Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Littler Issues Commentary: Determining Work Authorization for Employees on TPS and Humanitarian Parole - Updated January 7, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
Determining Work Authorization for Employees on TPS and Humanitarian Parole - Updated January 7, 2026
By Jorge Lopez and Tasneem Zaman
The Trump administration has enacted significant policy changes impacting individuals authorized to work under various immigration programs, including Temporary Protected Status (TPS), humanitarian parole, and the CHNV programs. We created a chart intended to assist employers in determining the work authorization status of employees who have presented
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
Determining Work Authorization for Employees on TPS and Humanitarian Parole - Updated January 7, 2026
By Jorge Lopez and Tasneem Zaman
The Trump administration has enacted significant policy changes impacting individuals authorized to work under various immigration programs, including Temporary Protected Status (TPS), humanitarian parole, and the CHNV programs. We created a chart intended to assist employers in determining the work authorization status of employees who have presentedan Employment Authorization Document (EAD) issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under one of these programs.
This chart has been updated to note developments concerning Afghanistan, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine.
It should be noted that the status of the various TPS and Parole programs are fluid pending several federal lawsuits across the United States challenging the government's decision to terminate these programs. As a result, the information provided here is subject to change based on the outcomes of these legal proceedings.
* * *
Authors
Jorge R. Lopez
Shareholder
Miami
* * *
Tasneem Zaman
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/determining-work-authorization-employees-tps-and-humanitarian-parole-updated-3
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: DOL Clarifies Application of Minimum Wage and Tips Under the FLSA's Commissioned Employee Overtime Exemption
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
DOL Clarifies Application of Minimum Wage and Tips Under the FLSA's Commissioned Employee Overtime Exemption
At a Glance
* Federal minimum wage controls FLSA Section 7(i)'s pay threshold. For purposes of the federal commissioned-employee overtime exemption, employers may rely on the federal minimum wage--rather than a higher state or local minimum wage--when determining whether an employee's regular rate exceeds one-and-one-half times the minimum wage.
* Tips are not commissions
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan. 8 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
DOL Clarifies Application of Minimum Wage and Tips Under the FLSA's Commissioned Employee Overtime Exemption
At a Glance
* Federal minimum wage controls FLSA Section 7(i)'s pay threshold. For purposes of the federal commissioned-employee overtime exemption, employers may rely on the federal minimum wage--rather than a higher state or local minimum wage--when determining whether an employee's regular rate exceeds one-and-one-half times the minimum wage.
* Tips are not commissionsand are treated as "compensation" for purposes of Section 7(i)(1) in limited circumstances only. Employee tips generally are excluded from the Section 7(i)(1) analysis unless the employer relies on a portion of those tips to satisfy a federal, state, or local wage obligation (i.e., through a tip credit).
By Jaime E. Sanchez and Paul R. Piccigallo
On January 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued an opinion letter (FLSA2026-4) clarifying how employers should apply the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) Section 7(i) overtime exemption for certain commissioned-paid employees.
The letter addresses two questions that frequently arise in federal wage-and-hour litigation and in compliance audits:
Whether the federal minimum wage or a higher state minimum wage must be used when determining whether an employee satisfies Section 7(i)'s minimum pay requirement; and
Whether and to what extent employee tips must be counted when determining whether an employee is primarily paid by commissions for purposes of Section 7(i)'s requirements.
Employers in the hospitality, retail, and service sectors--particularly those that rely on service charges, commissions, or tip credits--should carefully review the opinion letter, as it provides important guidance on overtime classification and compliance under federal law.
The Legal Framework Behind Section 7(i)
The FLSA generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees at least the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour, for all hours worked. The statute also requires overtime pay at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Section 7(i) of the FLSA, however, provides a limited exemption from the overtime requirement for certain employees of qualifying "retail or service establishments" who are paid primarily on a commission basis. To claim the exemption, an employer must qualify as a "retail or service establishment" and meet two pay-related conditions:
1. the employee's regular rate of pay must exceed one and one-half times the applicable minimum hourly rate under Section 206 of the FLSA (the "Minimum Pay Standard"); and
2. more than 50% of the employee's "compensation" over a designated representative period (not less than one month) must consist of commissions.
29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(i)(1)-(2).
The opinion letter focuses squarely on how these two pay requirements should be applied when the employees work in states with higher state minimum wages and when employees receive tips in addition to commissions or service charge payments.
