Featured Stories
Law360 Names McGuireWoods' Kayla McCann Marty a Rising Star in Healthcare
RICHMOND, Virginia, Oct. 9 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Law360 Names McGuireWoods' Kayla McCann Marty a Rising Star in Healthcare
October 8, 2026
Law360 named McGuireWoods partner Kayla McCann Marty a 2026 "Rising Star," recognizing her as one of the top healthcare law practitioners under age 40 in the country. The legal newswire profiled Marty in an Aug. 19, 2026, story.
Based in the firm's Charlotte, North Carolina, office, Marty was recognized for guiding clients through complex healthcare transactions, such as a medical group's acquisition by a
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, Oct. 9 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Law360 Names McGuireWoods' Kayla McCann Marty a Rising Star in Healthcare
October 8, 2026
Law360 named McGuireWoods partner Kayla McCann Marty a 2026 "Rising Star," recognizing her as one of the top healthcare law practitioners under age 40 in the country. The legal newswire profiled Marty in an Aug. 19, 2026, story.
Based in the firm's Charlotte, North Carolina, office, Marty was recognized for guiding clients through complex healthcare transactions, such as a medical group's acquisition by amedical management provider and a separate medical group's acquisition of individual practices.
Noting how deals can lead to medical groups expanding and reaching more patients, she said, "I think healthcare in the legal space can impact people even in more ways than what many realize."
Marty joined McGuireWoods as an associate from William & Mary Law School and rose to partner, focusing her practice on healthcare joint ventures, growth strategies and mergers and acquisitions. She said McGuireWoods' collaborative culture allows her to serve as clients' single point of contact for both corporate and healthcare-specific matters.
"I think our clients view us not only as legal advisers but also as business partners," Marty said.
Law360's Rising Stars awards honor attorneys under 40 who have achieved notable success early in their careers. Marty's recognition underscores McGuireWoods' deep bench of healthcare and transactional talent.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/10/law360-names-mcguirewoods-kayla-mccann-marty-a-rising-star-in-healthcare/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Advises HEO on Its US$25million Series B Capital Raise
NEW YORK, Oct. 9 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises HEO on its US$25million Series B capital raise
9 Oct 2026
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's (HSF Kramer) venture & growth capital team has advised HEO on its US$25 million Series B capital raise. The round was led by Beaten Zone Venture Partners, with participation from Australia's National Reconstruction Fund, DCode Capital, Wunala Capital and existing investors Airtree and Salus Ventures.
The new capital will be deployed to accelerate HEO's expansion
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Oct. 9 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises HEO on its US$25million Series B capital raise
9 Oct 2026
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's (HSF Kramer) venture & growth capital team has advised HEO on its US$25 million Series B capital raise. The round was led by Beaten Zone Venture Partners, with participation from Australia's National Reconstruction Fund, DCode Capital, Wunala Capital and existing investors Airtree and Salus Ventures.
The new capital will be deployed to accelerate HEO's expansioninto geostationary orbit.
HEO is an Australian company whose ambition is to make imagery of any object in the solar system available on demand. It operates the world's largest commercial Non-Earth Imaging network with access to more than 50 sensors in orbit.
The HSF Kramer team was led by partner and Head of Venture and Growth Capital Australia, Elizabeth Henderson, senior associate, Roy Carbone, and solicitors, James Webb and Belinda Reilly.
Elizabeth Henderson, HSF Kramer partner, said, "We were delighted to advise HEO on its Series B raise and to work with CEO and Co-Founder William Crowe and his excellent team since its first Series Seed raise in 2021 and to see it grow and take on the world stage. Congratulations to the company and its investors on this achievement."
