Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Venable Features Global Business Leaders Amid Rapid AI Transformation in the New Season of AI and IP: Legal Frontier Podcast
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- Venable, a law firm, issued the following news release on May 26, 2026:
* * *
Venable Features Global Business Leaders Amid Rapid AI Transformation in the New Season of AI and IP: The Legal Frontier Podcast
As companies across industries accelerate investment in artificial intelligence technologies, Venable LLP announced today's launch of Season 2 of the AI and IP: The Legal Frontierpodcast, a nine-episode series examining the legal, commercial, and intellectual property issues emerging from the AI boom. Hosted by Justin E. Pierce, partner and co-chair of Venable's Intellectual
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- Venable, a law firm, issued the following news release on May 26, 2026:
* * *
Venable Features Global Business Leaders Amid Rapid AI Transformation in the New Season of AI and IP: The Legal Frontier Podcast
As companies across industries accelerate investment in artificial intelligence technologies, Venable LLP announced today's launch of Season 2 of the AI and IP: The Legal Frontierpodcast, a nine-episode series examining the legal, commercial, and intellectual property issues emerging from the AI boom. Hosted by Justin E. Pierce, partner and co-chair of Venable's IntellectualProperty Division, the new season features conversations with Venable attorneys and leaders from Amazon, Gap, CSC Leasing, Spin Master, Yokogawa, and Marvell Technology on how organizations are navigating governance, innovation, risk and competitive pressures in a rapidly changing environment.
"Businesses are making critical decisions about AI adoption and strategy in real time, often while the legal and regulatory landscape continues to evolve," said Pierce. "This season focuses on the practical challenges companies are facing today, from protecting intellectual property to managing risk and deploying AI responsibly at scale."
This year's schedule will include:
* Episode 1, "AI-Driven Enforcement in the E-Commerce Marketplace," with Kebharu Smith, director, Counterfeit Crimes Unit at Amazon
* Episode 2: "Building Trust with AI Governance Across Global Retail Brands," with Ethan Cohen, global head of Privacy and AI Compliance at Gap Inc., and Venable partner Meaghan Kent
* Episode 3: "Can Using AI Break Attorney-Client Privilege?" with Venable partner Calvin Nelson and David Levie
* Episode 4: "AI, the FDA and the Health, Wellness, and Beauty Industries," with Claudia Lewis, co-chair of Venable's FDA Group
* Episode 5: "AI Risk Management in Emerging Growth Companies," with Chris Crook, general counsel at CSC Leasing and Venable partner Calvin Nelson
* Episode 6: "Balancing AI Innovation and IP in the Toy Industry," with Kalvin Sie, VP, legal and associate general counsel at Spin Master, and Venable partner Meaghan Kent
* Episode 7: "AI and Brand Protection for Luxury and Celebrity Brands," with Venable partner Kristen Ruisi and counsel Maria Sinatra
* Episode 8: "AI in Industrial Automation and the Future of IP Strategy," with Mike Turner, director, IP Strategy at Yokogawa
* Episode 9: "Protecting Innovation in the AI Infrastructure Industry," with Kelvin Vivian, associate VP and deputy general counsel, IP at Marvell Technology
For more information, visit Venable's Artificial Intelligence (https://www.venable.com/services/industries/artificial-intelligence) webpage.
* * *
Venable LLP is an American Lawyer Global 100 law firm headquartered in Washington, DC that serves as primary counsel to a worldwide clientele of large and mid-sized organizations, nonprofits, high-net-worth entrepreneurs, and other individuals. With more than 900 professionals in California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Virginia, and Washington, DC, the firm strategically advances its clients' objectives in the United States and around the globe. Venable advises clients on a broad range of business and regulatory law, legislative affairs, complex litigation, and all intellectual property disciplines. For more information, please visit our website.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.venable.com/about/news/2026/05/venable-features-global-business-leaders-amid
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Seven Ropes & Gray Partners Named to Lawdragon's 2026 "Leading Global Cyber Lawyers" List
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 27 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Seven Ropes & Gray Partners Named to Lawdragon's 2026 "Leading Global Cyber Lawyers" List
Seven Ropes & Gray partners have been recognized on Lawdragon's 2026 "Leading Global Cyber Lawyers" list. This list spotlights 500 lawyers worldwide who are at the forefront of advising clients on cybersecurity, data privacy, and cyber-related regulatory and litigation matters.