The Federal Minimum Wage Controls Section 7(i)'s Minimum Pay Standard
The Department of Labor confirmed that, for purposes of Section 7(i), the federal minimum wage--and not a higher state or local minimum wage--controls the Minimum Pay Standard. The Department of Labor explained that Section 7(i)(1) expressly incorporates the federal minimum wage.
As a result, an employee satisfies Section 7(i)'s Minimum Pay Standard so long as the employee's regular rate exceeds one and one-half times the federal minimum wage. At present, that threshold is $10.875 per hour (i.e., $7.25 x 1.5). For practical purposes, an employee's regular rate must therefore be at least $10.88 per hour in any workweek in which the employer seeks to apply the exemption, regardless of whether state law requires a higher minimum wage.
The DOL emphasized, however, that this interpretation does not relieve employers of their obligation to comply with more protective state or local wage laws. Employers must still comply with all applicable state minimum wage requirements. A violation of state law may give rise to state-law liability, but it does not, by itself, defeat the FLSA's Section 7(i) exemption so long as all its statutory elements are otherwise met.
Tips Are Not Commissions, But May Constitute "Compensation" for Purposes of Section 7(i) in Limited Circumstances
The opinion letter also addresses whether tips must be included when determining whether commissions comprise more than half of an employee's compensation under Section 7(i)(2). The DOL stated that tips are not commissions for purposes of the FLSA and are generally not considered compensation paid by or on behalf of the employer for employment, because tips are discretionary payments made by customers.
The DOL explained, however, that tips may constitute "compensation" under Section 7(i)(2) where an employer relies on a portion of an employee's tips to satisfy its wage obligations. Specifically, to the extent an employer takes a federal, state, or local tip credit and uses a portion of an employee's tips to meet minimum wage requirements, that portion of the tips is considered "compensation" for purposes of determining whether the employee is primarily paid by commissions. The opinion letter provides detailed examples illustrating this distinction. Where an employer does not take a tip credit, employee tips are excluded entirely from the Section 7(i)(2) calculation. Where a tip credit is taken, only the amount of tips actually used to satisfy the employer's wage obligation is included as compensation, while the remaining tips are excluded.
The DOL noted, however, that its interpretation of this aspect of Section 7(i) does not apply to businesses in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina due to the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Wai Man Tom v. Hosp. Ventures, 980 F.3d 1027, 1039 (4th Cir. 2020), which held that all tips received by servers qualify as "compensation" for purposes of Section 7(i)(2). Given these conflicting interpretations, the treatment of tips under Section 7(i)(2) remains an unsettled issue notwithstanding the DOL's guidance.
Finally, the DOL reaffirmed the distinction between tips and service charges for purposes of Section 7(i). While tips are discretionary payments determined by customers, mandatory service charges--such as a fixed percentage automatically added to a customer's bill--are treated differently under the FLSA. When service charges are added to the sale of goods or services and distributed to employees, they generally constitute commissions, not tips. As a result, service charge payments may be counted fully as commissions when determining whether an employee's compensation is primarily commission-based under Section 7(i)(2). This clarification is significant for hospitality employers that rely on mandatory service charges rather than traditional tipping models, as such payments may support application of the overtime exemption even where employee tips do not.
The opinion letter was issued pursuant to the Portal-to-Portal Act, which permits employers to rely on official interpretations of the Department of Labor as a defense to liability under the FLSA, but expressly contemplates that such interpretations may later be determined by judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 259. The opinion letter expressly acknowledges existing contrary judicial authority in the Fourth Circuit and cautions employers in that jurisdiction not to rely on the opinion letter to the extent it conflicts with controlling precedent.
Employers relying on Section 7(i) should consider reviewing their pay structures and classification decisions in light of this guidance and consult experienced labor and employment counsel to mitigate potential wage-and-hour exposure.
* * *
Authors
Jaime E. Sanchez
Associate
Long Island
* * *
Paul R. Piccigallo
Shareholder
New York
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/dol-clarifies-application-minimum-wage-and-tips-under-flsas-commissioned
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McGlinchey Announces Firm Wind-Down
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, Jan. 7 -- McGlinchey Stafford, a law firm, issued the following news release on Jan. 6, 2025:
* * *
McGlinchey Announces Firm Wind-Down
On Monday, January 5, 2026, after assessing several strategic alternatives, McGlinchey's equity members voted to begin an orderly wind-down of operations.
