bloomberg law: Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Files Landmark Challenge to Defend Local Democracy in New York
NEW YORK – October 30, 2025 — Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors filed a lawsuit today challenging the constitutionality of New York’s Even Year Election Law (“EYEL”), a 2023 statute that forces many local elections to coincide with federal and statewide contests beginning in 2025.
The case is brought on behalf of the New York Republican State Committee, along with the Nassau County Republican Committee, the Suffolk County Republican Committee, and a coalition of counties, towns, and elected officials from Nassau, Suffolk, and Orange Counties.
The law, enacted in December 2023 and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul, mandates that nearly all county and town offices move from their historic odd-year elections to even-year ballots crowded with federal and statewide contests.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip Division), argues that the EYEL violates the First Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by suppressing local political speech, increasing racial polarization, and undermining the independence of self-government.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the EYEL before it takes effect in the 2026 election cycle.
“The Even-Year Election Law is unconstitutional and undemocratic,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “It is an attempt to drown local voices, burden political speech, and erode the connection between voters and their local governments.”
He added, “This case is about preserving the opportunity for local candidates to address local issues without being overpowered by the national noise machines. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, to serve, and to be heard in every town, in every county, and in every corner of this state.”
Contact:
Ali Dukakis, Director of Communications
Office: 212-527-2580
Cell: 202-440-1198
Read more here.
Bloomberg Law: Brewer Client Richard Solit Files Suit Alleging Fraud and Breach of Contract Against New York Attorney
October 28, 2025 – Bloomberg Law reports that Dr. Richard Solit, an experienced investor, filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, against New York attorney Edward J. Lake and his firm, The Law Office of Edward J. Lake, P.C. d/b/a The Lake Law Firm. The suit alleges a pattern of misconduct related to a mass-torts litigation finance venture.
The suit alleges that Lake induced certain entities that Dr. Solit was affiliated with to invest $1 million in a mass-tort portfolio and $4.25 million in an Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERC) portfolio by falsely presenting themselves as experts in the field and later, making grandiose promises to secure additional funding. The suit further alleges that Lake and his firm failed to deliver the promised case portfolios and later attempted to address the shortfalls through replacement agreements that were never fulfilled.
According to the filing, Lake further represented that his firm was in financial distress, and requested that Dr. Solit provide $950,000 in loans to keep the firm operational. Dr. Solit alleges that it only recently became clear that defendants never intended to repay these loans and did not do so.
“Dr. Solit is pursuing justice after discovering that Ed Lake and his firm misused investment funds and his confidence in an attorney was exploited,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. “Dr. Solit intends to ensure that those responsible are held to account under the law.”
The complaint asserts that Lake’s actions violated his contractual and fiduciary duties, undermining the standards of integrity expected of those entrusted to manage client and investor funds.
Read more here.
Law360 and American Lawyer: Brewer Client Sylvia Benito Files Suit Alleging Fraud and Contract Breaches by New York Attorney
October 21st, 2025 – Law360 and American Lawyer report that a lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, details what the complaint describes as a series of schemes by attorney Edward J. Lake and his firm, The Law Office of Edward J. Lake, P.C. d/b/a The Lake Law Firm, to mislead investors and misuse millions in litigation-finance funds.
Filed on behalf of Sylvia Benito, a Florida-based investment professional, the suit alleges that defendants cultivated investor confidence through claims of guaranteed returns and proprietary case-acquisition models in the mass-torts litigation finance space. According to the complaint, those assurances masked a pattern of financial misconduct, including the diversion of investor funds and the use of new investments to pay off prior obligations.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive trust. Benito seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as disgorgement of profits allegedly earned through her investments.
According to the filing, Benito and her associates invested more than $15 million with Lake Law. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to deliver on the case portfolios promised and later induced Benito to provide additional funding under false pretenses, including loans totaling more than $1 million that were never repaid.
The lawsuit also alleges that Benito personally invested $1.5 million to acquire Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERC) claims, only to discover that Lake instead purchased those claims for himself while characterizing her investment as a loan. The complaint contends that this deprived her of any potential return and reflected a broader pattern of deception.
“Our client seeks to hold a lawyer accountable for betraying the trust of investors and misusing their money under the guise of legal expertise,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. “Ms. Benito seeks justice for herself and the many others who were deceived by false promises and fraudulent guarantees.”
According to the filing, Lake’s actions not only violated his contractual obligations but also abused the position of trust he held with investors, who relied on his representations of expertise and integrity. The complaint calls for compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the imposition of a constructive trust over assets belonging to Lake and his firm.
