News » Legal Intelligencer » Page 2

Articles Tagged with Legal Intelligencer

|

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 ›

|

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 June 19, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Kelly Lavelle writes, “Revisiting ‘Zubulake’ 20 Years Later.”

Introduction

It has been 20 years since Judge Shira A. Scheindlin issued the landmark Zubulake decisions, a series of rulings that profoundly reshaped e-discovery practices in federal litigation. At a time when electronically stored information (ESI) was rapidly expanding and began to overwhelm traditional discovery practices, Zubulake addressed critical issues related to preservation, production, and cost-allocation. These decisions expanded the definition of ESI, established new standards for attorney oversight, and set a precedent for holding both parties and their attorneys accountable for failing to fulfill their e-discovery obligations. This article revisits Zubulake and explores its enduring impact on e-discovery standards and practices, as well as the significant developments that have occurred since these pivotal decisions.

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
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

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