United States: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Federal courts are grappling with whether communications with generative AI platforms receive attorney-client privilege or work product protection, with outcomes varying between criminal and civil cases. Recent rulings reveal critical distinctions in how courts treat AI-assisted materials depending on who uses them and whether counsel directed their creation.

Defamation risk has escalated dramatically in the digital age, where false statements persist indefinitely online and are now being absorbed into AI systems that can reproduce them at unprecedented scale. This analysis examines five critical strategies businesses must implement to protect their reputations proactively, from identifying vulnerabilities before publication to taking control of their own narrative when false information emerges.

Retail and hospitality premises claims require swift action to preserve critical evidence before it disappears. What investigative strategies can defense counsel employ to capture surveillance footage, witness statements, and scene documentation before memories fade and conditions change? This comprehensive guide explores three essential components of early investigation that can make or break a successful premises liability defense.

But for many creators and businesses, the traditional path to enforcing those rights has been federal court, which means significant attorney fees, lengthy timelines, and procedural complexity that can deter pursuing a claim. For years, some smaller-dollar infringement went unenforced for this reason.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a significant ruling that challenges the procedural foundations of Schedule A litigation, a practice that has allowed intellectual property owners to sue hundreds of foreign online merchants simultaneously while obtaining asset freezes before defendants are even aware of the lawsuits. This decision, coupled with increased judicial scrutiny in the Northern District of Illinois...

Recent California and federal court decisions address critical employment law issues including the extraterritorial application of California labor statutes, mass joinder in workplace harassment cases...

But for many creators and businesses, the traditional path to enforcing those rights has been federal court, which means significant attorney fees, lengthy timelines, and procedural complexity that can deter pursuing a claim. For years, some smaller-dollar infringement went unenforced for this reason.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a significant ruling that challenges the procedural foundations of Schedule A litigation, a practice that has allowed intellectual property owners to sue hundreds of foreign online merchants simultaneously while obtaining asset freezes before defendants are even aware of the lawsuits. This decision, coupled with increased judicial scrutiny in the Northern District of Illinois...

An appeal can take a surprisingly long time to reach oral argument. And even after the lawyers have argued the case, months can pass before the Court of Appeals issues its decision. That silence can be frustrating, and it can be tempting to assume that the delay means something about the outcome. Perhaps the judges are struggling with the case. Perhaps they are divided. Perhaps they are preparing to reverse the trial court.

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.