Additional information to follow. Please contact us to learn more.

Prior Forums:

Location, Location, Location: Strategies for Administering and Litigating Trusts Across State Lines (Sept. 16, 2025)

Maslon's Inaugural Forum on Wealth Management and Litigation (Sept. 12, 2024)

In “Hogwarts School of Risk Transfer: CG 20 10, CG 20 37, and the Grimoire of Additional Insurance,” Jevon and Leah invite attendees into the enchanted world of additional insured endorsements, where contracts cast spells and risk is transferred with the flick of a legal wand. This session demystifies the arcane language of CGL (Commercial General Liability) forms, teaching attorneys how to navigate the magical (and occasionally cursed) realm of coverage extensions.

To register, go to: MSBA Additional Insured Endorsements and Coverage Extensions CLE.

The session is also available on Zoom.

Jevon works with clients in a range of industries, with a focus on representing stakeholders in construction and real estate matters and assisting policyholders in insurance coverage disputes, including at the appellate level. He has established himself as a thought leader in the Minnesota legal community, co-authoring four volumes of the Minnesota Practice Series. Jevon is an associate fellow with the Construction Lawyers Society of America, and he received the national Holt Gwyn Writing Award in 2025 for best construction article by the American College of Construction Lawyers.

Leah has a decade of experience in complex commercial disputes, including construction and insurance matters. She practices in state and federal courts nationwide and also represents clients at the appellate level. Leah is an active member of the American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law and the ABA’s Litigation Section.

The court's opinion is a reminder that while federal investigative powers are broad, they are not unlimited. Nevertheless, whether you are an individual or a corporation, receiving a federal grand jury subpoena can carry significant consequences should you fail to properly protect your rights.

How Does the Grand Jury System Work?

The grand jury system serves as the main way federal prosecutors investigate crimes and obtain criminal indictments. Grand juries serve as a powerful tool by which prosecutors obtain documents and compel the testimony of witnesses, all without the presence of a defendant who might otherwise object or ask questions of their own.

Because the prosecutor controls the evidence obtained by and presented to a grand jury, indictments have become increasingly straightforward for prosecutors to obtain over the last several decades. The lack of defense presence and minimal burden of proof at the grand jury stage form the basis for the ubiquitous saying that a competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

Grand Jury as Gatekeeper

But the power of a grand jury ultimately belongs not to the prosecutor but to the grand jury itself. Grand juries are not intended to be a rubber stamp for prosecutions; rather, they are gatekeepers tasked under the U.S. Constitution with ensuring prosecutors do not abuse their powers. And, in the past year, grand juries have exercised some skepticism of prosecutions.

For example, a federal grand jury reportedly twice-refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, and a separate grand jury reportedly refused to indict democratic lawmakers that prosecutors were investigating for a video in which members of the military were instructed not to obey illegal orders.[2] In one of the most famous recent cases, a grand jury refused to indict a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent during a protest.[3]

What Is a Grand Jury Subpoena?

The grand jury subpoena is an investigative tool that allows prosecutors to compel people and entities to provide documents, evidence, and even testimony to assist with federal investigations and, ultimately, obtain criminal indictments. It is one of the most powerful tools of the grand jury process.

When a company or an individual receives a grand jury subpoena, they are compelled to participate in the government's investigation unless they can convince a court that the subpoena violates their rights or is in some other way defective. In those instances, subpoena recipients can file a motion with the court to quash—or cancel—the subpoena.

The recent grand jury ruling is a reminder that defense attorneys and the courts play an important role in safeguarding the grand jury process by moving to quash grand jury subpoenas and ruling upon the same.

When Courts Step In

Federal courts may agree to quash or modify a grand jury subpoena for a limited number of reasons. For example, a subpoena to someone being investigated for a crime may violate their Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and other constitutional protections.[4] Or, a subpoena may seek documents or information that are protected by an applicable privilege from discovery, such as the attorney-client privilege.[5] A court may also quash or modify a subpoena that seeks irrelevant information, is vague, overly broad, or that is unduly burdensome on the subpoena recipient.[6] In recent months, however, courts have increasingly agreed to quash subpoenas based upon a previously rare concern: that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose.

Grand juries have broad investigative powers and "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because [the Government] wants assurance that it is not."[7] But that power is not unlimited, and "[g]rand juries are not licensed to engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions, nor may they select targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass."[8]

In the past few decades, courts have found certain, rare instances where a grand jury subpoena should be quashed because it carries an improper (but not expressly malicious) purpose, such as trial preparation. Looking further back, there are rare examples from the civil rights era of courts limiting grand jury investigations based upon far more concerning conduct, such as a 1978 decision by the Fifth Circuit that limited an improper grand jury investigation into a Black citizens group that had criticized a prosecutor.[9]

Summing It Up: The Recent Ruling

The D.C. federal court's March 11 order reflects the fact that although findings of malicious intent and improper purpose are historically rare, they are increasingly considered and applied by federal courts. In this case, the court quashed grand jury subpoenas that had been issued to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as part of prosecutors’ criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.[10] The court based its decision, in large part, upon numerous tweets and public statements by the president that expressed anger towards Powell and a desire that he resign from his position as Federal Reserve Chairman.[11]

Applying case law that more often was used to determine whether a grand jury was being used for trial preparation, the court quashed the subpoenas because their "sole or dominant" purpose was improper.[12] The court found that the purpose of the grand jury investigation was to "sic prosecutions on people because the President dislikes them" and to "use criminal subpoenas as a form of official coercion" to get Powell to either resign from his position or acquiesce to the president's policy demands.[13]

As such, the court found that the grand jury investigation constituted one of those rare instances where an investigation was born out of an improper purpose with malice and intent to harass.[14] In quashing the subpoenas, the court effectively ended the government's investigation before it began.

