Amy G. Gore—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

            The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that “[t]o maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”  Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.1 cmt. 8.  Maintaining computer security is both a business responsibility and an ethical obligation for all lawyers.  Additionally, attorneys are charged with the ethical obligation to make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.  Id. R. 1.6(c).  The need for attorneys to maintain current security protocols for the technology used in their offices has never been more pressing. 

            Computer “hackers” have infiltrated thousands of computer systems from private individuals to government entities, and litigation firms have increasingly been targeted.  A recent article highlights the story of several firms involved in litigation arising out of the 9/11 attack, including the ransoming of sensitive and confidential information that had been on the firms' systems. 

Alistair Edwards—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

            The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA” or the “Act”) makes it unlawful “to make any call . . . using any automatic telephone dialing system . . . to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

            In Maes v. Charter Communication, No. 18-cv-124-jdp, 2018 WL 5619199 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 30, 2018), the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently considered whether a predictive dialer constituted an autodialer (an automatic dialing system) under the TCPA. In that case, the telemarketer called the plaintiff using a predictive dialer, a piece of equipment used in call centers to automatically dial phone numbers and connect representatives to customers that answer the phone. When the plaintiff answered phone calls from the telemarketer, he heard silence before the phone system connected him with a representative. The plaintiff then proceeded to sue the telemarketer under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which prohibits making “any call . . . using any automated telephone dialing system . . . to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.”

Lee Dunham—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

            Student debt is the second-largest source of U.S. household debt, at nearly $1.4 trillion. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit (accessed on Nov. 10, 2018). It is projected that nearly 40% of student loan borrowers will default by 2023. Judith Scott-Clayton, The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis Is Worse Than We Thought (accessed on Nov. 10, 2018). Many attorneys have seen increased requests for student loan advice.

            Because students are often young and legally unsophisticated at the time they borrow, many understand little about their contracts, or have lost—or never obtained—copies of the essential documents. The first step in such circumstances is to have the client contact the servicer to request copies of the promissory note and related documents, payment history, name and address of the current lender, and documentation of any transfers.

Charlene Hicks—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group 

            To date, no consensus has been reached among courts throughout the United States on the question as to whether a creditor’s issuance of an IRS Form1099-C results in the extinguishment of the reported debt in favor of the debtor. Form 1099-C bears the title “Cancellation of Debt,” and, according to the IRS, a creditor should issue this form to the debtor for any year in which a debt is cancelled. Depending on the state in which the debtor resides, a creditor’s issuance of a Form 1099-C may have the effect of barring further collection efforts and of completely discharging the reported debt.

Charlene Hicks—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

     Although the law generally does not allow a contracting party to bring a tort claim against another party to the same contract, this protection does not extend to persons or entities that are classified as "strangers" to the contract. Thus, a contracting party may maintain a viable claim for tortious interference with contractual relations against a stranger to the agreement. In practice, however, the performance of a contract is often contingent on the acts and approval of persons or entities that did not formally enter into the agreement. This makes it difficult to distinguish between a protected contracting "party" and an unprotected "stranger."

Emily Abel—Senior Research Attorney, National Legal Research Group

            The Virginia Supreme Court recently reiterated its position that in Virginia, the source-of-duty rule prohibits suing in tort when the only basis for the duty breached lies in contract. In MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc., 294 Va. 446, 808 S.E.2d 186 (2017), decided on December 14, 2017, the seller of a government contracting business brought breach of contract and fraud claims against the buyer of their firm. As part of the parties' agreement, the buyer warranted that there were no adverse suits, investigations, or government actions against it at the time the parties signed the contract. The contract also required that the buyer deliver to the seller a "bring down certificate" reaffirming those warranties at closing.

            While the warranties were accurate at the time of contracting, they were no longer accurate at the time of closing. In the period between contracting and closing, the United States Air Force launched an investigation into the buyer for their actions pertaining to a contract unrelated to the contract between seller and buyer and suspending the buyer from government contracting. Because of this investigation, the business did not meet earnings thresholds set forth in the contract, which resulted in the seller not receiving additional payments. The seller sued the buyer, claiming the "bring down certificate" produced at closing was a breach of contract and fraud because it did not reveal the Air Force investigation. After a lengthy bench trial, the circuit court found in favor of the seller on both the fraud and breach of contract claims.

Jim Witt—Senior Attorney

            There is no question that law of a particular country develops in the context of the country's culture, religion, and customs.  A case recently decided by the Supreme Court of Taiwan illustrates this point.  See https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/

news/3332521.  The plaintiff, identified as Luo (surname), brought a contract action against her second son, Chu, alleging that he owed her nearly US$1  million for raising him and financing his training at dental school (Chu's brother also completed dental training; he settled a similar claim with the plaintiff).  She claimed that she and her husband had run a dental clinic but that, after the couple's divorce, she raised her sons as a single mother.  As she was concerned that her sons would not provide for her in her old age, she had each son, at age 20, sign a written agreement, providing that her sons would pay her 60% of their net profits until the total reached 50 million new Taiwanese dollars (nearly US$1.7 million).  It is implicit in the Confucian tradition of filial piety that children support their aging parents.

Charlene Hicks, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

            In what has been termed a groundbreaking opinion, the Second Circuit recently held that the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), bars a consumer-buyer from revoking his or her contractual consent to receive creditor calls concerning the underlying contract or account.  The case, Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, 861 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2017), provides creditors with a strong defense against consumers who issue complaints about the creditors’ debt collection processes.

            In the case, Alberto Reyes Jr. (“Reyes”) leased a new Lincoln MKZ luxury sedan from a Ford dealership. The lease was financed by Lincoln. One provision of the lease stated that Reyes expressly consented to electronic or verbal contact from Ford and Lincoln and their agents, affiliates, and representatives. Id. at 53-54. This contact included manual calling methods, prerecorded voice messages, texts, and emails to any email or telephone number that Reyes provided, “now or in the future, including a number for a cellular phone or wireless device[.]” Id. at 54. In his lease application, Reyes provided Lincoln with his cell phone number.