It was revealed that Boeing had notice in 2002 that components were failing and destroying the critical structural lugs that attach the engines to the wings of MD-11’s. While Boeing eventually issued benign “Service Letters” acknowledging that bearing race fractures had been found in service, its operational safety process classified the issue as “not a safety of flight condition” and omitted that, in four of the five known failures, the damage was severe enough to require full structural bulkhead replacements.

For the next two decades, warning signs regarding the MD-11’s defective pylon bearings were downplayed or even ignored. Meanwhile, the FAA’s Service Difficulty Report database was dysfunctional and effectively blind to safety trends, and Boeing treated repeated structural failures as little more than additional data points. This resulted in a dangerous “fly to failure” loop that persisted for years.

A 2007 Boeing presentation confirmed that the failure could cause the loss of a load path between the wing and the engine pylon, and a report of an actual crack in the lug that same year was never even included in the safety analysis. This was before Boeing redesigned an optional bearing to eliminate the defect, turning a known fix for a deadly defect into a mere suggestion. Boeing also created an inspection task intended to catch the migrating bearing before it could destroy the lugs, but never actually built it into the maintenance program with a required interval.

As the public was previously made aware by the NTSB, an engine and pylon tearing away from this family of aircraft during takeoff occurred once before, on a DC-10 in 1979. After that disaster, the NTSB asked the FAA to fix the very reporting system that failed again here. The FAA closed that recommendation as “unacceptable” and called it an economic burden. Forty-six years later, the same family of aircraft and the same kind of failure took fifteen more lives. We refuse to let that warning be ignored a third time.

UPS and FedEx were advised 15 years ago that the redesigned bearing was available and would eliminate the risks posed by components that had failed on multiple aircraft. FedEx followed this guidance to retrofit its fleet with the redesigned bearing. UPS engineering did not.

“It’s unfortunate and disappointing that our hometown, Big Brown, has fallen so far behind FedEx in prioritizing aircraft safety. Hundreds of these planes tower over us every day and night. Thousands of hero pilots from this community fly them. They deserve better,” said Sam Aguiar.

The public learned more about the operations of UPS’s maintenance contractor, ST Engineering, which housed the aircraft for servicing from September through October 18, 2025. The crew, most of whom lacked certifications, failed to identify a bearing already cracked across roughly 75% of its surface. UPS’s own audit of the contractor, completed just ten days before the crash, found outdated maintenance manuals in use and parts signed off as “serviceable” despite visible defects. When a lead mechanic was asked whether he had checked the references he was certifying, the response was, “Do I check every reference? To be honest, no.” A mechanic asked about a required engine support tool, testified, “Sir, I don’t even know what it looks like.” In fact, only four of the twenty technicians on the line held FAA mechanic certificates, and a contracted technician’s quality-control audit could take as little as three to fifteen minutes and never involve even looking at the plane. Even after learning this, UPS allowed the subject aircraft, which had just been at this facility for a month and a half, to remain in service without requiring a more thorough inspection by compliant personnel.

The hearing also exposed gaps that the parties could not explain. Witnesses for UPS and ST Engineering contractor repeatedly told NTSB investigators that they did not have the requested records. Boeing’s representative testified that he was not aware of Boeing’s own 2008 written instruction requiring that a separated bearing component be removed and replaced prior to further flight. The NTSB sent every party home with homework to produce data they should have brought on day one, underscoring the attitudes of the corporations, even after 15 lives were lost.

“Fifteen lives were stolen because corporate and regulatory entities viewed routine maintenance as too burdensome and expensive,” said Sam Aguiar. “What we saw this week included manufacturing deceit, regulatory blindness, sloppy maintenance, and corporate complacency. At the end of the day, we will not allow any of these entities to hide behind one another’s blame. Every one of them had a chance to stop this, and every one of them will be held fully accountable,” said Sam Aguiar.

The NTSB has not yet issued its final report, and its investigation continues; parties have until June 19, 2026, to file proposed findings. 

In a statement from the firm, they said our firm will not stop until this culture of concealment is dismantled and every responsible party answers for the lives shattered on November 4. Our community and these grieving families deserve systemic change to prevent a recurrence, and that is exactly what we will work to deliver.

Facts and quoted testimony in this statement are drawn from the National Transportation Safety Board public docket for the UPS Flight 2976 investigation, accident number DCA26MA024, available at ntsb.gov. An NTSB investigative hearing is a fact-finding proceeding; the NTSB has not issued a final report or probable cause finding in this matter. Attorney Advertising. This is an advertisement. Allegations in pending litigation are not findings of liability and remain to be proven. Past results do not guarantee or predict outcomes in any future case. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

The certification is administered by Great Place to Work, the global authority on workplace culture. It is awarded based on results from its Trust Index survey, a confidential, research-backed assessment in which employees evaluate their workplace across five dimensions: credibility, respect, fairness, pride and camaraderie.

To earn certification, at least 70% of employees must report a consistently positive workplace experience. No application or committee review determines the outcome; certification is awarded solely by data.

“You cannot build a firm worth working at by treating your people like a cost to manage,” said Angel Reyes, founder of Angel Reyes & Associates. “If we take care of our people and give them real ownership of their work, they take care of everything else. That has been the operating principle here since day one.”

