Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Ropes & Gray Highly Regarded in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2026
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Highly Regarded in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2026
*
Ropes & Gray was recognized as a leading firm in the 2026 edition of Chambers Asia-Pacific, earning ten practice rankings, including two Band 1 rankings.
Ropes & Gray's practices were recognized in the following categories:
* Asia-Pacific Region: Banking & Finance
* Asia-Pacific Region: Corporate/M&A
* Asia-Pacific Region: Corporate/M&A: Private Equity
* Asia-Pacific Region: Intellectual Property
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Highly Regarded in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2026
*
Ropes & Gray was recognized as a leading firm in the 2026 edition of Chambers Asia-Pacific, earning ten practice rankings, including two Band 1 rankings.
Ropes & Gray's practices were recognized in the following categories:
* Asia-Pacific Region: Banking & Finance
* Asia-Pacific Region: Corporate/M&A
* Asia-Pacific Region: Corporate/M&A: Private Equity
* Asia-Pacific Region: Intellectual Property
* Asia-Pacific Region: Investment Funds: Private Equity
* Asia-Pacific Region: Life Sciences
* Japan: Banking & Finance: International
* Japan: Corporate/M&A: International
* South Korea: Corporate/M&A: International Firms
* South Korea: Intellectual Property: International Firms
In addition to the firm's practice rankings, Ropes & Gray's lawyers received four individual rankings across a variety of practices and jurisdictions in the region.
See Ropes & Gray's full Chambers Asia-Pacific 2026 rankings.
***
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/rankings-and-awards/2025/12/ropes-gray-highly-regarded-in-chambers-asia-pacific-2026
Pillsbury 2026 New Partner Class Reflects Emphasis on Serving Evolving Client Needs
NEW YORK, Dec. 11 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pillsbury 2026 New Partner Class Reflects Emphasis on Serving Evolving Client Needs
Pillsbury announced that ten attorneys will be elevated to the firm's partnership ranks effective January 1, 2026. This accomplished group represents a broad spectrum of practice areas, underscoring the depth and range of the firm's legal capabilities. Collectively, the new partners bring extensive experience, refined judgment and a forward-looking approach to their work.
"This exceptional cohort has distinguished itself as
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Dec. 11 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pillsbury 2026 New Partner Class Reflects Emphasis on Serving Evolving Client Needs
Pillsbury announced that ten attorneys will be elevated to the firm's partnership ranks effective January 1, 2026. This accomplished group represents a broad spectrum of practice areas, underscoring the depth and range of the firm's legal capabilities. Collectively, the new partners bring extensive experience, refined judgment and a forward-looking approach to their work.
"This exceptional cohort has distinguished itself asoutstanding lawyers and firm citizens, building and expanding client relationships, raising Pillsbury's profile, and mentoring the next generation of talent," said Firm Chair David Dekker. "Their elevation to partner reflects both their individual achievements and the firm's strength across key practice areas, positioning them to guide clients through increasingly complex and evolving challenges with strategic, world-class counsel. Congratulations to each member of the 2026 class on this well-deserved milestone."
The members of Pillsbury's 2026 partner class include:
Brian Beckerman (Litigation | New York) maintains a broad-based employment and general commercial litigation practice, representing clients across a range of high-stakes disputes in both state and federal courts nationwide. Beckerman has a particular focus on trade secrets counseling and litigation, restrictive covenants and contract disputes in the aerospace, technology and financial services sectors. He manages every stage of litigation--from pre-suit investigation through discovery, motion practice and trial--and has extensive experience securing and defending against temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in emergency proceedings.
Sid Fowler (Energy | Washington, DC) is part of Pillsbury's market-leading Nuclear and Fusion Energy practice, advising traditional and advanced nuclear and fusion developers and investors on regulatory issues, project development, U.S. market entry, emerging energy policy and investments into energy companies and projects. He has played a central role in the development of a U.S. fusion regulatory framework. Fowler also represents clients on whistleblower defense and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) investigations, and counsels on a range of environmental regulatory issues.
Kayvan Ghaffari (Corporate & Securities | San Francisco) supports a broad range of work for Pillsbury clients that are pioneering emerging technologies. As a former general counsel for two venture-backed startups, Ghaffari serves as outside general counsel to a portfolio of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and blockchain companies, advising on day-to-day legal and strategic issues. He counsels clients on issues involving intellectual property, technology transactions, product counseling, data privacy and high-stakes IP and digital crimes litigation matters.
