Author: Bailey Glasser

Katherine Charonko Named a 2026 Lawdragon 100 Leading AI & Legal Tech Advisor

Kate Charonko, Bailey & Glasser, LLP’s Electronically Stored Information & Technology Practice Group Leader, has been named to the 2026 Lawdragon 100 Leading AI & Legal Tech Advisors list.

Continue reading

Katherine E. Charonko, Bailey & Glasser, LLP’s Electronically Stored Information & Technology Practice Group Leader, has been named to the 2026 Lawdragon 100 Leading AI & Legal Tech Advisors list.

Kate plays a central role in many of Bailey Glasser’s most consequential matters, including on litigation teams taking on the world’s most powerful corporations, including Johnson & Johnson, 3M, Volkswagen, Toyota, Bayer/Monsanto, and major medical device manufacturers. Her assistance is routinely sought by national trial teams, strengthened by her and Bailey Glasser’s strong reputation and her global Certified E-Discovery Specialist (CEDS) credential. Ms. Charonko has been appointed to numerous MDL leadership roles, serving as liaison director of e-Discovery and ESI, directing the management and review of billions of documents across multiple parties and jurisdictions. Across every dimension of her work, Kate stands out for her technical brilliance and unwavering commitment to the people she and Bailey Glasser serve.

Kate leads a team of talented litigators at Bailey Glasser whose focus is ensuring that the strategic use of ESI – and the timing related to when ESI strategies are deployed in pending or threatened litigation – positively impact the flow and cost of our legal proceedings and ensure matters are handled properly, that laws and regulations are properly complied with, and that privileges are protected. Learn more about Bailey Glasser’s ESI & Technology Practice Group here.

As a sought-after speaker and writer, Kate has presented at numerous conferences including the 2025 Trial Lawyers of Mass Torts Conference, HarrisMartin’s MDL and Talc Litigation Conferences, and Mass Torts Made Perfect, covering subjects ranging from ESI protocols and technology-assisted review to emerging issues like generative AI’s intellectual property implications. Kate speaks and writes regularly on legal technology topics, including about artificial intelligence. Read her most recent client alert, “It Depends: A Comparison of Recent Rulings Regarding AI Use and Privilege,” here.

Lawdragon named Kate a 2026 Lawdragon Top 500 Litigator in America, and she was named a 2026 winner of the Monica Bay Women of Legal Tech Award, an award given by ALM / Legaltech News. Kate is nationally ranked by Chambers & Partners in the Product Liability: Plaintiffs category, among other accolades.

Read more here.

Client Alert: “It Depends: A Comparison of Recent Rulings Regarding AI Use and Privilege” by Katherine Charonko and Elizabeth Stryker

Two federal courts have issued rulings regarding whether a party’s use of generative AI tools were protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The answer is that “it depends.”

Continue reading

About the Authors:

Katherine E. Charonko is Bailey Glasser’s Electronically Stored Information & Technology Practice Group Leader who she provides strategic guidance in some of the nation’s most complex and consequential litigation and is part of national trial teams in state and federal courts across the country. Ms. Charonko is nationally ranked in the Chambers USA, USA Nationwide-Product Liability: Plaintiffs category and was named a 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigator in America. She was also named a 2026 winner of the Legaltech / ALM 2026 Monica Bay Women of Legal Tech Award.

Elizabeth L. Stryker is a litigator and member of the firm’s ESI & Technology Practice Group. Ms. Stryker was named a 2025 Lawdragon 500 X – The Next Generation as well as a Best Lawyers’ Ones to Watch, among other recognitions.

Two federal courts have issued rulings regarding whether a party’s use of generative AI tools were protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.The answer, as attorneys are all too familiar with, is that it depends.

In February 2026, two courts reached different conclusions, with one (in United States v. Heppner, 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), 2026 WL 436479 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026)) finding that a defendant’s use of an AI tool was not privileged or protected, and another (in Warner v. Gilbarco, Case No. 2:24-cv-12333, 2026 WL 373043 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026)) determining that a pro se litigant’s use of AI tools was protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

In the Second Circuit, a client’s use of generative AI tools to seek legal advice without direction from his counsel is likely not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. In Heppner, the court analyzed the attorney-client privilege in the context of the defendant’s use of AI tools to seek advice regarding a pending criminal investigation and found that the privilege did not apply for several reasons. The court opined that because the AI tool is not an attorney, then that alone disposed of his privilege claim. Heppner, 2026 WL 436479, at *2. Next, the Heppner court determined that the communications were not private and, therefore, not privileged. The court was persuaded by the AI platform’s privacy policy and found that the defendant had no reasonable expectation that his prompts to the AI tool would remain private. Id. at *3. Finally, the court examined the defendant’s actions and determined that he did not use the AI tool for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Id.

