Charlene Hicks—Senior Attorney

  Beginning with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 106 S. Ct. 2295 (1986), courts nationwide have utilized the economic loss doctrine to preclude plaintiffs from obtaining a tort remedy for contract-based claims. In effect, a plaintiff cannot pursue a tort claim to recover purely economic losses.

      Although the economic loss doctrine is universally accepted, the practical application of this doctrine varies considerably from state to state. See In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1171 (D. Minn. 2014) (analyzing the economic loss rules in 11 different states as applied to data breach litigation and finding that some states allowed the negligence claim to continue whereas others barred the claim); Reno Flying Servs. v. Piper Aircraft, Inc., No. 13-cv-04346 NC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163470, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2014) (determining that although California, Nevada, and Florida all “employ some form of the economic loss rule, each state would apply it differently in this case”).

Robert Westendorf—Research Attorney

      Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was hired as an executive secretary by the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and was later promoted to program administrator. Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303, 306, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025). In 2019, she applied for a newly created management position. Id. Although she was interviewed for the position, a lesbian woman was ultimately hired. Id. A few days after her interview, she was demoted from her program administrator position to her old secretary position. Id. The agency then hired a gay man for the now-vacant program administrator position. Id.

 Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney 

      In March 2025, the American Federation of Teachers ("AFT") filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Education (U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C. Civ. Action 25-802 (RBW)) for denying federal student loan borrowers their rights to an affordable repayment plan and to debt forgiveness opportunities which are mandated in their loan terms. These student loan income-driven repayment plans were mandated by Congress in part by President Biden's Savings on a Valuable Education ("SAVE") Plan, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070 et seq., and the Department of Education’s revised regulations which provided more generous terms for income-based repayment plans. See Missouri v. Trump, 128 F.4th 979 (8th Cir. 2025) (citing SAVE Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 43901-02). Other students represented in the pending AFT class-action lawsuit are seeking relief through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Buyback program. At the end of August 2025, the Department of Education had a backlog of 1,076,266 income-driven repayment plan applications.

Amy Gore—Senior Attorney

            Calling a fee payment “non-refundable” is no protection from an ethical violation. The Virginia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Swango v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Second District, No. 241016, 2025 Va. LEXIS 43, at *1 (July 31, 2025), clarified the differences between a refundable retainer and a non-refundable consultation fees.

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

Robert Westendorf—Senior Attorney

Jason Holder—Senior Attorney

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

            In United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 219 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2024), the United States Supreme Court, in an unusual nearly unanimous 8-1 decision, upheld a 1994 federal criminal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), against a challenge that the law violated the Second Amendment. The statute bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or any order that restrains a person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of injury.

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

      On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided a pair of cases from Michigan and California on the issue of whether a public official violates the First Amendment by blocking individuals from the public official's personal social media page. In the Michigan case, Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 144 S. Ct. 756, 218 L. Ed. 2d 121 (2024), Kevin Lindke, a private citizen argued that James R. Freed, the unelected city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, violated his free speech rights when the unelected official blocked the complaining citizen from his personal Facebook page. In the California case, O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205, 144 S. Ct. 717, 218 L. Ed. 2d 138 (2024), two elected school board members blocked from their social media pages the parents who criticized the board of trustees. In both cases, the blocked citizens were outraged that they were barred from the private internet sites.

Amy G. Gore—Senior Attorney

         The attorney-client privilege has traditionally limited the disclosure of properly qualified communications between an attorney and a client who is seeking legal advice. The limits of the privilege were tested in a recent Illinois decision in MacDonald v. Wagenmaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 230089, ¶ 1. There, HBC, an evangelical Christian megachurch terminated its senior pastor and retained attorneys to investigate claims of financial misappropriations. The church instructed the attorneys to post a letter outlining the attorneys’ findings on the church website which referenced financial misappropriations by the senior pastor. The pastor brought suit against the attorneys alleging, inter alia, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy. During discovery, the pastor sought to subpoena communications between the attorneys, the church, and their accountants to which an attorney-client privilege was asserted. The pastor replied that the crime-fraud exception of the attorney-client privilege destroyed the protection from discovery. The trial court, relying on a passage in Radiac Abrasives, Inc. v. Diamond Technology, Inc., 177 Ill. App. 3d 628, 638 (1988), in which the Illinois Supreme Court indicated that crime-fraud exception could extend to other torts, examined the communications in camera and ruled for the pastor, finding that the attorneys were aware that the publication of the letter may amount to tortious conduct. The trial court’s ruling was reversed by the appellate court.