This decision was based on a combination of market factors and internal circumstances. Outside consultants and counsel have been retained to guide the firm through all wind-down activities, including transitioning client service and supporting employees.
"As we begin McGlinchey's
... Show Full Article
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, Jan. 7 -- McGlinchey Stafford, a law firm, issued the following news release on Jan. 6, 2025:
* * *
McGlinchey Announces Firm Wind-Down
On Monday, January 5, 2026, after assessing several strategic alternatives, McGlinchey's equity members voted to begin an orderly wind-down of operations.
This decision was based on a combination of market factors and internal circumstances. Outside consultants and counsel have been retained to guide the firm through all wind-down activities, including transitioning client service and supporting employees.
"As we begin McGlinchey's52nd year of operation, my colleagues and I are saddened to announce its final chapter," said Michael Ferachi, Managing Member. "McGlinchey's attorneys and legal professionals have focused for 51 years on solving our clients' legal problems, and that will remain our focus as we wind down our business. We are committed to comporting ourselves with dignity and grace during this process. I am immensely proud of the culture we have built, the excellent service we have offered, and the team that we have assembled. I truly believe no one does it better."
In recent years, McGlinchey has earned numerous accolades across its 18 offices. The firm achieved Midsize Mansfield Certification three times; its two Louisiana offices were repeatedly named among the "Best Places to Work"; and the firm earned numerous national recognitions for its inclusive workplace culture supporting underrepresented populations in the legal industry. In 2023, more than 50 new attorneys began practicing with the firm. In October 2025, 60% of McGlinchey's Policy Committee and 93% of its Office Managing Members were Gen X and Millennial leaders. The firm also reconfigured its governance structure and compensation system, developing pipelines to leadership and instilling transparency into its processes.
"For the past five years, we have been guided by our principles of Culture; Change; Empowerment; Growth; and Gratitude," Michael said. "These principles will continue to guide our decisions as we go forward. We are especially grateful to the clients who have entrusted us to manage their affairs and to the employees who have dedicated their energy to our efforts.
There was no single triggering event or one definitive action that brought us to this point. This is not because of any specific attorney's departure, or any individual financial decision or leadership action that led us to this point. This is the result of a combination of market factors, such as lagging collections, compounded with various internal factors over several years."
A number of McGlinchey attorneys have recently announced plans to join other firms. The firm wishes them well in their continued practice.
"Our team comprises exceptional legal minds and some of the most skilled legal talent in the market, and while we are sad to bid them farewell, we know they will all thrive wherever they choose to land. McGlinchey will continue to provide seamless, cohesive service and client transition support throughout this process. Leadership is committed to working together, under the guidance of our consultants and counsel, to ensure that our people have a smooth transition and that all matters are handled with care."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcglinchey.com/insights/mcglinchey-announces-firm-wind-down/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Deepfakes in the Workplace - Emerging Legal Risks of AI-Driven Harassment
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Jan. 6, 2026:
* * *
Deepfakes in the Workplace: Emerging Legal Risks of AI-Driven Harassment
By Bradford J. Kelley and Alyesha Asghar
A California appellate court recently affirmed a jury verdict awarding $4 million to a police captain who was subjected to a hostile work environment after a sexually explicit, AI-generated image resembling her was widely circulated in the workplace, holding that the dissemination of such fabricated content constituted unlawful harassment under California law. In a separate
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Jan. 6, 2026:
* * *
Deepfakes in the Workplace: Emerging Legal Risks of AI-Driven Harassment
By Bradford J. Kelley and Alyesha Asghar
A California appellate court recently affirmed a jury verdict awarding $4 million to a police captain who was subjected to a hostile work environment after a sexually explicit, AI-generated image resembling her was widely circulated in the workplace, holding that the dissemination of such fabricated content constituted unlawful harassment under California law. In a separatecase, a Washington State trooper filed suit alleging that a supervisor used AI to create and circulate a deepfake video of him intimately kissing a coworker; the officer is suing his employer for discrimination, retaliation, and invasion of privacy. These high-profile incidents highlight a disturbing trend: AI-generated content--especially deepfakes--is emerging as a powerful new form of workplace harassment.
