Carrington Coleman Expands Family Law Practice with Addition of Two Attorneys

2 minute read

Two Board-Certified Family Law Partners Join Dallas Firm

DALLAS — Carrington Coleman announces the addition of two family law partners: Cynthia Dunn Raibourn and Laura Caston.

“We are thrilled to welcome Cynthia and Laura to Carrington Coleman. Their combined decades of experience in family law is a wonderful complement to our family law practice group and to our firm as we serve clients in many aspects of their professional and personal lives,” says Managing Partner Monica Latin.

Cynthia brings more than 31 years of exclusive family law experience to Carrington Coleman. She is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, trained in Collaborative Family Law, and has represented clients in State District, Family District, and Appellate Courts across Texas. Her practice encompasses all matters affecting children and families, including divorce, custody, child support, paternity, termination and adoption proceedings, pre- and post-nuptial agreements, enforcement, and modification of Texas and out-of-state orders. Cynthia has been recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer and is a member of the Annette Stewart American Inn of Court. She is active in the Dallas Bar Association Family Law Section, the Irving Bar Association, the Collin County Women’s Lawyers Association, and the Tarrant County Family Law Bar Association. She earned her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1994 and her B.A. from Louisiana State University in 1991, cum laude.

Laura’s practice is focused on complex family law matters, including high net worth divorce, intricate property division, contested custody, adoption and termination suits, enforcement and modification proceedings, and family law appeals. She is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has been recognized as a Texas Rising Star, Best Lawyers “Ones to Watch” in America, and was featured in D Magazine’s 2025 Best Lawyers in Dallas. She is a prolific author and speaker on family law topics, having published in DBA Headnotes and the State Bar of Texas Family Law Section Report, and presented at the DBA Ethics Fest, State Bar of Texas programs, and other professional forums. Laura is a member of the Dallas Bar Association Family Law Section and Legal Ethics Committee and is active in the Richardson Chamber of Commerce and several community organizations. She earned her J.D. from Southern Methodist University in 2014 and her B.S. from the University of Texas at Austin in 2011.

Chat with Caution: Your AI Logs May Be Discoverable

2 minute read

Court rules client’s pre-litigation AI chat logs were admissible as evidence of wrongdoing.

United States v. Heppner.

In October 2025, the United States charged Bradley Heppner with various counts of securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying corporate records. Heppner turned to AI for advice on what to do next, from outlining his overall defense strategy to how to present certain (bad) facts. On February 10, 2026, the Southern District of New York ruled Heppner’s chat logs were discoverable and could be used as evidence.

The Court’s Reasoning.

Heppner’s attorneys argued the chat logs were protected by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. The court disagreed.

                Attorney client privilege didn’t apply.

For a communication to be protected by the attorney client privilege under New York law (and under most state law), the communications must be (1) between the client and an attorney; (2) confidential; and (3) made to obtain or provide legal advice.

Here, the court held that Heppner’s communications with AI met none of these elements. First, AI isn’t an attorney. Second, the terms and conditions expressly stated that the information was not confidential and would be shared with third parties for, among other things, training purposes. And third, while Heppner claimed he was talking to AI to (arguably) obtain legal advice, the AI tool’s terms and conditions expressly stated that it (a) wasn’t a lawyer, and (b) couldn’t provide legal advice.

                Work product doctrine didn’t apply.

For a document to qualify as “work product” under New York law, it must be prepared by or at the direction of counsel. Here, Heppner conceded that he voluntarily made the searches, not at the direction of counsel. The court indicated that the outcome may have been different had counsel directed Heppner to use the tool as part of litigation preparation.

Takeaway: Take Care when Consulting AI for Legal Advice.

Most states (including Texas) haven’t yet squarely addressed the discoverability of AI-generated materials in this context. In some jurisdictions, including Texas, material prepared in anticipation of litigation may qualify as work product regardless of whether directed by an attorney. You should consult with counsel regarding the applicable law in your jurisdiction.

AI is a powerful tool with many helpful uses. Here are our tips to protect your AI communications:

  1. Review AI platform privacy terms. Most consumer AI platforms automatically opt you in to sharing your searches for training purposes, but many allow you to turn that function off (potentially in exchange for a subscription fee). Disabling that function supports the argument that the communications were intended to be confidential.
  • Engage counsel before you turn to AI. Under Heppner, your greatest exposure is before you engage counsel—because until then, your AI communications cannot have been made at counsel’s direction.
  • Treat AI communications like emails or texts. Assume they may one day be read in court, because as Heppner shows us, they might be.

Ken Carroll Featured in Texas Lawbook’s Top 10 Texas Legal News of 2024

less than a minute

Ken Carroll was featured in Texas Lawbook’s “Top 10 Texas Legal News for 2024.” Ken provided insights on a key legal story surrounding the State Fair of Texas’ decision to prohibit firearms during the 2024 fall fair. This decision sparked a legal challenge by Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued Dallas and the fair in an attempt to overturn the ban. Relying on a prior opinion allowing private nonprofits to ban firearms on land they lease from a city, the courts upheld the prohibition. The challenge was denied by the district court, the 15th Court of Appeals – the first high-profile case for the newly established court – and ultimately by the Texas Supreme Court.

To read the full story and the top 10 Texas legal stories of the year, click here: https://texaslawbook.net/top-10-texas-legal-news-for-2024/

Andrea Perez Speaks with Bloomberg on AI Music Fraud Indictment Bringing Scrutiny to Streaming Inflation

less than a minute

Overview: Andrea Perez, Partner and head of the Art Law Section at Carrington Coleman, recently spoke with Bloomberg Law about the criminal charges brought against Michael Smith, for allegedly creating fake user accounts and computers programs to stream music created by AI on listening platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music, and others. “To create a work doesn’t mean you’ve done anything illegal—that’s not the point here. The point here is that he was gaming the system to increase revenue.”

To read the full article, click here.

Court Strikes Down FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

less than a minute

A Texas federal court judge struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s nationwide ban of non-compete agreements on August 20, 2024, shortly before the ban’s effective date of September 4, 2024. The court’s decision means employers nationwide can maintain and enter new non-competes as permitted by state law.

In April 2024, the FTC voted to implement a nationwide ban on non-compete agreements, asserting that they are an illegal restraint of trade.  The ban would have made most existing non-competes unenforceable and most new non-competes illegal. A number of lawsuits sought to prevent the ban from taking effect.  U.S. District Court Judge Ada Brown’s decision in the lawsuit filed by Ryan, LLC in the Northern District of Texas is the first to find the ban unlawful and strike it down on a nationwide basis. 

Judge Brown based her holding on two grounds: (1) the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in implementing the ban, finding that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition, and (2) even if the FTC had authority to issue the ban, the ban is arbitrary and capricious due to its overbreadth and the FTC’s failure to consider the positive benefits of non-competes (among other reasons).

Employers should stay alert for news on whether the FTC appeals this ruling or begins efforts to invalidate particular employers’ non-competes on a case-by-case basis through enforcement actions.  For now, employers should comply with state law on entering and enforcing non-competes while mindful that this is an evolving area of the law.

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Please consult with your legal counsel regarding any specific situation.

Written by Christie Newkirk and Tayler Gray from Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.

Associate Amanda Saunders is the June 2024 Dallas Association of Young Lawyers One to Watch

2 minute read

Amanda Saunders is DAYL’s One to Watch for June because each time she makes a commitment, she goes above and beyond expectations to ensure that everything is executed to perfection.

Amanda is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and Baylor University School of Law. While at Baylor, she served as a Technical Editor for Baylor Law Review and participated in various moot court competitions.

She is now an Associate Attorney at Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP, with a focus in trusts and estates. Amanda was inspired to enter the field of trusts and estates by her law school professor, and now, she serves as an advocate and guide for her clients in all types of estate planning and administration matters.