How Certification Helps Clients

According to Great Place to Work research, employees at certified companies are 93% more likely to look forward to coming to work, and job seekers are 4.5 times more likely to find a great boss at a certified organization.

At Angel Reyes & Associates, firm leadership views that connection between workplace culture and client outcomes as foundational, not incidental.

“Clients come to us on some of the worst days of their lives. We make it our mission to start to turn things around for them right away. That kind of service only happens when your team actually wants to be there and believes in what they’re doing,” said Angel Reyes.

The firm, which has helped more than 70,000 personal injury victims recover more than $1 billion in compensation since its founding in 1993, has built its reputation on elite trial advocacy and a commitment to taking cases to verdict when insurance companies refuse to be reasonable. Firm leadership credits that record to a team that is engaged, supported and motivated to do its best work.

“I know what it looks like when people are just going through the motions. That is not what I see here. To have that reflected back through a certification like this is a reminder that what we’ve built is real. I’m grateful every day that it is,” said Angel Reyes.

Built for litigators, Lexertia helps attorneys move from an assignment to a structured litigation document draft with ease. Attorneys provide the facts, related documents, and strategic direction; Lexertia generates the litigation work product aligned with the attorney’s inputs and case materials.

“The Avatar Associate changes the experience from prompting software to assigning work,” said Ehab M. Samuel, Co-Founder and CEO of Lexertia. “That distinction matters because it personalizes the drafting experience around the workflow attorneys already know: assigning work, shaping strategy, and refining work product.

The platform is designed to create detailed drafts of motions, oppositions, replies, and supporting litigation documents, including notices, declarations, and exhibits. Lexertia also allows users to compare multiple draft paths side-by-side, refine selected sections, and build a stronger final work product.

Key features include:

• Avatar Associate workflow for guided litigation drafting
• Structured drafts built around motions, briefs, and arguments
• Multiple draft options for comparison and refinement
• Record-grounded drafting based on user-provided facts, filings, and exhibits
• Built-in checks to help identify inconsistencies, unsupported assertions, and citation gaps

To learn more, visit lexertia.ai.

The case arose from a devastating August 2021 accident in Port Aransas, Texas. According to the record, Mr. Sewell made a shallow dive from the back of a bay boat after watching others nearby diving and swimming in what appeared to be safe water, only to strike an unseen sandbar hidden beneath murky water. He suffered permanent quadriplegia.

Lincoln denied benefits under an alcohol-related exclusion. But the court rejected Lincoln’s handling of the claim, finding that Lincoln’s review was not “fair, impartial, and thorough.”

In particularly strong language, the court said Lincoln’s experts took “a one-sided view of the record,” while “elevating second-hand double hearsay in unsworn medical records over first-hand eyewitness affidavits.”

The court also pointed to what it described as “[c]onducting a result-oriented review,” “wholesale disregard of eyewitness affidavits” by Lincoln’s toxicology expert, and Lincoln’s disregard of evidence showing that Sewell carefully prepared to dive and showed no signs of impairment.

The ruling further noted that the blood alcohol test Lincoln relied on was “an outlier in the evidence” and that “no evidence corroborates the blood alcohol test results.” The court held that Lincoln improperly treated the test as effectively dispositive, even though the record evidence rebutted it.

The court found that the surrounding evidence showed the true cause of the injury was “an unanticipated geographical under-water drop-off that was not visible prior to his dive,” and that “the mechanism of his injury was not caused by any impairment.”

The court also criticized Lincoln’s broader claims process, observing that Lincoln’s experts did not adequately account for contradictory evidence, that “reciting review of all of the evidence is not equivalent to properly considering it,” and that the timeline of Lincoln’s denials showed “the adversarial nature of the process, in which [the insured’s] evidence is repeatedly excluded from consideration.”

Finally, the court held that this case involved substantial direct evidence and that “[t]o disregard this direct evidence out-of-hand in favor of contrary inferences constitutes an abuse of discretion.”

From attorney J. Price McNamara: “This ruling highlights that for an intoxication exclusion requiring that alcohol played a causal role in the accident, insurers cannot simply presume causation from a blood test. Rather it is the insurer’s burden to show that the surrounding facts support alcohol playing a causal role.” 

CASE INFORMATION

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division
Timothy Sewell v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00317

At the time of the crash McNeil’s blood-alcohol level was .24%, three times the legal limit.  

In April 2025, McNeil was indicted by an Androscoggin County grand jury on multiple counts of  aggravated assault, reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon and driving to endanger, as well  as aggravated criminal driving while intoxicated and criminal speeding.  

McNeil pled guilty to two counts of Aggravated Assault, two counts of Aggravated Criminal  Operating Under the Influence, Reckless Conduct with a Dangerous Weapon, Reckless Conduct and Criminal Speeding. 

Additional civil claims were filed against Jamie Brennan for providing alcohol to Sean McNeil  after he was legally intoxicated and Denise McNeil for willfully ignoring and enabling the consumption of alcohol by Sean McNeil, who is alleged to have a known substance abuse  problem. It is further alleged that Jamie Brennan provided and actively encouraged the  consumption of liquor to a drunk Sean McNeil before he left the house of Denise McNeil in his  pick-up truck shortly before the crash.  