We Can Help

If you or your company has received a federal grand jury subpoena, Maslon's investigations team is available to help you navigate the process and ensure your rights are not violated. Please contact us if you have questions or would like assistance.

[1] In re Grand Jury Subpoenas [Redacted], No. 26-mc-00012 (JEB) (D.C. Dist. Ct. Mar. 11, 2026).

[2] See Max Matza, Grand Jury Declines to Indict Letitia James for Second Time in a Week, BBC (Dec. 11, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrjj30vx8eo; Brandon Drenon, Grand Jury Declines to Charge Democrats in 'Illegal Orders' Video, BBC (Feb. 11, 2026), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2jnyy2yyo.

[3] Alan Feurer et al., Prosecutors Fail to Obtain Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent, New York Times (Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/us/politics/trump-sandwich-assault-indictment-justice-department.html.

[4] In re Grand Jury, John Doe No. G.J.2005-2, 478 F.3d 581, 585 (4th Cir. 2007) ("Rule 17(c) offers a vehicle for a subpoenaed party to assert a constitutional, statutory, or common-law privilege.")

[5] In re Green Grand Jury Proceedings, 492 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2007 ("Attorney-client communications and attorney work product are privileged and are not ordinarily discoverable—even by the grand jury.")

[6] John Doe, 478 F.3d at 585.

[7] United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991).

[8] Id.

[9] Ealy v. Littlejohn, 569 F.2d 219, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1978).

[10] In re Grand Jury Subpoenas [Redacted], No. 26-mc-00012 at 3.

[11] For example, "Jerome 'Too Late' Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of the Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . . Put another way, 'Too Late' is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!" Id. at 1 (quoting Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (July 31, 2025, at 7:11 AM), https://perma.cc/PX9L-RPSD).

[12] Id. at 10.

[13] Id. at 16.

[14] Id. at 22.

The current cohort is once again the largest in UPLIFT's history, with the addition of Roseville Area High School and a total participation of 93 students. To date, 414 school students have completed the program, which is free of charge.

Launched by Maslon in 2017, UPLIFT is a legal diversity pipeline nonprofit serving middle and high school students reflecting the rich diversity of the Twin Cities. The afterschool mock trial program is taught by volunteer attorneys and law students who meet with participating students throughout the academic year, teaching them about criminal trials, rights, and the legal profession. Participation in the program helps students build confidence, develop analytical and speaking skills, foster long term vision, and create a framework to pursue academic excellence in high school.

This year's participants were assigned to teams representing either the prosecution or defense in the fictional case of State of Minnesota v. Coco St. Clair, which involves a fatal shooting that occurred during a dress rehearsal of an original play titled Burr during the famous Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel. To lend authenticity to the experience, students presented their cases before sitting Minnesota judges, including Maslon alumnus Martin Fallon of the First Judicial District, Mariam Mokri and Bridget Sullivan of the Fourth Judicial District, Der Yang of the Second Judicial District, and Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge JaPaul Harris. Volunteer coaches from Maslon included Nate Ajouri, Clayton Carlson, Gioia Gentile, Evan Nelson, Terry Newby, Renee Rice, and firm alum Cooper Ashley.

"The UPLIFT mock trial program serves as an opportunity for Twin Cities youth to see themselves as attorneys—at a time in their lives when it's soon enough to make a difference for their future," said Maslon Public Interest/DEI Counsel CB Baga. "The students grow so much throughout the year, finding their voice, developing their insights, and standing on their feet in the courtroom. Our volunteers are able to work closely with the students on their teams in a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio, which results in meaningful mentorship. The conversation starts with preparing for this first trial, and quickly develops into how to prepare for high school, college—and by the end of the season, the path to law school."

UPLIFT was founded by former Maslon attorney Catherine Ahlin-Halverson.

Confidential client communications with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice are privileged. In litigation, an opposing party cannot discover these communications unless privilege is waived. Privilege belongs to the client, so when clients disclose attorney-client communications to a third party, they typically waive that privilege. Separately, attorney work product is information generated for litigation either by an attorney or at an attorney's direction, which could include documents created by a client. Work product privilege can be waived if the information is disclosed to a third party or if its confidentiality is not protected.

Clients may want to use AI to organize or develop their thoughts on legal matters and to ask legal questions short of discussing everything with counsel. Potential issues arise when clients upload attorney work product or otherwise privileged communications (e.g., a draft brief or an email) into public AI large language model tools like ChatGPT or Claude. This kind of use raises questions about whether a client's disclosure of attorney communications or work product in public AI tools constitutes disclosure to a third party that waives applicable privileges. It also raises questions about whether clients' use of generative AI platforms creates privileged work product.

Federal courts are developing a framework for analyzing privilege in this context, but the picture is not yet clear. Two cases from February 2026 illustrate this developing case law. First, United States v. Heppner held that a client's communications with public AI platforms, like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, are neither protected by attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. --- F.Supp.3d ---- (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026). Second, Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., held that a client's use of AI tools for drafting assistance constitutes protected work product that opposing parties cannot discover. 2026 WL 373043 (S.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026).