Law360: SCOTUS Leaves Title VII Split on Unpaid Workers
October 6, 2025 – Law360 reports today that the Supreme Court declined to review Wells v. Texas Tech University, leaving unresolved an important question in civil rights law: whether unpaid workers are protected from discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Wells alleged that Texas Tech professors Samuel Prien and Lindsay Penrose sexually harassed and bullied her during her time as a student and research assistant, and later retaliated by undermining her startups and having her removed as a mentor in 2022. She also claimed that Prien misused her companies’ confidential data and deprived her of royalties by licensing related patents without consent.
The district court dismissed her case in 2024, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in 2025, finding that unpaid mentors lacked the protections of Title VII.
Dr. Wells’ petition asked the Court to reconcile conflicting federal rulings that determine who qualifies as an “employee” under Title VII. In some jurisdictions, unpaid interns, researchers, and volunteers can seek redress for harassment and retaliation; in others, they cannot.
Although the Court’s decision leaves this disparity intact, Dr. Wells’ case brought national attention to the millions who perform meaningful work without pay – and to the urgent need for reform that ensures all workers, paid or unpaid, enjoy equal dignity under the law.
William A. Brewer III, counsel for Wells, said in a statement to Law360 that his client “is appalled that the Supreme Court declined review for herself and the many others who are left unprotected.”
He said, “Title VII protections must extend to unpaid workers. Dr. Wells’ stand against Texas Tech gave voice to millions of unpaid workers. Her efforts underscore a problem that must be remedied.”
Read more: https://www.law360.com/articles/2396307/justices-skip-unpaid-texas-tech-mentor-s-retaliation-suit
Brewer Foundation Announces Partnership with Texas Southern University Debate Team
October 2, 2025 — The Brewer Foundation proudly announces a partnership with the Texas Southern University (TSU) Debate Team, a world-class program from one of the nation’s premier Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Renowned for academic excellence, the TSU Debate Team will bring its internationally recognized debaters into the heart of the International Public Policy Forum (IPPF), where they will serve as judges during the competition’s 25th anniversary season.
Founded in 2001 by the Brewer Foundation and now jointly administered with New York University (NYU), the IPPF is the only global debate competition that invites high school students to compete in both written and oral debates on pressing issues of public policy. For a quarter century, the IPPF has given students worldwide the chance to sharpen their critical thinking, research, and advocacy skills while tackling subjects of global consequence.
“The IPPF was founded to connect the best young minds with the issues that shape our world,” said William A. Brewer III, chairman of the Brewer Foundation and founder of the IPPF. “The Texas Southern University Debate Team is a championship program, recognized for its competitive excellence. The team's involvement with IPPF is a plus for the tournament and its participants.”
The competition begins annually in October, when teams submit qualifying round essays. The top 64 teams advance into a single elimination written debate tournament, volleying essays via email. Judges evaluate each round of written debate, narrowing the field from 64 teams to 32, then 16, and finally to the “Elite Eight” teams. Those eight teams earn an all-expenses-paid trip to New York City in April 2026 to compete in the IPPF Finals, where the IPPF World Champion will be awarded the $10,000 grand prize and the coveted “Brewer Cup.”
As part of this new partnership, TSU Debate Team members will collaborate directly with the NYU CEDA Debate Team and its director, Will Baker, to evaluate written debates from IPPF teams around the globe. This season, IPPF teams will contend with one of the most complex issues of our time: how to ensure global access to a quality education.
“We are thrilled to welcome Texas Southern University’s debaters as judges,” said Baker, who also serves on the IPPF Advisory Board. “Their reputation for excellence will enrich the IPPF experience for competitors worldwide.”
The announcement follows TSU’s recent triumph at the 35th annual International Forensics Association World Championship in South Korea, a victory that reaffirmed its place among the elite debate programs in the world.
Dr. Gloria Batiste-Roberts, coach of the TSU Debate Team, reflected on the partnership: “We are honored to join the Brewer Foundation and NYU in this effort. Our students are eager to share their skills and talents and to give back, mentor younger debaters, and uphold the intellectual rigor that defines competitive forensics.”
As the IPPF celebrates its 25th year, this partnership with the TSU Debate Team underscores its mission: to inspire the next generation of thinkers and leaders by uniting diverse voices in pursuit of ideas that matter.
About the IPPF and the Brewer Foundation:
The IPPF was founded in 2001 by the Brewer Foundation and is now jointly administered with New York University. It is endorsed by leading forensic agencies, such as the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, the International Debate Education Association, the Impact Coalition, Associated Leaders of Urban Debate Leagues, and the National Debate Coaches Association.
