Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Stephen Looney Recognized as Lawyer of the Year in Tax Law in Orlando
ORLANDO, Florida, March 31 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Stephen Looney Recognized as Lawyer of the Year in Tax Law in Orlando
In their April 2026 publication, Orlando Magazine has recognized Stephen R. Looney as "Lawyer of the Year" for Tax Law in Orlando. A unique distinction, as only a single lawyer in each practice area within a designated metropolitan area is recognized.
Per the publication, "Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and same practice areas for
... Show Full Article
ORLANDO, Florida, March 31 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Stephen Looney Recognized as Lawyer of the Year in Tax Law in Orlando
In their April 2026 publication, Orlando Magazine has recognized Stephen R. Looney as "Lawyer of the Year" for Tax Law in Orlando. A unique distinction, as only a single lawyer in each practice area within a designated metropolitan area is recognized.
Per the publication, "Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and same practice areas fortheir abilities, their professionalism, and their integrity."
* * *
Featured Professionals
Stephen R. Looney
Attorney
[email protected]
O: (407) 428-5128 F: (407) 423-1831
* * *
Original text here: https://www.deanmead.com/stephen-looney-recognized-as-lawyer-of-the-year-in-tax-law-in-orlando/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Mark Barnes Co-Authored Article In Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 31 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Mark Barnes Co-Authored Article In Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Health care partner Mark Barnes co-authored an article in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics outlining international ethical principles for the collection, use, and sharing of human biospecimens and associated data.
The article titled International Ethical Principles for Banking and Secondary Research Use of Human Biospecimens and Associated Data: The Seattle Principles explains that the secondary research
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 31 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Mark Barnes Co-Authored Article In Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Health care partner Mark Barnes co-authored an article in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics outlining international ethical principles for the collection, use, and sharing of human biospecimens and associated data.
The article titled International Ethical Principles for Banking and Secondary Research Use of Human Biospecimens and Associated Data: The Seattle Principles explains that the secondary researchuse of human biospecimens and associated clinical data is essential to scientific advances by industry and academia, but is governed by a patchwork of differing national regulations and characterized by uncertainty in applicable ethical principles.
The authors provide a set of ethical principles to address some of the challenges by ensuring better alignment in ethical practices related to biobanking the global use of human biospecimens. The authors note that these principles could serve as a basis for promoting more consistency among national regulations and policies. The ultimate goal is to develop an international framework for global biospecimen and data sharing.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/03/mark-barnes-co-authored-article-in-journal-of-law-medicine-ethics
Littler Issues Commentary: UK - Balancing Protected Beliefs
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 31 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by partner Philip Cameron:
* * *
UK: Balancing Protected Beliefs
The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision offers employers further guidance on manifestation of belief cases.
At a Glance
We look at the evolving state of protected belief discrimination in the recent UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Ngole v. Touchstone Leeds, which offers employers further guidance on the appropriate analysis in manifestation of belief cases following last year's Court of Appeal decision
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 31 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 30, 2026, by partner Philip Cameron:
* * *
UK: Balancing Protected Beliefs
The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision offers employers further guidance on manifestation of belief cases.
At a Glance
We look at the evolving state of protected belief discrimination in the recent UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Ngole v. Touchstone Leeds, which offers employers further guidance on the appropriate analysis in manifestation of belief cases following last year's Court of Appeal decisionin Higgs v. Farmor's School.
*
The Legal Framework: Manifestation of Belief After Higgs
In Higgs v. Farmor's School, the Court of Appeal clarified how tribunals should analyse employer action in response to an employee's manifestation of belief in direct discrimination cases (see our previous article here).
It held that an employer cannot dismiss or otherwise disadvantage someone simply because they have expressed a protected belief that the employer (or others) find unpalatable. If the action is taken because of the belief itself, it amounts to unlawful direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
However, if the concern is not the belief, but something genuinely objectionable in the way the belief was expressed (assessed objectively), then the employer may be able to take action but only if it can show that the response was proportionate to that objectionable aspect. The employer must demonstrate that its decision was objectively justified in the circumstances and that less intrusive options were properly considered.
The Ngole decision considers how this should be applied.
Background
The employer in this case was a mental health charity that provided mental health and well-being services to vulnerable people, with a particular track record for tailoring its services to the LGBTQI+ community. Approximately a third of its workforce and 12% of its service users were from the LGBTQI+ community but the charity also supports various faith groups and just under third of staff are said to describe themselves as Christian. In May 2022, the employer offered a role to Mr. Ngole as a mental health support worker, subject to satisfactory references.
