The London law firm could face a fine of up to 500,000 pounds by the Information Commissioner over data breach.

The law firm has been accused of breaching with personal details of more than 8000 Sky broadband customers, 400 Plusnet customers and 500 Britons. The company is also accused of file sharing of its customers.

The details were unveiled in files on a website which belongs to the ACS: Law, a law company which has attracted the ire of a number of online forums because of its aggressive approach to people.

The website was the target of denial of service attack over the weekend which was the main reason of its collapse. When the site was brought back online all the hidden and unauthorized files became visible for normal users.

If the Information Commissioner finds this problem was happened because of the fault of the firm rather than a result of hacking then it would order a fine against it Experts said it was one of the worst data breach ever seen in the UK and the Information Commissioner should take strong legal action against the company.

Law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is in merger talks with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Representatives from both firms characterized the talks as “preliminary.”

A deal would result in a unified law firm with about 1,740 attorneys around the world.

San Francisco-based Orrick had revenue of $847.5 million last year compared to Akin’s $719 million.

Large scale mergers between law firms have become the norm as they seek the most profitable work generated by multinational companies that are investing, selling, acquiring and suing. Some notable big deals include Hogan & Hartson uniting with Lovells and Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal’s combination with Denton Wilde Sapte.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2010/09/27/daily32.html

Chief Justice John Roberts has sold his shares of Pfizer Inc., a move that allows him to participate in two pending Supreme Court cases involving the pharmaceutical maker.

Federal law requires judges to sit out cases if they own even a single share of stock in any of the parties to a lawsuit. In the past, Roberts has not taken part in cases involving Pfizer because he owned less than $15,000 of the company's stock, according to his latest report of personal finances, which covered 2009.

But when the court announced Tuesday that it had accepted an appeal from several drug makers, including Pfizer, in a dispute over prices charged public hospitals, there was no indication that Roberts would step down from hearing the case.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg confirmed that the chief justice sold his Pfizer shares in August.

As a result, he also will sit with his colleagues when they hear arguments Oct. 12 in another case involving childhood vaccines. Roberts played no role when the court decided in March to hear the case.

Arberg offered no explanation for Roberts' decision to sell the stock now, but it appears likely that Justice Elena Kagan's need to sit out the two cases played a role in Roberts' timing.

Kagan, who joined the court in August, owns no stock in Pfizer, but was involved in the two cases at some point during her time at the Justice Department as President Barack Obama's solicitor general.

The Intellectual Property Practice Group at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C., is assembling a formidable team of legal talent with new attorneys Donald R. Holland, Ph.D., and William E. Lahey, two experienced, highly-regarded patent attorneys who have joined the firm.
 
Dr. Holland and Mr. Lahey are the first of several prominent IP attorneys the firm is currently adding to its IP practice to address new business in matters of high technology, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, pharmaceuticals, and related litigation.
 
“While many law firms and their IP groups are stagnating in the current economy, we are expanding,” says Kenneth Solomon, Chair of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman’s IP Practice Group. “This is not a matter of merely adding capacity,” says Solomon. “This would not have been possible just a few years ago – the talent was just not available.  We are fortunate to add some of the most experienced, well-regarded patent attorneys in the St. Louis region,” he added.  
 
Dr. Holland, who earned a Ph.D. in cell physiology and biochemistry in addition to a law degree, has nearly 20 years of patent law experience in biotech, chemical and pharmaceutical sciences. He has focused his practice on patent preparation and prosecution and on opinion work including patentability opinions, clearance opinions and due diligence opinions.  Dr. Holland also has extensive experience in international and foreign patent prosecution, and in Hatch-Waxman opinion work.  Before becoming a patent attorney, Dr. Holland headed a pharmaceutical discovery research lab for many years.
 
Mr. Lahey has been an intellectual property attorney and “first chair” litigator for 35 years. He has handled cases involving biotechnology, computer sciences, electrical systems, fibers, mining safety, mechanical and other technologies. In addition, he has testified as an expert witness on patent law; conducted licensing negotiations for intellectual property rights; and rendered legal opinions on validity infringement and enforceability of intellectual property rights. He has conducted due diligence analysis for corporate mergers and acquisitions, and handled many patent application prosecution matters including ex-parte and inter-parties practices before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
 
“In today’s technology-driven, patent-sensitive business environment, our clients require more intellectual property services to address a full range of legal issues,” Solomon observes. “Don and Bill are very experienced, very well-known and much respected in business, scientific, engineering and legal communities.”

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C., a full service law firm of 80 attorneys, has provided legal services to clients in diverse industries since its founding in 1976 and is one of the largest law firms in St. Louis. The firm also has offices in Washington, D.C. The firm serves public corporations; privately-held companies; entrepreneurs and start-up enterprises; individuals and families; trustees and trust beneficiaries; charities; and non-profit entities. The firm’s offices are located at 101 South Hanley Road, Suite 1700, in Clayton, Missouri, and at 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 850, in Washington D.C.

For more information about Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, please contact Lois A. LaDriere at 314.615.6000 or visit the website www.gjn.com.   Media contact: Jeff Dunlap at 314.993.6925.

The Supreme Court is getting involved in an unusual freedom of information dispute over whether corporations may assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from releasing documents about them.

The court on Tuesday agreed to a request from the Obama administration to take up a case involving claims made by telecommunications giant AT&T to keep secret the information gathered by the Federal Communications Commission during an investigation.

The administration wants the high court to rule that corporations may not claim a personal privacy exception contained in the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The exception may be used only by individuals, the administration said in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the newest justice who served in the Justice Department until last month.

Kagan will not take part in the case, which will be argued early next year.

AT&T wants the FCC to keep secret all the information it gathered from the company during an investigation into its participation in the federal E-Rate program, which helps schools and libraries get Internet access.

The FCC had released some of the information under an open records request, but withheld some, citing FOIA exemptions that cover trade secrets and humans' right to privacy.

The Supreme Court is getting involved in the longstanding dispute between the Pentagon and two contractors contesting the government's demand for $3 billion over the Navy's ill-fated A-12 Avenger attack plane.

The justices on Tuesday agreed to hear an appeal from the Boeing Co. and General Dynamics Corp., the main contractors on a $4.8 billion project that the Pentagon, then headed by Richard Cheney, canceled in 1991.

The government is seeking repayment of $1.35 billion, plus more than $2.5 billion in accumulated interest, arguing that the companies failed to meet the terms of the contract.

The issue before the court involves the state-secrets privilege, which typically arises in national security and terrorism cases. Invoking the privilege, which the Supreme Court ratified in the 1950s, the government tells a court that allowing a case to go forward would force the disclosure of information that could damage national security.

In this case, the parties are arguing over whether the government's claims about national security have prevented the companies from defending their position that they should not have to repay the money. A federal appeals court sided with the government.

Both Boeing and General Dynamics have disputed the Pentagon's claims that they did not live up to the contract.