The Heppner Decision: Rejection of AI Privilege Protection

The Southern District of New York's decision in United States v. Heppner may be the first federal court decision to comprehensively address privilege issues in AI contexts, describing it as "a question of first impression nationwide." The court rejected both attorney-client privilege and work product protection for a client's communications with Claude, establishing a framework that likely applies to other public AI platforms.

In the criminal proceeding, the defendant had used Claude after receiving a grand jury subpoena to prepare "reports that outlined defense strategy." He input information he had learned through attorney-client communications, created the reports to have more efficient meetings with his attorney, and shared the AI product with his attorney.

The court held that the communications were not between client and attorney because "Claude is not an attorney" and no attorney-client relationship exists with AI platforms. The court rejected arguments that AI platforms function like other software tools, explaining that recognized privileges require "a trusting human relationship" with "a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline," which cannot exist with AI platforms.

For work product protection, the court found that AI-generated documents were not "prepared by or at the behest of counsel" and did not "reflect defense counsel's strategy" at the time of creation. The defendant created the documents "on his own volition," meaning he was not acting as counsel's agent. Ultimately, the court ordered disclosure of his prompts and the AI product to the prosecution.

The Warner Decision: Protection for AI Usage as Work Product

The Eastern District of Michigan's decision in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., took a different approach, holding that a litigant's use of AI tools for drafting assistance constitutes work product protected from discovery. The court denied a motion to compel production of information concerning plaintiff's use of third-party AI tools in connection with the lawsuit, finding that such information was not discoverable.

The court characterized AI platforms as "tools, not persons" and explained that work product waiver requires disclosure "to an adversary or in a way likely to get in an adversary's hand." Because AI tools like ChatGPT are not adversaries, and defendants presented no evidence that the plaintiff's use of AI made it likely that defendants would access the protected information, the court found no waiver.

The Warner court's protective approach applied standard work product doctrine to prevent discovery of the plaintiff's litigation preparation methods, including AI usage. The decision does not address attorney-client privilege waiver or situations involving more extensive AI data sharing that might substantially increase adversary access to protected information.

Takeaway: Be Cautious While Case Law Develops

AI is a valuable tool, but clients and attorneys must also understand its risks.

The distinction between public and private AI platforms appears crucial for privilege analysis. Public platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, and others typically involve data sharing that courts may view as third-party disclosure. Enterprise or private AI solutions with stronger confidentiality protections may receive different treatment, though no federal court has yet addressed this distinction directly. Clients and attorneys should be especially cautious when using public AI platforms, and they should have a discussion at the outset of their relationship about the topic to ensure otherwise privileged information is not inadvertently disclosed.

Second, clients should bear in mind the uncertainty in this developing case law. A court might determine that the client's usage of AI—not only the prompts used but also the resulting AI-generated content—is discoverable. It is best practice to consult with your attorney before using generative AI and inform your attorney about your AI usage.

We Can Help

Maslon's attorneys are ready to answer your questions about how to use generative AI while steering clear of potential privilege pitfalls.

To learn more about the organization’s work, go to: Groundwork Legal.

Bill has been a trial lawyer at Maslon for more than five decades. He has tried hundreds of business disputes before judges, juries, or arbitrators, and he also has argued dozens of appeals in state and federal courts. He has practiced nationally in the areas of non-compete, trade secret, and unfair competition litigation, and he has tried and won intellectual property licensing and royalty disputes collectively involving over $1 billion. In addition, Bill has been a leading trial lawyer in Minnesota in the area of ownership and governance disputes in closely held corporations, limited liability companies, and partnerships.

Bill’s contributions to the Twin Cities community are legion. He currently serves as senior legal advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN), board member of the ACLU-MN Foundation, member of the Minnesota Supreme Court Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and board member for the MacPhail Center for Music.

Now in its 15th year, the LCLD Fellows Program has built a reputation for helping to launch mid-career attorneys into chief legal positions. As part of the year-long, multi-tiered professional development series, Melissa will be connected to LCLD's top leadership, including managing partners and general counsel from prominent organizations.

To learn more, go to: Leadership Council on Legal Diversity.

Melissa is an employment and business litigation attorney licensed to practice in California, Minnesota, and Arizona. Working out of both California and Maslon's primary office in Minneapolis, Melissa focuses her practice on the full spectrum of employment counseling and litigation matters in addition to business disputes involving non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, trade secrets, business contracts and torts, and unfair competition and trade practices.

Melissa also maintains a robust employment investigations practice. Her clients include multinational corporations, small businesses, and individuals, and she often serves as a trusted advisor in a wide variety of litigation matters in state and federal trial and appellate courts, arbitration, and mediation.

To learn more about the organization’s work, go to: Groundwork Legal.

At Maslon, Samantha specializes in government and internal investigations as well as complex business litigation. With extensive trial experience, she leverages her deep expertise to represent both corporations and individuals in high-stakes matters, including investigations, white-collar criminal defense, and complex civil litigation.

The ACTL is an invitation-only fellowship that strives to preserve and enhance trial practice, civility, professionalism, and the administration of justice through support of an independent judiciary, the rule of law, trial by jury, and access to justice.

Steve is a renowned trial lawyer with deep experience in high profile cases. He concentrates his work on high stakes criminal and civil litigation, government and internal investigations, and appellate practice. In his white collar criminal defense practice, Steve represents individuals accused of financial crimes involving health care, agriculture, and corporate embezzlement. As a business litigator, he represented Polaroid in a $300 million breach of contract dispute, ultimately securing a complete defense verdict following a two-week jury trial in February 2024. His investigations practice has included a high-profile investigation of a private security company holding a contract at a major NFL venue that resulted in its termination; a data security breach and IP theft conspiracy at a major automobile manufacturer; and internal investigations and government compliance on behalf of health care providers.

