Labor and Employment
AI in Predictive Analytics for Employee Performance: Risk vs. Reward
Employers are increasingly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) and data-driven tools in performance management in an effort to promote consistency and reduce human bias. Yet these systems inherit the limitations of the data that fuels them, and workplace performance data is rarely neutral. Importantly, AI models are only as reliable as the information on which they are trained, and when that information reflects historical inequities or includes data correlated with protected characteristics, AI-driven performance metrics may perpetuate patterns that have long disadvantaged certain groups of employees. Performance data also frequently lacks critical context. Metrics such as output volume, response times, or client feedback often fail to account for legitimate sources of variation, including disability accommodations, intermittent or protected leave, caregiving responsibilities, or differences in job assignments. AI systems generally struggle to recognize these nuances, even though performance evaluations commonly inform high-stakes decisions involving promotions, compensation, and terminations. When adverse employment actions are grounded in incomplete or misleading data, employers may find it difficult to defend those decisions, particularly where they have a disparate impact on members of protected classes. The takeaway for employers is not to abandon AI, but to deploy it thoughtfully and lawfully. Employers should routinely audit performance data for bias, understand how AI tools weigh and interpret inputs, and train managers to assess AI-generated insights critically rather than accept them at face value. And always remember: human oversight remains essential.
June 16, 2026
Commercial Litigation
United States Tax Court Delivers Important R&D Credit Win for Architectural Innovation
The United States Tax Court released its opinion today on Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-50, and it is a significant R&D credit win for taxpayers that perform sophisticated technical work for clients. I am particularly satisfied with the outcome, having had the privilege of litigating this case. This matter involved research credits claimed by Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, LLP, or AS+GG, for research activities performed in connection with large scale architectural projects during the 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax years. AS+GG is known for ambitious, complex, and highly sustainable architectural design. The projects at issue involved supertall towers, zero carbon and low energy design concepts, wind studies, solar orientation analysis, structural and environmental performance issues, and other technical design challenges. This context matters, as the case was not about routine design work. The opinion describes a firm working at the edge of what architecture, engineering, and sustainable design could accomplish. In that respect, the case is a useful reminder that R&D credits are not limited to laboratories, software companies, or manufacturing floors. Innovation also happens in design studios, engineering meetings, building models, wind studies, and iterative technical problem solving. The IRS Conceded the Four-Part Test One of the most important features of the case is what was not in dispute by the time of trial. The IRS ultimately conceded that AS+GG’s claimed business components satisfied the four-part test for qualified research under section 41(d). That concession mattered, and it did not happen by accident. A significant part of the case was devoted to developing the factual record on the nature of AS+GG’s work. Through extensive discovery, the taxpayers built the record showing that the projects involved real technical uncertainty, a process of experimentation, and design work directed at performance, sustainability, structure, energy usage, wind behavior, solar orientation, and other technical objectives. By the time of trial, the government no longer tried the case on the theory that the work failed the four-part test. Instead, the IRS conceded that issue, and the trial focused on the funded research exclusion under section 41(d)(4)(H). That is a major point. For taxpayers in architecture, engineering, design, and other technical service industries, the concession reinforces something important: sophisticated client work can involve qualified research. The remaining fight was not whether AS+GG’s work was research. It was whether the funded research rules limited the credit. The Funded Research Issue The funded research exclusion is one of the most important limitations on R&D credits for companies that perform technical work under customer contracts. Section 41(d)(4)(H) excludes research “to the extent funded” by another person. The regulations generally ask two questions: First, was payment contingent on the success of the research Second, did the taxpayer retain substantial rights in the research The Court applied that familiar framework. The taxpayers argued that, after Loper Bright, the Court should not simply accept the regulatory test and should instead adopt a narrower reading of “funded.” The Court rejected that argument and held that the funded research regulations remain valid. That part of the opinion is important, but it should not obscure the practical taxpayer win. Even applying the regulatory framework urged by the government, the taxpayers prevailed on the central issue that mattered most for four of the six sample projects: substantial rights. The Taxpayer Win: Substantial Rights The heart of the opinion is the Court’s substantial rights analysis. The Court held that AS+GG retained substantial rights in the research performed on four of the six sample projects: Atrium City Tower, Masdar HQ, Atrium City Masterplan, and Plot R2. That holding matters because a taxpayer that retains substantial rights in the research may still claim R&D credits on a reduced basis, even if the Court concludes that payments were not contingent on success. The practical result is that AS+GG was not treated as having simply performed fully funded research for a customer on those projects with no credit available. Instead, the Court recognized that AS+GG retained meaningful rights to use the results of its research in its business. That is a significant result in a funded research case. It is also a lesson in contract drafting. The Court did not treat intellectual property provisions, copyright language, licenses, confidentiality clauses, settlement agreements, and use restrictions as boilerplate. It parsed the language project by project. On some projects, the language preserved enough rights for the taxpayer. On others, it did not. That project-by-project analysis is one of the most useful aspects of the opinion. It shows that small differences in contract language can produce very different R&D credit outcomes. Why this Matters for R&D Credit Taxpayers Smith is especially useful for architecture, engineering, construction, consulting, design, and other technical service businesses. Many of these companies assume that R&D credits are unavailable because they perform work for clients. That assumption is too broad. A customer contract does not automatically eliminate the credit. The funded research rules are more nuanced. The key questions are who bears the relevant risk and whether the taxpayer retains meaningful rights in the research. The opinion reinforces several important points. First, design and architecture can involve qualified research. The Court’s factual findings describe technical work involving sustainability, wind, energy, structure, geometry, performance, and environmental constraints. Those are exactly the kinds of uncertainties that can support R&D credit claims when properly documented. Second, substantial rights matter. A taxpayer does not necessarily lose the credit merely because the customer receives project rights, licenses, or deliverables. The question is whether the taxpayer retained meaningful rights to use the research results in its own business. Third, contracts matter. The funded research analysis is driven heavily by the agreement between the taxpayer and the customer. Taxpayers who wait until audit to think about substantial rights are often too late. Fourth, documentation still matters. The Court left the precise credit amounts to be determined through computation. That is a reminder that winning the legal issue is not enough. Taxpayers also need project level documentation and expense substantiation that allow the allowable credit to be calculated. A Strong, Reasonable Compensation Win The opinion also includes an important win on reasonable compensation, an issue I personally handled at trial, and one of the most satisfying parts of the case. AS+GG’s R&D credit included wage related qualified research expenditures attributable to the partners. The government challenged the partners’ 2008 compensation under section 174(e), arguing for a much lower reasonable compensation amount. At trial, a central part of the taxpayers’ case revealed that the government’s reasonable compensation theory did not fit the economics of the business. That point came through clearly in the expert testimony. The IRS expert advanced a much lower compensation number under a multifactor analysis, but his own independent investor analysis showed that, even after his adjustments, AS+GG generated a 939% return on equity. On that math, he concluded that the partners’ total compensation was not unreasonable. That was a powerful trial point. The government’s expert opinion, when tested against the controlling Seventh Circuit standard, supported the taxpayers. The Court agreed that the independent investor test applied because the case was appealable to the Seventh Circuit. Once that standard governed, the result followed: the partners’ 2008 compensation was reasonable under section 174(e). That holding is meaningful for owner-operated businesses where the people driving the research are also principals of the business. In those cases, the R&D credit often depends not only on whether the work qualifies, but also on whether compensation paid to key technical leaders can be included in wage QREs. Here, the Court accepted the taxpayers’ position and preserved an important component of the credit. Practical Takeaways The biggest takeaway from Smith is that R&D credit planning should begin before the contract is signed. Taxpayers performing technical work for customers should review their agreements for at least three things: First, what happens if the research fails Second, who owns the work product, technical information, drawings, designs, models, methods, and other research results Third, does the taxpayer retain the right to use what it learned and developed in future work Those questions should be addressed in the contract itself. They should not be left to implication, course of dealing, or after-the-fact argument. This case also highlights the importance of project-level documentation. Taxpayers should identify the business components, the technical uncertainties, the process of experimentation, the employees or principals performing qualified services, and the expenses tied to the research. Conclusion Smith v. Commissioner is a significant R&D credit decision and a gratifying taxpayer win. The IRS conceded that the work satisfied the four-part test. The Court held that AS+GG retained substantial rights in four of the six sample projects and allowed the taxpayers to claim research credits to the extent permitted by the funded research rules. The Court also accepted the taxpayers’ position on reasonable compensation, preserving an important wage QRE issue. For taxpayers in architecture, engineering, design, consulting, and other technical service businesses, the message is encouraging: customer contract work does not automatically defeat the R&D credit. But the contract language matters, the retained rights matter, and the record matters.
June 16, 2026
Business
Why the Friendly PC Model Remains Critical to Healthcare Private Equity Transactions with Medical and Dental Practices
Private equity (“PE”) activity in healthcare across the United States has caused continued focus by state legislatures and enforcement agencies on the doctrines of corporate practice of medicine and dentistry (“CPOM” or “CPOD”). Notwithstanding this attention, the often-referenced “Friendly PC” model remains the optimal corporate strategy to ensure post-closing compliance with CPOM and CPOD regulations in most jurisdictions. The following identifies some key considerations for the agreement's ancillary to the purchase of the non-clinical assets by the PE company’s management services organization (“MSO”), which are commonly used to ensure compliance with CPOM and CPOD. Friendly PC Model As a general matter, the term “Friendly PC” model in PE healthcare deals most often refers to a business arrangement where a physician or dentist-owned professional corporation (“PC”) sells all of its non-clinical assets to an entity owned by the MSO (controlled by the PE firm), which then takes responsibility for the PC’s non-clinical business operations. This model complies with fundamental CPOM and CPOD legal requirements, which are designed to restrict non-physicians from owning or controlling medical practices. Such a structure prevents the PE buyer from owning clinical assets or unduly controlling the clinical operations and decision-making of the providers employed by the PC. In the “Friendly PC” structure, the parties designate a single clinical professional to serve as the sole owner of the PC post-closing. This individual is referred to as the friendly physician or dentist (“Friendly Provider”), who is then expected to cooperate with the PE buyer in accomplishing its business goals. Such a transaction requires the drafting of a series of agreements to accomplish the necessary purposes of the arrangement. Although the nature and scope of such agreements may vary slightly based upon preference and applicable state law, below is a brief description of certain key agreements, and their most necessary elements, to ensure the PC’s compliance with CPOM and CPOD laws post-closing. Management Services Agreement The Management Services Agreement (“MSA”) is entered into between the PC and the MSO, which is owned by the PE buyer. Through this agreement, the MSO is responsible for providing and arranging for certain non-clinical administrative, business support, and back-office services on behalf of the PC. The MSA will clearly state that the MSO entity will not play any role in the care of patients and will specify the limitations of the actual services to be provided so as to ensure it will not fall within the applicable state’s definition of the practice of medicine or dentistry. It is also very important that the MSA define the independent contractor nature of this commercial relationship and seeks to avoid creating a de facto partnership between the MSO and the PC.1 Overly lengthy initial contract durations, requirements for minimum operational hours per period, the ability to negotiate payor and other agreements without the PC’s consent, and compensating the MSO through a percentage of the PC’s profits are all commonly mishandled deal points that could create an unintended partnership in the eyes of a regulatory agency.2 As such, legal counsel must carefully tailor these provisions to avoid such a problematic presumption. Equity Transfer Restriction Agreement This agreement establishes a highly restrictive framework which governs the ownership and transfer of the Friendly Provider’s interests in the PC, giving the MSO near-complete control over any change in ownership. As a baseline rule, no transfer of equity—whether voluntary, involuntary, or by operation of law—may occur without the MSO’s prior written consent, which may be granted or withheld in its sole discretion. The central mechanism is a set of transfer events (e.g., death, disability, termination of services, loss of licensure, legal disqualification, divorce, regulatory issues, or breach of agreements), upon which the Friendly Provider’s entire ownership interest is automatically and immediately transferred—without notice or further action—to an MSO–designated transferee. This transfer occurs by operation of contract, is effective upon the triggering event, regardless of administrative formalities and is typically priced at a nominal $1.00. In addition, the MSO typically holds a unilateral call option enabling it to trigger a forced transfer of all equity at any time by delivering notice, which itself constitutes a transfer event and results in the same automatic $1.00 transfer to its designated transferee. Following any such transfer, the Friendly Provider is automatically stripped of all ownership, governance roles, and economic rights in the PC. The agreement further reinforces this control structure through ongoing covenants that prohibit the Friendly Provider and the PC from taking a wide range of corporate, financial, and operational actions without MSO approval, ensuring that both ownership continuity and strategic direction remain fully aligned with the MSO’s interests. Provider Employment Agreement The provider employment agreement is often viewed as the most important by medical professionals who are divesting their interest in the PC. It includes terms and conditions regarding compensation and various restrictive covenants (i.e., non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality) that are critical to the clinician’s relationship with the PC. Legal counsel should ensure that the employment agreement also contains specific provisions or guarantees that the clinical professionals will maintain broad autonomy in all clinical decision-making and treatment of patients post-closing.3 Under no circumstances may the PC exercise any undue control over this aspect of their clinical professional employees’ job performance, and expressly stating as such within this agreement may help the arrangement survive future scrutiny.4 Clinical Liaison Agreement Lastly, the Clinical Liaison Agreement (“CLA”), typically entered into by the PE management entity and the Friendly Provider, is a frequently used means to outsource the development and implementation of the medico-administrative services of the PC. As a licensed professional in the state of operation, the Friendly Provider is the only party legally authorized to provide such services as the supervision of clinical staff, the development of clinical policies, and the leadership of patient-related programs and initiatives. The existence of such an arrangement is therefore imperative for the post-closing clinical management of the PC. As with the other agreements, the CLA should involve a reasonable term length and consideration for the Friendly Provider’s time and effort, and it should also protect the Friendly Provider’s necessary autonomy to perform their duties as outlined therein.5 Conclusion As scrutiny of “Friendly PC” transactions continues in light of consumer and legislative concerns over the affordability of health care services, the need for proper separation of clinical and non-clinical management post-closing is likely to be more important now than in years past. As such, PE buyers and their counsel must pay close attention to these frequently overlooked ancillary agreements to ensure the truly independent nature of their post-closing relationships. 1See Warren J. Apollon, D.M.D., P.C. v. OCA, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 906; and OCA, Inc., et al . Kellyn Hodges, D.M.D., M.S., et al., 615 F. Supp. 2d 477. 2Id. 3The definitions of “Practice of Medicine” and “Practice of Dentistry” vary by state, however, guidance provided by the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine provides examples of the types of rights and privileges of licensed providers that must not be interfered with or influenced by unlicensed persons or entities. (See 63 P.S. § 422.1, et seq., 63 P.S. § 120, et seq.) 4Id. 5https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/physician-engagement-private-equity-firms/2025-05
June 15, 2026
Intellectual Property
Trademark Office Actions Explained: Why They Feel Random Yet Aren't
For many in-house legal teams, the most frustrating part of the trademark registration process is the Office Action. A trademark application is filed after discussions with marketing, business leaders, and outside counsel. Clearance (hopefully) were conducted. Filing strategies were approved. Then, after months of silence, a letter arrives from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office raising objections that can feel technical, unexpected, or disconnected from how the brand actually operates in the marketplace. The reaction is often the same: Why is this happening? Why now? Didn't we already do the work to avoid this? From the applicant's perspective, Office Actions can appear arbitrary. Yet from the USPTO's perspective, trademark examination is one of the most structured parts of the registration process. What feels random to applicants is usually the result of a defined review process applied to imperfect information. Understanding that process can help in-house counsel manage expectations, communicate more effectively with business stakeholders, and make better strategic decisions when issues arise. Why Office Actions Feel Arbitrary Part of the frustration stems from timing. Trademark applications often sit for several months before they are assigned to an examining attorney. During that period, the business has usually moved on. Marketing campaigns may already be underway. Product launches may be approaching. Internal teams assume that no news is good news. Then the Office Action arrives. Because of the delay, the refusal often feels disconnected from the decisions that led to the filing. The individuals who selected the mark may no longer remember the details of the clearance process. New stakeholders may question why the issue was not identified earlier. Budget assumptions may have been based on the expectation of a straightforward registration. The substance of the refusal can compound the confusion. A likelihood of confusion refusal may compare two marks that, from a commercial perspective, seem entirely different. A descriptiveness refusal may target a name that the marketing department considers highly creative. Technical objections regarding identifications of goods and services may appear to focus on wording rather than the underlying business reality. To business teams, these objections can seem detached from common sense. In reality, they reflect the fact that trademark examination occurs within a specific legal framework that prioritizes the contents of the application record over marketplace nuance. How Examining Attorneys Actually Review Applications Trademark examiners do not begin with the applicant's business strategy. They do not evaluate whether the mark was expensive to develop or whether substantial resources have already been invested in a launch. Trademark examiners review applications using a structured analytical process. The examining attorney assesses the mark as filed. They review the identified goods and services. They compare the application against existing registrations and pending applications. They evaluate whether the mark is merely descriptive, generic, deceptively misdescriptive, or otherwise barred from registration under the Trademark Act. They also confirm that the application satisfies various procedural and technical requirements. The examination is therefore limited by the record before the USPTO. Examining attorneys generally do not investigate how the applicant actually uses the mark beyond what is reflected in the application and supporting materials. They do not independently explore the applicant's target consumers, brand architecture, or commercial objectives. They do not assess whether business stakeholders believe confusion is unlikely in practice. Their role is narrower. They apply statutory standards and USPTO guidance to the application as presented. They live in the “Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure.” For in-house counsel, this distinction is important because it highlights how early filing decisions can significantly influence later outcomes. Choices regarding the wording of identifications, the breadth of claimed goods and services, the quality of specimens, and the evidence included in the record can all shape the examination process months later. The Most Common Triggers for Office Actions Although Office Actions often feel unpredictable, most fall into a relatively small number of recurring categories. Likelihood of confusion refusals under Section 2(d) remain among the most common. These refusals frequently arise because the trademark register is increasingly crowded. Even marks that appear distinguishable from a branding perspective may encounter issues when similar marks cover overlapping goods or services. Broad identifications can exacerbate this problem. When an application claims expansive categories of goods or services, the examining attorney must assume that the applicant intends to operate throughout the full scope of those descriptions. This can create conflicts that might not exist if the identification more accurately reflected the applicant's actual business activities. Descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1) also occur regularly. Marketing teams often gravitate toward names that immediately communicate product attributes or benefits. From a branding perspective, these choices can be compelling because they convey information efficiently. From a trademark perspective, however, they may raise concerns regarding whether the proposed mark merely describes the identified goods or services. Specimen refusals represent another common category. These frequently stem from timing pressures associated with filing. Businesses eager to secure rights may submit materials that do not clearly demonstrate trademark use, or that fail to associate the mark with the relevant goods or services in the manner required by the USPTO. In many cases, these Office Actions do not reflect unusual circumstances or examiner idiosyncrasies. Rather, they are predictable outcomes resulting from how the application was prepared and supported. How to Respond Without Overreacting Receiving an Office Action should not automatically trigger an alarm. Some Office Actions are largely procedural. Amendments to identifications of goods and services, disclaimer requirements, and requests for clarification can often be resolved efficiently without materially affecting the scope of protection sought. Others require more substantive analysis. A likelihood of confusion refusal may warrant consideration of arguments distinguishing the marks, amendments narrowing the identification, coexistence discussions with third parties, or reassessment of the filing strategy. Descriptiveness refusals may prompt evaluation of acquired distinctiveness claims, supplemental registration options, or broader branding considerations. The critical task for in-house counsel is distinguishing between issues that genuinely threaten the viability of the brand and those that simply require thoughtful adjustment. Treating every Office Action as a crisis can create unnecessary friction with business stakeholders and increase legal costs. Conversely, minimizing significant refusals may expose the organization to avoidable risk. A measured approach grounded in an understanding of the examination process allows legal teams to calibrate their responses appropriately. What This Means for In-House Oversight Office Actions should not be viewed solely as obstacles or evidence that something has gone wrong. In many respects, they function as feedback mechanisms. They identify areas where the application record can be improved, where filing assumptions may warrant reconsideration, or where the realities of the trademark landscape impose limitations that were not fully appreciated at the outset. For in-house counsel, this perspective shift can be valuable. Understanding how examining attorneys evaluate applications enables legal teams to set more realistic expectations with marketing and executive leadership. It encourages more deliberate decision-making during the application stage. It also facilitates more productive conversations with outside counsel regarding risk tolerance, filing strategies, and response options. Perhaps most importantly, it reduces the perception that the USPTO operates unpredictably. Trademark examination is not random. It is systematic. But it is a system that relies heavily on the quality and precision of the information provided to it. When businesses recognize that dynamic, Office Actions become easier to understand and manage. They cease to be viewed as unexpected disruptions and instead become part of a broader process aimed at defining the scope of protectable rights. That understanding does not eliminate frustration. Delays will still occur. Disagreements with examining attorneys will remain inevitable. Difficult strategic decisions will still arise. But it does replace uncertainty with context. And for in-house teams responsible for guiding brands through increasingly complex trademark portfolios, that context can make all the difference.
