News Alerts

On March 14, 2025, a jury in Essex County Superior Court awarded $20,080,976 to Nicolas Dephillips, a former apprentice electrician who was left partly and permanently paralyzed after a fall at a Newark construction site. The verdict followed a monthlong trial before Judge Annette Scoca.

Dephillips, 21 at the time of the accident, was installing wiring for a helipad atop the Prudential Center when he fell 15 feet through a drop ceiling. He sustained spinal fractures at C6 and C7, among other injuries, resulting in paralysis from the chest down – leaving him with use of his arms and limited use of his hands.

The jury apportioned 36% liability to the non-settling defendant who remained at trial. Prior to trial Plaintiff settled with another defendant for $21M, making Plaintiff’s potential total recovery for the case $28M, assuming the verdict is sustained.

The principal theory of liability was the general contractor’s alleged failure to enforce its own safety protocols. Defense Counsel maintained that safety responsibilities rested with the settling defendant and Plaintiff. The jury allocated 8% liability to Plaintiff.

This case marks one of the largest construction injury recoveries in New Jersey history and highlights the legal significance of contractor safety obligations on multi-employer worksites.

You can read the complete Law.com article reporting on the verdict here.

A federal trademark suit filed on August 11 is drawing attention in the Philadelphia legal community. Attorney Joel. J. Kofsky, of Philly Injury Lawyer, has sued Spear Greenfield Richman Weitz & Taggart in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging unauthorized use of his registered slogan, “We Win or It’s Free.”

Kofsky claims he began using the phrase in 2011 and secured federal registration in 2018. The complaint alleges that Spear Greenfield adopted the slogan in its advertising and online content starting in 2021, with expanded use in 2024 across social media and blog platforms.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees, citing dilution of the mark and unjust enrichment. Kofsky is proceeding pro se while no defense counsel has entered an appearance. The case is also awaiting judicial assignment.

To read the complete article, click here.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has been hit with a federal class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging anticompetitive practices that violate the Sherman Act. Filed by Georgia resident Linvel James Risner, the complaint accuses LSAC of conspiring with its 197-member law schools to fix prices for its mandatory law school applications.

According to the complaint, LSAC collects nearly $500 per applicant through a $215 subscription fee and a $45 per-report fee, generating over $30 million annually. Plaintiffs argue that LSAC provides minimal services – primarily transmitting basic application data – yet applicants have no alternative platform due to member schools’ exclusive reliance on LSAC’s system.

The suit also alleges that LSAC’s Board of Trustees is entirely composed of individuals employed by member law schools, enabling coordinated control over pricing and governance. LSAC is also being accused of using its nonprofit status to mask excessive executive compensation and amass over $250 million in net assets.

LSAC responded by denying the allegations, stating its commitment to expanding access to legal education to prospective students.

The proposed class includes all U.S. applicants who paid LSAC platform fees in the past four years.

To read the complete article, click here.

A Boston jury awarded $42.68 million to a Massachusetts couple who alleged Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused mesothelioma.
The plaintiff, Paul Lovell, alleged that using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for decades caused his 2021 mesothelioma diagnosis. The Suffolk County Superior Court jury awarded $24 million in past and future pain suffering and $2.6 million in medical expenses to plaintiff Paul Lovell, plus another $16 million to his wife, Kathryn Lovell, for past and future loss of consortium claims.

The trial is the second in Suffolk County Superior Court in the past two months against Johnson & Johnson arising our of a talc mesothelioma claim.

Johnson & Johnson’s Worldwide Vice President of Litigation promised to appeal, stating, “as with the vast majority of other plaintiff verdicts in the talc litigation, we fully expect the appellate court to reverse it.” He added, “this decision is predicated on ‘junk science’ that is refuted by decades of studies demonstrating Johnson’s Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.”

You can read the complete Law.com article on the verdict here.

The New Jersey Judiciary has released its annual update to post-judgment interest rates, effective January 1, 2026, pursuant to Rule 4:42-11(a)(ii). These rates are critical for litigants and counsel assessing the financial impact of delayed payments following civil judgments.

