Featured Stories
Lisa Seifman to Speak at Bloomberg 's Global Credit Forum 2026 - London
NEW YORK, Nov. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Lisa Seifman to Speak at Bloomberg 's Global Credit Forum 2026 - London
*
Cahill partner Lisa Seifman, co-chair of the firm's Digital Infrastructure Finance practice group, will speak on the panel "Financing the AI revolution" at Bloomberg's Global Credit Forum 2026.
Lisa will join a panel of industry leaders, including Ben Richardson (CoreWeave), Eleanor Duncan (Bloomberg News), and Roald Nashi (Kirkland & Ellis LLP).
Hosted by Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Intelligence, and
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Nov. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Lisa Seifman to Speak at Bloomberg 's Global Credit Forum 2026 - London
*
Cahill partner Lisa Seifman, co-chair of the firm's Digital Infrastructure Finance practice group, will speak on the panel "Financing the AI revolution" at Bloomberg's Global Credit Forum 2026.
Lisa will join a panel of industry leaders, including Ben Richardson (CoreWeave), Eleanor Duncan (Bloomberg News), and Roald Nashi (Kirkland & Ellis LLP).
Hosted by Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Intelligence, andBloomberg Television, the Global Credit Forum brings together some of the most influential voices in the credit industry. Together the panelists will explore where debt markets go from here, at a time when a historic debt-fueled race to develop artificial intelligence is coinciding with a growing list of geopolitical headwinds.
To learn more about this, click here.
***
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/events/2026-11-18-lisa-seifman-to-speak-at-bloombergs-global-credit-forum-2026-london
Alfonso Garcia Chan and Patrick Lafferty to Speak on Patlytics' "In Practice: Finding Patent Licensing and Monetization Targets with AI" Webinar
NEW YORK, Nov. 17 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Alfonso Garcia Chan and Patrick Lafferty to Speak on Patlytics' "In Practice: Finding Patent Licensing and Monetization Targets with AI" Webinar
*
Cahill partners Alfonso Garcia Chan and Patrick Lafferty will speak on the "In Practice: Finding Patent Licensing and Monetization Targets with AI" webinar hosted by Patlytics.
Alfonso and Patrick, along with other industry participants, will explore how AI can be used to help IP teams identify counterparties and turn patent portfolios
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Nov. 17 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Alfonso Garcia Chan and Patrick Lafferty to Speak on Patlytics' "In Practice: Finding Patent Licensing and Monetization Targets with AI" Webinar
*
Cahill partners Alfonso Garcia Chan and Patrick Lafferty will speak on the "In Practice: Finding Patent Licensing and Monetization Targets with AI" webinar hosted by Patlytics.
Alfonso and Patrick, along with other industry participants, will explore how AI can be used to help IP teams identify counterparties and turn patent portfoliosinto high-value monetization opportunities. The webinar will discuss why companies often devote limited resources to monetizing their portfolios and the shortcomings of manual research. The panelists will explain how AI helps connect patents to the products and companies most likely to use them and prioritize targets based on their relevance and potential value. They will also address verifying AI-generated findings with citations before taking action, ensuring attorneys' judgment guides every decision, and identifying realistic ways for law firms and in-house teams to integrate AI into their existing workflows.
Learn more and register here.
***
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/events/2026-11-17-alfonso-garcia-chan-and-patrick-lafferty-to-speak-on-patlytics-in-practice-finding-patent-licensing-and-monetization-targets-with-ai-webinar
Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca Van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 13 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, posted the following news release:
* * *
Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix
11.12.2026
(Phoenix) -- The national law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP today announced that Rebecca van Doren has joined the firm's Phoenix office as senior counsel in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She has more than 20 years of experience helping clients successfully navigate complex business disputes.
Van Doren handles most types of business disputes,
... Show Full Article
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 13 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, posted the following news release:
* * *
Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix
11.12.2026
(Phoenix) -- The national law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP today announced that Rebecca van Doren has joined the firm's Phoenix office as senior counsel in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She has more than 20 years of experience helping clients successfully navigate complex business disputes.
Van Doren handles most types of business disputes,as well as appeals to both state and federal court. She handles a broad spectrum of matters, such as higher education law, including Title IX disputes and litigation; constitutional claims; employment law, including restrictive covenants and confidentiality agreements; contract disputes; and independent investigations prior to litigation.