As AI tools become more accessible and ubiquitous in the workplace, employers should prepare for the possibility that deepfake content could be weaponized to humiliate, retaliate against, or intimidate colleagues, creating hostile environments that challenge current harassment policies and legal frameworks. Recent reports show deepfake-related fraud attempts surged by over 3,000% in 2023, with the number of deepfake files skyrocketing from 500,000 in 2023 to an estimated 8 million by 2025.1 In fact, the first quarter of 2025 alone saw 179 major incidents--already surpassing the total for all of 2024--underscoring the accelerating risk of AI misuse.2
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)--the federal agency charged with enforcing the nation's core workplace anti discrimination laws--has expressly acknowledged this emerging risk. In its guidance document, "Summary of Key Provisions: EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace," the EEOC identifies examples of harassing conduct based on legally protected characteristics and explicitly includes the "sharing [of] pornography or sexually demeaning depictions of people, including AI generated and deepfake images and videos," underscoring the agency's recognition that AI enabled misconduct can constitute actionable workplace harassment.
The misuse of AI in the workplace extends far beyond deepfake pornography. AI tools can also be exploited to perpetrate other forms of harassment by generating manipulated or fictitious images that target an individual's protected characteristics, such as race, disability, religion, or national origin. For example, using AI to create an altered image that depicts a colleague with a visible disability they do not have, or to change their skin tone or ethnic features in a mocking or demeaning way, may constitute harassment under Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such conduct can foster a hostile work environment. Title VII prohibits harassment based on protected characteristics, regardless of whether conduct occurs in person or through digital means. Deepfakes fall squarely within this scope when they target race, gender, or other protected traits.
The use of AI-generated deepfake pornography in the workplace may give rise to a host of legal consequences beyond traditional harassment claims under Title VII and analogous state anti-discrimination statutes. Depending on the circumstances, such conduct could trigger criminal liability, including charges related to cyber harassment, distribution of obscene material, or nonconsensual pornography under federal or state laws.3
Additionally, privacy laws may be implicated, particularly where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is violated by the unauthorized creation, manipulation, or dissemination of explicit images. Civil claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress may also arise, especially where the conduct is extreme and outrageous, and causes severe psychological harm. Moreover, new statutes like the 2025 federal TAKE IT DOWN Act and Florida's Brooke's Law mandate removal of nonconsensual intimate deepfake content within 48 hours--signaling growing legislative momentum.
As deepfake technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, its misuse in the workplace poses serious legal and reputational risks for both individuals and organizations. The potential consequences span a wide array of legal domains--including employment discrimination, privacy law violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and even criminal liability.
To help mitigate these risks, employers can adopt a proactive, multidimensional approach. Employers can make these measures more actionable by:
* Suggesting specific policy language (e.g., "Prohibit creation or distribution of AI-generated content that demeans or harasses employees based on protected characteristics").
* Adding technical safeguards (e.g., monitoring tools, watermark detection).
* Including incident response protocols beyond reporting (e.g., forensic investigation, cooperation with law enforcement, anticipating partnership with legal and crisis management teams).
This begins with implementing a clear and comprehensive anti-harassment policy that identifies prohibited conduct, including the creation or distribution of sexually demeaning material such as AI-generated or deepfake images and videos. The policy should cover all forms of harassment based on protected characteristics and be paired with multiple, accessible avenues for reporting misconduct. Regular, mandatory training for all employees--including supervisors and managers--is also important to ensure the workforce can recognize, report, and appropriately respond to emerging forms of digital harassment. Specifically, immersive training and simulated exercises--such as real-world deepfake phishing or voice-clone drills--can help to sharpen employees' ability to detect manipulated media. Technical tools like watermark detection and authentication checks, paired with secondary confirmation protocols for sensitive communications, can also provide crucial defense layers. In cases where the conduct may rise to the level of criminal behavior, employers can establish protocols for timely reporting to law enforcement. In accordance with EEOC guidance, any reports of harassment must be met with a prompt, impartial, and thorough investigation, followed by corrective action that is effective in stopping the behavior and preventing recurrence. Employers can revise investigation protocols to treat digital content--like deepfake images or synthetic audio--with the same rigor as physical evidence. This includes forensic analysis, verifying metadata, and ensuring fairness in credibility assessments for both alleged victims and accused parties. Taken together, these measures not only align with EEOC best practices but also help build a workplace culture that is resilient to the evolving threats posed by AI-enabled misconduct. As AI reshapes workplace dynamics, employers have an opportunity to set clear boundaries that protect employees and uphold trust.
