Hutchinson Black and Cook Serves as Co-Counsel on Amicus Brief Supporting Girls’ and Women’s Rights in Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Hutchinson Black and Cook attorneys Ashlyn Hare, Clarice Tenorio, and Lucy Walker are proud to serve as co-counsel with Public Counsel and Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein, LLP on an amicus brief filed on behalf of leading women’s and girls’ advocacy organizations in two cases currently before the United States Supreme Court: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases address laws that exclude transgender athletes from participating on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

Our brief explains how trans-exclusionary laws ultimately harm all women and girls, regardless of their gender alignment, by reinforcing harmful sex stereotypes and encouraging invasive and coercive sex verification practices on vulnerable youth. As the brief explains, laws like Idaho’s H.B. 500 and West Virginia’s H.B. 3293 perpetuate a long and fraught history of sports organizations policing women and girls’ bodies. These statutes require schools to divide teams by “biological sex” and permit anyone to dispute a student’s sex, which in turn encourages schools to adopt invasive and coercive sex verification procedures. Such measures threaten the privacy and dignity of girls and women and risk deterring participation in sports—contrary to the aims of Title IX.

“Since 1972, Title IX has pioneered inclusivity in all programs and activities offered by educational institutions. It recognizes the physical, mental, and social value that school sports provide to women and girls of all backgrounds. Laws like Idaho’s and West Virginia’s weaponize Title IX as a tool of exclusion and discrimination—to the detriment of everyone.” – Ashlyn Hare, HBC Title IX and Sports Law Attorney

For decades, Hutchinson Black and Cook has championed gender equity and fought to uphold the protections guaranteed by Title IX. Our attorneys have long advocated for women’s equal access to educational and athletic opportunities. This work reflects our commitment to ensuring that school sports remain spaces for healthy competition, growth, and learning—not sites of fear, suppression, and harassment.

Read the full amicus brief.

10 HBC Attorneys Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch® in America

The best legal talent team in the world, case closed.

Today, the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® was announced.

Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC is proud to announce that it has 10 attorneys listed in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America and Ones to Watch in America. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. 

Hutchinson Black and Cook’s complete list of 2026 The Best Lawyers in America:

• Jonathan Boonin  - Employment Law - Individuals 

• Maureen E. Eldredge - Corporate Law 

• Constance T. Eyster - Trusts and Estates 

• Christopher W. Ford - Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs 

• Glen F. Gordon - Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs 

• John B. Greer - Employment Law - Management 

• Kimberly M. Hult - Medical Malpractice Law - Plaintiffs 

• Justin Konrad - Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) 

• Shelly D. Merritt - Trusts and Estates 

• Marianne Luu-Chen - Ones to Watch in America

Congratulations to all recognized! 

Hutchinson Black and Cook Welcomes Shelly D. Merritt

Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC is pleased to announce that Shelly D. Merritt, JD, CPA, has joined the firm as of counsel. Shelly brings more than three decades of experience in estate planning, trust administration, and small business law, with a particular emphasis on complex wealth preservation estate planning strategies for clients.

Shelly’s practice focuses on developing sophisticated multi-generational estate plans. Her deep knowledge of international succession planning, trust and estate administration, and business succession strategies makes her a trusted advisor for families, business owners, and fiduciaries navigating multi-faceted legal landscapes. A Certified Public Accountant and a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC), Shelly is also certified in international succession planning by the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP).

Before joining HBC, Shelly practiced law in the Denver and Boulder areas for more than 30 years, most recently as a partner at Berg, Hill, Greenleaf & Ruscitti. She has held leadership positions in key legal and civic organizations, including the Colorado Bar Association's Trust & Estates Section and The Community Foundation Serving Boulder County. She is a frequent speaker and author on estate planning topics, with published work in the Colorado Lawyer and the Colorado Estate Planning Handbook.

Shelly’s reputation for excellence, strategic thinking, and client-centered counsel enhances HBC’s longstanding trust and estates practice. We are honored to welcome her to the team.

Welcome, Shelly!