The firm's recognized lawyers include:
* Amanda Raad
* Anne Johnson Palmer
* Christine Moundas
* Ed McNicholas
* Fran Faircloth
*
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 27 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Seven Ropes & Gray Partners Named to Lawdragon's 2026 "Leading Global Cyber Lawyers" List
Seven Ropes & Gray partners have been recognized on Lawdragon's 2026 "Leading Global Cyber Lawyers" list. This list spotlights 500 lawyers worldwide who are at the forefront of advising clients on cybersecurity, data privacy, and cyber-related regulatory and litigation matters.
The firm's recognized lawyers include:
* Amanda Raad
* Anne Johnson Palmer
* Christine Moundas
* Ed McNicholas
* Fran Faircloth
*Laura Hoey
* Rohan Massey
See the full list of winners here (https://www.lawdragon.com/guides/2026-05-08-the-2026-lawdragon-500-leading-global-cyber-lawyers).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/rankings-and-awards/2026/05/ropes-gray-partners-named-to-lawdragon-leading-global-cyber-lawyers-list
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McGuireWoods Helps Newspapers Recover Fees in Pro Bono Public Records Fight
RICHMOND, Virginia, May 27 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Helps Newspapers Recover Fees in Pro Bono Public Records Fight
A North Carolina county government agreed to pay legal fees incurred by two local newspapers in their successful fight - led by McGuireWoods pro bono attorneys - to force the government to comply with state public records laws.
Commissioners from Columbus County on May 18, 2026, voted to drop the county's appeal of a judge's award of $74,557 in fees to The Assembly and Border Belt Independent. McGuireWoods lawyers Joie Johnston
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, May 27 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Helps Newspapers Recover Fees in Pro Bono Public Records Fight
A North Carolina county government agreed to pay legal fees incurred by two local newspapers in their successful fight - led by McGuireWoods pro bono attorneys - to force the government to comply with state public records laws.
Commissioners from Columbus County on May 18, 2026, voted to drop the county's appeal of a judge's award of $74,557 in fees to The Assembly and Border Belt Independent. McGuireWoods lawyers Joie Johnstonand Brad Kutrow and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provided pro bono representation to the newspapers in a lawsuit seeking public records related to allegations of misconduct against a former sheriff and some of his deputies. A Superior Court judge in 2025 ruled in the newspapers' favor and, as allowed by North Carolina's public records law, ordered the county to pay the newspapers' attorney fees for more than 350 hours of work.
"We are pleased the judge recognized that our statute mandates a fee award when a news organization 'substantially prevails' in a public records action, and we are grateful the county has withdrawn its appeal," Kutrow said.
Last year the Reporters Committee presented Kutrow with its Freedom of the Press Pro Bono Award, while the Mecklenburg Bar Association honored Johnston as its Outstanding Individual Attorney for 2025 for her pro bono work.
The Assembly and Border Belt Independent jointly published a May 19, 2026, story on the county's decision to withdraw its appeal.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/5/mcguirewoods-helps-newspapers-recover-fees-in-pro-bono-public-records-fight/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Lawdragon Distinguishes 12 Hausfeld Partners as Leading 'Global Litigators' for 2026
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lawdragon distinguishes 12 Hausfeld Partners as leading 'Global Litigators' for 2026
For the fifth consecutive year, Hausfeld lawyers have been recognized in Lawdragon's 500 Leading Global Litigators guide, with twelve lawyers across the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States named in the 2026 edition.
This prestigious recognition highlights leading practitioners in international arbitration and complex-cross border disputes recognising lawyers who navigate "diverse jurisdictions and legal frameworks
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lawdragon distinguishes 12 Hausfeld Partners as leading 'Global Litigators' for 2026
For the fifth consecutive year, Hausfeld lawyers have been recognized in Lawdragon's 500 Leading Global Litigators guide, with twelve lawyers across the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States named in the 2026 edition.
This prestigious recognition highlights leading practitioners in international arbitration and complex-cross border disputes recognising lawyers who navigate "diverse jurisdictions and legal frameworksfor matters concerning sovereigns, construction, energy and more."
