Missouri Case Highlights the Problems

The advancement of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) tools has revolutionized many industries, including the legal profession. However, the use of Gen AI in legal practice is not without significant risks. As discussed below, Kruse v. Karlen highlights the importance of accuracy, ethical responsibility, and compliance with procedural rules when using AI tools to prepare court documents.

In Kruse v. Karlen, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and imposed sanctions after a pro se appellant submitted an appellate brief riddled with fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities. 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App.
Continue Reading Tips for Avoiding the Pitfalls of AI in Legal Practice: Missouri’s Evolving Rules on AI Disclosure

The Rollout of a Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy

On March 10, 2026 the Department of Justice (DOJ) rolled out what it called its “first-ever” Department-wide corporate enforcement policy for virtually all federal white-collar criminal matters. The department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) is certainly not all new, as it reaffirms past enforcement discretion principles based on disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. Yet, it applies more broadly to all types of white-collar cases (except antitrust matters subject to the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy). Stressing the goals to promote uniformity, predictability, transparency, and fairness, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche noted the CEP:

…
Continue Reading New Comprehensive Justice Department Corporate Enforcement Policy

Background and Context

A recent Madison County, Illinois,[1] case explored whether the actions of an insurance carrier could waive an insured’s personal jurisdiction defense in an asbestos exposure wrongful death case. This appears to be an issue of first impression in Madison County asbestos litigation, but plaintiffs could raise this argument in other types of litigation and in other courts as well.

The Court ultimately found there had been no waiver and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the arguments presented show how early communications can create risk.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiffs Sharon…
Continue Reading Carriers Beware! Avoid Waiving Personal Jurisdiction Defense of Your Insured

In a recent 9-0 holding, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state-level “affidavit of merit” requirements for medical malpractice suits do not apply in federal court. This holding creates a notable divide in state and federal practice as more than half of all U.S. states have similar state-level pleadings requirements. 

The case, Berk v. Choy, was filed in federal court but governed by Delaware state substantive law. Delaware, like many states, requires that plaintiffs filing medical malpractice suits submit an affidavit of merit — a statement from a qualified expert certifying that the lawsuit has a reasonable basis — either with…
Continue Reading No Certificate, No Problem: Recent Supreme Court Decision Clears the Path for Federal Medical Malpractice Claims

Legal Rule

Illinois’s discretionary immunity rules are found in sections 2‑109 and 2‑201 of the Tort Immunity Act. Together, these provisions protect local governments and their employees from liability for policy decisions and discretionary judgments made in good faith. In short, a public employee—and by extension the public body—is not liable for injuries that result from discretionary decisions made performing their official duties.

The Conscious Decision Standard

For discretionary immunity under the Act to apply, a local government must present evidence that it made a conscious decision with respect to the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint. This requirement…
Continue Reading Illinois Discretionary Immunity: The Local Government Knowledge Requirement

Background

Plaintiff Raymond Winkler[i] hired defendant Danna Pools, Inc. (DPI) to construct an in-ground swimming pool at plaintiff’s home. The contract guaranteed DPI’s work would be free from defects in material and workmanship for 14 months from the date the pool was filled with water.  It also expressly voided all warranties if maintenance, service, or warranty work was performed by anyone other than DPI. The pool was filled with water in July 2019.

During the 2019 season, defendant performed various services, including vacuuming, chemical testing, routine maintenance, and training plaintiff on proper pool maintenance and chemical levels. A maintenance…
Continue Reading Breach of Contract Claim Fails When Plaintiff Can’t Prove Damages

Introduction

In January 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the antitrust agencies’ annual revised filing fees for premerger review of sizable transactions and reporting thresholds for review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (HSR Act). The adjusted HSR Act thresholds are based on annual changes in the U.S. GNP (Gross National Product). For 2026, the HSR jurisdictional thresholds and fee bands have increased and apply to transactions closing on or after February 17, 2026.

Currently, the HSR Act requires parties to certain mergers, acquisitions of assets or voting securities, or joint ventures to complete premerger…
Continue Reading New Federal Premerger Filing Thresholds Set

Consumer Opposition

U.S. federal antitrust laws allow consumers to sue over mergers and acquisitions. On December 8, 2025, an HBO Max subscriber, Michelle Fendelander, filed a class-action lawsuit against Netflix claiming that the proposed Netflix/Warner Bros. acquisition would reduce competition in the U.S. video-on-demand market. In the complaint, Fendelander, a resident of Las Vegas and subscriber to WBD’s HBO Max, claims she and other consumers “will bear the brunt of this decreased competition, paying increased prices and receiving degraded and diminished services for their money.” Fendelander v. Netflix, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-10521 (N.D. Cal.)

The complaint also says that if WBD is removed as an…
Continue Reading Stranger Things and Harry Potter Under One Roof: Status of Netflix’s Warner Bros. Acquisition

A recent opinion out of the Northern District of Illinois underscores an often-overlooked risk for retail establishments and their insurers: when an employee voluntarily assists a customer, that assistance may itself create an independent legal duty—even when a premises claim might otherwise fail.

In Swayka v. Menard, Inc., the court denied Menard, Inc.’s (“Menards’”) motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by a customer who was injured while a store employee assisted him in transporting heavy merchandise to his vehicle. Although Menards framed the case as one involving a routine, open-and-obvious parking lot condition, the court focused on…
Continue Reading When Helping Hurts: Illinois Federal Court Finds Retailer May Have Assumed a Legal Duty by Assisting Customer

Changes to FTC’s Non-Compete Rule

In April 2024, the FTC issued a Non-Compete Clause Rule that barred most post-employment non-compete agreements nationwide. However, the ban was immediately challenged in federal court. In August 2024, a federal court enjoined the ban, and appellate litigation ensued. After a year of appellate litigation, in September 2025, the FTC dismissed its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir.) and Properties of the Villages v. FTC, No. 24-13102 (11th Cir.), effectively invalidating the ban on the non-compete rule. The Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss the appeal and accept the vacatur. Chairman Andrew Ferguson, joined by Commissioner…
Continue Reading 5 Keys to Crafting Non-Compete Agreements in Missouri After FTC Abandons Its Nationwide Ban

The State of Asbestos Litigation in Cook County, Illinois

Numerous law firms currently file asbestos cases in Cook County, Illinois—some with a long history of being based there and others based outside Illinois.

In recent years, the County experienced an increase in asbestos injury cases.[1] (Asbestos filings  increased by 33.8% from 2023 to 2024, with 95 filings between July 2023 and July 2024.[2]) This trend is expected to continue in the years ahead.

This jurisdiction has also experienced a high number of high-dollar personal-injury verdicts, a trend that directly affects how parties defend asbestos cases there. (The…
Continue Reading What to Know About Asbestos Litigation in Cook County, Illinois

An Illustrative Case

Earlier this year, Illinois’ Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld a directed verdict for the plaintiff because the defendant violated a witness sequestration order under Illinois Rule of Evidence 615. See Mogensen v. SCF Lewis & Clark Fleeting LLC, 2025 IL App (5th) 230501.

At the final pre-trial hearing in this personal injury case, defense counsel invoked Illinois Rule of Evidence 615. This Rule allows a party to request that the court exclude witnesses from the courtroom so they can’t hear other witnesses’ testimony. However, over the course of trial, defendant’s attorneys discussed prior witness testimony…
Continue Reading Sequestration Slip-Ups: Why Illinois’ Rule of Evidence 615 Matters in Medical Malpractice Trials