Thomas W. Tobin

Michelle Gallagher (Partner-Boston, MA) and Taylor F. Bialek (Associate-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Trademark Law and Brand Building: Protection and Enforcement Strategies” on November 10, 2026. This presentation delivers an engaging and practical overview of trademark law. Michelle and Taylor examine the lifecycle of a brand – from initial brand selection and clearance to the development and implementation of effective filing strategies – highlighting the importance of building a strong, protectable brand identity from the outset. Expanding beyond the basics, the session also explores global brand protection and enforcement strategies, offering insight into how companies safeguard their trademark portfolios across jurisdictions and develop proactive strategies to deter potential infringement. These topics are relevant to entrepreneurs, corporate executives, and independent business owners, providing a cohesive framework for understanding how legal strategy can support and sustain brand value in a competitive, international marketplace.

Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford, CT) will present “Keeping an Eye on Things: Cameras, Privacy, and Risk in Affordable Housing” at the HAI Group’s 8th Annual Risk Management Conference on November 10, 2026. The presentation will address key privacy and liability questions for housing management professionals using cameras. Steve and Irena will discuss the legal and practical considerations surrounding resident-installed cameras, video doorbells, cameras facing shared spaces, and staff body cameras, with a focus on the differences between video and audio recording and varying state consent requirements. Join them for this free, virtual, one-day event that brings together housing leaders, risk professionals, and safety champions from across the country for timely, actionable content. 

On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 923 (Chapter 482, Statutes of 2026), known as the Expanding Privacy Rights Act. The law amends two provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): (1) the right to delete (Civil Code § 1798.105); and (2) the methods for submitting consumer requests (Civil Code § 1798.130). The legislation was authored by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency (also known as CalPrivacy). This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027. A deletion request will now reach personal information that a business bought or received from others, not only what the consumer provided. Online-only businesses must also offer a web form or portal for privacy requests. For most companies, this is an operational change rather than a new program, but it reaches data stores that many request workflows never touch. Reasons Behind the Amendment Under the prior CCPA text, consumers could request deletion only of information a business collected “from the consumer.” The California Legislature found that the existing right “allows consumers to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer, but not personal information about the consumer that the business collected from third parties. This creates a gap in protection.” S.B. 923, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. § 1(b) (Cal. 2026) (enacted as 2026 Cal. Stat. ch. 482). CalPrivacy, the legislation’s sponsor, noted that “businesses routinely enrich their records with third-party data, creating a significant gap in the right to delete.” CalPrivacy, California Expands Privacy Protections by Strengthening Deletion Rights (Sept. 27, 2026). With respect to the means for the submission of the requests, the current CCPA regulations require a webform only from businesses that are not exclusively online, and only if they have a website. See 11 CCR § 7020(b) (requests "shall be through its website, such as through a webform."). Online-only businesses with a direct consumer relationship still need only an email address under § 7020(a). As Senator Becker, the author of this bill, explained in his statement, “while most businesses must provide two or more methods to submit privacy requests, online-only businesses that have a direct relationship with the consumer are only required to provide an email address for consumers to submit most privacy requests under the CCPA. This single-method requirement for certain businesses creates barriers for consumers because it offers minimal support or guidance.” Assemb. Comm. on Privacy & Consumer Prot., Analysis of S.B. 923, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess., at 5 (Cal. June 23, 2026) (as amended June 11, 2026) (quoting author's statement). CalPrivacy, which sponsored the bill, says it aligns California with deletion rights in Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, and New Jersey, and stresses that the CCPA’s existing exemptions, including fraud prevention and legal compliance, remain available. What the Statute Now Says Broader Deletion Right Amended Section 1798.105(a) provides: “A consumer shall have the right to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from or about the consumer.” Suppression Records for Third-Party Data For data obtained from other sources, the law gives businesses a defined way to comply: “A business that has obtained personal information about a consumer from a source other than the consumer shall be deemed in compliance with a consumer’s request to delete that data pursuant to subdivision (a) by retaining a record of the deletion request and the minimum data necessary for the purpose of ensuring the consumer’s personal information remains deleted from the business’s records and is not being used for any other purpose.” Expanded Downstream Obligations The existing duties still apply: the business must “notify any service providers or contractors to delete the consumer’s personal information from their records and notify all third parties to whom the business has sold or shared the personal information,” unless “this proves impossible or involves disproportionate effort.” Service providers and contractors “shall cooperate with the business in responding to a verifiable consumer request.” Because the deletion right is broader, these flow-down duties now reach a larger set of records. Preserved Exceptions  Businesses may still retain information when reasonably necessary to, among other things, “[h]elp to ensure security and integrity” or “[c]omply with a legal obligation.” New Online Request Requirement Amended Section 1798.130(a)(1)(A) provides that a business that “operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with a consumer from whom it collects personal information shall only be required to provide an email address and make an online method, such as a web form or online portal, available” for requests to know, delete, or correct. An email inbox alone will no longer suffice. What Is Required, From Whom, and When Beginning January 1, 2027, every business subject to the CCPA must honor deletion requests for personal information it holds about a consumer, whether it collected that data from the consumer or got it from a broker, vendor, or other third party. For data collected from other sources, a business complies with the new requirements by keeping a record of the request and only the minimum data needed to make sure the consumer's information stays deleted. Service providers and contractors must assist the business in their responses to the consumer rights requests. At the business's direction, they must delete the data and notify their own downstream service providers and contractors to do the same.  Starting from January 1, 2027, a business that operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with consumers must now offer an online method, such as a web form or portal, in addition to an email address, for submission of consumer requests. Businesses with brick-and-mortar presence keep their current obligation to offer at least two methods for consumer requests, including a toll-free telephone number. Practical Steps to Take Before January 1, 2027 Compliance with contemporary data privacy laws must involve technical solutions along with legal and compliance ones. Online-only businesses seeking to implement the webform or portal for the first time must be mindful of the privacy laws-related requirements, including the need for verification, the regulatory response timelines, and the recordkeeping requirements related to the fulfilled requests. All businesses subject to CCPA should also take the time to map where personal information sourced from third parties resides in their systems, extend deletion workflows to those systems, and build or check their suppression records workflow. This is also a good time to review the mandatory service provider and contractor agreements to confirm compliance with California’s requirements, including support for deletion rights cooperation and flow-down provisions.  Wilson Elser’s Data Use and AI Governance team can help businesses assess how SB 923 affects their deletion workflows, third-party data sources, vendor agreements, and consumer request intake, and can advise on CCPA compliance and other privacy law questions as they arise.

Adam Bialek (Partner-New York, NY) and Taylor Bialek (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “Washington Email Law Still Puts Marketers at Litigation Risk,” published in the October 30, 2026, edition of Law360. The article examines the growing legal risks associated with promotional email marketing following the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, which expanded the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) to cover misleading email subject lines. Although a recent legislative amendment reduces potential damages and makes liability harder to establish, the authors explain that businesses remain exposed to class actions and statutory damages when promotional subject lines overstate discounts, create artificial urgency, or misrepresent limited-time offers. They caution that “After Brown, subject lines are front-line compliance claims, and CAN-SPAM compliance alone will not eliminate state law, class action and reputational risk.” Adam and Taylor further highlight why businesses should make marketing governance an operational priority before their next email campaign, offering practical safeguards, including reviewing subject lines as standalone claims, establishing clear approval procedures, monitoring third-party vendors, and maintaining documentation to support promotional representations.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been invited to speak at the 4th International Scientific Conference, "AI Literacy and the Future of the Legal Profession," on November 10, 2026, at the Vilnius University Faculty of Law in Vilnius, Lithuania. The conference brings together scholars, practitioners, judges, and policymakers to explore a question that concerns every litigator: how lawyers can understand, critically evaluate, and responsibly use AI in light of Article 4 of the EU AI Act, which establishes AI literacy requirements. Otis will present "Nomogogy: A Gap Analysis of Faculty Integration of AI-Supported Formative Feedback in Legal Writing Instruction for International Law Students." The study examines the knowledge, motivations, and institutional support law faculty need to integrate AI-supported feedback into legal writing instruction effectively and fairly. Otis’s research frames AI adoption as a multidimensional performance challenge rather than simply a question of access to tools, underscoring that sustained human oversight is essential to responsible use. These findings align with the conference's focus on professional competence, human oversight, and rethinking legal education in the AI era. Otis's participation reflects the firm's commitment to staying at the forefront of how emerging technology is reshaping legal practice and ensuring that the judgment, ethical standards, and advocacy our clients rely on keep pace with the changes.

