape with 5-Year Limitations Period Applicable to All Claims
2/7/23
By Pat Eckler, Amy Frantz, Glenn Klinger, Michael Sanders, and Jonathan Schwartz Finding all claims under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 (“BIPA”), subject to a five-year statute of limitations, the Illinois Supreme Court’s February 2, 2023 Opinion in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801 continues the assault on Illinois’…
New York’s 175-Year-Old Wrongful Death Statute Lives on
2/2/23
By Lisa R. House and Josh Ferguson New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed the Grieving Families Act this week. The bill expanded who could recover for the wrongful death of a family member, the type of damages that could be awarded to those individuals, and the time to bring a wrongful death lawsuit. The bill…
2/1/23
By Steve Forbes and Ashley Hetzel A partner at a prominent employment law firm in Ohio fired off a scathing text message that created some reputational ripples within the legal community. A female associate, who had recently returned from maternity leave, announced she had accepted a position at another law firm. Shortly after the announcement…
The Power of Rule 11 to Punish Bad Faith Litigation Conduct
1/30/23
By: Jessica Kelly and Christina Morgan Lawyers and their clients are bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and its state rule counterparts not to pursue frivolous claims. In Trump v. Clinton et al., Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida relied on Rule 11 to…