She earned both her B.S. and J.D. from Arizona State University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/news/quarles-brings-on-seasoned-commercial-litigator-rebecca-van-doren-as-senior-counsel-in-phoenix
Littler: UK - Changes to Acas Early Conciliation From 26 November 2026
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
UK: Changes to Acas Early Conciliation from 26 November 2026
New regulations are coming into force on 26 November 2026 regarding the early conciliation process for employment tribunal claims.
By Emily Bodger
November 12, 2026
New regulations are coming into force on 26 November 2026 regarding the early conciliation process for employment tribunal claims. The new rules will require more information from prospective claimants and clarify how Acas handles early conciliation.
The early conciliation period
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
UK: Changes to Acas Early Conciliation from 26 November 2026
New regulations are coming into force on 26 November 2026 regarding the early conciliation process for employment tribunal claims.
By Emily Bodger
November 12, 2026
New regulations are coming into force on 26 November 2026 regarding the early conciliation process for employment tribunal claims. The new rules will require more information from prospective claimants and clarify how Acas handles early conciliation.
The early conciliation periodremains unchanged at 12 weeks from Acas receiving the form or telephone notification from the prospective claimant.
Continue reading here (https://littler.co.uk/insights/changes-to-acas-early-conciliation-from-26-november-2026/).
* * *
Authors
Emily Bodger
Knowledge Lawyer
London
ebodger@littler.co.uk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-changes-acas-early-conciliation-26-november-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: San Diego, California Revises Paid Sick and Safe Standards to Better Align With State Law, Strengthen Enforcement
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
San Diego, California Revises Paid Sick and Safe Standards to Better Align with State Law, Strengthen Enforcement
By Sebastian Chilco, Deidra Nguyen, and Adam Fiss
November 12, 2026
On October 30, 2026, the mayor of San Diego, California signed Ordinance 22151, which, effective November 29, 2026, revises San Diego's paid sick and safe time standards to better align with California's statewide law, the Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act (HWHFA), and strengthen local enforcement efforts. For employers
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
San Diego, California Revises Paid Sick and Safe Standards to Better Align with State Law, Strengthen Enforcement
By Sebastian Chilco, Deidra Nguyen, and Adam Fiss
November 12, 2026
On October 30, 2026, the mayor of San Diego, California signed Ordinance 22151, which, effective November 29, 2026, revises San Diego's paid sick and safe time standards to better align with California's statewide law, the Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act (HWHFA), and strengthen local enforcement efforts. For employerscovered by both San Diego's ordinance and California's HWHFA, the amendments should have minimal to no impact on their existing policies, practices, and procedures. They could, however, have more of an impact on employers not subject to state law whose systems are set up according only to San Diego's standards. Below we briefly highlight the changes.
* Employee Exceptions: The amendments remove an exception for employees with a disability that could (previously) be paid a subminimum wage under state law. Additionally, for already-excluded independent contractors, the amendments clarify that workers are presumed to be employees unless a business overcomes the presumption according to state law.
* Family Members: Though still not identical to the HWHFA, the amendments essentially mirror who qualifies as a "traditional" family member under the ordinance, and will expressly allow, like state law, employees to use leave for a designated person (employers can limit designations to one per 12-month period).
* Caps on Accrual, Carryover, and Use / Frontloading: Like state law, San Diego's revised ordinance will address permitted caps an employer can implement in terms of both "hours" and "days." Employers can implement an annual use cap of 40 hours or 5 days, whichever is greater; and they can adopt a temporary accrual cap that is the greater of 80 hours or 10 days (which, if adopted by an employer, would also be the annual carryover cap). As under state law, employers can avoid carryover requirements if they annually grant 40 hours or 5 days of leave, whichever is greater.
* Covered Uses: The amendments revise the reasons an employee can use leave for sick, safe, and other purposes. Most sick time reasons will now mirror state law (diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition, preventive care), though San Diego will continue to also allow leave use for a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition. The amendments replace existing safe time with, essentially, the same reasons employees can use HWHFA leave for safe time purposes (see here & here). Additionally, like state law, serving on an inquest or jury will qualify as one other reason employees can use leave under San Diego's ordinance (in addition to ordinance-specific coverage for closure of business, school, or place of care due to a public health emergency).
* Documentation: San Diego's ordinance will now include "to the extent permitted by California law" when discussing employers' ability to request documentation to support an employee's use of leave on four or more consecutive workdays.
