Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Saul Ewing LLP Files Amicus Brief in Maryland Supreme Court Case Interpreting Credit Grantor Statute
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, June 9 -- Saul Ewing, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Saul Ewing LLP Files Amicus Brief in Maryland Supreme Court Case Interpreting Credit Grantor Statute
Baltimore - Saul Ewing LLP attorney Daniel M. Moore filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the Maryland Mortgage Bankers and Brokers Association (MMBBA) in Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC, et al. v. Baxter, pending before the Supreme Court of Maryland (SCM-REG-0001-2026).
The case involves two issues of statutory interpretation arising under Maryland's
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, June 9 -- Saul Ewing, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Saul Ewing LLP Files Amicus Brief in Maryland Supreme Court Case Interpreting Credit Grantor Statute
Baltimore - Saul Ewing LLP attorney Daniel M. Moore filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the Maryland Mortgage Bankers and Brokers Association (MMBBA) in Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC, et al. v. Baxter, pending before the Supreme Court of Maryland (SCM-REG-0001-2026).
The case involves two issues of statutory interpretation arising under Maryland'sCredit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC): first, whether the statute's definition of "credit grantors" encompasses residential mortgage loan servicers; and second, whether certain telephone convenience fees are exempt from CLEC under an express limitation applicable to loans secured by a first lien on residential real property.
The MBA and MMBBA's brief supports Petitioners' interpretation. It argues that CLEC's legislative history confirms a plain reading of the statutory language and reflects the General Assembly's intent to treat residential mortgage lending differently from other extensions of credit. The brief further emphasizes the importance of this issue to the entire residential mortgage industry.
The filing highlights the firm's appellate practice and its experience representing industry groups in significant statutory interpretation matters affecting financial services and consumer lending.
The case remains pending before the Supreme Court of Maryland.
* * *
About Saul Ewing
Saul Ewing is a full-service, national law firm with more than 450 attorneys and a team of top-notch business professionals, all working together to deliver practical, proactive advice and excellent client service. Our diversity of thought, focus on innovation, cross-serving practices, and culture of coaching create a collegial and supportive environment that inspires us to deliver inspired solutions. This is The Saul Approach.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.saul.com/insights/press-release/saul-ewing-files-amicus-brief-maryland-supreme-court
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Did Member States Meet the Deadline? Status of Implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 8, 2026, by partner Lioba Lamers, Dublin office managing shareholder Niall Pelly and associates Elaine Egan and Linda Gahleitner:
* * *
Did Member States Meet the Deadline? Status of Implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
At a Glance
* While Slovakia, Malta, and Italy enacted comprehensive laws implementing the EU Pay Transparency Directive (PTD) by the June 7 deadline, most other member states did not. This continues to create a fragmented implementing landscape across Europe.
*
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 8, 2026, by partner Lioba Lamers, Dublin office managing shareholder Niall Pelly and associates Elaine Egan and Linda Gahleitner:
* * *
Did Member States Meet the Deadline? Status of Implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
At a Glance
* While Slovakia, Malta, and Italy enacted comprehensive laws implementing the EU Pay Transparency Directive (PTD) by the June 7 deadline, most other member states did not. This continues to create a fragmented implementing landscape across Europe.
*Private employers should be aware of several practical considerations created by a member state's missed deadline, including loss of grace periods, potential court Directive-friendly interpretations, and increases in worker and worker representative inquiries.
* Even though Austria, Germany, and Ireland have not proposed specific implementing legislation, there are nuanced local risks to consider.
-
The deadline is here - yet in many places, implementation is still not in sight
The implementation deadline for the EU Pay Transparency Directive (PTD) has now passed, yet full national transposition remains uneven across member states. Although governments were required to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive into national law by June 7, 2026, many European countries have only taken partial steps.
Member states currently fall into three categories:
1. Adoption of Comprehensive Legislation: Slovakia, Malta and Italy have adopted comprehensive legislation, meeting the transposition deadline. These laws have minimal or non-existent grace periods. Lithuania, Poland and Czech Republic have partially transposed the Directive.
2. Published Draft Legislation: Several countries have published draft legislation but either proposed a delayed effective date or have not clearly indicated when the law will come into effect. This includes, for example, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have signaled implementation in 2027, as well as Cyprus, Estonia, France, Latvia, Malta and Sweden, where draft legislation has been published without a clear effective date.
