Lawsuit Intelligencer is an attorney-led editorial publication. The standards below describe how we operate. They apply to the editor and to every contributor, and they are public so that readers, journalists, and subjects of coverage can hold us to them.
Independence
Lawsuit Intelligencer does not accept payment in exchange for editorial coverage. We do not run sponsored articles, native advertising, or paid placements that resemble editorial content. We do not coordinate coverage with law firms, marketers, or vendors who may benefit from a particular framing.
The publication is owned and edited by David Meldofsky, who also operates Lawsuit Informer and Lawsuit Center. Coverage of those properties or related industry activity is disclosed in the relevant article. Coverage of competitors or critics of those properties is held to the same standard as any other piece, with the editor's relationship disclosed.
Accuracy
We aim for factual accuracy in every piece. Statements of fact about regulations, court rulings, statutes, statistics, and named parties are checked against primary sources before publication. When primary sources are not available, we use the most authoritative secondary source we can identify and attribute it. We do not invent quotes, attributions, statistics, or sources.
Statements of opinion, analysis, prediction, or argument are clearly distinguishable from statements of fact. Contributors are responsible for the reasoning in their analytical claims; the editor is responsible for whether the piece publishes.
Sourcing
Pieces draw on court filings, agency rulemaking records, bar opinions, statutes, peer-reviewed research, official statistics, named industry sources, and the work of other journalists and analysts. When we rely on another publication's reporting for a factual claim, we name the publication. When we rely on a court order, statute, or agency document, we identify it specifically enough that a reader can locate the source.
We do not pay sources for information. We do not promise sources favorable coverage in exchange for access.
Expert commentary
We ask attorneys, physicians, researchers, and industry professionals for commentary directly and through source-request platforms, including Qwoted. Commentary is taken in writing.
Before a quote runs, we verify who the source is and the credential that makes the commentary relevant. For an attorney, that is a state bar profile. For a physician, it is licensure and a current hospital, practice, or university appointment. For a researcher, it is an institutional page or a publication record. Commentary we cannot verify does not run.
Quotes are attributed by name, title, and institution. We edit for length and clarity and keep the meaning the source gave it. Commentary submitted by a public relations representative meets the same verification, and the named expert confirms the words are their own.
Sources tell us about any paid expert witness or consulting work in the litigation a piece discusses, any representation of a party, and any financial interest in a company or product the piece covers. We publish that disclosure alongside the quote. A source who declines to disclose is left out of the piece.
Sources receive no payment for commentary, and commentary earns no link, placement, or future coverage in return. We choose which responses run. A published quote is the source's view.
When a piece discusses health research, we describe each finding in the terms the study itself uses, whether that is an association, a dose-response relationship, or a causal conclusion. Physicians and researchers quoted on that research are giving their own reading of the evidence.
The editor also answers source requests from other publications, including on Qwoted, on subjects this publication covers. When a piece solicits commentary on a subject the editor has commented on elsewhere, the piece says so.
Interview features follow the terms published on the Interviews page.
Anonymous and background sources
Bylined contributors take responsibility for the people they cite. Anonymous attribution is used only when a source has a meaningful reason to fear professional, legal, or personal consequences from being named, and when the information is sufficiently important to publish without attribution. Anonymous attribution is never used to make claims about identifiable third parties without giving those parties an opportunity to respond.
We do not publish pieces in which the author is a pseudonym for an undisclosed party.
Disclosures
Authors writing about cases they are litigating, parties they represent, products they have a financial relationship with, or firms in which they hold an ownership or referral interest disclose that interest in a visible position at the top of the piece. Disclosure is not a license to write promotionally; it is a transparency obligation that runs alongside the underlying editorial standards.
The editor's affiliations — Lawsuit Informer, Lawsuit Center, and his California bar membership — are disclosed on the About page and in his byline. Specific case interests are disclosed on a per-piece basis where relevant.
The editor has referral relationships with plaintiff-side firms in mass tort litigation. When a piece covers litigation in which he holds a referral interest, the piece discloses it.
Lawsuit Center runs case review programs for several mass torts. When a piece covers litigation in which Lawsuit Center runs a case review program, the piece says so.
AI policy
Contributors may use AI tools for research, drafting, summarization, and editing. The analysis, judgment, argument, and authorial voice in any published piece must be the contributor's own.
We do not publish pieces that are primarily AI-generated, pieces in which factual claims have not been verified by the human author, or pieces in which the author cannot speak fluently to the reasoning. AI is a writing tool, not a substitute for the contributor's expertise. Pieces we identify as primarily machine-produced are rejected.
Corrections
If a piece contains a factual error, we correct it. To report an error, email editor@lawsuitintelligencer.com with the URL of the piece and the specific factual issue.
Substantive corrections — misstated facts, misattributed quotes, mischaracterized legal holdings, errors in named parties — are made promptly. Each substantive correction is noted at the foot of the piece, dated, and describes what was changed. Typographical errors and minor formatting fixes are made silently.
If a correction materially changes the meaning of a piece, we say so at the top of the piece as well as the foot.
Right of reply
Subjects of coverage who believe a piece contains factual errors or material misrepresentations may request a correction or, where appropriate, a published response. We evaluate these requests on the merits. We do not retract accurate reporting, criticism, or analysis simply because a subject objects to it.
Legal and medical information
Nothing on Lawsuit Intelligencer is legal advice. Reading any piece, including pieces written by licensed attorneys, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Contributors discussing legal topics they have professional expertise in are sharing analysis, not counsel. People with active legal matters should consult retained attorneys.
Commentary from physicians and researchers is general information about published evidence. Readers with questions about their own health should speak with their own doctor.
Changes to these standards
These standards may be revised. Material revisions are dated at the top of this page. Earlier versions are available on request.