June 15, 2026
Business
Why Real Estate Issues Slow ETA Deals
Most buyers expect environmental issues to be the real estate risk. In many deals, the larger risk is operational disruption. Real Estate Is Involved in Most ETA Transactions Real estate shows up in the vast majority of lower middle market transactions in some form. According to the 2025 Small Business Credit Survey published by the Federal Reserve: approximately 59% of operating businesses with employees operate from leased facilities approximately 17% operate from owned facilities approximately 17% primarily operate from a residence or without a dedicated operating facility That means roughly 83% of entrepreneurship through acquisition transactions involve some form of real estate or occupancy issue. In many deals, the primary issue is not ownership of the property itself. It is whether occupancy, control rights, lease assignment provisions, lender requirements, zoning, or permits could interfere with the business continuing to operate after closing. Those risks often become the primary real estate issues affecting the transaction. Most Buyers Initially Focus on Environmental Risk Environmental exposure absolutely matters. Particularly in: manufacturing industrial logistics automotive fuel-related operations older commercial corridors Phase I and Phase II reports remain critical diligence tools. But many search funders, independent sponsors, and ETA buyers do not place enough weight on operational interruption risk. While the business may technically exist independent of the property, operationally, it often does not. Location Becomes Part of the Business Most of these businesses are highly dependent on their physical operating environment. Examples include: machine shops with specialized electrical infrastructure distributors dependent on loading access and trucking routes contractors relying on outdoor storage rights restaurants dependent on parking and liquor licensing healthcare operators dependent on permitted use manufacturers operating under grandfathered zoning protections The issue is not simply whether the business can move. The issue is: cost of relocation operational downtime customer disruption employee retention permitting risk lender reaction transition timing Many ETA buyers do not fully appreciate this until diligence deepens. Lease Problems Often Surface After LOI One issue that repeatedly appears in ETA deals is whether the business can continue occupying the property after closing under the existing lease arrangements. Many buyers initially assume that the lease will (and can) transfer automatically at the time of closing. That is often incorrect. Most commercial leases contain assignment restrictions, consent requirements, or change-of-control provisions that must be examined carefully during diligence. Buyers need to identify: anti-assignment clauses landlord consent requirements change-of-control provisions expired lease terms undocumented extensions side agreements reflected only in emails use restrictions relocation rights held by landlords personal guarantees tied to the seller While the business operated successfully under these arrangements for years, a transaction introduces scrutiny, diligence, lender review, and operational friction. Lenders Underwrite Real Estate Issues Aggressively Occupancy stability becomes especially important in financed transactions. Particularly: SBA-backed deals owner-occupied industrial acquisitions cash flow sensitive businesses location-dependent operations Lenders often focus heavily on: remaining lease term renewal rights assignability ownership structure related-party lease economics appraised value environmental exposure zoning compliance A business with strong EBITDA but only 18 months remaining on a lease can quickly become a financing issue. Especially if the landlord has leverage during the closing process. Owned Real Estate Creates a Separate Transaction (and Separate Issues) Buyers often assume owned real estate simplifies the acquisition. In reality, it frequently creates a separate parallel transaction with its own diligence process, timeline, costs, and risks. The buyer must now perform diligence on both the operating business and the real estate itself, including: title survey and boundary issues easements zoning environmental exposure permits deferred maintenance tax exposure utility access stormwater compliance shared access arrangements The ownership structure also becomes critical, with many ETA deals using separate entities for the business and real estate. For example: one LLC owns the operating business another entity owns the real estate the operating company leases the property from the real estate holding company That structure often creates cleaner liability separation, financing flexibility, estate planning opportunities, and long-term control over the property. The larger problems often appear when the business and property were never properly separated in the first place. Many older lower middle-market businesses operate under informal ownership structures where: the seller personally owns the property family members own portions of the real estate title ownership differs from operational control there is no formal lease occupancy economics were never documented properly related-party arrangements evolved informally over decades That creates a very different set of diligence and execution risks. Buyers now need to examine: who actually owns the property whether all owners are participating in the transaction whether any family members must consent whether the operating business has formal occupancy rights whether market rent materially changes EBITDA whether lender underwriting changes once rent is normalized whether personal use or mixed-use issues exist whether title, tax, or succession issues affect the property whether post-close disputes could arise around occupancy or control Real Estate Distorts EBITDA More Than Buyers Expect Normalized occupancy costs also frequently change the underwriting. This issue regularly shows up in entrepreneurship through acquisition transactions, causing the business to appear more profitable because the seller owns the building. The company may operate with: below-market rent no formal lease favorable related-party occupancy terms deferred maintenance underreported capital needs Once the buyer normalizes rent, maintenance, taxes, insurance, market occupancy economics, and other carrying costs, the cash flow can compress quickly. That affects: leverage availability DSCR calculations valuation purchase price expectations post-close cash needs This is particularly important in manufacturing, warehouse, automotive, and hospitality acquisitions. Zoning Problems May Remain Hidden Until Diligence It can be a misconception to assume: “The business already operates there, so zoning must be fine.” Not always. A lack of zoning compliance can significantly disrupt operations. Businesses sometimes operate under: grandfathered nonconforming uses historical variances undocumented expansions expired permits improper outdoor storage occupancy inconsistencies signage violations prior approvals tied to historical ownership A transaction can trigger: new permit review lender diligence insurance underwriting review municipal scrutiny updated inspections The business may have operated without issue for years, but that does not mean the use remains protected post-closing. Real Estate Risk Can Show Up Everywhere Real estate issues quickly spread into: financing operations integration employee retention transition planning insurance working capital timing of closing The issues then become larger than the property itself. Real estate issues are most prevalent in lower middle market acquisitions where: documentation evolved informally occupancy arrangements were relationship-driven operational processes were never built for institutional diligence In these ETA deals, the answer to the real estate question ultimately controls: “Can the business continue operating the same way immediately after closing?”
June 10, 2026
Family Law
Protective Orders: Criminal Lawyer or Family Lawyer
It may be best to involve a criminal defense attorney in a protective order case because the consequences often extend far beyond family court. Although protective order proceedings are technically civil matters, they can create significant criminal, constitutional, and long-term legal issues. Hidden Criminal Risks in Protective Order Cases Allegations made during a protective order hearing may expose a person to potential criminal investigation or prosecution. Statements made under oath in a protective order proceeding can later be used in related criminal cases involving assault, harassment, stalking, or violations of court orders. A criminal attorney is trained to evaluate those risks and help avoid admissions that could later expose criminal exposure. In addition, protective orders can carry serious restrictions that resemble criminal sanctions. A final order may require someone to leave their home, lose firearm rights, avoid contact with family members, or face immediate arrest for any alleged violation. Violating a protective order can itself become a criminal offense, even if the underlying family dispute remains unresolved. Protective orders can affect related family law matters, including custody and visitation. Findings of abuse may later influence custody decisions under the “best interests of the child” standard. Because of that overlap, coordination between family law strategy and criminal defense strategy is often critical. Having a family lawyer represent you at a protective order hearing may appear as a posturing tactic to the judge in your family law case. There are also collateral consequences that many people do not initially consider. A protective order can influence employment, professional licenses, military status, security clearances, immigration matters, and housing opportunities, which may impact a family law case or a criminal matter. In most cases, the best approach involves both a family law attorney and a criminal defense attorney working together. Family law counsel may focus on custody, divorce, and long-term parenting issues, while criminal counsel focuses on avoiding criminal exposure.
June 8, 2026
Family Law
Understanding Financial Coercion in Family Law Cases
Representing a financially dependent spouse in a family law case often involves more than simply litigating support or property division. In many cases, the dependent spouse may also be experiencing financial coercion, which is a form of control in which one party uses money, access to resources, or economic pressure to dominate or manipulate the other spouse during the marriage or throughout the litigation process. Common Forms of Financial Control in Marriage Financial coercion can take many forms. One spouse may control all bank accounts, restrict access to funds, monitor spending, cancel credit cards, refuse to provide financial information, provide limited spending budgets, or threaten to stop paying household expenses unless certain demands are met. In some situations, the dependent spouse may have little knowledge of the family’s finances because the other spouse historically managed all income, investments, taxes, and accounts. Legal Challenges Faced by Financially Dependent Spouses These dynamics can place the dependent spouse at a severe disadvantage during divorce litigation. A spouse without access to money may struggle to retain counsel, secure housing, pay experts, or even meet daily living expenses while the case is pending. Fear of financial instability can also pressure a dependent spouse into accepting unfair settlement terms. How Courts Address Economic Imbalance During Divorce Family law courts increasingly recognize that economic control can affect the fairness of the litigation process itself. Requests for pendente lite support, attorney’s fees, temporary use and possession of the marital home, and orders requiring financial disclosures may become critical tools in leveling the playing field. Early intervention is often essential to stabilize the dependent spouse financially before meaningful negotiations can occur. Importance of Financial Documentation and Evidence Documentation is particularly important in these cases. Bank records, account access history, spending restrictions, hidden assets, sudden transfers of funds, and communications involving financial threats may all become relevant evidence. Attorneys may also need to work closely with forensic accountants or financial experts when there are concerns about concealed income, business manipulation, or dissipation of assets. Emotional and Psychological Impact of Financial Coercion Beyond the legal and financial issues, financial coercion frequently has a significant emotional and psychological impact. Many dependent spouses experience anxiety, fear, embarrassment, or a lack of confidence in making financial decisions independently. Effective representation often requires patience, education, and helping the client regain a sense of stability and autonomy throughout the litigation process. Advocating for Fairness and Financial Independence Ultimately, representing a financially dependent spouse involves more than seeking support payments or dividing assets. It often requires addressing an imbalance of power that has existed throughout the relationship and ensuring that the dependent spouse has a fair opportunity to participate in the legal process and rebuild financial independence moving forward.