Dale Dobuler (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Nick Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL) secured final summary judgment in an insurance coverage action in federal court seeking a declaration of non-coverage for an underlying wrongful death claim involving a commercial auto policy issued to a Florida-based business.  Prior to the coverage action,  plaintiff’s counsel issued a presuit demand of $1 million to the insured and its commercial auto carrier. Dale and Nick argued that coverage for the plaintiff’s claim was precluded by certain policy exclusions for injuries involving the insured's employees. They filed a declaratory action in US District Court. After establishing that the injury arose from or was directly connected to the deceased’s employment with the insured, the Court granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment against the insured on two independent grounds. First, the insured failed to timely respond to the motion, despite being advised that failure to do so would render the motion unopposed under the applicable local rules. The Court therefore granted the motion as unopposed. Second, the Court granted the motion on the merits, adopting the reasoning set forth in the carrier’s motion and finding that the undisputed record established that the accident fell outside the policy’s coverage. Specifically, the Court determined that the insured was not entitled to coverage as a matter of law because the policy clearly excluded coverage for the accident under three separate exclusions. The order therefore fully resolved the declaratory coverage issue against the insured and established a lack of coverage for the claim.

Kimberly Silas (Of Counsel-New Orleans, LA), who had previously served for two years as Secretary of the New Orleans Bar Foundation, was unanimously elected to serve as the organization’s President for the upcoming year. She will be installed, along with fellow Board members, at the New Orleans Bar Association’s Annual Dinner on November 19, 2026. In her new leadership role, Kimberly looks forward to expanding her efforts to give back to the local legal profession and the greater New Orleans community.

Taryn Campbell (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Nicholas Merritt (Associate-Phoenix, AZ) prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of Wilson Elser’s public housing authority client in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The lawsuit arose from events occurring in July and August 2024. Under Arizona law, claims against public entities have strict deadlines: claimants must serve a notice of claim within 180 days and file suit within one year. The plaintiff served her notice in April 2026 and filed suit in July 2026. The court held that the plaintiff’s state-law claims were time-barred and also rejected her argument that the claims did not accrue until she later suffered a medical episode. Instead, the court held that the claims accrued when the alleged harm occurred, in August 2024.   The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation. The eviction proceedings had gone through the courts, affording the plaintiff due process. Additionally, the complaint failed to allege that the claimed constitutional violation and harm resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice, as required in claims seeking to establish a public body's liability. The ruling underscores Arizona’s strict enforcement of notice-of-claim deadlines and demonstrates how public entities can successfully challenge weak claims at the pleading stage, avoiding costly discovery.

