Timothy Ferguson, Managing Partner, Foley Mansfield

Invest: spoke with Timothy Ferguson, managing partner of Foley Mansfield, about how the firm is positioning itself as toxic tort litigation evolves, why trial readiness still matters, and how emerging regulatory questions, from AI to cannabis, are reshaping risk for clients. “We understand the economic issues and the risk issues that can impact different clients, and we approach each matter with the goal of doing what is in the client’s best interest,” Ferguson said.

What makes you different as an organization from other national defense law firms when handling complex litigation and regulatory matters?

Foley Mansfield is a midsized firm. We are located in 13 offices across 10 states, and we have attorneys admitted in more than 30 states, which gives us reach while still operating with the focus and cohesion of a specialized team.

What makes us different is our specialty in toxic tort litigation, including not only asbestos litigation, but also talc litigation, which remains very active. In addition, we are now heavily involved in the artificial stone cases that are emerging out of California and beginning to make their way into Florida. These matters are tied to the cutting and rendering of artificial stone, and they have become a significant and fast-moving area, with hundreds of filings already in California. We expect that trajectory to continue as the litigation expands into additional jurisdictions.

Another key differentiator is that we have a deep bench of trial attorneys, and not just trial attorneys in title, but trial attorneys with a track record. We have nationally recognized litigators and defense verdicts, including some of the first defense verdicts in artificial stone litigation. Personally, I have tried cases to verdict that have been recognized among the top defense verdicts in Florida in civil litigation and product liability litigation. For clients, that matters because it signals that we are prepared to take cases to trial when it is necessary to do so, rather than building every strategy around avoidance.

At the same time, we also recognize that trial readiness exists alongside practical business considerations. We understand the economic issues and the risk issues that can impact different clients, and we approach each matter with the goal of doing what is in the client’s best interest within that client’s risk tolerances and business objectives.

Which practice areas are experiencing the greatest growth, and what is driving that demand?

The areas where we are seeing the greatest growth are talc litigation and artificial stone litigation. A recent report from KCIC, which tracks filings in asbestos litigation and related categories, shows talc litigation has grown by more than 300% in filings. That is a substantial increase, and it reflects how quickly the landscape can shift when a category becomes more active and more visible.

Artificial stone litigation is also accelerating. It started gaining traction in California, but we are seeing signs it will expand beyond that market, including into Florida. From our perspective, the growth is being driven by the volume of filings already underway in established venues and the expectation that those claims will continue to spread as awareness and litigation activity increase in additional states.

As a managing partner, how do you approach leadership and mentorship across multiple offices to ensure consistency in quality, culture, and client service?

Mentorship is central to our ethos as a firm. Every attorney who starts with Foley Mansfield is assigned a mentor, someone they can speak to, seek advice from, and turn to for guidance when needed. That structure is intentional. We want our attorneys to develop, and we want them to feel supported as they grow into stronger practitioners.

We invest in our people because we are trying to build and keep quality attorneys long-term. The dividends of that investment show up in the consistency of the work and the level of service we deliver to clients across offices. When you build a culture where development is expected and supported, you create a more consistent experience for clients, regardless of which office is handling a matter.

We also carry forward values that come from the firm’s origins in Minneapolis and the Midwest, and we work to keep those values present across the rest of the firm. That continuity matters when you are operating in multiple states, because culture is a major driver of consistency, and consistency is a major driver of client trust.

You also lead the firm’s cannabis law practice. How has that practice evolved, and what regulatory or litigation trends are shaping its future?

The cannabis space has been a real fight in terms of how it evolves. There is a consistent push-pull between the regulatory side of cannabis and the pace at which the market is able to develop and operate with clarity.

At the national level, there has been movement toward reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. Schedule I puts it in the category of substances such as cocaine, while Schedule III is more in line with a regulated drug, typically by prescription. If that shift happens, it changes the regulatory framework and the conversation around how cannabis is treated.

At the same time, there has also been pushback in Florida that has slowed development for cannabis clients and the broader cannabis space. There have been proposals for constitutional amendments related to legalization, and there have been challenges around the requirements to advance those proposals, including signature thresholds and endorsement-related hurdles. Those issues can stymie progress and create uncertainty for operators who are trying to plan strategically.

I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail, but there is no question that the regulatory environment creates challenges. 

How is the firm leveraging technology, data analytics, or alternative arrangements to improve efficiency and deliver value to clients?

The legal field has seen rapid development in artificial intelligence, and we have taken that seriously. We have gone as far as hiring a director of artificial intelligence, because we believe clients will benefit from the right use of that technology.

AI can never replace professional judgment, and it cannot replace the ethical responsibilities that surround advising clients. But it can be an effective tool for managing massive amounts of information. For example, deposition designations, deposition summaries, and other large volumes of material can be digested by AI and reduced into a more usable form in a matter of minutes; work that would normally take hours.

The key is that there still has to be a human reviewing the output to ensure it is accurate. The technology is still developing, and accuracy matters, especially in litigation.

We also focus on the ethical issues tied to AI use. When attorneys enter information into public AI tools, even if it is anonymized in some way, there is a real concern about feeding potentially attorney-client privileged information into a public space. From my perspective, that is an ethical problem. Our system is closed off so that information stays contained, and clients can be assured that their data is not being disseminated into the broader AI environment.

What are your top priorities for the firm in the next couple of years?

The first priority is, and always will be, delivering the best legal services we can for our clients, no matter the size of the client. We represent a wide range of companies, including top-tier organizations across industries, whether that is cosmetics, heavy equipment, parts manufacturing, or smaller equipment providers. The goal is to provide the best representation possible so we can achieve the results clients want.

At the same time, we have to focus on the long-term health of the firm. We are more than 35 years in, and sustaining that kind of legacy requires continuous development of attorneys and deliberate leadership transition planning. The people who put in the work to build the firm established something lasting, but there has to be a thoughtful transition over time as the next generation steps into leadership.

That transition is not an easy process, and it should not be an easy process, but it is something we have worked through and something we will continue to prioritize. It is a major driver of continued stability and success for the firm in the years ahead.