June 8, 2026
Landlord Representation
HUD’s New Fair Housing Governance Strategies: Accountability, Detection, and Interagency Strategic Targeting
HUD’s unending flurry of announcements, proposed rulemaking, and press releases is neither subtle nor accidental. Over the past 18 months or so, HUD’s announcements have coalesced around three themes likely to shape the next several years of federal housing policy. First, accountability will be operationalized. HUD’s willingness to impose monitorship and assume control of PHAs indicates that compliance failures will increasingly be met with intervention, rather than incremental guidance. Second, civil rights compliance and enforcement remain in flux. As HUD advances regulatory changes and courts inevitably weigh in (over the years to come), housing providers must prepare for a period of doctrinal instability. Third, enforcement will be both targeted and strategic. By selecting high-profile investigations, HUD can influence industry behavior beyond the immediate parties, effectively regulating through example. Taken together, these reflect a deliberate recalibration of federal housing governance, one that blends fair housing enforcement with a renewed emphasis on operational accountability, explicit civil-rights policy, and interagency coordination. The result is a framework that is less about suggested guidance and more about institutional posture: HUD is signaling how it intends to govern, enforce, and intervene for the foreseeable future. From Oversight to Intervention: HUD Reignites Direct Federal Control HUD’s recent actions against local public housing authorities demonstrate a shift from general oversight to direct intervention. The February 2026 placement of the Manhattan Housing Authority into federal monitorship introduced a familiar but newly emphasized tool: the imposition of HUD-appointed “Cure Monitors,” enhanced oversight of procurement and financial controls, and the threat of escalation to full federal possession. That threat materialized mere months later. In May 2026, HUD declared the Little Rock Housing Authority in “substantial default,” dissolved its governing board, and assumed full possession of its programs and assets after finding material violations of a prior recovery agreement. On their face, these actions are rooted in statutory authority (which has long been available to HUD). However, their recent deployment and the speed with which monitorship escalated into possession suggests a revived willingness to unlock this authority. The administrative message is clear: recovery agreements are no longer aspirational. They are enforceable benchmarks, and failure to meet them may trigger immediate consequences. If HUD is prepared to step into the role of operator, the risk of noncompliance becomes substantial. Redefining Civil Rights: From Enforcement Pause to Framework Reset Parallel to this enforcement posture, HUD has undertaken a second, more ideological project: redefining key civil rights concepts within its regulatory framework. In 2025, HUD halted enforcement of aspects of the 2016 Equal Access Rule, signaling a departure from prior interpretations of nondiscrimination obligations in HUD-funded programs. By 2026, that pause had evolved into a proposed rulemaking effort to revise terminology across HUD regulations — removing “gender identity” from interpretations of “sex” and refocusing program requirements on “biological truth.” HUD is not simply deprioritizing enforcement; it is attempting to rewrite the regulatory vocabulary through which compliance is measured. That shift carries consequences not only for shelters and supportive housing providers (where the immediate impact is often most pronounced) but also for any multifamily operator navigating layered federal, state, and local nondiscrimination obligations. The result, at least in the near term, is regulatory fragmentation. Federal program requirements may diverge from state or local law, forcing housing providers into a position of having to simultaneously comply with potentially conflicting regimes. The challenge becomes less about choosing sides and more about engineering policies that can withstand the counterpressure of competing bodies (federal vs. state). The Selective Spotlight: Fair Housing Enforcement Through High-Profile Investigations If HUD’s regulatory proposals define its internal posture, its public-facing enforcement priorities are equally illustrative. The agency’s 2026 decision to open a Fair Housing Act investigation into a planned development in Texas — based on allegations of religious and national origin discrimination — reflects a renewed willingness to bring high-visibility cases that test the boundaries of community identity and exclusivity. The Fair Housing Act has long prohibited discrimination based on those two protected traits. What is notable here is not the legal theory but the emphasis: HUD is scrutinizing how developments are conceived, marketed, and structured, not merely how individual applicants are treated. Allegations involving targeted messaging, financial structures tied to religious institutions, and tiered access mechanisms illustrate HUD’s expansive view of what may constitute discriminatory conduct. This investigation may serve a dual function. It is both an enforcement action and a signaling device, communicating to the market that branding strategies and community frameworks will be evaluated through a fair housing lens, even at the conceptual stage. Interagency Alignment These developments do not exist in isolation. HUD’s participation in broader federal initiatives — including task force activity and coordination with the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security — reflects an increasingly strategic enforcement model. This model prioritizes data sharing, coordinated investigations, and multi-agency responses to alleged systemic issues, whether framed as mismanagement, discrimination, or public safety concerns. The practical effect is: issues that once unfolded within a single agency may now trigger parallel scrutiny across multiple federal actors. A Forward-Looking Assessment The way HUD deploys its authority — combining intervention, redefinition, and selective enforcement — signals a more assertive and unpredictable regulatory environment. For multifamily stakeholders, the lesson is less about any single announcement and more about the pattern they form. HUD is not merely administering housing programs; it is actively shaping the conditions under which those programs (and, perhaps, the broader housing market) operate. The prudent response is not reactionary compliance, but anticipatory governance: aligning policies, partnerships, and practices with federal (and state) requirements.
June 3, 2026
Estates and Trusts
Mind the Gap: Naming an “In-Between” Guardian for Your Minor Children
Even the best estate plans can leave an unintended gap. For parents of minor children, that gap may arise between a parent’s death or incapacity and the court’s formal appointment of a guardian. During that in-between period, it may be unclear who is authorized to care for the children, make medical decisions, or handle day-to-day responsibilities. While many parents focus on creating a will, naming beneficiaries, and appointing fiduciaries, they should also consider a temporary guardianship designation. In Maryland, this separate document enables parents to name a trusted person who can step in immediately to care for their children until a permanent guardian is appointed. For any parent, the thought of leaving children behind is understandably difficult. But estate planning is ultimately about making sure your children are cared for if the unexpected happens. A temporary guardianship designation is one of the most practical ways to provide guidance and reassurance during a crisis. The Gap a Will May Not Cover In Maryland, a will can nominate a guardian for minor children, but a will alone may not address the immediate realities after a parent’s death. Before a court formally recognizes the guardian nomination, there may be a period of uncertainty about who is authorized to care for the children and make important decisions on their behalf. A temporary guardianship designation helps fill that gap by providing clear directions as to who should step in immediately. This can minimize confusion among family members, reduce the likelihood of disputes, and help avoid emergency court intervention. It can also help avoid the need for an emergency custody proceeding if a friend or family member must step in unexpectedly without written authority to care for the children. By documenting the parents’ wishes in advance, the temporary designation can provide written authority and practical guidance during an already stressful situation. What Happens Without a Plan Ignoring this issue can create significant practical and emotional challenges. Imagine both parents are unexpectedly killed in an accident. Without temporary guardianship documentation, relatives may disagree about who should care for the children. In some cases, children may even be placed temporarily with social services until the court appoints a guardian. Even a brief period of uncertainty can be deeply unsettling for children already coping with grief and upheaval. By contrast, when parents have signed temporary guardianship documents, the transition is often far smoother. The designated individual—often someone nearby—can step in right away to provide housing, routine, emotional support, and day-to-day care until longer-term arrangements are finalized. Children are more likely to remain in familiar surroundings, continue attending the same school, and maintain important relationships during an extraordinarily difficult time. Choosing the Right Person Selecting a temporary guardian requires careful thought. Parents should choose someone they trust deeply and who shares similar values regarding parenting, education, and discipline. Practical considerations matter as well. The individual should be willing and able to take on the responsibility emotionally, physically, and logistically. Location may also be a factor. While naming someone nearby may reduce disruption, many parents choose out-of-state relatives based on strong relationships or shared values. The best choice is the person best able to provide a stable, supportive environment. Parents should also discuss the role with the proposed guardian in advance. Open communication helps prevent surprises and gives that person an opportunity to ask questions and understand expectations. It is also wise to name one or more alternates in case the primary choice is unavailable. Parents should review these designations periodically as family circumstances and relationships evolve. The temporary and permanent guardians may be the same person, or they may be different individuals. When the same person serves in both roles, the temporary guardianship enables him or her to step in immediately and helps prevent children from remaining in legal limbo until the court formalizes the longer-term appointment. Part of a Bigger Plan A temporary guardianship designation works best as part of a comprehensive estate plan that may also include wills with trust provisions, powers of attorney, and advance medical directives. While a temporary guardian handles a child’s immediate care, a trustee may manage financial resources for the child’s benefit. Coordinating these roles helps ensure that children are both emotionally supported and financially protected. Parents should also understand that Maryland courts ultimately retain authority over guardianship decisions. A temporary designation does not eliminate court involvement, but it does provide strong evidence of the parents’ wishes during a difficult transition. A Simple Step That Makes a Real Difference Too often, parents postpone estate planning because they feel too young, too healthy, or too busy. But emergencies can happen without warning. Naming an “in-between” guardian is one way parents can help ensure that someone they trust is ready to step in when it matters most.
June 3, 2026
Commercial Litigation
The NFL and the Limits of Arbitration Agreements: What Employers Need to Know
Brian Flores, an NFL coach, recently made headlines after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a dispute over whether his claims must be arbitrated. Flores asserted race discrimination claims against the NFL and several teams arising from his employment. With the Court denying certiorari on the enforceability of the NFL’s arbitration agreement, those claims will proceed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. This development is notable given the increasing prevalence of arbitration agreements in employment relationships. Many employers require employees to sign arbitration agreements at the outset of employment, often limiting their ability to litigate claims, such as discrimination or wage-and-hour disputes, in court. Because courts frequently grant motions to compel arbitration under these agreements, more disputes are diverted away from judicial forums. However, the NFL’s experience in this case illustrates that not all arbitration agreements will withstand judicial scrutiny. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) embodies a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, meaning that the vast majority of arbitration agreements will stay a federal suit while the parties proceed in an arbitral forum. Still, that policy is not without limits. Arbitration agreements must preserve a party’s ability to pursue statutory remedies and must, in substance, provide for arbitration, not merely label a process as such. In Flores v. New York Football Giants, Inc., the Second Circuit concluded that the NFL’s arbitration provision did fall under the purview of the FAA. The court emphasized two critical deficiencies. First, the agreement failed to provide for an independent forum for resolving disputes. Instead, it vested authority in the NFL Commissioner to oversee the process. This arrangement fell short of the neutrality expected in arbitration. As the court explained, an arbitration agreement must contemplate an “independent forum that is separate from the parties to the dispute.” A process that requires one party to submit disputes to the “substantive and procedural authority of the principal executive officer” of the opposing party is “an agreement for arbitration in name only.” Second, the agreement lacked sufficient procedural framework. Under the FAA, an arbitration agreement must establish how disputes will be resolved. Although the NFL’s provision granted the Commissioner authority to define procedures, the court found this open-ended delegation inadequate. Thus, the agreement “bore virtually no resemblance to arbitration agreements as envisioned and protected by the FAA.” For employers, the decision provides important guidance. While arbitration remains a valuable tool, its enforceability depends on careful drafting. Key Takeaways for Employers Ensure True Independence of the Arbitral Forum The forum must be neutral and separate from the parties. Employers should avoid retaining unilateral control over the decision-maker or process. Define Clear Procedures Arbitration agreements should outline, at least in general terms, how disputes will proceed — such as rules governing selection of the arbitrator, discovery, and hearings. This can often be done by selecting JAMS, AAA, or another arbitration service. Avoid Unconscionability Procedural fairness matters. Discovery limitations, for example, must not prevent employees from effectively vindicating their statutory rights. As the Fourth Circuit noted in Stinger v. Fort Lincoln Cemetery, LLC, while limited discovery is inherent in arbitration, it cannot be so restrictive as to undermine those rights. Account for State Law Requirements In addition to federal law, state-level unconscionability standards can affect enforceability. Employers should ensure their agreements comply with applicable state law. Ultimately, while the FAA does much of the heavy lifting in enforcing arbitration agreements, the Flores case serves as a reminder that an agreement must actually provide for arbitration in both form and substance. Employers who take the time to draft fair, balanced, and clearly defined arbitration provisions will be best positioned to ensure their agreements are enforceable.
June 3, 2026
Mergers and Acquisitions
When the Deal Gets Personal: The Emotional Inflection Points of Selling a Business
Selling a business is largely viewed as a financial transaction shaped by valuation, structure, diligence, and closing. However, for founders and owners, selling a business is also an emotional journey that can be a highly stressful event. That stress can be compounded when a corporate attorney is brought in late in the process when many sellers have already experienced the early and most precarious stages of the deal. Many sellers work with an investment banker to take the company to market, vet buyers, and there may even be a letter of intent (LOI) on the table before an attorney is brought on board. While the seller feels they are making progress, from a legal and strategic standpoint, this early stage is where complexity and stress begin to escalate and legal counsel is critical. We have discussed the importance of bringing in legal counsel early in the process in multiple posts, and that cannot be emphasized enough. Below, we examine the most stressful components for sellers in any deal and how bringing in legal counsel early can help to ease the burden. Letter of Intent The LOI is one of the earliest inflection points in the deal process. Sellers often underestimate its significance because they see it as non-binding on economic terms. But this is a false sense of flexibility because exclusivity and time restrictions are binding. Once that LOI is signed, the seller is essentially off the market for a determined period and cannot engage in discussions with other interested buyers. This is where leverage begins to shift from the seller to the buyer. The buyer now has two things that are very valuable: time and access. On the other side, the seller is now increasingly invested, both financially and emotionally, in making the deal happen. It is now harder for the seller to walk away from the deal, even if circumstances change. Diligence The leverage shift becomes more pronounced when the deal enters the diligence stage. Buyers are highly disciplined as they approach this phase of the transaction, particularly when they are sophisticated financial sponsors. Diligence is not about buyers just confirming what they have been told, but rather testing assumptions, looking for weaknesses, and then recalibrating valuation based on their findings. It is common for buyers to reassess price or deal structure because of what is uncovered during diligence, and for sellers who entered the process with a clear expectation of value, that can be jarring. The business they have spent years or even decades building is now being evaluated through a different lens. Consistent Performance Another layer that multiplies the pressure on the seller is the expectation that the business continues to perform at the same level throughout the entire process. Entering negotiations to sell does not equate to a pause in operations. It is simply a process that runs parallel to day-to-day operations. Sellers must manage diligence requests, respond to buyer questions, and engage with all their advisors, all while effectively running the company. They cannot afford for performance to dip, even for reasons that have nothing to do with the transaction. That can lead to a reason for renegotiation, with buyers adjusting terms, implementing additional protections, or even revisiting the valuation entirely. This creates constant tension for the seller who is trying to execute the deal and simultaneously maintain the underlying business. Delayed Engagement of Legal Counsel When a seller brings in legal counsel later in the transaction, it can feel disruptive at first. This is because the job of an attorney is to identify and address risks, clarify what has already been agreed to, and ensure that the documents accurately reflect the intended deal. If they are not involved from the jump, they may have to revisit assumptions or unwind understandings that developed earlier in the process. This can feel like friction or a change in direction for sellers, and that can be avoided when counsel is engaged from the start. The issues become even greater when the buyer is a private equity (PE) firm. These repeat players operate with well-established playbooks and experienced deal teams. This is in stark contrast to a first-time seller who sees this as a once in a lifetime event. For a PE firm, this is just a routine transaction. The imbalance this creates can heighten the emotional stakes, particularly when discussing complex deal components. The Personal Dimension The personal dimension of the deal overlays everything. For a seller, their business represents years of work, relationships, and their identity. Their company is not just an asset they are selling; it is often their life’s work. Layer in concerns about their employees, customers, and their legacy, and the personal connection to the business complicates everything. Sellers often carry the weight of the transaction on their own, while they must continue to lead their company, One other very important reality for sellers is that the deal is not done until it is closed. It is easy to get excited and assume that signing an LOI or moving through the diligence process means the outcome is assured. But the truth is that transactions can, and do, change late in the process. Terms evolve, issues emerge, and sometimes, deals fall apart. It is critical to maintain perspective and discipline and attempt to put emotions to the side. The bottom line for sellers is that every transaction must be approached with preparation and support from the start to minimize the significant stress that comes with every stage. Bringing in skilled legal counsel very early in the process can alleviate that stress and help sellers to not only maximize value, but also bring clarity to the many complexities of a sale, resulting in a deal that truly reflects the seller’s goals.
June 1, 2026
Labor and Employment
"The Pitt" is a Hospital Drama. It’s Also a Masterclass in Employment Risk
Like most good TV hospital dramas, "The Pitt" is not really about medicine. It is about pressure. The show captures what happens when employees are overextended, managers are operating in constant crisis mode, and organizational systems begin to strain under the weight of staffing shortages, emotional exhaustion, and impossible expectations. The setting may be a hospital emergency department, but the legal issues are recognizable to virtually every employer. What makes the series especially interesting from a labor and employment perspective is how many of its workplace tensions intersect with real legal obligations. Take burnout. For years, employers treated burnout as a retention problem or a culture issue. Increasingly, however, burnout-related concerns arrive wrapped in legal protections. An employee struggling with anxiety, depression, PTSD, or other mental health conditions may trigger obligations under the ADA. Extended stress-related absences may implicate the FMLA. Complaints about chronic understaffing or unsafe workloads may become protected activity under workplace safety laws or the National Labor Relations Act. The law has not suddenly become more forgiving of operational strain simply because employers are understaffed. If anything, courts and agencies have become more skeptical of workplaces that normalize exhaustion as part of the job. "The Pitt" also illustrates a common but underappreciated source of liability: supervisors under pressure. Employment claims are often shaped less by formal policy and more by how frontline managers respond in moments of stress. A dismissive reaction to a complaint, inconsistent discipline, public criticism, or poorly handled accommodation requests can quickly become evidence in discrimination, retaliation, or hostile work environment litigation. Healthcare settings make this especially visible because the hierarchy is so compressed and the stakes are so immediate. But the broader lesson applies everywhere. Technical excellence is not the same as management training, and many organizations continue to promote high performers into supervisory roles without adequately preparing them for the legal dimensions of people management. The show also reflects the growing legal significance of employee complaints about workplace conditions. Discussions about staffing levels, scheduling, workload, safety, and compensation are often protected under Section 7 of the NLRA, even in non-union workplaces. Employers sometimes frame these issues as morale problems or negativity concerns when, legally, they may constitute protected concerted activity. That distinction matters. Particularly in high-pressure industries, retaliation claims increasingly emerge from situations where employees raised operational concerns, and management responded defensively. Another recurring theme in "The Pitt" is documentation — or, more accurately, the lack of it. In chaotic workplaces, documentation often becomes inconsistent until a complaint arises. By then, employers may attempt to reconstruct performance concerns after the fact, which rarely presents well in litigation. Courts, agencies, and juries tend to view sudden paper trails with suspicion, especially when they appear only after protected activity, leave requests, or accommodation discussions. Perhaps the most modern employment-law lesson embedded in the show is the importance of psychological safety. Employees who fear humiliation, retaliation, or professional consequences for speaking up are less likely to report concerns early, whether those concerns involve discrimination, harassment, or workplace safety. Regulators increasingly expect organizations to create reporting structures that employees actually trust enough to use. Ultimately, "The Pitt" works because it understands something many workplaces still resist acknowledging: prolonged crisis conditions reshape employment risk. Fatigue affects judgment. Stress alters communication. Staffing shortages expose compliance gaps. And cultures built around endurance rather than sustainability tend to create legal vulnerabilities long before litigation begins. The show may be fiction, but the workplace issues are painfully familiar. Just with better lighting and more trauma bays.