HBC Files Title IX Class Action on Behalf of Stephen F. Austin State University Female Athletes

Hutchinson Black and Cook is proud to represent female athletes at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) alongside Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C. and James L. Sowder and Ellen Platt of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP in a new federal class action lawsuit challenging the university’s decision to eliminate three women’s varsity sports teams.

The lawsuit alleges that SFA is in violation of Title IX by depriving women of equal athletic opportunities.

On May 22, 2025, SFA announced it would cut its women’s beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams—along with the men’s golf team—at the end of the academic year. The cuts come despite SFA already falling far short of Title IX’s requirement that male and female students be provided athletic opportunities substantially proportionate to their enrollment.

“This is part of a troubling trend: schools slashing women’s sports in anticipation of making House v. NCAA revenue-sharing payments to football and men’s basketball players,” said Clune.

“To be clear: Revenue sharing payments are optional. Title IX compliance is not.”

According to data SFA submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, women made up over 63% of the undergraduate student body in 2022–23 but accounted for fewer than 47% of student-athletes. The elimination of the three women’s teams would widen that gap even further, reducing female athletic participation to just 42.6%. To achieve gender equity, SFA would need to add more than 200 women’s athletic opportunities—not take them away.

“At its heart, Title IX is an education law that recognizes the value that sports offer to students’ personal and professional growth. SFA’s decision to pay football players at the expense of the opportunity for female athletes to simply participate violates the very core of Title IX and underscores the importance of protecting Title IX as collegiate sports grow increasingly commercialized.” - Ashlyn Hare, associate attorney, HBC

Lead plaintiff Sophia Myers, a senior on the women’s beach volleyball team, said:

“It is truly sad and disappointing that we have to sue SFA to make it comply with Title IX, provide women with equal opportunities, and preserve our teams. But we have to stand up for our rights and fight for what is right.”

The plaintiffs have also filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction to preserve the women’s teams while the litigation proceeds.

This case builds on HBC’s longstanding commitment to equity in education and athletics. We’re proud to stand with these courageous athletes and advocate for their rights under Title IX.

Read more about the case in this Sportico article. Find the complaint and the emergency motion to learn more.

HBC Joins Amicus Brief in support of Susman Godfrey

HBC has again joined in the effort to defend the rule of law in our country and the rights of all clients and their law firms. 

On Friday, we and law firms from across the United States signed on to support Susman Godfrey LLP’s challenge to an unconstitutional Executive Order targeting that firm. 

Read the latest Susman Godfrey brief, and the earlier briefs filed on behalf of Perkins Coie, LLP, Jenner & Block, LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.

HBC Joins Amicus Briefs in support of Jenner & Block and Wilmer Hale

On April 11, 2025, Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC was again honored to join forces with law firms from across the United States, this time to support Jenner & Block LLP and Wilmer Hale Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP in challenges to recently-issued Executive Orders targeting those firms. 

With the filing of these briefs, another 300 law firms have added their names, bringing to over 800 the number of firms willing to publicly defend the rule of law in our country.  We will continue to work to preserve the independence of our judicial system, to ensure the freedom of all individuals and entities to choose their own counsel, and to protect the right of lawyers and law firms to represent those who may be unpopular or critical of the government without the risk of retribution.

Please find the full briefs below:

• Jenner & Block

• Wilmer Hale
  

HBC Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Perkins Coie’s Challenge to Executive Order

Today HBC is proud to stand with hundreds of leading law firms from across the country who joined an amicus brief in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-00716. The brief supports Perkins Coie’s efforts to strike down an Executive Order that retaliated against the firm for working on matters adverse to the current President. 

“Like every lawyer, the members of the amicus law firms have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and to discharge the obligations of the profession to the best of our ability. That oath obligates all of us, no matter our political views, to be faithful custodians of our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law—a commitment that has made it possible for this Nation’s corporations to lead the world in innovation and productivity; for our scientists, scholars and creative artists to contribute so much to human progress; and for all of us to know that we can turn to the courts to vindicate our fundamental civil rights.”