This deal is another example of HSF Kramer's market-leading work in venture and growth capital raisings. Other recent examples include:
* Infravision Holdings on its A$140 million Series B funding round
* PlasmaLeap Technologies on its A$30 million Series A capital raise
* Kasada on its US$20 million Series E funding round
* Constantinople on its Series Seed through Series B funding rounds
* Hapana on its funding rounds led by OIF Ventures and Microequities
* * *
URL: HEO
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-10/hsf-kramer-advises-heo-us-25-million-series-b-capital-raise
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Issues Insight: SEC Proposes Custody Rule Updates
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
October 07, 2026
SEC Proposes Custody Rule Updates
Would permit advisers and regulated funds to self-custody crypto assets in certain circumstances
At a Glance
* After the rescission of the last Securities and Exchange Commission's custody rule proposal, the current Commission has advanced a proposal that permits self-custody of crypto assets, codifies the treatment of state trust companies for custody of crypto assets, and modernizes several long-standing custody requirements.
*
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
October 07, 2026
SEC Proposes Custody Rule Updates
Would permit advisers and regulated funds to self-custody crypto assets in certain circumstances
At a Glance
* After the rescission of the last Securities and Exchange Commission's custody rule proposal, the current Commission has advanced a proposal that permits self-custody of crypto assets, codifies the treatment of state trust companies for custody of crypto assets, and modernizes several long-standing custody requirements.
*In addition to modernizing several provisions of the existing custody rule and codifying several no-action positions, the SEC has proposed a framework that would, for the first time, permit investment advisers and regulated funds to self-custody crypto assets when a qualified custodian is not available, subject to detailed safeguarding, accountant-review, and board-oversight conditions.
-
On October 1, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new rules and amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Investment Company Act). If adopted, the proposal would permit advisers and regulated funds to self-custody crypto assets in certain circumstances, codify that certain state trust companies can be treated as qualified custodians under the rule, modernize the existing custody rules to better reflect current industry practices and feedback, and update related recordkeeping and disclosure requirements.
Background
The current custody rules under the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act were designed to protect client and regulated fund assets from risk of loss, theft, misuse, and misappropriation, but were drafted when traditional assets were the only assets that were widely used. Since the current rules' adoption, the crypto asset market has grown significantly with investors increasingly seeking exposure to and advice on these nontraditional assets. The complication is that for many crypto assets, a qualified custodian may not be readily available to hold them.
Some state-chartered limited purpose trust companies have sought to fill this gap. Although banks are qualified custodians under applicable regulations, whether a state trust company satisfies the statutory definition of "bank" requires a fact-specific analysis of state and federal law. In addition, custodians offering crypto custody, including state trust companies, have not been able to support all crypto assets given the large and growing number in the market, particularly nascent or novel assets.
On September 30, 2025, the SEC staff issued a no-action letter stating that, under the enumerated conditions, the staff would not recommend enforcement if advisers and funds treat state trust companies as banks for purposes of crypto asset custody. This proposal would codify the no-action letter into binding Commission rules.
Adviser Self-Custody of Crypto Assets
Under the proposed rules, an adviser may self-custody client crypto assets, subject to conditions including that the adviser:
* Determines that a qualified custodian is not available before taking self-custody, and quarterly thereafter
* Has safeguarding expertise for each crypto asset (and documents the basis for that determination), and adopts, implements, and maintains safeguarding systems, reviewed at least annually, that address private key management and require joint authorization of transactions by at least two people
* Holds each client's crypto assets in one or more addresses that store only that client's assets
* Mitigates cybersecurity risk and reviews its cybersecurity controls at least annually
* Obtains an internal control report from an independent public accountant within six months of taking self-custody and annually thereafter
* Sends account statements to clients at least quarterly
* Agrees in writing with the client to treat each crypto asset as a "financial asset," to provide additional protections under state law
One significant issue that we have seen arise with advisers dealing with crypto assets is that there may be a qualified custodian that would agree to custody the relevant crypto asset, but upon a due diligence review of that qualified custodian the adviser determines that it does not believe that the qualified custodian has the necessary safeguarding infrastructure to hold the crypto assets. We are hopeful this issue will be addressed in the final rule.
Regulated Fund Self-Custody
A regulated fund could self-custody crypto assets through its adviser if the adviser complies with the adviser self-custody rule (discussed above) and the fund's board oversees the arrangement by: (1) reviewing, initially and quarterly, the adviser's written report on the basis for determining that no qualified custodian is available; and (2) determining, before custody and annually, that the asset would be subject to reasonable care if self-custodied with the adviser.