May 29, 2026
Business
Post-Close Alignment in Lower Middle Market M&A: Where Deal Stress Begins to Fracture
Most sellers and buyers in lower-middle-market M&A, including search funds, entrepreneurship through acquisition (ETA), and independent-sponsor transactions, begin to suffer from deal fatigue and welcome the post-closing phase of a business acquisition or M&A transaction. No more due diligence, no more negotiations, no more redlines. However, in many cases, the post-close phase is fertile ground for additional disputes to emerge. Most post-closing friction in lower-middle-market M&A deals is not caused by something that was absent from the deal. To the contrary, it is actually related to the negotiated documents governing the relationship between seller and buyer in the post-close transition phase. Consulting agreements, employment agreements, and corporate governance documents in rollover equity transactions seek to govern the relationship, but the relationship is still new in this phase. The parties are experiencing, for the first time, what it is like to work together after the change in dynamics (seller-owner to exited owner; buyer with funding to operator managing debt service and performance expectations). In this example, the seller rolled equity in the transaction and was now an equity holder in the buyer's platform company. The post-closing issues did not stem from a missing provision, but from ambiguities that existed across multiple documents that were meant to align and work together: seller notes, management agreements, and governance documents were all in play and created more confusion than clarity. That pattern is more common than most buyers expect, particularly in search fund, entrepreneurship through acquisition (ETA), and independent sponsor deals where post-close roles and governance tend to be more fluid. The LOI to Close Gap in M&A Transactions Most of these issues are not created at closing. They are created in the window between LOI and signing. At LOI, the parties align on high-level economics and general expectations: The seller will stay involved The business will transition smoothly Equity will keep everyone aligned in the case of rolled equity, or amounts due pursuant to the seller note will incentivize cooperation But those concepts get translated into separate documents depending on the deal: Employment agreement Consulting agreement Operating agreement Purchase agreement Each document answers a different question. Very few processes force those answers to be reconciled into a single operating model. That is where the gap forms. By the time you reach closing, the documents are “complete” but not always aligned. Where Post-Closing Issues Show Up in Business Acquisitions Employment Terms in Post-Closing Transition Buyers often assume that key individuals, particularly a selling owner transitioning into an operating role, will continue “as expected.” The employment agreement is where that expectation either becomes a reality or breaks down. The most common issues include: Role definition is too broad or not tied to actual authority Termination provisions do not reflect how performance issues will be handled Compensation structures do not match the deal model Example: A seller stays on post-close in a senior operating role (e.g., general manager) under a two-year agreement while the buyer installs its own CEO or operating partner. The buyer expects to reshape reporting lines and decision-making authority over time. The agreement, however, includes strong severance protections and defines material changes to duties or authority as “good reason.” Six months in, the buyer begins shifting responsibilities to its operating partner. The seller asserts “good reason” and triggers severance or other protections, despite the buyer viewing the changes as part of the planned transition. Nothing is technically wrong in the document. It just does not reflect how the buyer intended to transition control of the business. Consulting Roles and Transition Services Agreements Consulting arrangements are often treated as secondary or low-risk. In practice, they can drive real execution outcomes. This is especially true in customer transition and institutional knowledge transfer. Where this tends to go wrong: Scope of services is loosely defined Time commitment is not specified Compensation is not tied to outputs Example: A seller agrees to a 12-month consulting arrangement to support transition. The agreement references “reasonable availability” but does not define hours, deliverables, or response expectations. Post-close, the buyer expects active involvement in customer introductions and onboarding. The seller views the role as limited advisory support that can be provided from a remote location and not on-site. The result is predictable. The buyer feels unsupported. The seller believes they are complying with the agreement. Again, nothing is broken in isolation. The expectations were never aligned. Rolled Equity and Post-Close Governance Rolled equity is typically framed as a tool to align the parties in furtherance of a more profitable enterprise. In practice, it can be alignment in concept only, not in execution. Where this tends to go wrong: Different expectations around liquidity timing Limited clarity on governance rights Misunderstanding of distribution mechanics Example: A seller rolls 20% of proceeds into the new structure. The buyer plans to reinvest cash flow into growth and limit near-term distributions. The seller expects periodic cash flow similar to how they operated pre-sale. The operating agreement permits discretion on distributions, but the practical application of that discretion was never aligned. This is not a legal defect. It is an operating mismatch that surfaces quickly once capital allocation decisions begin. Why Post-Closing Misalignment Occurs in M&A Deals During the deal process, these items are negotiated in parallel: Purchase agreement Employment agreements Consulting agreements Equity and governance documents Each document may be internally consistent, but the following question should be asked: Do these documents, taken together, reflect how this business will actually be operated on day one? More specifically: Do they clearly define what the seller is required to do, what authority they retain or lose, how they are compensated for that role, and what happens if those expectations change or break down? If the answer to those questions is unclear, the issue is already embedded in the deal. Practical Considerations Pre-Close in Lower Middle Market Transactions This is almost always easier to address before closing than after. In practice, a strong lower-middle-market post-close package tends to do six things: Define the role with objective deliverables. Move beyond titles. Specify outputs, metrics, and decision rights that tie to how the business will actually be operated. Clearly classify the relationship. State whether the seller is an employee, consultant, or board-level advisor. Blurred status tends to create both operational and legal ambiguity. Precisely frame “cause” and “good reason.” If the buyer retains flexibility to change duties, reporting lines, compensation, or authority, that flexibility should be clearly bounded. Well-defined “cause” and “good reason” concepts are what translate flexibility into enforceable expectations. Separate consulting economics from deal economics. Consulting fees should stand on their own unless the parties intentionally link them to purchase price or earnout mechanics. Unintended overlap often creates disputes about what is being paid for performance versus transition support. Build explicit consequences for disruption. If authority is stripped or termination occurs outside the expected framework, the documents should address the outcome. That can include tolling, acceleration, deemed achievement, or extension concepts tied to equity or earnouts. Preserve a practical enforcement path. Rights are only useful if they can be exercised. Escrow access, information rights, expert determination procedures, and specific performance provisions tend to make these arrangements function in practice. Closing Thought on Post-Closing Risk and Deal Execution These are not technical refinements. They determine whether the post-close relationship functions when conditions change. Most post-closing issues do not come from a single broken provision. They come from small inconsistencies across multiple documents that were never forced to align into a single operating framework. If you are under LOI or in diligence, this is typically the window to fix that alignment without disrupting the deal. After closing, you are no longer interpreting intent; you are operating within the structure you drafted. If you are working through this in a live deal, step back and ask: Do these documents, collectively, dictate how decisions get made, how the seller participates, and how economics actually flow? If not, then the risk is not theoretical. It is already built into the deal.
May 29, 2026
Commercial Litigation
Prejudgment Asset Freezes: Where the Line Is Drawn
In these turbulent times, more and more creditors are pushing for prejudgment asset freezes and restraints. Recent decisions in New York and Florida illustrate when that is possible. A district court in New York was reversed when it granted a preliminary injunction against the assets of guarantors who did not give the creditors any security interest. Interestingly, a bankruptcy court in Florida gave a plan trustee an injunction in a fraudulent conveyance action. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Grupo Mexicano is the common theme. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). Grupo Mexicano is considered a departure from practice in the U.K. courts, which issue the so-called Mareva injunctions prohibiting defendants from transferring assets before judgment. See Mareva Compania Naviera S. A. v. International Bulkcarriers S. A., 1 All E.R. 213 (1980). Grupo Mexicano stands for the proposition that an unsecured creditor has no rights, at law or in equity, in the property of his debtor before judgment. New York (Leadenhall v. Advantage Capital – 2d Cir.) The Second Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that where a creditor has no rights in a debtor’s assets, neither law nor equity shall operate to grant such rights prejudgment, and reversed, as an abuse of discretion, the District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against the assets of guarantors. The lenders extended a secured loan to borrower entities and obtained comprehensive collateral from the borrowers, but only unsecured guarantees from affiliated guarantors who pledged no assets. After discovering alleged fraud and default and accelerating roughly $600 million in debt, the lenders sued for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO, and sought to freeze both borrower and guarantor assets prejudgment, based on fears of dissipation. The district court granted the injunction, but the Second Circuit reversed because, as to the guarantors, the lenders asserted only legal claims for money damages, identified no specific property, and held no lien or equitable interest in guarantor assets. Those facts placed the case squarely within Grupo Mexicano. An unsecured creditor with a legal damages claim cannot restrain a defendant’s general assets before judgment, even where dissipation is likely. The absence of any pledged collateral, traceable res, or equitable remedy (such as restitution of specific property) was dispositive. Florida (Vital Pharmaceuticals – Bankr. S.D. Fla.) In a recent decision, Judge Russin held that Grupo Mexicano was inapplicable in a case arising from the bankruptcy of Vital Pharmaceuticals, which was forced into bankruptcy after losing a false advertising lawsuit brought by its competitor, Monster Energy. The debtor’s CEO, while the company faced massive and mounting litigation exposure, caused the company to transfer nearly $10 million of corporate funds to purchase and maintain a specific luxury property titled in a shell entity he controlled, with no consideration flowing back to the company. The transfers occurred as the company was allegedly insolvent or rendered insolvent, and while facing hundreds of millions of dollars in contingent liabilities. After confirmation of a liquidating plan, the trustee brought fraudulent transfer claims seeking to recover that specific real property (or its value), and moved to enjoin further encumbrance or transfer. Critically, the trustee traced estate funds directly into an identifiable res (the property) and pursued equitable relief, avoidance, and recovery of the property itself, not merely money damages. The court granted the preliminary injunction, holding that Grupo Mexicano did not apply because the action fit within the traditional equitable exception. It was an equitable fraudulent-conveyance claim targeting specific property, where the injunction served to preserve the res pending adjudication. The strong factual showing of insider transfers, lack of value, insolvency, and pending litigation exposure further supported both the likelihood of success and the need to prevent dissipation. The recent decisions underscore that Grupo Mexicano remains a firm constraint on prejudgment asset freezes in the United States: unsecured creditors pursuing legal claims for money damages cannot restrain a defendant’s general assets absent a recognized equitable interest. At the same time, courts will grant such relief where the plaintiff can anchor its claim in equity by tracing funds to a specific, identifiable res and seeking recovery of that property. Ultimately, the outcome determinative factors are not urgency or risk of dissipation, but whether the creditors can tie their claim to an identifiable asset or equitable remedy.
May 28, 2026
Title IX and Education
Campus Title IX Hearings: This Isn’t a “Court of Law" but Your Words May Still Have Legal Consequences
Title IX hearings are administrative, educational proceedings designed to address student reports of sexual harassment on campus. They are not intended to simulate a “court of law” and are not held to the same evidentiary or legal standards one can expect from a traditional legal proceeding. Although campus Title IX proceedings are not legal proceedings, students should still be wary of what they say during the process and beyond. While their statements during the campus Title IX process are likely privileged, absolute immunity may not apply to insulate students from defamation liability. Additionally, what students say outside the campus Title IX process is not privileged at all and may carry significant legal consequences. As Title IX matters increasingly intersect with defamation, understanding this overlap is critical. Consider a common scenario: a student is accused of sexual misconduct following an encounter where both parties had been drinking. The accused student believed the interaction was consensual but soon found themselves the subject of rumors spreading across campus, including being labeled a “rapist.” What begins as a private dispute quickly escalates into widespread reputational harm. The accused student experiences social isolation, is asked to step down from organizations, and sees their academic performance decline. Seeking relief, the accused student turns to the university, but institutional responses are often limited. Defamation Basics and Why Title IX Makes Things Complicated The majority of Title IX matters are “he said, she said” situations and often involve competing narratives of what took place during the parties’ encounter. When one party publicly shares their perspective with others, it can sometimes lead to premature conclusions about the other party that have long-lasting and stigmatizing effects. This is where Title IX intersects with the concept of defamation. To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must generally show that a false statement of fact was made about them, published to a third party, and caused reputational harm, all without the protection of a legal defense or privilege. However, not every harmful or offensive statement is subject to defamation liability. Opinions and statements made in good faith during the campus Title IX process may fall outside the scope of defamation. In the Title IX context, the line becomes blurred, particularly when statements about another student spread beyond the formal process. Privilege, Immunity, and the Limits of Protection Even when statements are later proven false, they may be protected by privilege if they were made during the Title IX proceeding. In some jurisdictions, a Title IX proceeding qualifies as a “quasi-judicial” proceeding. Certain communications made in quasi-judicial or administrative settings may be shielded from defamation claims, but these protections are not absolute. In fact, very few jurisdictions provide absolute immunity to statements made during the Title IX process. Sometimes, statements are only cloaked by a qualified privilege, which means the speaker must still prove that the statements at issue were made in good faith before the privilege applies. Courts have increasingly been asked to evaluate how these principles apply in university disciplinary proceedings, underscoring the legal complexity surrounding campus speech. How Courts Are Treating Title IX Statements After the Fact As courts begin to weigh in, it has become clear that what is said during a Title IX proceeding, and how those statements are later treated, can have consequences that extend far beyond campus. In Khan v. Yale University and Le v. University of Medicine and Dentistry, the court focused on what happened inside the Title IX process itself. In Khan, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that Yale’s Title IX disciplinary process did not function enough like a courtroom to give participants absolute immunity from defamation claims. While the court acknowledged the importance of encouraging students to report sexual misconduct, it held that knowingly false or malicious statements made during the process could still lead to liability. Together, these cases show that statements made during campus disciplinary proceedings may not always be fully protected and can later become the subject of litigation. Statements Outside Title IX Proceedings and Resulting Liability What happens outside of a Title IX proceeding can be just as significant. In Pampu v. Wingo, the defamatory statements at issue were made by two Clemson students outside of the Title IX process. As a result, the statements were not protected by absolute immunity or qualified privilege at all. After a week-long trial examining testimony from five eyewitnesses, the plaintiff and three co-defendants, a twelve-member jury unanimously found the Clemson students liable for defamation and civil conspiracy and awarded Pampu $5.3 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages1. While the matter is on appeal for reasons unrelated to immunity or privilege, the lesson from Pampu is clear: what a student says about another student can cause lifelong damage and may lead to significant legal liability if a jury determines those statements are untrue. Universities are operating in an increasingly challenging environment. Recent campus controversies involving protests, disciplinary actions, and speech restrictions have heightened the scrutiny of institutional decision-making. Schools must balance competing obligations under Title IX, free speech principles, and due process requirements, often under intense public and legal pressure. In doing so, universities are tasked with protecting the rights, safety, and educational access of all parties, while also managing the reputational and interpersonal fallout that can accompany allegations of misconduct. Ultimately, while a Title IX proceeding may not be a legal proceeding, they are far from consequence-free. What you say about someone during a Title IX proceeding should not be taken lightly and should only be made in good faith. Allegations, responses, witness accounts, and investigative findings can have lasting academic, professional, emotional, and reputational effects, sometimes extending well beyond campus. The safest approach is to treat every statement as if it could matter later, because it very well might. 1See Kimberly Lau Representative Matters, second bullet point
May 27, 2026
Real Estate
Why Delaware Legal Opinions Matter – Part 2: What Delaware Opinions Actually Cover
Welcome to Why Delaware Legal Opinions Matter, a five-part series examining the role of Delaware legal opinions in transactional practice. In this series, you will learn about the scope and purpose of these opinions, the circumstances in which they are required in real-world transactions, how lenders rely on them in real estate finance deals, and practical strategies for obtaining them efficiently without closing delays. For many transactional attorneys and business professionals, the phrase “Delaware opinion” sounds broader and more comprehensive than it actually is. In reality, the Delaware opinion serves a focused and highly specialized role: providing opinions on discrete issues of Delaware law relating to Delaware entities involved in the transaction. Most Delaware opinions address core legal issues such as: The valid existence and good standing of a Delaware entity The entity’s power and authority to enter into the transaction Due authorization, execution, and delivery of the transaction documents Enforceability of the applicable transaction documents against the Delaware entity[1] In certain transactions, perfection or UCC-related matters governed by Delaware law Importantly, the Delaware opinion generally does not address the entire transaction. The opinion does not typically cover the laws of the state where the real estate is located, the economic substance of the transaction, regulatory compliance outside Delaware, or the business terms negotiated by the parties. Instead, the Delaware opinion provides lenders, investors, and transaction parties with comfort that the Delaware entity itself has been properly formed, authorized, and bound under Delaware law. This distinction matters because modern transactions frequently involve multiple jurisdictions and multiple layers of counsel. For example, a real estate financing transaction involving a property in Texas will require a Delaware opinion because the borrower or guarantor is organized as a Delaware LLC. Similarly, an acquisition governed primarily by New York law will require a Delaware opinion because a holding company or acquisition vehicle was formed in Delaware. In these transactions, Delaware opinion counsel operates as part of a coordinated closing team alongside lead transaction counsel, local real estate counsel, borrower’s counsel, and lender’s counsel. The role is specialized but often critical to closing the deal efficiently. Experienced Delaware opinion counsel also helps avoid one of the most common causes of closing delays: opinion requests that are overbroad, inconsistent with customary practice, or disconnected from the actual structure of the transaction. Because Delaware opinion work is highly practice-driven, understanding customary limitations, assumptions, qualifications, and opinion scope is just as important as understanding the Delaware statutes themselves. When handled efficiently, Delaware opinions become a streamlined component of the closing process rather than a last-minute obstacle. [1] An opinion regarding the enforceability of transaction documents against a Delaware entity is limited to the enforceability of such documents against that Delaware entity under Delaware law and should not be interpreted as a general enforceability opinion regarding the transaction documents as a whole or under the laws of any other jurisdiction.