* * *
Authors
Bradford J. Kelley
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Alyesha Asghar
Shareholder
Seattle
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/deepfakes-workplace-emerging-legal-risks-ai-driven-harassment
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
In Legaltech News, Shannon Capone Kirk Outlines 2026 E Discovery Playbook: AI-Enabled, Advocacy-First
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 7 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
In Legaltech News, Shannon Capone Kirk Outlines 2026 E Discovery Playbook: AI-Enabled, Advocacy-First
*
In a recent article in Legaltech News, Managing Principal and Global Head of Advanced E-Discovery and AI Strategy Shannon Capone Kirk outlines a pragmatic playbook for E-Discovery in the year ahead. Shannon sees generative AI continuing to embed across litigation workflows accelerating investigations, document review, research, and privilege log preparation, and generating
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 7 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
In Legaltech News, Shannon Capone Kirk Outlines 2026 E Discovery Playbook: AI-Enabled, Advocacy-First
*
In a recent article in Legaltech News, Managing Principal and Global Head of Advanced E-Discovery and AI Strategy Shannon Capone Kirk outlines a pragmatic playbook for E-Discovery in the year ahead. Shannon sees generative AI continuing to embed across litigation workflows accelerating investigations, document review, research, and privilege log preparation, and generatingsummaries and presentations for human refinement. The promise is speed to substance, but she warns that prominence invites pressure. Opponents will try to weaponize AI through "discovery-on-discovery" and by probing perceived cybersecurity or data handling gaps.
Shannon's also notes that advocacy must be designed with AI in mind at every stage. From negotiating ESI protocols and calibrating discovery scope to motion practice, trial, and settlement, teams should anticipate AI-centric challenges and build a defensible record on process, supervision, and security. For clients, the advantage will belong to those who pair disciplined governance with tailored AI-enabled workflows, and treat AI not as a shortcut, but as an integrated litigation strategy.
***
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/01/in-legaltech-news-shannon-capone-kirk-outlines-2026-e-discovery-playbook-ai-enabled-advocacy-first
Hausfeld Announces 13 Senior Promotions Globally
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hausfeld announces 13 senior promotions globally
Hausfeld is pleased to announce that five attorneys have been promoted to Partner, and eight attorneys have been promoted to Counsel across the United States and Europe for 2026.
Partner promotions
Ashley M. Crooks, Daniel P. Weick, Stella Gartagani, Karl-Christoph von Steuben, and Christoph Schubert have been invited to join the partnership.
* * *
In New York, Ashley M. Crooks has a practice focus in cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. She has a broad range
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hausfeld announces 13 senior promotions globally
Hausfeld is pleased to announce that five attorneys have been promoted to Partner, and eight attorneys have been promoted to Counsel across the United States and Europe for 2026.
Partner promotions
Ashley M. Crooks, Daniel P. Weick, Stella Gartagani, Karl-Christoph von Steuben, and Christoph Schubert have been invited to join the partnership.
* * *
In New York, Ashley M. Crooks has a practice focus in cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. She has a broad rangeof experience in complex litigation, representing clients in a variety of high-stakes commercial, mass tort, and data privacy matters in state and federal courts across the country. As a key member of Hausfeld's pioneering cybersecurity practice, Ashley has been personally appointed to plaintiffs' leadership in numerous data privacy and technology-related class actions. She has experience in all stages of litigation and is committed to advancing the law on issues related to technology, privacy, and data security.
* * *
In New York, Daniel P. Weick specializes in federal antitrust litigation, with experience representing clients at every stage of the litigation process from case inception through trial, appeal, and judgment enforcement. He has also represented complainants and third parties in a wide range of government investigations. Dan's practice has encompassed an array of price-fixing, restraint of trade, monopolization, and merger issues across a diverse set of technology, life sciences, industrial, and consumer markets.
* * *
In London, Stella Gartagani is a dual-qualified competition litigator (England and Greece) advising on EU and UK competition law, with particular expertise in abuse of dominance, cartels, and collective actions. She has acted in cases before the High Court, CAT, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and at European level, the General Court and Court of Justice. Since joining Hausfeld in 2011, Stella has acted for claimants in some of the most high-profile damages claims, including Air Cargo, PU Foam, Carbon & Graphite, Occupant Safety Systems and Google Shopping, as well as the FX collective proceedings brought by Mr. Evans and the Nikki Stopford collective action against Google for abuse of dominance in search.
