Edward Y. Kroub and Uri Horowitz are the most-named partners on the firm’s federal complaints; Mars Khaimov was associated with the firm in earlier years before establishing his own practice (E·03). The Manhattan-based firm’s principal pleading team has remained largely stable across the 2023–25 period.

Roughly 95% of the firm’s federal docket is in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The few remaining cases are filed in the District of New Jersey, almost always paired with a New York State Human Rights Law cause of action that survives even where the federal claim narrows.

The firm was lead plaintiff’s counsel in several of the early “screen-reader compatibility” website cases that established the Second Circuit’s working test for what constitutes a denial of access to goods or services. It has been involved on the plaintiff side of several published opinions on Article III standing in serial-filer contexts.

New York Senate Bill S5365B — the 2024 round of amendments to the state’s CPLR rules on serial plaintiffs — added expanded standing inquiries, intent-to-return pleading requirements, and a fee-shifting hook that defendants can now invoke at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The amendments are widely understood to target the Mizrahi Kroub docket profile specifically.

The firm’s 2025 filing pace, as far as it can be reconstructed from PACER, runs only modestly below 2024 — the New York amendments have changed pleading practice and added cost rather than meaningfully suppressing volume. Expect continued S.D.N.Y. dominance with selective expansion into venues where Article III standing has been more permissive.

Daniel C. Cohen and David Stein are most frequently named on the firm’s federal complaints, with a broader Hackensack, NJ-based pleading bench rotating across cases. The firm’s two-state operating model — New York courts, New Jersey filing address — is structurally distinctive.

The firm splits its docket between S.D.N.Y. and the District of New Jersey, with a smaller tail in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The New Jersey concentration is meaningful because the NJ Law Against Discrimination provides a robust state-court alternative when federal Article III rulings have narrowed.

The firm has been a consistent test-case driver on the question of whether websites must be “places of public accommodation” in their own right or only as appendages of physical locations — a Second Circuit / Third Circuit split that has shaped the firm’s venue selection.

Subject to both NY SB S5365B (in S.D.N.Y. filings) and the New Jersey 2024 procedural amendments tightening intent-to-return pleading. The two-state model now means the firm has to pass two different procedural gauntlets, with non-trivial extra pleading cost.

Anticipated migration of marginal cases out of S.D.N.Y. and into D.N.J. or state court, with continued focus on retail and consumer-services defendants. The firm’s settlement-driven business model is relatively resilient to procedural tightening because most cases resolve before motion practice.

Mars Khaimov, the firm’s namesake principal, is named on virtually every federal complaint, with a small Brooklyn-based supporting bench. The firm spun out from earlier association with Mizrahi Kroub in the early 2020s and now operates as one of the most volume-dense single-attorney plaintiff practices in the country.

Nearly the entire docket is filed in the Eastern District of New York, with a smaller secondary presence in S.D.N.Y. E.D.N.Y. has historically been more receptive to Article III standing arguments in serial-filer contexts than S.D.N.Y., which has driven the venue weighting.

The firm has been notable for its high case-per-plaintiff ratio — a smaller number of named plaintiffs cycling through a large number of defendant filings, which has been a focal point of the standing inquiries that defense counsel now routinely raise.

NY SB S5365B applies directly to the firm’s docket. The 2024 amendments to standing pleading and intent-to-return are most squarely targeted at firm structures that file dozens of cases per named plaintiff per year, which describes Mars Khaimov’s docket profile more clearly than any other firm in this catalogue.

The firm faces the most acute pleading-cost increase of any in this catalogue under the New York reforms, and 2025 volume appears to have softened by single-digit percentages from 2024. Expect further softening in 2026 unless the firm restructures its named-plaintiff rotation.

Mark Potter and Russell Handy are the principal partners; the firm operates a public-facing brand under the Center for Disability Access name for its Unruh Civil Rights Act / ADA dual-track practice. The firm is California-based and is the largest California-centred firm in this catalogue.

The firm files almost exclusively in the Central and Northern Districts of California, with parallel state-court filings under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act — which awards statutory damages of $4,000 per violation per occurrence, a key economic driver of California’s outsized ADA litigation profile relative to its population.

The firm has been involved in multiple Ninth Circuit decisions on the relationship between physical-premise accessibility and digital surfaces, and in the long-running California State Bar inquiry into the structure of high-volume disability-access litigation.

California AB 1417 and the 2024 amendments to the Unruh Act’s procedural requirements added a heightened verification step for repeat plaintiffs, a fee-shifting hook for prevailing defendants in cases dismissed on standing, and a state-court pre-litigation notice window for businesses with 25 or fewer employees.

The firm has been the most-debated subject of California reform conversation for a decade, and the 2024 amendments have shifted its mix toward larger-defendant cases where the pre-litigation notice window does not apply. Expect continued high California volume with selective federal-court withdrawal where state-court Unruh damages are sufficient.

Scott J. Ferrell is the principal partner most frequently named; the firm’s litigation team operates from Newport Beach with a small but consistent pleading bench. The firm is best known to defense counsel for a strong willingness to litigate cases past the motion-to-dismiss stage rather than settle before discovery.

The firm concentrates in the Central District of California with smaller secondary filings in the Southern and Eastern Districts. Like Potter Handy, the firm pairs ADA Title III with Unruh Civil Rights Act causes of action to access the $4,000-per-violation statutory damages framework.

The firm has been notable for several published Ninth Circuit appellate outcomes on the question of “tester” plaintiff standing and on the nexus required between a website and a physical place of public accommodation under the Ninth Circuit’s Robles framework.