Since Amanda moved to Dallas after law school, she joined DAYL to meet new people and develop closer ties with the Dallas legal community. Immediately after joining, Amanda was identified as a future bar leader due to her warm nature, innate confidence, and clear organizational skills. Amanda was highly involved in the 2022 Leadership Class, which put together a very successful bingo event to raise money for ilooklikeLOVE.

Amanda is also a committee member of DWLA’s and DAYL’s Women’s Mentoring Circles (WMC) Program, demonstrating that she is always looking for new ways to positively impact her community. Within WMC, Amanda has planned several highly successful CLE events and always shares her positive energy and enthusiasm for WMC with everyone else on the committee. She clearly believes in the value of mentorship and encouraging the success of women in the legal community.

When DAYL selects a member each month, this recognition is not given lightly.  With over 2,000 members and only twelve months a year, the One to Watch spotlight features less than 1% of DAYL’s members.  Amanda’s positive attitude and willingness to jump in on new initiatives are the reasons she absolutely deserves the One to Watch Award for June. I have no doubt we will be seeing Amanda Saunders’ name more and more in DAYL and the Dallas legal community as a whole in the future. In fact, Amanda has already been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch, 2024, Trust and Estates.

When she is not helping others or volunteering her time with DAYL, Amanda enjoys exploring Dallas, spending time outdoors, and cheering for the Texas Longhorns.

By Kathleen Klein

Alex More, Partner and Head of Litigation at Carrington Coleman, Quoted by Crypto News Outlet in their latest story “Could the SEC Have a Case Against Liquid Staking Protocols?”

2 minute read

Overview: Alex More, Partner and Head of Litigation at Carrington Coleman, was recently quoted by crypto news outlet, Unchained, in their latest story, “Could the SEC Have a Case Against Liquid Staking Protocols?”

Staking is the process of locking up a token for a period of time to help secure a blockchain network and receiving interest in return for those locked up tokens. Liquid staking adds an additional step into this process, which is that when a user locks up the tokens, they also receive a utility token representing their share of staked tokens, which can be used elsewhere in the crypto ecosystem.

“If you’re really just facilitating for the user to stake and then get a token showing that the user has staked, for that to be a security then staking itself probably has to be a securities transaction,” said Austin Campbell, founder and managing partner of Zero Knowledge Consulting and adjunct professor at Columbia Business School.

“And I have some doubts there,” he added, referring to whether staking should be considered a securities transaction.

A core test for examining whether something is a securities transaction is the Howey Test, which is a four-prong test introduced in 1946. If the asset is an “investment of money in a common enterprise, with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others,” then it is considered a security.

On the face of it, staking protocols meet the first three prongs, said Alex More, head of litigation at Carrington, Coleman, Sloman, and Blumenthal. It’s the final prong, the “managerial efforts of others,” which is what gets litigated most frequently, he added.

Like Campbell, More believes it would be tough to argue that a user who is staking is participating in a securities transaction.

“There’s no managerial efforts going into it, it really is just protecting the integrity of the network,” More said.

The challenge is when an entity — decentralized or centralized — aids the user in the staking process.

If the entity truly acts as a pass through, then it is no different to a user staking directly, More said. However, if the entity does something to manage those staked assets then the SEC might have a stronger case that it’s a securities offering. 

The staking programs that have come under fire by the SEC are ones where staked assets were used in commingled vehicles or looked like an investment, Campbell said.

Click here to read the fully story.

Monica Latin Shares Her Thoughts with Texas Lawbook For Their Tribute to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

less than a minute

Overview: Monica Latin, Carrington Coleman’s Managing Partner, shared her thoughts with the Texas Lawbook for their tribute to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “I was in middle school when President Reagan nominated Justice O’Connor to the Supreme Court. It got particular attention in my orbit because she was born in my hometown of El Paso. I’ll admit it seemed more strange, at least as a kid, than celebratory at first. That’s how far we needed to come as a society. But what she did, and who she was, for our generation was monumental. And she served with wisdom, integrity, and humility, demonstrating for future generations of lawyers the highest level of what we can all aspire to.” To read the full article, click here.