2026 Interest Rates at a Glance

• Judgments ≤ $20,000: 4.5%
• Judgments > $20,000: 6.5% (includes 2.0% Special Civil Part adjustment under R. 4:42-11(a)(iii))

To read the Notice to the Bar, click here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed it will not pursue formal revisions to the Biden-era rule banning most uses of chrysotile asbestos. The decision, disclosed in a July 8 filing with the Fifth Circuit, marks a departure from earlier proposals under the Trump administration to reevaluate the rule through public notice and comment rulemaking.

Instead, the EPA now intends to issue guidance to clarify workplace protection requirements, rather than reopen and reevaluate the rule itself. After the Biden administration published the final rule in 2024, it has drawn fire from both sides, industry groups and health and labor advocates.

The EPA defended the rule and filed a brief to pause litigation so that guidance can be implemented more quickly than formal rulemaking and help stakeholders comply with the existing regulation.

The lead case is Texas Chemistry Council et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., No. 24-60193, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
You can read the complete Law360 article here.

A Massachusetts jury has awarded $8 million to Janice Paluzzi, finding that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products substantially contributed to her mesothelioma. The verdict includes $5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering.

Paluzzi, diagnosed in 2021, testified that she used Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower daily since childhood. The jury concluded that the products contained asbestos and that a design defect and negligent formulation were substantial contributing factors to her illness. However, Johnson & Johnson was not found liable for failure to warn or breach of implied warranty.

In its defense, Johnson & Johnson argued that Paluzzi’s mesothelioma was more likely caused by secondary asbestos exposure from her sons’ building maintenance work, not its talcum powder. The company also claimed Paluzzi primarily used Jean Nate talc, not J&J products, and emphasized that none of the tested talc bottles were hers. Additionally, J&J asserted that the plaintiff failed to quantify her lifetime asbestos exposure, making it impossible to prove their product was a substantial contributing factor.

You can read the complete Law360 article reporting on the verdict here.

A New York County jury awarded $117 million to William and Victoria Durbec in an asbestos exposure case involving the construction of the World Trade Center. The verdict, issued on May 22, 2025, is one of the largest asbestos-related awards for a single plaintiff in New York history.

Mr. Durbec developed mesothelioma after alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing materials during his work on the World Trade Center. The exposure reportedly stemmed from spray-on fireproofing applied to structural components such as steel columns, floor joists, and decking.

At trial, the only remaining defendant was Mario & DiBono Plastering Co. Inc., which allegedly applied the insulation under contract with the Port Authority. The jury found Mario & DiBono 80% liable, with 10% each assigned to the Port Authority and Tishman Realty & Construction Co.

Damages included:

• $40 million for past pain and suffering
• $38 million for future pain and suffering
• $20 million for past loss of consortium
• $19 million for future loss of consortium

Justice Mary V. Rosado adopted a post-trial briefing schedule set to conclude in September 2025.

You can read the complete Law.com article reporting on the verdict here.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directing federal agencies to eliminate reliance on disparate-impact liability. In explaining its purpose, the order provides that disparate-impact theory – where statistical disparities among racial or gender groups may trigger liability absent discriminatory intent – undermines constitutional principles of equal protection and merit-based decision-making in various contexts.

The EO seeks to lay the foundation for preemption of state-law disparate-impact protections. More specifically, the EO directs federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of statutes and regulations that rely on disparate-impact liability. It also instructs the Attorney General to repeal or revise agency regulations that incorporate disparate-impact standards as well as identify, amend, repeal, or challenge federal and state laws that do the same. Agencies are also instructed to promote equal employment access, including alternatives to college-degree requirements.

While the EO reshapes federal enforcement priorities, it does not change existing federal law or eliminate disparate-impact liability under Title VII, the ADA, ADEA, or state anti-discrimination statutes. Private plaintiffs can still pursue disparate-impact claims, and state regulators may continue enforcement. Employers should maintain compliance with applicable laws and continue conducting adverse analyses – particularly in hiring, layoffs, and algorithmic decision-making.

Legal counsel should guide these reviews to ensure strategic enlightenment with ongoing regulatory guidance.

You can read the complete article here.