Privacy Policy


Deutsch Kerrigan, L.L.P. ("Deutsch Kerrigan", "we" or "us") respects your privacy. This privacy notice ("Notice") explains who we are, how we collect, use and share information about you (“Personal Information”), and how you can exercise your privacy rights.

Information We Collect

  • Information You Provide To Us. Certain parts of our website may ask you to voluntarily provide Personal Information (such as your name, contact details, and company name). For example, when expressing an interest in obtaining additional information about Deutsch Kerrigan or our Services, subscribing to marketing e-mails, applying for a job, or otherwise contacting us. We may also collect Personal Information, such as your contact and professional background details and feedback, when you attend our events, take part in surveys, or through other business or marketing interactions we may have with you. 
  • Information Collected Automatically. When you visit our website, like most website owners, we may also collect certain information automatically from your device, such as your device type, browser type, broad geographic location (e.g. country or city-level location), the referring website, what pages your device visited, and the time that your device visited our website. In some countries, including countries in the European Economic Area, this information may be considered Personal Information under applicable data protection laws. We (including our service providers) may use cookies, pixel tags and other similar tracking technologies to collect this information. 
  • Information We Obtain From Third Party Sources. We may receive Personal Information about you from other sources, including publicly available databases or third parties from whom we have purchased data, and combine this data with information we already have about you. This helps us to update, expand and analyze our records, identify new customers, and provide Services that may be of interest to you. Examples of the types of Personal Information that may be obtained from public sources or purchased from third parties and combined with information we already have about you, may include name, employer, job title, email address, phone numbers, and other company, contact, and/or employment information.

How We Use Information

  • To Provide You With Information You Have Requested. To respond to your requests or provide you with the information requested by you, including where you apply for a job at Deutsch Kerrigan or request information about our services.
  • To Market To You. To contact you regarding business or marketing information (in accordance with your marketing preferences) about events, developments, and services that we offer (see the section headed "Your Rights" for information about how you can opt-out of receiving marketing communications from us at any time).
  • For Business Analytics. To infer your geographic location based on your IP address; to track behavior at the aggregate/anonymous level to identify and understand trends in usage and the various interactions with our website and marketing content; determining the effectiveness of our marketing; and to conduct internal business analysis based on meta-data about usage, feature adoption and forecasting to improve our website and services.
  • For Website Optimization. To administer our Website and for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research, and statistical purposes; to understand how our website is used and to improve our website to ensure that content is presented in the most effective manner for you and your computer; and as a part of our efforts to keep our website safe and secure.
  • For Legal Records. To comply with and enforce applicable legal requirements, agreements, and policies.

SMS

  • If you initiate communication with us via SMS (text message), we may respond to your message using SMS.
  • By sending a text message to Deutsch Kerrigan, you consent to receive conversational SMS responses related to your inquiry. These messages may include follow-up information, service-related responses, or requested support.
  • We do not use SMS for marketing purposes without explicit consent.
  • Message and data rates may apply depending on your mobile carrier plan. Message frequency varies based on your interaction with us.
  • You may opt out of SMS communication at any time by replying STOP. For assistance, reply HELP or contact us at (504) 581-5141.
  • We do not share or sell SMS consent or phone numbers to third parties for marketing purposes.

How We Share Your Information

In the following limited situations, we may disclose information that we collect or that you provide to us:

  • to our contractors, service providers and other third parties who provide data processing services to us and with whom the sharing of your Personal Information is necessary to undertake the work e.g. to process billing, analyze data, host data, provide customer support, and to deliver online and offline marketing communications about us that we think will interest you. 
  • as required by law, such as to comply with any court order, subpoena or other law or legal process, when we believe in good faith that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, protect your safety or the safety of others, investigate fraud, or respond to a governmental or regulatory request.

Cookies

We (including our partners and vendors) use cookies and similar tracking technology (collectively "Cookies") on our Websites to collect and use Personal Information about you: (i) to ensure we are complying with our legal obligations, (ii) to serve targeted advertising to you, (iii) to analyze trends, administer the Website, and track users' movements around the Website, and (iv) to gather demographic information about our user base as a whole. In addition, certain third parties, such as analytics companies, may use automatic information collection technologies to collect information about you when you use our Services. The information they collect may be associated with your Personal Information or they may collect information about your online activities over time and across different websites, apps and other online services websites.

IP Addresses

IP addresses are used to help diagnose problems with our server and to administer our website. Your IP address is a code which is assigned to your computer every time you connect to the Internet. We use aggregated IP address information to compile reports on the demographics of the usage of the Deutsch Kerrigan website for purposes of system administration, marketing, and to track potential abuse of our terms and conditions of use. We do not use IP address information in a form that is personally identifiable except where that IP address has been responsible for violation of our terms and conditions of use. At all times, we reserve the right to respond to and comply with law enforcement and judicial process, including but not limited to responses to subpoenas.

Links to Other Sites

This Notice only applies to the Deutsch Kerrigan website. The Website may contain links to third-party websites and apps. Any access to and use of such linked websites or apps are not governed by this Notice but instead is governed by the privacy policies of those third parties. We are not responsible for the information practices of such third parties.

Changes To This Privacy Notice

We may revise this Notice from time to time in response to changing legal, technical or business developments. The most current version of this Notice will govern our use of your Personal Information. If we make any material changes to this Notice, we will post the updated version here and notify applicable individuals by email or by means of a prominent notice on our Website. You can see when this Notice was last updated by checking the “last updated” date displayed at the top of this Notice. We will seek your consent to any material changes to this Notice if and where required by applicable law.

Your Rights

If you would like to update your contact information or have your information removed from our mailing lists, please contact us by:

Email
info@deutschkerrigan.com

Mail
Deutsch Kerrigan, L.L.P.
Attn: Chelsea Morris, Marketing Director
755 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130

Firm Highlights

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan celebrates 100 years of legal leadership across Louisiana and the Gulf Coast

  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.