Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode
Marquee

Business Litigation + Dispute Resolution

When businesses face complex disputes, they turn to Robinson+Cole. We serve corporations and other entities, from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups, across virtually every industry, locally and around the globe. We know that success requires not only the extensive trial and appellate experience that our lawyers possess but also a deep understanding of the client’s business operations and the commercial issues driving the conflict. Our reputation is built on more than 150 years of helping clients resolve their toughest business challenges.

Our Services + Our Team

As trusted advisors, our lawyers are often involved by clients soon after a dispute arises, before any lawsuit or arbitration demand is filed. Whether our role at that stage is direct or behind the scenes, our ultimate goal remains the same: a swift conclusion that meets the client’s business objectives. If the opposing party does not promptly come to terms or abandon its claims, we work to best position our client for potential litigation.

As forceful advocates, our lawyers have amassed an impressive track record of success, achieving very favorable results in hotly contested, sophisticated, multimillion-dollar business disputes, including bet-the-company cases and class actions. We have extensive experience taking cases to trial in federal and state courts, and in arbitrations, around the country, involving claims and issues such as the following:

  • Breach of contract
  • Fraud and misrepresentation
  • Unfair and deceptive trade practices
  • Antitrust, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business expectancies
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets and other confidential information
  • Consumer claims, particularly in the class action context
  • Trademark, copyright, and patent infringement
  • Data privacy and cybersecurity
  • Postclosing disputes
  • Corporate governance and shareholder and partnership disputes
  • Securities and financial services
  • Breach of fiduciary duties
  • Professional services
  • Franchise and distributor disputes

Experience


Business Litigation: Breach of Contract Claims

Successfully defended entity in arbitration involving multimillion-dollar breach of contract claims. The arbitration concluded after several days of evidence, and the three arbitrators thereafter issued a unanimous award in favor of our client.

Read More

Business Litigation + Dispute Resolution: Dismissal of Tort Action Against Non-Profit

Obtained judgment dismissing lawsuit filed against non-profit foundation and its members alleging that foundation’s members acted in concert with municipal and school officials to harass and defame student and student’s family.

Business Litigation + Dispute Resolution: Compelled Production of Medical Peer Review Report Over Statutory Privilege

In matter of first impression within Circuit, convinced Connecticut federal court to reject application of statutory medical peer review privilege asserted by Massachusetts hospital, to limit application of such privilege to medical malpractice claims, and to compel hospital to produce hospital’s peer review investigation report concerning provider’s fitness to continue to enjoy clinical privileges.

Read More


Publications


Legal Update: DOJ Announces First False Claims Act Settlement for “Illegal DEI Practices” teaser
April 14, 2026

Legal Update: DOJ Announces First False Claims Act Settlement for “Illegal DEI Practices”

March 24, 2025

Here’s how commercial contracts can ease the cost burden of new tariffs impacting manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal

Commercial contracts tend to be full of “boilerplate provisions” that, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s assessment of classic novels, everyone knows are important, but no one actually reads. When COVID-19 struck, manufacturers learned all about the significance of one particular boilerplate provision — force majeure. This type of provision can excuse or postpone contractual performance in the face of a materially unforeseen event beyond the party’s control. It was a pivotal tool for countless manufacturers seeking relief from their contractual burdens because of severe operational challenges brought on by the global pandemic. This boilerplate provision may become critical again as manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad face the increasing threat of new federal tariffs. Triggering events Force majeure translates as “superior force.” Arising from the Napoleonic Code, or French Civil Code, which was established in France in 1804 and remains in amended use today, this legal concept excused a commercial party from damages liability under a contract if their nonperformance (e.g., the product was not delivered) was “by consequence of a superior force or of a fortuitous occurrence.” Force majeure provisions have been part of American commercial contracting since at least the 19th century, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized their validity in a case called The Tornado. Like the pandemic, tariffs may present a new severe operational challenge for manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components or equipment. “A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico threatens to upend the very supply chains that have made U.S. manufacturing more competitive globally,” according to Jay Simmons, the president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. “The ripple effects will be severe, particularly for small and medium-sized manufacturers that lack the flexibility and capital to rapidly find alternative suppliers, or absorb skyrocketing energy costs,” he added. This begs the question: Could these new federal tariffs constitute a force majeure event that excuses, or at least delays performance under a commercial contract? The answer depends on the specific language used in the contract. A provision’s heading is generally irrelevant to the parties’ rights, so merely including the words “force majeure” in a contract is unlikely to provide relief. Facing serious supply chain problems in 2020, many manufacturers were disappointed to learn that the force majeure provisions in their contracts listed a series of triggering events, such as acts of God, natural disasters and war, but said nothing about pandemics. The COVID-19 case law was not a model of consistency when it came to whether these provisions are interpreted narrowly, but some courts have been reluctant to imply that “pandemics” were meant to be covered when they were not expressly listed in the provision. The options may be better for manufacturers this time around. Force majeure provisions often list “government action” as a triggering event, and a tariff could qualify as such an action. If tariffs are not specifically listed, however, the rule of narrow interpretation might lead to a contrary result. The outcome will depend on the applicable state law and precise contract language. Additionally, force majeure provisions sometimes include requirements that the triggering event must be unanticipated and/or make performance impossible. Lawyers might argue that tariffs were not unanticipated events, particularly for contracts drafted since January 2025, or that substantially increased costs make performance “unprofitable” or “very difficult,” but not impossible. The development of a new commercial contract, or the renewal or amendment of an existing one, presents an ideal opportunity to mitigate uncertainty around this point. Manufacturers may want to evaluate whether (or not) a contract needs a force majeure provision excusing performance because of tariffs, and insist on language that explicitly includes (or excludes) tariffs and identifies the circumstances under which they may (or may not) qualify as a triggering event. The details matter here. Read the article.

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits teaser
March 2025

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits

Food and Beverage Magazine
Legal Update: DOJ Announces First False Claims Act Settlement for “Illegal DEI Practices” teaser
April 14, 2026

Legal Update: DOJ Announces First False Claims Act Settlement for “Illegal DEI Practices”

March 24, 2025

Here’s how commercial contracts can ease the cost burden of new tariffs impacting manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal

Commercial contracts tend to be full of “boilerplate provisions” that, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s assessment of classic novels, everyone knows are important, but no one actually reads. When COVID-19 struck, manufacturers learned all about the significance of one particular boilerplate provision — force majeure. This type of provision can excuse or postpone contractual performance in the face of a materially unforeseen event beyond the party’s control. It was a pivotal tool for countless manufacturers seeking relief from their contractual burdens because of severe operational challenges brought on by the global pandemic. This boilerplate provision may become critical again as manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad face the increasing threat of new federal tariffs. Triggering events Force majeure translates as “superior force.” Arising from the Napoleonic Code, or French Civil Code, which was established in France in 1804 and remains in amended use today, this legal concept excused a commercial party from damages liability under a contract if their nonperformance (e.g., the product was not delivered) was “by consequence of a superior force or of a fortuitous occurrence.” Force majeure provisions have been part of American commercial contracting since at least the 19th century, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized their validity in a case called The Tornado. Like the pandemic, tariffs may present a new severe operational challenge for manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components or equipment. “A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico threatens to upend the very supply chains that have made U.S. manufacturing more competitive globally,” according to Jay Simmons, the president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. “The ripple effects will be severe, particularly for small and medium-sized manufacturers that lack the flexibility and capital to rapidly find alternative suppliers, or absorb skyrocketing energy costs,” he added. This begs the question: Could these new federal tariffs constitute a force majeure event that excuses, or at least delays performance under a commercial contract? The answer depends on the specific language used in the contract. A provision’s heading is generally irrelevant to the parties’ rights, so merely including the words “force majeure” in a contract is unlikely to provide relief. Facing serious supply chain problems in 2020, many manufacturers were disappointed to learn that the force majeure provisions in their contracts listed a series of triggering events, such as acts of God, natural disasters and war, but said nothing about pandemics. The COVID-19 case law was not a model of consistency when it came to whether these provisions are interpreted narrowly, but some courts have been reluctant to imply that “pandemics” were meant to be covered when they were not expressly listed in the provision. The options may be better for manufacturers this time around. Force majeure provisions often list “government action” as a triggering event, and a tariff could qualify as such an action. If tariffs are not specifically listed, however, the rule of narrow interpretation might lead to a contrary result. The outcome will depend on the applicable state law and precise contract language. Additionally, force majeure provisions sometimes include requirements that the triggering event must be unanticipated and/or make performance impossible. Lawyers might argue that tariffs were not unanticipated events, particularly for contracts drafted since January 2025, or that substantially increased costs make performance “unprofitable” or “very difficult,” but not impossible. The development of a new commercial contract, or the renewal or amendment of an existing one, presents an ideal opportunity to mitigate uncertainty around this point. Manufacturers may want to evaluate whether (or not) a contract needs a force majeure provision excusing performance because of tariffs, and insist on language that explicitly includes (or excludes) tariffs and identifies the circumstances under which they may (or may not) qualify as a triggering event. The details matter here. Read the article.