3. No Published Implementing Measures: Many countries have not yet published a draft implementing bill at all, including Germany and Austria.
Employers based in part in the United States may be wondering what happens when an EU member state misses the deadline to implement an EU Directive. There are consequences governments may face when an EU member state misses the deadline to put a directive into national law. Specifically, the European Commission can start infringement proceedings. In the most serious cases, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) may impose financial penalties. This happened, for example, when Spain missed the deadline to implement the Work-Life Balance Directive and, as a result, was hit with a Euros6.83 million fine plus a daily penalty. In July 2025, the Commission launched infringement procedures against 18 member states for failing to fully transpose another directive. So, there's a clear financial incentive for countries to meet these deadlines.
Instead of facing fines from the EU Commission, private employers are dealing with the practical impacts of the missed deadlines and the PTD's current, fragmented landscape. As a general rule, until a member state actually implements the Directive into national law, workers cannot bring claims against their employers in that member state based on the Directive itself. However, there are key concerns:
* Employers with operations in Slovakia and Italy are facing quick compliance deadlines. Employers cannot assume there will be any type of grace period as member state laws come into effect.
* Principles like equal pay for equal work and the ban on pay discrimination already exist in EU and individual member state law and can be enforced now. To the extent an employer is struggling to comply under current obligations, it needs to be preparing now for more stringent requirements.
* Local courts may interpret existing national laws in line with the spirit of new EU directives, even before they're formally adopted.
* Workers and their representatives are not legal practitioners and may not understand the nuances of the interplay between the Directive with local implementing legislation. Employers should anticipate an increase in questions and requests once the Directive deadline has passed, regardless of whether the member state has implemented legislation. Employee expectations, inquiries from workers representatives and litigation risk are already rising.
Employers should move, if they have not yet done so, from monitoring the legislative process to preparing for practical compliance.
The following section highlights what employers should expect now in the selected jurisdictions, even where implementation remains incomplete.
Implications of the delayed implementation
Germany
In Germany, a pay transparency framework already exists under the German Pay Transparency Act ("Entgelttransparenzgesetz"). However, the Directive takes a broader approach.
Germany has not yet adopted legislation implementing the Directive. The German legislature is expected to amend the existing Pay Transparency Act rather than create an entirely new legal framework. The final structure and timing remain uncertain. It is also still unclear whether the future German law will include a presumption of adequacy or other mechanisms for employers bound by collective bargaining agreements. While the Pay Transparency Act includes a presumption that pay systems established by collective bargaining agreements are not discriminatory on the basis of gender, the Directive does not provide for such a provision.
The absence of an implementing act does not mean that German employers can simply wait. Rather, it creates a more complex legal environment in which (private / non-public-sector) employers need to distinguish carefully between three categories: obligations that already follow from existing equal pay law, obligations that may become practically relevant through Directive-compliant interpretation, and obligations that likely require implementing legislation before they apply.
German courts may, and most likely will, interpret existing law as far as possible in light of the Directive. This will be most relevant for employee information requests. Courts may interpret the Pay Transparency Act to include a broader range of information than was previously provided, including the relevance of average pay data rather than median-focused information only. The thresholds under the Pay Transparency Act could also be stretched--under the current framework, employers have not been required to disclose comparative pay information where the relevant comparison group of the opposite sex consisted of fewer than six employees; the Directive does not provide for the same limitation.
On the other hand, provisions of the Directive concerning reporting obligations, the formal joint pay assessment process, and administrative sanctions are unlikely to be sufficiently specific to be applied directly to private employers. Courts are also barred from interpreting national law contra legem, i.e., against its clear wording.
Austria
To date, there have been no indications as to when or how Austria intends to implement the PTD. Nevertheless, Austrian employers are already subject to certain transparency obligations under the existing Equal Treatment Act, regardless of the Directive's implementation.
Austrian remuneration systems are largely based on collective bargaining agreements, which provide for minimum salaries based on objective criteria. However, remuneration above the collective minimum is often determined at the employer's discretion and without transparent compensation structures, creating a potential risk of gender-related pay disparities. Current Austrian law does not require employers to disclose the criteria underlying such pay decisions or their internal remuneration systems.
As in Germany, Austrian courts may interpret existing law, including the Equal Treatment Act, in light of the wording and purpose of the Directive even before formal implementation. Employers may be indirectly affected by transparency standards that go beyond current Austrian law.
