William A. Brewer III Recognized Among Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law
August 10, 2026 – NEW YORK – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announces that founding partner William A. Brewer III has been named to Crain's list of New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
The annual recognition honors professionals whose leadership, vision, and contributions helped shape New York’s professional landscape. The 2026 honorees were selected by Crain's New York Business based on their professional achievements, leadership, and lasting impact within their industries and communities.
View the full list of 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law here.
Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Welcomes Back Noah Peters as Partner in New York
August 5, 2026 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors welcomes Noah Peters back to the Firm as a Partner in its New York office following his tenure in Washington revitalizing the federal workforce and shaping policy at the highest levels of the federal government.
Peters returns to Brewer after serving as Senior Advisor for Policy & Legal Affairs/Counsel at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, where he advised the OPM Director on federal workforce law, privacy & risk, administrative law, litigation, rulemaking, and government-wide implementation matters.
Before joining OPM, Peters was a Partner in the Firm’s Dallas office, where he handled high-stakes litigation and appellate matters. At Brewer, Peters played an important role in its representation of the NRA in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, the landmark 2024 Supreme Court case concerning government coercion of private parties to suppress disfavored speech.
Peters arrived at Brewer after serving as Solicitor of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, acting as the agency’s chief legal officer and chief litigation counsel. There, he represented the FLRA before the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts, successfully briefing and arguing federal appeals while securing dismissals in multiple district-court cases.
"Noah is an exceptional lawyer," said Firm Partner William A. Brewer III. "His work at the highest levels of government provides valuable experience in confronting difficult legal and policy questions. We are pleased to welcome him back."
Peters earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he also received an M.A. in American Legal History. He earned his B.A. in Politics and History from the University of Virginia.
Actress Cindy Latch Secures Contempt Orders Against Biote Witnesses and Tech Vendor Zoho in Image Misuse Lawsuit
Dallas — July 20, 2026 — A Texas court entered three contempt and sanctions orders in actress Cindy Latch’s lawsuit alleging the unauthorized commercial use of her name, image and likeness, finding “willful disobedience” of prior court orders and ordering additional discovery aimed at uncovering the full scope of the alleged misuse.
The rulings mark the latest development in Latch’s broader campaign to hold companies accountable for the continued use of her image and likeness after she revoked authorization in 2021.
In separate orders, the court initiated contempt proceedings against Biote representatives Kevin Key and Nancy Mamann – both represented by McKool Smith – following earlier discovery disputes regarding the witnesses' depositions. The court found both witnesses willfully disobeyed prior court orders, requiring them to return for the substantive completion of their depositions, produce additional documents, and pay Latch's attorneys' fees and costs.
In a third order, the court found marketing software provider Zoho Corporation’s discovery production “incomplete.” While Zoho produced records showing it transmitted take-down notices relating to Latch’s name, image, and likeness 8,517 times, the company provided zero information regarding the recipients.
The court also rejected Zoho’s argument that compliance was impossible, ordering the company to identify those recipients, produce additional records, and permit a forensic examination of all relevant systems.
“Defendants argued this information couldn’t be produced, and the court wasn’t persuaded,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Ms. Latch. “These orders compel the production of evidence which should have been produced from the beginning. Importantly, it moves us one step closer to determining the full scope of the unauthorized use of Ms. Latch’s name, image and likeness.”
Plaintiffs File Second Amended Complaint, Advancing FIrst Amendment Challenge to New York’s Even Year Election Law
Candidates from Four Counties Press Constitutional Case Against State Election Officials
New York — July 9, 2026 — Plaintiffs today accepted the court’s invitation to file a Second Amended Complaint in New York Republican State Committee, et al. v. Kosinski, et al., No. 2:25-cv-06083 (E.D.N.Y.), focusing their challenges to New York's Even Year Election Law ("EYEL") on the First Amendment. The second amended complaint names the individual commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections as defendants.
The Second Amended Complaint limits the case to a single First Amendment claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is brought by a coalition that includes the New York Republican State Committee, the Nassau and Suffolk County Republican Committees, the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways, Inc., and individual candidates from Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland counties.