* Rate of Pay: Although San Diego's ordinance does not apply to all types of "exempt" employees - e.g., properly classified executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales employees are excluded - it does dictate how employers must pay other types of "exempt" employees to whom the ordinance does apply. The revised standard will mirror the HWHFA, requiring that they be paid for paid sick and safe time use in the same manner as the employer pays employees when they use other types of paid leave.
* Reinstatement: The ordinance currently requires that, if employment ends but an employee is rehired within 6 months, unused paid sick and safe time they had when employment ended must be reinstated. The amendments extend the reinstatement timeframe to align with state law: 1 year.
* Enforcement: Amendments expressly permit San Diego's Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement to refer violations to the City Attorney to file a lawsuit against an allegedly noncompliant employer.
* * *
Authors
Sebastian Chilco
Knowledge Management Counsel
San Francisco
schilco@littler.com
* * *
Deidra A. Nguyen
Shareholder
San Diego
danguyen@littler.com
* * *
Adam Joshua Fiss
Shareholder
San Jose
afiss@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/san-diego-california-revises-paid-sick-and-safe-standards-better-align-state-law
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements
By Tom Carroll and Nicholas Hankins
November 12, 2026
At a Glance
* The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the penalty and fee provisions in Colorado's noncompete statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113, can apply to attempts to enforce a covenant not to compete entered into before the law's August 10, 2022, effective date, if the covenant was void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed.
* The Colorado Court
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements
By Tom Carroll and Nicholas Hankins
November 12, 2026
At a Glance
* The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the penalty and fee provisions in Colorado's noncompete statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113, can apply to attempts to enforce a covenant not to compete entered into before the law's August 10, 2022, effective date, if the covenant was void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed.
* The Colorado Courtof Appeals ruled that for a covenant not to compete to have been entered into for "the protection of trade secrets," at the merits stage of a case, an employer must prove it actually had bona fide trade secrets the covenant was protecting.
-
On November 5, 2026, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a significant decision interpreting Colorado's noncompete statute in Huset v. EIS Ultimate Holding, LP, 2026 COA 81 (Nov. 5, 2026). Huset is a published decision addressing, among other things, whether the remedy provisions in Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8) apply to covenants not to compete entered into before those enforcement provisions went into effect on August 10, 2022.
After the Huset ruling, employers that attempt to enforce covenants that are void under Colorado law could be liable for a $5,000 penalty, costs, attorneys' fees, and actual damages--regardless of when the covenant was entered into or renewed. What's more, the court of appeals concluded that an employer's promise not to enforce a void covenant was insufficient to moot an employee's claim for relief under Sec. 8-2-113. And the court of appeals rejected the former employer's argument that it had acted in good faith in attempting to enforce the void covenant not to compete.
The court also provided some important clarification on what it means for an agreement to be for the "protection of trade secrets." Specifically, the court of appeals held that at the merits stage of the case, an employer is required to prove it actually had bona fide trade secrets to protect in the first place.
Background on Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113
Colorado has long had a statute regulating covenants not to compete (e.g., noncompete provisions and customer nonsolicit provisions): Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113. Effective August 10, 2022, Colorado substantially amended the statute to void covenants not to compete unless the employee (1) earns certain threshold amounts (which vary based on the type of covenant not to compete); (2) the covenant is "for the protection of trade secrets"; and (3) the employer complies with the statute's particular notice requirements. In addition, the August 2022 amendments also introduced Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8), which prohibits employers from attempting to enforce any covenant not to compete that is void. Employers that do so are liable to employees for a penalty of $5,000, actual damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Case Background
The plaintiff worked for Earth Services & Abatement, LLC ("ESA"), which provides abatement, demolition, and soil and water remediation services. In March 2022, he signed an incentive unit agreement (the "Agreement") with ESA's parent company. The Agreement contained a confidentiality provision and a two-year, nationwide noncompete purportedly tied to the protection of trade secrets.
The plaintiff resigned in May 2023 to work for a trucking brokerage he co-founded. Shortly after he resigned, ESA sent the plaintiff three demand letters advising him it intended to enforce the restrictive covenants in his Agreement. Two days after receiving the demand letters, the plaintiff and his new company sued in Colorado state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the covenants in his Agreement were void. The ESA entities, for their part, responded by filing their own lawsuit in federal court and contemporaneously initiated an arbitration, asserting claims, among others, for breaches of the restrictive covenants in the Agreement.