Ireland
The Irish government has confirmed it will not meet the transposition deadline, and that implementing legislation will be introduced on a phased basis. The most recent update in May from the Minister for Children, Disability, and Equality confirmed the Government's commitment to transposition, indicated that a dedicated Irish Employer Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Toolkit (to assist with "equal value" assessments) is being commissioned, and noted that employers will be invited to attend training on this toolkit.
Employers should take some comfort as the Minister has confirmed that employers will not be penalized for non-compliance with all elements of the Directive by the transposition deadline.
The Minister did not, however, commit to a timeline for implementation, and many employers are concerned about the extent to which provisions of the Directive may be relied upon by employees notwithstanding the delay in transposition.
In Ireland, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Labour Court are the statutory bodies established to hear statutory employment law complaints. The application of EU law before the employment tribunals is typically limited to simply applying the provisions of domestic legislation that transposes EU Directives, or abiding by the requirement to interpret national law in accordance with EU law.
In addition, the ECJ recently confirmed that statutory bodies such as the WRC are required to disapply provisions of national law that conflict with EU law, where previously this would have been considered solely within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. This will be of limited application in the context of the Directive, which imposes positive obligations on employers to, for example, conduct equal pay assessments, publish gender pay gap reports, provide certain information, etc., as there are no provisions of national law that are inconsistent with these obligations.
Employers should continue to comply with existing gender pay gap reporting requirements, with employers of 50 or more employees required to publish annual reports.
Cross-Country Takeaways
Multinational employers should regard the Directive as a matter of EU wide corporate governance. Although it establishes an overarching framework, the practical requirements and enforcement mechanisms will continue to be shaped by domestic implementation. Employers should therefore avoid treating delays in national transposition as a justification for deferring their compliance efforts.
Gender-neutral job evaluation will be crucial. Job titles alone will rarely be sufficient; roles should be assessed by objective criteria such as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Practical guidance can help structure this analysis (see Littler's insight into the EU Toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification).
At the same time, implementation plans must be tailored locally. Multinational employers may therefore adopt a two-level strategy: an EU-wide framework for job evaluation, data, and governance, combined with country-specific implementation plans.
The end of the implementation period is not the end of uncertainty. Rather, it marks the transition into a more assertive phase of enforcement and compliance. Employers that proactively establish transparent pay structures, robust data systems and objective, well documented decision making criteria will be better positioned once the Directive has been fully transposed into national law in all member states.
* * *
Authors
Elaine Egan
Associate
Dublin
* * *
Linda Gahleitner
Associate
Vienna
* * *
Lioba Lamers
Partner
Dusseldorf
* * *
Niall Pelly
Office Managing Shareholder
Dublin
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/did-member-states-meet-deadline-status-implementation-eu-pay-transparency
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hughes Hubbard & Reed: Jeremy Paner Explains How Private Fund Managers Should Approach OFAC's Recent Advisory
NEW YORK, June 9 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jeremy Paner Explains How Private Fund Managers Should Approach OFAC's Recent Advisory
Highlights
* OFAC's advisory warns that sanctioned parties are using proxies, family members and complex structures to obscure their ownership interests.
* Paner warns that OFAC will treat all private fund managers as "gatekeepers" and expects a clear explanation for any scenario in which red flags are raised.
* According to Paner, compliance must go beyond screening and application of the "50 Percent Rule."
-
Speaking
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 9 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jeremy Paner Explains How Private Fund Managers Should Approach OFAC's Recent Advisory
Highlights
* OFAC's advisory warns that sanctioned parties are using proxies, family members and complex structures to obscure their ownership interests.
* Paner warns that OFAC will treat all private fund managers as "gatekeepers" and expects a clear explanation for any scenario in which red flags are raised.
* According to Paner, compliance must go beyond screening and application of the "50 Percent Rule."
-
Speakingto Hedge Fund Law Report, Jeremy Paner analyzed the implications of the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) advisory warning of the growing use of sham transactions to evade sanctions.
The advisory highlights that sanctioned individuals and entities are increasingly using proxies, family members and complex structures to obscure ownership and continue transacting in violation of U.S. sanctions, while reinforcing that even seemingly remote connections will attract OFAC scrutiny in an increasingly aggressive enforcement environment.
Paner specifically discussed the impact of the advisory for PE and hedge fund managers.