In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5 (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court held that corporate defense counsel, risk managers, and claims adjusters may not communicate ex parte with a hospital’s former employee health care providers about patient care. The Court reaffirmed Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988) prohibiting ex parte communication by defense counsel with a plaintiff’s treating physicians, held that prejudice is presumed when Loudon is violated, and ruled that a quality improvement (QI) committee member’s involvement in defense strategy waives the committee’s statutory privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200. As a result, informal contact with former employee providers should stop, and factual inquiries should proceed through formal discovery under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 or 31. This article explains how Snyder fits within Washington’s patient confidentiality and corporate privilege framework, how it applies to different categories of providers, and what hospitals and their counsel should do now. Patient Confidentiality vs. Corporate Privilege To navigate the procedural boundaries governing medical malpractice defense in Washington, practitioners must understand the fundamental statutory tension between a patient’s right to health care confidentiality and an institution's right to confer with corporate counsel. Under Washington's Uniform Health Care Information Act, health care providers and their agents are strictly prohibited from disclosing health information without explicit written authorization, except as otherwise provided by law. Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020; State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350, 387, 431 P.3d 976, 995 (2018); King v. Riveland, 125 Wn.2d 500, 509, 886 P.2d 160, 165 (1994). This privacy right is reinforced by Washington's statutory physician-patient privilege, which protects treating physicians from being compelled to testify regarding medical information acquired while attending a patient. Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(4). While a patient automatically waives this statutory privilege upon filing a personal injury or medical malpractice lawsuit under Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(4)(b), the Washington Supreme Court has consistently held that this waiver is not absolute. In Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 678, 756 P.2d 138, 140 (1988), the Court established a bright-line prohibition against defense counsel engaging in private, ex parte communications with a plaintiff’s treating physicians. The Loudon rule safeguards the fiduciary doctor-patient relationship, prevents inadvertent disclosure of irrelevant medical records, and eliminates the risk of turning defense attorneys into potential trial witnesses. Loudon, 110 Wn.2d at 682, 756 P.2d at 142; Smith v. Orthopedics Int'l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d 659, 666, 244 P.3d 939, 942–43 (2010). On the corporate side, health care facilities rely on corporate attorney-client privilege to conduct internal risk investigations. Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(2)(a); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S. Ct. 677, 682, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981). However, in Newman v. Highland School District No. 203, 186 Wn.2d 769, 381 P.3d 1188 (2016), the Washington Supreme Court established a strict temporal boundary on corporate privilege, holding that privilege does not extend to post-employment communications with former employees: “The underlying purpose of the corporate attorney-client privilege is to foster full and frank communications between counsel and the client (i.e., the corporation), not its former employees... This purpose is preserved by limiting the scope of the privilege to the duration of the employer-employee relationship.” Newman, 186 Wn.2d at 781, 381 P.3d at 1193 (quoting Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 73 cmt. e (Am. L. Inst. 2000)). Evolution of Provider Contact Rules: Current vs. Former Personnel How does one reconcile corporate attorney-client privilege with the Loudon doctrine? The Supreme Court addressed this conflict in Youngs v. PeaceHealth, 179 Wn.2d 645, 664, 316 P.3d 1035, 1045 (2014), carving out a narrow exception allowing corporate defense counsel to conduct confidential ex parte interviews with a nonparty treating physician who is a current employee of the hospital, provided those communications are limited strictly to the facts surrounding the alleged negligent incident. In Hermanson v. MultiCare Health System, Inc., 196 Wn.2d 578, 581, 475 P.3d 484, 487 (2020), the Court extended this principle to current non-physician staff and current independent contractors who are the functional equivalents of employees. However, when a treating provider leaves the facility's employ, the legal landscape shifts dramatically across four distinct provider categories: Current Employee Providers: Fully covered under the Youngs exception. Corporate defense counsel may conduct privileged, ex parte interviews with active employee physicians, nurses, and staff, provided the conversation is confined to the facts of the alleged negligent incident and does not delve into general medical history. Youngs v. PeaceHealth, 179 Wn.2d at 671. Current Independent Contractors: Covered under Hermanson where an agency or functional equivalent relationship exists. If an independent contractor doctor acts as an agent of the facility, corporate counsel may confer ex parte under the same strict factual constraints of Youngs. Hermanson v. MultiCare Health Sys., Inc., 196 Wn.2d at 589–90. Former Employee Providers (Including C-Suite Officers & Owners): Governed strictly by Newman and Snyder. The moment a provider separates from employment, it instantly extinguishes corporate attorney-client privilege over ongoing trial preparation. Because former employees no longer owe agency duties, defense counsel cannot conduct ex parte interviews with former staff regarding patient care under any circumstances. Snyder v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr., slip op. at 28–29. Quality Improvement (QI) Committee Members: Subject to statutory peer-review immunity under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200(3). While records prepared for QI committees are immune from discovery, committee members must be strictly screened from litigation defense teams. If a QI member participates in active trial strategy or ex parte witness preparation, statutory peer-review privilege is completely forfeited. Snyder, slip op. at 38–39. The Snyder Decision: Presumed Harm, Privilege Logs, and QI Waiver In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5, slip op. (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026) (En Banc), the Washington Supreme Court resolved lingering uncertainties by establishing three definitive holdings that fundamentally reshape medical malpractice litigation. 1. Rejection of Defense Exceptions and Affirmance of Loudon The Supreme Court affirmed that Loudon applies strictly to former employee health care providers, regardless of whether their care forms the primary basis of the hospital's alleged vicarious liability. In doing so, the Court explicitly rejected a series of defense theories: Representation Agreements & Indemnity Contracts: Private employment contracts requiring former doctors to cooperate in litigation defense cannot override statutory patient privacy rights under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020 or physician-patient privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(4). Hermanson, 196 Wn.2d at 590 n.1; Snyder, slip op. at 25–26. Common Interest / Joint Defense Theories: Shared legal exposure does not authorize defense counsel to conduct ex parte trial strategy sessions with former employee providers or their separate attorneys. Smith v. Orthopedics Int'l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d at 668; Snyder, slip op. at 27–28. Inapplicability of Youngs: The Court confirmed that the fiduciary doctor-patient relationship survives employment termination, placing former employee providers strictly beyond the reach of the Youngs current-employee exception. Snyder, slip op. at 28–29. 2. Magaña and the Presumption of Prejudice Crucially, the Supreme Court disavowed its prior decision in Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570, 220 P.3d 191 (2009), which required plaintiffs to prove substantial litigation prejudice to obtain discovery sanctions. Holding that ex parte contacts inherently damage the fiduciary doctor-patient relationship, the Court established that prejudice is presumed upon demonstrating a Loudon violation. Snyder, slip op. at 33–34. To evaluate appropriate sanctions—ranging from monetary fines to entering a default judgment on liability—the Supreme Court extended Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), ordering the trial court to conduct an in-camera inspection of all withheld defense privilege log entries generated during unauthorized ex parte contacts. Snyder, slip op. at 35–36. 3. Subject-Matter Waiver of Quality Improvement Immunity Under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200(3), hospital Quality Improvement committee proceedings are confidential. However, in Snyder, the Chief Medical Officer sat on the hospital’s statutory QI committee while simultaneously receiving litigation talking points from defense counsel, coordinating witness outreach, and traveling ex parte to meet with a former resident physician. The Supreme Court held that failing to ethically screen a QI committee member from active litigation strategy taints the committee's inner workings, effecting a complete subject-matter waiver of statutory peer-review privilege. Snyder, slip op. at 38–39. Real-World Realities: Memory Decay, Pre-Litigation Holds, and Sophistication At the end of the day, modern institutional health care delivery renders determining the exact composition of a patient's treatment team—and whether defense counsel is legally permitted to speak with any given provider—an exercise in pure guesswork. It has long been complicated for patients and health systems to figure out who their doctor is in a complex clinical environment involving rotating resident physicians, attending specialists, hospitalists, and independent contractors. Yet, now no one seems to know who the doctor might not be and whether defense counsel should be speaking to them behind closed doors. By establishing an unyielding temporal boundary that severs corporate attorney-client privilege the exact moment an employee separates from service, Newman, 186 Wn.2d at 781, and Snyder, slip op. at 20, 28–29, creates an unworkable practical fiction. In effect, this rigid rule generates an absurd practical presumption: that no health care practitioner can ever retire, relocate, or transition employment if any remote possibility of future litigation may ensue. This jurisprudence fundamentally neglects two operational realities of medical malpractice defense: the necessity of pre-litigation risk investigations and the natural fading of human memory. When an adverse clinical outcome occurs, risk management must investigate immediately to evaluate institutional exposure. While an institution can readily issue electronic litigation holds to preserve health records, paper charts, and audit trails, it is impossible to ask a human witness to hold onto their unrefreshed memories. While interviewing a witness when a facility first learns of a potential claim is straightforward, months or even years frequently elapse between the medical event, the formal filing of a lawsuit, and the procedural opportunity for defense counsel to deploy formal discovery rules under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 or CR 31. Expecting a treating physician to maintain vivid, detailed recollections of a single procedure performed years earlier—without the benefit of informal factual debriefs with risk management—defies human memory and litigation reality. Finally, this line of authority improperly presumes a uniform, strict sophistication across all health care facilities. Snyder presumes that every community hospital, rural health clinic, and small practice group maintains the extensive legal infrastructure, ethical screening walls, and specialized claims teams of a major academic medical center. By imposing strict liability sanctions and an automatic presumption of prejudice for ex parte contacts regardless of actual litigation harm (Snyder, slip op. at 33–34), the Court penalizes health care entities for standard risk management inquiries while ignoring the operational realities of modern medical practice. Specific Application Cases: C-Suite, Mid-Suit Separation, and Dual Roles A. Former C-Suite Executives, Board Members, and Physician-Owners A frequent point of defense confusion is whether a physician’s former status as a C-suite executive (e.g., Chief Medical Officer), board member, or equity owner exempts them from Loudon. Under Washington law, the extent of corporate privilege coverage depends entirely upon temporal status and the subject matter of the communication. This includes: Pre-Separation Corporate Governance Communications (COVERED): Confidential communications made during active executive, board, or ownership tenure regarding hospital administration, risk management, or general business operations remain protected by the entity's attorney-client privilege under Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 391 (1981) and Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(2)(a). Post-Separation Patient Care Communications (NOT COVERED): Once employment, board tenure, or equity ownership severs, corporate attorney-client privilege terminates. Newman, 186 Wn.2d at 781. Reaffirming Newman, the Supreme Court in Snyder, slip op. at 20, 28–29 held that former executive or ownership status creates no exception to Loudon. Because former C-suite physicians and owners no longer possess agency authority or ongoing duties of loyalty to the entity, defense counsel cannot engage in post-separation ex parte trial preparation regarding patient care provided by that physician. B. Mid-Litigation Employment Termination If a treating physician’s employment terminates during active medical malpractice litigation, corporate attorney-client privilege over ongoing trial preparation instantly evaporates at the moment of separation. Under Newman and Snyder, corporate defense counsel is strictly barred from conducting further ex parte strategy sessions with the departing physician, practically necessitating separate independent counsel for the physician to prevent per se Loudon violations and concurrent conflicts under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. C. Dual-Roled Physicians and Corporate PMK Designees Quality Improvement (QI) committee members represent one of the most perilous legal landmines for health care facilities under Snyder, slip op. at 38–39. Health care facilities face an inherent dilemma: the individuals best situated to serve as key corporate contacts or Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) designees under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30(b)(6)—such as CMOs or Medical Directors—are almost universally the exact same clinical leaders who sit on statutory QI committees. When a lawsuit emerges, institutions routinely rely on senior officers to investigate the incident and coordinate witness outreach. However, under Snyder, combining statutory peer-review functions with litigation defense strategy destroys the statutory privilege protecting the facility's Quality Improvement proceedings. To protect peer-review immunity, institutions ought to consider implementing proactive, pre-litigation organizational role separation: structurally dividing clinical governance so that high-level physicians on QI committees are permanently barred from acting as litigation claims liaisons or CR 30(b)(6) designees. Practical Compliance  To navigate the strict mandates of Snyder and protect case integrity, corporate defense counsel and health care risk managers must adopt three mandatory practice protocols: Conduct Factual Discovery Exclusively Through Formal Court Rules. Defense counsel must refrain from informal telephone calls, debriefs, or “support visits” with former employee providers. All factual inquiries must occur through formal oral depositions under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 or written depositions under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 31 upon formal notice to plaintiff's counsel. Strictly Prohibit Using Separate Counsel as a Conduit. If an insurer assigns separate independent counsel to represent a former employee provider under continuing indemnification duties, primary corporate counsel cannot pass trial briefs, expert reports, or strategy talking points ex parte to separate counsel. Smith v. Orthopedics Int'l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d at 668; Snyder, slip op. at 27–28. Establish Proactive Pre-Litigation QI Ethical Walls. Health care facilities must structurally divide clinical governance so that high-level physicians who serve on statutory Quality Improvement peer-review committees are permanently barred from acting as corporate claims liaisons, risk defense managers, or corporate Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) designees under CR 30(b)(6). Proactive ethical screening is essential to prevent subject-matter waiver of statutory peer-review immunity under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200.

