Author: JGL Law

Divorce is rarely easy. It is an emotional rollercoaster, and when you add financial stress to the mix, things can get complicated fast. One of the most frustrating situations we see at our firm is when one spouse discovers that marital money, money that should have been saved for the family or split during the divorce, has been spent on someone else.

In the legal world, we call this “dissipation of marital assets.” If your spouse has been spending money on a paramour (an affair partner), you likely have a lot of questions. Is that money just gone? Can you get it back? How does the court handle this?

We believe that understanding your rights is the first step toward a fair outcome. In Maryland, the law has very specific rules about what counts as wasting money and how the court can fix the balance.

What exactly is dissipation?

At its simplest, dissipation happens when one spouse intentionally spends or uses up marital property for a purpose that has nothing to do with the marriage. This usually happens right around the time the marriage is breaking down or after the couple has already separated.

For it to count as dissipation in a Maryland court, the spending must meet a few criteria. It isn’t just about making a bad investment or buying a car you didn’t like. It is about moving money out of the “marital pot” so that the other spouse can’t get their fair share during the divorce.

When we talk about a paramour, the spending is almost always considered “non-family.” This includes things like:

• Paying for hotel rooms, flights or vacations for secret getaways
• Expensive dinners and drinks
• Gifts like jewelry, clothes, or electronics
• Paying for the other person’s rent or car loan

How do you prove your spouse wasted money?

In Maryland, the “burden of proof” is on you. This means if you are the one making the claim, you have to be the one to show the court the evidence. We believe that documentation is your best friend in these cases.

Does the court care about every single coffee or lunch?

Usually, no. Courts are looking for significant amounts of money or a clear pattern of spending that isn’t related to the family. To win a claim for dissipation, three elements typically must be established:

1. The money was spent on non-family items. If the money went to a girlfriend or boyfriend, this is usually easy to prove because that person is not part of the marital unit.
2. The spending was intentional. You have to show that your spouse spent the money on purpose to reduce the amount of property available to be split.
3. The timing matters. Most dissipation happens when the marriage is failing. If your spouse spent money on a hobby ten years ago when things were great, the court likely won’t count that. If they spent $10,000 on a diamond necklace for someone else two months before filing for divorce, that is a different story.

Once you show that the money was spent, the ball is in your spouse’s court. They have to explain to the judge why that spending was actually for a “family purpose.” If they can’t give a good explanation, the court can move forward with a remedy.

What is the ‘three-part test’ in Maryland?

Maryland courts use a specific framework to decide if dissipation occurred. We often walk our clients through this step-by-step so they know what to expect.

First, the court looks at whether the property was spent on something that didn’t benefit the family. Second, they look at whether it was done to reduce the funds available for the “equitable distribution” (the fair split) of assets. Finally, they look at the intent.

Unlike some other nearby jurisdictions, Maryland specifically requires “intent.” This means your spouse had to know what they were doing. They were intentionally wasting the money. This is why looking at bank statements and credit card bills is so important. We look for large withdrawals, transfers to accounts you don’t recognize, or charges at luxury stores for items you never saw.

What happens if the money is already gone?

This is the question we hear most often. “April, if they already spent the money at a casino or on a vacation with their new partner, how can I get it back?”

The answer is a “phantom asset.”

In Maryland, if a judge finds that your spouse dissipated assets, they treat that money as if it is still sitting in the bank account. For example, let’s say there is $100,000 left to split, but your spouse spent $20,000 on a paramour. The judge will do the math as if there is actually $120,000 to split.

When it comes time to divide the remaining property, the judge will give your spouse a smaller share to make up for the $20,000 they already “spent” on their affair. This is how the court levels the playing field. Even if the cash is physically gone, you still get your fair share of what should have been there.

Are there any exceptions?

Yes. Not every dollar spent during a separation is considered dissipation. People still have to live. We believe it is important to distinguish between “wasting money” and “living life.”