The attorney who filed the civil lawsuit, Sheldon J. Tepler, Esq. of Hardy Wolf & Downing, Lewiston commented, “The terrible injuries suffered by Dana Wessling continue to haunt the  victim and his family and caused permanent and irreparable damage to these wonderful  people. This civil lawsuit is to hold responsible those who caused this permanent harm.” 

CASE INFORMATION

Androscoggin Superior Court
Dana Wessling and Amanda Wessling vs. Sean McNeil, et. al.
Case No. ANDSC-CIV-2025-00198

eFraud Investigator was built to bridge the gap between discovery and forensic analysis. While traditional e-discovery tools make documents searchable, they rarely make the numbers usable. This new platform extracts, digitizes, and mathematically verifies financial transactions from static PDFs, allowing legal teams to get to the truth faster.

Defensible Data for Court

“Attorneys have been burned by software that guesses at numbers,” says Barbara Steinberg, CEO of eFraud Services. “In litigation, data integrity is everything. eFraud Investigator delivers virtually 100% extraction accuracy and automatically verifies every transaction against the statement’s ending balance — ensuring the evidence you present is mathematically identical to the source documents provided in discovery.”

Key Capabilities for Litigators:

• Handle Redactions & Rotations: The AI is trained to handle the specific “messy” reality of subpoenaed records.
• Immediate Case Triage: A built-in dashboard visualizes the flow of funds instantly, allowing attorneys to decide if a case is worth pursuing before investing in hours of forensic accounting.
• Cost Recovery: Drastically reduces the billable hours associates spend on manual data entry.

The ranking cites a $21.3 million jury verdict in Angela Pope-Morgan, et al. v. Leilei Chen, et al., where two young women suffered permanent traumatic brain injuries after their van was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. The Los Angeles County jury found trucking company FBM Group Corporation and driver Leilei Chen 82% liable for the 2017 crash, which occurred when Chen became distracted after dropping a water bottle. The remaining 18% liability was assigned to the van’s driver, reducing the collectible award to over $17 million.

Background of the Case

The crash took place in 2017 when the van transporting two women was rear-ended at highway speed by a commercial 18-wheeler operated by Leilei Chen of FBM Group Corporation. The driver’s momentary distraction, after dropping a water bottle in the cab, caused him to fail to brake in time, resulting in a violent collision. Although initial emergency room evaluations showed no acute injuries, both women later developed severe traumatic brain injuries that profoundly impacted their cognitive abilities, academic progress, balance, and daily lives.

Paul W. Painter III and Stephen Morrison of Bowen Painter Injury Lawyers served as lead plaintiff counsel, partnering with local co-counsel from Wisner Baum. The trial featured advanced medical imaging techniques, including MR Neurography and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), to demonstrate the plaintiffs’ brain injuries, which emerged months after initial emergency room visits showed no acute issues.

“The injured victims initially received a clean bill of health, but issues came up during their recovery well after the accident,” said Painter. “This case shows the importance of speaking with a legal professional and doing everything you can to document any developments related to the incident.”

CVN’s Top 10 rankings consider more than just dollar amounts. The rankings are compiled annually and reviewed by legal analysts covering high-profile civil litigation nationwide. The selection process also evaluates case difficulty, potential impact on future litigation, the attorneys and firms involved, and public attention generated by the outcome.

To watch the trial video, visit Courtroom View Network’s trial library: https://cvn.com/proceedings/angela-pope-morgan-et-al-v-leilei-chen-et-al-trial-2025-06-17

CASE INFORMATION

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
Angela Pope-Morgan, et al. v. Leilei Chen, et al.
Case No. 19STCV16639

By combining PLCP’s damages valuation expertise with Medivest’s Medicare compliance and administration services, PLCP will deliver highly integrated, end-to-end solutions nationwide.

“This acquisition is a natural fit,” said Chad Harris, CEO of PLCP. “We share a deep commitment to innovation and service.  By joining forces, we can now support our clients across a full continuum of solutions — from damages valuation to MSP compliance and administration.”

Medivest will continue to operate under the Medivest brand and will benefit by PLCP’s substantial investments in advanced technology as well as its advanced service offerings. Clients of both organizations can expect uninterrupted service while benefiting from expanded capabilities, deeper resources, and increased investment in innovation and service.

“This partnership strengthens our ability to serve the legal, insurance, and claims professionals who rely on our expertise,” said Aaron Winnell, President of Medivest. “By joining forces with PLCP, we are expanding the scope of solutions available to our clients while preserving the service quality and expertise for which Medivest is known.”

About Physician Life Care Planning

Physician Life Care Planning is the industry leader in personal injury damages valuation services, and is trusted by attorneys and law firms nationwide. Through a unique combination of highly qualified experts and advanced technology, the company delivers life care plans and related products and services that are objective, accurate, reliable, and defensible.  All PLCP life care plans are authored by board-certified physicians whose work conforms to the tenets, methods, and best practices advocated by the American Academy of Physician Life Care Planners.  With a steadfast focus on innovation and service, PLCP continues to set the standard for Excellence in Damages Valuation.