Sam Lipson (Corporate & Securities | Washington, DC) represents high-growth technology and life sciences companies across all stages, providing venture-backed and venture-ready startups with strategic counseling on general corporate matters, equity and debt financings, and guiding them through mergers, acquisitions, and other significant transactions.
Lewis McCorkle (Corporate & Securities | Washington, DC) provides sophisticated advice to clients in M&A, private equity, growth equity, venture capital and other strategic transactions. He also advises founders, investors and startups on the complex legal issues that arise through all stages of their life cycle, including at formation.
Lisseth Ochoa-Chavarria (Litigation | Los Angeles) is a litigator focused on high-stakes insurance recovery disputes, white-collar defense and civil commercial litigation matters. She is experienced in all stages of large-scale, multi-party complex litigation and has secured favorable outcomes in significant government investigations. In addition to her litigation practice, Ochoa-Chavarria regularly advises clients on regulatory compliance and risk management.
Justin Rubin (Government Law & Strategies | Washington, DC) advises national security and dual-use technology companies in working with the U.S. Congress, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, and helps build external legal teams to support client growth. He represents a range of clients, from major global defense contractors to early-stage startups, with respect to U.S. government engagement, regulatory compliance and market entry strategy. Much of Justin's work is with startups and U.S. subsidiaries of international companies seeking to expand in the U.S., including work with several leading Israeli companies and institutions.
Jeff Sheriff (Intellectual Property | San Diego) manages a patent prosecution docket of more than one hundred active patent and trademark matters. He advises clients on freedom-to-operate analyses, clearance opinions and other IP issues.
Ryan Steinbrunner (Litigation | Houston) is a trial lawyer whose practice focuses on commercial litigation in the Energy and Real Estate & Construction sectors. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in complex, high-stakes matters involving breach of contract, professional negligence and tortious interference, as well as in shareholder disputes.
Max Winograd (Litigation | New York) represents clients in large-scale commercial litigation matters, with a focus on cross-border disputes and international arbitration for Technology, Financial, Aviation and Education sector clients. He also has extensive experience in contract, civil rights, mass tort, securities and antitrust-related litigation, including class and quasi-class actions, and has counseled clients on matters involving billions of dollars at stake.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/pillsbury-2026-new-partner-class-reflects-emphasis-serving-evolving-client-needs.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Morgan Lewis Partner Rob Schwartz Testifies Before Full US House Committee on Agriculture for CFTC Reauthorization
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Morgan Lewis, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Morgan Lewis Partner Rob Schwartz Testifies Before Full US House Committee on Agriculture for CFTC Reauthorization
*
NEW YORK, December 11, 2025: Morgan Lewis partner and former general counsel at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Rob Schwartz, appeared before the full US House Committee on Agriculture to provide testimony in support of CFTC reauthorization, including recommendations to update the agency's authorities and spending levels.
Rob noted,
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Morgan Lewis, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Morgan Lewis Partner Rob Schwartz Testifies Before Full US House Committee on Agriculture for CFTC Reauthorization
*
NEW YORK, December 11, 2025: Morgan Lewis partner and former general counsel at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Rob Schwartz, appeared before the full US House Committee on Agriculture to provide testimony in support of CFTC reauthorization, including recommendations to update the agency's authorities and spending levels.
Rob noted,"The CFTC is at an inflection point, and we are following things very closely on behalf of a number of clients. We are seeing products in the digital asset space and prediction markets that break new ground and challenge long-standing assumptions about our markets. Reauthorization gives Congress the chance to inspect the statutory machinery and make sure the Commission is equipped to address technologies and products that even a short time ago would have been hard to imagine."
To read Rob's full written testimony, click here.
To watch the hearing, click here.
Rob spent more than a decade at the CFTC, where he served as the agency's chief litigator in his role as deputy general counsel for litigation, enforcement, and adjudication before becoming general counsel. At Morgan Lewis, he is part of the firm's 170-member global Investment Management Practice and participates in various industry groups, including one on digital assets.
***
Original text here: https://www.morganlewis.com/news/2025/12/morgan-lewis-partner-rob-schwartz-testifies-before-full-us-house-committee-on-agriculture-for-cftc-reauthorization
Littler Lightbulb - November 2025 Employment Appellate Roundup
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lightbulb - November 2025 Employment Appellate Roundup
At a Glance
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month.