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits teaser
March 2025

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits

Food and Beverage Magazine
August 16, 2024

'SEC v. Jarkesy’: Constitutional Protections From Federal Agency Enforcement

New York Law Journal

In the article, Ben and Ileana discuss the recent Supreme Court decision affirming a constitutional right to a jury whenever the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks a civil fine to punish securities fraud. The Court’s decision struck down the SEC’s preferred method of levying fines – administrative hearings – and increased protections for the subjects of SEC investigations. The authors note that this won’t have an immediate effect on the SEC. “Even before the decision in Jarkesy, the [SEC] Division of Enforcement had anticipated an adverse ruling and began bringing most civil enforcement actions to federal court…However, given the costs of federal civil litigation, the Jarkesy decision could portend a change in SEC civil enforcement priorities…” and could create an “opportunity for more favorable settlements for SEC targets.” Read the article. 

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit teaser
May 24, 2024

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit

May 10, 2024

SEC’s Crackdown on AI Washing Has Broad Implications

New York Law Journal

The article discusses the SEC’s aggressive stance on “AI washing” with its first enforcement actions of 2024, the history of companies exaggerating technological claims, and the implications of the SEC’s stance moving forward. Read the article.

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending teaser
January 9, 2024

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending

January 5, 2024

New York District Courts Split on Whether Cryptocurrency Is a Security

New York Law Journal

The article focuses on two cases, SEC vs. Ripple and SEC vs. Terraform, which reached opposite conclusions about whether cryptocurrency is a currency or security. While both cases focused on each platform’s marketing and investor reports, the court’s used different standards to evaluate whether the cryptocurrency in question was an investment contract or simply a currency transaction. “Companies should closely evaluate all statements made to investors about cryptocurrencies,” the authors urge, and “focus on whether they are portraying crypto assets as investments through the nature of transactions, statements to investors, or any other representations.” To read the article, click here.

Legal Update: Changes to Conditions of SEC Rule 10b5-1 Obligations teaser
February 24, 2023

Legal Update: Changes to Conditions of SEC Rule 10b5-1 Obligations



August 16, 2024

'SEC v. Jarkesy’: Constitutional Protections From Federal Agency Enforcement

New York Law Journal

In the article, Ben and Ileana discuss the recent Supreme Court decision affirming a constitutional right to a jury whenever the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks a civil fine to punish securities fraud. The Court’s decision struck down the SEC’s preferred method of levying fines – administrative hearings – and increased protections for the subjects of SEC investigations. The authors note that this won’t have an immediate effect on the SEC. “Even before the decision in Jarkesy, the [SEC] Division of Enforcement had anticipated an adverse ruling and began bringing most civil enforcement actions to federal court…However, given the costs of federal civil litigation, the Jarkesy decision could portend a change in SEC civil enforcement priorities…” and could create an “opportunity for more favorable settlements for SEC targets.” Read the article. 

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit teaser
May 24, 2024

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit

May 10, 2024

SEC’s Crackdown on AI Washing Has Broad Implications

New York Law Journal

The article discusses the SEC’s aggressive stance on “AI washing” with its first enforcement actions of 2024, the history of companies exaggerating technological claims, and the implications of the SEC’s stance moving forward. Read the article.

