GRSM Marks Seventh Anniversary as First and Only Full-Service Law Firm in All 50 States, Climbs to #70 on Am Law 100
April 20, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani proudly celebrates the seventh anniversary of its becoming the first and only full-service law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states. Since launching its innovative 50-state platform in April 2019, GRSM has experienced extraordinary growth across markets, practices, and client relationships.
In the past seven years, GRSM has expanded its footprint with 20 new offices in both major and secondary markets and doubled its attorney headcount, growing from 940 to more than 2000 lawyers. This growth has propelled GRSM from the 40th to the 11th largest law firm in the United States, according to Law360, while also driving a significant rise on the Am Law 100 rankings, from #103 in 2019 to #70 in 2026. GRSM has served nearly half of the Fortune 500, a testament to its deep bench of lawyers and national capabilities.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers
May 05, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the tenth straight year to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2026. Add this to my recent election to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. Your confidence in my work is very gratifying.
So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the
5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2026.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
$356 Million Judgement Against Developer for Defective Construction of DC Condominium
August 16, 2026 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law GroupOn July 31, 2026, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered a $356,085,513.00 judgment against developers JBG Smith for defective construction and renovation of the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium in Washington, D.C. The case is Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association v. JBG Smith Properties, et al., No. 2020 CA 004807 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). In a 148-page
Trial Order, the D.C. Superior Court awarded $118,695,171.00 in damages in favor of the condominium association and against the condominium developers, including JBG Smith. The Court trebled those damages pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to reach an ultimate judgment of $356,085,513.00. See Cowie Law Group:
DC Condominium Construction Defects: Recovering Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Expenses & Treble Damages Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
Cowie Law Group, P.C. filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Association in 2020. The firm represented the Association throughout years of pretrial discovery and ultimately served as trial counsel with Williams & Connolly LLP during a lengthy bench trial before the Honorable Yvonne Williams. The Cowie Law Group team included attorneys, George A. Bealefeld, III, Albert G. McCarraher, Stanford L. Kimmel, III and Nicholas D. Cowie.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law GroupMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowielawgroup.com
Additional Insureds Owed a Defense in Underlying Personal Injury Suit
March 03, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted partial summary judgment on the duty to defend to two additional insureds who were named as defendants in the underlying personal injury suit. In re Third St. Equity, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234909 (E.D. N. Y. Dec. 2, 2025).
Third Street Equity LLD hired Developing NY State, LLC as the contractor for a construction project. Developing NY entered a subcontract agreement with Capital Source Concrete NY LLC for concrete work as well as labor and services for a construction project. The subcontract required that Capital Concrete keep the construction site free of debris, waste material or rubbish. Further, Capital Concrete was responsible for compliance with OSHA safety regulations. It was also agreed that Capital Concrete would obtain liability and workers compensation insurance naming Third Street and Developing NY as additional insureds.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes
May 14, 2026 —
Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis BrisboisNevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000.
By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3].
Reprinted courtesy of
Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and
Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
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...
Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & WilmerA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).
KEY HOLDINGS
1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer,
Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and
Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com
Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process
April 27, 2026 —
David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLPOn April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process.
Background
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP,
Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP,
Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and
Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
