Milgrom & Daskam Blog
There are a few moments throughout the year when this occurs, but we are currently in one of those moments where sports are in prime
In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, organizations that prioritize their people don’t just survive—they thrive. Building an intentional people-first culture isn’t just a feel-good initiative; it’s a strategic imperative that drives performance, innovation, and sustainable growth. At Milgrom Daskam & Ellis, our commitment to people-first principles is embedded in everything we do, from how we serve our clients to how we treat each other.
It can be hard to escape the steady drumbeat of news articles, think pieces, or orders from your company’s HR department about how various forms of artificial intelligence will revolutionize the way work is done. If everyone has the tools to be their own lawyer, accountant, corporate strategist, designer, and software engineer, then so much of the drudgery of our jobs will evaporate, and the best ideas and most creative, driven people will succeed.
The use of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity has infiltrated most workplaces, and the legal profession is no exception. Addressing a “question of first impression nationwide,” Judge Rakoff issued a decision of the Southern District of New York in United States v. Heppner has wide-ranging implications for both legal counsel and their clients.
A common request transactional lawyers hear sounds something like this: “Can you just send me a standard form? We’ll fill in the details.” It’s an understandable instinct. Forms feel efficient. If the deal is straightforward and time is limited, starting with a template—and handling the revisions internally—can seem like a practical way to save time and cost. But that approach carries more risk than many business teams realize.
Informed consent reflects the legal proposition that patients have the right to make decisions about their care and treatment on sufficient, reliable, and meaningful information. Ideally, informed consent should be arrived at via a collaborative and interactive process between a healthcare provider and their patient(s), with plentiful opportunity for patient questions and discussion.
Generative AI systems can now produce sophisticated images, videos, text, and audio in seconds. But as these systems improve, they increasingly raise a difficult legal question: what happens when an AI model generates content containing someone else’s intellectual property – especially recognizable brands, logos, or fictional characters?
Helping people is often a primary motivation for healthcare providers’ entry into their industry. Accompanying those good intentions sometimes is a desire to provide free care to those patients and communities who need it.
Frequently, healthcare founders and business owners overlook the important step of effectively assigning intellectual property. Missing this can result in questions over intellectual property ownership. It can also expose missing intellectual property ownership rights for the company.
To determine whether a trademark is registrable or whether it infringes the trademark rights of a senior trademark owner, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and courts, respectively, weigh various factors, called the “du Pontfactors,” to assess whether a likelihood of consumer confusion exists between the trademark and another mark, i.e., whether consumers would confuse the goods and/or services provided under the respective marks as coming from the same source.
Colorado’s 2026 legislative session is now underway, with several key bills introduced affecting healthcare providers and facilities. One bill that should be top of mind for healthcare stakeholders is SB 26‑041, concerning Consumer Protections in Transactions Involving Medical Care Entities (“SB 41”). If passed, SB 41 would have substantial impacts upon Colorado’s healthcare transaction landscape.
Almost three years ago, I wrote a blog post for our firm entitled “Will Artificial Intelligence Kill All the Lawyers?” The premise of the post was that, for more than ten years at the time (now thirteen), lawyers were considered the most likely endangered species from advances in artificial intelligence. Given the increasing discussion about AI today, the time seems right to revisit that original prediction.