May 20, 2026
Labor and Employment
Beyond Attendance: The Legal Duties of Nonprofit Board Members
Serving as an officer or director of a nonprofit organization is both an honor and a serious legal responsibility. Whether your organization is a large regional association or a small community-based nonprofit, the individuals who sit on the board are held to defined legal standards — standards that exist to protect the organization, its members, and the public it serves. This article outlines the core governance obligations that apply to every nonprofit board member, including the three fiduciary duties imposed by state law, the board’s proper role in organizational management, and several practical obligations that are easy to overlook but carry real legal consequences. Modern Governance Demands Active, Informed Leadership Nonprofits today operate in an environment of heightened public scrutiny, legal complexity, and accountability. The days when a board member could fulfill his or her obligations simply by showing up for quarterly meetings and voting on motions are long past. Effective governance now requires directors to be proactive, to engage with the organization between formal meetings, to participate meaningfully in leadership transitions, and to approach every board communication and decision with deliberation. Passive participation is not just ineffective; it can be a legal liability. A director who sits back, defers entirely to others, and casts uninformed votes risks violating the very duties assumed upon joining the board. The Board Governs — It Does Not Manage One of the most important distinctions in nonprofit governance is the line between policy and management. The board of directors is the organization’s governing body, with ultimate responsibility for its mission and direction. But that responsibility does not extend to the day-to-day administration of the organization. Operational decisions —staffing, program delivery, vendor relationships, and the like — are properly delegated to paid staff, designated committees, or empowered officers. This principle holds even for smaller nonprofits that lack a professional staff. The board’s role is to set policy and ensure that results align with the organization’s mission and governing documents. When boards stray into micromanagement, they create confusion, undermine staff authority, and expose themselves to unnecessary risk. The best boards define clear boundaries, delegate appropriately, and hold leadership accountable for outcomes. The Three Fiduciary Duties State law imposes three legally enforceable fiduciary duties on every officer and director of a nonprofit organization: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the duty of obedience. These duties are not optional — they cannot be waived by agreement, and they apply regardless of whether the organization is large or small, well-funded or volunteer-run. Every decision made in the course of board service should be evaluated against all three. Duty of Care: Be Informed and Engaged The duty of care requires directors to exercise the same ordinary and reasonable diligence that a prudent person would apply in similar circumstances. In practice, this means directors must arrive at meetings prepared, ask questions when something is unclear, seek out information independently when necessary, and engage substantively in board deliberations. A director who attends meetings without reviewing materials in advance, who relies entirely on the representations of other board members without independent inquiry, or who votes yes or no simply to go along with the room is not meeting this standard. The duty of care is an individual obligation; each director is personally responsible for being informed. Duty of Loyalty: Put the Organization First The duty of loyalty requires that when a director acts in his or her capacity as a board member, that director’s allegiance must be undivided and directed entirely to the organization’s interests. Personal interests, outside business relationships, and affiliations with other organizations must not influence board decisions. This duty encompasses two related obligations. First, directors must avoid actual conflicts of interest — situations in which personal gain could be derived from an organizational decision. Second, and equally important, directors must avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. The credibility of a nonprofit depends in large part on public trust, and that trust is damaged when there is any reasonable basis for questioning whether a board member’s decisions were made for the right reasons. Organizations should have a written conflict-of-interest policy, and directors should be prepared to disclose and recuse themselves where appropriate. Duty of Obedience: Know and Follow Your Governing Documents The duty of obedience requires directors to act in accordance with the organization’s articles of incorporation, bylaws, mission statement, and any other governing documents, as well as applicable federal, state, and local law. This is not a passive obligation. Directors are expected to have read and understood the organization’s governing documents, and to act consistently with them, even when a director might personally have approached a matter differently. If governing documents are outdated, unclear, or inconsistent with current law, the appropriate response is to pursue a proper amendment, not to ignore the documents or work around them. Counsel can assist with reviewing and updating governing documents to ensure they reflect the organization’s current operations and legal obligations. Additional Obligations Individual Accountability for Fellow Directors’ Conduct Board membership is not a passive credential. Directors have an individual obligation to respond when they become aware that a fellow director, or an officer, is engaging in conduct that is illegal, in violation of fiduciary duties, or otherwise contrary to the organization’s interests. Awareness without action can itself give rise to personal liability. What constitutes an adequate response will depend on the circumstances, but in serious cases it may require raising the issue formally at a board meeting, consulting with legal counsel, or escalating the matter through appropriate channels. Directors who simply look away when misconduct is apparent do so at their own legal risk. Confidentiality: An Absolute Obligation Board deliberations are confidential. Information discussed in the course of board business — whether in formal meetings or in communications among directors — may not be shared with individuals who are not part of the board or otherwise properly within the organization’s governance structure. This obligation applies regardless of how a vote came out and regardless of whether the director agreed with the board’s decision. The reason for this rule is practical as well as legal. Open and candid board discussion depends on the mutual understanding that what is said in the boardroom stays there. When confidentiality is breached, even informally, even with good intentions, it chills future deliberation and can seriously damage the organization. Directors should treat all board communications as confidential by default, and should decline to discuss board matters with family members, professional colleagues, or anyone else outside the governance structure. Written Communications: Assume Everything Is Public In litigation and regulatory proceedings, written communications are among the first materials sought in discovery which includes emails, text messages, board messaging platforms, and any other written communication, regardless of how informal the channel. There is, in practical terms, no such thing as a private electronic communication for a nonprofit director. Directors should bring the same care to their written communications that they bring to formal board proceedings. This means avoiding emotional or inflammatory language, refraining from personal attacks, and thinking carefully before committing anything to writing that would be embarrassing, misleading, or legally problematic if it later appeared in a courtroom or regulatory hearing. When in doubt, a phone call is often the better choice. And when written communication is particularly sensitive, having it reviewed by counsel before sending is a worthwhile precaution. Nonprofit Directors Are Accountable to the Public Unlike the directors of a for-profit corporation, who owe their primary duty to shareholders, nonprofit directors operate in a context of broader public accountability. The tax-exempt status and public-benefit mission of a nonprofit organization mean that its governance is, in a meaningful sense, a matter of public interest. This is the foundation of many of the rules that apply to nonprofits and their directors, and it is why the standards for nonprofit governance are taken seriously by regulators, courts, and the communities these organizations serve. Directors who internalize this principle — who understand that their role is not simply to serve the membership but to advance a mission for the broader public good — tend to govern more effectively and with greater integrity. A Final Word The legal obligations of nonprofit board service are real, and they apply from the moment a director takes office. But they are not burdensome for directors who approach the role with the seriousness it deserves. Directors who stay informed, act in the organization’s best interest, follow the governing documents, communicate carefully, and hold themselves and their colleagues accountable will, in virtually every case, meet their legal obligations and serve their organization well.
May 20, 2026
Business
Virginia Reshapes Franchising with Ban on Post-Term Non-Competes
Franchisors with Virginia locations should prepare to revise their franchise agreements and Virginia-specific disclosure materials. Beginning July 1, 2026, Virginia law will prohibit most post-termination non-compete provisions in covered franchise agreements and will require those agreements to be governed by Virginia law. For franchisees, the amendments create greater post-exit flexibility and reduce the ability of franchisors to rely on out-of-state governing-law clauses to avoid Virginia’s statutory protections. The practical message is straightforward: franchisors should review Virginia-facing templates, renewal and amendment practices, confidentiality and trade secret protections, and enforcement strategies well before making any new offer, sale, renewal, extension, or amendment for a Virginia location on or after the effective date. Implications for Virginia Franchisors and Franchisees These changes matter immediately for drafting and compliance. A franchisor that continues to use a standard national form for Virginia deals without modification risks including provisions that will no longer be permitted once the new law takes effect. Agreements entered into before July 1, 2026, are not automatically displaced, but renewals, extensions, and amendments on or after that date may trigger the new requirements, making it especially important to review not only new-deal documents but also legacy agreements that may soon come back into circulation. Public commentary following the legislation has also noted guidance issued on April 14, 2026, by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising regarding updates to franchise disclosure materials and Virginia addenda, underscoring that compliance will require attention not just to contracts but also to disclosure practice. How Virginia’s New Franchise Non-Compete Law Affects Franchise Agreements The amendments to Virginia’s Retail Franchising Act, enacted through House Bill 69 and the companion Senate Bill 240, apply to franchises that require or contemplate a place of business in Virginia, a concept broad enough to reach more than traditional brick-and-mortar outlets and potentially many service concepts operating in the Commonwealth. Effective July 1, 2026, the law makes it unlawful to offer or enter into a covered franchise agreement that restricts the franchisee’s right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services at retail after termination or expiration of the franchise agreement. Just as significantly, covered franchise agreements must now be governed by Virginia law, preventing franchisors from selecting another state’s law in an effort to sidestep Virginia’s franchisee protections. Virginia Franchise Non-Compete Exceptions The statute includes a narrow exception when a franchisee voluntarily sells the franchise at a mutually agreed price, whether to a third party or back to the franchisor. In that setting, the franchisor or the buyer may require the selling franchisee to agree to a non-compete that is binding for up to two years after the sale. Outside that sale context, however, post-term non-compete restrictions in covered Virginia franchise agreements are no longer permitted. The law is also expressly prospective: contracts entered into, extended, or modified on or before June 30, 2026, remain unaffected, but activity on or after July 1, 2026, may bring an agreement within the amended statute’s reach. The Business Impact of Virginia’s Franchise Non-Compete Ban and Compliance Steps for Franchisors Taken together, the amendments materially rebalance franchise relationships for Virginia locations in favor of franchisees by eliminating most post-termination non-competes and requiring Virginia law to govern covered agreements. That governing-law requirement may prove especially consequential, because it reduces the usefulness of contract provisions that previously might have directed disputes toward more franchisor-friendly legal standards. It also means that franchisors evaluating renewals, transfers, terminations, and system enforcement in Virginia will need to assess those decisions against Virginia’s franchise-specific statutory framework. For franchisors, the likely response will be to strengthen other forms of system protection that do not depend on a post-term non-compete. Confidentiality provisions, trade secret controls, non-solicitation language where appropriate, access limits on customer data, tighter operational safeguards, and clearer brand-transition requirements may all take on greater importance. The statute does not prevent a franchisor from pursuing monetary remedies when a franchisee breaches contractual obligations during the term, so careful drafting around in-term defaults, de-branding obligations, liquidated damages, and post-termination transition steps may become more important than ever. The new law may also influence how franchisors think about renewal rights in Virginia. If a former franchisee cannot be restricted from competing after expiration in most circumstances, franchisors may revisit whether renewal should remain automatic or broadly available, and whether Virginia-specific renewal provisions should be adjusted to reflect the changed competitive landscape. For franchisees, by contrast, the law creates additional bargaining leverage and a more realistic ability to continue in business after the franchise relationship ends, provided they do so without violating enforceable contractual duties that survive termination. More broadly, Virginia’s action may be an early indication of where franchise regulation is heading in other jurisdictions. Franchisors operating nationally may therefore want to treat these amendments not as an isolated state-law issue, but as a signal to review their broader contract architecture and protective covenants across the system. For now, however, the immediate takeaway is clear: any franchisor with Virginia-facing agreements or pending registration materials should act promptly to align its documents, disclosures, and operational protections with the Commonwealth’s new rules before July 1, 2026.