Eighth Circuit Vacates NLRB Ruling and Allows Company Prohibition of BLM Logo on Company Uniform
By Amelia McDermott
Home Depot v. NLRB, ___ F.4th ___ (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025), involved an appeal of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that found Home Depot violated
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lightbulb - November 2025 Employment Appellate Roundup
At a Glance
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month.
Eighth Circuit Vacates NLRB Ruling and Allows Company Prohibition of BLM Logo on Company Uniform
By Amelia McDermott
Home Depot v. NLRB, ___ F.4th ___ (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025), involved an appeal of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that found Home Depot violatedthe National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it terminated an employee that refused to remove Black Lives Matter (BLM) lettering from his company apron. Home Depot appealed, asserting that company policy prohibited the promotion of causes or political messages on its aprons, and that the BLM logo created a safety hazard after several months of protests, counter-protests, and civil unrest following George Floyd's murder, less than seven miles from the workplace. These special circumstances, the employer argued, justified the requirement that the employee remove the logo from his apron.
The Eighth Circuit agreed. In response to the NLRB's assertion that the employer allowed apron lettering for "causes or political messages" such as LGBTQ-pride, the Eight Circuit stated that "it is for the employer, not the Board, to determine whether personalization will be allowed because it is apolitical, appropriately demonstrates the company's values, or is related to the workplace." Moreover, citing prior NLRB decisions, the court noted that the Board "has long recognized that where legitimate employer rights and interests warrant, the fact that a work rule encompasses Section 7 activity within the scope of its prohibition does not make the rule unlawful to maintain." In this fact-specific case, the Eighth Circuit vacated the NLRB ruling, concluding that assuming the employee engaged in Section 7 activity without deciding the issue, the employer demonstrated sufficient special circumstances to outweigh its employee's Section 7 interests and its actions prohibiting the BLM insignia on the apron were lawful under the circumstances.
* * *
Tenth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Gender Discrimination Case
The plaintiff in Russell v. Driscoll, ___ F.4th ___ (10th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025), who was acting chief of his division at an Army community hospital, brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim against his employer alleging his female supervisor created a hostile work environment, treating men and women differently. The plaintiff claimed his supervisor held a gender-segregated meeting, assigned men and women different books to read, commented on the relative lack of women in supervisory positions, and allowed women to meet with her without an appointment but usually required men to make an appointment. More specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the division chief publicly criticized some of his decisions while he was acting chief, required him to change his e-mail signature from "Chief of Logistics Readiness" to "Readiness Manager," and removed him from a leadership e-mail distribution list, among other things.
The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the grounds that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the legal standard for a hostile work environment. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit the plaintiff argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), no longer required that Title VII hostile workplace conditions be "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment." The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that Muldrow applied only to discrete discriminatory employment acts, not to hostile work environment claims. Citing prior Supreme Court precedent, the court stated that discrete discriminatory acts differed from hostile environment claims, which involve "a series of smaller actions - including ones that would not violate Title VII if analyzed discretely - [that] add up to create an environment that is itself a deprivation of the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Thus, the Tenth Circuit held inquiry into the severity or pervasiveness of the conduct is integral to determining whether the conduct at issue created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.
* * *
Sixth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Disability-Related Hostile Environment and ADA Accommodation Case
The employer is a nonprofit organization that provides educational and family services to at-risk youth. After a pipe burst at the workplace, the plaintiff in Kellar v. Yunion, Inc., ___ F.4th ___ (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025) sought an accommodation to work remotely, submitting a doctor's note stating that she had evidence of allergic rhinitis, vocal cord dysfunction, and possible allergic asthma, that mold is one of her triggers, and she should not have mold exposure as it may worsen her symptoms. While the employee acknowledged that she would be unable to perform her onsite case file management duties, the employer granted the employee a temporary accommodation to work remotely part time. However, after about three weeks due to on-site case file management requirements, the employer--explaining the building was safe--required she return to full-time, in-person work.