About Medivest

Medivest is a leading provider of Medicare compliance and medical funds administration solutions, specializing in medical cost management, Medicare Secondary Payer compliance, and future care fund coordination for the legal, insurance, and claims communities. Medivest was advised in the transaction by Bailey & Company, a healthcare-focused investment banking firm with deep experience in middle-market mergers and acquisitions.

On July 24, 2025, District Court Judge Don Jesse Toussaint denied a motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness, Michael Arrigo, an authority on medical billing and healthcare economics, in the matter of Brent Nelson and Kara Merritts v. Benyam Chebud, TIPS, Inc. d/b/a Domino’s Pizza & Domino’s Pizza, LLC (Case No: 2024CV30949). The ruling, which cited the Colorado Rules of Evidence 702 and referenced People v. Shreck, allows Arrigo to provide analysis on the usual, customary and reasonable (UCR) charges for the plaintiff’s medical care based on various standardized coding systems.

Court documents indicate Arrigo’s testimony will address the appropriateness of the plaintiff’s medical bills using methodologies that compare Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, Diagnosis Related Groupings (DRGs), Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs), and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes. His analysis, as described in pleadings, also includes comparing charges for hospital stays and episodes of care using DRG algorithms, reviewing inpatient and skilled nursing facility (SNF) charges, and examining billing practices without factoring in collateral sources such as insurance payments.

Judge Toussaint’s order specifically noted that Arrigo’s opinion would extend to rebutting the methods used by the opposing party’s expert, particularly concerning the reliability of DRG determinations and the billing practices of SNFs. According to the order, Arrigo’s assessment incorporates a review of patient clinical documentation, physician certifications, and the unique characteristics involved in hospital and SNF billing, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS) used to determine RUG scores for patient care classification.

The court’s decision was reached after considering a motion in limine by the defense to exclude Arrigo’s testimony. The court denied the motion, finding that Arrigo’s qualifications and methodologies satisfied Colorado’s standards for expert witness admissibility. Under CRE 702, courts are charged with ensuring expert testimony is both relevant and the product of reliable principles and methods. In referencing the Colorado Supreme Court decision in People v. Shreck, the court underscored its gatekeeping role, concluding that Arrigo’s testimony met these requirements.

The case, currently proceeding in Arapahoe County, involves allegations concerning the reasonableness of medical expenses incurred following a personal injury incident. The dispute over the admissibility of expert medical billing testimony is notable, as similar issues have arisen in courts nationwide amid ongoing debates about the assessment and substantiation of medical charges in tort litigation.

As the litigation advances, Judge Toussaint’s ruling is expected to serve as a reference point for attorneys and insurers handling cases involving complex medical billing and coding matters. The trial date and subsequent proceedings in Nelson and Merritts v. Chebud et al. will be closely monitored by observers in the legal and healthcare fields.

CASE INFORMATION AND RULING
Motion in Limine to exclude testimony DENIED under CRE 702, the Colorado state standard for determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony, including scientific evidence. (People v. Shreck); ruling of Don Jesse Toussaint, District Court Judge, July 24, 2025. Brent Nelson and Kara Merritts v. Benyam Chebud, TIPS, Inc. d/b/a Dominoes Pizza & Dominoes Pizza, LLC, Case No: 2024CV30949 District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado.

No World Borders are national experts in healthcare data, regulations and economics. Their team understands the borders between health data and how to unify data quality for actionable views. To find out more about Medicare LCD or to contact an Electronic Health Record and E.H.R. Certification Standards Expert Witness, Expert Witness on Medicare Fraud, Physician Compensation Expert, or HIPAA Privacy Expert Witness contact No World Borders.

The case proceeded through litigation in the normal course, with the exchange of paper discovery and depositions taking place. Once complete, the insurance company for the box truck stated that they would only discuss settlement by way of Mediation. We agreed to try Mediation, and at the Mediation the insurance carrier for the offending vehicle only offered $50,000.00 to resolve the matter, which was rejected.

On November 5, 2025, a final settlement conference was held and the insurance company for the offending vehicle was still offering only $50,000.00 to settle the case, and so a final trial date was given by the Court. On November 12, 2025, the parties settled the matter, and the firm’s client can move on with his life.

The scammers are contacting individuals, claiming to be attorneys with Meyer Wilson Werning and promising to recover stolen digital assets. They build trust by sending text copied directly from the firm’s official website, detailing Meyer Wilson Werning’s legitimate track record of recovering over $350 million for clients. Due to various marketing initiatives the firm has in motion for victims, this tactic can be highly effective for individuals potentially seeking assistance. 

The primary goal of the fraud is to solicit an upfront payment. After establishing contact, the impersonators request a “minimum fee” to “file a case to the court,” as seen in messages sent from the phone number +1 (423) 579-7404 and other similar numbers provided by individuals exchanging correspondence with the scammers. 

“This scam is a textbook example of the predatory tactics we fight against every day in the cryptocurrency space. What’s truly insidious here is that our own voice—built on decades of client advocacy—is being weaponized against the very people we protect,” said Courtney Werning, a Partner at the firm. “These illicit messages spread rapidly in the dark. The only way to outpace their deception is with the truth. We urge the public and media to share this warning; your action could be the one that prevents the next person from becoming a  victim.” 