"At its core, this case has always been about the protection the First Amendment provides for candidates seeking public office. The high court has repeatedly held that states may not change election rules to silence the voices it would rather not hear," said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.
"For more than a century, New York protected local elections as a forum where town and county candidates could speak directly to voters about local issues,” Brewer added. “The Even Year Election Law dismantles that protection and intentionally buries local candidates beneath the noise of national campaigns. We are confident that when the evidence is heard, the Constitution will not tolerate this deliberate suppression of local political speech."
Background on Challenge
Enacted in December 2023, the EYEL moves thousands of local elections outside New York City from odd-numbered to even-numbered years, consolidating town and county races onto the same ballots as federal and statewide contests. New York City's local elections were expressly exempted from the law's operative provisions.
Plaintiffs allege that the law was designed to submerge local candidates beneath high-salience national and statewide races — relegating them to what courts have termed "Ballot Siberia" — thereby inflating the cost of political speech, foreclosing traditional channels of candidate-voter communication, and translating the statewide majority party's advantage into control of local offices in counties where the minority party has historically competed on local issues.
The second amended complaint filing follows the June 29, 2026 order of Judge Gary R. Brown, which did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' central claim: that the Even-Year Election Law violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and political committees. The court granted leave to name the individual commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections as defendants in the Second Amended Complaint. Judge Brown dismissed claims against Gov. Kathy Hochul, the State of New York, and the New York State Board of Elections on jurisdictional grounds.
The Second Amended Complaint names as defendants the four commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections — Peter S. Kosinski, Anthony J. Casale, Henry T. Berger, and Essma Bagnuola — each sued in their official capacity for their role in administering and enforcing the EYEL.
Statements from Candidate Plaintiffs
Mazi M. Pilip - Candidate: County Legislator, Nassau
"I immigrated to this county to participate in a democracy where all voices deserve to be heard as part of the democratic process. The Even Year Election Law is a cynical attempt by extreme City Democrats to usurp the democratic process of localities and take away the voice of local municipal officials. Burying local issues and concerns, which are rooted in centuries of tradition, law and practice is wrong. I will fight with neighbors on Long Island and throughout the state for the rights and the voice of local voters."
John Ferretti - Candidate: Town Supervisor, Hempstead, Nassau
"Hempstead's candidates' messages are being intentionally smothered beneath the state and national election, making it cost prohibitive for local officials to share important information with voters on television, radio, streaming outlets, and other platforms. This calendar rig was designed to centralize power in Albany while drowning out local issues with national noise. New York City politicians in Albany have engaged in a craven power grab, which will make it impossible for local officials to have municipal issues heard by the public. Our town refuses to be sidelined; Hempstead will fight this affront to the suburban voters."
Jennifer DeSena - Candidate: Town Supervisor, North Hempstead, Nassau
"Albany forced me and other local officials onto a 2026 ballot engineered to submerge local candidates beneath the national roar and price us out of the conversation. We will not be silenced, and I will not let the families of North Hempstead be ignored. Local elections and municipal issues deserve to be decided and overseen locally, not by extreme New York City politicians in Albany."
Laura Ryder - Candidate: Town Councilmember, Hempstead, Nassau
"This bad law was engineered to usurp the voice of local residents and officials by City politicians in Albany's halls of power. That's not right. Albany Democrats should not control our local elections, thereby submerging local issues beneath the chorus of state and national issues, which dominate even year electoral contests. This attempt to bury local messages of municipal officials under a wall of national money cannot stand."
Elaine Phillips - Candidate: County Comptroller, Nassau
"Nassau taxpayers deserve a real, independent debate over how their hard-earned dollars are spent. Albany rigged the calendar to smother that debate beneath a flood of national special interest money. This is an expensive power grab designed to tighten Albany's grip on our local tax dollars – but it won't happen on my watch."
Raheem Soto - Candidate for County Legislature, Suffolk
"I've watched national special interests bury local truths and price honest, grassroots candidates off the airwaves. This is exactly what this law was engineered to do. This is a naked power grab, not public policy."
Jarod Morris - Candidate for County Legislature, Suffolk
"This Albany rig robs Suffolk residents of a real choice by intentionally burying our local candidates beneath national elections. I won't stand by and let Albany quiet our communities."
