Corey B. Hirsch-Lestienne
Overview
A litigator focused on labor and employment law, Corey represents national corporations in private equity, defense, real estate, and health care. Skilled in investigating and litigating high-stakes disputes, Corey has advocated before federal and state courts, administrative agencies, arbitration panels, and mediators.
Career & Education
- New York
Assistant Corporation Counsel, Labor and Employment Law Division, New York City Law Department, 2021–2022
- New York
- Associate, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 2022–2024
- Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law , J.D., cum laude, 2020
- Columbia University, B.A., magna cum laude, 2017
- The Jewish Theological Seminary, B.A., magna cum laude, 2017
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Corey's Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Firm News | 2 min read | 05.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
Virginia Goes to Work: How the Commonwealth’s Sweeping New Employment Protections Impact Employers
Representative Matters
Litigation and Trial
- Represented CareOne, a network of skilled assisted living facilities, in state and federal litigation.
- Represented a national staffing company in federal litigation of employee-poaching and misappropriation of trade secrets claims.
Labor and Employment Proceedings
- Defended a national real estate brokerage firm in state and federal court, and before the Real Estate Board of New York, on hostile workplace, wage and hour, sexual harassment, and discrimination claims.
- Represented a national transportation and logistics company in employment litigation matters.
Corporate and Transactional Deals
- Facilitated the lease and acquisition of 400 medical practice employees by national health care provider.
- Advised hedge fund on employee counseling, separation, and general workplace issues.
Video Game Industry
- Advised and represented globally recognized mobile app studio in intellectual property litigation.
List may include matters worked on prior to joining Crowell.
Corey's Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Firm News | 2 min read | 05.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
Virginia Goes to Work: How the Commonwealth’s Sweeping New Employment Protections Impact Employers
Insights
Déjà Vu? New Executive Order Outlines Restrictions on Contractor and Subcontractor DEI Activity
|04.09.26
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
Corey's Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Firm News | 2 min read | 05.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
Virginia Goes to Work: How the Commonwealth’s Sweeping New Employment Protections Impact Employers
