The national law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is very pleased to announce that DRI—the Voice of the Defense Bar—has honored partner Steven M. Puiszis with the Louis B. Potter Lifetime Professional Service Award. The award is given annually to an individual who "exemplifies the highest professionalism and service to the legal profession." Puiszis received the award at a dinner ceremony during DRI's Annual Meeting in New Orleans, October 18, 2019.

An appellate and trial team led by Joel Bertocchi, Steven Puiszis, Jeffrey Fertl, Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Michael Russart, prevailed this week on behalf of a team of Wisconsin prosecutors who had been accused in a lawsuit by a former aide to Governor Scott Walker of violating her Constitutional rights. The case had been dismissed by a U.S. District Judge last year, with the judge finding the prosecutors were immune from suit. That decision was unanimously affirmed by a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday, August 29, 2017.

At its annual meeting in Boston on October 22, DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar named Steven M. Puiszis — partner and deputy general counsel of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in Chicago — to Chair its Center for Law and Public Policy, DRI’s research and advocacy center. Through scholarship, legal expertise and advocacy, the Center provides an effective voice for the defense bar in the national discussion of substantive law, constitutional issues, and the integrity of the civil justice system. Its voice is heard through public research materials, amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, the DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System, objective counsel to policy makers, and public education initiatives. 

In a Daily Business Review column, Hinshaw's general counsel, Steve Puiszis, was among a select group of commentators to react to the latest instance of a law firm being sanctioned for a court filing that included hallucinated AI-generated case law.

Hinshaw general counsel Steve Puiszis was among three industry leaders asked by Mealey's Litigation Report: Artificial Intelligence to share insights on potential changes coming to the legal industry as a result of artificial intelligence (AI) in 2025.

Several panels at the recently concluded Legal Malpractice and Risk Management (LMRM) Conference were the subjects of media coverage by Bloomberg Law.

Chicago-based partner Steven Puiszis will participate as a panelist on July 25, 2023, in New York City on "The Opportunities, Challenges and the Future of Generative AI/ChatGPT for Law Firms." The event is organized by business consulting firm Anchin, and will focus on the "many opportunities, potential concerns, safeguards and the future impact on law firms" of generative artificial intelligence.

Hinshaw's Steven Puiszis will serve on a panel titled "Navigating Ethical Issues in the Wake of a Cyber Breach" on September 22, 2022. The panel—part of the 42nd Annual Ray Garrett Jr. Corporate & Securities Law and 61st Annual Corporate Counsel Institute—will address:

Steve Puiszis, a member of Hinshaw's Lawyers for the Profession® group who currently serves as the firm's General Counsel, will present "Law Firm Guidance For Protecting Client Data From Breaches" on December 3, 2019 in Chicago. Hosted by Duo Security (now a part of Cisco), the event will feature Puiszis, along with the head of the Advisory CISO team at Duo Security, Wendy Nather. The pair will address ABA guidelines as they relate to the ethical obligations of lawyers and law firms in protecting client information from a data breach.

The range of issues confronting today's business leaders is enlarging at breakneck speed. Emerging concerns, such as geopolitical unrest, corporate governance mishaps, and climate risks, can have significant impacts on strategic planning, business operations, and revenue. Increased interconnectivity and disruptive technologies create opportunities, but frequently have unforeseen consequences. In addition to adverse financial and operational impacts, a single misstep in managing these complex areas can damage corporate reputations almost overnight.

Hinshaw's Steve Puiszis has authored a comprehensive white paper on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), published by the ABA's Journal of the Professional Lawyer, which provides clarity on the many issues the GDPR raises for law firms and their clients in the United States. We are pleased to offer a complimentary copy of this paper to Cyber Alert and Lawyers for the Profession® Alert readers.

Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hosp.  