Common things that are NOT usually dissipation include:

• Reasonable living expenses: Paying rent, buying groceries, and keeping the lights on at a new apartment after moving out.
• Child expenses: Paying for the kids’ school, clothes, or sports.
• Legal fees: In many cases, using marital funds to pay for a divorce lawyer is considered a necessary expense, though this can sometimes be debated depending on the source of the funds.
• Ordinary business expenses: If your spouse runs a business and has normal costs, that isn’t dissipation.

However, if those “living expenses” become excessive, like renting a $10,000-a-month penthouse when you used to live in a modest home, the court might take a second look.

How do we start the process?

If you suspect your spouse is wasting money, the first step is usually “discovery.” This is a formal legal process where we ask for financial records. We can look at:

• Bank statements
• Credit card history
• Investment account activity
• Venmo, PayPal, or Zelle history

Sometimes, the evidence is hidden in plain sight. A “business trip” that includes a charge for two people at a romantic resort is a major red flag. A large cash withdrawal right before a weekend away is another.

We believe that the earlier you look into these things, the better. If you wait until the very end of your divorce to bring up dissipation, it can be harder to track down the records and prove the intent.

Why a friendly, strategic approach works best

Dealing with an affair is emotional. It is easy to want to “punish” the other person in court. However, Maryland is an equitable distribution state, not a “punishment” state. The court isn’t there to judge your spouse’s morals, but they are there to protect your financial interests.

Our goal is to stay focused on the numbers. We want to make sure you walk away from your marriage with the resources you need to start your next chapter. Whether that means keeping the house or getting a larger share of the retirement accounts to balance out the money your spouse spent, we are here to help you navigate that.

If you are worried about your financial future or think your spouse is hiding or wasting assets, let’s talk.

Many business owners, like yourself, take the right steps to form the business structure that works for them. Then, years down the line, you set up your estate plan, often transferring ownership to a trust to avoid probate. However, sometimes these pieces do not fit and can cause problems later on.

Most owners get one attorney to set up their business structure and treat it as a finished product. They get busy building their business to provide for their family. Then, they hire another attorney to draft an estate plan, which usually includes transferring ownership of a business into a trust without updating the business structure. The lack of coordination creates risk for the business and the family.

Where Disconnects Happen

• Listing individuals to inherit your business interest in your Will or Trust, but your business structure requires additional steps to transfer business interests.
• Naming individuals to your board of directors in your Will or Trust without properly amending your bylaws or operating agreement to authorize such appointments.
• Naming individuals to manage your business as officers, but diluting your ownership share to different family members who may oust your named successor.
• Naming children to inherit your business, but forgetting about the spousal election and a spouse taking the business away from your children.
• For professional businesses, not listing a qualified licensed professional to handle your cases in a succession plan forces your executor or trustee to find a qualified professional to handle your case work in case of death or disability.
• Listing business interest transfers in a Will or Trust without ensuring your business has properly approved such transfers upon death may force an involuntary removal from the business by other co-owners.
• Having a Business Succession Plan that does not align with your Will or Trust, forcing a future court battle for your family members to resolve.

Why It Matters

These disconnects can have real-life consequences for your loved ones after your death, such as:

• Heirs may inherit business interests but lose value on improper transfers.
• Co-owners of the business may be put into direct conflict with family members over the business operation.
• Probate proceedings may halt business operations if there are disputes of ownership.
• Liquidity in a business may be used to pay out family members, jeopardizing the business’s lifespan.
• Valuations of businesses during probate can trigger unforeseen tax consequences for the business and your loved ones.
• Higher risk for court intervention, appointing a Receiver to take over the business who is not aligned with your original purpose.
• Likely winding down of your business without a meaningful opportunity to sell.

