Litigation preparedness
2023 Annual Litigation Trends Survey
Global | Publikation | January 18, 2023
Norton Rose Fulbright’s 2023 Annual Litigation Trends Survey finds that more legal spending is moving in-house, and organizations feel largely prepared to address litigation in the year ahead.
Respondents attributed that confidence to several factors including their organization’s in-house litigation experience and confidence in external counsel. Also cited were internal risk management practices and in-house tools and capabilities such as eDiscovery platforms and data protection solutions.
Some in-house legal operations have room to grow when it comes to technology. For example, nearly one-quarter (24%) weren’t considering the use of artificial intelligence or predictive analytics to spot risk. Compliance tools like Norton Rose Fulbright’s NT Analyzer can help detect privacy and security risks associated with mobile apps, websites and the Internet of Things (IoT) amid growing data privacy concerns and revamped privacy laws at the state level. California and Virginia have already enacted comprehensive privacy laws, and Colorado, Connecticut and Utah are expected to follow suit later this year.
Just sixteen percent of respondents said they weren’t considering the use of litigation software, the same number of respondents that said the use of legal technology was a low priority.
Download the 2023 Annual Litigation Trends Survey for more details.
This issue
Aktuelle Publikationen
Publikation
Insurance regulation in Asia Pacific
Ten things to know about insurance regulation in 19 countries.
Publikation
BGH: Zum rückwirkenden Wegfall der Karenzentschädigung bei Verstoß gegen ein nachvertragliches Wettbewerbsverbot durch einen GmbH-Geschäftsführer (Urteil vom 23. April 2024 - II ZR 99/22)
Dienstverträge von GmbH-Geschäftsführern enthalten regelmäßig ein nachvertragliches Wettbewerbsverbot, für dessen Einhaltung in der Regel eine Karenzentschädigung vereinbart wird.
Publikation
BGH: Keine gerichtliche Ergänzung eines aufgrund Dauerboykotts beschlussunfähigen Aufsichtsrats (Beschluss vom 9. Januar 2024 – II ZB 20/22)
Ein Aufsichtsratsmitglied, das durch sein wiederholtes Fernbleiben von Aufsichtsratssitzungen die Beschlussfähigkeit des Aufsichtsrats verhindert, kann aus wichtigem Grund gerichtlich abberufen werden.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .