.

Pro Bono

Dorsey Celebrates Pro Bono Week and Honors Attorneys and Business Professionals for Impactful Pro Bono Work

October 28, 2026

Share this page

National Pro Bono Week is October 25-31, 2026. The American Bar Association Pro Bono Committee launched the National Celebration of Pro Bono in 2009 to celebrate and encourage pro bono services for those in need. The annual celebration honors the work of legal professionals who provide pro bono representation through the year, and highlights opportunities for pro bono service.

Dorsey’s commitment to its communities is meaningful and long-standing. In 2025, Dorsey provided the equivalent of 3.21% of its billable hours to pro bono work. Dorsey has met the Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge at the 3% level every year since signing on as a charter signatory in 1993. Dorsey’s pro bono program was formalized in 1986 and the Firm has been celebrating 40 years of a formal pro bono program this year.

Dorsey annually presents Scales of Justice Awards to its attorneys and business professionals, to honor those who provided impactful pro bono assistance in the prior year. Dorsey is proud to celebrate this year’s award recipients.

Individual Honor

Payton George received a Scales of Justice Award. Payton is an Intellectual Property Litigation associate. Payton has consistently devoted time to pro bono work, including work for Native American child protection cases, Planned Parenthood, and seeking relief for wrongly incarcerated individuals. Payton is known for stepping up when the work is needed.

“Payton stepped up,” said Dorsey Partner Mike Drysdale. “When I asked for volunteers to staff a new reproductive rights case for Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, Payton stepped up. When I was looking for a core group of litigators to be leads in handling the case, Payton stepped up. When we needed someone to draft the most important section of our motion to dismiss, Payton stepped up. And most importantly, when we concluded a young woman attorney would be the right advocate for Planned Parenthood at oral argument in federal court, to respond to the most patriarchal legal theories in like, ever, Payton stepped up. And she, and we, won. Many thanks to Payton for stepping up.”

Team Honors

Two Dorsey teams received a Scales of Justice Award.

Immigration Team

A Dorsey immigration team, assisting a detained immigrant, received a Scales of Justice award. The team was led by Ari Jakobson, who served as a judicial law clerk for two years before joining Dorsey’s Trial group in the fall of 2025. The work done by this immigration team prepared the Firm for the habeas immigration work the Firm took on later in the year. Because of this team’s work, Dorsey was able to quickly launch a habeas petition team to respond to Operation Metro Surge. Dorsey was able to help dozens of habeas petition clients who were friends, neighbors, and otherwise connected to Dorsey people.

“While many of us were just beginning to understand the unfolding legal emergency brought on by Operation Metro Surge, Ari responded decisively to the needs of a human being in crisis,” said Dorsey Partner Anna Boyle, who led the Firm’s commitment to habeas work in 2026. “He did not hesitate or wait for an instruction manual. He marshaled the limited resources that were available and fought hard, repeatedly, to achieve some semblance of justice for his client. Although the case was ultimately unwinnable under the circumstances, Ari’s passion and courage were a beacon in dark times – not only for his client, but also for Ari’s colleagues, who were inspired to follow suit in the months that followed.”

Members of this Immigration team were Henry Adebisi, Jose Amaya, John Beaty, Anna Boyle, Case Collard, Jenny Ede, Ari Jakobson, Ryan Mick, and Celine Wang.

Transgender Rights Team

Dorsey’s Transgender Rights Team also received a Scales of Justice award. This team did extensive work for the VLN Queer/Trans Legal Clinic, the Lawyers for Good Government Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights, and Iowa’s Cady Day Name Change Legal Clinic.

“At a time where our transgender community is facing concerted efforts to roll back their rights, representing transgender [individuals] in name and gender marker change proceedings is a reminder of the immense privilege we have as attorneys,” said Dorsey attorney Matthew Gillespie about his work with the VLN Queer/Trans Legal Clinic. “Everyone deserves to have who they are – who they truly are – recognized by our laws and institutions, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to help our clients make that happen.”