In 2021, Steve served as pro bono special prosecutor in the internationally televised homicide trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd.

David is a partner, vice chair of Maslon's Board of Directors and Executive Committee, and co-chair of Maslon's Construction & Real Estate Litigation Group. A skilled trial attorney and former federal prosecutor, he regularly represents clients in construction and insurance coverage disputes and a variety of commercial litigation. David is a Fellow of the American College of Construction Lawyers and the American College of Coverage Counsel—one of just three lawyers in the U.S. invited to join both organizations. David was recognized by Chambers USA as one of seven Minnesota lawyers ranked Band 1 for Construction (2025) and Best Lawyers as the 2026 Lawyer of the Year (top ranked attorney) for Construction Litigation in the Minneapolis region. Who's Who Legal/Lexology named him one of nine U.S. attorneys to receive the 2026 Client Choice Award for excellence in construction law and described him as "an impressive trial lawyer whose practice spans the spectrum of construction matters from insurance to payment claims." David was also listed by Lawdragon in its 500 Leading Litigators in America ranking for 2026.

Jason, partner and co-chair of the Construction & Real Estate Litigation Group, focuses his practice on representing clients from the construction, real estate, financial services, food, and railroad industries. He regularly appears in federal and state court on behalf of design-build firms, general contractors, architects, engineers, specialty contractors, suppliers, property management companies, real estate owners, and lenders. Jason has also been ranked by Chambers USA in construction law since 2016. Prior to joining Maslon in 2002, Jason honed his trial and appellate skills as a Naval Officer with the United States Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps, where he led several courts-martial, administrative hearings, and military appeals.

Attorney Carly Johnson served as co-chair of the effort, with captains Yujin Jang, Jill Petrovich, and Emily Taylor coordinating Maslon's fundraising.

Maslon attorneys have a long history of involvement in Legal Aid. Partner Julian Zebot serves as chair of the Fund for Legal Aid board, and attorney Mary Knoblauch has been a Fund for Legal Aid board member for more than two decades; she formerly served as chair.

To learn more about the organization, visit: Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid.

Anna Barton, litigation attorney, serves as an adjunct for a breakout discussion once a week in a spring course called Civil Litigation: Case Development and Discovery. Professor Craig Roen teaches the plenary session.

Samantha Bates, litigation attorney, teaches the full-year course Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Moot Court. This is her second year.

Andy Jacobson, real estate attorney, has taught Real Estate Transactions in the fall semester since 2023. He previously taught the course at the University of St. Thomas School of Law for 20 years.

Jim Long, litigation attorney, has taught Antitrust Law each spring for the past four years. He taught courses previously at Mitchell Hamline and Hamline law schools.

Annika Misurya, litigation attorney, is teaching two spring courses: Modern Discovery Strategies and Technologies, an upper-level seminar, and Law in Practice, a 1L experiential learning course.

Michael Sampson, chair of the Estate Planning Group, teaches Wills, Trusts & Estates, typically in the fall, as he has done for four years. He previously taught courses for 14 years at Mitchell Hamline and Hamline law schools.

Melissa has extensive experience helping clients protect and grow their business in a competitive marketplace. Licensed to practice in Minnesota, California, and Arizona, she focuses her practice on the full spectrum of employment counseling and litigation matters in addition to business disputes involving non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, trade secrets, business contracts and torts, and unfair competition and trade practices.

Melissa also maintains a robust employment investigations practice. Her clients include multinational corporations, small businesses, and individuals, and she serves as a trusted advisor in a wide variety of litigation matters in state and federal trial and appellate courts, arbitration, and mediation.

Maslon’s founding story is one of considerable challenges and fierce determination—anchored by a profound commitment to Minnesota.

Upon graduating from Harvard Law School in 1923 and clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, firm namesake Samuel H. Maslon built his own successful practice as a corporate and tax attorney after he was denied opportunities at the established firms in his hometown of Minneapolis, where anti-Semitism ran deep.

Meanwhile, three other prominent Jewish attorneys, Sidney Kaplan, Hyman Edelman, and Sheldon Kaplan, formed a partnership in 1946 that expanded in 1956 to include Sam Maslon, Roger Joseph, and Marvin Borman—which then became Maslon, Kaplan, Edelman, Joseph & Borman.

Today, over 80 attorneys practice at Maslon across corporate & securities, estate planning, financial services, labor & employment, real estate, and litigation—with nationally known practices in tort & product liability, insurance recovery, and construction and real estate litigation. Individuals, closely held companies, and large multinational corporations alike trust Maslon to develop forward-looking legal strategies that will advance their most important goals.

Along with providing exemplary legal services, Maslon proudly sustains the values inspired by its founders: respecting diversity, taking care of firm members, and giving back to the broader community—including through pro bono legal service to protect both individual rights and the collective rights of the disadvantaged.

“Maslon has always been a forward-looking firm—for the clients whom we have been so privileged to serve, for our people, for our profession, and for our community,” said Firm Chair Keiko Sugisaka. “On our 80th anniversary, we reaffirm our commitment to the values that have made us who we are today, and we look forward to continuing our legacy of service and excellence to our clients and community for many years to come.”

Over the decades, Maslon attorneys have played key roles in city, state, national, and international history. Sidney J. Kaplan served as a prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following WWII, at which Nazi leaders stood trial for their crimes. Hy Edelman served in the mid-1940s on then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey's Council on Human Relations, which drafted the nation’s first municipal fair employment law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or color. Bill Pentelovitch represented plaintiffs in litigation to desegregate the Minneapolis Public Schools in the 1970s.

More recently, in 2020, after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, Steve Schleicher was asked by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to serve as pro bono special prosecutor for the state of Minnesota in the prosecution of former police officer Derek Chauvin—culminating in a six-week trial in 2021 that was broadcast worldwide. The jury convicted Chauvin on all counts, and the U.S. Supreme Court later rejected Chauvin's appeal of his conviction. Maslon was honored to support Steve and the team that assisted him—primarily Stephanie Laws and David Suchar—who dedicated more than 2,800 pro bono hours to the effort.

Other landmark matters include defending the designer of the collapsed I-35W bridge, the single most catastrophic transportation event in Minnesota; securing nearly $200 million in insurance proceeds for the settlement of the clergy abuse claims brought against the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis; obtaining a precedent-setting multimillion-dollar trial verdict on behalf of a class of hourly Walmart workers alleging violations of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act; facilitating the transactions that established Indian gaming in Minnesota; supporting the founding and growth of some of the largest restaurant groups in the country; serving as outside general counsel to some of Minnesota’s largest nonprofit institutions; and assisting one of the country's largest financial institutions in obtaining billions of dollars of settlements on behalf of RMBS trusts it administered following the 2008 housing market collapse.

Maslon has also led the way in fostering a legal profession that reflects the rich diversity of the community it serves. In 1973, Maslon was one of the first major law firms in Minnesota to hire women attorneys; in 2003, it was the first to elect a woman, Terri Krivosha, as chair; and in 2021, with the election of Keiko Sugisaka, it was the first firm to elect a BIPOC woman to that role. Today, one-third of Maslon’s partnership and half of its leadership are women. And since 2017, the firm has given more than 320 young people from diverse backgrounds meaningful exposure to the practice of law through UPLIFT Legal Institute for Teens—a nonprofit that Maslon founded to provide free, after-school mock trial programming to middle and high school students.

In addition, Maslon is one of just a few of the largest Minnesota law firms to resist merger, a decision of which firm members are particularly proud. “After 80 years, we still believe that our independence preserves our distinct culture and creates value for clients in the form of judicious staffing, competitive rates, and tailored service,” Keiko said.

Never a firm to rest on its laurels, Maslon looks forward to many more years of serving its clients, investing in its people, and improving access to justice.

Since joining Maslon in 2018, Erin has been an integral part of both the commercial lending and corporate trust practice teams, leading or co-leading the documentation and closing of a number of highly complex commercial lending transactions. Most recently, she served as the lead attorney on a $300+ million syndicated secured loan transaction whose lead bank, our client, is among the top five in the U.S. The transaction involved a multi-jurisdictional group of borrowing entities located in the U.S., UK, Australia, and Brazil, making it necessary to coordinate with local counsel and to work through local law aspects in each jurisdiction. The transaction successfully closed in August 2025.

Erin’s corporate trust work involves defaulted or distressed corporate, municipal, or structured debt products. She counsels indenture trustees with respect to the administration of their duties, negotiates forbearance arrangements, manages bondholder communications and dynamics, and seeks court instruction with respect to the administration of corporate trusts.

Erin was honored this year among the Top Women in Finance by Finance & Commerce. She has also been recognized by Super Lawyers among Minnesota Rising Stars in 2023-2025, a distinction given to only 2.5% of Minnesota attorneys each year.

CLC provides free legal representation and critical advocacy for children and youth in Minnesota’s foster care system. To learn more about the nonprofit's work, go to: Children's Law Center of Minnesota.

Leah focuses her practice on business litigation, insurance coverage disputes, and construction and real estate matters. She practices in state and federal courts nationwide and also represents clients in the appellate courts.

In March 2025, the Freeborn County sheriff unilaterally entered into an illegal 287(g) agreement with ICE. The 287(g) program offers partnerships between ICE and state and local agencies and attempts to turn local officials into ICE agents. 287(g) agreements purport to authorize select state and local law enforcement officers to identify, arrest, and process certain people for immigration enforcement and—ultimately—deportation.

A crucial feature of the 287(g) program is that the agreements can only be applied consistent with state and local laws, including the Minnesota Constitution. In Minnesota, it is illegal to hold individuals for ICE after they have been released from state custody. Minnesota also does not authorize state or local law enforcement to conduct civil immigration arrests. However, there have been multiple reports of these activities across the state.

Under 287(g) agreements, it is the county and its taxpayers—not ICE—who are legally and economically liable for the inevitable lawsuits that follow. Countless lawsuits have put county taxpayers on the hook to pay hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in liability when their sheriffs have unlawfully arrested and detained people at ICE’s request.

The four plaintiffs in this case—Jeremy Corey-Gruenes, Daphne Hamborg, Leslie Kaup, and Jim Margadant—are taxpayers in Freeborn County, and they are suing to challenge the unlawful expenditures of their tax money.

“Freeborn County has plenty of needs, and I am willing to pay for most of them,” said Corey-Gruenes. “But an unlawful agreement with ICE that spends uncompensated county tax dollars for our jail officers to work as ICE agents is not one of them.”

Maslon attorney Peter Hennigan said the illegal 287(g) agreement puts all of Freeborn County's taxpayers at risk. “We are proud to represent the four plaintiffs who have brought this lawsuit to stop the sheriff’s office and the county from taking illegal actions pursuant to their agreement with ICE,” he said. "We commend these four citizens for the courage that it takes to bring this lawsuit in our current political environment.”

Attorneys Anna Petosky, Bill Pentelovitch, and Carly Johnson and Paralegal Renee Rice of Maslon are also working pro bono on the case, with assistance from Legal Administrative Assistant Carla Staniforth.

ACLU-MN Legal Director Teresa Nelson said the message to law enforcement is simple: "You do not have legal authority to enforce civil immigration law," she said. “If you have signed or are considering signing a 287(g) agreement to insulate you from legal liability, you should reconsider because it will not exempt you from liability for violating state law and the Minnesota Constitution.”

To register, go to ACC MN Manufacturing Summit.

LOCATION

The Club at Golden Valley
7001 Golden Valley Rd
Golden Valley, MN 55427

AGENDA

1–1:30 p.m. | Registration

1:30–2:30 p.m. | Session 1: Managing Coverage, Liabilities, and Risk in Corporate Transactions

2:30–2:45 p.m. | Break

2:45–3:15 p.m. | Session 2: From Labels to Links: Defending Product Warnings and Instructions in the Digital Age

3:15–3:45 p.m. | Session 3: The CPSC Compliance Playbook: Requirements and Best Practices that Every Manufacturer Should Know

3:45–5 p.m. | Reception

Session 1: Managing Coverage, Liabilities, and Risk in Corporate Transactions

Corporate acquisitions, whether by merger or asset purchase, raise a host of critical insurance challenges, including coverage gaps, legacy liabilities, and policy compatibility between merging entities. This presentation highlights how these issues can affect valuation, risk allocation, and post-closing stability, and offers practical strategies to mitigate exposure by securing and accessing “inherited” insurance assets. Participants will gain a clear understanding of how insurance considerations shape both the structure and long-term outcomes of corporate transactions.

Presenter: Judah Druck, Partner, Maslon LLP

Session 2: From Labels to Links: Defending Product Warnings and Instructions in the Digital Age

From QR codes to YouTube videos, product-related warnings and instructions are rapidly changing in response to technology advancements and evolving consumer expectations. In this presentation, Maslon Partner Stephanie Laws will discuss current standards for product warnings, the risks presented to manufacturers, and strategies for successfully defeating failure-to-warn claims in 2025 and beyond.

Presenter: Stephanie Laws, Partner; Co-Chair, Tort & Product Liability Group; Maslon LLP

Session 3: The CPSC Compliance Playbook: Requirements and Best Practices that Every Manufacturer Should Know

When are product manufacturers required to report dangerous products and related lawsuits to the CPSC, and what are the consequences for failing to report? What are the pros and cons of completing a product recall through the CPSC’s Fast Track Recall Program, and what does participation in the program require? In this session, Maslon Partner Katie Maechler will answer these questions and more, providing attendees with practical strategies for remaining compliant with the CPSC and avoiding civil penalties.

Presenter: Katie Maechler, Partner; Co-Chair, Litigation and Tort & Product Liability Groups; Maslon LLP

Notably, Maslon was also included as a National Best Law Firm for Securities Regulation (Tier 2), and Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Litigation–Real Estate (Tier 3).

Collectively, 27 of Maslon’s practice areas were named on the overall list.

It is the 16th consecutive year that Maslon has been recognized as a Tier 1 Metropolitan Best Law Firm—that is every year since Best Law Firms began publishing. Achieving a tier ranking "signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise," according to Best Lawyers.

The full list of Maslon's ranked practice areas is below:

Minneapolis Best Law Firm Rankings:

Metropolitan Tier 1—

• Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
• Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
• Commercial Litigation
• Construction Law
• Insurance Law
• Litigation—Antitrust
• Litigation—Construction
• Litigation—Insurance
• Litigation—Intellectual Property
• Litigation—Real Estate
• Product Liability Litigation—Defendants
• Real Estate Law
• Securities / Capital Markets Law
• Securities Regulation
• Trusts & Estates Law

Metropolitan Tier 2—

• Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
• Corporate Law
• Employment Law – Management
• Franchise Law
• Litigation—Labor & Employment
• Litigation—Trusts & Estates
• Mergers & Acquisitions Law
• Tax Law

Metropolitan Tier 3—

• Antitrust Law
• Banking & Finance Law
• Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
• Litigation—Banking and Finance

National Best Law Firm Ranking, Tier 2:

• Securities Regulation

National Best Law Firm Ranking, Tier 3:

• Commercial Litigation
• Corporate Law
• Litigation—Real Estate

To view the full rankings, go to: Best Lawyers 2025 Best Law Firms Rankings.

Best Lawyers rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

Dany serves business clients in tort & product liability, insurance recovery, investigations, and general commercial litigation. Prior to joining Maslon, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable James B. Loken of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Dany earned his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. 

Ashley represents clients in employment disputes and general commercial litigation. She graduated summa cum laude from Mitchell Hamline School of Law and served as a law clerk for the Honorable Tracy M. Smith of the Minnesota Court of Appeals prior to joining Maslon.

Date: Oct. 8, 2025

Presenters:

• Evan Nelson, Partner, Trust & Estate Litigation Group, Maslon LLP
  Evan describes himself as a “death and dirt” lawyer. He represents clients in trusts and estate disputes, which often come to a head after a family member has died, and in real estate litigation, where clients dispute who owns and controls access to "dirt." Because the two often intersect, as people will gift land (or attempt to do so) via their wills or trusts, Evan’s distinct capabilities prove particularly beneficial. Trust and estate law is written to balance the interests of fiduciaries and beneficiaries. Evan has significant litigation experience representing both sides, and he enjoys using that experience to craft a successful litigation strategy tailored for either type of client.
• Nate Ajouri, Associate, Trust & Estate Litigation Group, Maslon LLP
  Nate helps fiduciaries and individuals navigate often complex probate and estate litigation matters. He also works with a broad spectrum of organizations in business, commercial, and municipal litigation. Nate is dedicated to helping clients through all stages of the process, working closely with them to achieve their goals. He often draws upon his experiences living and studying internationally to offer a unique perspective on his clients' concerns.
• Kelley Scrocca, Counsel, Estate Planning Group, Maslon LLP
  Kelley is a highly experienced trust and estate attorney who specializes in assisting ultra high net worth clients with estate planning, asset protection planning, and complex trust administration. She has represented a wide range of individuals, from professional athletes to ranch owners to members of the U.S. Congress. Kelley works closely with both clients and their families to understand their goals, facilitate wealth transfer, and establish an enduring legacy for future generations.

Continuing Education: Maslon will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 1.0 hour of standard CLE credit, and with American Bankers Association (ABA) Professional Certifications for the equivalent Certified Trust and Fiduciary Advisor (CTFA) credit.

To register, please contact us at info@maslon.com.

Chief Justice Hudson specifically called out Jim’s "substantial contribution of over 246 hours to the Legal Paraprofessional Pilot Project, which significantly advances access to justice for low-income Minnesotans." The statewide program, which allows approved Minnesota legal paraprofessionals to represent and advise clients in select matters with attorney oversight, was made permanent on Jan. 1, 2025. Jim served on the Legal Paraprofessional Pilot Project Standing Committee beginning with its establishment in 2020, helped provide recommendations for implementing and evaluating the program, and presented the oral argument to the Court in 2024 in support of adopting the committee's recommendation to make the program permanent.

Jim has over 40 years' experience trying cases and counseling businesses in the areas of antitrust law, franchise law, and dealer/distribution law. He has successfully represented clients in multiple state and federal courts across the country; successfully tried cases to juries in antitrust, franchise, dealer termination, and breach of contract cases; responded to state AG, DOJ, and FTC investigations; worked on numerous arbitrations; and argued appeals in the Seventh and Eighth Circuit appellate courts in addition to several state appellate courts.

Jim’s commitment to pro bono work has spanned decades and includes continued service with Children's Law Center of Minnesota, Volunteer Lawyers Network, the Fourth Judicial District's Pro Bono Mediation Project, and as a member of the Supreme Court's Legal Services Advisory Committee (LSAC) from 2021 to 2025. Jim has been a Minnesota State Bar Association North Star Lawyer since the program's inception and received the Hennepin County Bar Association 2016 Pro Bono Publico Distinguished Service Award.

Mansfield’s data-driven certification process ensures that all qualified talent has a fair and equal opportunity to advance into leadership roles. Since first participating in 2021, we have committed to making our advancement processes more transparent, to expanding talent pools for hiring and promotions, and to engaging meaningfully with the community of Mansfield Certified firms through a variety of programs—including monthly learning sessions to share best practices and collaborate on solutions to shared challenges.

We also appreciate that a U.S. federal court recently affirmed that Mansfield aligns with anti-discrimination laws, reinforcing the legal integrity and strength of our work alongside other Mansfield Certified firms.

Mansfield is a program of Diversity Lab, which leverages data and behavioral science to build talent systems that cultivate inclusive workplaces in the legal profession. Maslon shares Diversity Lab’s position that, by ensuring all lawyers have a fair opportunity to succeed, we are better equipped to serve our people, our clients, and our communities.

This half-day program in Minneapolis will feature two panel discussions on how to best serve high net worth clients with complex assets requiring multi-jurisdictional administration or litigation—with topics including situs, residency, and related tax issues, as well as venue and choice of forum in dispute resolution. Learn how to utilize residency to minimize taxes while avoiding audit issues and discover how being thoughtful about venue and location can play a game-changing role in trust disputes.

Agenda

• 9-9:30 a.m. | Registration & Breakfast
• 9:30-10:30 a.m. | Session 1: Where Is Your Heart's Home? Tax Residency Issues for Business Owners
• 10:30-10:45 a.m. | Break
• 10:45-11:45 a.m. | Session 2: "We're Not in Minnesota Anymore!" Administrative, Tax, and Litigation Considerations with Respect to Multi-Jurisdictional Trusts
• 11:45 a.m.-1 p.m. | Networking Lunch

Session 1 | Where Is Your Heart’s Home? Tax Residency Issues for Business Owners

Financial planning clients often have questions about residency and taxes—particularly when they are planning to sell or merge a business, or foresee another large income event, and when a trust is involved. The issue is more complex than many realize. What are the implications of timing? What does it really mean to “move” to another state? How are equity deals treated differently than asset deals? Attorneys Michael Sampson and Susan Markey have heard them all, from “Can I just park my RV in South Dakota and travel?” to “Why can’t I call my Lake Minnetonka mansion a cabin?” In this presentation, they discuss how a good estate plan and careful consideration of residency decisions can help clients minimize taxes when selling a business—while avoiding potential audit issues.