May 18, 2026
Intellectual Property
Prelaunch Trademark Risk: What In‑House Counsel Should Address Before Product Launch
Most trademark problems do not begin with a refusal from the USPTO or a cease-and-desist letter from a competitor. They begin much earlier during product development and brand naming, often before legal is meaningfully involved. For in-house counsel, pre-launch trademark risk is less about technical doctrine and more about process. Decisions made under time constraints, reliance on incomplete clearance signals, selection of legally weak brands, and launching without a filing strategy all narrow options later and increase the cost of correction. The companies that encounter the most difficult trademark issues are rarely careless. They move quickly, assume issues can be addressed later and underestimate how much momentum limits flexibility once a product is public. This article outlines the most common pre-launch trademark mistakes and explains how in-house counsel can reduce risk without slowing down the business. Trademark Risk Begins Before Legal Engagement Most trademark issues do not originate with the USPTO. They originate months earlier, often before an application is filed and before legal is formally engaged. From an in-house perspective, this distinction matters. When disputes, launch delays, or rebrands arise, the underlying issue is rarely legal uncertainty. More often, it is the result of early decisions made quickly and without a clear understanding of how difficult it will be to unwind later. Product launches compress timelines and concentrate risk. Naming decisions intersect with marketing, product design, domain strategy, packaging, investor communications, and customer-facing materials. Once those elements begin to align around a particular name, even modest legal concerns can feel disruptive rather than protective. By the time a trademark issue surfaces, legal’s role often shifts from risk management to damage control. The objective of pre-launch trademark oversight is not to prevent launches. It is to ensure that risk is identified early enough that the business still has meaningful choices. Naming Is a Business Decision with Legal Consequences Brand naming is often treated as a creative exercise. Teams generate options under tight timelines. Internal alignment forms quickly around a preferred name. That name begins appearing in materials across the organization. By the time legal is consulted, the decision may feel effectively final. The risk is not creativity. It is commitment before clearance. From an in-house standpoint, the most effective intervention is not controlling the naming process but setting expectations. No name is final until trademark risk has been evaluated. That evaluation does not always need to be exhaustive. In many cases, a high-level assessment is sufficient to identify obvious conflicts or structural weaknesses. When legal review is positioned as a standard step rather than an exception, teams are less likely to treat it as an obstacle. Over time, this reframes trademark review as part of launch planning, not a last-minute hurdle. Superficial Clearance Signals Create False Confidence Teams often rely on informal indicators to assess trademark risk, especially under time limitations: a domain is available, a state entity search is clean, a quick internet search shows no obvious conflicts. These signals can create a strong sense of comfort. The problem is that trademark risk does not turn on identical names or identical industries. It turns on the likelihood of confusion, a fact-specific analysis that considers the relationship between goods or services, channels of trade, and overall commercial impression. Those considerations rarely surface through informal searches. From a general counsel perspective, the issue is not that teams perform preliminary checks. It is when those checks are treated as conclusions rather than inputs. When “nothing obvious came up” becomes “this is safe,” the business begins investing in a name based on assumptions that may not hold. Early legal review recalibrates that assumption. It identifies where uncertainty exists and provides context for evaluating risk before additional resources are committed. Clearance Does Not Equal Strength Even when a name clears existing rights, it may still be a poor trademark. Descriptive or highly suggestive names are often attractive because they communicate product features quickly. From a legal standpoint, however, these marks tend to offer limited exclusivity and are more difficult to enforce. This distinction is often overlooked. Many weak marks can be registered. Registration alone does not ensure meaningful protection. In-house counsel plays an important role in distinguishing between registrability and strength. A mark that technically clears may still leave the company exposed to competitors operating nearby in the market. Over time, that exposure can lead to inconsistent enforcement and frustration when legal remedies do not align with business expectations. Framing trademarks as strategic assets rather than filing exercises helps align naming decisions with long-term differentiation. Launching Without a Filing Strategy Narrows Options Speed to market is a legitimate business priority. So is trademark priority. Companies often launch products without deciding which marks warrant protection, how consistently the brand will be used, or how it may expand across products, services or jurisdictions. In some cases, filing decisions are deferred simply because they have not been considered. Once public use begins, options narrow. Changes become more visible and course correction becomes more difficult. Strategy becomes reactive rather than intentional. From an in-house perspective, early planning does not need to be complex. Even a limited pre-launch discussion can clarify key questions: Which names are central to the business, and which are experimental? Is the mark likely to expand beyond a single product? Are international markets realistically in scope? Addressing these questions early preserves flexibility for enforcement, expansion and future transactions. “We’ll Fix It Later” Is Rarely a Strategy A common assumption is that trademark issues can be addressed after launch. Sometimes they can. Often, they cannot. Rebrands are expensive. Enforcement leverage weakens over time. International expansion frequently exposes conflicts that were not apparent at launch. What initially appears to be a manageable legal issue can become a broader commercial problem. By the time the issue is clear, the available options are typically narrower and more costly. Legal solutions may feel misaligned with business momentum. In-house counsel does not need to control naming decisions. They do need to normalize early involvement, set expectations around clearance, and ensure that trademark decisions align with long-term business objectives. Trademark Risk Is a Process Issue Most preventable trademark risks arise before legal engagement. It stems from timing, assumptions, and informal decision-making, not from misunderstanding the law. For general counsel, the opportunity lies in process. Clear expectations around when legal is consulted, how preliminary clearance is interpreted, and when filing strategy is addressed can significantly reduce risk without slowing the business. When trademark considerations are integrated into launch planning early, legal’s role shifts from reacting to problems to shaping outcomes. That shift preserves flexibility, reduces surprises, and allows trademark protection to support business growth. The objective is not perfection. It is awareness, alignment, and control at the point when decisions are still flexible.
May 14, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
“Alright, Alright, Alright,” — Taylor’s Version. Taylor Swift follows Matthew McConnaughey’s Novel Approach to Using Trademark Rights to Enforce Against AI Impersonation
Ever eager to retain control over her masters and ensure that she “never goes out of style,” Taylor Swift is the latest public figure looking toward registration of sensory trademarks to protect her name and likeness in a roundabout way. On April 24, 2026, Taylor Swift's company, TAS Rights Management, filed three trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: two "sound marks" capturing her spoken voice (which include the language "Hey, it's Taylor" and "Hey, it's Taylor Swift") and one design mark consisting of a photograph of Swift performing onstage during The Eras Tour. This echoes our prior writing regarding similar applications filed by the actor, Matthew McConnaughey, as Swift’s applications represent the latest in a growing movement of public figures attempting to use trademark rights to protect their names and likenesses — most likely due to the increasing accessibility of AI technology, which can impersonate such figures. While sound marks have historically been used to protect iconic brand audio cues, like Netflix's "tu-dum", the MGM lion roar, or NBC's chimes, these public figures have attempted to apply the same framework for their spoken voices and image. This genuinely novel use of trademark law is as-of-yet untested, and Swift's motivation here is not hard to read, as her likeness has been used without permission in numerous AI-generated fakes, including by Meta's AI chatbots, in non-consensual pornographic images, and in false political endorsements shared during the 2024 presidential election. The legal theory underlying these filings is novel and creative precisely because existing law was never designed for this purpose. Under current U.S. law, a musician's recorded performances are protected by copyright law, while the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or likeness is addressed by state-level right-of-publicity statutes. Individual states, including New York and California, have right-of-publicity laws that prevent unauthorized commercial use of a person's name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), but trademark infringement claims can be filed in federal court, making them a potentially more powerful deterrent as those cases apply nationwide and are not dependent on individual states’ differing enforceability limitations. Most importantly, trademark enforcement doesn't just stop identical uses as copyright enforcement does. Rather, trademark enforcement is designed to protect a rights owner against anything "confusingly similar" to a registered mark. This is a meaningfully broader standard that could reach AI-generated content that approximates, but doesn't exactly replicate Swift's voice or appearance. Trademark claims also enhance the ability to obtain emergency injunctive relief and to recover damages against AI platforms themselves. However, these applications face an unsure road to registration. Trademark protection traditionally requires that the mark function as a source identifier (i.e., signaling to consumers the origin of a product or service) and it is far from settled whether a person's voice or image satisfies this standard. Historically, trademarks are not designed to protect an individual's general likeness, voice, or persona. Swift's filings may be best understood as a deliberate effort to layer additional federal remedies on top of existing right-of-publicity and copyright protections rather than a “cure-all” to the elusive offense of AI impersonation, the scale and sophistication of which is not subject to a single body of law. Whether these applications ultimately succeed, they reflect a broader and accelerating trend: public figures and their counsel actively searching for any available legal structure to fill the enforcement gap that generative AI has created. It is clear that Swift believes that she will continue to Party Like It's 1989™. image credit SockaGPhoto - stock.adobe.com
May 11, 2026
Tax
Cannabis Tax Relief Is Here — But IRS Risk Is Just Beginning
For years, cannabis operators have functioned under a fundamentally distorted tax regime. Section 280E denied deductions that every other business takes for granted, forcing companies to pay tax on something closer to gross income than net profit. That framework has now changed, at least for a significant portion of the industry. The federal government’s decision to reschedule state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III removes the § 280E limitation and allows qualifying businesses to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses under § 162. The headline is clear: tax relief is here. But the more important reality is this: the industry is transitioning from a regime of disallowance to a regime of interpretation, and that is where risk lives. A Structural Shift, Not Just a Tax Cut The removal of § 280E does more than reduce tax liability. It fundamentally changes how cannabis businesses are analyzed for tax purposes. For the first time, medical operators must think like every other taxpayer. They must evaluate what constitutes an ordinary and necessary expense, how costs are allocated across lines of business, and whether those positions are sustainable under IRS examination. This normalization introduces flexibility but also subjectivity. And subjectivity is where disputes begin. For operators with both medical and recreational activities, the issue is even more pronounced. Because recreational cannabis remains a Schedule I substance, § 280E still applies to that portion of the business. That creates an immediate need to develop defensible allocation methodologies between revenue streams, personnel, facilities, and shared overhead. These are not merely accounting questions, they are positions that will ultimately be tested. Timing, Transition, and Retroactivity Another layer of complexity lies in how the change is implemented. Treasury and the IRS have signaled that § 280E relief may apply to the entire taxable year that includes the effective date of rescheduling. If that approach holds, it creates a significant opportunity, but also risk. Businesses may take positions that maximize deductions across the full year, while the IRS may later challenge how those positions were calculated or documented. There is also the open question of retroactive relief. The possibility that prior years could be revisited raises strategic considerations around amended returns, refund claims, and statute of limitations issues. These decisions are not purely mechanical. They require a view of how the IRS is likely to respond. R&D Credits: A New Frontier for Cannabis Tax Strategy Perhaps the most underappreciated implication of rescheduling is access to the research and development credit under § 41. Cannabis businesses, particularly those engaged in cultivation, extraction, and product development, often perform activities that meet the technical requirements for qualified research. These include developing new strains, improving yield and consistency, refining extraction processes, and designing new delivery methods. Historically, many operators either avoided claiming the credit or took a conservative approach due to the overlay of § 280E and the lack of clear precedent in the industry. That restraint is likely to disappear quickly. The financial upside is real. Properly documented R&D credits can offset a meaningful portion of federal tax liability, and in some cases provide payroll tax offsets for earlier-stage businesses. But this is not low-risk territory. R&D credits are already an area of heightened IRS scrutiny, and the agency has become increasingly aggressive in challenging claims that lack contemporaneous documentation or rely on overly broad characterizations of qualifying activities. Cannabis businesses entering this space will be doing so under two compounding factors: new eligibility, and a tendency toward aggressive positioning. That combination is precisely what draws enforcement attention. The Inevitable Second Phase: IRS Scrutiny Tax law changes of this magnitude do not settle quietly. They move in phases. The first phase is what we are seeing now: rapid adoption of favorable positions. The second phase is where the IRS responds, often several years later, once patterns emerge and guidance is issued. That is when the real issues surface. The IRS will examine whether allocation methodologies between medical and recreational operations are reasonable, whether deductions claimed under § 162 are adequately substantiated, whether R&D credits meet the technical and documentation requirements, and whether positions taken during the transition period were overly aggressive. By the time these questions are asked, the financial stakes are often significant, and the factual record is already fixed. Why This Requires a Different Approach Most tax planning focuses on maximizing current benefit. In this environment, that is only part of the equation. The more important question is whether the positions being taken today will hold up under examination, appeals, or litigation. That requires thinking not just like an advisor, but like the IRS and, when necessary, like a litigator. Having spent nearly a decade inside the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and now representing clients in complex tax disputes, I have seen how these cases are developed from the government’s side. That perspective informs of a different approach. It means building allocation methodologies that are not just reasonable but defensible, structuring R&D credit claims with audit in mind from the outset, identifying positions that are likely to become enforcement targets, and preparing for disputes before they arise rather than reacting after the fact. In a transition like this, the strongest position is not the most aggressive one. It is the one that can survive scrutiny. The Bottom Line The rescheduling of medical cannabis is a turning point. It brings long-awaited tax relief and opens the door to planning opportunities that were previously unavailable. But it also moves the industry into a more complex and contested tax environment, one where interpretation, documentation, and defensibility matter as much as the underlying benefit. The businesses that come out ahead will not simply be the ones that claim the most. They will be the ones who approach this moment with a clear understanding of how those claims will be evaluated when it matters most. If you are navigating these issues, the question is not just whether you are taking advantage of the opportunity. It is whether you are positioned to defend it.
May 8, 2026
Labor and Employment
It Ends Quietly: What the Lively-Baldoni Settlement Really Tells Us About Litigation
For nearly two years, this case unfolded the way modern legal disputes often do. Not in a courtroom, but in fragments and narratives. In articles, group chats, comment sections, and carefully curated statements. It felt, at times, like a story in search of an ending. But when the ending finally arrived, it was not a verdict. It was a settlement announced in a handful of sentences, issued jointly, and designed to close the door rather than resolve the conflict. No trial. No jury. No public reckoning of who was right. Instead, something quieter. And in many ways, far more revealing. What does it mean when a case settles right before trial? The timing matters. This case did not settle early, when uncertainty is highest and discovery has yet to sharpen the issues. It settled at the last possible moment, just weeks before a scheduled May trial, after the legal landscape had already shifted in a meaningful way. By that point, the court had done what courts do best. It stripped the case to its essentials. Of the original claims, 10 were dismissed, including the most visible, leaving only a narrow set of theories to be decided by a jury. What remained was not the sweeping narrative the public had been following. It was something much smaller. Something much more technical. Something that would have required jurors to answer precise legal questions about retaliation and contractual obligations rather than broader questions about conduct or character. And then, before any of those questions could be answered, the case ended. That sequence is not unusual. It is, in fact, typical. Once discovery is complete and the court has defined the case, the parties are no longer negotiating in the abstract. They are negotiating in the shadow of a very specific trial. One that now comes with clearer risks and fewer unknowns. In that environment, settlement is not retreat. It is recognition. Why would a high-profile case end without money changing hands? Perhaps the most surprising detail emerging from early reporting is the apparent lack of financial exchange between the parties. Each side reportedly walked away covering its own legal fees. That outcome can feel counterintuitive in a case defined by claims of massive reputational and economic harm. But it aligns with something lawyers understand instinctively, and the public often overlooks. Litigation is not a referendum on harm. It is a method for proving it. At various points in the case, the parties advanced dramatically different accounts of damages. One side spoke in terms of lost opportunities and reputational impact. The other questioned both the methodology and the underlying premise. By the time a case reaches the brink of trial, those claims are no longer theoretical. They have been tested, challenged, constrained by evidentiary rules and expert scrutiny. The result is rarely as expansive as the initial pleadings suggested. A no-payment resolution, in that context, does not mean nothing happened. It means something more specific. It reflects the gap between what could be alleged early and what could ultimately be proven in court. Did the settlement change anything or simply confirm what the court had already signaled? In many ways, the settlement feels less like a turning point and more like a conclusion to a process that had already narrowed the case substantially. The April ruling set the trajectory. It was not an early procedural decision. It was a merits-driven assessment after discovery, focused on what the record could actually support. That ruling reshaped the case in several important ways. It clarified that many of the claims failed for reasons grounded in legal structure rather than public perception. Employment status, jurisdiction, and contract formation all played decisive roles in determining what could proceed. At the same time, the court allowed certain claims to move forward, particularly those tied to retaliation and contractual obligations. Those surviving theories reflected something more subtle. A shift in where legal risk often resides in modern workplace disputes. The settlement did not undo any of that analysis. It accepted it. What does this case reveal about power, proof, and perception? Earlier, this litigation offered a useful lens into how power, proof, and perception interact. The settlement shows how that interaction resolves. Perception drove the public conversation. From the beginning, the case was understood through competing narratives that invited audiences to take sides long before the pleadings had settled. But perception did not determine the legal outcome. It could not expand jurisdiction. It could not convert an unsigned agreement into an enforceable contract. It could not substitute for admissible evidence. Proof did the work that proof always does. It narrowed. It filtered. It transformed broad allegations into discrete questions anchored in documents, communications, and contemporaneous records. By the time the case reached its final stage, what mattered was not how the story felt, but what could be demonstrated. Power remained present throughout, but not in the way it is often imagined. Influence shaped the stakes and the visibility of the dispute, but it did not rewrite the legal standards that governed it. The court applied the same framework it would apply in any workplace case, even if the setting was far from ordinary. The end result reflects that hierarchy. Perception set the stage. Proof controlled the script. Power influenced the audience, not the outcome. What lessons should employers and practitioners take from how this ended? Strip away the names and the attention, and what remains is a fairly familiar legal arc. A workplace dispute arises in a setting that blurs professional and personal boundaries. Allegations are made, both legal and reputational. The case expands quickly, incorporating multiple causes of action and overlapping narratives. Discovery follows, and with it a more disciplined examination of the evidence. The court narrows the issues. What survives is more precise, more technical, and often less satisfying to anyone looking for a sweeping resolution. From there, the incentives shift. The cost of trial becomes concrete. The risks are no longer abstract. And the question becomes less about proving everything and more about resolving what remains. This case also reinforces something increasingly important. Even where underlying misconduct claims fall away, retaliation theories can persist. The alleged harm is not always tied to traditional employment actions. It may instead center on reputation, messaging, and the way narratives are managed in public spaces. That evolution matters because it expands the kinds of conduct that may be examined through a legal lens, even when the original allegations do not move forward. Why does this ending feel so incomplete? Because it is. Settlements are designed to end disputes, not to explain them. They provide closure without resolution, finality without full transparency. They are, by their nature, unsatisfying for anyone seeking a definitive account of what happened. And yet, they are the most common ending to cases like this. In that sense, the conclusion here is entirely consistent with the system in which it unfolded. The case did not fail to deliver an answer. It delivered the answer the legal process is structured to give. A narrowing of claims. A testing of proof. A recalibration of expectations. And, ultimately, a decision to stop litigating before the final question is put to a jury. What is the real takeaway from how this case ended? The title of the film at the center of the dispute suggests a clean conclusion. A moment where something definitively ends. The litigation tells a different story. It suggests that in modern workplace cases, especially those that unfold in public view, resolution rarely comes in the form people expect. It does not arrive with a clear declaration of fault or vindication. It arrives more quietly, shaped by legal constraints, evidentiary realities, and the practical considerations that define every case once it moves from narrative to proof. What began as a story about conduct became a case about law. What felt expansive became precise. What seemed headed toward a dramatic ending instead resolved in silence. Not because the issues disappeared. But because, in the end, litigation only answers the questions it knows how to ask.