The Colorado state case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court found that the plaintiff's new trucking-brokerage business did not compete with ESA and that ESA failed to prove it owned any trade secrets. The trial court further declared the covenants void, awarded the plaintiff and his new company attorneys' fees and costs, and assessed a $5,000 penalty against the employer. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
Key Holdings
Section 8-2-113(8)'s Remedies Apply to Covenants Signed Before the 2022 Amendments. Huset's central holding regards the scope of the remedy provisions in Sec. 8-2-113(8). That section prohibits an employer from entering into, presenting, or attempting to enforce "any covenant that is void under this section." The enacting legislation, H.B. 22-1317, states that the 2022 amendments apply only to covenants "entered into or renewed on or after" August 10, 2022. The court of appeals held, however, that Sec. 8-2-113(8) applies to enforcement of covenants not to compete that were void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed. Importantly, the court of appeals only considered whether the covenants in the plaintiff's Agreement were void under the pre-amendment version of the statute. What this means is that courts are not likely to assess whether a pre-amendment agreement is void under the current statute. Rather, we would expect that courts will continue to assess whether a covenant not to compete is void based on the version of Colorado's noncompete statute that was in effect when the agreement was signed. Also important is the court's strong suggestion that Sec. 8-2-113(8)'s prohibitions on "entering into" or "presenting" a void covenant not to compete do not apply to pre-amendment agreements.
In a related, but uncontested, point, the court of appeals said that Sec. 8-2-113's choice-of-law provision is not limited by H.B. 22-1317's effective date and applies to all covenants not to compete--regardless of when they were entered into--if the employee resides in Colorado at the time of termination of employment.
The Plaintiff's Claims Were Not Mooted by Either the Expiration of the Covenants or the ESA Entities' Disavowal of Enforcement. On appeal, the ESA entities argued that the plaintiff's claims were moot because they had advised the trial court they no longer intended to enforce the plaintiff's Agreement. The court of appeals rejected this argument because ESA, in disavowing enforcement, never agreed to pay the plaintiff anything in connection with its attempts to enforce the agreement. Because the plaintiff was seeking fees, costs, and penalties under Sec. 8-2-113, the court of appeals reasoned, there were still remedies the trial court could offer the plaintiff. Further, the court concluded that the ESA entities' assurances they would not enforce the agreement now provided the plaintiff little comfort they would not attempt to enforce the agreement later. The ESA entities also argued that the plaintiff's action before the Colorado state court was moot because the covenants in dispute expired before the trial court entered its findings of act and conclusions of law after the two-day bench trial. In rejecting this argument, the court applied a similar logic: the plaintiff's claims were not mooted by expiration of his covenants because he still had economic claims.
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rejected the ESA Entities' Good-Faith Argument. ESA and its parent entities argued that it acted in good faith on the basis that they did not attempt to enforce the agreement. Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8)(c) currently provides that if an "employer shows that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that [its] act or omission was not a violation," courts may, in their discretion, decline to award aggrieved workers the $5,000 statutory penalty. In Huset, the court of appeals agreed with the district court in reasoning that the ESA entities did not act in good faith because they knew they did not have protectable trade secrets (as evidenced by testimony from ESA and ESA's failure to challenge the district court's finding that ESA did not have protectable trade secrets on appeal), but continued to vigorously defend against the plaintiff's action in Colorado state court and continued to proceed with litigation against the plaintiff and his new company in arbitration and in federal court.
For a Covenant Not to Compete to Be "For the Protection of Trade Secrets," the Employer Must Actually Have Trade Secrets. The trial court concluded that the covenants not to compete in the plaintiff's agreement were void because ESA failed to establish at trial that it actually had trade secrets in the first place. The court of appeals noted that there was a difference in what an employer needs to prove at various stages of the case. At the injunctive-relief stage (i.e., temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction), courts focus on whether a covenant not to compete is a contract for the protection of trade secrets, but not that any particular trade secret is at risk of disclosure. The court of appeals clarified that this standard changes at the merits stage. There, the "court decides--by a preponderance of the evidence--whether the trade secrets exception applies, including whether any bona fide trade secrets actually exist." While the context of the court of appeals' holding was under the pre-amendment statutory framework, its holding likely applies to covenants entered into after August 10, 2022 as well. What this means is that employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete should be prepared to identify specific trade secrets that the covenant is designed to protect.
