Site Search
Professionals 105 results
Capabilities 45 results
Practice Area
Winston has decades of experience representing clients in international arbitrations around the world. Representing clients in both commercial and investor-state international arbitrations, we are well known by the leading players in the global arbitration arena. Our integrated team of attorneys enforces awards worldwide, knows every angle of international disputes, and has a robust understanding of our client’s industries.
Practice Area
Addressing a crisis in today’s climate requires both swift action and careful consideration of all potential risks. Winston & Strawn is a trusted business adviser to clients facing complex, fast-moving, high-profile crises.
Practice Area
Trial skills matter—even in a world where few disputes ever see the inside of a courtroom. Winston has built a reputation as a trial lawyers’ firm, featuring seasoned litigators who leverage extensive courtroom experience to meet our clients’ business and legal objectives. Our long history of taking cases to trial—and winning—provides our clients with tremendous settlement leverage with their adversaries, as well as a substantial likelihood of a favorable resolution if, and when, they go to trial.
Experience 9 results
Experience
|August 15, 2024
Winston Achieves Historic No-Damages Summary Judgment for Microsoft in Patent Case
Experience
|July 26, 2024
Winston represented DRONE VOLT in its rights issue on Euronext Growth
Insights & News 517 results
Press Release
|August 21, 2025
|2 Min Read
Chicago—August 21, 2025—I have agreed to a settlement that resolves my breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Northwestern University and its President.
Article
|August 19, 2025
|2 Min Read
Construction Disputes: Suitability and Up-Front Considerations for Arbitration Rule Selection
This article was first published on Global Arbitration Review in August 2025; for further in-depth analysis, please visit GAR Guide to Construction Arbitration – Sixth Edition. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only.
Benefits Blast
|August 12, 2025
|5 Min Read
On August 7, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the DOL, the SEC, and Treasury (including the IRS) to review and revise guidance to facilitate the inclusion of alternative investments—such as private equity, cryptocurrency, and other non-traditional assets—in defined contribution retirement plans. The Executive Order follows action in May of this year by the DOL to rescind its 2022 guidance that discouraged fiduciaries from including cryptocurrency options in 401(k) retirement plans.
Other Results 22 results
Site Content
What Is Bradford Hill Criteria?
The Bradford Hill criteria (also known as “Hill’s criteria”) are a set of nine criteria first proposed by the epidemiologist, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, in 1965 to evaluate the strength of a causal association between two variables. In the product liability context, plaintiff experts frequently utilize the Bradford Hill criteria to purportedly establish general causation. The Bradford Hill criteria include considerations such as the strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. Several recent decisions in large federal multidistrict litigations have closely scrutinized and ultimately, excluded, improper Bradford Hill analyses conducted by plaintiff experts.
Site Content
In the product liability context, general causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question has the inherent capability to cause the alleged injury under certain circumstances. Establishment of general causation is a critical aspect of a plaintiff’s case, and typically requires scientific evidence, such as epidemiology or toxicology, and expert testimony to establish a causal connection between the product’s design, manufacturing, or warnings and the injury or injuries at issue. As contrasted to specific causation, the focus in a general causation inquiry is on whether the product or exposure, as a general matter, can cause the type of injury claimed by the plaintiff. A general causation inquiry does not assess any facts unique to a particular plaintiff.
Site Content
Specific causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question was the direct cause of a plaintiff's specific injury. While general causation inquires whether a broader connection exists between a product and a type of harm, a specific causation assessment focuses on the unique circumstances surrounding a particular plaintiff's case. It typically requires expert testimony demonstrating that the alleged defect or issue in the product was responsible for the specific injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Alternative explanations for the plaintiff’s specific injuries must also be ruled out—typically via a differential etiology—for specific causation to be established.