Hausfeld lawyers' inclusion in the list reflects their skills and leadership in resolving disputes on a global scale, as well as dedication to the legal profession's role in supporting justice in all its forms.
This group of honourees was selected for the fifth edition of Global Litigators through a rigorous process that included nominations, expert vetting, peer reviews and journalistic investigation.
They are:
United States - Washington, DC
* Reena A. Gambhir - International Litigation & Arbitration, esp. Human Rights
* Michael D. Hausfeld - Global Litigation
* Amanda Lee-Dasgupta - International Litigation, esp. Human Rights
* Richard S. Lewis - International Litigation, esp. Environmental, Human Rights
* Brian A. Ratner - International Litigation & Arbitration, esp. Antitrust
United Kingdom - London
* Ned Beale - International Arbitration & Litigation
* Nicola Boyle - International Litigation & Disputes
* Scott Campbell - International Litigation, esp. Competition
* Anthony Maton - Global Disputes & Litigation
* Lucy Pert - Cross-Border Disputes, esp. Financial
The Netherlands - Amsterdam
* Rogier Meijer - Cross-Border Disputes, esp. Financial
Sweden - Stockholm
* Andrew Bullion - International Litigation, esp. Competition
To view the full list (https://www.lawdragon.com/guides/2026-05-22-the-2026-lawdragon-500-leading-global-litigators).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/news/lawdragon-distinguishes-12-hausfeld-partners-as-leading-global-litigators-for-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: California Governor Aims to Soften AI's Impact on Workers Through New Executive Order - What Employers Need to Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 27 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 26, 2026:
* * *
California Governor Aims to Soften AI's Impact on Workers Through New Executive Order: What Employers Need to Know
Governor Gavin Newsom just signed a sweeping executive order right before the holiday weekend directing California state agencies to study potential workforce disruptions caused by AI so they can protect displaced workers through new policy recommendations. The May 21 order tasks the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) with reviewing and making recommendations on
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 27 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 26, 2026:
* * *
California Governor Aims to Soften AI's Impact on Workers Through New Executive Order: What Employers Need to Know
Governor Gavin Newsom just signed a sweeping executive order right before the holiday weekend directing California state agencies to study potential workforce disruptions caused by AI so they can protect displaced workers through new policy recommendations. The May 21 order tasks the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) with reviewing and making recommendations ona range of worker protection policies, from WARN Act revisions to severance standards to collective bargaining practices involving AI. But does any of this affect you right now? The short answer is no for California employers, but the EO still warrants close attention given how it could change things in the future.
No New Obligations Today
Executive Order N-6-26 (which you can find here) does not create any immediate legal obligations for private employers. Instead, it sets in motion a series of government reviews and analysis tasks with various deadlines, all aimed at informing potential future legislation and regulation. The directive is squarely aimed at state agencies, not businesses, and the order itself explicitly states that it creates no enforceable rights or benefits under law.
The Governor is trying to lay the groundwork for what could eventually become significant new employer mandates. Whether those mandates ever materialize, and what form they take, will depend on the recommendations that emerge from these government reviews, and what state lawmakers do with them.
The WARN Act Review: Watch This Space
Perhaps the most consequential near-term item for employers is the order's directive that the LWDA review and provide recommendations on revisions and updates to the California WARN Act within 180 days, in a manner "responsive to, and effectively providing early warning data on, emerging industry trends."
What that ultimately means in practice is unclear and will depend entirely on what recommendations the LWDA puts forward. But the timing is notable. California already has pending legislation on this front: SB 951, which would create a WARN Act-style notice requirement specifically tied to AI-driven workforce displacement.
The executive order's 180-day review window (which runs through mid-November 2026, after Election Day) could actually work in employers' favor by supporting an argument that the Legislature should defer action on SB 951 until after the LWDA completes its analysis and issues recommendations. Rushing legislative mandates ahead of that government review and before the elections would undercut the very process the Governor just set in motion.
Severance, Equity, and Safety Net Policies
The order also directs the LWDA to review policies providing displaced workers with a safety net, including severance and other forms of compensation such as stock or equity awards, with any recommendations for incorporating such policies or strengthening existing programs. The review is to include a comparative analysis of policies in other countries.
Again, employers are not required to change severance structures or equity compensation practices as a result of this order. But if the LWDA recommends minimum severance requirements or equity-sharing standards tied to AI-driven layoffs, and the Legislature acts on those recommendations, the landscape could shift meaningfully.
