- 303.900.3804
- info@milgromlaw.com
Milgrom & Daskam Blog
After preaching, “Play Has No Limits” for thirty years, Sony has regrettably renounced its pro-gamer mantra.
This summer, PlayStation owners wept as Sony announced a string of policies that seek to claw back power from players. Sony’s decision to end the production of physical discs for future PlayStation titles comes as a knife in the back to millions of betrayed gamers.
Consumers, investors, employees, and business partners increasingly expect companies to demonstrate that their commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) extends beyond marketing slogans. As a result, businesses are looking for credible ways to distinguish themselves in a crowded marketplace while building trust with stakeholders. One of the most effective—and often overlooked—tools for doing so is the certification mark.
In the recent case of J.B. v. MKBS, LLC, 2026 CO 50 (Colo. 2026), the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a default judgment should be vacated when a later jury verdict is inconsistent. In that case, the plaintiff sued a taxi driver and the company he worked for, alleging that the driver sexually assaulted his ward, E.B., a cognitively impaired and blind adult who uses a wheelchair.
Colorado’s employment law landscape is constantly evolving. It is critical – but not always easy – for employers to remain up to date and compliant with these new requirements. We’ve compiled a quick and high-level review of the changes that have arrived in 2026 in Colorado.
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 positioning. Basketball and hockey are deep in their respective playoff seasons, tennis and golf have each begun their Grand Slam calendar, and the World Cup is just around the corner. What better way to see the very best do what they do than at the biggest stages with the highest stakes.
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?
