Archives

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 ›

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 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 ›

In the July 17, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Justice at Scale: Class Action Settlements Must Deliver.”

In June 2024, U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie in the Eastern District of New York denied preliminary approval of a proposed $30 billion swipe-fee settlement between merchants and credit card giants Visa and Mastercard. At the last moment, despite nearly two decades of litigation and what appeared to be a monumental compromise, the deal fell through. The court criticized the sufficiency of relief compared to trial-level damages and noted that the proposed settlement inequitably benefited smaller merchants at the expense of larger ones. The court’s decision exemplifies heightened judicial scrutiny over class action settlements in recent years. It underscores the central tension in such cases: while such settlements can deliver mass redress, they must offer the class real, equitable benefits, not just symbolic fixes or compensation for counsel.

Continue reading ›

In the July 3, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Uniform Protections, Civil Consequences: Litigating Employer Duties to Servicemembers Under USERRA.

It is common to see businesses marking Veterans Day with social media posts thanking service members for their service and sacrifices. It is notably less common for the same businesses to understand or honor their legal obligations to employees who are current or former members of the military. Too often, businesses discriminate against their employees who spend time serving in the uniformed services, such as the National Guard. While it is understandable that the employees’ time away from work could cause disruption at work (e.g., an employee spending six months on overseas service), the businesses need to understand that these employees provide vital functions for the public.

Continue reading ›

In the May 22, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Reading Between the Lines: Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.”

It is not in boldface. It does not appear in the indemnity clause. And it is rarely the lead count in a complaint. But the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arises from a duty that is embedded in every contract, and a breach of the implied covenant claim can be a powerful tool in litigation. Too often, litigators make the mistake of tacking on a breach of implied covenant as a boilerplate claim or abandoning it in response to a motion to dismiss. Properly framed, a breach of the covenant claim is not just filler, but a remedy in cases where the contract is silent, ambiguous, or grants the opposing party discretion exercised for bad-faith advantage. In complex business disputes, especially those involving strategic behavior that may evade a literal breach, a well-pleaded covenant claim may be the best—or only—path forward. Continue reading ›

Contact Information