Collective Bargaining and AI: The Federal Preemption Factor
One provision of the order that has generated initial attention is its directive to review how collective bargaining agreements are addressing AI in ways tailored to the specific needs of workers and employers. This includes how workers' voices are incorporated in adoption of emerging technologies, to "identify what can be learned from unionized workplaces."
Some observers have read this as a potential precursor to mandating that employers bargain with unions over AI adoption decisions. Employers should understand an important legal limitation here: California almost certainly cannot mandate that private-sector employers bargain over AI adoption. Private-sector labor relations are governed by federal law (the National Labor Relations Act) not state law. California's labor relations jurisdiction is limited to public employees (under PERB) and agricultural employees (under the ALRB). Any attempt to impose collective bargaining obligations on private employers around AI would face serious federal preemption challenges.
But the LWDA's review of union contracts could serve a different purpose: identifying the kinds of AI-related worker protections that unions have already negotiated (like advance notice of AI deployments, impact assessments, retraining commitments, severance floors, etc.) and then using those provisions as a template for legislation that would impose similar requirements on all employers, union and non-union alike. That approach would sidestep federal preemption entirely, since it would operate through state employment law rather than labor relations law. In other words, California may not be able to force employers to bargain over AI, but it could simply mandate the outcome that bargaining might otherwise produce. This will be worth paying attention to in the coming months.
The Bigger Picture
The executive order arrives amid a wave of high-profile tech layoffs in which employers have cited AI as a factor. The political pressure on Newsom to act on AI workforce issues has been building, including from labor groups that have tied their support for his anticipated presidential campaign to his record on AI worker protections.
The executive order reflects that pressure. But it also reflects a deliberate choice to study first and legislate later. Whether that sequencing holds, or whether the Legislature moves independently on bills like SB 951 in the meantime, remains to be seen.
What Employers Should Do Now
While no action is required today, California employers, particularly those in industries with significant AI adoption, should take note of the following:
* Monitor the LWDA's 180-day WARN Act review. Recommendations are due by mid-November 2026 and could lay the groundwork for significant new notice requirements tied to AI-related layoffs.
* Track SB 951. This pending legislation would create AI-specific WARN Act-style obligations. The executive order may slow its momentum, but may not stop it. The best way to stay up to speed is to subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight Systems.
* Watch for severance and equity policy recommendations. If the LWDA recommends minimum displacement compensation standards, legislative action could follow quickly in 2027.
* Document your AI adoption practices. As state and federal scrutiny of AI-driven workforce decisions increases, employers with clear, documented policies around AI use in employment decisions will be better positioned to defend those decisions.
Conclusion
Our attorneys will continue to monitor developments as the LWDA's reviews progress. Contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our AI, Data, and Analytics Practice Group or in our California offices with any questions. We'll continue to track the latest developments, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Benjamin M. Ebbink
Partner
916.210.0400
bebbink@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Usama Kahf, CIPP/US
Partner
949.798.2118
ukahf@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/california-governor-aims-to-soften-ais-impact-on-workers-through-new-executive-order
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Allegheny County May Become First in PA to Mandate Paid Parental Leave - What Employers Should Know + 5 Steps You Can Take Now
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 27 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on My 26, 2026:
* * *
Allegheny County May Become First in PA to Mandate Paid Parental Leave: What Employers Should Know + 5 Steps You Can Take Now
The Allegheny County Health Department's (ACHD's) Board of Health voted unanimously on May 13 to advance a sweeping proposed rule that would require every employer in Allegheny County, regardless of size, to provide up to 18 weeks of job-protected and paid parental leave, as well as expand existing paid sick leave requirements. If the rule ultimately is adopted
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 27 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on My 26, 2026:
* * *
Allegheny County May Become First in PA to Mandate Paid Parental Leave: What Employers Should Know + 5 Steps You Can Take Now
The Allegheny County Health Department's (ACHD's) Board of Health voted unanimously on May 13 to advance a sweeping proposed rule that would require every employer in Allegheny County, regardless of size, to provide up to 18 weeks of job-protected and paid parental leave, as well as expand existing paid sick leave requirements. If the rule ultimately is adoptedand becomes law, Allegheny County would become the first county in Pennsylvania to impose a paid parental leave mandate on private employers. We'll explain everything you need to know and offer five practical steps you should consider taking now.
