In this episode of Brach Eichler Talks, Keith J. Roberts, Member and Chair of Litigation at Brach Eichler LLC, revisits the rapidly evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and litigation practice.

Focusing on key court decisions from March 2026—including Jeffries, a toxic tort matter involving competing motions for confidentiality and protective orders—Keith breaks down why closed AI environments continue to prevail in the courtroom and how judicial scrutiny over AI platforms is intensifying.

Key discussion points include:

Closed vs. Open AI Platforms: Why courts are rejecting open-access tools in favor of secure, closed enterprise models to safeguard discovery materials.

Strict Confidentiality Safeguards: How courts structure protective order language to limit third-party disclosures, vendor access, and secondary data usage during active litigation.

Post-Litigation Data Retention & Erasure: The significance of the Jeffries decision, where the court addressed data retrieval, permanent deletion, and preventing proprietary case data from being absorbed into broader large language model (LLM) training sets.

Connect with the Host:

Keith J. Roberts Bio: View Professional Profile

Email: [email protected]

*This is an informational session only and not intended to create an attorney-client relationship with the attendees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently decided in MacDonald v. President of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners that only physicians licensed in New Jersey may practice telemedicine with patients located in New Jersey.

The underlying action was filed by multiple out-of-state physicians who did not hold a New Jersey medical license but sought to practice telemedicine within the state. The District Court dismissed the case outright, and on appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the substantial holding of the dismissal, with only a minor modification concerning due process.

The First Amendment Argument and the Court’s Holding

On appeal, the court addressed a fundamental question: Does the First Amendment protect the speech of a physician with a high level of scrutiny regarding their right to give advice to a patient located in New Jersey?

The Third Circuit declined to apply strict scrutiny or a strict application of First Amendment rights. In its reasoning, the court pointed to the extensive history and tradition of medical licensing dating back to the sixteenth century, with roots in English common law.

Key determinations from the holding include:

Valid State Interest: The State has a valid interest in protecting the public by administering and enforcing a physician licensure program.

Coexistence of Speech and Regulation: First Amendment protected speech properly coexists with licensing regulations designed to safeguard the public interest.

Content-Based Regulation: While an unlicensed physician has the right to free speech, communications involving diagnoses, treatment advice, and medical consultations are content-based speech regulated to protect the public. In this context, the public interest trumps that protected interest.

Low Burden on Physicians: The court rejected counterarguments and found a very low burden on physicians to comply. Because doctors must be licensed wherever they practice, obtaining a license in an alternate state is primarily an administrative burden, which remains low compared to the State's interest in public protection.

Under this ruling, in order to practice medicine—even in a telehealth setting—with a patient located within the state of New Jersey, a physician must be licensed by the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners (BME).

Broader Implications Beyond Telehealth

The court’s First Amendment analysis has implications reaching beyond this specific case. Because the logic and legal reasoning rely on the state's interest in regulating content-based professional speech to protect the public, the decision could extend to other professional licensing boards and other disciplines from state to state.

Related Reading

For additional background on this ruling from Brach Eichler’s Healthcare Law practice, read the firm's alert: Third Circuit Upholds New Jersey Physician Licensure Requirement for Provision of Telemedicine to New Jersey Patients.

Contact & Information

For questions about this topic or this segment, contact Keith J. Roberts directly:

Email: [email protected]

Firm Website: BrachEichler.com

Case Decision: Access the full text of MacDonald v. President of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners.

Disclaimer: This post is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact Keith directly if you need specific legal advice.

In this episode of the Brach Eichler Healthcare Law Update, healthcare law attorneys Lani M. Dornfeld and Edward J. Yun discuss a critical notice issued by the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The DCA has officially extended the 2026 registration renewal deadline for health care service firms from July 1, 2026, to October 1, 2026. This extension provides necessary relief for firms navigating fairly new regulatory requirements that mandate the submission of specific financial documentation, including financial statements, audits, and reports. Any health care service firm that fails to meet this new October 1st deadline will lose its registration.

🔗 Read the full article here: https://www.bracheichler.com/insights/renewal-deadline-for-health-care-service-firms-extended/

Listeners needing legal assistance or more information regarding these requirements are encouraged to contact:

Lani M. Dornfeld, CHPC | 973.403.3136 | [email protected]

*This is meant to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact the authors if you need specific legal advice.

In this episode, we are breaking down important new guidance from the New Jersey Attorney General concerning federal immigration authorities and their access to healthcare facilities.