What precautions can law firms, along with their lawyers and staff, take when they receive an unexpected request for protected health information (PHI) from someone claiming to be a representative of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

Download a PDF of the Alert

Download a PDF of the Alert

Supreme Court Rules Police Department Did Not Violate Officers Fourth Amendment Rights By Reviewing Paged MessagesOfficers in a city police department were given pagers for use while on duty. The department contracted for a flat fee paging service, which allowed up to a certain number of alphanumeric characters to be sent each month. After a number of officers exceeded their limit for several months, the department’s chief sought transcripts of the paged messages to determine if officers should be required to pay overages for personal usage, or if the department should increase the monthly limit to accommodate increased work-related messaging. The transcripts revealed that certain officers were using the pagers to send sexually explicit messages. An internal affairs investigator redacted the transcripts to include only those messages sent while the officers in question were on duty. The investigation revealed that the officers were using pagers for personal business while on duty. After the officers were disciplined for violating department policy, the officers filed suit, alleging that the department violated the officers’ Fourth Amendment rights and the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA). The district court held that the officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the content of the paged messages, but ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the department on the basis that the chief’s investigation was for a legitimate work-related purpose. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the search was not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even if for a legitimate purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case and reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the search was reasonable.

Florida State Bar Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law Advisory Opinion #2019-4 (August 17, 2020)

Summary

The Supreme Court recently tightened the liability standards for Section 1983 claims involving an alleged failure to train governmental employees. Connick v. Thompson, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2594 (U.S. Mar. 29, 2011). The Court in Connick reversed a $14 million verdict for plaintiff former prisoner, who had spent 18 years in prison, including 14 years on death row. The former prisoner was initially tried and convicted of attempted armed robbery. But the prosecutors in that case failed to disclose the existence of exculpatory scientific evidence. Because of that conviction, the former prisoner did not testify in his own defense in a subsequent murder trial and was again convicted. One month before the former prisoner’s scheduled execution, an investigator discovered the undisclosed evidence from the armed robbery trial. A reviewing court determined that because the evidence was exculpatory, both of the former prisoner’s convictions should be vacated. The former prisoner then sued the Orleans Parish District Attorney for his alleged failure to train prosecutors about their obligation to produce exculpatory evidence pursuant to the holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). Courts have recognized that § 1983 training liability can arise in two potential scenarios. The first is where a series of constitutional violations makes the need for training obvious. A pattern of constitutional violations, however, is typically necessary to demonstrate that a governmental entity was “deliberately indifferent” to its citizens’ constitutional rights. The Supreme Court also hypothesized that § 1983 training liability could arise in the absence of a pattern of violations when the need for training on a particular issue was obvious at the outset. The Court observed that a police officer’s use of deadly force is an example where training should be provided in the absence of a pattern of constitutional violations. The former prisoner in Connick proceeded under the latter theory. The Court summarily rejected his claim, observing that it did not fall “within the narrow range of . . . hypothesized single-incident liability” scenarios where the need for training at the outset was obvious. The Court noted that armed police must make split-second decisions with life or death consequences, whereas prosecutors receive training in law school, and have ongoing mandatory continuing legal education requirements and ethical duties with which they must comply. In the 10 years preceding the former prisoner’s prosecution, four other convictions had been set aside due to the failure by prosecutors to produce exculpatory evidence. In the Court’s view, this did not establish a pattern of violations sufficient to put the district attorney on notice of the need for additional training. None of those prior instances involved either a failure to produce scientific evidence or a failure similar to what occurred in the former prisoner’s case.The Supreme Court further explained that failure-to-train liability cannot be based upon “contemporaneous or subsequent” conduct. It also observed that such liability is concerned with the substance of the training, not its particular format, and rejected the notion that liability could be based on the theory that more or better training would have prevented the type of conduct in question from occurring. The Court concluded that failure-to-train liability does not provide courts with carte blanche to micromanage local units of government or their training programs. Practice Note

In the first half 2021, Accenture reported triple-digit growth in cyber intrusion activity including ransomware attacks on the world's legal, accounting, and insurance industries.[1]In that same period, the average extortion demand rose 518 from just over $1 million in 2020 to $5.3 million while actual ransomware payments increased by 82 percent.[2]

| Download a PDF of the Newsletter |

Download or read the complete newsletter here: The Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Report Card- June 2014 

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Report Card - May 2013

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Report Card - February 2013