May 7, 2026
Labor and Employment
New Jersey Finalizes ABC Test Rule: A Measured Retreat, Not a Reset
After more than a year of delay and unusually forceful opposition from the business community, the New Jersey Department of Labor has adopted final regulations implementing the state’s “ABC” test for worker classification. The final rule reflects a meaningful course correction from the proposal first circulated in 2025. It is narrower, more measured in tone, and less overtly targeted at particular industries. But it does not alter the underlying premise. New Jersey continues to place a heavy burden on businesses seeking to classify workers as independent contractors, and these regulations reaffirm that approach with greater clarity rather than greater flexibility. Clarity Arrives — on the State’s Terms The regulations operate across multiple statutory schemes, including the state’s wage-and-hour, wage payment, and unemployment compensation laws. At their core is the familiar but demanding ABC test. A worker is presumed to be an employee, and the hiring entity must establish all three elements to rebut that presumption: that the worker is free from control in both contract and practice; that the work is performed outside the usual course or places of the company’s business; and that the worker is engaged in an independently established trade or business. The significance of the final rule lies less in redefining those elements than in codifying how the Department expects them to be applied. In doing so, the rule closes off ambiguity that had previously allowed employers to rely more heavily on contractual structuring and industry convention. A Noticeable Step Back from the Edge The most notable feature of the final rule is what it no longer says. In several respects, the Department retreated from positions that would have pushed New Jersey’s already stringent framework even further. Most visibly, the rule abandons the proposal’s use of industry‑specific examples. Those examples — focused on rideshare drivers, construction trades, and similar roles — had been criticized as outcome‑driven. Their removal restores a measure of neutrality, even if it also leaves employers with less informal guidance. Equally significant is the Department’s reversal on its approach to legal compliance. The proposed rule suggested that steps taken to comply with other legal obligations (such as training, supervision, or similar controls) could still weigh in favor of employee status. The final rule rejects that approach, making clear that compliance‑driven requirements are not, without more, evidence of control. This change is likely to have practical importance for employers operating in regulated industries. The final rule also abandons several interpretive positions that would have expanded the concept of “control” or “place of business,” including the suggestion that required use of company software is inherently indicative of control, or that off‑site work could nonetheless be treated as occurring at the employer’s place of business based on its importance to the enterprise. Taken together, these deletions suggest a more restrained (and more defensible) regulatory posture. Refinements at the Margins The Department also introduced clarifications that, while modest, are directionally helpful. The rule confirms that existing statutory exemptions remain intact, avoiding any suggestion that the regulatory framework displaces those carve‑outs. It also addresses remote work directly, explaining that a worker’s home is not automatically part of the employer’s place of business; a point that carries particular relevance in a post‑pandemic workforce. These changes do not alter the structure of the ABC test. They do, however, narrow the risk that ordinary, compliance‑driven, or modern workplace practices will be recast as evidence of employment. The Core Framework Remains Firmly in Place Notwithstanding these revisions, the substance of the regime remains unchanged in the respects that matter most for employers. The burden of proof continues to rest entirely with the business. The inquiry remains fact‑driven and cumulative, rather than formalistic. And, critically, the rule reiterates that commonly relied‑upon indicia of independent contractor status (including written agreements, the use of business entities, or even the existence of multiple clients) are not dispositive. In practice, the most difficult element will continue to be the requirement that the work fall outside the company’s usual course of business. Where a worker is performing the same core services that define the enterprise, the final rule offers little comfort. The revisions do not relax that standard; they merely clarify how it will be assessed. A Short Runway to Implementation The rule is expected to be published in June 2026 and to take effect on October 1, 2026. That timeline leaves a limited window for employers to reassess existing classifications. Given New Jersey’s long‑standing focus on misclassification, and its willingness to pursue significant enforcement actions, the expectation should be that the clarified standards will be actively applied. A More Tempered Rule, But No Easier Path In the end, the Department did not abandon its approach; it refined it. The final rule is less aggressive in tone and more attentive to practical business realities than the version initially proposed. It removes several features that had appeared designed to expand the reach of the ABC test at the margins. But the central proposition remains the same. New Jersey is not seeking to make independent contractor classification easier. It is seeking to make the rules clearer and ensure they are consistently enforced. For employers, that clarity is useful, but it also eliminates any remaining doubt about the rigor of the standard they are expected to meet.
May 7, 2026
Commercial Litigation
From CARES Act Relief to CARES Act Enforcement: PPP and ERC Risks Are Rising
When Congress passed the CARES Act in March 2020, it did more than inject liquidity into the economy through programs like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). It also created a parallel set of compliance obligations that are only now coming into sharper focus. If that sounds familiar, it should. In a prior blog post, I warned about the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) deadline quietly creeping up on businesses. That dynamic, where relief programs created at the same moment begin to generate legal exposure years down the line, is not unique to ERC. PPP is now entering that same phase, but with a more aggressive enforcement backdrop. While ERC issues often surface through a lack of IRS administrative action and taxpayers facing looming deadlines to file an action in court, PPP is increasingly appearing in the form of civil investigations because of looming government deadlines. And the Department of Justice is running out of time. Most PPP-related fraud claims are governed by statutes of limitation that trace back to the earliest loans issued in 2020. As those deadlines approach, DOJ is not winding down its efforts; it is accelerating them. The result is a noticeable shift in how these cases are being pursued. One of the clearest indicators is the surge in Civil Investigative Demands, or CIDs. These are not informal inquiries. A CID allows the government to compel documents, written responses, and sworn testimony, often before a lawsuit is filed. In practice, it is a tool designed for speed, used when the government needs to build a case and preserve claims before time expires. What might have been a slow-moving inquiry a year ago is now being compressed into a much tighter timeline. Investigations are more targeted, more coordinated, and increasingly driven by data: loan size, forgiveness certifications, and application representations are all being evaluated with renewed urgency. But there is another dynamic at play. One that is harder to see and harder to measure. PPP loan data is, by and large, public. That transparency was intended to promote accountability. In practice, it has also created fertile ground for False Claims Act whistleblower activity. There is growing speculation that a meaningful number of PPP investigations are being fueled by qui tam filings: complaints brought by private relators on behalf of the government. The challenge, of course, is that qui tam actions are filed under seal. They are confidential by design. That means a business receiving a CID has no way of knowing whether the investigation stems from internal government analysis, a data-driven flag, or a whistleblower complaint. Nor is there any immediate way to assess the credibility or motivation behind the underlying allegations. In other words, the investigation may already be several steps along before the target even knows it exists. For businesses and their counsel, that uncertainty adds another layer of complexity. You are not just responding to the government, you are potentially responding to an unseen relator, with unknown information and unknown incentives, whose allegations have already cleared at least an initial threshold of scrutiny. That reality reinforces the broader point: We are at an inflection point where CARES Act relief is transitioning into CARES Act enforcement. ERC deadlines are closing in. PPP statutes of limitation are approaching. And the government is actively working, possibly with the assistance of private whistleblowers, to ensure that it does not leave potential claims on the table. So it is important to understand what it means if your company is caught in the crosshairs of scrutiny. A CID is not something to set aside or address casually. It is the start of a serious engagement with the government, and the response strategy needs to reflect that reality. Early assessment of exposure, careful control of the narrative, and thoughtful engagement can often make the difference between a manageable resolution and a much more costly outcome. At the same time, it is worth remembering that not every PPP case fits the narrative of fraud. Many businesses were navigating unprecedented uncertainty in real time, making decisions based on guidance that evolved rapidly. Certifications made in 2020 are now being revisited with the benefit of hindsight, and sometimes with a level of scrutiny that overlooks the context in which those decisions were made. That nuance matters. And it is often where experienced counsel can add the most value. The broader takeaway is this: the same legislation that created opportunity in 2020 is now creating exposure in 2025 and beyond. ERC and PPP may follow different enforcement paths, but they share a common origin, and increasingly, a common sense of urgency. Add in the reality of sealed qui tam filings and public data-driven scrutiny, and the enforcement landscape becomes even more complex. In fact, that urgency just got a small, but notable, twist. As of April 27, 2026, the IRS introduced a new option for taxpayers whose ERC claims have been disallowed: the ability to request additional time to pursue administrative review by effectively tolling the clock before heading to court. In theory, this gives businesses a bit of breathing room when deadlines are tightening and pressure is building. In practice, however, it’s a brand-new procedural tool with very little track record, limited eligibility, and plenty of unanswered questions about how often it will be granted or how smoothly it will function. In other words, just as the enforcement environment is accelerating, the IRS has added a potential off-ramp, but whether it’s a reliable one or just another layer of complexity remains to be seen. The government is watching the clock. You should be too. If you are seeing an uptick in PPP-related inquiries or CIDs, or dealing with ERC issues as those deadlines approach, you are not alone. These matters are becoming more common, more compressed, and more consequential. It may be time to call in counsel. Because when the clock is running out, or the government is knocking at your door, the difference between exposure and resolution is strategy.
May 6, 2026
Labor and Employment
ICE’s Updated Form I‑9 Inspection Guidance: What Employers Need to Know
For more than three decades, Form I‑9 has been a cornerstone of U.S. employment eligibility verification. Every employer—regardless of size, industry, or location—is required to complete and retain a Form I‑9 for each employee hired after November 6, 1986. While the form itself has evolved over the years, the underlying obligation has remained constant: employers must verify identity and work authorization, maintain accurate records, and be prepared for inspection by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). But in 2026, ICE issued updated inspection guidance that significantly changes how the agency evaluates Form I‑9 errors. These updates don’t alter the form or the law, but they do reshape the compliance landscape. Many mistakes that were once considered minor or “technical” are now treated as substantive violations, meaning they can trigger immediate fines with no opportunity for correction during an audit. For HR leaders, compliance teams, and hiring managers, understanding these changes, and adjusting internal processes accordingly, is essential. How ICE I‑9 Inspections Work ICE conducts thousands of Form I‑9 inspections each year. When an employer receives a Notice of Inspection (NOI), they typically have three business days to produce their I‑9s and supporting documentation. ICE then reviews the forms for accuracy, completeness, and compliance with federal regulations. Historically, ICE distinguished between technical or procedural violations, which employers could correct within 10 business days, or substantive violations, which were immediately subject to penalties. This distinction mattered. A missing date, an incomplete field, or a minor oversight could often be corrected during the audit window, reducing or eliminating fines. The new guidance changes that calculus. What’s New in ICE’s Updated Fact Sheet ICE’s updated fact sheet expands the list of substantive violations, errors that cannot be corrected once an audit begins. These include many issues that employers previously treated as minor administrative mistakes. Examples of errors now considered substantive: Missing employee date of birth in Section 1 Missing or incomplete employer attestation information in Section 2 Missing date of hire Missing document title, issuing authority, or expiration date—even if a copy of the document is on file Missing rehire date in Supplement B Improper use of the Spanish‑language Form I‑9 outside Puerto Rico Deficiencies in electronic I‑9 systems, such as incomplete audit trails or signature issues These are critical as they cover all parts of the form including areas completed by the employer and employee. ICE also clarified that employers cannot rely on document copies to cure missing information. If the form itself is incomplete, the violation stands. Why This Matters: Increased Penalties and Higher Risk The consequences of these changes are significant. Substantive violations can result in fines ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars per error. For employers with large workforces or high turnover, cumulative penalties can escalate quickly. Accordingly, industries at heightened risk include: the hospitality business, retail stores, construction companies, various forms of manufacturing businesses, certain healthcare providers, staffing and recruiting agencies, and federal contractors. These sectors often rely on decentralized hiring, multiple onboarding locations, or large volumes of I‑9s, conditions that increase the likelihood of errors. ICE’s updated guidance signals a stricter enforcement posture and a reduced tolerance for administrative mistakes. Employers can no longer assume that routine errors will be fixable during an audit. What Employers Should Do Now Conduct a proactive internal I‑9 audit. Review all existing I‑9s — especially older forms completed under prior guidance — to identify and correct errors before ICE ever requests them. All covered I-9s that could be audited include terminated employees for the last three years, which underscores how critical record keeping is for I-9 compliance. Employers should work with immigration compliance counsel to ensure corrections are made properly. Strengthen onboarding and I‑9 completion procedures. Ensure HR staff and authorized representatives understand the new classifications and the importance of complete, accurate entries in all sections of the form. Real-time review of the completion of form I-9 is recommended as substantive violations are incorporated into sections completed by the employee as well as the employer. Review your electronic I‑9 system. Confirm that your system meets DHS requirements for: Audit trails Electronic signatures Data integrity Proper indexing and retrieval Auto‑population features should be reviewed to ensure they do not create incomplete or inaccurate fields. Retrain all I‑9 preparers. Training should cover: Proper document review Accurate recording of hire dates and document details Correct use of the preparer/translator section Proper reverification procedures Ensure proper use of alternative verification procedures. If your organization uses DHS‑authorized remote verification, confirm that all eligibility requirements, such as E‑Verify participation, are consistently met. The Bottom Line ICE’s updated Form I‑9 inspection guidance represents a meaningful shift in enforcement. Employers now face higher stakes and less flexibility when errors occur. The organizations that invest in strong I‑9 practices today through audits, training, and system improvements will be far better positioned to withstand increased scrutiny. In the current environment, proactive compliance is not optional. It’s essential risk management. For more information visit: Form I-9 Inspection Under Immigration and Nationality Act § 274A | ICE
May 5, 2026
Family Law
AI is Coming to Divorce Court
Divorce litigation has always been a search for the truth. For decades, divorce attorneys have asked the same fundamental questions: Who owns what property? How should assets be valued and divided? What income is available for support? And when children are involved, what arrangements truly serve their best interests? Throughout the years, those questions have not changed. What has changed is the technological landscape in which they are being asked. Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is now entering nearly every profession, and the practice of matrimonial law is no exception. While AI cannot replace the judgment, discretion, and ethical responsibilities of experienced attorneys and judges, it is beginning to influence how divorce cases are investigated, prepared, and litigated. Three developments, in particular, suggest that divorce law is entering a new technological era: the use of AI to uncover financial information, the emerging risk of fabricated digital evidence, and the increasing tendency of litigants themselves to turn to AI for guidance. The Search for Hidden Assets One of the oldest battles in divorce litigation is the search for undisclosed assets. For as long as equitable distribution and community property regimes have existed, spouses have attempted to conceal income, transfer funds into undisclosed accounts, or minimize the apparent value of businesses and investments. In complex cases, uncovering the true financial picture can require months of discovery and painstaking review of bank records, tax returns, and corporate documents. AI is beginning to assist in this process. AI-driven financial analysis tools can review vast quantities of financial data and identify unusual patterns that might otherwise escape detection. These systems can flag repeated transfers to unfamiliar accounts, discrepancies between reported income and actual spending, or unexplained fluctuations in business revenues. In cases involving closely held businesses or high volumes of transactions, AI can help identify areas that warrant closer scrutiny far more quickly than traditional manual review. For example, recently a case concerning a professional practice with thousands of annual transactions, used AI-assisted analysis which detected a recurring pattern of transfers to an entity, newly formed shortly before the commencement of divorce proceedings — an anomaly that justified targeted discovery and expert evaluation. Still, technology alone cannot resolve these issues. AI can identify anomalies, but determining whether those anomalies reflect legitimate business activity or intentional concealment requires professional judgment. Forensic accountants, financial experts, and experienced matrimonial attorneys remain indispensable in interpreting results and presenting them persuasively to the court. AI has become — and with constant innovation will continue to be — a powerful investigative tool. Yet it can never substitute for the human capacity to perceive and interpret the subtle factual nuances of a case, apply the law accordingly, and ultimately serve as the finder of fact. The Emerging Threat of Artificial Evidence If AI can help uncover the truth, it can also be used to manufacture it. Courts across the country are beginning to confront the growing phenomenon of AI-generated content, often referred to as “deepfakes.” With increasingly sophisticated software, it is now possible to create highly realistic audio recordings, text messages, photographs, and even video footage depicting events that never occurred. In the emotionally charged context of divorce litigation, the risk of misuse is significant. A fabricated text message purporting to show financial misconduct, or a manipulated audio recording suggesting threats or coercion, could be introduced as evidence. Even if ultimately disproven, such materials may complicate litigation, increase costs, and prolong disputes, particularly at early stages when courts are making interim decisions about custody, support, or exclusive occupancy of the marital residence. Family law practitioners have always confronted questions of authenticity, but AI raises the stakes considerably. As digital evidence becomes easier to fabricate, courts will likely require more rigorous methods of authentication. Judges, attorneys, and forensic experts will increasingly need to assess not only what evidence appears to show, but how it was created, preserved, and verified. The law of evidence has always evolved alongside technological change. AI is likely to accelerate that evolution. When Litigants Turn to Artificial Intelligence Another development is already underway, though often less visible. Individuals contemplating divorce increasingly turn to AI tools to educate themselves about the legal process before consulting an attorney. AI systems can explain general legal concepts, summarize procedures, and even generate draft settlement proposals. I experienced this first-hand when moments after sending a proposed settlement offer to my client, she ran it through ChatGPT and was advised that the proposed offer was suitable. In some respects, this trend may be beneficial. Divorce is often intimidating and confusing, and access to basic information may help individuals better understand their rights and obligations. At the same time, divorce law is highly nuanced and intensely fact specific. Outcomes often depend on subtle distinctions in financial circumstances, statutory interpretation, and judicial discretion, factors that cannot be reduced to generalized responses. While AI can provide information, it cannot provide strategy, advocacy, or judgment. Those functions remain the province of experienced legal professionals who understand not only the law, but how courts apply it in practice. New Technology, Old Questions, and the Future of Matrimonial Litigation AI will almost certainly change the manner in which divorce cases are prepared and litigated. Financial investigations may become faster and more data-driven. Evidentiary standards may tighten in response to synthetic digital content. Clients may arrive at initial consultations better informed, and sometimes misinformed, by AI-generated advice. Yet the essential work of divorce law will remain stubbornly human. Lawyers must still exercise judgment, advise clients through emotionally charged decisions, and advocate for fair outcomes. Judges must still evaluate credibility, weigh evidence, and craft equitable resolutions for families navigating a profound personal change. In Closing As AI becomes more embedded in the divorce process, courts and practitioners will need to adapt thoughtfully, embracing technology where it enhances accuracy and efficiency, while remaining vigilant against its misuse. The future of matrimonial litigation will be shaped not by machines alone, but by the wisdom with which legal professionals choose to use them.
