ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Snell & Wilmer Phoenix Partner Jody Pokorski Named Winner of Connect CRE’s 2025 Lawyers in Real Estate Awards

January 21, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Phoenix Partner Jody K. Pokorski has been named a winner of Connect CRE’s Lawyers in Real Estate Awards for the Phoenix and Southwest region. This recognition highlights commercial real estate lawyers throughout various regions of the U.S., who have significantly impacted commercial real estate through their contributions to the industry and community. Pokorski’s practice is concentrated in real estate transactions, finance and regulatory matters, including work relating to commercial purchase and sale transactions, real estate financing, master planned communities, subdivision matters, and leasing. She advises large and small corporate clients in real estate matters throughout the United States. Pokorski represents developers, owners, lenders, and contractors and has significant experience handling real estate matters for institutes of higher learning and other educational entities. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

GRSM Attorneys Selected to 2025 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

January 06, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Super Lawyers® has released its 2025 attorney lists across various regions of the United States. This year, 189 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been selected, with 60 named to Super Lawyers and 129 named to Rising Stars. *For attorneys licensed to practice in New Jersey: No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Please visit the Super Lawyers Selection Process for a detailed description of the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars selection methodology. GRSM Super Lawyers 2025 Northern California Michael D. Bruno David C. Capell Lisa M. Cappelluti Dion N. Cominos Matthew S. Foy Natalie Fujikawa Marie Trimble Holvick Michael A. Laurenson Michael J. Pietrykowski Andrew I. Port Gina Stassi Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

New California Law Requires Real Estate Agents and Brokers to Disclose AI Alterations in Listings

January 21, 2026 — Brian Slome - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego, Calif. (December 19, 2025) - Artificial intelligence and digital marketing have become ubiquitous in real estate advertising. The widespread use of AI creates risk for consumers who don’t know whether images shown online or on the multiple listing services are real. A new California law that goes into effect in January 2026 tries to draw a clear line: innovation is welcome but deception is not. The state’s new law requires licensed real estate brokers and salespersons to disclose when images used in advertisement and promotional materials have been digitally altered and to provide access to the original, unaltered images. The law is intended to enhance transparency in real estate advertising and to reduce the risk of consumer deception arising from image editing, virtual staging, or other digital modifications. Who Is Covered The law applies to real estate agents, brokers, developers, and marketing staff involved in property advertising. It encompasses advertisements including those in print and online. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Celebrating BWB&O’s 2026 Super Lawyers Rising Stars in San Diego!

March 31, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners Jocelyn Russo, Christina Matian, and Associate Angelo Perillo have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 San Diego Rising Stars list. This recognition highlights their outstanding dedication and distinguished service in Family Law, Civil Litigation, and Personal Injury Litigation.

SUPER LAWYERS Jocelyn Russo: 2023-2026 Christina Matian: 2024-2026 Angelo Perillo: 2024-2026

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

---

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Reminder: FOLLOW Your Well Drafted Contract Provisions

February 17, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have early and very often stated that your contract is the basis for everything relating to your construction project. Everything from “no damages for delay” clauses to attorney fees to indemnity are found in those documents. A well drafted construction contract sets the expectations for the project clearly and, aside from just making it easier on everyone for a successful project, will ease things should there be any dispute later. However, all of the great drafting and pre-construction negotiation in the world won’t do you a bit of good if you don’t follow those provisions. I can’t count the number of times that a contractor or subcontractor has read and even understood the construction documents but then put the contract in the drawer and didn’t look at it again. Your experienced construction attorney, while helpful at the drafting and negotiation stages and beyond, cannot help do the work. Your lawyer can help you negotiate and highlight the notice provisions of the contract but cannot provide that notice to the Owner or General Contractor when you have a claim. In short, the best contract in the world is only as good as those that are following it. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

HHMR: A Retrospective — Chapter One (2001–2025)

January 26, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
There comes a point in every career when you stop long enough to look back, not out of nostalgia, but out of clarity. You begin to see the arc, the accidents, the grace, and the moments when others carried more of the burden than you realized at the time. For me, that moment came recently, somewhere between the twenty-fifth year of practicing construction litigation and the rewriting of our firm’s operating agreement. I found myself asking a question I should have asked long ago: What are we building, and will it last? The truth is that we at HHMR do not build anything. Our clients do. They are the ones building Colorado, from single-family homes and multifamily developments to commercial, industrial, and infrastructure projects, navigating every constraint, hurdle, and barrier this state presents to them. They are the men and women in the arena, in Theodore Roosevelt’s sense. They pour foundations, frame walls, manage subs, balance supply chains, and take the risks inherent in the act of building anything of value. And for that work, they get sued. My job, and the job of this firm, is to defend them. We are their champions. Understanding this truth is the starting point of HHMR 2.0. But to appreciate where we are going, you must first understand from where we came. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---