Due to some difficulties with references, the charity carried out some online searches which revealed news stories about Facebook posts in which Mr. Ngole had said that homosexuality and same-sex marriage was a sin. Touchstone withdrew the offer on the basis that his stated views conflicted with its values and could pose significant risk to service users.
Mr. Ngole challenged the decision, leading to a follow-up meeting to explore whether Mr. Ngole was able to give assurances that his views would not compromise his role and to understand if he would be able to fully embrace and promote the charity's values. Following this meeting, the charity confirmed the withdrawal of the offer.
He brought claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment based on his protected beliefs.
The ET's Decision
The Employment Tribunal (ET) partially upheld Mr. Ngole's claims.
It found that the initial withdrawal of the job offer amounted to direct discrimination, as Touchstone acted because of the protected belief without further enquiry. However, the ET rejected the claims concerning the follow-up meeting and failure to reinstate the offer. It accepted that Touchstone's later decisions were driven by legitimate concerns about whether Mr. Ngole could carry out the role without negatively impacting service users, and the risk of service users encountering his views, given they were publicly expressed.
Mr. Ngole appealed to the EAT.
The EAT's Decision
The EAT found that the ET had not properly examined the charity's reasons for each decision or considered whether its concerns about service users potentially coming across the Facebook posts and their reactions to them were separable from the claimant's protected beliefs. The EAT noted that although some might find the claimant's views objectionable, the charity accepted that those views were protected. If the charity acted simply because service users might be unhappy that he held those beliefs, that would amount to unjustifiable direct discrimination.
In terms of the steps to follow, the EAT summarised that it may be helpful to ask the following questions:
- What were the reasons for the treatment?
- In respect of each reason, was it genuinely an objection to the manifestation of the belief rather than the holding of the belief itself, and if the reason was the manifestation, was there something objectionable about it?
- If the reason for the treatment was something objectionable, was the treatment prescribed by law and proportionate, considering the importance of the employer's objective, whether the measure is rationally connected to that objective, whether a less intrusive measure could have been used and having conducted a balancing exercise?
The case has been remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
Although this case still is to be decided on its outstanding points on the facts, it shows an emerging picture of the case law and highlights the challenges employers face when dealing with conflicting views in the workplace, particularly where views are expressed that they, or their customers, may not agree with or find offensive.
The case highlights the risk of direct discrimination claims, including at the pre-employment stage, where action is taken based on an individual's protected beliefs, notwithstanding that there may be legitimate concerns about the wider impacts of those beliefs on customers or service users. Before taking steps such as dismissal or withdrawal of a job offer, employers in the UK should carefully consider their reasons for acting and assess whether their motivation is the individual's beliefs themselves or the way the beliefs were expressed. If the latter, any action taken will still need to be justifiable and proportionate. Knee-jerk decisions, such as immediate withdrawal of job offers based on social media posts, are unlikely to be objectively justifiable. Even where a belief conflicts with organisational values, employers must assess the specific, role-related impact of any expression and ensure any response is cogent, well-reasoned, well-documented, separable from the belief itself and proportionate.
* * *
*/ Eva Dalmau is a paralegal in Littler's London office.
* * *
Authors
Philip Cameron
Partner
London
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-balancing-protected-beliefs
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen Speaks on R3's Future Forum Webinar
NEW YORK, March 31 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen Speaks on R3's Future Forum Webinar
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen, partner and co-chair of CahillNXT, will speak on the panel "Asset Managers as Market Architects: How Fund Tokenisation Is Rewiring Capital Markets Infrastructure" for R3's Future Forum webinar.
Lewis, and the other expert panelists, will discuss the optimization of asset management services in an on-chain operational framework, the operational and balance sheet benefits tokenization provides to asset managers, the design of
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 31 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen Speaks on R3's Future Forum Webinar
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen, partner and co-chair of CahillNXT, will speak on the panel "Asset Managers as Market Architects: How Fund Tokenisation Is Rewiring Capital Markets Infrastructure" for R3's Future Forum webinar.
Lewis, and the other expert panelists, will discuss the optimization of asset management services in an on-chain operational framework, the operational and balance sheet benefits tokenization provides to asset managers, the design ofnew fund structures and investment products, and the aspects of the traditional capital markets stack need to adapt to stay pertinent.
To learn more about the event and register, click here (https://streamyard.com/watch/TRM7Zr2teCmN).
