On April 14, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Court”) entered an order in connection with certain unresolved discovery disputes in White v. Walmart, Case No. 25-cv-01120, finding Plaintiff’s counsel’s “exclusive reliance” on AI to identify discovery deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses does not “satisfy counsel’s obligation to meet and confer in good faith before asking the Court to wade into a discovery dispute,” and that while AI is a “useful tool,” it is “not a substitute for good lawyering.” Id. at 4.

On December 9, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal rendered what should be the ultimate decision in the Sultan of Sulu saga, annulling the final arbitral award that had purported to order Malaysia to pay US$ 14.92 billion to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. As we previously reported, the French Supreme Court’s November 6, 2024 ruling had already set the stage for this decision. The decision of the Paris Court of Appeal setting aside the final award, while expected, refines the Court’s reasoning and confirms the likely inapplicability of century-old colonial agreements.

At the end of 2025, amendments were made to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that fundamentally change when and how litigators must address privilege issues in federal court. These amendments followed an important decision in the Sixth Circuit in In re FirstEnergy Corp., 154 F.4th 431 (6th Cir. 2025), which provided practitioners fresh guidance for protecting privileged materials early in the litigation. Understanding these developments and beginning to plan around privilege at the outset of a case is essential for anyone litigating in federal court today.

In the recent decision in Guy Carpenter & Company Ltd v Willis Re (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 361 (KB), the High Court considered a series of claims between two competitor reinsurance brokers arising from a major team move of 22 employees, including two company directors

While many reported “team move” cases take place in the insurance sector, the judgment is a salutary reminder for all employers and employees about the scope and limits of duties in the context of recruitment.

Courts issued two seemingly conflicting rulings on whether AI generated materials are protected. Heppner (S.D.N.Y.) found that documents created with a consumer version of Claude AI were not privileged or work product because the tool exposed data to a third party provider. Warner (E.D. Mich.) reached the opposite result the…

Abigail Slater resigned as Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division on February 12, 2026—an exit widely reported as a forced ouster after the White House requested her resignation. Her departure is significant because it comes at a moment when antitrust enforcement is both high-stakes and politically salient. The Division is weeks away from trial in Live Nation/Ticketmaster, where reported settlement discussions in the days before her resignation highlighted divisions between the Antitrust Division and senior DOJ officials. Simultaneously, the division continues to manage conduct litigation against major technology companies and scrutiny of major transactions.  From the defining moves of her tenure to the forces behind her departure, this change in leadership marks a pivotal moment in U.S. competition enforcement at a time when “private bar attorneys are on high alert, questioning how federal competition laws will be enforced and which merger deals will be challenged.” To be sure, Slater’s resignation sets the stage for what (and who) comes next.