California MCLE Podcast

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Growing evidence links heavy social‑media use to rising anxiety, bullying, and sextortion among kids, and state lawmakers are racing to respond. In this interview, Harvard Law School's Leah Plunkett—reporter for the Uniform Law Commission's child‑influencer act—and University of Virginia family‑law scholar Naomi Cahn examine how new statutes seek to verify age, require parental consent, and redesign feeds to curb addictive features.Plunkett and Cahn compare Florida's and Utah's sweeping under‑14 account bans with New York's pending “SAFE for Kids Act,” explore design mandates such as late‑night notification curfews, and explain why long‑standing COPPA rules leave teens largely unprotected. They unpack First Amendment and privacy challenges already moving through the courts, highlight emerging “digital Coogan” laws that safeguard child‑creator earnings, and note international moves—from Australia's proposed under‑16 ban to the U.K.'s Age‑Appropriate Design Code.(Credits: General 1.5 hrs | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Digital platforms now enable the near-instantaneous distribution of information, including misinformation and disinformation, to vast audiences. Disinformation refers to false or manipulated information deliberately created to deceive, whereas misinformation is inaccurate or misleading information that is sometimes shared without harmful intent. Professor Barbara McQuade—a former U.S. attorney and current professor of National Security Law at the University of Michigan Law School—explores these challenges and the legal weapons to combat them, noting that disinformation currently poses one of the biggest threats to national security.(Credits: General 1hr | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

An interview with Prof. Carrie Menkel-MeadowIn this episode, Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow of UC Irvine Law School delves into the ethical frontiers of legal negotiation, challenging attorneys to reflect on which tactics align with both zealous advocacy and professional integrity. Menkel-Meadow navigates the evolution from a model of unbridled assertiveness toward a modern framework that prizes diligence, honesty, and respect for the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.Throughout the conversation, she distinguishes between permissible strategic behavior—such as puffing, bluffing, and even certain aggressive maneuvers—and practices that cross the line into outright deception. By exploring the nuances of material misrepresentation versus acceptable exaggeration, Menkel-Meadow highlights the ethical dilemmas inherent in negotiation, including the fine balance between strategic omissions and the risk of fraud. She also emphasizes the long-term benefits of cultivating a reputation for fairness and transparency, arguing that such an approach not only upholds professional credibility but also better serves clients over time.(Credits: 1.25hrs Civility | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

The legal profession faces alarmingly high rates of substance abuse and mental health challenges. In this conversation, Brian Cuban, attorney, author, and addiction recovery advocate, explores the systemic and cultural factors contributing to addiction among lawyers and provides actionable strategies for prevention and recovery.Cuban shares his deeply personal journey of battling addiction and rebuilding his life, offering valuable insights into how stigma, stress, and the “work hard, play hard” culture exacerbate the problem. He discusses the role of Lawyers' Assistance Programs (LAPs), the importance of creating supportive environments within law firms, and the ethical obligations attorneys must navigate when facing addiction.Throughout the discussion, Cuban examines the legal structures that protect confidentiality and promote recovery, as well as innovative approaches to fostering well-being in the profession and provides tools to help lawyers recognize, address, and prevent substance abuse while maintaining competence and ethical integrity.(Credits: 1.5hrs Competence (Prevention and Detection) | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

