Charlie Faruki has again been selected as one of the Top 10 lawyers in the Ohio SuperLawyer poll and is featured on the cover of the 2012 SuperLawyers magazine, with accompanying cover story.  He has made the Top 10 list consecutively, since the poll began.

FI&C partners Jeff Ireland, Jeff Cox, Ron Raether, Dan Donnellon, Tom Kraemer, and Bob Bartlett were also named Ohio Super Lawyers for 2012.

The Super Lawyer selection methodology includes a statewide nomination process, peer review by practice area, and independent research on candidates.

In addition, associates Brian Wright and Andy Reitz were again named by Super Lawyers as Ohio Rising Stars.

Faruki Ireland & Cox again got a top rating from Benchmark Litigation: The Definitive Guide to America's Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys. This independent publication by Legal Media Group (the publishers of Institutional Investor) focuses exclusively on litigation in the United States. Rankings and descriptions are the culmination of a six-month research period in which its researchers conduct extensive individual interviews with litigators and their clients, examine recent casework handled by the law firms, and ask clients and sources to offer their professional opinions on litigators. The firms in each local market are divided into "highly recommended" and "recommended" categories. In Ohio, the few "highly recommended" firms again include Faruki Ireland & Cox. The publication states in part:

"Faruki Ireland & Cox has generated a significant amount of interest since its formation in 1989 for being a strictly litigation-based entity. The firm litigates commercial disputes of all types, including antitrust, securities, intellectual property, class actions, e-business and technology, First Amendment/free speech, environmental, employment discrimination, and products liability cases. Peer praise runs deep: 'Faruki Ireland & Cox are top-shelf litigators that have extraordinary reputations and command the highest respect of clients, adversaries, and the bench . . . .'"

Again:
"Clients also offer their compliments, with one applauding the firm's 'exceptional litigation strategy and litigation execution in FCRA and DPPA class actions and the ability to assume a leadership role in multi-firm defense teams.'

Charles Faruki elicits the bulk of the client praise for bringing 'almost 40 years of extensive experience to the table' and for 'approaching cases with the calm focused attention that I rely on.'"

In December, Charlie Faruki spoke at the Dayton Bar Association's CLE program, "Federal Practice Update with the Judges." Each year for a number of years, Charlie has joined all of the U.S. District Judges and U.S. Magistrate Judges in Dayton to present a year-end update program. Charlie moderated a panel discussion with District Judges Rice, Rose, and Black, in which topics as varied as discovery issues, settlement and mediation, the number of civil jury trials, and the Court's new programs to reduce criminal recidivism, among other subjects were discussed. Then as they do each year, Magistrate Judge Michael Merz and Charlie presented the Federal Civil Procedure update.

Admission to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio now requires attendance at a seminar, at which the District Judges, Magistrate Judges, and a few federal court practitioners are speakers. At the first such seminar for the Court in Dayton, Charlie Faruki was a speaker with Magistrate Judge Newman, on the subject of case management in federal court. Their session covered a variety of topics including the Rule 26(f) conference and report, Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, expert reports, and federal case management practices and procedures.

Jeff Cox and Kelly Cline's article "Avoiding the Ethical Pitfalls of Social Networking Sites" was published as a "best practices" article in the Fall 2011 edition of The Primerus 180 magazine, which hit law offices in December. The article serves as a reminder to attorneys utilizing the myriad of social networking tools to be mindful of the bounds of ethical practice in this new medium as set out in the Rules of Professional Conduct in their respective jurisdictions.

The Primerus 180 is published by the International Society of Primerus Law Firms, of which FI&C is a member. Primerus Society law firms are carefully chosen for membership and represent top-rated independent boutique law firms in 40 states and 31 foreign countries, and boasting nearly 3,000 lawyers. Only six Ohio law firms are Primerus members and FI&C is the exclusive Primerus business litigation firm in Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio.

Jeff Cox and Melinda Burton's article: "Traditional Minimum Contacts Analysis Applied to Online Libel Case: Court Finds Zippo's Sliding Scale Approach Flawed" was published in the November 2011 edition of the MediaLawLetter, a monthly publication of the Media Law Resource Center. The article analyzed a June 2011 decision from a Florida Court of Appeals in Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts Corp., No. 4D09-5152, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8078 (Fla. App. 4th Dist., June 1, 2011).