Getting Things In-Sync

Retaining legal counsel well-versed in business organizations and estate planning and making all the necessary changes results in a coherent overall plan for your business and family. A well-structured plan often addresses the following:

• Whether business interests should be held directly, transferred to a trust, or have a beneficiary on a death instrument approved by your business.
• Ensuring your bylaws or operating agreement authorizes transfers to family members.
• Drafting succession plans for business governance and operations in case of an owner’s disability or death.
• Determining business valuations upon disability and death.
• Evaluating multi-state business operations and properties to ensure your plans comply with different state laws.

Revisiting Your Plans

Business owners should keep both their business plan and estate plans in mind when making any changes. Business owners should also revisit both plans whenever:

• Your business has grown or changed substantially to ensure your business governing documents are aligned with your current business operations and structure.
• Any major life events occur, such as divorce, marriage, children, etc.
• Your business expands into other states.
• The existing plans have not been reviewed in several years.

Final Thoughts

Your business plan and your estate plan should not operate independently. They are two parts of one strategy – your legacy.

Taking the time to ensure both plans align can prevent future disputes, preserve value, and ensure the business continues as you intended.

Three former employees of the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW) have been indicted on charges of criminal negligence in connection with the death of a patient, according to an April 8, 2026 report by NBC News 4 Washington. Prosecutors allege the employees failed to provide care to a visibly distressed individual over a prolonged period.

The allegations described in the indictment echo concerns raised in a class action lawsuit filed by Joseph Greenwald & Laake against PIW and its parent company, Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). The complaint alleges a longstanding pattern of patient mistreatment and systemic failures at the facility.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges widespread falsification of medical records, unlawful involuntary hospitalizations, failure to provide necessary treatment, chronic understaffing, and unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The case is being handled by attorneys Drew LaFramboise and Veronica Nannis.

While the criminal case centers on the conduct of individual employees, the civil lawsuit seeks to address broader institutional practices and corporate accountability, including allegations that UHS prioritized profits over the safety and wellbeing of patients.

These developments highlight ongoing concerns about patient safety at PIW.

Many people have heard of workplace discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But far fewer people know about another federal civil rights law that can be just as powerful: 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Section 1981 is built on a simple principle: everyone has the same right to make and enforce contracts regardless of race. This law protects individuals from racial discrimination in contracts, business relationships, and professional opportunities.

For many people facing discrimination outside traditional employment, Section 1981 may provide the strongest legal remedy available. In many situations, Section 1981 fills critical gaps that other civil rights laws do not cover.

Below are some of the most common ways the law is used.

Discrimination in Business Relationships

Section 1981 frequently arises when racial discrimination affects contracts between businesses or professional service providers. In practice, many § 1981 cases involve minority-owned businesses or vendors who are denied contracts or removed from business relationships because of race. Unlike many employment statutes, § 1981 protects entrepreneurs, vendors, contractors, and business owners.

Examples may include:

• A company refusing to contract with a qualified minority-owned vendor while working with similarly situated non-minority vendors.
• A company terminating an existing subcontractor or vendor agreement after racial bias emerges.
• A minority-owned subcontractor is being removed from a project while non-minority subcontractors remain.
• A company refusing to negotiate or continue negotiations after learning the race of the business owner.
• A company offers a minority-owned vendor worse pricing or contract conditions than similarly situated vendors.

Because these relationships are contractual in nature, courts have consistently held that they fall within the core protections of § 1981.

For business owners and independent professionals, this statute may be one of the most important legal protections against race discrimination in the marketplace.

Discrimination Against Independent Contractors and Consultants

Section 1981 also protects individuals whose ability to pursue contract-based work relationships is limited by race discrimination.

Many professionals work as consultants, freelancers, and independent contractors, rather than employees. Because these relationships are contractual, § 1981 often applies even when traditional employment discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, do not.

These cases sometimes involve situations where:

• A consulting agreement is terminated after discriminatory comments.
• A company refuses to renew or extend an independent contractor agreement for discriminatory reasons.
• A contractor is treated differently (such as an hourly rate or other contract terms) from similarly situated contractors of another race.

