2010-2019 taught all of us a great deal, and changes over the course of the decade shape the way we practice law today. Advancements in technology modernized the judiciary and have helped to expedite certain parts of the litigation process, such as discovery. The speed in which information is shared online would have been unfathomable when Ron Motley and I first started litigating asbestos cases.

Safety concerns related to breast implants are unfortunately not new. Health-related side effects have plagued breast augmentation implants since their appearance on the U.S. market in the early 1960s. A new safety concern is particularly significant.

Proposed amendments to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s whistleblower program rules include expanding the types of resolutions covered by the program, giving the SEC discretion in modifying awards, eliminating potential double recovery, adjusting the claims review process, and barring individuals who submit false information or make repeated frivolous claims.

The ease of online shopping comes with a price, and a dangerous one at that. Despite being used by millions of people to buy and ship products all over the world, very little is done to ensure that these products are actually safe before they show up on your doorstep.

Collapsing 17 years of struggle into a two-hour movie to bring the truth about PFAS chemicals to light is no small feat. “Dark Waters”, a movie starring Mark Ruffalo as an attorney who took on a chemical company, managed it well, indeed with an element of drama that bordered on riveting.

Eight years after its inception, the SEC’s Whistleblower Program continues to have a significant, positive impact in protecting not only whistleblowers, but investors, markets and by extension, the public. In addition, the Whistleblower Program allows the SEC to bring enforcement actions in considerably less time, using fewer resources.

We put a lot of faith in auto manufacturers. As our vehicles become loaded with technological advancements, we have trust the manufacturers have installed these features to help protect us. We often assume that manufacturers tested and vetted this technology appropriately. And, we trust these features will actually work as intended and save us from harm during an accident. But are we too quick to make this assumption?

As Mesothelioma Awareness Month comes to an end, I am often reminded that asbestos remains a constant threat. Take the news from just last month that several top aides were evacuated from the White House so that asbestos could be removed from the ceilings and attic spaces in the West Wing’s second floor. The U.S. General Services Administration described this as a mere “precautionary measure,” but I think that’s putting it mildly as asbestos is a dangerous, deadly carcinogen.

As we pause to reflect, we stop not only to remember those who were lost and injured, but also to honor those who continue to seek justice and accountability for those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Generally speaking, manufacturers are required to submit individual reports to the FDA for each patient who sustains an injury or complication caused by a medical product. Established in 1997, Alternative Summary Reporting Program allowed manufacturers to bypass that standard by submitting quarterly summaries for cases that involve “well-known” complications. The FDA claims that this policy allowed the agency to “more efficiently review reports of well-known, well-understood adverse events.” However, the public was largely kept in the dark because this massive database was kept hidden, available only to the FDA – until now.