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending teaser
January 9, 2024

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending

January 5, 2024

New York District Courts Split on Whether Cryptocurrency Is a Security

New York Law Journal

The article focuses on two cases, SEC vs. Ripple and SEC vs. Terraform, which reached opposite conclusions about whether cryptocurrency is a currency or security. While both cases focused on each platform’s marketing and investor reports, the court’s used different standards to evaluate whether the cryptocurrency in question was an investment contract or simply a currency transaction. “Companies should closely evaluate all statements made to investors about cryptocurrencies,” the authors urge, and “focus on whether they are portraying crypto assets as investments through the nature of transactions, statements to investors, or any other representations.” To read the article, click here.

Legal Update: Changes to Conditions of SEC Rule 10b5-1 Obligations teaser
February 24, 2023

Legal Update: Changes to Conditions of SEC Rule 10b5-1 Obligations


News


June 3, 2026

Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

Strategic hires deepen the firm’s restructuring and business litigation capabilities and further support clients in complex, high stakes matters
April 21, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards

Corporate Counsel
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards teaser
December 4, 2025

Kate Dion Reappointed to Criminal Justice Act Standing Committee

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
June 3, 2026

Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

Strategic hires deepen the firm’s restructuring and business litigation capabilities and further support clients in complex, high stakes matters
April 21, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards

Corporate Counsel
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards teaser
December 4, 2025

Kate Dion Reappointed to Criminal Justice Act Standing Committee

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
June 18, 2025

Brian Wheelin Appointed to Serve on Future 5’s Advisory Board

Future 5
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
May 9, 2025

Ed Heath Appointed Vice President of the Connecticut Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors

April 29, 2025

Sandra Marin Lautier Elected to the James W. Cooper Fellows Program by the Connecticut Bar Foundation

Connecticut Bar Foundation
March 25, 2025

Ed Heath Authors Article on Use of Force Majeure to Lessen Impact of Tariffs on Manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal

November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
June 18, 2025

Brian Wheelin Appointed to Serve on Future 5’s Advisory Board

Future 5
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
May 9, 2025

Ed Heath Appointed Vice President of the Connecticut Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors

April 29, 2025

Sandra Marin Lautier Elected to the James W. Cooper Fellows Program by the Connecticut Bar Foundation

Connecticut Bar Foundation
March 25, 2025

Ed Heath Authors Article on Use of Force Majeure to Lessen Impact of Tariffs on Manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal

Events


Past

It's Just Boilerplate, Until It's Not: The Clauses We Copy, Paste, and Then Litigate

Jun 9 2026
Lawline
Past

15th Annual First 100 Plus Breakfast & Awards

May 15 2026
Hartford Marriott Downton
Past

It's Just Boilerplate, Until It's Not: The Clauses We Copy, Paste, and Then Litigate

Jun 9 2026
Lawline
Past

15th Annual First 100 Plus Breakfast & Awards

May 15 2026
Hartford Marriott Downton
Past

Private Way Rights and Neighborly Disputes

Nov 19 2024
Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts’ (REBA) Title Insurance & National Affairs Section Webinar
Past

Defending Against Predatory Lawsuits: Strategies for Small and Mid-Size Businesses

Sep 19 2024
R+C-Hosted Webinar
Past

Meet the Land Court Judicial Forum 2016

Oct 20 2016
MCLE New England
Past

Annual Appellate Writing Seminar

October 1994
University of Connecticut Institute of Writing and University of Connecticut School of Law
Past

Private Way Rights and Neighborly Disputes

Nov 19 2024
Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts’ (REBA) Title Insurance & National Affairs Section Webinar
Past

Defending Against Predatory Lawsuits: Strategies for Small and Mid-Size Businesses

Sep 19 2024
R+C-Hosted Webinar
Past

Meet the Land Court Judicial Forum 2016

Oct 20 2016
MCLE New England
Past

Annual Appellate Writing Seminar

October 1994
University of Connecticut Institute of Writing and University of Connecticut School of Law