The Britney Spears Conservatorship: Oops . . . We Did It Again (Or Did We?)

By Kathleen Rodberg

Britney Spears has been in the news a lot. Not just recently via documentaries on Hulu and Netflix, but nearly nonstop since her debut single “…Baby One More Time” premiered in 1998. Historically, the media circus surrounding Spears focused on her career, who she was dating, and how she spent her free time. However, recent stories focus on a topic that rarely receives so much national attention: guardianships or conservatorships.

Some states, including North Carolina, use the term “guardianship,” whereas other states, including California, use the term “conservatorship.” The arrangement is essentially the same – a court supervised process in which some rights and responsibilities are taken away from an individual and assigned to another person. For the purposes of this blog post, I am going to use the term conservatorship unless specifically speaking about North Carolina.

Read more

/by

Pre-NCSCHS Gathering

Dan GibsonBy Dan Gibson

This Thursday, October 21, is the anniversary event for the North Carolina Supreme Court Historical Society. For those who are interested in socializing beforehand, some attorneys are planning to gather beginning at 5:30 p.m. at Trophy Brewing & Pizza (827 W. Morgan Street) and then walk over to the event. We would love to see you there.

Please note that this is not an NCBA-sponsored event, and attendees must pay for their own food or drinks. We are hoping to have sponsored social events in the near future.

/by

Checking In: October 19, 2021

Baker Donelson Adds Six NC Lawyers to Health Law Group

Baker Donelson recently announced the addition of a team of six North Carolina attorneys to its Health Law Group. The Raleigh-based attorneys, led by shareholders Kenneth L. Burgess and Matthew W. Wolfe, represent the firm’s first North Carolina presence. Joining them are Matt Fisher and Iain Stauffer, who both join as of counsel, and Mysty Blagg and E. Bahati Mutisya, who join as associates.

Matthew W. WolfeMatt Wolfe serves on the North Carolina Bar Foundation Board of Directors. He is a member of the American Health Lawyers Association and currently serves as vice chair of its Behavioral Health Practice Group. He is also a member of the North Carolina Society of Health Care Attorneys Board of Directors and previously chaired the national Health Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. A member of the Health Law and Administrative Law Sections of the North Carolina Bar Association, he co-chairs the Legislative and Ethics Committee of the Health Law Council and has served on the NCBA’s Strategic Planning and Emerging Trends Committee and the Future of the Law Committee.

 

Kenneth L. BurgessKenneth Burgess previously served as the Senior Director of Legal Services and Facility Operations of the American Health Care Association and as the General Counsel of North Carolina Health Care Facilities Association. He is past president of the North Carolina Society of Healthcare Attorneys, and a past member the NCBA Health Law Section Council. He received the Health Law Section’s Distinguished Service Award in 2016. He is a legal consultant and member of the North Carolina Medical Society Ethical and Judicial Affairs Committee and serves as chair of the North Carolina Health Care Facilities Association Associate Advisory Committee. He currently serves as chairman of the board of directors of FutureCare Foundation of North Carolina.

 

Matthew FisherMatt Fisher represents health care providers, with an emphasis on HIPAA compliance, privacy, and information security matters, and Certificate of Need law. He is a member of the American Health Law Association and the North Carolina Bar Association, and is active in the North Carolina Society of Health Care Attorneys, where he currently serves as chair of the Governance & Planning Committee. Read more

/by

Do You Know How to Respond in the Event of a Security Incident?

Angela DoughtyPeter McClellandBy Angela Doughty and Peter McClelland

The following excerpt is part of a series of blog posts on topics that will be discussed at the NCBA Privacy and Data Security Section Annual CLE. If you are interested in learning more, then please join us. Register for the program here.

Imagine it is a Friday afternoon. A doctor at the hospital you work for as in-house counsel or as outside counsel to the hospital calls you in a frenzy. All her computers are locked up by some malicious software demanding a ransom. The ransom note says patient records will be sold if she does not pay the ransom. She asks what she should do next: should she pay the ransom? Should she contact law enforcement? Is she going to need to notify her patients or government officials or the medical board?

The U.S. privacy laws are a patchwork of state and federal regulations. Whether you practice in the privacy and data security space or not, these issues will likely one day affect your organization where you work as in-house counsel or your clients calling you as outside counsel for help. In this digital world we live in, all attorneys can benefit from understanding the basics of how to respond to an alleged security incident.

/by

Dispute Resolution Commission: Amendments to the Rule

By Tara Kozlowski

The North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission would like to share with the members of the NCBA Dispute Resolution Section amendments the Supreme Court of North Carolina made to the MSC Rules, FFS Rules, Clerk Rules, DRC Rules, and Standards of Professional Conduct. These amendments became effective on Oct. 1, 2021.

The MSC and Clerk Rules were amended to allow a designee to sign a finalized agreement on behalf of a party to the mediation. The party is responsible for providing written proof that the designee has written authority to sign any agreement made on behalf of the party. (MSC Rules 4(c)(4), Rule 10(c)(6) and Rule 10(c)(9)(b), Rule 15(c) and Clerk Rule 4(b)(1).)