Additionally, in some industries, participation in professional networks or trade organizations is an important gateway to obtaining contracts and referrals. When race discrimination interferes with access to those opportunities, § 1981 may apply because it affects the individual’s ability to enter into business relationships.

Discrimination in Customer or Consumer Transactions

Section 1981 can also apply to discriminatory treatment in consumer-facing businesses. For example, courts have allowed claims where businesses:

• Refuse service because of a customer’s race.
• Provide services on worse terms, or subject customers to more burdensome conditions because of their race.
• Cancel or deny contracts for housing, services, or membership opportunities based on race.

These cases often arise in situations where a business relationship already exists, such as when a customer has purchased a product or service and the business refuses to honor the transaction because of racial stereotypes.

For example, one scenario recognized by courts is where a passenger purchases an airline or train ticket – a contract for transportation – but is removed from the flight or train based on racially-biased assumptions about the passenger’s behavior or safety risk. In a similar vein, courts have allowed § 1981 claims where retail stores refuse to complete a purchase or eject customers from the premises after they attempt to buy goods or services because of racial stereotypes.

Retail stores, banks, financial services companies, and other businesses that enter contractual relationships with customers may all be subject to § 1981.

If Race Discrimination Has Affected Your Business or Career

Race discrimination does not only occur in traditional workplaces. It can appear in contracts, partnerships, business opportunities, and professional relationships.

If you are a business owner, contractor, or professional who believes race discrimination affected a contract or business opportunity, you may have legal protections under federal civil rights law.

An experienced civil rights attorney can evaluate whether your situation may fall within federal civil rights laws such as 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, David Bulitt and family law attorney Christopher Castellano discuss the growing reality of “gray divorce” (divorce later in life) and why it often brings a very different set of challenges. From retirement accounts, pensions, and alimony to the future of the family home, adult children’s involvement, and estate planning concerns, David and Chris walk through the key issues that can shape a divorce after the age of 55. Whether you are facing a late-in-life separation or simply want to understand the legal landscape, this episode offers practical insights into one of family law’s most complex and increasingly common situations.

In an article published by Law.com on March 25, 2026, Christopher Castellano discusses recent changes to Maryland’s child support framework, including the adoption of the Multifamily Adjustment, which took effect October 1, 2025.

Chris explains that the update is not intended to reinvent Maryland’s child support system, but rather to refine it to better reflect modern family structures. Maryland continues to rely on a formula-based approach that uses parents’ income and certain child-related expenses to calculate a presumptively correct child support award.

He also notes that while the guidelines are standardized, disputes often arise over how key inputs—such as a parent’s actual income or physical custody arrangements—are defined and applied. With the addition of the Multifamily Adjustment, which accounts for children living in a parent’s household who are not part of the support order, those interpretations may take on greater importance in future cases.

A central theme of the framework, Chris emphasizes, is the continued focus on children’s welfare. “It is in this best-interests backstop that the ever-present goal of the Maryland legislature remains apparent: the preservation and consideration of that which is in the best interests of the minor child in question,” he said.

Read the full article “Maryland Child Support Law in 2026: A Guidelines System Adapts to Blended Families” (PDF)

For many Maryland couples, divorce later in life looks very different from divorce at age 35 or 40. “Gray divorce” generally refers to the divorce of spouses age 55 or older, and has become a more visible part of the family-law landscape.

National research continues to show that while divorce rates have fallen for many younger age groups, they have increased for adults age 45 and older over time, with especially sharp growth among adults age 65 and older. See Age Variation in the Refined Divorce Rate, 1990 & 2023, www.bgsu.edu.

In Maryland, gray divorce cases often involve long marriages, accumulated retirement assets, real estate, and difficult questions about support and financial security. The legal framework is the same as any divorce, but the practical issues can be more complicated – there is usually more to divide, less time to recover from a major financial reset, and oftentimes interests from children focused on inheritances.