Laura Endres - Candidate for County Legislature, Suffolk
"As an attorney, I know a rigged system when I see one. This law was deliberately engineered to submerge local candidates beneath the national ticket and price them out of the debate entirely. It is a constitutional overreach that we will defeat in court."
Anthony Colavita - Candidate for Town Supervisor, Eastchester, Westchester County
"Eastchester voters chose me to lead in 2025 — yet Albany made me run again in 2026 on a ballot engineered to submerge local candidates. Democrats rigged the calendar to drown us out, but I won't back down. I'll fight for our town's voice and for our Constitution."
Lauren Marie Wohl - Candidate for Town Clerk, Clarkstown, Rockland County
"Albany rigged the election calendar to shove municipal offices like mine onto a national ballot where our messages are priced out of reach and our candidates are rendered invisible. That was their plan all along. I will not let Rockland County's voice be erased quietly. I will fight for the people of Clarkstown."
Statements from Party Leadership and Supporters
Joseph Cairo, Chairman, Nassau County Republican Committee
"Local issues and concerns, including municipal elections, should be controlled by local officials, not by New York City Democrats in the back rooms of the Capitol in Albany. State Legislators from New York City have obliterated the longstanding practice of having local elections stand on their own in odd year contests while they exempted their own boroughs in New York City. Changing the political calendar, dumping local officials into even year elections, alongside state and federal races will bury local officials and smother their messages at the bottom of statewide and national ballots. This effort to diminish the flow of information to voters is a partisan declaration of war on suburban democracy, and Nassau County will answer it. We will fight for our candidates, our taxpayers, and the First Amendment."
Jesse Garcia, Chairman, Suffolk County Republican Committee
"Suffolk Republicans still believe in winning elections the old-fashioned way: knocking on doors, carrying petitions, engaging voters, and earning trust one neighborhood, one block, and one family at a time. This misguided law was designed to bury that grassroots effort beneath a flood of outside money and political gamesmanship. Rather than changing their failed policies, Albany Democrats keep changing the election rules. Their agenda of defunding the police, coddling criminals, and imposing crushing taxes on Suffolk County's middle-class families continues to be rejected by voters at the ballot box. Instead of listening to the people, they tilt the election law to their favor. Albany may have rigged the calendar against us, but the Suffolk County Republican Committee does not retreat, and we do not surrender."
Jim Moriarty, Nassau County Republican Election Commissioner
"As Nassau's Republican Election Commissioner, the damage this law inflicts on our administrative integrity is plain to see: local candidates will be submerged at the bottom of massive national ballots, their voices priced out of reach. That's not voting reform; it's administrative chaos and a distasteful power grab by New York City Democrats who control the legislative agenda in Albany. What's more, the proffered reasons for the bad law are a ruse. Other ways to achieve its falsely stated goals were never pursued – and it was never true that it would save us any money."
Erin McTiernan, Suffolk County Republican Election Commissioner
"As Suffolk's Republican Election Commissioner, I see the direct fallout of this bad law: local candidates will be crowded onto massively long ballots, their races buried at the very bottom, and their messages drowned out. Suffolk's voters have a right to clearly see and hear the people running to serve their communities and interests. What's worse: the proffered reasons for the bad law are a ruse. Claims it would save us money are demonstrably false. This is just another power grab by Albany Democrats who want complete control, going as far as taking away the voice of New York voters."
Plaintiffs to Press First Amendment Challenge to New York's Even-Year Election Law
June 29, 2026 – A federal court cleared the way for the New York Republican State Committee, along with the Republican committees of Nassau and Suffolk counties, to move forward with their constitutional challenge to New York's Even-Year Election Law, granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in New York Republican State Committee v. New York State Board of Elections.
Also granted leave to move forward are several political candidates from four counties.
In today's order, Judge Gary R. Brown did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' central claim: that the Even-Year Election Law violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and political committees. The court granted leave to name the individual commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections as defendants in the Second Amended Complaint. Judge Brown dismissed claims against Gov. Kathy Hochul, the State of New York, and the New York State Board of Elections on jurisdictional grounds.
The First Amendment claim can now move forward against those commissioners. Plaintiffs commend the court's swift handling of the threshold issues.