* * *
In Berlin, Karl-Christoph von Steuben advises clients in complex civil and competition litigation in Germany and internationally. He specializes in large-scale plaintiff litigation, including both cartel claims and digital antitrust matters. Karl-Christoph represents major individual claimants and litigates in collective enforcement proceedings. He has played a key role in the Truck Cartel litigation and in high-profile proceedings against major technology companies in abuse of dominance cases. His experience spans all phases of litigation, from early case assessment to trial and settlement negotiations.
* * *
In Dusseldorf, Christoph Schubert advises companies on the efficient resolution of complex commercial disputes. He develops tailored conflict-resolution strategies that address not only the legal issues but also the tactical and economic dimensions of the dispute, including guidance on litigation-funding to mitigate or eliminate financial risks. Christoph has special experience in structuring and financing complex collective actions including project automation using legal tech and AI. Besides this, he has many years of experience in litigation and out-of-court dispute resolution, particularly in connection with insolvency proceedings, directors' and officers' liability, and D&O insurance law. He is also a trained business mediator.
Counsel promotions
In Washington, D.C., Theodore F. DiSalvo's practice focuses on complex litigation and trial work, with an emphasis on antitrust and whistleblower (qui tam) matters. He represents plaintiffs in high-stakes disputes against dominant market actors, including Big Tech companies, government contractors, and other corporate wrongdoers. Ted has significant experience in antitrust class actions, consumer protection, and whistleblower litigation across the technology, pharmaceutical, medical device, and transportation sectors. A former NCAA and professional athlete, he also represents athletes and is committed to protecting their interests. Ted co-chairs the firm's Technology Committee and serves on the firm's Disability Working Group and Lateral Associate Hiring Committee.
* * *
In Washington, D.C., Ian J. Engdahl litigates high-stakes antitrust, data-privacy, consumer-protection, and environmental cases. As a core member of the firm's Technology and Data Breach practice group, he has represented consumers in some of the nation's largest data-breach class actions and was recently appointed to the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for the Set Forth Data Breach case. His antitrust work includes actions against global banks, Big Tech, and pharmaceutical companies. Earlier this year, Ian was a key member of the trial team that secured a $110 million patent-infringement verdict against Apple. Ian also represents Maine in climate litigation and is a national voice on data-privacy and AI-safety issues. Ian co-chairs the firm's Technology Committee and Summer Associate Committee.
* * *
In Washington, D.C., Farhad Mirzadeh represents clients in high-stakes antitrust, commercial, and sports and entertainment litigation. He has appeared in courts against leading technology and media companies, helping to secure substantial settlements and jury verdicts for classes harmed by unlawful conduct. Farhad is known for his practical approach, creative strategy, and ability to distill complex claims into clear, persuasive arguments. Farhad currently plays an active role in complex litigation involving sports leagues, airlines, drug manufacturers, and major television broadcasters.
* * *
In London, Jonathan Amior is an experienced litigator focused on commercial and competition disputes. He represents claimants and defendants in matters involving breach of contract, post-acquisition disputes, professional negligence, civil fraud and unfair prejudice. Jonathan has developed specialist expertise in claimant group litigation, including collective proceedings against global tech companies and securities actions for institutional investors, complemented by his deep experience in litigation funding matters. Jonathan has acted in the High Court, Competition Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal on behalf of a diverse range of UK consumer and business groups, international corporates, high net worth individuals and public-sector organisations.
* * *
In London, Kio Gwilliam specializes in competition litigation and is currently part of the legal teams acting for clients in large scale abuse of dominance disputes against Big Tech, most notably in Kent v Apple - the first case brought under the UK's collective action regime to reach a successful conclusion at trial - and Coll v Google. Kio was also part of the legal team acting for over 100 claimants in the Air Cargo litigation against British Airways in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
* * *
In London, Emma Poland is a senior member of the legal team advising Dr Kent in the collective action brought against Apple, in which the Competition Appeal Tribunal found Apple has breached UK and EU competition law by abusing its dominance in relation to the App Store and awarded approximately pound sterling1.5 billion in damages to over 30 million UK consumers. She also advises the Class Representative in Elizabeth Coll v Google, alleging exclusionary and exploitative practices in respect of Google's Play Store with trial listed for October 2026.
* * *
In Berlin, Asja Zorn advises on German and European competition law and litigation. She handles follow-on and standalone cartel damages and abuse of dominance actions, with a particular focus on private enforcement in digital and platform markets. Asja represents clients in complex, high-value disputes, frequently involving multi-party claims and cross border coordination. In addition to her legal practice, she publishes on competition law, contributing analysis to the development of private enforcement and antitrust doctrine.