What counts as a gray divorce?

Gray divorce is not a separate legal category under Maryland law. It is simply a term commonly used for divorce involving older spouses, usually those age 55 and up. What makes these cases different is not a special statute. It is the stage of life: retirement may be near, the marital home may represent a large share of the family’s wealth, one spouse may have been out of the workforce for years, and pensions or other deferred compensation may be central to the case.

How divorce works in Maryland in 2026

As of 2026, Maryland recognizes three grounds for absolute divorce: (1) 6-month separation, (2) irreconcilable differences, and (3) mutual consent. Maryland also does not recognize a separate status called “legal separation.” Therefore, if spouses have lived separate lives for at least six months, they may pursue divorce on that ground, even if they remained under the same roof while living separate lives.

Mutual consent can be especially important in gray divorce matters because it allows couples to resolve the case by agreement and proceed with a simple uncontested divorce. Under Maryland law, mutual consent requires a written settlement agreement signed by both parties that resolves alimony, property distribution, and any issues involving minor or dependent children.

Why gray divorce can be more financially complex

In later-life divorce cases, the biggest questions are often financial. Maryland courts determine which assets are marital property, value that property, and may grant a monetary award or transfer certain interests to adjust the equities between the parties. Importantly, Maryland law specifically allows the court to transfer an interest in a marital asset, such as a bank account, investment account, or even a retirement account.

That matters because retirement assets are frequently among the most valuable components of a long marriage. Dividing them is not always as simple as splitting a checking account. In many cases, an additional order is needed to carry out the transfer of retirement benefits, such as a QDRO, COAP, or similar retirement-benefit order that complies with the plan’s requirements.

The marital home can also become a major point of dispute. One spouse may want to keep it for stability or sentimental reasons, but keeping a home is only part of the equation. The real question is whether that spouse can realistically afford the mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance, and any buyout needed to resolve the other spouse’s interest. Maryland law allows the court, in appropriate circumstances, to authorize a transfer of an interest in the parties’ jointly owned principal residence or permit one party to purchase the other’s interest. But there must be the ability for the spouse ‘keeping’ the home to buy-out the divesting spouse.

Alimony is often a central issue in gray divorce

Alimony can be especially significant in a gray divorce. In many long-term marriages, one spouse may have sacrificed career development, earning capacity, or retirement savings to support the family or the other spouse’s career. Maryland law directs courts to consider a wide range of factors when deciding alimony, including the length of the marriage, the standard of living during the marriage, each party’s age and health, the ability of the spouse seeking alimony to be self-supporting, each party’s financial resources, and each party’s right to receive retirement benefits.

Maryland law also permits indefinite alimony in some circumstances. That can be particularly relevant in later-life cases where, due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, one spouse cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting, or where the parties’ post-divorce standards of living would remain unconscionably disparate even after reasonable efforts at self-support. However, these issues can be particularly complex when the payor spouse may be approaching retirement or in retirement status.

Practical issues gray-divorce clients should address early

A spouse considering a gray divorce in Maryland should usually start by gathering a complete financial picture. That often includes retirement-account statements, pension information, tax returns, mortgage information, brokerage and bank statements, insurance information, estate-planning documents, and any documents tied to deferred compensation or stock-based benefits. The more complete the financial record, the better positioned your attorney is to evaluate settlement options or prepare for litigation.

It is also wise to think beyond the divorce decree itself. A later-life divorce often requires related changes to beneficiary designations, powers of attorney, health-care directives, wills, trusts, and long-term financial planning. Even when the divorce case is resolved, failing to update those related documents can create avoidable problems later.

A thoughtful approach matters

Gray divorce is rarely just about ending a marriage. It is often about restructuring an entire financial life after years or decades of shared decision-making. In Maryland, that means carefully evaluating support, retirement assets, the marital home, and the best path to a fair and workable resolution under current divorce law. Interests from others, including children, may complicate the approach as others introduce their own desires as a source of influence.