The Best Law Firms® has ranked 12 Wilson Elser practices across National Tiers and 21 local offices – totaling 33 rankings by practice – in Regional Tier 1. Wilson Elser Best Law Firms in America 2027: National Practice Areas  Tier 1: Commercial Litigation Construction Law Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Mass Tort Litigation/ Class Actions – Defendants  Transportation Law Tier 2: Admiralty and Maritime Law Litigation – Labor and Employment Tier 3: Appellate Practice Corporate Law Mergers and Acquisitions Law  Railroad Law Regional Practice Areas Tier 1 Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Birmingham, AL Insurance Law: Boston, MA Appellate Practice: Chicago, IL Insurance Law: Denver, CO Litigation – Construction: Denver, CO Litigation – Insurance: Denver, CO Insurance Law: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Litigation – Insurance: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Houston, TX Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Houston, TX Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Houston, TX Transportation Law: Houston, TX Litigation ‒ Insurance: Jackson, MS Personal Injury Litigation: Jackson, MS Legal Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Las Vegas, NV Insurance Law: Los Angeles, CA  Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Los Angeles, CA Litigation ‒ Health Care: Louisville, KY Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Louisville, KY Banking and Finance Law: Madison, NJ Commercial Litigation: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: Madison, NJ Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants: Madison, NJ Litigation – Insurance: Madison, NJ Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Madison, NJ Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Madison, NJ Trusts and Estates: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: Milwaukee, WI Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Milwaukee, WI Admiralty and Maritime Law: New Orleans, LA Commercial Litigation: New Orleans, LA Construction Law: New York, NY Litigation ‒ Construction: New York, NY Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: New York, NY Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: New York, NY Commercial Litigation: Orlando, FL Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Orlando, FL Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Orlando, FL Commercial Litigation: Portland, OR Insurance Law: Portland, OR Litigation ‒ Insurance: Portland, OR Personal Injury Litigation ‒ Defendants: Portland, OR Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Portland, OR Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Portland, OR Commercial Litigation: San Diego, CA Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Seattle, WA Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Seattle, WA Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Stamford, CT Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions ‒ Defendants: Washington, DC Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Washington, DC Personal Injury Litigation ‒ Defendants: Washington, DC Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Washington, DC Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: White Plains, NY Railroad Law: White Plains, NY Regional Practice Areas Tier 2 Commercial Litigation: Albany, NY Commercial Litigation: Atlanta, GA Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Atlanta, GA  Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Baltimore, MD Litigation – Environmental: Birmingham, AL Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants: Birmingham, AL Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Birmingham, AL Transportation Law: Birmingham, AL Litigation – Insurance: Boston, MA Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Boston, MA Litigation ‒ Insurance: Chicago, IL Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants: Chicago, IL Medical Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Chicago, IL Commercial Litigation: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Construction Law: Denver, CO Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Denver, CO Litigation – Insurance: Detroit, MI Admiralty and Maritime Law: Houston, TX Commercial Litigation: Houston, TX Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions ‒ Defendants: Houston, TX Commercial Litigation: Las Vegas, NV Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Las Vegas, NV Aviation Law: Los Angeles, CA Commercial Litigation: Louisville, KY Insurance Law: Louisville, KY Litigation – Insurance: Louisville, KY Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Louisville, KY Corporate Law: Madison, NJ Health Care Law: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: New Orleans, LA Litigation – Labor and Employment: Philadelphia, PA Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Philadelphia, PA Health Care Law: Portland, OR Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law: San Diego, CA Commercial Litigation: San Francisco, CA Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: San Francisco, CA Medical Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Seattle, WA Litigation ‒ Insurance: St. Louis, MO Insurance Law: Stamford, CT Litigation ‒ Insurance: Stamford, CT Employment Law ‒ Management: Washington, DC Insurance Law: Washington, DC Commercial Litigation: White Plains, NY Regional Practice Areas Tier 3 Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Albany, NY Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Albany, NY Litigation – Construction: Atlanta, GA Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Atlanta, GA Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Baltimore, MD Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Boston, MA Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Charlotte, NC Insurance Law: Chicago, IL Appellate Practice: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Aviation Law: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions ‒ Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Personal Injury Litigation ‒ Defendants: Denver, CO Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Denver, CO Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Detroit, MI Employment Law ‒ Management: Indianapolis, IN Health Care Law: Indianapolis, IN Litigation ‒ Health Care: Indianapolis, IN Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Jackson, MS Commercial Litigation: Los Angeles, CA Corporate Governance Law: Los Angeles, CA Litigation ‒ Labor and Employment: Los Angeles, CA Mergers and Acquisitions Law: Los Angeles, CA Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Louisville, KY Environmental Law: Madison, NJ Family Law Mediation: Madison, NJ Real Estate Law: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: Miami, FL Litigation – Insurance: Miami, FL Appellate Practice: Milwaukee, WI Litigation – Insurance: Milwaukee, WI Litigation – Environmental: New Orleans, LA Litigation ‒ Insurance: New Orleans, LA Litigation – Labor and Employment: New York, NY Insurance Law: Philadelphia, PA Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Philadelphia, PA Litigation ‒ Labor and Employment: Portland, OR Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants: San Diego, CA Litigation – Labor and Employment: San Diego, CA Medical Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: San Diego, CA Insurance Law: San Francisco, CA Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants: San Francisco, CA Commercial Litigation: Seattle, WA Commercial Litigation: Tampa, FL Best Lawyers in America is universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers awards are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. More than 97,000 industry-leading lawyers worldwide are eligible to vote, evaluating the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas.

On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 923 (Chapter 482, Statutes of 2026), known as the Expanding Privacy Rights Act. The law amends two provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): (1) the right to delete (Civil Code § 1798.105); and (2) the methods for submitting consumer requests (Civil Code § 1798.130). The legislation was authored by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency (also known as CalPrivacy). This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027. A deletion request will now reach personal information that a business bought or received from others, not only what the consumer provided. Online-only businesses must also offer a web form or portal for privacy requests. For most companies, this is an operational change rather than a new program, but it reaches data stores that many request workflows never touch. Reasons Behind the Amendment Under the prior CCPA text, consumers could request deletion only of information a business collected “from the consumer.” The California Legislature found that the existing right “allows consumers to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer, but not personal information about the consumer that the business collected from third parties. This creates a gap in protection.” S.B. 923, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. § 1(b) (Cal. 2026) (enacted as 2026 Cal. Stat. ch. 482). CalPrivacy, the legislation’s sponsor, noted that “businesses routinely enrich their records with third-party data, creating a significant gap in the right to delete.” CalPrivacy, California Expands Privacy Protections by Strengthening Deletion Rights (Sept. 27, 2026). With respect to the means for the submission of the requests, the current CCPA regulations require a webform only from businesses that are not exclusively online, and only if they have a website. See 11 CCR § 7020(b) (requests "shall be through its website, such as through a webform."). Online-only businesses with a direct consumer relationship still need only an email address under § 7020(a). As Senator Becker, the author of this bill, explained in his statement, “while most businesses must provide two or more methods to submit privacy requests, online-only businesses that have a direct relationship with the consumer are only required to provide an email address for consumers to submit most privacy requests under the CCPA. This single-method requirement for certain businesses creates barriers for consumers because it offers minimal support or guidance.” Assemb. Comm. on Privacy & Consumer Prot., Analysis of S.B. 923, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess., at 5 (Cal. June 23, 2026) (as amended June 11, 2026) (quoting author's statement). CalPrivacy, which sponsored the bill, says it aligns California with deletion rights in Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, and New Jersey, and stresses that the CCPA’s existing exemptions, including fraud prevention and legal compliance, remain available. What the Statute Now Says Broader Deletion Right Amended Section 1798.105(a) provides: “A consumer shall have the right to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from or about the consumer.” Suppression Records for Third-Party Data For data obtained from other sources, the law gives businesses a defined way to comply: “A business that has obtained personal information about a consumer from a source other than the consumer shall be deemed in compliance with a consumer’s request to delete that data pursuant to subdivision (a) by retaining a record of the deletion request and the minimum data necessary for the purpose of ensuring the consumer’s personal information remains deleted from the business’s records and is not being used for any other purpose.” Expanded Downstream Obligations The existing duties still apply: the business must “notify any service providers or contractors to delete the consumer’s personal information from their records and notify all third parties to whom the business has sold or shared the personal information,” unless “this proves impossible or involves disproportionate effort.” Service providers and contractors “shall cooperate with the business in responding to a verifiable consumer request.” Because the deletion right is broader, these flow-down duties now reach a larger set of records. Preserved Exceptions  Businesses may still retain information when reasonably necessary to, among other things, “[h]elp to ensure security and integrity” or “[c]omply with a legal obligation.” New Online Request Requirement Amended Section 1798.130(a)(1)(A) provides that a business that “operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with a consumer from whom it collects personal information shall only be required to provide an email address and make an online method, such as a web form or online portal, available” for requests to know, delete, or correct. An email inbox alone will no longer suffice. What Is Required, From Whom, and When Beginning January 1, 2027, every business subject to the CCPA must honor deletion requests for personal information it holds about a consumer, whether it collected that data from the consumer or got it from a broker, vendor, or other third party. For data collected from other sources, a business complies with the new requirements by keeping a record of the request and only the minimum data needed to make sure the consumer's information stays deleted. Service providers and contractors must assist the business in their responses to the consumer rights requests. At the business's direction, they must delete the data and notify their own downstream service providers and contractors to do the same.  Starting from January 1, 2027, a business that operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with consumers must now offer an online method, such as a web form or portal, in addition to an email address, for submission of consumer requests. Businesses with brick-and-mortar presence keep their current obligation to offer at least two methods for consumer requests, including a toll-free telephone number. Practical Steps to Take Before January 1, 2027 Compliance with contemporary data privacy laws must involve technical solutions along with legal and compliance ones. Online-only businesses seeking to implement the webform or portal for the first time must be mindful of the privacy laws-related requirements, including the need for verification, the regulatory response timelines, and the recordkeeping requirements related to the fulfilled requests. All businesses subject to CCPA should also take the time to map where personal information sourced from third parties resides in their systems, extend deletion workflows to those systems, and build or check their suppression records workflow. This is also a good time to review the mandatory service provider and contractor agreements to confirm compliance with California’s requirements, including support for deletion rights cooperation and flow-down provisions.  Wilson Elser’s Data Use and AI Governance team can help businesses assess how SB 923 affects their deletion workflows, third-party data sources, vendor agreements, and consumer request intake, and can advise on CCPA compliance and other privacy law questions as they arise.

Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford, CT) will present “Keeping an Eye on Things: Cameras, Privacy, and Risk in Affordable Housing” at the HAI Group’s 8th Annual Risk Management Conference on November 10, 2026. The presentation will address key privacy and liability questions for housing management professionals using cameras. Steve and Irena will discuss the legal and practical considerations surrounding resident-installed cameras, video doorbells, cameras facing shared spaces, and staff body cameras, with a focus on the differences between video and audio recording and varying state consent requirements. Join them for this free, virtual, one-day event that brings together housing leaders, risk professionals, and safety champions from across the country for timely, actionable content. 

Michelle Gallagher (Partner-Boston, MA) and Taylor F. Bialek (Associate-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Trademark Law and Brand Building: Protection and Enforcement Strategies” on November 10, 2026. This presentation delivers an engaging and practical overview of trademark law. Michelle and Taylor examine the lifecycle of a brand – from initial brand selection and clearance to the development and implementation of effective filing strategies – highlighting the importance of building a strong, protectable brand identity from the outset. Expanding beyond the basics, the session also explores global brand protection and enforcement strategies, offering insight into how companies safeguard their trademark portfolios across jurisdictions and develop proactive strategies to deter potential infringement. These topics are relevant to entrepreneurs, corporate executives, and independent business owners, providing a cohesive framework for understanding how legal strategy can support and sustain brand value in a competitive, international marketplace.

Adam Bialek (Partner-New York, NY) and Taylor Bialek (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “Washington Email Law Still Puts Marketers at Litigation Risk,” published in the October 30, 2026, edition of Law360. The article examines the growing legal risks associated with promotional email marketing following the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, which expanded the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) to cover misleading email subject lines. Although a recent legislative amendment reduces potential damages and makes liability harder to establish, the authors explain that businesses remain exposed to class actions and statutory damages when promotional subject lines overstate discounts, create artificial urgency, or misrepresent limited-time offers. They caution that “After Brown, subject lines are front-line compliance claims, and CAN-SPAM compliance alone will not eliminate state law, class action and reputational risk.” Adam and Taylor further highlight why businesses should make marketing governance an operational priority before their next email campaign, offering practical safeguards, including reviewing subject lines as standalone claims, establishing clear approval procedures, monitoring third-party vendors, and maintaining documentation to support promotional representations.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been invited to speak at the 4th International Scientific Conference, "AI Literacy and the Future of the Legal Profession," on November 10, 2026, at the Vilnius University Faculty of Law in Vilnius, Lithuania. The conference brings together scholars, practitioners, judges, and policymakers to explore a question that concerns every litigator: how lawyers can understand, critically evaluate, and responsibly use AI in light of Article 4 of the EU AI Act, which establishes AI literacy requirements. Otis will present "Nomogogy: A Gap Analysis of Faculty Integration of AI-Supported Formative Feedback in Legal Writing Instruction for International Law Students." The study examines the knowledge, motivations, and institutional support law faculty need to integrate AI-supported feedback into legal writing instruction effectively and fairly. Otis’s research frames AI adoption as a multidimensional performance challenge rather than simply a question of access to tools, underscoring that sustained human oversight is essential to responsible use. These findings align with the conference's focus on professional competence, human oversight, and rethinking legal education in the AI era. Otis's participation reflects the firm's commitment to staying at the forefront of how emerging technology is reshaping legal practice and ensuring that the judgment, ethical standards, and advocacy our clients rely on keep pace with the changes.

Dale Dobuler (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Nick Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL) secured final summary judgment in an insurance coverage action in federal court seeking a declaration of non-coverage for an underlying wrongful death claim involving a commercial auto policy issued to a Florida-based business.  Prior to the coverage action,  plaintiff’s counsel issued a presuit demand of $1 million to the insured and its commercial auto carrier. Dale and Nick argued that coverage for the plaintiff’s claim was precluded by certain policy exclusions for injuries involving the insured's employees. They filed a declaratory action in US District Court. After establishing that the injury arose from or was directly connected to the deceased’s employment with the insured, the Court granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment against the insured on two independent grounds. First, the insured failed to timely respond to the motion, despite being advised that failure to do so would render the motion unopposed under the applicable local rules. The Court therefore granted the motion as unopposed. Second, the Court granted the motion on the merits, adopting the reasoning set forth in the carrier’s motion and finding that the undisputed record established that the accident fell outside the policy’s coverage. Specifically, the Court determined that the insured was not entitled to coverage as a matter of law because the policy clearly excluded coverage for the accident under three separate exclusions. The order therefore fully resolved the declaratory coverage issue against the insured and established a lack of coverage for the claim.

Kimberly Silas (Of Counsel-New Orleans, LA), who had previously served for two years as Secretary of the New Orleans Bar Foundation, was unanimously elected to serve as the organization’s President for the upcoming year. She will be installed, along with fellow Board members, at the New Orleans Bar Association’s Annual Dinner on November 19, 2026. In her new leadership role, Kimberly looks forward to expanding her efforts to give back to the local legal profession and the greater New Orleans community.

Taryn Campbell (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Nicholas Merritt (Associate-Phoenix, AZ) prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of Wilson Elser’s public housing authority client in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The lawsuit arose from events occurring in July and August 2024. Under Arizona law, claims against public entities have strict deadlines: claimants must serve a notice of claim within 180 days and file suit within one year. The plaintiff served her notice in April 2026 and filed suit in July 2026. The court held that the plaintiff’s state-law claims were time-barred and also rejected her argument that the claims did not accrue until she later suffered a medical episode. Instead, the court held that the claims accrued when the alleged harm occurred, in August 2024.   The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation. The eviction proceedings had gone through the courts, affording the plaintiff due process. Additionally, the complaint failed to allege that the claimed constitutional violation and harm resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice, as required in claims seeking to establish a public body's liability. The ruling underscores Arizona’s strict enforcement of notice-of-claim deadlines and demonstrates how public entities can successfully challenge weak claims at the pleading stage, avoiding costly discovery.