The plaintiff filed suit claiming disability-related hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims and the plaintiff appealed to the Sixth Circuit. As to the plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim, the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff could not manage case files, which was an essential job function, while working at home for an extended time. The court also found that the plaintiff's claims that her employer denied her mileage reimbursement request, failed to timely provide paystubs, reduced her hours and rate of pay, revoked her benefits and paid holidays, and sent her a text insinuating she would be fired were insufficient to establish a disability-related hostile work environment. To establish a hostile work environment claim, the Sixth Circuit stated, the plaintiff must provide evidence that the work environment was "objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive," which the plaintiff failed to do. Similarly, the court found the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that challenged the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for any of the employer's actions, including termination from employment. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
* * *
Sixth Circuit Reverses Jury and Holds Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Does Not Cover Retaliation
In a Sixth Circuit case of first impression, Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections, ___ F.4th ___ (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), the court considered whether Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act covers private causes of action for retaliation. The case involved a state corrections officer who sued his employer under Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a hip injury and retaliation for challenging the denial of his accommodation request. The district court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim, but the retaliation claim proceeded to trial. Following trial, in which the jury found in favor of the employer, the plaintiff appealed.
As to the retaliation claim, the Sixth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has never held that the Rehabilitation Act creates a private right of action for retaliation, and that the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts "passively accepted the existence of a retaliation cause of action" under the Rehabilitation Act, without analysis. Stating that "[t]he time has come for us to address this long accepted, but never actually proven, assumption," the Sixth Circuit began by pointing out that unlike the ADA, Title VII, and the ADEA, the Rehabilitation Act does not contain an express anti-retaliation provision. In addition, the court concluded, although the Rehabilitation Act applies "standards" from the ADA in assessing liability, "standards" "guide how claims are adjudicated, not whether a cause of action exists in the first place." Finally, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that 29 C.F.R. Sec. 33.13, implementing Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, created a cause of action for retaliation, holding that "an agency regulation cannot create a private right of action where the statute itself does not." Ultimately, on first impression the Sixth Circuit held that Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a private right of action for retaliation.
As to the plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, finding that the plaintiff's requested accommodation, permanent reassignment to another funded position, was not reasonable as there were no such positions available.
* * *
Second Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for the Employer in FMLA Suit
The plaintiff in Haran v. Orange Business Services Inc., ___ F.4th ___ (2nd Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), claimed her employer violated the FMLA and retaliated against her when it terminated her employment based on performance issues, after she took paid time off to care for ill family members. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit.
The plaintiff argued that, although her employer granted her requested leave, it discouraged her from taking additional leave by unduly scrutinizing and criticizing her job performance after she requested leave. Citing prior Second Circuit decisions, the court stated, "[c]riticizing, even berating an employee's substantive job performance is not enough to assert a claim for [FMLA] interference." The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that her employer interfered with her rights by failing to comply with the FMLA's notice requirements. The court found the employee took the time off she requested without interference, and therefore any failure to provide notice of her FMLA rights could not serve as a basis for an FMLA interference claim.
As to the plaintiff's retaliation claims, the Second Circuit rejected the plaintiff's claims that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. In fact, the court found the employer raised concerns about the plaintiff's performance even before she took leave, terminated her after several of the largest accounts she managed decided to stop using employer's services, and its reasons for her termination were unrelated to her leave.
* * *
Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for University in Free Speech and First Amendment Retaliation Claim
In Lowery v. Mills, ___ F.4th ___ (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025), the Fifth Circuit assessed the standard to be applied in free speech and retaliation claims under the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a university professor who posted criticism of the university's allegedly "left-wing" and other policies, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging that university officials chilled his free speech and retaliated against him by threatening his job security, compensation, and affiliation with a university research center, and requesting that his speech be placed under police surveillance. As a result, he claimed he was forced to self-censor his speech. The district court dismissed the professor's claims and granted summary judgment for the university, finding that the plaintiff had not suffered an adverse employment action and therefore he had not properly alleged a First Amendment violation on either claim.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed. After finding the same standards govern both free speech and retaliation claims, the appellate court applied prior Fifth Circuit precedent stating that "[a]dverse employment actions are discharges, demotions, refusals to hire, refusals to promote, and reprimands," and, in the education context, "decisions concerning teaching assignments, pay increases, administrative matters, and departmental procedures . . . do not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation." The court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) did not require the plaintiff allege an adverse employment action by the university. Among other things, the Fifth Circuit held Burlington applied only to claims under Title VII, not First Amendment claims like those in this case. Moreover, the court stated a more recent Supreme Court decision held that "a plaintiff pursuing a First Amendment retaliation claim must show, among other things, that the government took an 'adverse action' in response to his speech that 'would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive.'" Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468, 477 (2022).