What Did the Board of Health Actually Approve?
The Board approved, for opening to public comment, a proposed amendment that would expand the paid sick leave rules in Article XXIV of the ACHD Rules and Regulations and add in a new paid parental leave framework. This is the same regulatory vehicle the County used to enact its 2021 Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, and it reflects a deliberate choice to move through the Board of Health rather than through County Council legislation. Board of Health rules move faster, face fewer political checkpoints, and are administered directly by ACHD.
The proposal now enters a 30-day public comment period, after which the Board will determine whether to make any changes to the proposal and decide at its next meeting in July whether to finalize the rule and move it to County Council and County Executive Sara Innamorato, who has already publicly endorsed the measure.
What Are the Proposed Paid Parental Leave Requirements?
Under the proposal, every employer in Allegheny County would be subject to the paid parental leave mandate - there are no exceptions for small employers. Here's an overview of the key details:
* Employee Eligibility: 30 days of service with the employer.
* Leave Length: Up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave.
* Qualifying Events: Birth, adoption, or legal placement of a minor (including foster care).
* Use Window: Within the first 12 months following the qualifying event.
* Intermittent Use: Permitted, so long as the leave falls within the 12-month window.
* Two Parents at the Same Employer: May take leave concurrently or consecutively.
* Rate of Pay: Time is compensated at the same base rate of pay an employee would have earned at the time of their use of Paid Parental Leave.
* Notice to Employees: Upon initial hiring of an employee and annually thereafter, employers must provide written notice of the Parental Paid Leave requirements.
Two Board members also raised expanding coverage to miscarriage and fetal loss. That language is not in the current draft but is likely to surface during public comment.
What Are the Proposed Changes to Paid Sick Leave?
Since 2021, Allegheny County employers with 26 or more employees have been required to permit employees to accrue one hour of paid sick time per 35 hours worked within the county, up to 40 hours per year. Under the new proposed rule, employers of all sizes would have paid sick time obligations, and employees will accrue paid sick time at a faster rate:
* All employees, regardless of the size of the employer, would be entitled to accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked within the county.
* If an employer has 15 or more employees, paid sick time accruals for each employee would max out at 72 hours per year.
* If an employer has fewer than 15 employees, paid sick time accruals for each employee would max out at 48 hours per year.
Other Key Provisions
The proposed amendment makes additional overall changes, including:
* boosting anti-retaliation protections and specifically defining "retaliatory personnel action" as any threat, discipline, discharge, suspension, demotion, reduction of hours or other adverse action taken against an employee for exercising their rights related to paid sick leave or paid parental leave;
* obligating employers to provide designated paid and parental leave that accrues and is calculated separately from other paid leave offered by the employer - even if an employer has a paid leave policy that makes available paid sick leave sufficient to meet the rules requirements; and
* requiring an employer to provide written notice to employees prior to any authorized disclosure of health information about an employee or an employee's family member.
How Does This Interact with State and Federal Law?
The County's proposal lands on top of an already-shifting paid leave landscape. Pennsylvania currently does not have a statewide paid parental leave policy. However, the Pennsylvania House voted 107-92 in March to pass the Family Care Act (HB 200), which would require employers statewide to provide 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave at the employer's expense. A competing state Senate bill (SB 906), sponsored by Sen. Devlin Robinson (R-Allegheny), would provide up to 20 weeks, funded entirely through employee payroll deductions. Neither bill has been enacted, and the funding disagreement remains the principal obstacle to a statewide deal.
In the meantime, Allegheny County's 18-week proposal would potentially offer more generous paid parental leave than either pending state bill and would apply to employers of all sizes, unlike the federal FMLA, which requires only up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave and applies only to employers with 50 or more employees. Employers operating in Allegheny County should prepare for a layered compliance regime in which the County law, any future state law, and the FMLA may all apply to the same leave event.
What Should Employers Do Now?
1. Submit public comments before June 17. This is the most direct opportunity to shape the rule's applicability. Comments could address the wage replacement rate, geographic coverage, intermittent leave administration, and the interaction with existing employer-provided leave. Employers without a payroll presence inside Allegheny County but with employees who occasionally work in the County should also weigh in. In addition, the ACHD will hold a public hearing on June 2 - learn more here.