In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5 (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court held that corporate defense counsel, risk managers, and claims adjusters may not communicate ex parte with a hospital’s former employee health care providers about patient care. The Court reaffirmed Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988) prohibiting ex parte communication by defense counsel with a plaintiff’s treating physicians, held that prejudice is presumed when Loudon is violated, and ruled that a quality improvement (QI) committee member’s involvement in defense strategy waives the committee’s statutory privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200. As a result, informal contact with former employee providers should stop, and factual inquiries should proceed through formal discovery under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 or 31. This article explains how Snyder fits within Washington’s patient confidentiality and corporate privilege framework, how it applies to different categories of providers, and what hospitals and their counsel should do now. Patient Confidentiality vs. Corporate Privilege To navigate the procedural boundaries governing medical malpractice defense in Washington, practitioners must understand the fundamental statutory tension between a patient’s right to health care confidentiality and an institution's right to confer with corporate counsel. Under Washington's Uniform Health Care Information Act, health care providers and their agents are strictly prohibited from disclosing health information without explicit written authorization, except as otherwise provided by law. Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020; State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350, 387, 431 P.3d 976, 995 (2018); King v. Riveland, 125 Wn.2d 500, 509, 886 P.2d 160, 165 (1994). This privacy right is reinforced by Washington's statutory physician-patient privilege, which protects treating physicians from being compelled to testify regarding medical information acquired while attending a patient. Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(4). While a patient automatically waives this statutory privilege upon filing a personal injury or medical malpractice lawsuit under Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(4)(b), the Washington Supreme Court has consistently held that this waiver is not absolute. In Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 678, 756 P.2d 138, 140 (1988), the Court established a bright-line prohibition against defense counsel engaging in private, ex parte communications with a plaintiff’s treating physicians. The Loudon rule safeguards the fiduciary doctor-patient relationship, prevents inadvertent disclosure of irrelevant medical records, and eliminates the risk of turning defense attorneys into potential trial witnesses. Loudon, 110 Wn.2d at 682, 756 P.2d at 142; Smith v. Orthopedics Int'l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d 659, 666, 244 P.3d 939, 942–43 (2010). On the corporate side, health care facilities rely on corporate attorney-client privilege to conduct internal risk investigations. Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(2)(a); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S. Ct. 677, 682, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981). However, in Newman v. Highland School District No. 203, 186 Wn.2d 769, 381 P.3d 1188 (2016), the Washington Supreme Court established a strict temporal boundary on corporate privilege, holding that privilege does not extend to post-employment communications with former employees: “The underlying purpose of the corporate attorney-client privilege is to foster full and frank communications between counsel and the client (i.e., the corporation), not its former employees... This purpose is preserved by limiting the scope of the privilege to the duration of the employer-employee relationship.” Newman, 186 Wn.2d at 781, 381 P.3d at 1193 (quoting Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 73 cmt. e (Am. L. Inst. 2000)). Evolution of Provider Contact Rules: Current vs. Former Personnel How does one reconcile corporate attorney-client privilege with the Loudon doctrine? The Supreme Court addressed this conflict in Youngs v. PeaceHealth, 179 Wn.2d 645, 664, 316 P.3d 1035, 1045 (2014), carving out a narrow exception allowing corporate defense counsel to conduct confidential ex parte interviews with a nonparty treating physician who is a current employee of the hospital, provided those communications are limited strictly to the facts surrounding the alleged negligent incident. In Hermanson v. MultiCare Health System, Inc., 196 Wn.2d 578, 581, 475 P.3d 484, 487 (2020), the Court extended this principle to current non-physician staff and current independent contractors who are the functional equivalents of employees. However, when a treating provider leaves the facility's employ, the legal landscape shifts dramatically across four distinct provider categories: Current Employee Providers: Fully covered under the Youngs exception. Corporate defense counsel may conduct privileged, ex parte interviews with active employee physicians, nurses, and staff, provided the conversation is confined to the facts of the alleged negligent incident and does not delve into general medical history. Youngs v. PeaceHealth, 179 Wn.2d at 671. Current Independent Contractors: Covered under Hermanson where an agency or functional equivalent relationship exists. If an independent contractor doctor acts as an agent of the facility, corporate counsel may confer ex parte under the same strict factual constraints of Youngs. Hermanson v. MultiCare Health Sys., Inc., 196 Wn.2d at 589–90. Former Employee Providers (Including C-Suite Officers & Owners): Governed strictly by Newman and Snyder. The moment a provider separates from employment, it instantly extinguishes corporate attorney-client privilege over ongoing trial preparation. Because former employees no longer owe agency duties, defense counsel cannot conduct ex parte interviews with former staff regarding patient care under any circumstances. Snyder v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr., slip op. at 28–29. Quality Improvement (QI) Committee Members: Subject to statutory peer-review immunity under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200(3). While records prepared for QI committees are immune from discovery, committee members must be strictly screened from litigation defense teams. If a QI member participates in active trial strategy or ex parte witness preparation, statutory peer-review privilege is completely forfeited. Snyder, slip op. at 38–39. The Snyder Decision: Presumed Harm, Privilege Logs, and QI Waiver In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5, slip op. (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026) (En Banc), the Washington Supreme Court resolved lingering uncertainties by establishing three definitive holdings that fundamentally reshape medical malpractice litigation. 1. Rejection of Defense Exceptions and Affirmance of Loudon The Supreme Court affirmed that Loudon applies strictly to former employee health care providers, regardless of whether their care forms the primary basis of the hospital's alleged vicarious liability. In doing so, the Court explicitly rejected a series of defense theories: Representation Agreements & Indemnity Contracts: Private employment contracts requiring former doctors to cooperate in litigation defense cannot override statutory patient privacy rights under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020 or physician-patient privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(4). Hermanson, 196 Wn.2d at 590 n.1; Snyder, slip op. at 25–26. Common Interest / Joint Defense Theories: Shared legal exposure does not authorize defense counsel to conduct ex parte trial strategy sessions with former employee providers or their separate attorneys. Smith v. Orthopedics Int'l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d at 668; Snyder, slip op. at 27–28. Inapplicability of Youngs: The Court confirmed that the fiduciary doctor-patient relationship survives employment termination, placing former employee providers strictly beyond the reach of the Youngs current-employee exception. Snyder, slip op. at 28–29. 2. Magaña and the Presumption of Prejudice Crucially, the Supreme Court disavowed its prior decision in Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570, 220 P.3d 191 (2009), which required plaintiffs to prove substantial litigation prejudice to obtain discovery sanctions. Holding that ex parte contacts inherently damage the fiduciary doctor-patient relationship, the Court established that prejudice is presumed upon demonstrating a Loudon violation. Snyder, slip op. at 33–34. To evaluate appropriate sanctions—ranging from monetary fines to entering a default judgment on liability—the Supreme Court extended Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), ordering the trial court to conduct an in-camera inspection of all withheld defense privilege log entries generated during unauthorized ex parte contacts. Snyder, slip op. at 35–36. 3. Subject-Matter Waiver of Quality Improvement Immunity Under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200(3), hospital Quality Improvement committee proceedings are confidential. However, in Snyder, the Chief Medical Officer sat on the hospital’s statutory QI committee while simultaneously receiving litigation talking points from defense counsel, coordinating witness outreach, and traveling ex parte to meet with a former resident physician. The Supreme Court held that failing to ethically screen a QI committee member from active litigation strategy taints the committee's inner workings, effecting a complete subject-matter waiver of statutory peer-review privilege. Snyder, slip op. at 38–39. Real-World Realities: Memory Decay, Pre-Litigation Holds, and Sophistication At the end of the day, modern institutional health care delivery renders determining the exact composition of a patient's treatment team—and whether defense counsel is legally permitted to speak with any given provider—an exercise in pure guesswork. It has long been complicated for patients and health systems to figure out who their doctor is in a complex clinical environment involving rotating resident physicians, attending specialists, hospitalists, and independent contractors. Yet, now no one seems to know who the doctor might not be and whether defense counsel should be speaking to them behind closed doors. By establishing an unyielding temporal boundary that severs corporate attorney-client privilege the exact moment an employee separates from service, Newman, 186 Wn.2d at 781, and Snyder, slip op. at 20, 28–29, creates an unworkable practical fiction. In effect, this rigid rule generates an absurd practical presumption: that no health care practitioner can ever retire, relocate, or transition employment if any remote possibility of future litigation may ensue. This jurisprudence fundamentally neglects two operational realities of medical malpractice defense: the necessity of pre-litigation risk investigations and the natural fading of human memory. When an adverse clinical outcome occurs, risk management must investigate immediately to evaluate institutional exposure. While an institution can readily issue electronic litigation holds to preserve health records, paper charts, and audit trails, it is impossible to ask a human witness to hold onto their unrefreshed memories. While interviewing a witness when a facility first learns of a potential claim is straightforward, months or even years frequently elapse between the medical event, the formal filing of a lawsuit, and the procedural opportunity for defense counsel to deploy formal discovery rules under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 or CR 31. Expecting a treating physician to maintain vivid, detailed recollections of a single procedure performed years earlier—without the benefit of informal factual debriefs with risk management—defies human memory and litigation reality. Finally, this line of authority improperly presumes a uniform, strict sophistication across all health care facilities. Snyder presumes that every community hospital, rural health clinic, and small practice group maintains the extensive legal infrastructure, ethical screening walls, and specialized claims teams of a major academic medical center. By imposing strict liability sanctions and an automatic presumption of prejudice for ex parte contacts regardless of actual litigation harm (Snyder, slip op. at 33–34), the Court penalizes health care entities for standard risk management inquiries while ignoring the operational realities of modern medical practice. Specific Application Cases: C-Suite, Mid-Suit Separation, and Dual Roles A. Former C-Suite Executives, Board Members, and Physician-Owners A frequent point of defense confusion is whether a physician’s former status as a C-suite executive (e.g., Chief Medical Officer), board member, or equity owner exempts them from Loudon. Under Washington law, the extent of corporate privilege coverage depends entirely upon temporal status and the subject matter of the communication. This includes: Pre-Separation Corporate Governance Communications (COVERED): Confidential communications made during active executive, board, or ownership tenure regarding hospital administration, risk management, or general business operations remain protected by the entity's attorney-client privilege under Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 391 (1981) and Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(2)(a). Post-Separation Patient Care Communications (NOT COVERED): Once employment, board tenure, or equity ownership severs, corporate attorney-client privilege terminates. Newman, 186 Wn.2d at 781. Reaffirming Newman, the Supreme Court in Snyder, slip op. at 20, 28–29 held that former executive or ownership status creates no exception to Loudon. Because former C-suite physicians and owners no longer possess agency authority or ongoing duties of loyalty to the entity, defense counsel cannot engage in post-separation ex parte trial preparation regarding patient care provided by that physician. B. Mid-Litigation Employment Termination If a treating physician’s employment terminates during active medical malpractice litigation, corporate attorney-client privilege over ongoing trial preparation instantly evaporates at the moment of separation. Under Newman and Snyder, corporate defense counsel is strictly barred from conducting further ex parte strategy sessions with the departing physician, practically necessitating separate independent counsel for the physician to prevent per se Loudon violations and concurrent conflicts under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. C. Dual-Roled Physicians and Corporate PMK Designees Quality Improvement (QI) committee members represent one of the most perilous legal landmines for health care facilities under Snyder, slip op. at 38–39. Health care facilities face an inherent dilemma: the individuals best situated to serve as key corporate contacts or Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) designees under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30(b)(6)—such as CMOs or Medical Directors—are almost universally the exact same clinical leaders who sit on statutory QI committees. When a lawsuit emerges, institutions routinely rely on senior officers to investigate the incident and coordinate witness outreach. However, under Snyder, combining statutory peer-review functions with litigation defense strategy destroys the statutory privilege protecting the facility's Quality Improvement proceedings. To protect peer-review immunity, institutions ought to consider implementing proactive, pre-litigation organizational role separation: structurally dividing clinical governance so that high-level physicians on QI committees are permanently barred from acting as litigation claims liaisons or CR 30(b)(6) designees. Practical Compliance  To navigate the strict mandates of Snyder and protect case integrity, corporate defense counsel and health care risk managers must adopt three mandatory practice protocols: Conduct Factual Discovery Exclusively Through Formal Court Rules. Defense counsel must refrain from informal telephone calls, debriefs, or “support visits” with former employee providers. All factual inquiries must occur through formal oral depositions under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 or written depositions under Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 31 upon formal notice to plaintiff's counsel. Strictly Prohibit Using Separate Counsel as a Conduit. If an insurer assigns separate independent counsel to represent a former employee provider under continuing indemnification duties, primary corporate counsel cannot pass trial briefs, expert reports, or strategy talking points ex parte to separate counsel. Smith v. Orthopedics Int'l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d at 668; Snyder, slip op. at 27–28. Establish Proactive Pre-Litigation QI Ethical Walls. Health care facilities must structurally divide clinical governance so that high-level physicians who serve on statutory Quality Improvement peer-review committees are permanently barred from acting as corporate claims liaisons, risk defense managers, or corporate Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) designees under CR 30(b)(6). Proactive ethical screening is essential to prevent subject-matter waiver of statutory peer-review immunity under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200.