"This decision clears the way for us to focus on the heart of the case," said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "The court resolves a set of preliminary questions and gives us a clear path forward. We intend to take it, and we are confident in the strength of our First Amendment challenge."
The Legal 500 Recognizes Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Among Top Boutique Firms for Commercial Disputes
June 15, 2026—Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors was selected to The Legal 500'sCommercial Disputes - Boutique Firms list for the first time.
As described by The Legal 500, the Firm is “praised for its ‘vast and varied experience’ in commercial disputes,” with William A. Brewer III, Josh Harris, and William A. Brewer IVreceiving special recognition.
Notably, William Brewer III was also named a Leading Partner in the category, described by The Legal 500 as "The strongest partners in their field… and endorsed by peers and clients alike."
The Firm was recognized in the Commercial Disputes - Boutique Firms category following an extensive ranking process based on peer and client feedback.
Clients praised the Firm’s capabilities, with one noting Brewer professionals provide "the knowledge and horsepower needed to handle all aspects of your legal needs.”
Law 360 Reports on New Storefront Director, Commitment to National Expansion
June 8, 2026 – Law 360 reports today that Efrain Vera rejoined the Brewer firm to lead community advocacy efforts at Brewer Storefront, the pro bono arm of the litigation boutique. As reported, Vera will oversee all aspects of the Storefront, which advocates for individuals, businesses, and institutions that lack access to sophisticated legal representation.
Vera's connection to the firm runs deep – he first joined as a teen participant in the Brewer Foundation Future Leaders Program before returning as a Dallas-based associate after law school. His career since included tenures at Reed Smith LLP and McGuireWoods LLP, as well as service on the City of Dallas License and Permit Appeal Board.
"One of the things Bill Brewer and I have often discussed is the power of a bar card," Vera said. "I'm happy to be at a place that uses that power for all the right reasons."
Partner William A. Brewer III noted that a key priority for the Storefront is expanding its national footprint, building on the firm's legacy of advocacy – including its landmark representation of wheelchair athletes securing the right to compete in the New York City Marathon.
"Having Efrain back with us is a perfect example of that commitment in action," Brewer said, "from our Future Leaders Program to his education, to his time as an associate, and now returning to stand at the forefront of the fight for justice."
Vera said he is returning to Brewer for many reasons — “but chief among them is to advance the firm's mission of helping communities in need.” He added, “The firm has a rich legacy of giving back. We want to expand that commitment, engage new stakeholders, and help more people and communities in need. There are no limits to our advocacy or the people we can help."
To read more: Brewer Taps Former Associate To Lead Its Pro Bono Group - Law360 Pulse
William A. Brewer III Writes for Texas Lawyer on Shakespeare's "Kill All the Lawyers" Line – and What It Really Means
June 8, 2026 – In a Texas Lawyer commentary, partner William A. Brewer III revisits one of William Shakespeare’s most enduring lines: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The line, spoken by Dick the Butcher in Henry VI, Part II, is often cited to poke fun at the legal profession – but – as Brewer points out – Shakespeare meant the opposite. Properly understood, the remark is a recognition of the indispensable role lawyers play in preserving accountability, upholding the rule of law, and checking the ambitions of power.
Using Shakespeare's famous line as his frame, Brewer explores a broader question: Why do judges and lawyers so often become targets during periods of political and institutional strain? Drawing on both historical and contemporary examples, he argues that efforts to weaken the rule of law often begin by targeting those charged with defending it: lawyers.
Brewer writes, “Properly understood, this line is not an attack on lawyers – but a compliment – because every revolutionary knows the first step in successfully consolidating power is to undermine the rule of law with the rule of one man.”
Later, he observes, “Power rarely dismantles the law outright. More often, it inches closer to it – almost imperceptibly – in hopes the law adjusts in response.”
Ultimately, Brewer argues that lawyers become targets not because they are expendable, but because they insist that those imbued with political “power” answer to something beyond themselves. “One does not propose to ‘kill all the lawyers’ because they are expendable, but because lawyers are inconvenient to those who prefer power to go unexamined and unchecked.”
Read more here: https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2026/06/08/the-inconvenience-of-lawyers/