Dorsey Labor & Employment attorney Josh Hughes was recognized as one of the key leads for Dorsey’s Transgender Rights Team. The team also includes an extensive number of other lawyers and business professionals across Dorsey’s offices, including: Anna Ashley, Deborah Autrey, Lauren Baker, Beau Brawner, Rebecca Brommel, Erin Bryan, Courtney Camenzind, Manuel Cornell, Morgan Craft, Robert Curl, Cathy Dahl, Christian Davis, Morgan DePagter, Angela Dralle, Matthew Durham, Evan Everist, Christian Ferrin, Alyssa Florack-Hess, Matthew Gillespie, Alec Goos, Michelle S Grant, Amy Gustafson, Emily Hammond, Cam Hoang, Joshua Hughes, Alison Humphrey, Michael Jenkins, Kate Johnson, Cristina Kuhn, William Miller, Deborah Nickerson, Severie Orngard, Patrick Peng, Jan Rivers, Olivia Roche, Patricia Scallon, Alyssa Schaefer, Kirk Schuler, Mike Sevilla, Philip Simon, Sonja Smerud, Ellie Soskin, Jack Sullivan, Hannah Tuttle, and Emily Yoshiwara.

Powerhouse Pro Bono Office

Dorsey also annually awards the Powerhouse Pro Bono award to its offices where a significant portion of the office’s attorneys substantially contribute to the pro bono program. This year’s Powerhouse Pro Bono office was Southern California. Dorsey’s Southern California Pro Bono Office Lead is Nisha Verma. Other Dorsey attorneys providing substantial pro bono services there in 2025 included: Erica Chen, Jaycie Cruz, Hannah Green, Melonie Jordan, Jessica Leano, Lynnda McGlinn, Alexandra Super, Gabrielle Wirth, and Faisal Zubairi.

Dorsey Pro Bono Leadership

Dorsey’s pro bono program is led by Co-Pro Bono Partners Erin Bryan and Kirk Schuler. Other key contacts include Pro Bono Counsel Alysia Zens, Senior Pro Bono Coordinator Sue Kjelivk, and Regional Pro Bono Coordinator Alex Macfarlane. At its Scales of Justice Awards celebration this year, Dorsey honored outgoing Co-Pro Bono Partners Alissa Smith and RJ Zayed, who had led the pro bono program since 2019. Dorsey also has Pro Bono Office Leads in many of its offices. Dorsey recently announced new incoming Pro Bono Office Leads: Danika Watson (Anchorage), Tatum Remely (Boise), Rebecca Brommel (Des Moines), Jermey Barton (Salt Lake City), and Matthew Olson (Palo Alto). Outgoing Pro Bono Office Leads include: Mike Grisham (Anchorage), Walter Wu (Palo Alto), and Adam Buck (Salt Lake City). Additional Pro Bono Office Leads include: Geof Vance (Chicago), Fernando Avelar (Dallas), Lindsey Sadler (Denver), Liliam Shi (Hong Kong), Carsten Greve (London), Chris Karaghuezoff (New York), David Mack (New York), Gabriel Hartsell (Phoenix), Shawn Larsen-Bright (Seattle), Nisha Verma (Southern California), and Chip Magid (Washington, D.C.). Dorsey is proud of its deep commitment to serving our communities through pro bono work.

Firm Highlights

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

The image appears to show Corinthian columns featuring ornate, carved capitals in a classical or neoclassical architectural style.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 19, 2026

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

News

Dorsey London Team Secures Positive Rankings from The Legal 500, Including Premium Recognition for Commercial Litigation Team

The image shows classic stone columns and steps, which often represent government buildings, courthouses, or legal institutions.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Dorsey Recognized in Chambers UK 2027

News

Dorsey’s London Corporate Practice and Partners Earn Chambers UK 2027 Rankings