United States: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A federal court in New York has ruled that communications between a criminal defendant and a publicly available AI chatbot are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

A recent decision in the Southern District of New York is continuing to garner attention in the legal community. In February, Judge Rakoff issued a landmark decision rejecting...

AI technology has seen explosive growth in the last few years. It has grown from a set of awkward but sometimes entertaining tools into a multi-billion-dollar industry that people...

On Dec. 19, 2025, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China approved the Regulations on Commercial Mediation (New Regulations), creating the country’s first dedicated administrative framework for commercial mediation. This milestone follows the May 2025 launch of the International Organization for Mediation—the world's first permanent intergovernmental organization dedicated to mediating international disputes, initiated by China and headquartered in Hong Kong.

I coined the term “emotionology,” which is a combination of “emotion” and “psychology.” It describes an applied science that examines how human emotions influence and become part of decision-making and negotiation processes in arbitration and mediation. In these settings, participants are emotional and spiritual beings; the success of the process relies as much on legal frameworks as it does on understanding and managing emotions, relationships and interests.

As I have written in the past, and repeat here, the statutes and judge-made law governing disputes among co-owners of closely held entities can vary significantly from state to state.

The Federal Circuit's decision in Dometic Corp. v. International Trade Commission reveals how claim construction disputes can simultaneously undermine both infringement analysis and domestic industry requirements in Section 337 proceedings. This case demonstrates the compounding risks ITC complainants face when their domestic products fail to practice asserted patent claims under the same construction used to establish infringement, even when economic investment in US operations is proven.

As I have written in the past, and repeat here, the statutes and judge-made law governing disputes among co-owners of closely held entities can vary significantly from state to state.

When does an attorney’s conduct cross from protected legal services into unprotected business advice? A recent opinion from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals...

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, 146 S. Ct. 854 (2026), the United States Supreme Court held that New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is not an arm of the state of New Jersey and is therefore not entitled to New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity.

First Tuesday Update is our monthly take on current issues in commercial disputes, international arbitration, and judgment enforcement.

Can a workout method be protected as choreography under federal copyright law? The Ninth Circuit recently said no.