The Brewer Foundation is a private, non-profit organization funded by companies, individuals and the national litigation firm of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. With offices in New York and Dallas, the Foundation has achieved widespread recognition for its efforts to create, fund and manage a variety of educational outreach programs.
Visit the IPPF at www.ippfdebate.com or www.instagram.com/ippfdebate.
Kansas City Business Journal: Court Rejects Polsinelli’s Motion to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment Case
September 25, 2025 – The Kansas City Business Journal reports today that a federal judge in D.C. has denied a motion from Polsinelli law firm to dismiss a sexual harassment case and to compel arbitration.
As reported, “[former Polsinelli partner] Julia Rix filed suit in September 2023 in Washington, D.C., federal court against Kansas City-based Polsinelli and two senior partners in its New York office, Dov Scherzer and Gabriel Yomi Dabiri. She claimed that Scherzer and Dabiri, who were in positions to play an influential role in her advancement, subjected her to repeated sexual harassment and that she was fired after filing a complaint.”
The Journal reports that Judge Amir Ali denied Polsinelli's motions on September 18, finding that Rix's claims were legally sufficient to support a cause of action. He also ruled that the arbitration clause cannot be enforced because it would violate the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. The result: the lawsuit will continue and be litigated publicly.
“This ruling is important,” said William Brewer III, Rix's attorney and a partner at Brewer Attorneys & Counselors. “It affirms that victims of sexual harassment are entitled to the public scrutiny that comes with the judicial system. Julia has shown courage in standing up to Polsinelli.”
Read more here.
ABA Journal Reports on Key Developments in Polsinelli Lawsuit
September 24, 2025 – The ABA Journal reports today on key developments in the case of Brewer client Julia Rix against the Polsinelli law firm and two of its former partners.
As reported by the ABA Journal, “A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has refused to toss claims or to compel arbitration in a $20 million lawsuit alleging that Polsinelli retaliated against an international corporate attorney after she reported sexual harassment by two influential partners.”
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia ruled for the plaintiff in a September 18, 2025, opinion.
The ABA Journal reports, “Ali said Rix doesn’t have to arbitrate her sex harassment claims because of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which bans enforcement of agreements to arbitrate future claims involving sexual assault and harassment. He also said Rix plausibly alleged sexual harassment under the D.C. Human Rights Act and infliction of emotional distress under D.C. common law.”
In a statement to the ABA Journal, Brewer partner William A. Brewer III said the decision on arbitration “affirms that victims of sexual harassment are entitled to the public scrutiny that comes with the judicial system. Julia has shown courage in standing up to Polsinelli. Her decision to do so is now translating into protection for her and others.”
The article follows reporting in the National Law Journal, Law 360, and Bloomberg Law.
Read more here: “Sexual harassment suit against Polsinelli continues, without arbitration, after judge’s ruling,” ABA Journal
Law360, Bloomberg Law, and the National Law Journal: Federal Court Rules Against Polsinelli in Sexual Harassment Case
September 19, 2025 — Law360, Bloomberg Law, and The National Law Journal report that Polsinelli PC and two former partners cannot compel arbitration or trim claims in a $20 million sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by Brewer client Julia Rix. On September 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali ruled that Rix plausibly alleges her claims and is not required to arbitrate the dispute.
“This ruling is important,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Rix. “It affirms that victims of sexual harassment are entitled to the public scrutiny that comes with the judicial system. Julia has shown courage in standing up to Polsinelli. Her decision to do so is now translating into protection for her and others.”
Originally filed in D.C. Superior Court in 2023, the lawsuit alleges that two male Polsinelli partners subjected Rix, a former attorney in the firm’s D.C. office, to repeated sexual advances, unwanted physical contact, and professional retaliation after she rejected their overtures.
Rix claims the partners tied access to business opportunities to her compliance with their demands, sabotaged her performance review, and influenced the firm’s decision regarding her career. Ultimately, she alleges she was terminated shortly after reporting the misconduct. Her claims span sexual harassment and retaliation under the D.C. Human Rights Act and Title VII, as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Polsinelli sought to dismiss the case, compel arbitration, and apply Missouri law. The Court rejected each defense. Regarding arbitration, Law 360 writes that "Judge Ali found that Rix is not required to arbitrate her sexual harassment dispute, noting that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act bars pre-dispute arbitration agreements from covering sexual assault or harassment disputes."
Judge Ali writes, “…the test for whether the EFAA applies is not whether claims are ‘inexorably intertwined’ or ‘rise or fall’ together; it is whether the claim is or ‘relates to’ a sexual harassment dispute. And on that test, the claim of retaliation for reporting sexual harassment is plainly covered.”