* * *
In Hamburg, Lara Boras specializes in advising companies on commercial law disputes, with a focus on disputes related to data protection law. Her particular expertise lies in litigation, a field in which she has accumulated extensive experience over the course of several years. This experience includes advising companies on complex national and international disputes. Her work is centered on the enforcement of claims for damages in cases of violations of the GDPR against Big Tech. She is currently engaged in the representation of clients in legal proceedings seeking redress from Google and Meta.
Other promotions
We are also pleased to announce a further one Of Counsel, three Senior Associate, two Senior Attorney, one Senior Staff Attorney, one Senior Paralegal, and three global operations team promotions.
Global Co-Chair Brian Ratner commented:
"I am proud to recognize our newly promoted partners and counsel, along with all colleagues promoted across the firm this year. These promotions reflect not only outstanding performance and contribution, but also the confidence the firm places in these individuals to help shape our future -- through leadership, sound judgment, and the ability to advance complex and high-stakes matters for our clients with clarity and purpose, reflective of the values Hausfeld prides itself on. Their perspectives and experience strengthen our platform globally and position the firm for continued growth and success. This group represents the depth of talent across Hausfeld and the next generation of leaders driving our practice forward."
Global Co-Chair Anthony Maton added:
"I congratulate our new partners on achieving such a significant milestone in their careers. Their combined talent, determination and dedication in bringing complex and novel litigation has been the bedrock for their promotion. They, together with all our case and business support teams, play a pivotal part in Hausfeld's continuing success. Investing in the growth of our teams is an essential element of that success. We also congratulate everyone who was promoted across all of our jurisdictions. Each brings their own strength and vision, as well as a commitment to excellence which is the centre of what Hausfeld does. I wish everyone the best of luck in their continuing careers."
* * *
Further information
1. The promotions are valid from 1 January 2026 unless otherwise stated.
2. Additional promotions are: In the US: Sean Zehmer has been promoted to Of Counsel; Carlos A. Gutierrez and Adel Khamidullin have been promoted to Senior Attorney; Sydney J. Delin Kolker has been promoted to Senior Staff Attorney; Kenya McCune has been promoted to Senior Paralegal; Claire Harders has been promoted to Marketing & BD Specialist; and Lisa Wilson has been promoted to Project Specialist. In the UK: Hannah McEwen, Emelyne Peticca, and Pierre Welch have been promoted to Senior Associate; and Lauren Russell has been promoted to Operations & HR Advisor.
3. Hausfeld has 170+ lawyers globally, including 55 partners. We are a gender diverse firm with over 46% female lawyers and 36% female partners, and have an excellent track record of promoting women worldwide.
4. The firm has a broad range of complex litigation expertise, often with an international dimension. Hausfeld's extensive experience with alternative and innovative fee models offers clients a diverse range of engagement options and maximum flexibility in terms of managing their cost exposure.
5. Our collective achievements over the past year have been reflected in the launch of impactful cases, successful settlements, and judgments across the different jurisdictions, and our successes have been highlighted in various legal industry US, UK, German and Dutch directory rankings and US, UK, German, and Dutch awards. These accomplishments underscore the strength of our team and the positive impact we continue to make in the legal landscape globally.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/news/hausfeld-announces-13-senior-promotions-globally
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
12 Ballard Spahr Attorneys Elected to Firm Partnership
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Jan. 7 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ballard Spahr, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
12 Ballard Spahr Attorneys Elected to Firm Partnership
*
Twelve attorneys have been elected to Ballard Spahr's partnership effective January 1, firm Chair Peter Michaud announced today. The new partners are based in six of the firm's 18 officesPhiladelphia, Baltimore, Minneapolis, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C.and their practices span Ballard Spahr's legal departments.
"Our new partners personify the Ballard Spahr hallmarks of excellence in legal service,
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Jan. 7 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ballard Spahr, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
12 Ballard Spahr Attorneys Elected to Firm Partnership
*
Twelve attorneys have been elected to Ballard Spahr's partnership effective January 1, firm Chair Peter Michaud announced today. The new partners are based in six of the firm's 18 officesPhiladelphia, Baltimore, Minneapolis, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C.and their practices span Ballard Spahr's legal departments.
"Our new partners personify the Ballard Spahr hallmarks of excellence in legal service,unparalleled dedication to clients, and commitment to community," Peter said. "Their election to our partnership is well deserved, and we are proud to welcome them."