Read the full brief.

Our decision was not about politics. It was about preserving our country’s independent judicial system, the right of individuals and companies to hire the counsel of their choice, and the right of law firms to represent clients on matters with which others may not agree.                                                                                            

For 134 years, our firm has fought vigorously for the interests of our clients.  Our continued ability to do so depends on the independence of our judicial system and the right of all lawyers to zealously advocate for their clients.  

Lydia Holzman Named Newest Partner at Hutchinson Black and Cook

We are pleased to announce that Lydia Holzman has been named partner at Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC. Lydia joined HBC in August 2023 and has become an integral part of the firm’s estate planning and corporate practice areas. She provides strategic legal counsel to her clients and is known for her practical legal advice, clear communication, and ability to simplify even the most complex legal issues for her clients.

Prior to joining HBC, Lydia worked as in-house counsel for 11 years and learned the value of providing practical legal advice and working hand-in-hand with her clients to navigate business transactions and decisions. Drawing on that experience, Lydia continues to work closely with her clients, whether a local business looking for outside counsel support or an individual working with her to handle their legal matters. Lydia and her family call Lyons, Colorado home and supporting the Boulder community and its businesses gives her great satisfaction in her practice.

Her leadership, expertise, and collaborative approach have made her a trusted advisor to her clients and colleagues alike. As HBC’s newest partner, Lydia will continue to strengthen our firm’s estate planning and business practice groups while continuing the firm’s commitment to providing high quality legal services.

We congratulate Lydia on this well-deserved promotion and look forward to her continued success at HBC.

Title IX Objection Challenges NCAA Settlement Over Stark Gender Pay Disparities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                         Media contact: John Clune
February 5, 2025                   john.clune@hbcboulder.com
                                                                                         303-441-7402

Female Athletes Likely To Receive Only $125 Per Year of Eligibility While Male Athletes Cash In

Boulder, Colo. – Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC (HBC) attorneys John Clune and Ashlyn Hare—alongside Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Katz Banks Kumin LLP—have filed a formal Title IX-based objection to the House v. NCAA settlement, citing extreme gender disparities in financial compensation for college athletes.

The objection, filed on behalf of 10 former and current female student-athletes, exposes how the proposed settlement makes a critical error in calculating damages that vastly undercompensates women, likely awarding them just $125 per year of eligibility, while male athletes—particularly those in football and men’s basketball—stand to receive tens of thousands of dollars.

“This settlement isn’t just inequitable—it’s predicated on a flagrant violation of Title IX,” said John Clune, attorney at HBC. “This is primarily a settlement for football players that continues to keep female athletes in a one down position. One of our biggest concerns is that if this same inequitable model is used for revenue sharing in the future, women’s sports will be worse off than if there had never been a lawsuit in the first place. The schools and conferences should be embarrassed. They know better.“

Key Findings from the Financial Analysis of the Settlement

●      Unequal distribution of damages. The settlement primarily relies on the erroneous belief that schools, over the past 8 years, would have paid 90% of compensation to male athletes had the NCAA and conferences not restricted the right of athletes to earn money. As outlined in our objection, Title IX would have required any money coming from the school or conference to be paid proportionally between men and women based on the number of athletes at each institution. 

The settlement primarily allocates 90% of the $2.8 billion in past damages to male athletes in football and basketball, without ensuring that female athletes receive equitable financial benefits. As a result, most female athletes will likely take home a meager $125 USD per year of eligibility, while male athletes are taking home tens of thousands of dollars regardless of their marketability.

●      Title IX violations. While most objections filed to the House vs. NCAA settlement are in response to roster limits and a host of antitrust issues, there’s an overlooked component to the settlement that most objections have not raised: gender equity in past damages payment from the schools and conferences. Specifically, the proposed damages fail to acknowledge that Title IX applies to payments by the schools and conferences and requires proportionate distribution of financial aid and athletic benefits.