If you are considering divorce later in life, getting legal advice early can make a meaningful difference. A Maryland family law attorney can help you understand your options, protect your financial interests, and develop a strategy that fits the realities of this stage of life.

ALERT Act Pushes Past the House Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee Leaders Say It Falls Short and Support the ROTOR Act

Following the release of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) findings after the January 29, 2025, midair collision between American Airlines Flight 5342 and a United States Army Black Hawk helicopter on approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), Congress is poised to enact new aviation safety requirements.

The Senate prefers the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform Act (ROTOR Act) while the House subcommittee voted on a broader alternative, the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency Act (ALERT Act).

The bills take different approaches, but both would expand collision-avoidance and traffic-awareness requirements and close exemptions that have permitted certain military aircraft to operate near airports without broadcasting their locations. The two bills reflect a tension in legislative responses to aviation incidents:

• Implement the most urgent safety measures as quickly as possible
• Explore a comprehensive package to address the full scope of the problem

What is the ALERT Act?

On March 26, 2026, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously approved its portion of the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act of 2026 (H.R. 7613) introduced in response to various aviation safety issues raised by the 2025 midair collision between American Airlines Flight 5342 and a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).

The legislation was passed by the subcommittee with a vote of 62 to 0. The Bill was first introduced in February 2026 following the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) investigation of the accident. The legislation includes improvements that respond to the scope of the safety issues raised after the release of the NTSB’s investigation.

“The ALERT Act is a comprehensive package that addresses the probable cause and contributing factors of the tragic crash that occurred in our nation’s capital in 2025, and it addresses all 50 safety recommendations issued by the NTSB following their investigation,” said Chairman Sam Graves.

Key provisions of the ALERT Act include:

• Improve safety throughout the nation’s airspace for every user of the airspace and the flying public
• Technology to enhance flight crew alerting and air traffic controller situational awareness
• Commercial airliners will upgrade to ACAS (Airborne Collision Avoidance System Xa), the next generation of collision avoidance technology
• Updates to helicopter route safety and separation requirements
• Air traffic control training, processes, and procedures to ensure safety

Various aviation stakeholder groups are supporting the text of the Bill, including the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), which stated the bill strengthens safety, improves transparency, and reinforces the shared commitment to protecting the flying public and the professionals who maintain our nation’s aircraft.

First Officer Nick Silva, president of the Allied Pilots Association, on behalf of 16,000 pilots of American Airlines, stated the inclusion of labor’s voice ensures the bill is not just a policy document, but a practical tool that supports aviation professionals in their daily mission.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association stated the legislation will enhance aviation safety for commercial aviation, general aviation, and military aircraft, as well as the flying public and citizens on the ground.

The House Armed Services Committee and Department of Defense reversed their position on the ROTOR Act in February 2026. Sean Parnell, Pentagon Spokesperson, stated that the bill “would create significant unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks affecting national defense activities.” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers characterized the ROTOR Act as “a flawed response” that would give the FAA authority over which military aircraft must carry ADS-B equipment and when it must be activated—broadcasting location data.

What is the ROTOR Act?

The Senate passed the ROTOR Act unanimously in December 2025. While many appreciate the Committee’s work on the ALERT act, they state the legislation fails to require a comprehensive traffic awareness, traffic alerting, and collision avoidance system that expands pilots’ situational awareness and provides earlier traffic alerting, which is enabled by a full ADS-B In suite of technology. Specifically, the bill only requires ADS-B In on all aircraft currently required to have ADS-B Out by the end of 2031, but requires commercial airliners to skip straight to the next-generation airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS) XA that uses ADS-B In data.

