Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Hinshaw attorneys Daniel (D.L.) Morriss and Mohamed Sweify have been elected to serve as officers of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) International Section. 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Consumer Financial Services partner Fernando Rivera-Maissonet has been selected for the 2026 Class of Fellows of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD). Additionally, associates Mariam Chubinidze and Melinda Oliver have been selected to participate in the 2026 LCLD Pathfinders Program.

A Hinshaw legal team consisting of Yvonne Ocrant, Matthew Walker, Burke Lopez, and Cameron Trahey recently secured a favorable jury verdict in Florida on behalf of a client who purchased a horse for his young daughter.

Read Hinshaw attorney Jack Shadid’s two chapters in the newly released 2026 edition of the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) "Business Bankruptcy Practice" handbook.

Read Hinshaw partner Carol Rooney’s co-authored ABA TIPS Law Journal survey of key appellate developments from the Supreme Court’s 2023 Term—offering practical takeaways for trial and appellate practitioners.

Read a CCFL Quarterly Report article by Aimee Szygenda and Alfredo (“Fred”) Ramos that analyzes how generative artificial intelligence is reshaping litigation practice for attorneys.

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 attorney and co-chair of the American Bar Association's (ABA) LGBT Law & Litigator Committee, Ali Degan, will moderate the CLE webinar, "LGBTQ+ Litigation Trends and Legal Realities Before the Supreme Court: What Lawyers Need to Know," on February 20, 2026.

Hinshaw partner Justin Penn will co-present an AccountsRecovery.net webinar titled “The Pro Se Litigation Playbook” on January 20, 2026. 

Mariam Chubinidze co-moderates the New York City Bar webinar "Alternative Dispute Resolution: What Lawyers Must Know," on December 3, 2025. 

Discover how New York's new 90-day pre-foreclosure notice requirement impacts condo boards and HOAs, including essential details on compliance and changes to foreclosure procedures.

A recent Illinois appellate court decision could provide a roadmap for plaintiffs to sue employers over a workplace attack by a coworker. Read our analysis and key risk management takeaways in our new blog post.

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.

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] 

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