The Best Law Firms® has ranked 12 Wilson Elser practices across National Tiers and 21 local offices – totaling 33 rankings by practice – in Regional Tier 1. Wilson Elser Best Law Firms in America 2027: National Practice Areas  Tier 1: Commercial Litigation Construction Law Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Mass Tort Litigation/ Class Actions – Defendants  Transportation Law Tier 2: Admiralty and Maritime Law Litigation – Labor and Employment Tier 3: Appellate Practice Corporate Law Mergers and Acquisitions Law  Railroad Law Regional Practice Areas Tier 1 Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Birmingham, AL Insurance Law: Boston, MA Appellate Practice: Chicago, IL Insurance Law: Denver, CO Litigation – Construction: Denver, CO Litigation – Insurance: Denver, CO Insurance Law: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Litigation – Insurance: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Houston, TX Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Houston, TX Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Houston, TX Transportation Law: Houston, TX Litigation ‒ Insurance: Jackson, MS Personal Injury Litigation: Jackson, MS Legal Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Las Vegas, NV Insurance Law: Los Angeles, CA  Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Los Angeles, CA Litigation ‒ Health Care: Louisville, KY Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Louisville, KY Banking and Finance Law: Madison, NJ Commercial Litigation: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: Madison, NJ Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants: Madison, NJ Litigation – Insurance: Madison, NJ Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Madison, NJ Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Madison, NJ Trusts and Estates: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: Milwaukee, WI Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Milwaukee, WI Admiralty and Maritime Law: New Orleans, LA Commercial Litigation: New Orleans, LA Construction Law: New York, NY Litigation ‒ Construction: New York, NY Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: New York, NY Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: New York, NY Commercial Litigation: Orlando, FL Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Orlando, FL Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Orlando, FL Commercial Litigation: Portland, OR Insurance Law: Portland, OR Litigation ‒ Insurance: Portland, OR Personal Injury Litigation ‒ Defendants: Portland, OR Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Portland, OR Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Portland, OR Commercial Litigation: San Diego, CA Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Seattle, WA Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Seattle, WA Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Stamford, CT Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions ‒ Defendants: Washington, DC Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: Washington, DC Personal Injury Litigation ‒ Defendants: Washington, DC Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Washington, DC Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: White Plains, NY Railroad Law: White Plains, NY Regional Practice Areas Tier 2 Commercial Litigation: Albany, NY Commercial Litigation: Atlanta, GA Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Atlanta, GA  Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Baltimore, MD Litigation – Environmental: Birmingham, AL Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants: Birmingham, AL Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Birmingham, AL Transportation Law: Birmingham, AL Litigation – Insurance: Boston, MA Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Boston, MA Litigation ‒ Insurance: Chicago, IL Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants: Chicago, IL Medical Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Chicago, IL Commercial Litigation: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Construction Law: Denver, CO Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Denver, CO Litigation – Insurance: Detroit, MI Admiralty and Maritime Law: Houston, TX Commercial Litigation: Houston, TX Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions ‒ Defendants: Houston, TX Commercial Litigation: Las Vegas, NV Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Las Vegas, NV Aviation Law: Los Angeles, CA Commercial Litigation: Louisville, KY Insurance Law: Louisville, KY Litigation – Insurance: Louisville, KY Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Louisville, KY Corporate Law: Madison, NJ Health Care Law: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: New Orleans, LA Litigation – Labor and Employment: Philadelphia, PA Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Philadelphia, PA Health Care Law: Portland, OR Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law: San Diego, CA Commercial Litigation: San Francisco, CA Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: San Francisco, CA Medical Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Seattle, WA Litigation ‒ Insurance: St. Louis, MO Insurance Law: Stamford, CT Litigation ‒ Insurance: Stamford, CT Employment Law ‒ Management: Washington, DC Insurance Law: Washington, DC Commercial Litigation: White Plains, NY Regional Practice Areas Tier 3 Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Albany, NY Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Albany, NY Litigation – Construction: Atlanta, GA Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Atlanta, GA Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Baltimore, MD Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Boston, MA Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants: Charlotte, NC Insurance Law: Chicago, IL Appellate Practice: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Aviation Law: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions ‒ Defendants: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Personal Injury Litigation ‒ Defendants: Denver, CO Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants: Denver, CO Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Detroit, MI Employment Law ‒ Management: Indianapolis, IN Health Care Law: Indianapolis, IN Litigation ‒ Health Care: Indianapolis, IN Professional Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: Jackson, MS Commercial Litigation: Los Angeles, CA Corporate Governance Law: Los Angeles, CA Litigation ‒ Labor and Employment: Los Angeles, CA Mergers and Acquisitions Law: Los Angeles, CA Product Liability Litigation – Defendants: Louisville, KY Environmental Law: Madison, NJ Family Law Mediation: Madison, NJ Real Estate Law: Madison, NJ Insurance Law: Miami, FL Litigation – Insurance: Miami, FL Appellate Practice: Milwaukee, WI Litigation – Insurance: Milwaukee, WI Litigation – Environmental: New Orleans, LA Litigation ‒ Insurance: New Orleans, LA Litigation – Labor and Employment: New York, NY Insurance Law: Philadelphia, PA Product Liability Litigation ‒ Defendants: Philadelphia, PA Litigation ‒ Labor and Employment: Portland, OR Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants: San Diego, CA Litigation – Labor and Employment: San Diego, CA Medical Malpractice Law ‒ Defendants: San Diego, CA Insurance Law: San Francisco, CA Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants: San Francisco, CA Commercial Litigation: Seattle, WA Commercial Litigation: Tampa, FL Best Lawyers in America is universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers awards are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. More than 97,000 industry-leading lawyers worldwide are eligible to vote, evaluating the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas.