Read more

/by

Pro Bono Spotlight: UNC Law Students Against Sexual and Domestic Violence

Law Students Against Sexual & Domestic Violence logoBy Karsin Williard

Law Students Against Sexual and Domestic Violence (LSASDV) is a university-recognized student organization at the UNC School of Law. In addition to sponsoring speakers and programs to educate law students and the university community about sexual and domestic violence, LSASDV provides pro bono opportunities for UNC law students to advocate for survivors through connections with local domestic violence service providers, rape crisis centers, and legal nonprofits. In light of growing awareness and concern about sexual violence, the UNC School of Law student leaders of LSASDV hope to ensure that students have the opportunity to advocate for sexual assault survivors. The organization’s goal is also to express to the entire community that UNC law students believe survivors and are dedicated to providing support to victims. The organization also works to educate the community on the disproportionate impact that sexual and domestic violence has on poor and minority women.

Read more

/by

Recent Court of Appeals Opinion: A Reminder of the Importance of Executing on a Judgment

By Sheldon L. Schenck

In Milone & MacBroom, Inc. v. Corkum, 2021-NCCOA-526, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a stark reminder about the importance of executing on a judgment prior to initiating supplemental proceedings as part of collection efforts. In Milone, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant for monies owed. Defendant had partially paid on that debt under a prior agreement, which authorized entry of a Consent Judgment in the event of default. After default and entry of the Consent Judgment, the plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production of documents in a supplemental proceeding. Defendant did not respond, and plaintiff filed a motion to compel.

Read more

/by

Avoiding a SolarWinds in Your Business

By Peter McClelland

The following excerpt is part of a series of blog posts on topics that will be discussed at the NCBA Privacy and Data Security Section Annual CLE. If you are interested in learning more, then please join us. Register for the program here.

Historically, entities have looked at cybersecurity as a process of hardening their own defenses against more traditional attack vectors. However, recent attacks against suppliers, such as SolarWinds, Kaseya, Microsoft and others, have made headlines for the cascading effects of their data breaches. These attacks against supply chains, third party vendors, business associates, or any other trusted third party can have devastating impacts on downstream customers and clients. We’ve arrived at a time when having strong technical controls and processes for your networks and systems, while critical, may not sufficiently protect an organization’s interests. Legal protections from a vendor management program are needed as well. And the stakes are high for organizations looking to manage cyber risk: the most recent study by the Ponemon Institute found that the average cost of a data breach in the USA was over $8 million. While this sounds like an astronomical amount, even the smallest clients can easily reach this amount considering that the same study found that the per-record cost of a data breach was a tad under $150, meaning, a breach with even 1000 records could have all-in costs in the six figures.

During the CLE, attendees will learn about common sticking points in negotiations with suppliers, practical tips on developing a third-party risk management program, and frameworks used by governments and other organizations for managing those risks.

/by

Case Law Update: Angarita v. Edwards (50C No Contact Order)

By Rebecca Watts 

Angarita v. Edwards, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (50C No Contact Order)

Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. Over a period of several months, defendant engaged in a pattern of verbally aggressive behavior toward plaintiff and plaintiff’s family. Defendant accused plaintiff of breaking into her house, put a sign in her yard that said plaintiff is a dangerous criminal, sent threatening texts to plaintiff and his family, verbally harassed plaintiff and his family, told plaintiff that he and his family deserved to die and that she hoped someone killed them, and yelled racist remarks at plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed a 50C complaint against defendant. After a hearing, the trial court entered a 50C order in which it found that plaintiff has suffered unlawful conduct by defendant – followed by a short list of some of the behaviors – and ordering defendant to obtain a mental health assessment. The court later sua sponte amended the order to check a box in the decree that defendant shall cease stalking plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

Read more

/by

AI in the USA

By Karin McGinnis 

The following excerpt is part of a series of blog posts on topics that will be discussed at the NCBA Privacy and Data Security Section Annual CLE. If you are interested in learning more, then please join us. Register for the program here.

There is a lot of talk, but not a lot of clear law, about artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States. Most resources reflect a common agreement on AI: it is machine based; it is a system; it addresses human objectives; it uses algorithms designed by humans; it makes predictions, recommendations and/or decisions; it is designed to evolve; and while it can do much good, it poses great risks and something should be done about regulating it.

Stakeholders also generally seem to agree on the risks posed by AI. First, the underlying data – both training data and data processed by the AI – may not be accurate. Second, the AI model has to learn to perform its function by processing large volumes of data. Collecting that data can implicate privacy laws (i.e., disclosure and consent), and there are risks for the model if the data set lacks “integrity” (i.e., the data is not sound – garbage in/garbage out). Third, the algorithm could be biased. It is, after all, developed by humans, and humans bring their own presumptions and biases to their work. Fourth, unreliable or biased AI can have serious consequences for individuals, including denial of employment, credit, housing, due process and other rights, including privacy. Consider the now infamous example of Target using AI to determine that a teenage girl was pregnant and sending her coupons in the mail for diapers and other baby items, which were discovered by the teen’s dad. Where AI has been addressed by courts, legislation or federal agencies, the focus has been on balancing these risks against the benefits of AI. Transparency (notice), data integrity, nondiscrimination, validation, impact assessments and continuous monitoring are common themes. The following summarizes some materials reflecting the trajectory of AI regulation in the USA.

Would you like to learn more about issue spotting for privacy considerations when leveraging artificial intelligence? Join us on October 28 for the Annual Privacy and Data Security Section CLE.

/by