As artificial intelligence systems become increasingly expensive and resource dependant to develop, a question arises: Are we witnessing the emergence of AI as a natural monopoly? In this conversation, Berkeley Law Professor Tejas Narechania explores how the market forces driving AI consolidation create both efficiency and significant legal risks.Professor Narechania explains the structural conditions under which a natural monopoly can form—where the high costs of developing foundational AI models and the competitive advantages of massive datasets create significant barriers to entry. He discusses how antitrust principles, network effects, and accountability risks must be considered when regulating AI market power.Throughout the discussion, Professor Narechania draws on historical parallels in telecommunications law and explores potential legal tools, including interoperability requirements, national security concerns, and public infrastructure models to improve outcomes without stifling innovation.(Credits: General 1hr | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Autonomous lethal weapons, often sensationalized as “killer robots,” are no longer confined to science fiction—they are a rapidly advancing reality in modern warfare. In this conversation, Georgetown Law Professor Mitt Regan, an expert on the laws of war and international law, delves into the profound ethical and legal implications of AI-enabled weapon systems for both current conflicts and the future of warfare. Central to the conversation are the legal frameworks governing AI-enabled weapons under international humanitarian law. Professor Regan examines principles such as distinction, proportionality, and precaution, showing how these are tested by systems that use AI to identify and engage targets. Significant gaps in legal frameworks persist, including the absence of a unified international agreement specifically addressing autonomous weaponry.Mitt Regan is a professor of law at Georgetown Law and an expert on both national security and international humanitarian law. (Credits: General 1hr | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw "Premium" or "Podcast" members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast, nearly unfathomable amounts of data—data that is now reshaping the very fields from which it was sourced, including literature, journalism, music, and photography. As a result, these models have sparked high-stakes litigation and raised novel legal questions about ownership and intellectual property, both in the AI training process and the output they produce. In this conversation, we explore the intersection of AI training and copyright law with Professor Shyamkrishna (Shyam) Balganesh of Columbia Law School, a prominent legal scholar who has been closely examining these emerging issues.(Credits: General 1.5 | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw "Premium" or "Podcast" members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

AI is changing how lawyers do their work and raising questions about how lawyers can harness artificial intelligence consistent with their professional responsibilities. Georgetown Law Professor Tanina Rostain answers questions about the transformative impact of AI on the legal profession and how the rules of professional conduct apply to the new ways that attorneys use AI to conduct research, draft documents, and interact with clients. (Credits: Technology 1.0 | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw "Premium" or "Podcast" members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Professor Joseph Blocher (Second Amendment scholar and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law) explains two significant recent Supreme Court cases: United States v. Rahimi and Garland v. Cargill. This discussion provides an in-depth analysis of the legal reasoning behind these decisions and their broader implications for gun regulation and gun rights in the United States.

The sale and production of lab-grown meat have been criminalized in Florida and Alabama, with other states considering similar legislation. Food law expert Professor Michael Roberts from UCLA Law School explains what the new laws do as well as how they fit into the federal regulatory framework and the historical context of food law and politics in the United States.

The power of prosecutors extends far beyond the courtroom, shaping the trajectory of countless lives through their decisions. Legal experts Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe delve into this immense authority in an insightful interview, exploring the nuances of prosecutorial discretion and its profound impact on the justice system. Their discussion sheds light on the ethical and constitutional standards that guide prosecutorial conduct, emphasizing the balance between power and responsibility.

The law of self-defense permits the use of deadly force under a strict set of conditions: the threat must be both imminent and unlawful, and the response, both necessary and proportionate. But what of the murkier scenarios where multiple parties, ensnared in the throes of perceived danger, believe themselves justified in their fears? Consider the tragic case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin—where does the law stand when fear is misplaced, and how swiftly can one lawfully escalate to lethal force? Professor Kimberly Ferzan of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law navigates these shadowy waters and others offering her insights into the delicate balance between legal theory and the stark realities of personal safety.

Forensic science, when applied rigorously, has the power to catch and convict criminals, but when mishandled, can lead to tragic miscarriages of justice. In this eye-opening interview with Prof. Brandon Garrett (Duke Law School) and Dr. Peter Stout (Houston Forensic Science Center), explore high-profile exoneration cases like those of Josiah Sutton and George Rodriguez and the systemic issues plaguing crime labs across the country.  

As the US accuses Russia of developing nuclear-armed satellites, what does international law say about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space? Space law expert, Professor Frans von der Dunk discusses the weaponization of outer space and the laws that govern weapons beyond the planet. The deployment of weapons of mass destruction in outer space presents not only a significant threat to global security but also a complex challenge to international law, explains Professor von der Dunk, a leading authority on space law at the Nebraska College of Law.