* * *
Attorney
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen
Partner
212.701.3758
lrcohen@cahill.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/events/2026-03-31-lewis-rinaudo-cohen-speaks-on-r3-future-forum-webinar
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hausfeld Files U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief Defending Human Rights Accountability and American Jobs
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hausfeld files U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief defending human rights accountability and American jobs
Hausfeld has filed an amicus curiae brief (https://www.hausfeld.com/media/ibdlx504/24-856-amicus-brief.pdf) in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of leading professors of Economics and Political Science and Oxfam America in support of the plaintiffs in the case against Cisco Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Cisco aided and abetted human rights abuses against religious minorities in China. The brief addresses aiding
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hausfeld files U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief defending human rights accountability and American jobs
Hausfeld has filed an amicus curiae brief (https://www.hausfeld.com/media/ibdlx504/24-856-amicus-brief.pdf) in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of leading professors of Economics and Political Science and Oxfam America in support of the plaintiffs in the case against Cisco Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Cisco aided and abetted human rights abuses against religious minorities in China. The brief addresses aidingand abetting (accessorial) liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 note.
Drawing on decades of research and policy experience, the amici rebut claims by Cisco and their supporters, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that accessorial liability will damage the reputation and bottom line of U.S. corporations, deter investment in less developed countries, harm economic development and human rights, or undermine U.S. competitiveness. The brief explains that there is no empirical basis for these assertions and that liability for aiding and abetting grave abuses is an economically efficient way to deter corporate complicity, promote responsible investment, and support long term development and stability.
The amici further argue that accountability under the ATS and TVPA promotes fair competition by leveling the playing field between companies that comply with international human rights norms and those that seek to profit from abuses. A central focus of the brief is U.S. technology companies' provision of advanced surveillance and AI tools to authoritarian regimes: the amici contend that aiding and abetting liability for such conduct will help protect American workers and jobs by disincentivizing U.S. firms from enabling worker suppression and artificial wage depression abroad that fuel offshoring at the expense of U.S. workers.
The brief is signed by distinguished experts including Nobel laureates in economics Joseph Stiglitz and Simon Johnson, as well as Geoffrey Heal, Gabriel Zucman, Marc Goergen, Mircea Raianu and political scientist Adam Dean. Oxfam America, a global anti poverty organization with extensive expertise on corporate human rights impacts, also joins as amicus. The Court's decision will have significant implications for the future of the ATS and TVPA, corporate responsibility for aiding and abetting violations of international law, and the protection of vulnerable communities abroad and in the United States.
* * *
Related People
Michael D. Hausfeld
Jeannine M. Kenney
Mary Sameera Van Houten Harper
Amanda Lee-Dasgupta
Percy Metcalfe
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/news/hausfeld-files-us-supreme-court-amicus-brief-defending-human-rights-accountability-and-american-jobs
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Gary Kalbaugh Moderates Panel on the GENIUS Act
NEW YORK, March 31 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Gary Kalbaugh Moderates Panel on the GENIUS Act
Gary Kalbaugh will moderate the "The GENIUS Act in Practice: Key Questions for Stablecoin Regulation" with Gov. Michael Barr (Federal Reserve Board), Hon. Summer Mersinger (CEO of the Blockchain Association), Greg Xethalis (General Counsel of Multicoin Capital), and Alex Pollock (Senior Fellow, Mises Institute and former President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago).
Together, the panelists will explore the future of stablecoins and their
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 31 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Gary Kalbaugh Moderates Panel on the GENIUS Act
Gary Kalbaugh will moderate the "The GENIUS Act in Practice: Key Questions for Stablecoin Regulation" with Gov. Michael Barr (Federal Reserve Board), Hon. Summer Mersinger (CEO of the Blockchain Association), Greg Xethalis (General Counsel of Multicoin Capital), and Alex Pollock (Senior Fellow, Mises Institute and former President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago).
Together, the panelists will explore the future of stablecoins and theirnewly regulated framework under the GENIUS Act.
To learn more about this webinar, click here (https://fedsoc.org/events/the-genius-act-in-practice-key-questions-for-stablecoin-regulation).
* * *
Attorney
Gary E. Kalbaugh
Partner
212.701.3505
GKalbaugh@cahill.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/events/2026-03-31-gary-kalbaugh-moderates-panel-on-the-genius-act
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Alarm Bells: Almost 60% of ASX200 Chairs See Chairing a Private Capital Board as More Appealing Than Listed Role - HSF Kramer Survey
NEW YORK, March 31 (TNSrep) -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Alarm bells: Almost 60% of ASX200 chairs see chairing a private capital board as more appealing than listed role - HSF Kramer survey
Though once seen as the pinnacle of Australian corporate life, almost 60% of ASX200 chairs now see chairing a prominent private capital board as more appealing than their listed company role, according to a new report from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer).
