SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI
March 03, 2026 —
Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery.
Facts
Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Tampa Team Obtains Highly Favorable Verdict for Property Owner Client in Lawsuit over Traffic Accident
March 24, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomTampa Managing Partner John Rine and Partner Nick Dareneau obtained a very favorable verdict for their property owner client in a Sarasota County trial in a lawsuit arising from a traffic accident. At the end of closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel requested appropriately $18 million from the jury. The jury returned a net verdict of just over a thousand dollars.
The plaintiff was on a scooter and was involved in an accident with an SUV in a parking lot intersection. Our firm represented the property owner. The plaintiffs argued that the landscape vegetation was too tall and violated the sight lines of the two drivers, and that the height of the shrubbery violated the owner’s landscaping contract and a local sight line ordinance. They also argued that the intersection lacked a stop sign in contrast to the other six parking lot entrances, which had stop signs.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison
June 02, 2026 —
Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.1. Introduction
As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years.
The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at
EClarkson@sdvlaw.com
Louisiana Enacts Important Tort Reform Legislation
May 12, 2026 —
Lee M. Peacocke & Benjamin Perkins - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana legislature enacted tort reform legislation in 2025 to address the increasing cost of insurance in Louisiana and to provide some predictability to the Louisiana legal system. While our colleagues, Jenny Michel and Jennifer Kretschmann, have provided an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the legislation in their article entitled “Louisiana State Legislature 2025 Regular Session: Tort Reform - Acts & Vetoed Insurance Bill,” which can be found
here, this article examines the anticipated impact of the tort reform legislation on personal injury trials in federal and state courts in Louisiana.
The most significant reform involves the institution of a modified defense of contributory negligence, which went into effect on January 1, 2026. Since 1996, Louisiana had operated as a pure comparative fault state; the liability of each party whose fault caused damages was to be allocated among the respective parties based upon their appropriate percentage of fault, regardless of the legal theory of liability asserted against each party. Thus, a plaintiff 55 percent at fault could recover 45 percent of their damages from the liable defendants. The 2025 Tort Reform Amendments now prohibit a plaintiff in a personal injury action from recovering any damages if they are found to be 51 percent or more at fault for their damages. The 55 percent at-fault party in the example above is now prohibited from recovering any damages from any party. Importantly, this new legislation now requires the trial court to instruct the jury that if they find a plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault, then the plaintiff will not recover any damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lee M. Peacocke, Lewis Brisbois and
Benjamin Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Peacocke may be contacted at Lee.Peacocke@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Perkins may be contacted at Benjamin.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Don’t Ignore Prejudgment Interest
February 02, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to contracts, there may be a clause that provides that untimely payments shall bear interest at a particular rate. Or it may be the statutory rate. That clause will come into play when determining prejudgment interest. In ANY dispute, prejudgment interest can be an important damages component that accrues from the date of the loss. Don’t ignore prejudgment interest.
The Fourth District of Florida, in a construction dispute, maintained:
“[I]f a plaintiff establishes that he sustained out-of-pocket loss, prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date of the loss. The trial court has no discretion regarding awarding prejudgment interest and must do so applying the statutory rate of interest in effect at the time the interest accrues.”
Bensusan v. Design Engineering Group, LLC, 2025 WL 3466367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Kahana Feld Secures Voluntary Discontinuance With Prejudice in High-Exposure Trip-and-Fall Case
December 22, 2025 —
Kahana FeldKahana Feld partners
Rachael Marvin and
Dominic Donato recently achieved a significant victory in Kings County obtaining a voluntary discontinuance with prejudice of a high-exposure trip-and-fall lawsuit just before oral argument on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff claimed they were injured after tripping on an allegedly worn and cracked exterior stair at the clients’ property. However, through careful investigation and strategic motion practice, our team argued that the accident did not occur on the defendants’ premises, but instead on a nearby MTA subway platform, as identified by eyewitness accounts and plaintiff’s medical records. Additionally, our defense medical expert opined that the plaintiff’s severe leg injuries were inconsistent with the claimed fall location—supporting our position that the alleged incident could not have happened as described.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana Feld
Fort Lauderdale Team Secures Defense Verdict for Client in Premises Liability Lawsuit
December 30, 2025 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomFort Lauderdale, Fla. (October 27, 2025) - Fort Lauderdale Partner Paul Gamm and Associate Amber Dawson recently obtained a complete defense verdict for their client, a grocery store operator, in a premises liability case in Florida state court.
The accident in question occurred in December 2022, when two vehicles collided at an uncontrolled internal parking lot intersection at the grocery store property. The plaintiff refused to blame the other driver, a non-party at trial. The plaintiff alleged that the intersection should have been controlled with a stop sign because it lacked the appropriate sight distance for drivers to perceive threats from oncoming traffic.
The plaintiff filed suit against the client in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida. She claimed she suffered cervical and lumbar herniations, requiring one facet lumbar fusion and two outstanding surgeries.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
