Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP today announced that Rachel Nudel has joined the firm’s Defense Litigation Practice as a partner, operating from the firm’s offices in New York and New Jersey.

Hinshaw is pleased to announce that it has boosted its Business Litigation practice group with the addition of complex civil defense litigation attorney Heather M. Calhoon as a partner in the firm’s Miami office.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner April Toy has been recognized among “Wisconsin’s 31 Most Influential Latino Leaders of 2025” by Madison365.

Read how Hinshaw’s Managing Partner, Robert (“Bob”) T. Shannon, and fellow members of the Leadership Greater Chicago (LGC) 2025 Cohort of the Daniel Burnham Fellowship for Executives were profiled in Crain’s Chicago Business this week.

In a recent byline published by the Daily Business Review, Hinshaw partner Jenelle E. La Chuisa shares tips on establishing a law firm pro bono program. Her article's preface follows below:

Michele Hale DeShazo was quoted in an S&P Global Market Intelligence News article discussing a significant ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in a case challenging the Biden Administration's environmental justice policies.

Craig Liljestrand will present at the IADC annual meeting in a panel session titled "PFAS Update – Forever Litigation Over the Forever Chemical" on July 9, 2025, in Quebec, Canada.

Hinshaw is proud to sponsor the International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP) New York Conference on June 25, 2025.

San Francisco-based partner and American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) Fellow Eugene Brown Jr. served as a faculty member at the Diversity Trial Advocacy Program, held June 5–8, in New York City.

Hinshaw partner Robert Finley is scheduled to co-present the Strafford CLE webinar titled "Personal Injury Settlement Strategies: Navigating Medicaid's Anti-Lien Provisions" on November 11, 2025.

Chicago-based partner David Levitt will moderate a DRI webinar, titled "Litigation Financing: What You Need to Know," on September 3, 2025.

Mohamed F. Sweify, is set to deliver opening remarks for the first global event organized by NYSBA’s Egypt Chapter at a virtual panel titled "Crypto, ESG and Global Markets: U.S., Egypt and Brazil Regulatory Shifts & Trends," on April 30, 2025.

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.

With a presidential election year on the horizon, a split Congress, and an aviation industry encumbered by labor shortages and safety issues, Michael Whitaker, the newly appointed Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), enters the agency’s cockpit during bureaucratic turbulence.[1] 

Effective January 1, 2022, plaintiffs in survival actions in California will be able to obtain damages for predeath pain, suffering, or disfigurement. This marks a dramatic change in California law that will likely impact the value of litigated cases as well as the costs of defending these matters.

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.

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