The Caiazzo decision joined an emerging trend of decisions throughout the United States in which courts have rejected the sliding scale approach to determining personal jurisdiction in internet cases (Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)), opting instead for application of the traditional "minimum contacts" analysis first announced in Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945).

This article is one of three by Jeff and Melinda addressing internet jurisdiction issues published by the Media Resource Center, following a June 2010 article in the MediaLawLetter and a March 2011 article in the quarterly MLRC Bulletin "The Ins and Outs of Online Business."

The 19th Greater Dayton Bench Bar Conference was held November 18, 2011 at Sinclair Community College. Jeff Cox and United States District Judge Tim Black served as Co Chairs for the 2011 event, which drew over 230 lawyers and judges from throughout Southwest Ohio (including over 30 state and federal judges).

The 2011 conference theme "Celebrating Collegiality" was reflected in programming throughout the day, which included plenary sessions ranging from the "Ten Commandments of Professionalism" to "Building Bridges Between Bench & Bar" to "Working With and for a Multi-Generational Workforce in the Legal Profession."

DBA President Jeff Ireland kicked off the full day event, introducing Judge Black and Jeff Cox who moderated the day's events. Several other panel presentations throughout the day featured FI&C's Charlie Faruki, Brian Wright and Jeff Cox.

Ron Raether discussed Hannaford Ruling and what it means to the breached entities and their customers during an interview by the Information Media Group. On December 16, 2011, Ron Raether was interviewed by Tom Field of the Information Media Group about Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co., Nos. 10-2384, 10-2450 (1st Cir. Oct. 20, 2011) and its relevance to future breached entities and their customers. Since the first data breach class actions were filed, complaints were often dismissed (and decisions affirmed by appellate courts). Courts found that an alleged increase in risk of future harm was insufficient to allege actual injury and plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. While other courts found standing, these courts held that alleged out-of-pocket expenses related to the breach (including the money spent to prevent identity theft) were not recoverable damages (unless plaintiffs could show that criminals had an interest in the data at issue). While class action plaintiffs were rarely successful in obtaining any recovery, change may be coming.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held recently that out-of-pocket mitigation costs (such as credit insurance and fees associated with new credit cards) were reasonably foreseeable expenses and, therefore, were legally cognizable damages. Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co., Nos. 10-2384, 10-2450 (1st Cir. Oct. 20, 2011). The Hannaford decision from the First Circuit should serve (and has served) as a wake-up call for those companies storing personally identifiable information. Ron counsels that "companies need to take more care with their data breach response plans in terms of who actually needs to be provided notification." Ron discusses the significance of this recent decision and provides practical advice for organizations about their breach preparedness in 2012.

Information Security Media Group, Corp. (ISMG) specializes in coverage of information security, risk management, privacy and fraud. Headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, USA, ISMG provides news, opinions, education and other related content to assist senior executives and information security professionals as they navigate the increasingly challenging world of information security. Read the article and listen to the interview at:   [Link].

Ron Raether and Andy Reitz prepared an amicus brief on behalf of the Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access and the Consumer Data Industry Association in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appeal concerned claims under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in which the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims alleging that Defendants illegally obtained personal information in bulk from the Missouri Department of Revenue.

The Eighth Circuit recently issued a decision adopting the positions taken in the amicus brief finding that the DPPA permits bulk obtaining of data even if there is no immediate need for the data. The Eighth Circuit held that "Bulk obtainment of driver information for a permissible purpose does not violate the DPPA. Plaintiffs cannot establish a violation of the DPPA if all the defendants have done is obtain driver information in bulk for potential use under a permissible purpose."

FI&C relied on its success in Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) and Russell v. Choicepoint Services, Inc., Nos. 03-1994, 03-2040 (E.D. La.), to inform the court that adoption of Plaintiffs' extremely narrow interpretation of the DPPA would disrupt the balance between privacy and the legitimate governmental and business uses desired by Congress and thwart the long-standing practices that serve many segments of society that urgently need access to motor vehicle information for permitted uses.