How to Identify the Scam and Protect Yourself: 

• Official Communication Only: Meyer Wilson Werning does not solicit new clients or conduct formal business through unsolicited WhatsApp messages. Verify any communication by contacting the firm through its official websites, https://investorclaims.com and https://meyerwilson.com.
• No Upfront Fees: The firm will never request a “filing fee,” “case fee,” or any other advance payment to begin work on a case. 
• No Cryptocurrency Payments: Meyer Wilson Werning does not accept payments in Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any other cryptocurrency. 
• Be Wary of Unsolicited Contact: Be skeptical of any lawyer or law firm that contacts you unexpectedly on a messaging app to offer asset recovery services. 

What to Do If You’ve Been Contacted: 

If you have been contacted by someone on WhatsApp claiming to be from Meyer Wilson Werning, do not send them money or personal information. Please block the number, report the chat to WhatsApp, and consider filing a report with the FBI’s Internet Crime  Complaint Center (IC3) at www.ic3.gov.

The Law Firm for Truck Safety attorneys Michael Leizerman and Jon Bond tried the case with co-counsel George Sidiropolis, Aaron DeShaw and Jeff Bruzzese. The result sets new Ohio and Jefferson County records, ranks among the year’s largest U.S. trucking verdicts, and is the state’s largest amputation verdict.

The verdict in Michael J. Shank, et al. v. D.W. Dickey & Son, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2024 CV 00270) followed a four-day trial before Judge Michelle Miller in the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas. Jurors concluded driver Robert Gerner’s negligence caused the crash. The panel also found that Michael Shank was 0% at fault for the crash.  

“Our client’s life changed in seconds,” said Michael Leizerman, co-founder of The Law Firm for Truck Safety. “The jury held the driver and the companies behind him accountable. This result secures the lifelong medical care, prosthetics and support he will need.”

Before trial, the defense offered $350,000 to settle the case. At trial, the team presented testimony from medical, prosthetics and damages experts; eyewitness Jordan Beidling; and evidence that countered an initial law-enforcement finding against the injured rider.

“The jurors heard the facts and delivered justice,” said Jon Bond of The Law Firm for Truck Safety. “No verdict can restore what was taken, but justice prevailed today.”

Co-counsel Aaron DeShaw led the medical and prosthetics case. Jeff Bruzzese advised on Ohio law throughout the proceedings. Trial support was provided by paralegal Kim Koechley.

The plaintiff, a husband and father, continues to volunteer in his community. The damages encompass past and future medical care, prosthetic needs, loss of earning capacity and non-economic losses recognized under Ohio law. Eight jurors signed the general verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

CASE INFORMATION

Michael J. Shank, et al. v. D.W. Dickey & Son, Inc., et al.
Court: Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio)
Case No. 2024 CV 00270

In an industry where every 0.1 hour is billed at an average $32, Tempello.ai eliminates the tedium of manual tracking. By intelligently analyzing emails and communications, the platform automatically generates detailed time entries and attaches full emails to the correct matters within Clio or 8am-MyCase. This not only streamlines workflows but also uncovers hidden billable hours that often slip through the cracks.

“Law firms using Clio or 8am-MyCase are already ahead of the curve in efficiency, but Tempello.ai takes it to the next level,” said Jeff Dracup, CEO of Tempello.ai. “Our users report a 25% uplift in billings from day one, simply by letting AI handle the grunt work. If you’re a timekeeper frustrated with overlooked emails or a firm owner watching potential revenue stagnate, it’s time to act. Refer your firm to Tempello.ai or integrate it today—your bottom line will thank you.”

Tempello saves each timekeeper 12 hours per month by automating email time entry, reducing client disputes through transparent, descriptive invoicing, and securing higher fee awards in court with a robust record of case progress. Tempello.ai’s seamless setup ensures no disruption to existing Clio or 8am-MyCase workflows, making adoption effortless. Get an 8,100% return with Tempello – firms currently pay their attorneys an average $32 to make a single time entry. Using Tempello, they make those entries instantly, and with a more detailed time entry description, for $0.39.  

As Tempello.ai continues its explosive trajectory in the legal tech space, backed by cutting-edge AI innovation and strong market demand, it offers a prime opportunity for visionary angel investors to join a high-potential venture poised for scalable impact in the multi-billion-dollar legal industry.

Law firm professionals using Clio or 8am-MyCase are encouraged to visit Tempello.ai to refer interested firms or sign up for a free trial. Come get a demo of Tempello at booth #221 in Boston, Oct 16th-17th at ClioCon, or schedule a 15-minute demo now at Tempello.ai. Increase your firm’s profitability starting today.

This check presentation was made possible through Grungo Law’s partnership with the Philadelphia Phillies, as during every successful manager’s challenge in the fan-favorite segment, “Grungo Law: What’s the Call?“, a donation was made to The Camden County New Jersey Miracle League. Now, at the conclusion of the season, Grungo Law presented the total donation amount of $10,000, reflecting the cumulative impact of all the Manager’s Challenges that went the Phillies’ way during the season.