●      Threats to Olympic sports. The financial impact of the settlement may lead institutions to reallocate funds, potentially cutting or deprioritizing women’s and Olympic sports programs. Some schools have also stated they will implement the settlement’s future revenue-sharing model consistent with the inequitable distribution of past damages with 90% of revenue going to football and men’s basketball.

The filing comes amid ongoing legal and public scrutiny over the NCAA’s handling of athlete compensation, including name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and revenue-sharing agreements. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of college athletics and women in sports.

Our objection filed on behalf of 10 former and current student female athletes, is one of only a few objections on the basis of Title IX. One such athlete, Lexi Drumm, is a women’s soccer player for the College of Charleston.  

“This settlement provides an opportunity to rectify the past of collegiate sports and move into a new era where female athletes are given the resources to let their sports thrive,” said Drumm. “Just like interest, investment in collegiate sports compound. Male athletes are set to benefit exponentially more in the NCAA settlement because of the resources men’s sports have disproportionately been given. When you look at who this settlement is benefitting, it sends a strong and clear message that female athletes are not the priority—and that will negatively impact the future of women in sports for years to come.”

The Bigger Picture: Gender Equity at a Crossroads

This filing comes at a time when athlete compensation, NIL rights, and revenue-sharing models are reshaping the landscape of college sports. While future revenue sharing and roster limits dominate the conversation, this objection forces a reckoning with this fundamental error in the calculation of the $2.86 billion settlement.

“As a former college athlete, I know how essential Title IX has been to the development of women’s sport, and it’s critical that it doesn’t fall by the wayside as college sports are increasingly commercialized,” said Ashlyn Hare, associate attorney, HBC. “The NCAA, conferences, and schools have an obligation to their female athletes to recognize their value and invest in their future. That starts with recognizing Title IX in this settlement agreement.”

Read the full objection.

Lawsuit Against University of Colorado Over Free Speech and Due Process

On Monday, January 13, Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC filed a First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of two University of Colorado student-members of Students for Justice in Palestine concerning the University’s retaliation against the students for participating in a peaceful pro-Palestine protest on October 3, 2024. 

Find press coverage of this civil rights case here: 

• Denver Post 

• Colorado Public Radio

• Daily Camera

• Yellow Scene

• Boulder Weekly

• Yellow Scene

The Courage of Gisèle Pelicot

Photo by Amin Zabardast on Unsplash.

Authored by Kimberly M. Hult

Earlier today, a French court announced its verdicts following a lengthy rape trial of 51 men in Avignon, France.  Every one of the men was convicted, and many (but not all) face long prison terms.  For those of us who have followed the case closely for months, this outcome could never have been achieved without the courage, dignity and resilience of Gisèle Pelicot, the survivor of dozens, if not hundreds, of assaults.  For those unfamiliar with the case, over the course of a decade, Ms. Pelicot’s husband, one of the men convicted, had arranged for more than 50 (and maybe as many as 80) strangers to come into the couple’s home and rape Ms. Pelicot, a petite mother and grandmother, after he had first drugged her and she had become unconscious. 

Under French law, Ms. Pelicot had the right to remain anonymous through these proceedings.  She instead made the decision not only to proceed under her own name, but also to insist that all phases of the trial be public, including the viewing of horrific videos that her husband had made of the rapes and maintained in a file folder on his computer labeled “Abuse.”

Ms. Pelicot has insisted that she should not bear any shame for what happened to her; her assailants deserved the shame.  To be clear, her decision to proceed publicly, which has resulted in international media attention, could not have been easy.  Today, however, she told reporters that she has never regretted her decision. 

Ms. Pelicot has been rightfully hailed throughout France and beyond for her courage and poise and has ignited an important debate in that country about the definition of rape in the French criminal code and the need for affirmative consent to be part of that definition. 

She deserves every bit of the admiration and love that she has received.

Ever humble, this morning, Ms. Pelicot expressed her “profound gratitude” to her supporters, who have greeted and applauded her every morning and every evening outside of the courthouse.  For more than 20 years, I have worked with sexual assault survivors, and I have learned just how important true support is to them. 

