By taking a look at Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., 2026 WL 1993146 (11th Cir. July 10, 2026), that makes this the third straight week in which we are pleased with a sensible vaccine decision. In this published case, the Eleventh Circuit affirms that an airline’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate did not subject its employees who resisted
Drug & Device Law
The definitive source for intelligent commentary on the law that matters for drug and device product liability cases
Blog Authors
Latest from Drug & Device Law
Mistakes of Law as Fraud – A 50-State Survey
By Bexis
Not too long ago we wrote about McKenzie v. Progressive Treatment Solutions, LLC, 2026 WL 636741 (N.D. Ill. March 6, 2026). One of the things about McKenzie that caught our eye was the statement that, under Illinois law, “misrepresentations or mistakes of law cannot form the basis of a claim for fraud.” Id. at *6…
Pro Se Blues in Texas
By Eric Hudson
We’ve wondered if the widespread use of generative AI was going to produce an increase in the filing of pro se complaints and a marked change in their content. While the results are preliminary, at least one study shows a significant increase in pro se filings following the general availability of AI tools. And our…
Putting New Rule 16.1(b)(3) to Work
By Bexis
Bexis recently attended the Spring Conference of the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”). PLAC meetings are usually good for new blogpost ideas, and this one was no exception. Today’s idea comes from an unusual source, though – the final day’s ethics presentation. That presentation was about artificial intelligence, mostly in the mass tort context. One…
Guest Post – Think Before You Prompt: What Recent Case Law Tells Us About Privilege, Work Product, and Your AI Interactions
By Bexis
Today’s guest post is another tech-related discussion from Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Given the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in legal practice, the notion of AI prompts and output becoming yet another front in the never-ending ediscovery wars is concerning. Here are Jamie’s latest thoughts on the latest pertinent caselaw in this…
When Admonishing Does No Deterring It May Be Time To Retool
We typed the following question into a simple AI prompt: “What is the difference between admonish and deter?” The response started with “The primary difference between admonish and deter lies in their intent and timing: admonishing is form of active, often verbal correction or warning regarding past or present behavior, while deterring is an act…
Courts Get Proactive on AI: Disclosure, Certification, and Consequences
Artificial intelligence isn’t going anywhere. Experts use it. Opposing counsel use it. Clients use it – and want their lawyers to use it too. It is becoming an increasingly standard legal research, drafting, and case strategy tool. But as a couple of our recent posts (here and here) have pointed out—AI is far…
Guest Post − AI Enters the Exam Room: Product Liability Implications of AI Health Tools
By Bexis
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. She has long been interested in tech issues, and particularly in how they might intersect with product liability. This post examines product liability implications of using artificial intelligence (“AI”) for medical purposes. It’s a fascinating subject, and as always our guest posters deserve 100%…
AI Hallucinations in Court: A Case Study in How Bad It Can Get
SDNY Holds that Defendant AI Inquiries Made Without Counsel’s Input Were not Shielded by Attorney-Client Privilege or Work Product Doctrine
We’ve become aware that some clients are using artificial intelligence (AI) to summarize or analyze things like complaints, briefs, internal documents, or even – horror of horrors! – law firm bills. If the client performing these tasks is an in-house lawyer, such work might be protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine…