SLATON TEXAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI

March 03, 2026 — Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery. Facts Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Risk Associated with Design-Build Project Delivery Method

October 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The design-build project delivery method is when the design-builder (typically the contractor) is responsible for both the design and construction of the project. Thus, the responsibility for both the design and construction falls under the same umbrella and, naturally, carries more risk. The discussion below demonstrates risk involved in the design-build project delivery method, particularly in the government contracting arena:

Design-build contracts are common for construction, renovations, and repair projects, where the government provides the contractor with its requirements, but the contractor is free to exercise its ingenuity in achieving that objective or standard of performance and selecting the means to do so. It is not uncommon for issues to arise in design-build contracts. One of the more common issues is when the contract describes a certain requirement, but later during the design process, the contractor will submit in the 35% or 100% design submittal with a lower requirement. The government will unknowingly approve that design, not realizing the contractor may have “slipped in” or made an error on one of the requirements; thus, the approved 100% design has a lower requirement as compared to the contract. In these situations, we have found that the government is justified in demanding the contractor provide the requirements specified in the RFP and resulting contract.

Thus, our long-held rule has been that the government cannot properly be blamed for approving the design when the contractor failed to inform the government that its design deviated from Task Order minimum requirements.

Appeals of - Meltech Corporation, Inc., ASBCA No. 61766, 2025 WL 2166133 (ASBCA 2025) (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

A New Vision for Safety: Construction Safety Week’s Five-Year Plan

February 17, 2026 — Adam Jelen - Construction Executive
Construction Safety Week has long been a powerful show of force—a catalyst for bringing the industry together and focusing on the critical importance of health and safety. Over the last decade, we’ve made meaningful strides: advancing best practices, transitioning from hard hats to helmets, shedding light on vital issues such as mental health, fostering a culture of care and accountability and creating partnerships and initiatives that improve jobsite safety. Building on the progress we’ve made, we’ve launched a bold five-year vision to bring everyone together with trust and respect and to drive alignment in how safety is understood, owned and engineered at every step of the project. This is an industrywide effort to further deepen the culture of care centered around respect for the skilled craft and through all aspects of a project where all team members share this responsibility, this respect, across every phase: design, planning, construction and beyond. Reprinted courtesy of Adam Jelen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

50 State Matrices | 2026 Edition

March 03, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
GRSM’s 50 State Legal Matrices provide a comprehensive, state-by-state snapshot of statutory law across all 50 U.S. states. Spanning critical areas such as indemnification, contractor licensing, labor standards, statute of limitations, and more, this resource enables businesses and counsel to quickly identify key legal requirements and variations across jurisdictions. Designed as a practical starting point rather than definitive legal advice, the Matrices help multi-state operators and attorneys navigate the complex patchwork of laws that can vary dramatically from one state to another. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Florida’s Proposed HB 255: A Quiet Shift That Could Reshape Condo Defect Liability

January 21, 2026 — Matt Maranges - ConsensusDocs
In Florida, developers and contractors work under strict clocks. Section 95.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, sets two firm deadlines for construction claims: a four-year statute of limitations and a seven-year statute of repose. Those timelines govern when an owner or condominium association may pursue claims for alleged defects. Once the repose period ends, the claim is barred regardless of when the problem surfaced. Condominium law complicates that scheme. Section 718.124 delays the start of the limitation and repose periods on association claims until control of the board shifts from the developer to the unit owners. The logic is simple: a developer-controlled board cannot be expected to sue the developer. The practical effect is more sweeping. If turnover occurs late in the life of a project, the repose period may remain tolled for years, extending exposure far beyond the seven years that apply everywhere else. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Maranges, Jones Walker
Mr. Maranges may be contacted at mmaranges@joneswalker.com

---

Compass, Zillow Take Feud Over Home Listings Into NYC Court

December 15, 2025 — Chris Dolmetsch & Paulina Cachero - Bloomberg
Two heavyweights in the US residential real estate market, Compass Inc. and Zillow Inc., are facing off in a New York courtroom in a legal battle that could reshape the future of how homes are marketed and sold in the country. Compass, the largest residential brokerage, sued Zillow in June claiming the real estate site acts anticompetitively by banning listings that were publicly marketed elsewhere first. A four-day hearing began Tuesday before a federal judge who will decide whether to temporarily block Zillow’s policy while the lawsuit proceeds. The dispute is the latest in a long-running fight over who controls the most valuable asset in real estate: information. Compass has built a private listings network allowing sellers to quietly market homes with its own agents before posting on public multiple listing services (MLS). It argues the strategy lets sellers test demand and pricing without leaving a record on the MLS that could hurt future sales. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg and Paulina Cachero, Bloomberg Read the full story...

---

Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy

March 10, 2026 — Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, T. Troy Galan & Thomas Williams - Snell & Wilmer
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA. For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com> Read the full story...

---

Super Lawyers Names Five White and Williams LLP Attorneys to its Metro New York Lists

December 02, 2025 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP is proud to announce that five attorneys in the firm’s New York City office have been recognized on the 2025 Metro New York Super Lawyers and Rising Star lists. This recognition highlights our attorney's exceptional legal acumen, and their commitment to client service excellence. Lawyers are selected for inclusion in Metro New York Area Super Lawyers and Rising Stars through a process that considers independent research, peer recognition and the professional achievements of attorneys from more than 70 practice areas. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---