But if I have also learned anything over the last couple of decades, it is that it is not easy to fight such an important battle so publicly.   To do so while recovering from sexual abuse requires an inner strength that is not available to many.  Gisèle Pelicot came forward publicly for all of those who simply could not. 

This holiday season she, and so many like her, have my deepest and most profound gratitude.

Marianne Luu-Chen Graduated from Inaugural Class of the Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel

Credit: Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute

We’re excited to announce that Marianne Luu-Chen, a partner at the law firm of Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC in Boulder, Colorado, has graduated from the inaugural class of the Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC).

The Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute was created by ACTEC Fellows to develop the profession’s future leaders in trust and estate law by invitation-only through a series of in-depth educational presentations led by outstanding subject matter experts in each field from across the U.S. For more information, visit www.rockymountainfellowsinstitute.org.

Marianne Luu-Chen provides counsel on estate planning, probate and trust administration, premarital and marital agreements, and estate, gift, and income tax planning for individuals and families.

Congratulations, Marianne! We’re honored to see your expertise recognized by the Rocky Mountain Fellows Institute of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.

Insights and Observations from the Groundbreaking House v. NCAA Settlement Preliminary Approval Hearing

Photo by Jacob Rice on Unsplash

After nearly three hours of probing questions and answers from Judge Claudia Wilkins at yesterday’s preliminary approval hearing, several intriguing takeaways emerged:

1. Judge Wilkins and the Settlement: A Clear Preference for Resolution
   Judge Wilkins seems intent on steering clear of obstructing the settlement process. Despite at least two significant sticking points discussed below, she appears optimistic that these issues will be resolved by the parties themselves. Her encouragement for the parties to start drafting the settlement notice by the end of the hearing underscores her expectation for a resolution.

2. NIL Money and the Judge’s Sticking Point
   The right for athletes to continue receiving certain NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) money from collectives is the major sticking point for Judge Wilkins. While she’s not likely a cheerleader for collectives, she doesn’t see a strong reason to eliminate this potential income source for athletes. The parties argued that this provision doesn’t significantly alter the status quo, as the only prohibition in the settlement is against pure pay-for-play deals with no legitimate business interest (e.g., "come play football and we’ll give you five million dollars"), which are already banned by the NCAA. However, Judge Wilkins remained unconvinced. It seems this provision is a key point of negotiation for the NCAA, possibly to prevent any future court from allowing collectives unrestricted payment power. The NCAA appears ready to defend this point vehemently.

3. Binding Future Class Members: A Potential Hurdle
   Another potential snag is whether the court can bind future class members—such as current fifth graders who might become college athletes down the line—who aren’t represented in this case. Judge Wilkins seemed to suggest she’d feel more at ease if these prospective members were represented by separate counsel, though it’s unclear if this alone would address her concerns.

4. Title IX Concerns: A Quiet Issue
   Title IX doesn’t seem to be a major concern at this stage. Despite the likelihood of future litigation, neither the judge nor the predominantly male legal teams appear particularly worried about it right now, although Judge Wilken requested the parties clarify that the settlement does not release Title IX claims. An objection raised by Attorney Steve Molo, representing a group of female athletes and arguing that the settlement unfairly values women’s sports, seemed to have little impact on the court’s focus.

5. The NCAA’s Stance: A Firm Negotiator
   The NCAA doesn’t appear thrilled about this settlement or is simply willing to play hardball, threatening to walk away if their terms aren’t met. At any mention of possible changes to the negotiated provisions, NCAA counsel was clear that the removal of any provision could jeopardize the settlement. This stance could reflect the NCAA's general attitude or just the personality of their legal team. Either way, they’ve signaled a strong disinterest in altering settlement terms and would prefer to go to trial if necessary. Whether this is a strategic bluff remains to be seen.

The parties have three weeks to address these sticking points and submit a revised proposal for Judge Wilkins’s consideration. It’s likely they’ll find a resolution to the judge’s concerns, but the ultimate decision will rest with Judge Wilkins on whether the proposal meets her standards.