The Camden County New Jersey Miracle League, a South Jersey-based organization under the nonprofit, Our View, is dedicated to providing people with disabilities a chance to play America’s favorite pastime – baseball! The league plays its games at Boundless Field in Cherry Hill, NJ. The league is comprised of a Spring and Fall season. Kids, teenagers, and adults are supported by local volunteers on Saturdays and Sundays, playing with people in their age group. The league, run by Arthur Aston, who serves as the General Manager of the Camden County New Jersey Miracle League, provides equipment, refreshments, and jerseys for the league players.

The initiative is part of Grungo Law’s continued support for the local community organizations. To further celebrate this partnership, Grungo Law has set aside 40 accessible tickets for The Camden County NJ Miracle League to distribute to the members of the Miracle League to be present for the check presentation and game.

Grungo Law’s Founder & CEO, Richard Grungo Jr., Esq., expressed pride in the moment, “At Grungo Law, giving back to our community isn’t just something we do; it’s part of who we are. Partnering with the Phillies and The Miracle League gives us a way to create meaningful experiences for kids and families who deserve every opportunity to play, grow, and create memories. Seeing this donation come to life on the field is a moment that truly reflects the heart of our work and the impact we hope to make in our local community.”

Art Aston, General Manager of The Camden County NJ Miracle League and Founder of the non-profit Our View, is thankful for the partnership, “Grungo Law has stepped up to the plate for people with disabilities. Their commitment to providing our organization with support and resources has a profound impact on those in our community with disabilities and their families. This experience means everything to our league, and we are thankful to Grungo Law and the Phillies for making this happen!”

Grungo Law Attorney and Director of Grungo Gives, Christine Lafferty Esq., emphasized the importance of community impact, “What makes initiatives like this so meaningful is seeing the impact we have when we bring people together. Our partnership with the Phillies and the Miracle League is more than a donation; it’s about raising awareness, building connections, and creating opportunities that strengthen our community every day.”

Grungo Law is a proud partner of the Philadelphia Phillies.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago, surveyed more than 1,000 rideshare drivers in the Chicago area. According to the findings, approximately 33 percent of respondents reported being involved in at least one crash while driving for Uber or Lyft. The survey also revealed that 45 percent of drivers had close calls or near misses, suggesting that the real scope of the issue may be even broader.

Greenberg, whose firm represents clients involved in Uber car accidents and Lyft car accidents, said, “The findings confirm what many personal injury lawyers and public safety advocates have suspected for some time. Rideshare drivers face unique pressures and hazards that can increase the likelihood of accidents. For passengers, that means understanding there are risks each time they enter a rideshare vehicle.”

Researchers found that the majority of accidents reported by drivers occurred during peak travel hours, with many incidents linked to driver fatigue, distracted driving, and challenging urban traffic conditions. Greenberg noted that rideshare drivers often work long shifts, sometimes exceeding the recommended limits for commercial drivers. “Unlike taxi or truck drivers, rideshare operators are typically independent contractors without the same regulatory oversight. This contributes to conditions where fatigue and distraction become more common,” he said.

The UIC study also pointed to the competitive nature of the rideshare economy as a contributing factor. Many drivers reported feeling pressure to accept more rides or drive longer hours to earn sufficient income, a situation that can lead to lapses in concentration and increased risk-taking on the road. According to the survey, nearly 60 percent of drivers reported checking their phones for ride requests or navigation while driving, and 22 percent admitted to taking calls or responding to messages mid-trip.

Greenberg, a highly experienced Chicago car accident attorney, underscored the importance for passengers to play an active role in their own safety. “Passengers should always verify the identity of their driver, wear seatbelts, and avoid distracting the driver. While most rideshare trips end without incident, awareness and caution can help reduce the risk of harm,” he said.

Safety advocates in Chicago have called for further measures to protect both drivers and riders. Proposals include mandatory safety training for rideshare drivers, limits on consecutive driving hours, and increased data sharing between rideshare companies and city officials. The City of Chicago has not announced any immediate policy changes, but a spokesperson for the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection said the city is “closely reviewing the research and considering all options to enhance public safety.”

In recent years, the popularity of rideshare services has skyrocketed in major metro areas like Chicago, providing an accessible transportation alternative for millions. However, the rapid growth has also led to concerns about oversight and accountability. Unlike taxi drivers, rideshare operators are generally not required to undergo the same level of training or licensing. The insurance requirements for rideshare vehicles, while more robust than for private cars, may not always fully protect passengers in the event of a crash, Greenberg said.

“Insurance coverage in rideshare accidents can be complex,” Greenberg explained. “While Uber and Lyft provide commercial policies, there are still gaps that can leave those injured in a difficult position when seeking compensation. Individuals who are injured as passengers should seek legal advice to ensure their rights are protected.”

The UIC survey’s findings are likely to fuel further debate over the regulation of the gig economy and the balance between convenience and safety. Greenberg noted that while rideshare companies have introduced new safety features in their apps, including emergency assistance buttons and enhanced background checks, the recent data indicate more must be done to address the realities drivers and passengers face on the road.