The ROTOR Act addresses a straightforward problem: pilots can’t avoid what they can’t see. Even with recent amendments to the ALERT Act, Senate Commerce Committee leaders on both sides of the aisle still object to the legislation, stating it falls short on strong and clear requirements for common-sense situational awareness technology recommended by the NTSB 18 times…” Any legislation that is expected to pass both the House and Senate will have to apply the strongest ADS-B In safety standards to all aircraft, civil and military, ensure accountability to broadcast ADS-B Out, and reform airspace rules to ensure an accident like Flight 5342-PAT 25 collision never happens again.”

According to the NTSB, had both aircraft been properly equipped with ADS-B In, the airline crew would have received a traffic alert roughly one minute before the collision—rather than the approximately one second of awareness they ultimately had.

Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation along with Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), released a joint statement highlighting limited safety reforms in the text of the current bill.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) press release on March 26, 2026, states the ALERT Act does not properly require the life-saving technology of ADS-B In suite, which is specially designed to:

• Improve the pilot’s situation awareness
• Provide early alerts to assist in preventing mid-air collisions
• Provide a flight deck display of traffic information to alert pilots
• Provide directional alerts for pilots with symbols and aural alerts of clock position, relative altitude, range, and vertical tendency

View the statement.

The families of Flight 5342 made a post on X, acknowledging that the ALERT Act has made progress, yet fully supporting the ADS-B In implementation right away with a statutory mandate and enforceable deadlines that require the FAA to act. “Any safety requirement that routes implementation through negotiated process, administrative discretion, or multi-step rule-making creates opportunities for delay that cost lives.” In the statement, they seek to set clear statutory timelines and performance standards that leave no room for process to become an obstacle. View the statement.

Labor organizations, including ALPA, the American Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO), the Internation Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) have stated they cannot support the ALERT Act in its current form as it fails to implement the strongest possible pro-safety requirements. “All commercial aircraft operators must equip their fleets with integrated Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In),” stating the ALERT Act prioritizes a separate technology called ACAS-Xa, which does not provide sufficient alerts. The system is suppressed at low altitudes and in the airport environment, it does not include critical features for early alerting and directional traffic symbols, rate of climb, or offer the visual and aural alerts indicating clock position and relative altitude, which would allow pilots to take evasive action. The ACAS-Xa system would not have prevented the PSA Flight 5342 Crash. View the statement.

Next Steps

Regardless of which bill proceeds forward, new requirements are proposed for the aviation industry: adding ADS-B In equipage for aircraft operating near airports; upgrades or replacement of existing collision-avoidance systems; revising airspace procedures where helicopter and other air traffic mix; and eliminating military exemptions from location-broadcasting rules in the Washington, DC region.

Get the facts. Get educated.

JGL attorneys Drew LaFramboise, Bridget Cardinale and Andrew Greenwald will be honored by Virginia Lawyers Weekly on April 30, 2026, at the publication’s Hall of Fame celebration.

The team of litigators is being recognized for securing one of the top settlements in Virginia in 2025, a $17.75 million aggregate settlement on behalf of numerous first responders injured in a home explosion.

The Department of Justice announced a four million dollar settlement to resolve False Claims Act allegations of unnecessary vein restoration procedures against CVR Management, LLC, the Center for Vein Restoration (collectively hereinafter, “CVR”), the Center for Vascular Medicine, LLC (“CVM”) and Sanjiv Lakhanpal, MD, FACS. CVR and CVM have vein treatment offices in multiple states and in the District of Columbia, with sixteen locations in Maryland.

