Hinshaw partner Frederick “Fred” Ufkes secured a favorable trial verdict on behalf of a young driver in a catastrophic motorcycle accident case arising from a collision at a busy California intersection. 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Jennifer Driscoll has been reappointed to serve on the Connecticut Bar Association’s (CBA) Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section Executive Committee for the 2026-2027 term.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 of its lawyers have been recognized by their peers for inclusion in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Read an analysis of the legal landscape and insurance implications surrounding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as the industry approaches a pivotal regulatory shift with the FAA’s proposed Part 108 rules.

Hinshaw partner Jennifer Driscoll was featured in a new Law.com article examining a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 22 states, accusing the digital retailer Amazon of secretly overriding the results of its digital advertising auctions and imposing higher, undisclosed prices.

Listen to Hinshaw partner Yvonne Ocrant’s discussion on the EquineRevShare podcast, discussing practical risk-management strategies for equine professionals.

Hinshaw partner D.L. Morriss will present on two panels at the New York Bar Association International Section 2026 Global Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on October 21 – October 23, 2026.

Hinshaw partners Brian McGrath, Lauren Campisi, and Leslie Meredith will speak at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA’s) 2026 Compliance and Risk Management Conference at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, DC, from September 27–29, 2026.

Hinshaw partner Ed Lenci will present on the panel “Common Law, Common Ground: Irish Law as the Gateway to Europe” at the Ireland For Law NYC Business Mission event.

Hinshaw partner John Ryan will present on “Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today” during an Accounts Recovery webinar on Wednesday, August 12, at 12:00 pm CT.

Hinshaw partner Justin Penn will present at an Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) Huddle, “Signed, Sealed … Coerced? Understanding Coerced Debt,” on June 17.

Hinshaw partner Akeela White will present during the Accounts Recovery webinar, “Breaking Down the Most Common FCRA Disputes You're Seeing Right Now — and What to Do With Them,” on June 5 at 12:00 PM CST.

The Ninth Circuit found Roblox waived arbitration by litigating first—learn why this matters for your business and how to avoid the same outcome.

Read about two significant wins for Illinois mortgage lenders that provide critical certainty for lenders enforcing HELOCs and long-pending foreclosure actions in Illinois.

A $4.75M retaliation verdict under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act signals heightened risks for employers disciplining employees after leave. Learn key takeaways to protect your business.

Learn how California's Aud v. RRT Enterprises decision limits MICRA's damages cap in nursing home litigation and what owners, operators, insurers, and defense counsel should do next.

Read our latest alert on the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling eliminating FAAAA preemption for negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers, and discover practical steps to mitigate exposure in this new litigation landscape.

Learn how the New York AVOID Act significantly changes third-party practice and the key compliance steps to prepare for the law taking effect on April 19, 2026.

Read an in-house compliance guide for responding to Executive Order (EO) 14209, which paused all future investigations and enforcement actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for at least 180 days.

Read our latest insurance alert outlining New York’s revised motor vehicle tort and no-fault framework and the key implications for claims strategy, defense costs, and litigation planning.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic—alone or coupled with government orders limiting activities—has impacted the ability of many businesses to maintain operations and to fulfill contractual obligations. Over the past few days, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic and the governors of several States—including New York, California, and Illinois—have declared states of emergency and/or imposed unprecedented travel, movement, and gathering restrictions, and limited or prohibited for a period of time various activities.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that vacated convictions cannot trigger inadmissibility under the INA—read our alert to learn what this means for noncitizens and immigration practitioners.

Supreme Court Ruling May Allow “Picking Off” Named Plaintiffs in Class ActionsPlaintiff employee filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and “other employees similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). After she ignored petitioners’ offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, the district court concluded that her suit was moot and dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because no other individuals had joined her suit and the Rule 68 offer fully satisfied her claim.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the employee’s individual claim was moot but her collective action was not. The court explained that allowing defendants to “pick off” named plaintiffs before certification with calculated Rule 68 offers would frustrate the goals of collective actions. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, held that because the employee had no personal interest in representing the putative unnamed claimants, her suit was appropriately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court noted that the federal appeals courts are split on whether an offer of settlement of a federal lawsuit is enough to make it moot, but stated that it would not resolve that dispute because the mootness issue “is not properly before us” because the employee had waived the mootness issue.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Debt Collector Can Recover Costs Without Showing of Bad Faith and Harassment in FDCPA ActionOn February 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of respondent debt collector in Marx vs. General Revenue Corporation, holding that the prevailing party in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) action may be awarded costs where the lawsuit was not brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. Petitioner consumer had defaulted on a student loan, for which the creditor authorized the debt collector to collect. The consumer filed an FDCPA action against the debt collector, alleging that the collector harassed her and falsely threatened her with garnishment. After a one-day trial, the consumer did not prove any violation, and the district court awarded the debt collector costs for witness fees, witness travel expenses, and deposition transcript fees. The consumer appealed the district court’s decision awarding costs. Specifically, she argued that the court’s discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) was displaced by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) of the FDCPA, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.”Despite the filing of an amicus brief by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in support of the consumer’s position, the Supreme Court held that costs are allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Court concluded that the language and context of 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3) demonstrate that it is not contrary to Rule 54(d)(1).For more information, please contact Barbara Fernandez or your regular Hinshaw attorney.

D.C. Circuit Decision Invalidating Appointment of NLRB Members Calls Into Question Appointment of CFPB’s Director