The new Ballard Spahr partners are:
* Jacob Dachs, Finance, Baltimore : Jacob represents lenders, owners, developers, and investors in a wide range of commercial real estate transactions, including financing, acquisitions and dispositions, and leasing. He also has experience serving as counsel for borrowers and lenders in the negotiation of commercial loans, including revolving and syndicated credit facilities and other complex credit products.
* Lauren Engelmyer, Litigation, Philadelphia and New York : Lauren defends clients in government investigations, securities class actions, and other complex business litigation. Her experience includes representing financial institutions in investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC, and in complex civil matters. Lauren has successfully represented clients in jury trials in federal court and in arbitrations.
* Jennifer L. Feden, Real Estate, Philadelphia : Jennifer regularly supports publicly traded and large privately held companies in managing their portfolios of fixed operating assets and navigating M&A transactions involving real estate. Jennifer also represents investors, developers, and lenders across all stages of complex real estate transactions, with a particular focus on commercial leasing work across the retail, office, and industrial sectors.
* Catherine M. LaGrange, Finance, Minneapolis: Katie advises clients on financial services matters, with particular experience in secured transactions and acquisition financing. She represents private equity firms, senior and mezzanine lenders, family offices, and borrowers through all phases of leveraged financings. Katie's work includes asset-based lending, agricultural finance, project finance, syndicated loans, and mezzanine and structured financings.
* Peter Lam, Finance, New York : Peter has significant experience with affordable housing developments financed with tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits, especially at the bond-issuance phase. He has counseled issuers on more than $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds that involved complex pooled financing transactions with parity bond indentures, private placement, and volume cap recycling. In addition, Peter has significant experience with bond transactions for solid waste facilities, prepay gas and electricity issuers and participants, and 501(c)(3) nonprofit borrowers such as hospitals, universities, and secondary schools.
* Rebecca A. Leaf, Litigation, Baltimore and New York : Rebecca represents public and private employers in a wide range of traditional labor matters. She routinely serves as lead negotiator in collective bargaining negotiations and provides strategic counseling to clients on union representation matters, grievance and arbitration proceedings, and hearings before government agencies.
* Daniel J. Nunez, Finance, Washington, D.C.: Daniel represents lenders, issuers, underwriters, nonprofit organizations, and trustees on the structuring, issuing, purchasing, and securitization of a wide range of tax-exempt and taxable financings, including for public projects, including multifamily housing, 501(c)(3) transactions, education, health care, and water facilities throughout the country.
* William P. Reiley, Litigation, New Jersey : Will is a consumer financial services litigator for banks, mortgage and auto lenders, and retailers. He defends banks in trial, arbitration, and class actions involving credit reporting, account opening disputes, autodialer-related claims, debt collection, mortgage servicing, lending disclosures, and deposit fraud.
* Lisa Ashley Seeman, Real Estate, Minneapolis : Lisa leads the Leasing Team and Western Real Estate Lawyers Team in the firm's Real Estate Transactions and Investments Group. Her practice focuses on commercial real estate and finance matters. She represents lenders and borrowers in real estate, equipment finance, and lines of credit loan transactions; buyers and sellers in commercial land acquisitions and dispositions; landlords and tenants in office, warehouse, industrial, restaurant, skyway, and retail leases; and non-traditional lenders and investment funds.
* J. Matt Thornton, Litigation, Minneapolis : Matt litigates individual and class action claims in high-stakes privacy, cybersecurity, and product liability cases. His practice focuses primarily on defending clients against alleged violations of privacy and wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act.
* Elizabeth P. Weissert, Litigation, Philadelphia : Liz practices complex commercial litigation with a focus on federal antitrust cases. She has defended clients in matters involving price-fixing, wage-fixing, no-poach agreements, information-sharing, and group boycotts. She also provides antitrust advice and counseling. Liz is a member of Ballard Spahr's Education and Life Sciences Industry Groups.
* Lesley Frieder Wolf, Litigation, Philadelphia and Delaware : Lesley is an experienced trial attorney in the commercial and white collar spaces and is known for her work on complex commercial and fraud matters and investigations involving allegations of both corporate and individual misconduct. She leads litigation efforts for public and private entities across a wide array of sectors, including health care, education, finance, manufacturing, and government enforcement.
For media inquiries, please contact Will Ashenmacher at 612.371.5792.
***
Original text here: https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/news/2026/01/12-ballard-spahr-attorneys-elected-to-firm-partnership