Same California exposure as Potter Handy — CA AB 1417 and the 2024 Unruh amendments. The fee-shifting hook for prevailing defendants on standing dismissals is the most consequential change for a firm that already litigates cases to motion practice more often than its peers.

The firm’s litigation-oriented mix has historically meant it produces published opinions disproportionate to its filing volume. Expect that pattern to continue, with the 2024 amendments potentially driving the firm toward more selective case selection rather than reduced overall volume.

Dana L. Gottlieb (separate entity from E·09 Gottlieb & Associates) and Jeffrey M. Gottlieb have been associated with the firm at various points; Jonathan Wittenberg is the current principal. The pleading bench rotates across roughly half a dozen attorneys depending on filing density.

Predominantly S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. with a small D.N.J. tail. The firm’s geographic footprint is essentially identical to Mizrahi Kroub’s, and the two firms are frequently named opposite the same defendant categories in adjacent dockets.

The firm’s cases tend to settle quietly without published opinion. A handful of standing-related dismissals have featured in the Second Circuit’s evolving thinking on serial-filer Article III analysis since 2023.

NY SB S5365B applies directly. The intent-to-return pleading requirement is most consequential because the firm’s named plaintiff roster, like several Manhattan-based peers, has historically been concentrated.

Expect continued S.D.N.Y. dominance with possible D.N.J. expansion as a procedural hedge. Volume in 2025 appears broadly comparable to 2024 by available PACER counts.

Joseph R. Manning, Jr. is the firm’s principal and is named on virtually every federal complaint. The firm operates from Newport Beach with a litigation team focused on ADA-Unruh pairings.

Central District of California is the firm’s nearly exclusive venue. Cases pair ADA Title III with Unruh Civil Rights Act claims under California’s $4,000-per-violation statutory damages framework, with state-court filings as a backup where federal standing has narrowed.

The firm has been a frequent named party in California’s appellate jurisprudence on the question of how injunctive-relief ADA claims interact with monetary Unruh claims — particularly in cases where defendants seek federal-court dismissal of the ADA claim and remand of the Unruh claim to state court.

CA AB 1417 and the Unruh Act amendments apply directly. The state-court pre-litigation notice window for small businesses is the most consequential change because a meaningful fraction of the firm’s defendant mix consists of small retailers and service businesses.

Expect a measurable mix shift toward larger-defendant cases where the pre-litigation notice window does not apply, and possible reductions in overall volume. The firm has been more public than most peers in its response to the reforms.

Joseph H. Mizrahi (no relation to the Mizrahi Kroub firm) and Daniel B. Lipton are the most frequently named partners. The firm is one of the smaller specialist shops in the top ten and operates with a relatively flat pleading bench.

S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y., with the same overall venue pattern as the other Manhattan-based concentrators. The firm’s specific defendant mix has leaned slightly more toward small-and-mid-cap online retailers than the larger Mizrahi Kroub or Stein Saks dockets.

The firm has been a recurring named party in cases probing the relationship between WCAG conformance and ADA Title III compliance — an issue the Second Circuit has handled cautiously and on which no bright-line rule has yet been adopted.

NY SB S5365B applies directly. The fee-shifting hook is most consequential at this firm’s volume because the firm’s cases historically resolve at a per-case settlement value lower than the larger New York concentrators, so even moderate fee exposure shifts the economics.

Of the New York-cluster firms, Lipton is the most likely to see meaningful volume reduction under the 2024 reforms, simply because the unit economics are tighter. Expect single-digit-percent volume softening through 2026.

Jeffrey M. Gottlieb and Dana L. Gottlieb are the firm’s principal partners. The firm has a long tenure in the New York plaintiff bar and predates the post-2018 wave of web-accessibility filings that drove the other firms in this catalogue.

S.D.N.Y. is the firm’s dominant venue, with a small E.D.N.Y. tail. The firm’s docket is more diverse in defendant category than the other Manhattan firms, with a noticeable representation of hospitality, restaurant, and service-business defendants.

The firm has been a recurring named party in early Second Circuit ADA Title III cases on the question of what counts as a “place of public accommodation” in the digital context, with a docket reaching back into the pre-website-litigation era.

NY SB S5365B applies. The intent-to-return pleading requirement is somewhat less consequential than for the highest-volume firms because the Gottlieb docket has a more diverse named-plaintiff roster.

Expect stable-to-slightly-declining volume. The firm’s diversification across defendant categories provides some resilience against the kind of category-specific judicial pushback that would compress a more concentrated docket.

Yitzchak Zelman is the firm’s most frequently named partner. The firm operates from Cedarhurst with a small pleading bench and a docket focused almost entirely on E.D.N.Y. filings.

Eastern District of New York almost exclusively. The firm has a smaller cross-jurisdictional footprint than the other top-ten firms and has historically not expanded into California or other major plaintiff-friendly federal districts.

The firm’s cases settle predominantly out of court without published opinion. A small number of E.D.N.Y. dismissals on Article III standing grounds have featured in the district court’s evolving 2023–25 docket-management thinking.

NY SB S5365B applies directly. The fee-shifting hook is most consequential at this firm’s filing scale, where individual case economics are tight enough that even modest defense-side fee exposure can shift the firm’s selection bar.

Among the firms in this catalogue, Equal Access Law Group is the most likely to see structural volume reduction under the 2024 reforms — a small specialist shop at the low end of the top ten is the most economically exposed to procedural friction. Expect possible exits or restructuring through 2026.