Speakers: Michael Sampson and Susan Markey, Maslon LLP

Session 2 | "We're Not in Minnesota Anymore!" Administrative, Tax, and Litigation Considerations with Respect to Multi-Jurisdictional Trusts

Many trusts with significant assets are multi-jurisdictional in nature, particularly where trust assets, trustees, and beneficiaries are located in different states. Our panel will discuss key considerations surrounding trust situs and jurisdiction. We will explore how conflicting state laws can affect trust administration, decanting and trust modification, fiduciary duties, and beneficiary rights, highlighting potential litigation risks (and opportunities) that may arise across jurisdictions. We will give special focus to the factors that may affect jurisdiction and venue in litigated matters, as well as tax situs implications, including state income tax exposure and planning opportunities. In this presentation, forum attendees will gain practical insights for advising clients and mitigating legal and tax risks in the administration of multi-jurisdictional trusts.

Speakers: Julian Zebot and Evan Nelson, Maslon LLP; Andrea Smith, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Registration

Please contact us to learn more.

Continuing Education

Maslon will seek approval with the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education for 2.0 hours of standard CLE credit, and with American Bankers Association (ABA) Professional Certifications for the equivalent Certified Trust and Fiduciary Advisor (CTFA) credit.

Joe focuses his practice on product liability litigation, successfully defending manufacturers in all stages of dispute resolution and litigation. He has significant experience with federal preemption of claims involving drugs and medical devices and testing and analysis of products subject to litigation. He also represents clients in complex business, intellectual property, and insurance coverage litigation.

Joe first joined Maslon in 2010 after earning his law degree, magna cum laude, from the University of Minnesota Law School. In 2024, he left the partnership for a year-long RV trip with his family.

Katie has nearly 20 years of experience as a litigator defending complex product liability matters in state and federal courts, and has successfully represented clients of varying sizes across a range of product industries. Maechler currently co-leads the Maslon team serving as national trial and coordinating counsel for a major diversified water treatment company in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from misuse of residential pool filters, as well as the written discovery team for a world-leading manufacturer’s national portfolio of PFAS litigation.

In 2023, Maechler was nominated for membership in the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC), a select group of attorneys of “high professional standing” open by invitation only. Since then, she has participated regularly in the organization's meetings and is serving on the planning committee for the annual Product Liability Roundtable taking place next month in New Jersey, where she will be a presenter.

To learn more, see Minnesota Lawyer: Top Women in Law.

Inclusion in Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch is based entirely on peer review. Best Lawyers uses a survey process designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

Those included in Best Lawyers for 2026 are:

Karen Bjorkman
Real Estate Law

Margo Brownell
Commercial Litigation
Insurance Law
Litigation – Insurance

Judah Druck
Insurance Law
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

John Duffey
Commercial Litigation

Bryan Freeman
Commercial Litigation
Insurance Law (Lawyer of the Year)
Litigation – Insurance

Matthew Frerichs
Litigation – Trusts and Estates
Trusts and Estates

Peter Hennigan
Commercial Litigation

Sarah Khoury
Trusts and Estates

James Killian
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Construction

Brian J. Klein
Banking and Finance Law
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law

Mark Klos
Banking and Finance Law

Mary Knoblauch
Employment Law – Management
Litigation – Labor and Employment

Jeffrey Koerselman
Litigation - Real Estate
Real Estate Law

Terri Krivosha
Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
Corporate Law

Jason Lien
Commercial Litigation
Construction Law
Litigation – Construction

James Long
Antitrust Law
Franchise Law
Litigation – Antitrust

Matthew Loven
Real Estate Law

Susan Markey
Corporate Law

Michael C. McCarthy
Commercial Litigation

William Mower
Mergers and Acquisitions Law
Securities/Capital Markets Law
Securities Regulation

Terrance C. Newby
Litigation – Intellectual Property

Martin Rosenbaum
Securities/Capital Markets Law
Securities Regulation

Michael Rosow
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Litigation – Banking and Finance
Real Estate Law

Michael P. Sampson
Trusts and Estates

Steven L. Schleicher
Commercial Litigation
Criminal Defense – White Collar

Jonathan Septer
Real Estate Law

David E. Suchar
Construction Law
Litigation – Construction (Lawyer of the Year)

Keiko Sugisaka
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Intellectual Property
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Amy Swedberg
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law

Clark Whitmore
Banking and Finance Law
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Financial Services Regulation Law

Julian C. Zebot
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Trusts and Estates (Lawyer of the Year)

Those included in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 are:

Nathaniel Ajouri
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Trusts and Estates

Anna Barton
Commercial Litigation
Insurance Law

Jevon C. Bindman
Appellate Practice
Construction Law
Insurance Law

Carmen Carballo
Commercial Litigation

Clayton Carlson
Commercial Litigation
Criminal Defense – White Collar

Katie Eisler
Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
Corporate Law

Carly Johnson
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Construction
Litigation – Trusts and Estates

Jessica Karp
Corporate Law
Mergers and Acquisitions Law

Jeremy Krahn
Commercial Litigation
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

David LaBerge
Real Estate Law

Abigail Maier
Commercial Litigation

Melissa Muro LaMere
Commercial Litigation
Labor and Employment Law – Management
Litigation – Labor and Employment

Evan A. Nelson
Commercial Litigation
Litigation – Real Estate
Litigation – Trusts and Estates
Real Estate Law

Jill Petrovic
Banking and Finance Law
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Real Estate Law

Matthew Schwandt
Corporate Law

Haley-Rose Severson
Commercial Litigation

Michael Sheran
Commercial Litigation

Erin Snyder
Banking and Finance Law

Emily Taylor (Liebman)
Commercial Litigation