State Trust Companies as Permitted Custodians
The rules also codify the position that advisers and funds may maintain crypto assets with a state trust company if, before engagement and annually thereafter, the adviser or fund has a reasonable basis, after due inquiry, to believe that the trust company is authorized by the relevant state banking authority to provide crypto asset custody services and maintains written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard crypto assets and related cash and cash equivalents. The adviser or fund would also need to receive and review the trust company's most recent annual audited financial statements and most recent internal control report, and client or fund crypto assets would have to be segregated from the trust company's proprietary assets.
Investment Company Act Custody Rule Modernization
The proposal would remove antiquated conditions applicable to broker-dealer custodians, rescind the free cash account rule, and specify that business development companies (BDCs) may rely on the Investment Company Act custody rules.
Advisers Act Custody Rule Modernization
The proposal would also modernize the Advisers Act custody rules in the following ways:
* Discretionary trading authority. The proposed rules clarify where an adviser would not have custody solely due to discretionary trading authority under specific circumstances. If the rule is adopted as proposed, advisers should review the grant of discretionary trading authority in their client agreements to ensure that they are not so broad as to result in a determination that the adviser is deemed to have custody of the client's assets.
* Accountants. The requirement that accountants providing either the annual surprise examination or the private fund audits under the current rules be Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)-registered and subject to PCAOB inspection would be eliminated.
* Audit provision. The proposal codifies the extended delivery deadlines for audited financial statements for certain private funds that arose via no-action relief. In addition, the proposal would allow newly formed funds to have an initial extended audit period to avoid the expense of an audit where that audit would cover less than three months.
* Standing letter of authorization (SLOA). The proposal essentially codifies the position put forward in the Investment Adviser Association no-action letter from February 2017 wherein an adviser with custody solely because of a SLOA would not be subject to the surprise examination / independent verification requirement if certain criteria are met.
* Other changes. Client notices on opening a qualified custodian account would need to include the account number; a new exception addresses inadvertent custody; and the exception for registered investment companies would be extended to BDCs.
Recordkeeping, Accounting Guidance, and Form Amendments
The proposal includes corresponding recordkeeping requirements and allows records maintained on a crypto network to satisfy the recordkeeping rules, subject to certain conditions. Additionally, Form ADV and Form N-CEN would be amended regarding the information collected for custody of crypto assets and tokenized fund shares.
Practical Implications
* Custody gap analysis. Advisers and funds should inventory crypto asset holdings and custody-related authorities to identify where the proposed rules could expand options or change obligations.
* Self-custody readiness. Firms considering self-custody should assess whether they could document asset-specific safeguarding expertise, implement private key management and dual-authorization controls, segregate client addresses, and obtain an accountant's internal control report within six months.
* State trust company diligence. Current reliance on the 2025 State Trust Company no-action relief should be evaluated against the proposed due inquiry, policies and procedures, audited financial statement and internal control report review, and segregation conditions.
* Private fund audit relief. Fund-of-funds structures, foreign pooled vehicles, and newly formed vehicles may benefit from the extended deadlines, US GAAP reconciliation approach, and first-year accommodation; the elimination of PCAOB requirements may broaden the pool of eligible accountants.
* SLOA and discretionary trading. Advisers should review SLOA arrangements and trading authorities against the proposed exceptions, including the new recordkeeping requirement.
* Fund boards. Boards of funds contemplating crypto exposure should consider the quarterly report review and annual reasonable care determinations the proposal would require, and how these would fit within existing oversight processes.
What's Next
Comments are due 60 days after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. The rulemaking proposal marks the start of the rulemaking process, and any final rules will be published and made available for analysis before they take effect.
For further information, you may contact the authors. Faegre Drinker's team will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact.
Legal clerks Noelle-Nadia Filali and James E. Burnett contributed to this update.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Jeffrey R. Blumberg
Partner
Chicago
312/356-5119
jeff.blumberg@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/10/sec-proposes-custody-rule-updates
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Issues Insight: Court Denies Fee Award After Dismissal of SpaceXAI's Trade-Secret Claims Against OpenAI
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
October 07, 2026
Court Denies Fee Award after Dismissal of SpaceXAI's Trade-Secret Claims against OpenAI
SpaceXAI Corp. et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 25-cv-08133-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2026)
At a Glance
* A federal court applied the same two-part test to determine whether claims were brought in "bad faith" under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).
