News » Legal Intelligencer

Articles Tagged with Legal Intelligencer

| and

Strategic practitioners do not need to treat entity liability as the finish line; they may treat it as a starting point. Holding individual owners or officers personally liable—whether as partners, corporate actors, alter egos, or signatories—fundamentally alters the litigation landscape.

In the February 19, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang and Kandis Kovalsky co-authored, “Taking a Plaintiff’s Case to the Next Level: Holding Individuals Liable Under Pennsylvania Law.” Continue reading ›

|

This technological shift has triggered a parallel evolution in law. The conversation now spans from reforming Rule 901 to proposing a new Federal Rule of Evidence 707 specifically for AI-generated evidence. Simultaneously, ethics regulators are clarifying that lawyer competence requires understanding these technologies.

In the January 7, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Authenticity Under Pressure: Rethinking Rule 901 in the Age of AI.” Continue reading ›

|

The speed and clarity with which institutions detect, escalate, investigate, and disclose cyber incidents directly influence the trajectory of litigation and regulatory scrutiny. Delays, ambiguities, or false or even incomplete notifications often become focal points in class-action claims, undermining institutional credibility.

In the November 26, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “From Vulnerability to Liability: Understanding Today’s Cyber Claims and Enforcement.” Continue reading ›

|

A well-drafted ESI protocol defines production formats, metadata requirements, search terms, and privilege review procedures, reducing disputes and helping discovery move forward efficiently.

In the November 20, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle writes, “Understanding and Applying Local Rules When Drafting ESI Protocols.” Continue reading ›

|

Lawyers accustomed to relying on experience-based experts must now make the analytical path explicit. Credibility and cross-examination alone could rescue a thin factual basis or an implicit chain of reasoning. Admissibility is no longer a late-stage checkpoint. It is a threshold gate, and lawyers must plan accordingly from the outset of a case.

In the November 20, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Method, Not Mystique: The Renewed Demands of Rule 702.” Continue reading ›

|

The scope of what is considered to be “wrongdoing or waste” has been found to be relatively narrow by courts interpreting that statute, especially the U.S. District Court for the Middle of District of Pennsylvania. And the biggest hurdle to making a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law is that the employer must be a “public body.”

In the November 10, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Aaron Peskin writes, “POWER Act—A Philadelphia Game Changer.” Continue reading ›

| and

The False Claims Act (FCA) can be a powerful tool to protect veteran health care in the wake of an uptick in private equity’s participation in the sector, in that it is now well-established that private equity companies and their principals can be held liable under the FCA.

In the October 23, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky co-authored, “The False Claims Act (FCA) can be a powerful tool to protect veteran health care in the wake of an uptick in private equity’s participation in the sector, in that it is now well-established that private equity companies and their principals can be held liable under the FCA.” Continue reading ›

|

Taken together, Mortimer and Dewberry define both opportunity and constraint. They confirm that Pennsylvania trial courts may develop an enterprise liability doctrine but also underscore that no amount of judicial sympathy can justify collapsing corporate distinctions without rigorous analysis.

In the September 11, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “No End-Run Piercing: Lessons from ‘Mortimer’ and ‘Dewberry.’” Continue reading ›

|

In the August 7, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Bad Character, Good Evidence: Reclaiming Character Evidence for Strategic Use in Civil Litigation.”

Character evidence has a paradoxical position in the law of evidence: deeply relevant in many cases, yet presumptively inadmissible. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404 and its state counterparts, parties are generally barred from introducing evidence of a person’s character or character trait to argue that they acted in keeping with that character on a particular occasion. This is the so-called “propensity rule,” a prohibition on suggesting that someone did something simply because they are the sort of person who would. Rule 404(a)(1) codifies this general exclusion, and Rule 403’s balancing test, typically used to weigh probative value against prejudicial effect, is preempted in these cases by the categorical nature of the prohibition in Rule 404. There are exceptions, however. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1950
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 525-5850
New Jersey Office
10000 Lincoln Dr E #201
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 266-9330
We serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Pennsylvania including Berks County, Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County; New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, Salem County, and Mercer County; Delaware including Kent County and New Castle County; and Maryland including Cecil County. We also serve clients in New York. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design