"The importance of the Advisory is that it's a warning shot that OFAC will treat anyone that manages private funds as a gatekeeper," Paner said. "Anybody involved in private funds needs to have a good answer to any scenario in which red flags are raised. If a fund manager doesn't have an explanation, OFAC's enforcement response is going to be very aggressive."
He noted that OFAC's expectations extend beyond overreliance on screening and application of the "50 Percent Rule."
"When OFAC investigates a potential violation, the first thing the agency does is say, 'Hey, let's take a look at your compliance program.' They want to see what has slipped through the cracks," Paner said. "OFAC expects to see a compliance program that is commensurate with the specific risks that an entity faces and does not react well to a compliance program that is completely unable to mitigate the inherent risk."
Paner cited a January 2025 enforcement case, in which OFAC penalized Family International Realty and its U.S.-based owner, with a civil penalty exceeding $1 million over 73 violations of its Russia/Ukraine-related sanctions.
"What was really noteworthy for fund managers was that OFAC explicitly warned financial institutions that they have to conduct 'sufficient due diligence' to ensure that fund managers are not acting as proxies for sanctioned parties," Paner said.
Paner cautioned that OFAC expects firms to actively use information uncovered through routine business activities to identify potential sanctions risks.
"OFAC has always held the position that if an entity gets information in the ordinary course of its business, it needs to use that information [for compliance purposes]," Paner said. "But what some people are doing is conducting limited screening, considering the 50 Percent Rule and then burying their heads in the sand when it comes to emails received from the oligarchs."
"They're saying, 'Well, we did everything we could have,' but that's just not how it works."
Read the article (https://www.hflawreport.com/21447591/ofac-warns-of-growing-use-of-sham-transactions-in-sanctions-evasion-and-identifies-red-flags.thtml).
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Jeremy P. Paner
Partner
Locations
Washington, D.C.
jeremy.paner@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (202) 721-4614
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/jeremy-paner-explains-how-private-fund-managers-should-approach-ofac-s-recent-advisory
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fredrikson Announces Its Debut on Am Law 200
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, June 9 -- Fredrikson and Byron, a law firm, issued the following news on June 8, 2026:
* * *
Fredrikson Announces its Debut on Am Law 200
Fredrikson today announced its appearance on the Am Law 200, ranking 145 among the largest law firms in the United States by gross revenue. While qualified for ranking by lawyer size for well over a decade, Fredrikson submitted firm revenue requirements this year to be officially evaluated for the ranking.
"Fredrikson's deliberate growth has been client-driven, with the firm adding strategic expertise and capacity in response to client
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, June 9 -- Fredrikson and Byron, a law firm, issued the following news on June 8, 2026:
* * *
Fredrikson Announces its Debut on Am Law 200
Fredrikson today announced its appearance on the Am Law 200, ranking 145 among the largest law firms in the United States by gross revenue. While qualified for ranking by lawyer size for well over a decade, Fredrikson submitted firm revenue requirements this year to be officially evaluated for the ranking.
"Fredrikson's deliberate growth has been client-driven, with the firm adding strategic expertise and capacity in response to clientneeds," said Fredrikson president Melodie Rose. "Our sustained growth, our expanding national practices and our commitment to operational excellence make this the moment to step forward and tell our story."
"Our clients want a team of advisors that understands their markets, their unique businesses and has the right talent and depth to handle their work," Rose continued. "Our focus on relationships and partnering with our clients is key to building a platform that attracts and retains top talent and national work. Fredrikson combines the sophistication and resources of a large firm with a collaborative culture that helps our lawyers grow their practices and support client success."
"We are proud to be both a high-performing and financially strong firm," Rose added. "Our performance reflects our client-driven approach to providing exceptional legal work at a cost structure that makes sense for the clients we serve."
For more than 75 years, Fredrikson has represented clients across diverse sectors such as private equity funds, life sciences and healthcare, financial services, energy, retail, manufacturing, agriculture, consumer products and technology. Our client portfolio includes organizations of all sizes and structures -- from startups to multinational publicly traded companies, as well as private equity funds, financial institutions, municipalities, professional corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, partnerships and individuals. With particular strength in middle market transactions, advice and advocacy, we serve businesses at every stage of growth while maintaining a global perspective.
Published each year through the efforts of Law.com Compass and the Law.com/American Lawyer editorial team, the Am Law 200 report offers firm-by-firm data on key financial metrics and deep analysis of the cohort's performance, and what it means for the rest of the market.