For those who rely on rideshare services, experts recommend several steps to stay safe:

• Always confirm vehicle and driver details before entering the car.
• Wear a seatbelt on every trip.
• Avoid sharing personal information with drivers.
• Sit in the back seat when possible.
• Trust your instincts and end the ride if you feel unsafe.

As Chicago continues to grapple with the evolving impact of rideshare platforms, the research from UIC and the perspectives from legal professionals like Greenberg may serve as important catalysts for policy discussions aimed at improving safety for all road users.

In the article, titled “Should You Bundle Your Home and Auto Insurance?”, Simeone cautions that savings alone shouldn’t drive the decision. “Make sure the coverages are the same (and sufficient for you) and that the companies are sound and easy to deal with,” he advises. 

He also notes that bundled policies can sometimes lead to higher costs over time: “Your rates could rise on both policies, and you might not want to keep them with the same company if only one is increasing. 

Guardian Service’s article highlights how bundling can offer initial discounts, often between 10% to 25%, but underscores that policyholders should regularly review their coverage and compare providers to ensure continued value. 

As the managing partner of Simeone & Miller, LLP, Simeone brings more than two decades of courtroom experience, representing clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability, and civil rights matters. 

In addition to his legal practice, Simeone has appeared as a commentator on major media outlets, including MSNBC, Fox News, Univision, and ABC7.WJLA, and has been quoted by The New York Times, Washington Post, ESPN.com, and other national publications. He has been recognized by Super Lawyer® for ten consecutive years and is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum®.

To learn more about Thomas Simeone, please visit our website at https://www.simeonemiller.com/.

Every day, construction and demolition workers put their lives on the line to help build the city. When serious accidents occur, many remain silent, particularly those without legal immigration status. On New York Living, Perecman and Dorfman deliver a clear message: Immigration status does not take away your rights.

“Undocumented workers in New York are protected under state law and have the right to pursue compensation if they’ve been injured on the job,” said attorney Zach Perecman. “We want people to know they’re not alone and that help is available, no matter their background or status.”

The Perecman Firm’s commitment to immigrant and working-class communities is longstanding and deeply rooted. Many of the firm’s earliest clients came from the Polish immigrant community and worked demanding jobs in construction, demolition, or other labor-intensive industries. Today, their clients come from across the globe, but the goal remains the same: to support those who work hard to build a better life.

“Too often, undocumented workers don’t report unsafe conditions or injuries because they’re afraid,” said Steven Dorfman. “They fear retaliation, job loss, or deportation. We’re here to tell them they don’t have to be afraid to stand up for themselves.”

Proven Results, Relentless Advocacy

The Perecman Firm has achieved substantial results for injured workers, including:

• $19 million settlement for a worker struck by a falling steel beam
• $15 million jury verdict for a worker who fell from a ladder
• $12 million settlement for a union worker injured in a 15-foot fall after being hit by an angle iron

Known for taking on difficult cases and delivering meaningful results, the firm offers free consultations to any worker who believes they’ve been harmed by unsafe conditions or employer negligence.

Additional segments featuring Perecman and Dorfman will continue to air on New York Living throughout the summer, offering vital information about workers’ rights, legal protections, and the importance of holding negligent parties accountable. The next segment will air on June 30, 2025.

For more information or to schedule a case evaluation, visit Perecman.com.

Initiative-taking Compliance Measures

The U.S. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IRIRA) incorporated Section 287(g) into the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by authorizing ICE to delegate to state government and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specific immigration officer functions under the agency’s direction and oversight.  Section 287(g) is designed to remove “criminal aliens” who are eligible to be transported out of the U.S.  As of May 14, 2025, 40 states have signed Memorandums of Agreements (MOAs) for Section 287(g) program enforcement.

To prevent risk of liability, employers should contact their employment attorney to provide advice and counsel on compliant preventative measures relating the hiring of undocumented workers either directly or indirectly through sub-contractors. Such measures include:

• I-9 Compliance: Ensuring accurate completion and retention of Form I-9 for all employees, verifying their authorization to work in the U.S. to shelter employers from liability if audited;
• E-Verify Enrollment: Advising on the use of E-Verify, especially for federal contractors, to confirm employment eligibility electronically;
• Policy Development: Creating clear hiring policies and training HR personnel to recognize and address potential issues; AND
• Subcontractor Liability: Understanding the liability associated with hiring a subcontractor who falls into high violation rates and including protective language in subcontract agreements.

When an employer ends up in an impractical circumstance, these measures may help mitigate enforcement and penalties by demonstrating good-faith efforts to comply with immigration laws.

Preparing for ICE Raids

Raids by ICE are usually triggered by complaints, information provided by other governmental agencies, or ICE’s own investigatory and enforcement activities in the form of I-9 audits. For example, in Colorado, as one of the 40 states that is part of the MOAs for Section 287(g), ICE recently imposed over $8 million in fines to three Denver businesses for employing undocumented workers.