* The court found that even though the trade-secret claims
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Oct. 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
October 07, 2026
Court Denies Fee Award after Dismissal of SpaceXAI's Trade-Secret Claims against OpenAI
SpaceXAI Corp. et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 25-cv-08133-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2026)
At a Glance
* A federal court applied the same two-part test to determine whether claims were brought in "bad faith" under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).
* The court found that even though the trade-secret claimswere dismissed on the pleadings, they were not "objectively specious" where the record showed a pattern of recruiting the plaintiff's engineers and plausible allegations of theft by former employees.
* The court held that because the claims were not objectively specious it did not need to consider whether the plaintiff acted with an improper purpose, and it denied OpenAI's request for more than $1 million in attorney's fees against SpaceXAI.
-
The Northern District of California recently addressed a recurring issue in trade-secret litigation: when can a defendant that wins dismissal make the plaintiff pay its legal fees? In SpaceXAI Corp. v. OpenAI, Inc., the court confirmed that both the DTSA and CUTSA allow a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney's fees when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith. The court's order clarifies that losing a case -- even at the pleading stage -- does not by itself establish bad faith.
Background
SpaceXAI sued OpenAI, alleging that OpenAI recruited and hired a series of former SpaceXAI engineers over a short period and encouraged them to share SpaceXAI's trade secret information. SpaceXAI alleged that at least two of those former employees took trade-secret information when they left. The court dismissed SpaceXAI's second amended complaint without leave to amend, and OpenAI then moved for more than $1 million in attorney's fees.
What the Court Decided
The Court Applied the Same Two-Part Test to Assess "Bad Faith" under Federal and California Law
The court applied a two-part test drawn from California law to assess bad faith: (1) whether the claim was objectively specious; and (2) whether the plaintiff brought or maintained the action subjectively in bad faith, meaning for an improper purpose. The court noted that California federal courts routinely apply the same test to DTSA claims, and that the Ninth Circuit has assumed, without deciding, that "bad faith" means the same thing under both statutes.
Claims Dismissed on the Pleadings Are Not Necessarily Objectively Specious
A claim is objectively specious when it superficially appears to have merit but there is a complete lack of evidence supporting it. The court acknowledged that the evidence was limited because the case ended on the pleadings. Even so, the court found that the uncontroverted record showed OpenAI's pattern of recruiting SpaceXAI engineers over a short time period, and that SpaceXAI plausibly alleged theft by at least two of the former SpaceXAI employees. Although the allegations fell short of plausibly showing that OpenAI itself acquired or induced SpaceXAI's former employees to exfiltrate SpaceXAI's confidential information, the court found that this did not amount to a complete lack of evidence.
Failing the First Prong Ends the Inquiry
Because the claims were not objectively specious, the court held that it did not need to reach the second prong -- whether SpaceXAI acted with an improper purpose -- and denied the fee motion. The order therefore leaves open how the court would weigh evidence of subjective motive, such as competitive or strategic reasons for filing suit, in a closer case.
What This Means for You
* Companies sued for misappropriation after hiring a competitor's employees should expect that winning dismissal will not automatically lead to recovery of legal fees. Indeed, a fee award generally requires showing a complete lack of evidence, not merely a pleading deficiency.