* * *
Fredrikson & Byron is a leading Midwest law firm working collaboratively to help businesses achieve their goals regionally, nationally and globally. With a reputation as the firm "where law and business meet," our attorneys bring business acumen and entrepreneurial thinking to work with clients and operate as business advisors and strategic partners as well as legal counselors. The firm's 400+ attorneys serve clients from offices in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Mexico and China. Learn more at fredlaw.com or LinkedIn.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fredlaw.com/news-fredrikson-announces-its-debut-on-am-law-200
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fourth Circuit Mandate Confirms Appellate Victory for Pillsbury Client in Poppleton Redevelopment Challenge
NEW YORK, June 9 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Fourth Circuit Mandate Confirms Appellate Victory for Pillsbury Client in Poppleton Redevelopment Challenge
Following the Fourth Circuit's formal mandate to the District of Maryland last month, the district court issued a new order confirming significant appellate victory for Pillsbury client La Cite Development LLC in litigation challenging Baltimore's long-running Poppleton redevelopment project. The new district court order leaves a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court the plaintiffs'
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 9 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Fourth Circuit Mandate Confirms Appellate Victory for Pillsbury Client in Poppleton Redevelopment Challenge
Following the Fourth Circuit's formal mandate to the District of Maryland last month, the district court issued a new order confirming significant appellate victory for Pillsbury client La Cite Development LLC in litigation challenging Baltimore's long-running Poppleton redevelopment project. The new district court order leaves a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court the plaintiffs'sole remaining procedural option at the federal level.
The decision is a significant result for the developer appellees and Pillsbury, which defeated the plaintiffs' attempt to recast frustration over the pace and condition of an urban redevelopment project as a federal constitutional takings claim. In a unanimous published opinion, the three-judge panel at the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' takings theory failed as a matter of law because they did not allege that any of their own property had been taken. The Court also directed the district court to decline jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' remaining Maryland private nuisance claim and dismiss it without prejudice, leaving no claims pending in federal court against the developer appellees.
The case was brought by Poppleton Now Community Association Inc. and six individual Baltimore residents who own property adjacent to the redevelopment area. They sued La Cite, affiliated developer entities, Baltimore City, city officials, and housing authority defendants over a redevelopment agreement dating back roughly two decades.
The plaintiffs' complaint focused heavily on delays in the redevelopment of approximately 13.8 acres in Poppleton. According to the Fourth Circuit's opinion, the project faced delays and complications, including litigation between the city and the developer. The parties subsequently amended their development agreement five times in an effort to resolve ongoing issues and move the project forward. The plaintiffs alleged that, despite those efforts, only one apartment complex had been completed by the time suit was filed and that vacant parcels remained in the project area.
Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris said that the district court correctly identified the "fatal flaw" in the takings theory: the plaintiffs did not claim that any of their own property was taken. The plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with redevelopment conditions, alleged diminution in neighboring property values, and objections to the pace of progress were insufficient to state a viable Takings Clause claim against either the developer or the government.
While the Fourth Circuit held that alleged diminution in value was sufficient to establish Article III standing at the pleading stage, it agreed with the appellees that standing does not establish a legally cognizable claim. The Court held that a protected property interest in the property allegedly taken is an essential element of any takings claim, and that the plaintiffs' status as adjacent property owners was not enough.
That holding is significant for developers, municipalities, housing authorities, and public-private redevelopment participants facing challenges from neighboring property owners or community groups dissatisfied with the pace, condition, or perceived progress of redevelopment projects. The panel made clear that the Takings Clause is not a vehicle for adjacent owners to challenge the acquisition or redevelopment of someone else's property.
The ruling is especially notable because the Fourth Circuit corrected the district court's reasoning while preserving the core victory for the appellees. The district court had dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing, but that their claim failed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6), resulting in a merits-based dismissal of the federal takings theory rather than a jurisdictional dismissal.
The Fourth Circuit also vacated the district court's merits dismissal of the plaintiffs' state law private nuisance claim, but not in a manner that revived the claim in federal court. Instead, the panel held that once the federal claims were dismissed at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the district court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Maryland nuisance claim and dismissed it without prejudice. The Court said that result was especially appropriate because the nuisance issues implicated important state interests and because there was no substantial Maryland case law applying private nuisance doctrine to analogous claims.
The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the district court separately erred by failing to address a declaratory judgment count. The Fourth Circuit explained that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create an independent cause of action and that once the plaintiffs' substantive claims were dismissed, their request for declaratory relief necessarily failed.
