Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Patterson Belknap website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Q&A

Erika K. Birk

Associate

Why did you choose Patterson Belknap?

I chose Patterson Belknap because of the firm’s deep commitment to pro bono work and to the professional development of its attorneys at all levels of their careers. I was also drawn to the firm due to its size and single-office model, which has made it easy to get to know and develop professional relationships with my teammates and colleagues.

What influence have firm mentors had on your career?

I have found genuine relationships with my mentors at Patterson Belknap because they are genuinely invested in me, both professionally and personally. My mentors have trusted me and encouraged me to take advantage of opportunities to develop my lawyering skills.

Colleen AndersonAssociate Read my Q&A

Firm Highlights

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Crafts Test Concerning Post-Confirmation “Related-To” Jurisdiction

The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an estate consisting of the debtor’s legal and equitable property. The estate will continue until the debtor’s confirmed plan of reorganization or liquidation goes effective. It will then terminate, and the property will either revest in the reorganized debtor or be transferred to another entity such as a post-confirmation liquidation trust. Now and then, bankruptcy judges face this issue: after plan confirmation, when can a liquidation trustee assert state law claims in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy court? In terms of a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the question can be articulated this way: when can a bankruptcy court have post-confirmation related-to jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1334?[i] A bankruptcy judge...

Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases

On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests. Religious Accommodations and Undue...

Maurene Comey to Speak on New York Criminal Bar Association Panel

On Wednesday, October 21, Partner Maurene Comey will speak on a New York Criminal Bar Association panel titled "Modern Prosecution and Defense of Sex Offenses." Ms. Comey will join Teny Geragos (Founding Partner, Agnifilo Intrater), Moira Penza (Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff), and Isabelle Kirshner (Partner, Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP) to explore key strategies and considerations for prosecuting and defending modern sex-offense cases. To learn more, please click here.

Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation

Partner Barbara Mullin has been named one of Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation. The ranking uses an extensive research process, including “months of investigation into individual litigators’ professional activities as well as client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews” to identify women who are “top players” in their field. To learn more, please click here.

You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel

On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...

Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards

On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers. Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...

Firm Secures Complete Patent Litigation Victory on Behalf of J&J

On August 31, 2026, Patterson Belknap secured a victory on behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation relating to Spravato®, its blockbuster esketamine nasal spray approved for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression and major depressive disorder with suicidal ideation. This litigation was initiated after an ANDA filing by Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”) in 2023, seeking FDA approval for its generic version of Spravato. Janssen asserted that Sandoz’s proposed generic product would infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,446,260, 10,869,844; 11,173,134; and 11,311,500. Sandoz counterclaimed for declaratory judgment that each of the asserted patent claims was invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 and/or § 112. On August 31, 2026, the U.S. District...

Data Sale In Spirit Bankruptcy Raises Novel Privacy Risks

In August 2025, Spirit Airlines filed its second bankruptcy less than a year after its first. Although the company tried to find a way to keep the lights on, in May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted toward liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Though asset sales are routine practice in large Chapter 11 cases like Spirit Airlines, in this case, the debtors' proposed sale of assets has raised novel data privacy questions that the law may not be ready to answer. To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal and Kimberly Black's article on this topic, please click here.

AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies

Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations. This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...

The Execution of Willie Francis

The botched execution of Christa Gail Pike brings to mind a similar case from 1947, when the State of Louisiana tried, and failed, to execute Willie Francis. I learned about Willie Francis in 1974 when I was a law clerk to Judge J. Skelly Wright, one of the heroic cadre of Southern judges who desegregated all-Black schools after Brown v. Board of Education. When he was in private practice, Judge Wright argued a single case in the U.S. Supreme Court. He represented Willie Francis in his unsuccessful effort to avoid a second electrocution. This is that story. To continue reading Gregory Diskant's article in The National Law Journal, please click here.

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Crafts Test Concerning Post-Confirmation “Related-To” Jurisdiction

The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an estate consisting of the debtor’s legal and equitable property. The estate will continue until the debtor’s confirmed plan of reorganization or liquidation goes effective. It will then terminate, and the property will either revest in the reorganized debtor or be transferred to another entity such as a post-confirmation liquidation trust. Now and then, bankruptcy judges face this issue: after plan confirmation, when can a liquidation trustee assert state law claims in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy court? In terms of a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the question can be articulated this way: when can a bankruptcy court have post-confirmation related-to jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1334?[i] A bankruptcy judge...

Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases

On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests. Religious Accommodations and Undue...

Maurene Comey to Speak on New York Criminal Bar Association Panel

On Wednesday, October 21, Partner Maurene Comey will speak on a New York Criminal Bar Association panel titled "Modern Prosecution and Defense of Sex Offenses." Ms. Comey will join Teny Geragos (Founding Partner, Agnifilo Intrater), Moira Penza (Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff), and Isabelle Kirshner (Partner, Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP) to explore key strategies and considerations for prosecuting and defending modern sex-offense cases. To learn more, please click here.

Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation

Partner Barbara Mullin has been named one of Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation. The ranking uses an extensive research process, including “months of investigation into individual litigators’ professional activities as well as client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews” to identify women who are “top players” in their field. To learn more, please click here.

You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel

On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...

Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards

On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers. Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...