Read more here.

BG Lawyers Named to 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers List

Ten Bailey Glasser lawyers were named to this year’s list.

Continue reading

Bailey Glasser partners Brian A. Glasser, John W. Barrett, Katherine E. Charonko, Joshua I. Hammack, James L. Kauffman, Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Jonathan R. Marshall, D. Todd Mathews, Michael L. Murphy, and David L. Selby II were named to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list.

As Lawdragon stated in announcing the 2026 list:

This is the 8th edition of our guide to the lawyers who will fight for you when life delivers its harshest blows. They are the advocates who can win the medical care, insurance benefits and other compensation that can help to compensate for tragedy . . . .They and their fellow honorees inspire us, reminding us there are professionals who will fight for you when all seems lost. Who will take a stand against abuse, and seek changes that create a better future.

Learn more about their important work by following this link.

Partner Tad Duree Speaking About Litigation Funding on ABA CLE Webinar

This CLE is taking place on April 5, 2026, from 1-2 p.m. ET.

Continue reading

Bailey Glasser litigator Tad Duree is presenting at an American Bar Association CLE entitled: “Third Party Litigation Funding: Opportunities, Risks, and Ethical Guardrails.” The program is taking place on Thursday, April 5, 2026, at 1 p.m. ET.

Program description: “The program will cover jurisdictional variations on champerty and fee-sharing rules, how traditional loans and contingent arrangements differ in practice, best practices for client notice and consent, confidentiality and privilege concerns, and when disclosure to courts or opposing parties may be required. Participants will leave with an understanding of concrete contract provisions, client communication templates, and a checklist for vetting funders and funding terms.”

To learn more and to register, visit this link.

BG Named Law360 “Legal Lion of the Week” for Appeal Led by Joshua Hammack

This case will have significant implications for how streaming services and other platforms handle user data, and will affect the privacy rights of millions of Americans consumers.

Continue reading

Bailey & Glasser, LLP, has been named a Law360 “Legal Lion of the Week” for the appellate work spearheaded by partner Joshua I. Hammack. Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a hotly litigated case about the meaning of “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

As described by Law360:

Bailey & Glasser LLP roared after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider what criteria consumers must meet to sue under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, accepting a challenge to a ruling that said a Paramount digital newsletter subscriber could not bring a lawsuit. The justices granted Michael Salazar’s petition for a writ of certiorari asking the high court to determine whether the VPPA applies to consumers who subscribe to nonaudiovisual content, such as a digital newsletter. In a proposed class action, Salazar, who subscribed to a digital newsletter from Paramount Global’s 24/7 Sports, alleged illegal sharing of subscribers’ personal information with Facebook. Salazar is represented by Joshua Hammack of Bailey & Glasser.

To read the full Law360 article visit this link.

Partner Joshua I. Hammack led the appellate team, with valuable assistance from Michael L. Murphy, Nicholas S. Johnson, Allison A. Bruff, and Hallie H. Arena, as well as paralegal support from Manny Rios. The matter will now proceed to merits briefing and argument before the Supreme Court.

The VPPA was enacted in 1988, shortly after a local D.C. video store disclosed the rental records of Judge Robert Bork—who was then under consideration for a seat on the Supreme Court—to a journalist. The law broadly prohibits a video tape service provider from knowingly disclosing a consumer’s personally identifiable information without first obtaining that consumer’s consent. As most relevant here, the VPPA defines “consumer” to include a “subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” In this case, Paramount disclosed Mr. Salazar’s Facebook ID (a unique numerical identifier Facebook assigns to each user) and video-watching history to Facebook without his consent. Mr. Salazar sued, alleging Paramount’s conduct violated the VPPA. But both lower courts held Mr. Salazar was not a statutory “consumer” because he subscribed only to Paramount’s online newsletter, and not to its audiovisual goods or services. As a result, both lower courts dismissed his VPPA claim. Now the Supreme Court will decide the question.

This case will have significant implications for how streaming services and other platforms handle user data. And it will almost certainly affect the privacy rights of millions of American consumers.

Learn more about the case and appeal here.