I started Lawsuit Intelligencer because the consumer-facing legal media I was already producing — at Lawsuit Informer and Lawsuit Center — kept bumping up against questions that didn't belong on a consumer site.
Why is mass tort intake structured the way it is? What does federal regulatory contraction mean when state regulation is moving the opposite direction? Are AI defect claims going to settle into existing product-liability doctrine or carve out something new? When the EPA pulls back on PFAS standards and California pushes forward, where does that leave plaintiffs?
Those are conversations for attorneys, journalists covering the litigation industry, and the firms that build their practices around mass torts. They aren't conversations for someone trying to find out whether their family's exposure to contaminated water gives them a case.
This is the publication for the first audience.
About the name
An intelligencer, in the 18th- and 19th-century American newspaper tradition, was a publication that gathered and conveyed intelligence — reports, dispatches, and analysis from one community to another. The name appears across the founding-era press: the Pennsylvania Intelligencer, the Lancaster Intelligencer, the New-York Daily Intelligencer, and dozens more.
The choice of name is not accidental. The litigation industry is being reshaped by two forces at once — legal change (regulatory contraction, doctrinal evolution, new mass tort categories) and technological change (AI in intake, case valuation, document review, lead generation, and the rapidly evolving rules about how all of that can be done). Lawsuit Intelligencer covers both, and the places they intersect.
A few things to know
Lawsuit Intelligencer is editorial, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship, and nothing here is a solicitation. I'm a California-licensed attorney; I founded Lawsuit Informer, which provides plain-English legal education for consumers, and Lawsuit Center, which organizes case-review information by lawsuit category. Those sites serve consumers. This one doesn't.
Coverage will focus on mass torts, product liability, toxic exposure, plaintiff-side legal marketing and intake practices, regulatory shifts that move litigation, the role of AI and emerging technologies in plaintiff-side practice, and the business questions that usually go unwritten — referral economics, intake disclosure, the gap between how consumers think litigation works and how it actually works.
I'd rather publish something useful twice a month than something thin every week. If you have a piece that fits — bylined commentary from attorneys, physicians, intake professionals, legal marketers, or academics — there's a contributor page.
— David Meldofsky