* Companies recruiting from competitors should recognize that a pattern of hiring, combined with misconduct by individual hires, may result in a lawsuit, and should consider onboarding certifications and instructions that new hires not bring prior employers' confidential information or trade secrets.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Lauren W. Linderman
Partner
Minneapolis
612/766-7251
lauren.linderman@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Kevin H. DeMaio
Associate
Florham Park
973/549-7353
kevin.demaio@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/10/court-denies-fee-award-after-dismissal-of-spacexai-trade-secret-claims-against-openai
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Advises PPF Banka on Financing for Romanian Battery Energy Storage Project
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises PPF banka on financing for Romanian battery energy storage project
October 8, 2026
Prague--Global law firm Dentons has advised PPF banka a.s. in connection with the financing of the construction and development of the 72 MW BESS Frasinet 1 battery energy storage system project in Romania. With this transaction, PPF banka a.s. has financed a third BESS project of the RSJ PE SF Batteries fund, a joint platform of RSJ Investments and Second Foundation that is building a broader portfolio of battery energy
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises PPF banka on financing for Romanian battery energy storage project
October 8, 2026
Prague--Global law firm Dentons has advised PPF banka a.s. in connection with the financing of the construction and development of the 72 MW BESS Frasinet 1 battery energy storage system project in Romania. With this transaction, PPF banka a.s. has financed a third BESS project of the RSJ PE SF Batteries fund, a joint platform of RSJ Investments and Second Foundation that is building a broader portfolio of battery energystorage assets across the EU.
Dentons advised on the drafting and negotiation of the financing and security documentation, reviewed key project contracts, and supported the transaction through to signing and completion, including issuance of legal opinion and management of conditions precedent.
The cross-border Dentons team included Daniel Hurych, Partner and Co-Head of the Banking and Finance group in Prague, Martin Fiala, Senior Associate, Jan Koristka, Associate and Tomas Husicka, Junior Associate, together with Petr Zakoucky, Partner and Head of the Energy practice in Prague.
Romanian law advice was provided by a Bucharest-based team comprising Simona Marin, Partner, Stefi Ionescu, Counsel and Maria Brinza, Associate all in the Banking and Finance group, and Angelica Pintilie, Counsel in the Energy group.
This mandate highlights Dentons' capabilities in cross-border project finance and energy infrastructure, combining Czech and Romanian financing, security, real estate and energy advice to support the development of battery energy storage capacity in Romania.
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
URL: PPF banka
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2026/october/dentons-advises-ppf-banka-on-financing-for-romanian-battery-energy-storage-project
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Cooley Collaborates With Google Cloud to Develop AI Agent for Complex Litigation
PALO ALTO, California, Oct. 9 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Cooley Collaborates With Google Cloud to Develop AI Agent for Complex Litigation
New Gemini Enterprise agent addresses time-consuming and sensitive litigation tasks.
New York October 8, 2026
Cooley today announced a collaboration with Google to develop a new Gemini Enterprise AI agent using Google Cloud technologies to help lawyers review court filings for confidential information and prepare proposed redactions.
Redacting court filings to protect confidential information can consume days of lawyers'
... Show Full Article
PALO ALTO, California, Oct. 9 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Cooley Collaborates With Google Cloud to Develop AI Agent for Complex Litigation
New Gemini Enterprise agent addresses time-consuming and sensitive litigation tasks.
New York October 8, 2026
Cooley today announced a collaboration with Google to develop a new Gemini Enterprise AI agent using Google Cloud technologies to help lawyers review court filings for confidential information and prepare proposed redactions.
Redacting court filings to protect confidential information can consume days of lawyers'time reviewing documents and identifying sensitive information, with little margin for error. Built on Google Cloud's Gemini Enterprise, the new agent recommends targeted redactions of personally identifiable information (PII), technical information and other potentially confidential material for attorney review. Attorneys make all determinations about what should be redacted before the filing is submitted to the court. The tool is intended to expedite the review while keeping legal judgment firmly with the lawyers handling the matter.
The collaboration brings together Google Cloud's trusted, enterprise-ready AI platform with the experience of Cooley's elite global litigation practice. Cooley is the launch partner for this agent, providing product direction and ongoing feedback from litigators to help engineers design the workflow around the practical demands of complex litigation. The use case grew out of challenges encountered in real-world experience.
"Cooley has long collaborated with Google as litigation counsel," said Ian Shapiro, chair of Cooley's global litigation department. "And, as Cooley now endeavors to develop the AI-powered workflows that will enable us to litigate for our clients more effectively and efficiently, we are fortunate to be able to collaborate with Google's exceptional team."
"The most effective AI tools are built by validating technology against demanding, real-world use cases," said Satish Thomas, vice president at Google Cloud. "Testing our agents in real-world environments with Cooley's highly skilled team ensures we are solving genuine workflow challenges with the depth, speed and precision legal professionals require."