May 5, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
AI Copyright Litigation Continues as NVIDIA Training Data Case Moves Forward
A ruling earlier this month by Judge Jon S. Tigar in Nazemian et al. v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 4:24 cv 01454 JST (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 8, 2024), declining to dismiss key claims in the case following NVIDIA’s motion to throw out portions of the complaint, signals that courts continue to be reluctant to resolve copyright disputes concerning AI training and outputs at the pleading stage. The ongoing class action against NVIDIA demonstrates why disputes over AI training data sourcing will continue to shape copyright doctrine well beyond the first wave of generative AI cases. In Nazemian a class of authors, including Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, Stewart O’Nan, Susan Orlean, and Andre Dubus III, allege that Nvidia violated the Copyright Act by copying and storing unauthorized digital copies of their books to train its NeMo Megatron large language models, asserting claims for direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, statutory damages, and injunctive relief. They also make claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, alleging removal of copyright management information. Central to the case are the plaintiffs’ allegations that NVIDIA’s training datasets incorporated pirated works sourced from “shadow libraries,” including Books3 (derived from Bibliotik), The Pile, SlimPajama, and Anna’s Archive, each of which allegedly contain massive numbers of unauthorized copies of copyrighted books. Unlike earlier AI disputes that focused on whether model outputs were substantially similar to copyrighted works, the Nazemian action frames infringement as complete at the point of copying of the inputs into the model when works were allegedly downloaded and retained, regardless of whether subsequent model training is transformative. In allowing the direct infringement and related claims to proceed, the court made clear that fair use presents a mixed question of law and fact not suited for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, particularly where the provenance, scope, and scale of the copied materials remain disputed. The ruling ensured that NVIDIA would not obtain an early exit from the litigation and underscored that allegations of unlawful data acquisition alone can carry a complaint past the pleading stage. The Nazemian litigation sits within an expanding ecosystem of AI copyright cases, which at present comprises more than 50 such actions pending in U.S. federal courts, including actions involving Meta Platforms, Anthropic, and OpenAI. While recent fair‑use rulings have not stemmed the AI litigation tide, the legal discussion has shifted from abstract debates about innovation policy to examinations of data sourcing, internal decision‑making, and statutory compliance. Even as courts acknowledge that AI training may satisfy the “transformative use” inquiry, they continue to treat market harm, licensing markets, and unlawful acquisition as fact‑dependent questions. It appears that so long as AI developers rely on massive training data sets and courts remain skeptical of practices involving pirated or unlicensed sources, copyright litigation over AI training models will continue to pervade.
May 4, 2026
Mergers and Acquisitions
First Time Buyers: Avoiding Analysis Paralysis
For first time buyers, the diligence phase of an acquisition can be overwhelming. Every document review, identified risk, and unanswered question, can lead to hesitation, and hesitation can quickly turn into something known as “analysis paralysis.” This can be a dangerous place for a transaction as it leads to a loss of momentum or even loss of the deal entirely. It is important for first time buyers to understand that no deal is without risk. You cannot eliminate risk entirely, but you can understand it, quantify it, and allocate it appropriately. When first time buyers recognize this reality early in the process, they are far more likely to move through the diligence process with confidence and ultimately have a successful closing. Below we look at some of the ways first time buyers can help to avoid analysis paralysis and build in the kind of protections that will allow them to move forward with ease. Bring in Advisors Early One frequent error among first-time buyers is delaying the engagement of experienced advisors, especially legal counsel. Legal counsel should be involved before the Letter of Intent (LOI) is signed, as their early participation enables the deal team to identify key issues, recognize potential risks, and structure the transaction to align price with risk effectively. Early involvement of advisors ensures that, upon reaching the diligence stage, the team is prepared to execute a strategy that has been thoughtfully designed from the outset, rather than developing one mid-process. Shifting Risks To allocate certain risks from the purchaser to the seller, it is essential to include precise representations and warranties, along with unambiguous indemnification clauses. When concerns arise, such as outstanding liabilities or matters identified during due diligence, targeted indemnities can significantly strengthen the buyer's protection. These safeguards enable buyers to move forward with a transaction even when not every issue has been conclusively resolved. Financial Structuring The financial structure of a transaction is equally significant as the inclusion of contractual safeguards. Transactions may be designed to incorporate financial protections for the buyer, such as escrow arrangements, holdbacks, or promissory notes. Additionally, earnouts provide further protection, particularly in situations where future company performance remains uncertain. By linking a portion of the purchase price to post-closing results, buyers can mitigate the risk of overpayment while enabling sellers to realize their preferred valuation. Deal Momentum One of the most important considerations for first time buyers is maintaining deal momentum. Conditions can shift quickly as transactions progress from market conditions to financing terms to business performance. If the diligence process is stalled, it allows more time for these conditions to shift, often leading to increased risk or erosion in value. When sellers lose confidence in the transaction, they could begin to entertain a competitor’s bid. Shifting conditions could also lead to a need for price adjustments or renegotiation of other terms. This is exactly where advisors prove invaluable. They can help buyers to distinguish between those issues that need immediate attention and are true red flags, as opposed to those that can be addressed through deal structure. Advisors can instill the kind of confidence in first time buyers that allows deals to move forward, even if every variable is not perfectly resolved. For those buyers entering the M&A process for the first time, the key is not to avoid risk, but to manage it intelligently. With the right team and a disciplined approach to maintaining momentum, buyers can avoid analysis paralysis and position themselves for a successful closing.
May 4, 2026
Estates and Trusts
New York Trust & Estate Disputes: When a Loved One’s Death Becomes a Battlefield
When Jane Doe died, her family assumed everything was in order. She had always been organized. She talked openly about “having her papers done.” Her three children gathered a few days after the funeral, expecting a straightforward process. Instead, two different estate documents surfaced. One was an older will naming all three children equally as beneficiaries to her estate. Another, signed shortly before her death, left most of the estate to one child and excluded the others. Accusations followed, and what should have been a period of mourning quickly turned into conflict that led to years of litigation. This is how estate litigation often begins. Estate litigation is not just about money. It is about family dynamics, legal rights, fiduciary responsibilities, and the emotional weight of unresolved issues that come to light after someone dies. In New York, these disputes are common, and when they arise, the consequences can be significant, if they are not handled promptly and appropriately. Will Contests In New York, a will can be challenged by filing objections in Surrogate’s Court during the probate process, a court-supervised proceeding in which a will is submitted for approval and an executor is authorized to administer the estate. The most common grounds for objecting to the probate of a will are: Lack of Capacity The testator must be at least 18 years old and of “sound mind” at the time the will is signed. This means they must understand the nature of making a will, the extent of their assets, and who their natural heirs are. A diagnosis of dementia or other cognitive impairment does not automatically invalidate a will, but it can be used as evidence that capacity was lacking at the time of execution. Undue Influence This occurs when someone in a position of trust or power over the testator pressures or manipulates them into changing their will in a way that does not reflect their true wishes. Courts look for evidence of isolation, dependency, and a beneficiary who was heavily involved in the will’s preparation or execution. Improper Execution New York law has strict and formal requirements for the execution of a valid will. Among other requirements, it must be signed by the testator at the end of the document, in the presence of at least two witnesses, who must also sign and understand they are witnessing a will. A failure to follow these steps, even a technical one, can be grounds to void the document entirely. Fraud or Forgery Fraud occurs when the testator was deceived into signing a will, such as being told they were signing a different document altogether. Forgery involves a signature or document that was fabricated without the testator’s knowledge or consent. Had Jane’s family had proper planning and legal guidance, they might have acted sooner and avoided litigation. Fiduciary Disputes Will contests are not the only source of conflict. Equally common and damaging are disputes involving fiduciaries. A fiduciary is a person or organization with a legal obligation to act in someone else’s best interest. In the context of estates and trusts, this means managing estate funds, real property, and other assets on behalf of the people entitled to benefit. Executors, estate administrators, and trustees all serve in this role, and all carry the same fundamental duty: to put the interests of the beneficiaries first. Consider what happened to Jane’s estate after the will dispute settled. Her son John was appointed executor. Months passed. Then several years. Distributions were delayed. Phone calls went unreturned. When his sisters finally demanded a formal accounting of his actions as executor, they learned that John had been using estate property without paying rent, had sold the property for less than market value, and had made fund transfers that could not be explained. Disputes arise when there are allegations that a fiduciary is not acting in the best interest of the beneficiaries or trustees, or is breaching their fiduciary duty. Some common disputes include claims that the fiduciary is: Self-dealing or has a conflict of interest Misusing or mishandling assets Not exercising the appropriate care, skill, and caution when managing the assets Treating beneficiaries unfairly or unequally Not acting transparently or failing to provide beneficiaries or trustees with timely, accurate information, or not complying with formal or informal accountings In addition to seeking an accounting, a beneficiary or trustee can request the removal of a fiduciary when they can demonstrate that the fiduciary breached their fiduciary duty and acted in a way that was detrimental to the beneficiaries. They can also request that an executor, administrator, or trustee be surcharged, meaning the fiduciary is personally liable for the harm caused and can be required to pay money back to the estate or trust to compensate for financial losses caused by their actions. When to Speak to an Attorney Jane’s children might never have avoided the conflict entirely, but had they consulted an attorney when the second will surfaced, before accusations hardened into positions and positions hardened into litigation, they would have understood their options. They might have learned whether there were grounds to challenge the document, what evidence would matter, and whether an early demand for information could have clarified the picture before it became a lengthy legal battle. If you are facing uncertainty about a will, concerned about how an estate or trust is being managed, or simply unsure whether something feels wrong, the right time to speak with an attorney is now.
May 4, 2026
Labor and Employment
Labor and Employment State Law Watch: Key Changes & Trends
Below is a roundup of recent labor and employment law developments, regulatory updates, and notable workplace trends that may affect employers and human resources professionals, with a focus on compliance considerations, risk management, and emerging issues shaping the modern workplace. Maine Paid Family and Medical Leave Benefits Become Available - Effective May 2026 Maine is implementing a comprehensive paid family and medical leave (PFML) program, with employee benefits becoming available beginning in May 2026. The law establishes a statewide system allowing eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected, paid leave in a benefit year for specified family, medical, and personal safety reasons. The program is administered by the Maine Department of Labor and funded through employer and employee payroll contributions, which began in January 2025. Eligibility is based on an employee’s earnings during the applicable base period (generally the first four of the five most recently completed calendar quarters), and the law applies broadly to nearly all Maine employers. Covered leave includes an employee’s own serious health condition, bonding with a new child, caring for a family member with a serious health condition, certain military-related needs, and “safe leave” for issues related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The 12-week cap applies in the aggregate across all qualifying leave types. The law effectively creates a state-administered wage replacement and job protection framework, requiring employers to integrate PFML into existing leave policies and workforce planning. While the state administers benefits, employers remain responsible for payroll compliance, job restoration obligations, and coordination with other leave laws such as the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Action Items: Employers should confirm compliance with payroll contribution requirements and ensure systems are properly configured. Leave policies should be updated to incorporate PFML rights and coordination with existing PTO and FMLA policies. Employers should also train HR personnel on eligibility determinations, job protection requirements, and claims coordination, and begin planning for staffing coverage during employee absences once benefits become available. New York Secure Choice Savings Program Registration Deadline - Effective May 15, 2026 New York is advancing its state-facilitated retirement initiative by imposing a firm deadline for mid-sized employers. Under the Secure Choice Savings Program, employers with 15 to 29 employees that do not sponsor a qualified retirement plan must register and participate in the program. The law effectively deputizes employers into facilitating employee retirement savings through payroll deductions, even where the employer has opted not to offer its own plan. While the program does not require employer contributions, it does require administrative coordination and ongoing compliance. Action Items: Employers in scope should promptly register for the program, ensure payroll systems can accommodate required deductions, and prepare employee communications. Employers that prefer greater plan flexibility may wish to consider implementing a private retirement plan instead. Utah Expanded Restrictions on Non-Compete Agreements - Effective May 6, 2026 Utah has enacted targeted legislation significantly limiting the enforceability of non-compete agreements in certain professional sectors. Health Care Workers (HB 270): Employers may no longer require licensed health care workers to enter into non-compete agreements. The law also prohibits non-solicitation provisions that would prevent these workers from informing patients of their current or future place of employment. This represents a notable shift toward prioritizing patient continuity of care over restrictive covenants. Veterinarians (SB 111): Similarly, Utah now restricts the use of non-competes for veterinarians. Such agreements are prohibited unless the veterinarian holds at least a 5% ownership interest in the business. The law reflects a policy judgment that mobility should be the default absent a meaningful ownership stake. Action Items: Employers should review and revise existing restrictive covenant agreements, particularly in the healthcare and veterinary sectors. Template agreements, onboarding materials, and exit procedures should be updated to ensure compliance with the new limitations. Washington Expanded Personnel File Access and Enforcement - Effective May 1, 2026 Washington has finalized amendments to its personnel file regulations through WAC 296-126-050, aligning agency rules with the broader statutory overhaul enacted in 2025. Under the updated framework, employers must provide employees — and certain former employees — with access to a significantly expanded set of personnel records within a defined timeframe. The rule now expressly defines “personnel file” to include not only core payroll and employment records, but also job applications, performance evaluations, disciplinary records (including closed matters), leave and accommodation records, and employment agreements, if maintained. The amendment imposes a 21-calendar-day deadline to provide access following a request and extends coverage to former employees for up to three years post-separation. Importantly, the rule incorporates a private right of action, allowing employees to pursue claims for noncompliance after providing notice. While much of the substantive expansion originates from the 2025 statute, the updated regulation solidifies these obligations and removes prior ambiguity around timing, scope, and enforcement. Action Items: Employers should review and update personnel file policies to reflect the expanded definition and ensure all responsive documents are consistently maintained and retrievable. Internal processes should be implemented to track and respond to requests within the 21-day deadline. Employers should also coordinate with HR and legal teams to identify privileged or sensitive materials before disclosure and assess potential litigation exposure associated with noncompliance.
May 1, 2026
Page 2 of 35
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