* * *
Ninth Circuit Addresses Class Action Wage Claims and Establishes Standard for Recovery of Penalty Wages
Gessele et al. v. Jack in the Box Inc., ___ F.4th ___ (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025) involved class action claims that the employer over-deducted its employees' wages for the state Workers' Benefit Fund (WBF), did not pay employees for interrupted meal periods, and deducted employees' pay for required non-slip shoes. At trial, the jury found the employer over-deducted wages for the WBF and awarded employees $5,307,589.60 in penalty wages. Following post-trial motions, the district court entered judgment as a matter of law for the employer on the unpaid meal break claims and granted summary judgment for the employer on the shoe deduction claims.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's judgment. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the WBF and shoe claims and remanded, and affirmed the district court's judgment on the unpaid break claims. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit found the district court erred in finding, at summary judgment, that over-deductions were willful such that the employer owed penalty wages, and remanded for a trial on willfulness. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that plaintiffs must prove willfulness to recover penalty wages for over-deductions, finding that the plaintiffs in this case failed to do so. While, among other things, the court found it was not unreasonable for the employer to rely on its payroll software system to calculate the WBF deductions, it nevertheless remanded the case so a jury could decide the willfulness issue. On remand, the court stated, the district court must consider the penalty awarded in light of the actual damages incurred, which the district court did not do in this case where the penalty was nearly 400 times greater than the injury.
As to the meal break pay class claim, the court held that "before June 1, 2010, Oregon law did not require employers to pay employees for a 30-minute meal period when employees were called back to work before 30 minutes," and none of the named plaintiffs were employed prior to that time.
Finally, as to the plaintiffs' shoe-deduction claim, the Ninth Circuit stated that under Oregon law the employer "could only deduct the cost of an employee's shoes from their wages if '[t]he deductions [we]re . . . for the employee's benefit[.]'" Noting that the employer got a $2 per shoe kickback from the required shoe supplier, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiffs did not benefit from the shoes, which were worth less than they paid. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded this claim for a jury to decide whether the shoe requirement was for the employees' benefit.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/littler-lightbulb-november-2025-employment-appellate-roundup
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Greenberg Traurig Selected to Bloomberg Law's 2025 'Pro Bono Innovators' List
MIAMI, Florida, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Selected to Bloomberg Law's 2025 'Pro Bono Innovators' List
*
Global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP was selected as one of Bloomberg Law's 2025 Pro Bono Innovators, which include law firms and other organizations "that are successfully innovating in their approaches to pro bono service."
"Our Global Pro Bono Program continues to demonstrate its impact through our extensive network of attorneys who maintain strong ties to their local communities and
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Selected to Bloomberg Law's 2025 'Pro Bono Innovators' List
*
Global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP was selected as one of Bloomberg Law's 2025 Pro Bono Innovators, which include law firms and other organizations "that are successfully innovating in their approaches to pro bono service."
"Our Global Pro Bono Program continues to demonstrate its impact through our extensive network of attorneys who maintain strong ties to their local communities andpossess the expertise to drive meaningful change," said Caroline J. Heller, chair of Greenberg Traurig's Global Pro Bono Program. "The matters recognized by Bloomberg exemplify a commitment to creating strength through strategic collaboration and innovation, a spirit that can be found across nearly all the pro bono initiatives taking place throughout our firm."
This is Greenberg Traurig's second selection by Bloomberg Law as a Pro Bono Innovator. The firm was first included in the list in 2023.
Bloomberg Law highlighted two of the firm's recent successful pro bono matters as reasons for selecting it for this recognition. In the first matter, Greenberg Traurig led an effort coordinating with four New York bar associations to protect $55 million in a state Interest on Lawyer Account (IOLA) fund that helps residents afford civil legal services as the state sought to repurpose some of those funds for other purposes.
The second matter was the firm's "landmark victory" in Mexico's Supreme Court of the Justice of the Nation. Our team successfully defended nonprofit Fundacion Camino a Casa, which provides shelter and comprehensive care to victims of human trafficking and exploitation, from a civil lawsuit seeking its eviction.
Both of these matters resulted not only in a direct win in the matter at hand but set precedent that will help protect underserved communities in need. In the New York matter, Greenberg Traurig's work established IOLA's fiduciary status, creating a legal firewall preventing future administrations from treating the funds as discretionary revenue. In Mexico, the court determined that the rights of the women and children receiving the nonprofit's services should be considered in these types of cases going forward, rather than treating them as simple contractual matter.
You can learn more about the IOLA matter here and the Fundacion Camino a Casa matter in our press release here.