The agent remains in development and is one of a growing number of AI-enabled tools and workflows Cooley is exploring and developing across the firm. It reflects Cooley's broader approach to AI: pairing legal and industry acumen with leading technology to address practical client and lawyer needs, with attorney judgment at the center.
* * *
About Cooley LLP
Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation.
Cooley has nearly 1,400 lawyers across 19 offices in the United States, Asia and Europe, and a total workforce of more than 3,000 people.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cooley.com/news/coverage/2026/2026-10-08-cooley-collaborates-with-google-cloud-to-develop-ai-agent-for-complex-litigation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Baker Donelson Elects Kristine L. Roberts as Next President and COO
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, Oct. 9 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson Elects Kristine L. Roberts as Next President and COO
October 8, 2026
Baker Donelson has elected Kristine L. Roberts to serve as the Firm's next president and chief operating officer.
Ms. Roberts, a shareholder in Baker Donelson's Memphis office, is chair of the Firm's Financial Services Department and a former member of the board of directors. She will assume the role of president and COO in May 2027, when Jennifer P. Keller, who has served in this role since 2015, will step down
... Show Full Article
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, Oct. 9 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson Elects Kristine L. Roberts as Next President and COO
October 8, 2026
Baker Donelson has elected Kristine L. Roberts to serve as the Firm's next president and chief operating officer.
Ms. Roberts, a shareholder in Baker Donelson's Memphis office, is chair of the Firm's Financial Services Department and a former member of the board of directors. She will assume the role of president and COO in May 2027, when Jennifer P. Keller, who has served in this role since 2015, will step downbut will remain with Baker Donelson.
Baker Donelson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Timothy M. Lupinacci said, "Over her career of more than 20 years at Baker Donelson, Kristine has distinguished herself through her ability to build high-performing teams, lead through change, drive results, and foster strong engagement across the organization. She has a clear vision for the future of the Firm, a strong operational mindset, a keen awareness of the shifting dynamics in the legal marketplace, and most importantly, a deep commitment to helping our attorneys, business professionals, and clients succeed. Given her deep background in leadership and institutional knowledge of the Firm and its operations, Kristine is well positioned to guide Baker Donelson through its continued growth in the rapidly evolving legal marketplace."
Ms. Roberts, who has been with Baker Donelson since 2004, is an experienced litigator who defends banking and financial institutions in class actions and other complex litigation matters in federal and state courts. She has represented clients in a wide variety of trial and appellate matters, including class actions and derivative actions, securities actions, breach of contract actions, fraud claims, fiduciary and trust litigation, bank deposit claims, business disputes, and other complex commercial litigation.
"I am honored by the confidence Tim and our board of directors have placed in me," said Ms. Roberts. "Jennifer's extraordinary leadership over more than a decade has been instrumental to Baker Donelson's success. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to work closely with her in the coming months to ensure a seamless transition and sustain the tremendous momentum the Firm is experiencing."
A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Ms. Roberts is listed in The Best Lawyers in America(R) in multiple practice categories and was named the Best Lawyers(R) 2027 Litigation - Banking and Finance "Lawyer of the Year" in Memphis and the Best Lawyers(R) 2026 Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defense "Lawyer of the Year" in Memphis. Mid-South Super Lawyers has recognized her among the top 50 women attorneys in the Mid-South, the top 50 Memphis attorneys, and the top 100 Tennessee attorneys.
Ms. Roberts is a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America and the Memphis Bar Foundation. She has served on the board of directors of Memphis Area Legal Services, including serving as board president. She is a member of the American, Tennessee, and Memphis Bar Associations as well as the Association of Women Attorneys.
While at Baker Donelson, Ms. Roberts has earned numerous firm recognitions, including the Living By Our Values Award for living the Baker Donelson way in thoughts and actions as a leader, the Making the Difference Champion Award for leadership and contributions in support of diversity and inclusion, the Susan E. Rich Award for excellence in promoting the advancement of women in the legal profession, and the Memphis Mentor of the Year Award.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/baker-donelson-elects-kristine-l-roberts-as-next-president-and-coo
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