The Fourth Circuit panel consisted of Judges Roger Gregory, Pamela Harris, and Julius Richardson.
The developer appellees are La Cite Development LLC, La Cite LLC, Poppleton Development I LLC, PSH 1B LLC, and Dan Blythewood Jr. They were represented by Pillsbury partner Anthony J. Phillips and associate Jake B. Mitchell, members of the firm's Business Trials & Litigation practice group. By agreement with counsel for the Baltimore City defendants--who were also named in the underlying lawsuit and challenged on appeal--Mr. Phillips argued before the Fourth Circuit on behalf of all appellees.
The case is Poppleton Now Community Association Inc. et al. v. La Cite Development LLC et al., 175 F.4th 455 (4th Cir. 2026), Case No. 25-1770.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/fourth-circuit-mandate-confirms-appellate-victory-pillsbury-client-poppleton-redevelopment-challenge.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Forbes Names Five Arnold & Porter Partners to 2026 America's Top Women Lawyers List
WASHINGTON, June 9 -- Arnold and Porter, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Forbes Names Five Arnold & Porter Partners to 2026 America's Top Women Lawyers List
Five Arnold & Porter partners were recently named to Forbes' inaugural 2026 America's Top Women Lawyers list, which recognizes 200 of the nation's most accomplished women attorneys across a broad range of practice areas whose leadership, influence, and achievements are shaping the future of the legal profession.
The following partners were recognized in their respective practice areas:
* Sheila S. Boston -- Litigation
* Deborah
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 9 -- Arnold and Porter, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Forbes Names Five Arnold & Porter Partners to 2026 America's Top Women Lawyers List
Five Arnold & Porter partners were recently named to Forbes' inaugural 2026 America's Top Women Lawyers list, which recognizes 200 of the nation's most accomplished women attorneys across a broad range of practice areas whose leadership, influence, and achievements are shaping the future of the legal profession.
The following partners were recognized in their respective practice areas:
* Sheila S. Boston -- Litigation
* DeborahCurtis -- White Collar Defense
* Debbie Feinstein -- Antitrust Law
* Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker -- Investment Funds & Asset Management
* Jami Vibbert -- Privacy, Cybersecurity & Data Protection
Honorees were selected through a rigorous, multi-step evaluation process that reviewed thousands of nominees and assessed multiple factors, including notable litigation and transactional work, leadership, client impact, firm and community engagement, and recognition within the broader legal industry.
According to Forbes, the lawyers recognized are among the profession's most influential practitioners, guiding high-stakes matters, navigating complex legal challenges, and helping define the legal and business landscape.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/news/2026/06/forbes-names-2026-americas-top-women-lawyers-list
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Bloomberg Law Names Dinsmore a Leading Law Firm
CINCINNATI, Ohio, June 9 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Bloomberg Law Names Dinsmore a Leading Law Firm
Bloomberg Law named Dinsmore a "Leading Law Firm" in its 2026 rankings. Dinsmore earned the 13th spot in the "Large Firms" category.
For this year's rankings, Bloomberg factored in financial strength, talent and firm growth. It also weighted innovation and technology implementation.
"In today's environment, clients need more than legal counsel," said Dinsmore Managing Partner Josh Lorentz. "They need trusted advisors who understand their industries,
... Show Full Article
CINCINNATI, Ohio, June 9 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Bloomberg Law Names Dinsmore a Leading Law Firm
Bloomberg Law named Dinsmore a "Leading Law Firm" in its 2026 rankings. Dinsmore earned the 13th spot in the "Large Firms" category.
For this year's rankings, Bloomberg factored in financial strength, talent and firm growth. It also weighted innovation and technology implementation.
"In today's environment, clients need more than legal counsel," said Dinsmore Managing Partner Josh Lorentz. "They need trusted advisors who understand their industries,anticipate challenges, and help them capitalize on opportunities. This ranking is a result of Dinsmore's commitment to investing in our people, expanding strategically, and continuing to elevate a collaborative culture that enables us to deliver practical, business-focused solutions wherever our clients need us."
Dinsmore has exponentially increased revenue in the last three years, reporting its highest earnings ever in 2025 with $443.8 million in total revenue.
The firm's focus on strategic growth is also reflected in its eight mergers and/or office expansions since 2020.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dinsmore.com/news/bloomberg-law-names-dinsmore-a-leading-law-firm/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