What Huset Means for Employers
Huset's holding overall increases the risks of attempting to enforce older restrictive covenants against individuals who reside in or work in Colorado. A covenant signed before August 10, 2022, is not shielded from Sec. 8-2-113(8)'s penalties and attorneys'-fee provision if it was void under the prior statute and the employer tries to enforce it now. Employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete against Colorado employees should confirm they can prove specific, bona fide trade secrets before sending demand letters or filing suit.
* * *
Authors
Thomas W. Carroll
Shareholder
Denver
tcarroll@littler.com
* * *
Nicholas Hankins
Associate
Denver
nhankins@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/colorado-extends-noncompete-penalties-older-agreements
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Celebrates 16 Attorney Recognitions in 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico and Ones to Watch in Mexico
ATLANTA, Georgia, Nov. 13 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Fisher Phillips Celebrates 16 Attorney Recognitions in 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM) and Ones to Watch(TM) in Mexico
News
Nov 12, 2026
Fisher Phillips is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys in its Mexico City office have been recognized in the 18th edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM) and Ones to Watch(TM) in Mexico. The list sees 13 attorneys added from last year's count--a testament to the growth of Fisher Phillips Mexico over the last year.
In total, 15 Fisher Phillips attorneys
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Nov. 13 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Fisher Phillips Celebrates 16 Attorney Recognitions in 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM) and Ones to Watch(TM) in Mexico
News
Nov 12, 2026
Fisher Phillips is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys in its Mexico City office have been recognized in the 18th edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM) and Ones to Watch(TM) in Mexico. The list sees 13 attorneys added from last year's count--a testament to the growth of Fisher Phillips Mexico over the last year.
In total, 15 Fisher Phillips attorneyswere recognized in The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM) and one was named to Ones to Watch(TM) across Labor and Employment Law, Energy Law, and Project Finance and Development practices.
This year's recognition reflects the continued growth and depth of Fisher Phillips' Mexico platform. Since opening its Mexico offices in 2023, the firm has expanded its labor and employment capabilities across the country; most recently, Partner Jaime Rodriguez Eguiarte and a nine-attorney team joined the firm in Mexico City. Fisher Phillips now has 37 attorneys in Mexico and is among the largest labor and employment firms in the country by headcount.
"We are proud to see so many of our colleagues recognized in this year's Best Lawyers rankings," said German de la Garza De Vecchi, Regional Managing Partner of Fisher Phillips in Mexico. "The growth of our team has strengthened the practical, sophisticated counsel we provide to employers navigating an increasingly complex workplace environment in Mexico. These recognitions reflect the caliber of our people and the trust our clients place in us."
The Fisher Phillips attorneys recognized in The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM) are:
* German de la Garza De Vecchi -- Labor and Employment Law
* Victor Avila -- Labor and Employment Law
* Gustavo Castro -- Labor and Employment Law
* Mauricio Foeth -- Labor and Employment Law
* Hector Cuevas Gonzalez -- Energy Law; Project Finance and Development Practice
* Jose Carlos Granados -- Labor and Employment Law
* Sandra Gutierrez -- Labor and Employment Law
* Felipe Lopez -- Labor and Employment Law
* Sofia Martinez -- Labor and Employment Law
* Erik Mellado -- Labor and Employment Law
* Christian Morales -- Labor and Employment Law
* Julio Paredes -- Labor and Employment Law
* Guadalupe Portillo -- Labor and Employment Law
* Jaime Rodriguez Eguiarte -- Labor and Employment Law
* Lazaro Ruiz -- Labor and Employment Law
* Diana Vazquez (Ones to Watch(TM)) -- Labor and Employment Law
Click here (https://www.bestlawyers.com/mexico) to access The Best Lawyers in Mexico(TM).
* * *
About Fisher Phillips
With over 900 attorneys across the globe, Fisher Phillips advises and advocates for employers internationally on some of the most complex and high-profile workplace matters. We leverage our employment experience, technology, and thought leadership to help clients prepare for what's next.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/news/fisher-phillips-celebrates-16-attorney-recognitions-in-2027-edition-of-the-best-lawyers-in-mexicotm-and-ones-to-watchtm-in-mexico
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