Well in advance before a raid would take place, employment counsel can immediately conduct its own internal audit, provide advice, and help prepare Companies that employing its own or  subcontract with another business that employs immigrant workers by:

• Reviewing, Drafting or Amending Written Agreements that include protective language addressing undocumented workers that may be employed by another subcontractor or party;
• Developing Response Plans and confirming protocols for handling ICE inspections, including designating points of contact and legal representatives;
• Designating Point Person(s) to be educated and trained on handling a potential raid by ICE; AND
• Ensuring that Legal Representation is contacted promptly during a raid to protect the company’s interests and assisting in the preparation of public access and audit company files in the event of a I-9 audit.

Worker Seizing Process and Employer Liability

The process for seizing undocumented workers in the workplace by ICE includes a combination of investigation, warrants, and raids.  During an I-9 audit or raid, workers can be arrested, seized, and transported by ICE. Employers have rights and responsibilities if contacted by ICE on its premises or out in a work field, including the right to refuse entry without a warrant.  An employer that is found to have knowingly hired undocumented workers is subject to significant civil fines, criminal charges, and potential debarment from government contracts.  Contractors using subcontractors may be subject to civil and criminal liabilities.  An affected company should request its employment attorney to:

• Review All Relevant Written Agreements between developers and general contractors, contractors and subcontractors, all employment agreements, and contracts for potential liabilities;
• Investigate ICE’s actions and claims including the review of the factual evidence to challenge the basis of the charges;
• Negotiate the Penalties, if allowed, by engaging with the government to reduce fines, avoid criminal charges;
• Provide Litigation Support to represent the employer in administrative or court proceedings, as necessary;
• Evaluate other risks, including potential breach of contract claims by developers, general contractors, subcontractors and other contracting parties; AND
• Discuss funding sources for defense, including through employer practices liability insurance, which may provide coverage and reimbursement should an employer get served with civil or criminal immigration charges.

Legal representation, advice, and counsel are vital to navigate the complexities of immigration enforcement actions and protect the business’s reputation, operations, and financials while also neutralizing or mitigating sanctions issued by the federal and/or state governments and potential future civil claimants.

Conclusion

Employment lawyers are indispensable allies for companies aiming to comply with immigration laws and prepare for potential ICE enforcement actions, especially when a business had no knowledge of an undocumented workforce. Expertise in compliance, preparation, and defense helps safeguard companies from significant monetary penalties and operational disruptions, including negative reputation issues if an ICE raid is published on mainstream news or social media sites. Ultimately, employers that are directly or indirectly involved with undocumented workers may have to make tough decisions to comply or risk penalties imposed by the federal government.

Lawrence Lee, Attorney & Shareholder

MONTGOMERY LITTLE & SORAN

“Miles is known for the high caliber of its mediators and arbitrators as well as the exceptional client support it provides,” continues Zucker. “Joining Miles will let me focus on mediating and arbitrating cases and continuing to serve my business and commercial clients. I look forward to this transition and to being part of Miles for years to come.”

Scott is actively involved in the ADR community, having served as chairman of the Dispute Resolution Section for the Atlanta Bar Association and as chairman of the Dispute Resolution Section for the State Bar of Georgia. He is also the author of The Mediation Minute: Insights on Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is a compilation of his articles about the process, strategy, and psychology of successful mediations. Scott has also been consecutively named as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” in Alternative Dispute Resolution over the past eight years (2018-2025).

“We’re very happy that EpicADR has become part of Miles,” says Parag Shah, Miles’ CEO. “Scott Zucker’s experience in business and commercial litigation — including construction, real estate, employment, insurance and franchise law — makes him a great addition to the Miles panel. Having him onboard as a mediator and arbitrator will help us to continue to surpass our clients’ expectations.”

Miles was founded in 2000 and has 13 offices throughout the Southeast, South, and Midwest, including Atlanta, Birmingham, Boston, Charlotte, Columbia, Ft. Lauderdale, Houston, Jacksonville, Nashville, Palm Beach, Savannah, St. Louis, and Tampa.

ECFX Notice is a cutting-edge SaaS solution designed to streamline the downloading of court notice documents, ensure direct distribution to case teams, and securely store documents within the correct matter or client workspace in any DMS or file system. This automation significantly reduces the time spent on manual ECF notice processing and minimizes errors caused by delays or misfiled documents.

SOC 2 (System and Organization Controls) is an independent, third-party framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). While SOC 2 Type 1 compliance evaluates security measures at a single point in time, SOC 2 Type 2 extends that assurance, verifying that ECFX has upheld rigorous security protocols over an extended period. This certification reinforces the company’s proactive approach to security and reliability.

“Law firms need more than just a vendor – they need a technology partner they can trust,” said Dan O’Day, Co-Founder and CEO of ECFX. “Achieving SOC 2 Type 2 certification isn’t just about meeting a standard; it’s about continuously proving that our security and privacy practices stand up to real-world scrutiny over time. Our clients deserve that level of assurance, and we’re proud to deliver it.”

The rigorous SOC 2 Type 2 audit assessed ECFX’s adherence to Security, Availability, and Confidentiality standards, ensuring that legal professionals can depend on ECFX to handle court notices with integrity, resilience, and compliance.

As law firms adopt more digital tools, cybersecurity threats and data protection requirements continue to change. ECFX’s ongoing investment in security measures and third-party audits reinforces its commitment to providing reliable, efficient, and secure court notice automation.