The legal profession is known for its high-stakes, high-stress lifestyle. The dangers of stress to mind and body are similarly well known. However, as one endocrinologist famously put it, “It is not stress that kills us, it is our reaction to it.” In a time of heightened stress, we explore one potentially powerful strategy that lawyers can use to more effectively combat stress and improve their professionalism–mindfulness. As attorney and mindfulness teacher Jon Krop explains, mindfulness is the practice of being present in the moment and a practical tool to help better manage stress. Krop describes some of the unique characteristics of the legal profession that may make lawyers more prone to stress and makes the case for incorporating mindfulness and meditation to improve job performance and the health of the profession overall. This interview explores both the scientific underpinnings and benefits of mindfulness and concrete tips to incorporate mindfulness into a busy lawyer's daily life.(Credits: 1 Competence MCLE)

In the volatile conflict between Israel and Gaza, the line between legitimate military action and war crimes is often blurred. Professor Michael Newton, an expert in the laws of war, begins with a brief history of war crimes and how these international laws were codified. He then turns to the violence in Gaza and Israel, using real life examples from bombings to kidnapping to better understand what differentiates a legitimate act of war from a war crime.(Credits: 1.5 General MCLE)

Like all attorneys, Asian-American lawyers generally strive for legal excellence by honing their expertise and delivering quality client service. Yet, they can confront a myriad of stereotypes, biases, and misconceptions from colleagues and even clients. In this interview, Prof. Peter Huang of Colorado Law delves into the unique challenges and biases Asian-American lawyers face.Prof. Huang discusses how many view Asian-American lawyers through the lens of the "model minority" myth. This stereotype paints Asian-Americans as a monolithic group, emphasizing traits such as studiousness, diligence, and obedience, and overlooking their diverse individual qualities. Such perceptions can have detrimental effects. Aspiring Asian-American leaders or law partners may find themselves pigeonholed as effective but potentially lacking creativity or vision, consequently limiting their ascent to senior roles.Prof. Huang emphasizes that today's Asian-American lawyers often wrestle with subtle, unspoken or subconscious biases. He further enriches the discussion by introducing concepts like the “perpetual foreigner syndrome” or the minority “cloak of invisibility” shedding light on multifaceted challenges Asian-American professionals encounter.

When you die without a will, the default rules of inheritance law kick in, allocating assets based on established formulas and hierarchies. In this conversation, Prof. John Morley (Yale Law School) explains basic inheritance law and delves into the default rules that come into play when a person dies without a will (“intestate”) and how these rules both vary significantly from state to state and are often at odds with common expectations when it comes to an individual's legacy. Through his recent survey, Prof. Morley has uncovered differences in inheritance expectations across various demographic groups. For instance, women are notably less likely than men to intentionally leave money to their spouses. Additionally, the conversation explores discrepancies by race and sexual orientation as well as some notable surprises pertaining to less traditional family structures.Prof. Morley's insights not only underscore the importance of having a will that accurately reflects one's wishes but also suggest that intestacy laws across the nation may be out of step with modern expectations and in need of revision. (1hr MCLE Credit)

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College signals a radical shift in how the Supreme Court views favoring racial diversity and affirmative action in higher education. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion in SFFA v. Harvard, rejects the use of race as a factor in college admissions, asserting that this practice, previously accepted under prior cases such as Bakke and Fisher (see additional resources), is no longer permissible. Professor Theodore Shaw of UNC Law School explains the evolution of affirmative action and racial diversity programs and the impact of this decision on our understanding of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Law firm failures do not merely fall off into bankruptcy - they are spectacles of grand implosions. American law firms suffer from unique structural risks that can drive these formidable institutions to not just falter, but to rapidly collapse even when their balance sheets and profitability would suggest more durability in another industry. This phenomenon, far from random, stems from the fragile ownership structure unique to the legal industry. In an interview with Yale Law Professor John Morley, we take a deep dive into the inherent risks and dramatic consequences of law firm failures, and why this topic should command our attention. 

Police commands are the cornerstone of law enforcement, at once projecting the authority of the state and instantly creating legal obligations for which the failure to comply can result in arrest, detention, or even the use of deadly force. But what are the limits of police commands? When are they lawful and what rights do we have to disobey them when they are unlawful? Professor Rachel Harmon, a leading scholar on police law explains how police commands are the building blocks of police authority and can serve as the foundation upon which a peaceful resolution to a crisis is built. On the other hand, bad commands can create confusion, escalate tensions, and result in unnecessary use of force. Prof Harmon explains the legal limits of police commands and how regulating them can play a critical role in reducing police abuse and unnecessary force.