The report, which surveyed the chairs of ASX200 companies, found that the appeal of
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 31 (TNSrep) -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Alarm bells: Almost 60% of ASX200 chairs see chairing a private capital board as more appealing than listed role - HSF Kramer survey
Though once seen as the pinnacle of Australian corporate life, almost 60% of ASX200 chairs now see chairing a prominent private capital board as more appealing than their listed company role, according to a new report from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer).
The report, which surveyed the chairs of ASX200 companies, found that the appeal ofchairing a listed board is steadily fading in the face of growing challenges that have pushed the risk-reward equation out of balance.
"This sobering statistic should ring alarm bells far beyond the boardroom. ASX200 companies employ millions of Australians, anchor the superannuation system, underpin national tax revenues, and drive innovation across entire sectors," said Rebecca Maslen-Stannage, global chair and senior partner at HSF Kramer.
"The strength of these companies, and the health of public markets more broadly, depends heavily on attracting and retaining the nation's experienced and most capable directors, particularly Chairs. Right now, Chairs are signalling quite clearly that both structural issues and incentives are driving them away from the listed market. At a time when productivity is such an urgent national issue, restoring the attractiveness of the listed company sector should be a priority."
Proxy advisers and regulatory burden taking a toll
While chairs report enjoying their interactions with shareholders, with 82% of respondents reporting positive experiences and 57% finding interactions with shareholders insightful, engagement with proxy advisers is a different story.
75% of chairs reported finding dealings with proxy advisers 'challenging', with 55% saying these interactions are getting harder. This is having a direct effect on how chairs feel about their role, with 62% saying their role would be more fulfilling if proxy advisers had less influence.
With the Australian share market heavily dominated by institutional investors who are served by only a handful of proxy advisers, the influence of advisers and their recommendations is outsized.
Carolyn Pugsley, a senior partner in HSF Kramer's Head Office Advisory Team, said this influence is further magnified when companies lack direct access to institutional investors, which is often the case when they are large international investors for whom even the largest ASX-listed entities represent a tiny fraction of their global investment portfolio.
"This creates a powerful incentive to design governance structures, remuneration frameworks, and disclosure practices around proxy advisor guidelines, encouraging homogenised, defensive governance. Where Boards look to break outside the boundaries of usual convention, they do so knowing there is a 'gauntlet' to run in securing proxy adviser and investor support for their arrangements," she said.
The ever-increasing regulatory burden is also weighing on chairs, with economic uncertainty, cyber threats, compliance risk and cost, managing AI risk and opportunities and geopolitical factors the top five challenges facing ASX-listed companies.
Litigation risk is also a factor. 85% of respondents say their boards were concerned by litigation risk and around a third believe they spend more time on mitigating litigation risk than they consider ideal.
Asked what would help improve their sense of fulfilment in their role, 60% cited legal reform to reduce class actions, while 54% indicated that a less aggressive stance from regulators would be welcomed.
Risk/reward equation is out of balance
Almost 60% of chairs do not feel appropriately compensated for the time they devote to the role, with 84% citing an imbalance in the risk-reward equation as the top reason for dissatisfaction around remuneration.
Continuous scrutiny, public accountability, complex regulatory overlay, competing demands for their attention and reputational exposure were seen as risks with no corresponding upside reward.
"While absolute remuneration is unlikely to be a key driver of the leakage of talent to private sector opportunities, the survey indicates that the perceived risk-reward imbalance is undoubtedly a factor."
"By contrast, private company board roles involve a lower risk profile, with reduced compliance burden, no shareholder class action risk and lesser media scrutiny, and often involve meaningful reward upside for delivering strong performance outcomes," Maslen-Stannage said.
Reforms needed before talent leaves
With the survey coming on the heels of ASIC's roadmap for capital markets, Maslen-Stannage said Australian markets are at a crossroads, and it's clear urgent reform is needed before the talent leaves the ASX.
"The survey paints a picture of chairs who are deeply committed to their roles, who feel they add value, and who want to lead Australia's flagship companies, but who are wrestling with a system that makes the role less fulfilling, less effective, and less attractive," she said.
While chairs reported that the next 12 months will require heavy focus on growth, productivity and risk management, elements that will require stable, experienced, and high-calibre leadership, it's this exact leadership questioning whether the ASX environment is worth the cost.
Maslen-Stannage said, "Unless the structural pressures on directors are addressed, our listed market risks losing precisely the leadership it most needs, and Australia's economy will feel the consequences."
You can read the report here (https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/2026-03/asx-listed-chairs-survey-2026).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-03/alarm-bells-asx200-chairs-private-capital-board-appealing-listed-role-hsf-kramer-survey
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
