Defense Counsel Journal

Editor's Page - Volume 87, Number 4

Volume 87, No. 4

January 19, 2021

Parkerson_Christopher_2020_sized Christopher B. Parkerson

Christopher B. Parkerson

Christopher is the Defense Counsel Journal Editor for 2020-2022. He is a Member of Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C. and serves on its Board of Directors. Christopher has extensive trial experience representing national and international corporations in the defense of catastrophic product liability, commercial, intellectual property, professional liability, and negligence matters throughout the United States. Christopher’s jury trial experience, combined with his work ethic and approach to the lawyer-client relationship, has allowed him to successfully guide clients through all aspects of litigation from Lead Trial Counsel to guidance on such issues as pre-suit ADR, witness preparation, and mock trials.

This is my first note as Editor of the Defense Counsel Journal. I come into the position with the upmost respect for the importance of the Journal to the IADC.  Having served as a member of the IADC Centennial Committee over the past few years, I learned of the rich history of the Defense Counsel Journal, from its initial publication as the Insurance Counsel Journal in 1934 under the leadership of George Yancey, to the critical role it played during World War II keeping IADC members in the military advised of new legal developments, through to the present day where compelling legal issues are reviewed in a digital format. Playing a role in such an important piece of the IADC’s history is an amazing honor. Thank you.

It also makes me incredibly nervous to try and fill the shoes of past Editors such as Ken Meyer, Michael Franklin Smith, M.C. Sungaila, and Richard L. Neumeier. Their leadership has built the Defense Counsel Journal into what it is today. I appreciate and accept the responsibility to maintain the level of excellence they set and look forward to advancing the Journal to meet the needs of the future. 

This is truly a remarkable time in our organization and the world. Many of us are working from home, some of us cannot cross borders we used to take for granted, and we just completed the IADC’s first virtual Annual Meeting. Despite all of the uncertainty surrounding almost every facet of our lives, the Defense Counsel Journal will continue to be published quarterly and continue to be a source for members to submit articles and add their voices to the legal writing landscape. In addition to the digital publication, we also intend to advance the discussion on relevant legal issues by submitting a quarterly podcast where authors are interviewed for additional insight into the topics included in the Journal. We encourage you to listen and enjoy. 

As part of my Editor-Elect duties over the past two years, I quickly learned the importance of Amy O’Maley McGuire, Managing Editor, to the process of publishing the Defense Counsel Journal and addressing the day-to-day activities of editing and publication. I look forward to working with her over the next two years to continue to make the Defense Counsel Journal a must-read for IADC members as well as courts and legal commentators. I also look forward to working with all the Committee Vice Chairs and members of the Board of Editors who spend significant time and effort to identify important topics and potential authors as well as provide peer review for the publications that are submitted.

This edition of the DCJ contains three informative and interesting articles. “ALI Proposes Controversial Medical Monitoring Rule in Final Part of Torts Restatement” by Mark Behrens and Christopher Appel examines the potential inclusion in the Restatement (Third) of Torts the recommendation that courts adopt a medical monitoring cause of action and discusses the approach and whether it could be improved. We are also fortunate to have an excellent follow up to the October 2019 article by Michael Gladstone "General Data Protection Regulation in U.S. Litigation through Mid-Summer 2019." The follow up reviews several additional cases over the past year and analyzes the impact on the original article's conclusions. Finally, there is an article by Robert F. Redmond, Jr. that analyzes and discusses various issues related to written discovery in federal court and how new rules have impacted some of the traditional approaches to such things as objections and the need to provide substantive responses.

I look forward to the next two years and welcome any input that our readers have to offer, particularly with respect to what topics they would like to see covered.