We discuss the new model policies issued under the Safe Communities Act. Listen in to learn what your facility needs to do when immigration officers request entry to non-public areas or ask for patient records. We cover the key differences between judicial and administrative warrants, how to properly identify public versus private spaces, and the steps you must take to train your staff for these exact situations.

🔗 Read the full article for all the details: https://www.bracheichler.com/insights/new-jersey-attorney-general-issues-guidance-on-immigration-authority-access-to-healthcare-facilities/

💬 Do you need assistance setting up these policies or navigating the new guidelines? Contact Tracy E. Miller for specific legal advice here: https://www.bracheichler.com/professionals/tracy-miller/

*This is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact Tracy if you need specific legal advice.

In this episode, we dive into a recent HIPAA investigation by the Office for Civil Rights that resulted in a massive $450,000 settlement and a strict two year corrective action plan. We unpack the details of the Spencer Gifts ransomware breach and discuss exactly where their compliance and risk analysis fell short.

Healthcare entities and business associates are under a microscope right now. We break down the key takeaways from OCR's ongoing Risk Analysis Initiative and outline the practical steps your organization must take to mitigate cyberthreats. We cover everything from mapping how ePHI flows through your systems to implementing vital audit controls, encryption, and regular workforce training.

Tune in to learn how to strengthen your overall security management process and protect your organization from costly vulnerabilities.

🔗 Read the full article here: https://www.bracheichler.com/insights/ocr-continues-ransomware-and-risk-analysis-enforcement-initiatives/

If you need assistance with your organization's privacy and security program or have questions about the topics discussed in this episode, please contact Lani M. Dornfeld, CHPC, Esq. at 973.403.3136 or reach out via email at [email protected].

*This is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact the authors if you need specific advice.

New Jersey just set a new national standard for employee-friendly leave, leaving even California in the dust. In this episode, we break down the groundbreaking legal shift that went into effect on July 17, 2026, fundamentally altering the landscape for businesses across the Garden State.

Whether you run a large corporation or a small local business, the rules of the game have changed. Employees receiving Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) or Family Leave Insurance (FLI) are now entitled to strict, stand-alone job protection, with absolutely no minimum company size and no minimum tenure required.

Key Topics Covered:

The Big Shift: Why New Jersey's TDI and FLI programs are now powerful job-protection laws, even if the leave isn't covered by FMLA or NJFLA.

Expanded Coverage: How the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) drastically reduced its threshold, sweeping in employers with as few as 15 employees (down from 30) and covering workers with just 3 months and 250 hours on the job.

Leave Durations Explained: The breakdown of required protected leave, including up to 26 weeks for personal health conditions, 12 weeks for caregiving, and 24+ weeks for maternity and bonding time.

Retroactive Reach: Why these new protections apply to certain leaves that began before July 17, 2026.

Actionable Advice: The steps HR teams, managers, and business owners must take right now to update reinstatement policies, track FLI leave, and coordinate PTO without violating the Earned Sick Leave Law.

This episode is based on a Labor & Employment law alert published by Brach Eichler LLC.

Brach Eichler’s Labor & Employment team of attorneys is available to guide clients through any changes specific to your workforce and amend your internal policies.

*This is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact us if you need specific legal advice.

In this episode of the Brach Eichler Talks podcast, we dive into a critical healthcare law update affecting medical facilities and communities across New Jersey. We explore a newly proposed bill introduced by State Sen. Raj Mukherji that targets hospital closures and financial distress.

Recent hospital closures have highlighted gaps in regulatory enforcement when operators scale back services or abruptly cease operations. Tune in to understand how this proposed legislation would empower New Jersey regulators, the Department of Health (DOH), the Attorney General, and local municipalities to intervene, appoint receivers, and preserve community access to care.

The Proposed Legislation: How the May 2026 bill introduced by Sen. Raj Mukherji expands tools for NJ regulators and local governments to address financially distressed hospitals.

Current NJ Law: An overview of the existing regulations for general acute-care hospitals, including the Certificate of Need and the mandatory Department of Health public review process.

Closing Enforcement Gaps: How the bill addresses operators who scale back services in ways that undermine current closure requirements.

The Role of a Receiver: The legal process for petitioning the Superior Court to appoint a receiver to oversee, stabilize, or conduct an orderly wind-down of a failing hospital.

For more information or specific guidance on how these proposed changes may impact your healthcare organization, please contact our attorneys:

John D. Fanburg, Managing Member and Chair, Healthcare

Phone: 973-403-3107

Email: [email protected]

Jonathan J. Walzman, Member, Healthcare

Phone: 973-403-3120

Email: [email protected]

Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to Brach Eichler Talks on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube. Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook for real-time updates on new episodes and trending legal topics.

For more information and legal resources, visit: bracheichler.com

*This is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact the authors if you need specific advice.

In this episode of the Brach Eichler Talks podcast, Members Lani M. Dornfeld, CHPC, and Jay Sabin discuss one of the most pressing issues facing business leaders today: the unregulated use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Click here to view the Action Plan now.

With the rapid evolution of technology, there is a widening gap between employee adoption of AI and corporate management. Lani and Jay break down the critical differences between reactive generative AI (like ChatGPT) and proactive agentic AI, which can autonomously execute tasks and pull data from multiple electronic systems. They explore the severe reputational, cyber, and regulatory risks of these tools, sharing real-world examples of AI implementation gone wrong, and explain why guardrails are even more critical with agentic AI.

Tune in to learn how your organization can build effective corporate protections, from enforcing interim policies and educating your workforce to properly vetting vendors and conducting private management briefings.

Need help navigating AI compliance for your organization? Whether you need to develop a holistic AI acceptable use policy, require a detailed review of AI vendor contracts, or need to incorporate AI procedures into your existing HIPAA compliance programs, our team is here to help. Please do not hesitate to contact Lani M. Dornfeld, Esq., CHPC ([email protected]) or Jay Sabin, Esq. ([email protected]) to kickstart, solidify, enhance, or augment your organization's management of AI.

Subscribe & Follow: Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube. Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook for updates on new episodes. For more information and resources, visit BrachEichler.com.

*This content is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact Lani or Jay to consult on your organization’s specific AI management needs.

Welcome back to Part 2 of our comprehensive four-part series on "Brach Eichler Talks," breaking down the evolving landscape of New Jersey cannabis laws.

In this episode, we shift focus from the business side (covered in Part 1) to the consumer side. We answer the most frequent questions regarding purchasing, possessing, gifting, and consuming cannabis in the Garden State, ensuring you stay informed and compliant.

Whether you are a recreational user, a medical patient, or a business owner navigating consumer rules, we cover critical details, including:

Purchase Eligibility & Locations: Who can buy (21+) and where (licensed retail vs. medical dispensaries).

Buying Limits: The specific transaction limits for recreational users (1 oz of flower/equivalents) versus medical patients (3 oz/30 days).

Types of Products: The availability of edibles (and what "shelf-stable" means), concentrates, tinctures, and topicals.

Possession Laws: The removal of criminal penalties and the new legal limits (up to 6 oz of marijuana or 17 grams of hashish).

Gifting & Delivery: Is gifting legal? (Yes, up to 1 oz). How delivery services operate and municipal restrictions.

Transportation & State Lines: Important warnings regarding driving with cannabis and the strict prohibition against taking legal cannabis across state lines (federal law).

Odor & Vehicle Searches: Crucial updates on when the odor of cannabis does not constitute reasonable suspicion for a police search.

Where to Consume (and Not Consume): Understanding public consumption prohibitions and navigating rules for private residences, consumption areas, and lodging.

Home Cultivation: The current legal status of growing cannabis plants at home.

Access the Full Guide: Want to read the complete FAQ breakdown? Access the full guide and explore more legal insights by visiting our Cannabis Resource Center: https://www.bracheichler.com/insights/cannabis-laws-in-new-jersey-frequently-asked-questions-2025/

Need Legal Guidance for Your Cannabis Business? Brach Eichler provides sophisticated, cross-discipline legal services tailored specifically to the cannabis industry. If you need help navigating compliance, contact our Cannabis Industry Co-Chairs today:

John D. Fanburg, Managing Member and Co-Chair, Cannabis Law 📞 973.403.3107 | ✉️ [email protected]

Charles X. Gormally, Member and Co-Chair, Cannabis Law 📞 973.403.3111 | ✉️ [email protected]

*This is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact the authors if you need specific legal advice.

In this episode of the Brach Eichler Talks podcast, we break down a critical July 2026 New Jersey Supreme Court decision impacting insurance fraud litigation. The Court ruled that New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) claims and RICO-based fraud claims are not subject to the personal injury protection (PIP) arbitration process, but instead belong in the Law Division with the right to a jury trial.

Tune in to understand the background of Allstate v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, how this reverses previous trial court decisions, and what this ruling means for pending insurance fraud cases and investigations across New Jersey.

Contact the Attorneys:

Keith J. Roberts, Esq., Member and Chair, Litigation [email protected] | 973.364.5201

Shannon Carroll, Esq., Member, Litigation [email protected] | 973.403.3126

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended to provide general information, not legal advice. Please contact the authors if you need specific legal advice. For more information and resources, visit bracheichler.com.