On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 923 (Chapter 482, Statutes of 2026), known as the Expanding Privacy Rights Act. The law amends two provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): (1) the right to delete (Civil Code § 1798.105); and (2) the methods for submitting consumer requests (Civil Code § 1798.130). The legislation was authored by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency (also known as CalPrivacy). This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027. A deletion request will now reach personal information that a business bought or received from others, not only what the consumer provided. Online-only businesses must also offer a web form or portal for privacy requests. For most companies, this is an operational change rather than a new program, but it reaches data stores that many request workflows never touch. Reasons Behind the Amendment Under the prior CCPA text, consumers could request deletion only of information a business collected “from the consumer.” The California Legislature found that the existing right “allows consumers to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer, but not personal information about the consumer that the business collected from third parties. This creates a gap in protection.” S.B. 923, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. § 1(b) (Cal. 2026) (enacted as 2026 Cal. Stat. ch. 482). CalPrivacy, the legislation’s sponsor, noted that “businesses routinely enrich their records with third-party data, creating a significant gap in the right to delete.” CalPrivacy, California Expands Privacy Protections by Strengthening Deletion Rights (Sept. 27, 2026). With respect to the means for the submission of the requests, the current CCPA regulations require a webform only from businesses that are not exclusively online, and only if they have a website. See 11 CCR § 7020(b) (requests "shall be through its website, such as through a webform."). Online-only businesses with a direct consumer relationship still need only an email address under § 7020(a). As Senator Becker, the author of this bill, explained in his statement, “while most businesses must provide two or more methods to submit privacy requests, online-only businesses that have a direct relationship with the consumer are only required to provide an email address for consumers to submit most privacy requests under the CCPA. This single-method requirement for certain businesses creates barriers for consumers because it offers minimal support or guidance.” Assemb. Comm. on Privacy & Consumer Prot., Analysis of S.B. 923, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess., at 5 (Cal. June 23, 2026) (as amended June 11, 2026) (quoting author's statement). CalPrivacy, which sponsored the bill, says it aligns California with deletion rights in Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, and New Jersey, and stresses that the CCPA’s existing exemptions, including fraud prevention and legal compliance, remain available. What the Statute Now Says Broader Deletion Right Amended Section 1798.105(a) provides: “A consumer shall have the right to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from or about the consumer.” Suppression Records for Third-Party Data For data obtained from other sources, the law gives businesses a defined way to comply: “A business that has obtained personal information about a consumer from a source other than the consumer shall be deemed in compliance with a consumer’s request to delete that data pursuant to subdivision (a) by retaining a record of the deletion request and the minimum data necessary for the purpose of ensuring the consumer’s personal information remains deleted from the business’s records and is not being used for any other purpose.” Expanded Downstream Obligations The existing duties still apply: the business must “notify any service providers or contractors to delete the consumer’s personal information from their records and notify all third parties to whom the business has sold or shared the personal information,” unless “this proves impossible or involves disproportionate effort.” Service providers and contractors “shall cooperate with the business in responding to a verifiable consumer request.” Because the deletion right is broader, these flow-down duties now reach a larger set of records. Preserved Exceptions  Businesses may still retain information when reasonably necessary to, among other things, “[h]elp to ensure security and integrity” or “[c]omply with a legal obligation.” New Online Request Requirement Amended Section 1798.130(a)(1)(A) provides that a business that “operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with a consumer from whom it collects personal information shall only be required to provide an email address and make an online method, such as a web form or online portal, available” for requests to know, delete, or correct. An email inbox alone will no longer suffice. What Is Required, From Whom, and When Beginning January 1, 2027, every business subject to the CCPA must honor deletion requests for personal information it holds about a consumer, whether it collected that data from the consumer or got it from a broker, vendor, or other third party. For data collected from other sources, a business complies with the new requirements by keeping a record of the request and only the minimum data needed to make sure the consumer's information stays deleted. Service providers and contractors must assist the business in their responses to the consumer rights requests. At the business's direction, they must delete the data and notify their own downstream service providers and contractors to do the same.  Starting from January 1, 2027, a business that operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with consumers must now offer an online method, such as a web form or portal, in addition to an email address, for submission of consumer requests. Businesses with brick-and-mortar presence keep their current obligation to offer at least two methods for consumer requests, including a toll-free telephone number. Practical Steps to Take Before January 1, 2027 Compliance with contemporary data privacy laws must involve technical solutions along with legal and compliance ones. Online-only businesses seeking to implement the webform or portal for the first time must be mindful of the privacy laws-related requirements, including the need for verification, the regulatory response timelines, and the recordkeeping requirements related to the fulfilled requests. All businesses subject to CCPA should also take the time to map where personal information sourced from third parties resides in their systems, extend deletion workflows to those systems, and build or check their suppression records workflow. This is also a good time to review the mandatory service provider and contractor agreements to confirm compliance with California’s requirements, including support for deletion rights cooperation and flow-down provisions.  Wilson Elser’s Data Use and AI Governance team can help businesses assess how SB 923 affects their deletion workflows, third-party data sources, vendor agreements, and consumer request intake, and can advise on CCPA compliance and other privacy law questions as they arise.

Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford, CT) will present “Keeping an Eye on Things: Cameras, Privacy, and Risk in Affordable Housing” at the HAI Group’s 8th Annual Risk Management Conference on November 10, 2026. The presentation will address key privacy and liability questions for housing management professionals using cameras. Steve and Irena will discuss the legal and practical considerations surrounding resident-installed cameras, video doorbells, cameras facing shared spaces, and staff body cameras, with a focus on the differences between video and audio recording and varying state consent requirements. Join them for this free, virtual, one-day event that brings together housing leaders, risk professionals, and safety champions from across the country for timely, actionable content. 

Michelle Gallagher (Partner-Boston, MA) and Taylor F. Bialek (Associate-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Trademark Law and Brand Building: Protection and Enforcement Strategies” on November 10, 2026. This presentation delivers an engaging and practical overview of trademark law. Michelle and Taylor examine the lifecycle of a brand – from initial brand selection and clearance to the development and implementation of effective filing strategies – highlighting the importance of building a strong, protectable brand identity from the outset. Expanding beyond the basics, the session also explores global brand protection and enforcement strategies, offering insight into how companies safeguard their trademark portfolios across jurisdictions and develop proactive strategies to deter potential infringement. These topics are relevant to entrepreneurs, corporate executives, and independent business owners, providing a cohesive framework for understanding how legal strategy can support and sustain brand value in a competitive, international marketplace.

Adam Bialek (Partner-New York, NY) and Taylor Bialek (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “Washington Email Law Still Puts Marketers at Litigation Risk,” published in the October 30, 2026, edition of Law360. The article examines the growing legal risks associated with promotional email marketing following the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, which expanded the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) to cover misleading email subject lines. Although a recent legislative amendment reduces potential damages and makes liability harder to establish, the authors explain that businesses remain exposed to class actions and statutory damages when promotional subject lines overstate discounts, create artificial urgency, or misrepresent limited-time offers. They caution that “After Brown, subject lines are front-line compliance claims, and CAN-SPAM compliance alone will not eliminate state law, class action and reputational risk.” Adam and Taylor further highlight why businesses should make marketing governance an operational priority before their next email campaign, offering practical safeguards, including reviewing subject lines as standalone claims, establishing clear approval procedures, monitoring third-party vendors, and maintaining documentation to support promotional representations.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been invited to speak at the 4th International Scientific Conference, "AI Literacy and the Future of the Legal Profession," on November 10, 2026, at the Vilnius University Faculty of Law in Vilnius, Lithuania. The conference brings together scholars, practitioners, judges, and policymakers to explore a question that concerns every litigator: how lawyers can understand, critically evaluate, and responsibly use AI in light of Article 4 of the EU AI Act, which establishes AI literacy requirements. Otis will present "Nomogogy: A Gap Analysis of Faculty Integration of AI-Supported Formative Feedback in Legal Writing Instruction for International Law Students." The study examines the knowledge, motivations, and institutional support law faculty need to integrate AI-supported feedback into legal writing instruction effectively and fairly. Otis’s research frames AI adoption as a multidimensional performance challenge rather than simply a question of access to tools, underscoring that sustained human oversight is essential to responsible use. These findings align with the conference's focus on professional competence, human oversight, and rethinking legal education in the AI era. Otis's participation reflects the firm's commitment to staying at the forefront of how emerging technology is reshaping legal practice and ensuring that the judgment, ethical standards, and advocacy our clients rely on keep pace with the changes.

Dale Dobuler (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Nick Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL) secured final summary judgment in an insurance coverage action in federal court seeking a declaration of non-coverage for an underlying wrongful death claim involving a commercial auto policy issued to a Florida-based business.  Prior to the coverage action,  plaintiff’s counsel issued a presuit demand of $1 million to the insured and its commercial auto carrier. Dale and Nick argued that coverage for the plaintiff’s claim was precluded by certain policy exclusions for injuries involving the insured's employees. They filed a declaratory action in US District Court. After establishing that the injury arose from or was directly connected to the deceased’s employment with the insured, the Court granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment against the insured on two independent grounds. First, the insured failed to timely respond to the motion, despite being advised that failure to do so would render the motion unopposed under the applicable local rules. The Court therefore granted the motion as unopposed. Second, the Court granted the motion on the merits, adopting the reasoning set forth in the carrier’s motion and finding that the undisputed record established that the accident fell outside the policy’s coverage. Specifically, the Court determined that the insured was not entitled to coverage as a matter of law because the policy clearly excluded coverage for the accident under three separate exclusions. The order therefore fully resolved the declaratory coverage issue against the insured and established a lack of coverage for the claim.