2. Identify which employees (including remote, hybrid, and traveling employees) perform work within the geographic boundaries of the County. The geographic trigger will likely drive coverage, just as it does under the existing County paid sick leave rule.
3. Audit your current parental leave policy. Evaluate whether your existing benefit meets or exceeds an 18-week, 12-month window standard and whether it covers all qualifying events proposed.
4. Consider the cost of compliance. This is particularly notable for small employers not currently subject to the County's paid sick leave rule, as the 18-week paid parental leave mandate with no minimum employee threshold, as well as the expansion of paid sick leave coverage, amounts to significant new financial obligations.
5. Watch the July Board meeting. The Board of Health is expected to reconvene in July to consider public comments and either revise or finalize the amendment. The Board meeting will be streamed on the Allegheny County Health Department's Facebook page.
Conclusion
Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have any questions, contact the authors of this Insight, your Fisher Phillips attorney, any attorney in our Pittsburgh office, or any member of our Employee Leaves and Accommodations Team.
* * *
Related People
Raeann Burgo
Partner
412.822.6630
rburgo@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Patrick W. Dennison
Partner
412.822.6627
pdennison@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/allegheny-county-may-become-first-in-pa-to-mandate-paid-parental-leave
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dechert's Russell Cohen and Jay Jurata Named "Litigators of the Week" by Law.com for Microsoft Defense in Landmark OpenAI Trial
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, May 27 -- Dechert, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dechert's Russell Cohen and Jay Jurata Named "Litigators of the Week" by Law.com for Microsoft Defense in Landmark OpenAI Trial
Dechert partners Russell Cohen and Jay Jurata have been recognized as Law.com's "Litigators of the Week" for their successful defense of Microsoft in the high-profile federal trial Elon Musk v. Samuel Altman, decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
After a three-week trial in Oakland, jurors found that Musk, who provided early funding to OpenAI,
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, May 27 -- Dechert, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dechert's Russell Cohen and Jay Jurata Named "Litigators of the Week" by Law.com for Microsoft Defense in Landmark OpenAI Trial
Dechert partners Russell Cohen and Jay Jurata have been recognized as Law.com's "Litigators of the Week" for their successful defense of Microsoft in the high-profile federal trial Elon Musk v. Samuel Altman, decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
After a three-week trial in Oakland, jurors found that Musk, who provided early funding to OpenAI,had waited too long to bring his claims for breach of a charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Microsoft faced a single claim of aiding and abetting a breach of a charitable trust, which the court rejected following the jury's verdict.
When asked how the matter came to the firm, Mr. Jurata replied, "We knew the business, the technology, the people and we worked well with others. Microsoft has seen us do that for 25 years and trusted us to do it here."
On what others can take from how the case was tried, Mr. Cohen emphasized the importance of discipline: "Have clear themes and stick to them. Ours were simple: Microsoft had no knowledge of any breach, it was a responsible partner and the claim was too late anyway."
"There's a temptation in a case this big, with this much press outside the courthouse every day, to try to win every moment," Mr. Cohen added. "We didn't do that. We were here to win the verdict, not the news cycle. And if you do the first thing right, the second one takes care of itself."
Mr. Cohen delivered Microsoft's opening and closing arguments and cross-examined Musk, while Mr. Jurata examined multiple high-profile witnesses. Dechert partner Nisha Patel handled third-party witnesses and critical evidentiary arguments. The team also included counsel Howard Ullman and associates Forrest Lovett, Elisa Beneze, Yosef Weitzman, Brian Kulp, Hannah Leone and Sophie Davish, with paralegal support from Edwin Grullon and Andrew Horner. Impact Trial Consulting provided key trial support.
* * *
About Dechert
Dechert is the law firm that helps business leaders lead.
For more than 150 years, we have advised clients on critical issues - from high-stakes litigation to first-in-market transaction structures and complex regulatory matters. Our lawyers in commercial centers worldwide are immersed in the key sectors we serve - financial services, private capital, real estate, life sciences and technology.
Dechert delivers unwavering partnership so our clients can achieve unprecedented results.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/news/2026/5/dechert-s-russell-cohen-and-jay-jurata-named--litigators-of-the-.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