JGL partners, Jay P. Holland and Veronica Nannis, represented the whistleblower throughout this more than decade-long process. JGL’s client, a former employee of CVR, filed the complaint under seal in November 2015 under the whistleblower process (qui tam) of the False Claims Act. The complaint alleged that over the course of many years CVR engaged in a pattern of up-coding and false billing to the Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE federal health insurance programs for performing unnecessary and invasive vein repair procedures instead of first utilizing more conservative treatments as required by law. These practices, it was alleged, caused patients to undergo medically unnecessary procedures, putting patients at risk and defrauding federal and state programs of millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

The procedures were intended to treat chronic venous insufficiency, sometimes called venous reflux, which refers to the improper functioning of the vein valves where blood pools in the veins, weakening them and creating varicose veins, cramping, swelling, or skin discoloration on the affected leg and sometimes ulcers or skin necrosis on the legs. Neither Medicare, Medicaid, nor TRICARE cover the treatment of varicose veins for cosmetic reasons alone. Treatment for chronic venous insufficiency must be accompanied by certain other conditions and only after the patient has undergone a specified period of alternative, more conservative treatment options that prove unsuccessful. Instead, the whistleblower complaint alleged that the defendants routinely performed more complex, expensive and invasive procedures without trying safer alternatives, and which were not clinically indicated or medically unnecessary.

JGL’s client sought to stop this practice by bravely coming forward to the Department of Justice. Those efforts have now successfully met that goal by protecting patients from these unnecessary and invasive vein procedures, and by stopping the fraudulent billing of government insurance programs. The settlement was featured in a Law360 article “Vein Restoration Co. Will Pay $4M To End False Claims Suit,” which was published on March 20, 2026.

JGL’s Jay Holland and Veronica Nannis are honored to represent the whistleblower in this case. They are also thankful for the assistance of co-counsel Jay Miller at The Angelos Law Firm, and for the comprehensive investigation performed by the experienced government attorneys dedicated to this case, and particularly Assistant United States Attorney Tarra Deshields from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland.

“The government’s commitment to investigating and wholeheartedly pursuing this case underscores its keen desire to protect patients, root out fraud and protect taxpayer dollars,” said Jay.

Greenbelt, Maryland based Joseph, Greenwald & Laake filed the lawsuit in November 2015. Case Number PX-15-3591.

In a March 4, 2026, article published by Law360, Veronica Nannis discusses the recent Department of Justice report that illustrated the Trump administration’s continued FCA enforcement in 2025, including a record $6.8 billion enforcement haul.

The historic, expanding enforcement has been a trend in recent years, culminating in 2025’s “eye-popping” dollar amount, Veronica said.

The administration’s focus on fraud in the areas of DEI continues to be both a priority and without precedent, Veronica explained. She also predicted that any DEI or gender-affirming care-based enforcement areas would not withstand future administrations as easily as more bipartisan areas, such as Medicaid and defense fraud.

“It will be very, very difficult — an uphill battle — to prove that a company knowingly violated an executive order that changed, or seemed to change, the interpretation of the executive orders before that, and/or federal law before that, like Title VII and Title IX,” Veronica said.

Read the full article “Trump’s FCA Expansion Plan Heightens Compliance Risk.” (PDF)

In a February 25, 2026, article published by The Daily Record, Lindsay Parvis discusses the important role parenting coordinators (PCs) play in helping families reduce conflict and support children during and after divorce. A family law attorney at JGL, Lindsay also serves as a parenting coordinator and notes that PCs are particularly useful when one party’s challenges disrupt an established parenting schedule.

“It might be around a parent who has substance issues,” she explained. “Having a parenting coordinator be able to step in and work with the family on how to adjust the parenting time schedule (is helpful) so that folks aren’t in the situation where every time something goes wrong they have to go back to court.”

Parenting coordinators are neutral third parties focused on the best interests of children and may be appointed by the court, recommended by counsel, or retained by parents directly.

Lindsay emphasized the importance of clearly defining the parenting coordinator’s role at the outset. “When parents choose to work with a parenting coordinator, the more detailed they can be about the responsibilities and scope of services – whether it’s a settlement agreement, a parenting plan or a custody order – the more helpful it is for expectation-setting for everybody.”

Read the article “Parenting coordinators help clients tune in to each other” on The Daily Record website (subscription required).