Risk Management additional coverage or of a separate and distinct policy. This means no coverage will be available for a wrongful act that takes place during the time the ERE is in effect. So, if a claim arises several years post retirement out of work done in retirement, for example writing a will as a favor for a friend, there would be no coverage for that claim under the ERE. That’s worth remembering. R Mark Bassingthwaighte , ALPS risk manager, has conducted more than 1,000 law firm risk management assessment visits, presented numerous continuing legal education seminars throughout the United States, and written extensively on risk management and technology. His webinar on Best Practices for Client Selection in the ALPS CLE library is at http://alps.inreachce.com. He can be contacted at: mbass@alpsnet.com. Libraries continued from page 42 5 2 digitool1.lva.lib.va.us:8881/R/RYT YQ3SCK5YHK1J3ISRD61VP8VA6 JF3MNDRXNH4C69DJYRF3GQ-02403?func=collections-result&collection_ id=1512&_ga=1%2E16699766%2E13 74532355%2E1430938371&pds_han-dle=GUEST www.oag.state.va.us/citizen-resources/ opinions/official-opinions www.oag.state.va.us/citizen-resources/ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 opinions/annual-reports www.virginia.gov/agencies/ register.dls.virginia.gov/details.aspx-?id=5311 law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/ dls.virginia.gov lis.virginia.gov/ lis.virginia.gov/ dls.virginia.gov/pubs_idc.html legiscan.com/VA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 www.richmondsunlight.com/ www.vpap.org/ www.virginiaredbook.com/ law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/ www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/home. html www.courts.state.va.us/courts/cav/home. html uronline.net/ 3 4 Tech continued from page 43 for Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers, April 2016, at 4; Center for Legal and Court Technology, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States: Best Practices for Using Video Teleconferencing for Hearings and Related Proceedings , Williamsburg, Va., 2014, at 18. 497 U.S. 836 (1990). See U.S. v. Yates , 438 F.3d 1307 (11 th Cir. 2006) (applying the Craig test to deny videoconferencing of witnesses from Australia); United States v. Gigante , 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999) (allowing a witness suffering from fatal cancer to testify through videoconferencing); United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., 17 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D. Mass., 1998) (allowing videoconferencing of cooperating Japanese witness who refused to come to the United States to testify). Webster, Lawrence P., and Daniel J. Hall, Evaluation of Videoconferencing Technology: Mesa Arizona Municipal Court , Denver, Colo.: National Center for State Courts, May 2009. 8 Devoe, Daniel, and Sarita Frattaroli, Videoconferencing in the Courtroom: Benefits, Concerns, and How to Move Forward, Boston, Mass.: Massachusetts Social Law Library, 2009, at 24 (discussing survey of federal appellate judges who cited technical problems as the leading concern for videoconferencing). Best Practices for Using Video Teleconferencing for Hearings and Related Proceedings , at 20. 7 6 9 Stay connected with the Virginia State Bar! @Vastatebar /virginiastatebar Virginia State Bar @virginiastatebar www.vsb.org VOL. 69 | AUGUST 2020 | VIRGINIA LAWYER 47