"We are proud to be recognized once again as Pro Bono Innovators by Bloomberg Law," said Brian L. Duffy, chief executive officer of Greenberg Traurig. "This recognition reinforces our commitment to leveraging our global platform and legal expertise to drive positive impact that benefits underserved communities now and for generations to come."
***
Original text here: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2025/12/press-releases/greenberg-traurig-selected-to-bloomberg-laws-2025--pro-bono-innovators-list
Greenberg Traurig Recognized in 2026 Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide
MIAMI, Florida, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Recognized in 2026 Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide
*
TOKYO - Dec. 11, 2025 - Thirteen attorneys from global law firm Greenberg Traurig were listed in the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026. The firm was further recognized for its Real Estate Practice in Japan and as Corporate/M&A: International: Highly Regarded in Singapore.
In addition, the guide lists the following Greenberg Traurig Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo attorneys in the practice areas noted:
*
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Recognized in 2026 Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide
*
TOKYO - Dec. 11, 2025 - Thirteen attorneys from global law firm Greenberg Traurig were listed in the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026. The firm was further recognized for its Real Estate Practice in Japan and as Corporate/M&A: International: Highly Regarded in Singapore.
In addition, the guide lists the following Greenberg Traurig Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo attorneys in the practice areas noted:
*Nicholas Davies : Corporate/M&A: International; Startups & Emerging Companies, Singapore
* Mori Inada : Real Estate: Bengoshi, Japan
* Yuko Ino : Real Estate: Bengoshi, Japan
* Ayako Kawano : Real Estate: Bengoshi, Japan
* Joseph Kim : Projects & Infrastructure: International, Singapore
* Ashok K. Lalwani : Capital Markets (International Firms), Indonesia; Capital Markets: International, Singapore
* Kyle (Gyuil) Oh (ogyuil): Corporate/M&A: International Firms, South Korea
* Koichiro Ohashi : Investment Funds: Bengoshi, Japan
* Jake Robson : Corporate/M&A: International, Singapore
* Junko Suetomi : International Trade, Japan
* Joel H. Rothstein : Real Estate: Registered Foreign Lawyers, Japan
* Akihiro Wani : Banking & Finance: Domestic Firms: Financial Services Regulation; Capital Markets: Domestic: Securitization & Derivatives, Japan
* Mizuho Yamada : Real Estate: Bengoshi, Japan
The Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide notes it provides in-depth and reliable recommendations on "the best law firms and lawyers" working across the Asia-Pacific region. The individuals highlighted in the guide have been identified by clients and market sources as standouts in their respective practice areas and jurisdictions across the region, based on in-depth research conducted by guide publisher Chambers and Partners.
***
Original text here: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2025/12/press-releases/greenberg-traurig-recognized-in--2026-chambers-asia-pacific-guide
Fondazione Telethon Announces Historic FDA Approval of Waskyra
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Fondazione Telethon Announces Historic FDA Approval of Waskyra
*
Goodwin congratulates Fondazione Telethon on receiving approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of its Biologics License Application for Waskyra(tm), an ex vivo gene therapy for patients with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, a rare and life-threatening immunodeficiency. This approval, the first ever granted by FDA for a cell and gene therapy product from a non-profit applicant, could serve as a model
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Fondazione Telethon Announces Historic FDA Approval of Waskyra
*
Goodwin congratulates Fondazione Telethon on receiving approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of its Biologics License Application for Waskyra(tm), an ex vivo gene therapy for patients with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, a rare and life-threatening immunodeficiency. This approval, the first ever granted by FDA for a cell and gene therapy product from a non-profit applicant, could serve as a modelfor making therapies available for rare diseases outside of the traditional industry pathway. Goodwin's Life Sciences team is pleased to be working with Fondazione Telethon to bring this newly approved gene therapy product to patients in the U.S.
Fondazione Telethon is an Italian non-profit organization committed to advancing research on rare and complex genetic diseases. For over 35 years, it has supported high-impact science aimed at developing innovative treatments and improving the lives of people affected by these conditions.
The Goodwin team working with Fondazione Telethon to launch the product in the U.S. is led by Julie Tibbets, Tim Atkins, Matt Wetzel, and Sue Abbott.
For more information on the approval, please read the press release.
***
Original text here: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/news-and-events/news/2025/12/announcements-lifesciences-fondazione-telethon-announces-historic-fda-approval-of-waskyra