The term shadow docket refers to the decisions and orders of the Supreme Court outside of the traditional cases. Shadow docket cases generally lack the formal briefings, oral arguments, and reasoned, lengthy opinions of the merits cases. Over the last few years, the Court has increasingly used these decisions to address high-profile and politically-charged issues such as immigration, election disputes, pandemic restrictions, and abortion bans.In this interview, Prof. Steven Vladeck (University of Texas Law School) breaks down this shift in power at the High Court and offers detailed analysis and a critique of the increased use of the shadow docket and what it might mean for the Court's already-tarnished prestige.  (1hr)

Diversity and inclusion are laudable goals, but how can change be created in an industry driven by tradition and financial return? This interview explores the concept of using economic incentives and data to encourage diversity within the legal profession. The conversation also explores controversial topics such as diversity spin, partner compensation, and the impact on the legal profession of changes to affirmative action law currently being considered at the Supreme Court.  Aviva Will is the Co-Chief Operating Officer at Burford Capital and one of the architects behind Burford's Equity Project (a $150,000,000 fund allocated exclusively for women and minority litigators). Keith Harrison is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring's Litigation Group and a member of the firm's Diversity Council. Aviva and Keith sit down with Joel to discuss putting money on the line to overcome inherent biases and structural disadvantages and to encourage, maintain, and grow diversity in the profession of law.  (Diversity and Inclusion / Implicit Bias & Bias Reducing Strategies MCLE)

The role of women in the legal profession is more bigger than a statistic, or headcount. Journalist Dahlia Lithwick shares insights from her beat (American courts and the law) about the insurgent role women are on the cutting edge of developing law. In an interview that reflects upon her recent book, Lady Justice (Penguin Press, 2022), Dahlia explains how gender diversity is also about women sharing the stage at the very highest levels of the profession.The interview explores the role of women in the most high-pressure and high-profile positions in the legal world – from Supreme Court justices to Supreme Court advocates, to the fight against white nationalism, to the battle to reform gerrymandering. Finally, Dahlia speaks to host Joel Cohen about the treatment of women in federal clerkships. She shares observations, instances of abuse, and explains how the hierarchical nature of clerkships can permit bullying, harassment, and sexually improper conduct to go unchecked.  Finally, Dahlia leaves listeners with an encouraging message that while injustice and disparity persist, prominent women are driving change on many of the most important issues of our time, inspiring the next generation of women attorneys. 1.5 Hrs (Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession)

How are cryptocurrencies treated by the U.S. government? Former Chairman of the CFTC and a pioneer of crypto regulation, Christopher Giancarlo breaks down the crypto-regulatory landscape. Giancarlo explains why some crypto is treated as a commodity, others as a security, while others may not be regulated at all (yet). In a time of extreme volatility in the crypto markets, Giancarlo explores FTX, Bitcoin, stablecoins, DAO's, enforcement actions by the CFTC, the SEC under Chairman Gary Gensler, and the future of crypto regulation. Finally, Giancarlo looks at the "digital dollar" and discusses with Joel how issues such as privacy and the 4th Amendment would apply to U.S. fiat cryptocurrency.

In the religious freedom case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), the Supreme Court weighed in on the role of God in football in American public schools. Prof. Sarah Barringer Gorden (UPenn Law) explains the case, its impact on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause separating church and state, and the unusual history of religion and football at the Supreme Court.In Bremerton, the Court decided whether a public school football coach named Joseph Kennedy violated the Establishment Clause by prominently praying at midfield after each game. The Court found in favor of the coach and determined that his actions were protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise protections of the First Amendment. Finally, Prof. Gordon explains the historical ebb and flow of Establishment Clause power and lays out the Court's new test for evaluating potential violations of church and state after Kennedy v Bremerton.

With incredible powers to make life-changing decisions involving liberty and fortune, judges are expected to make decisions with a threshold level of neutrality. In this conversation, we explore the limits of that threshold. When does judicial bias legally or ethically preclude a judge from hearing a case? Alicia Bannon (director of the Judiciary Project at the Brennan Center for Justice) explains the laws and limits on judicial recusal and where gray areas remain. Bannon draws on contentious contemporary examples such as cases involving Justice Thomas and his wife's connection to cases involving January 6th as well as cases relating to former President Trump. Bannon explains that the constitutional test for recusal (under the Due Process protections) is “serious risk of actual bias.” The conversation goes on to explore the limits of that test and potential reforms to improve the integrity of U.S. courts.

On June 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond its direct impact on climate policy, the case significantly impacts administrative power by supercharging a new legal regime - the “major questions doctrine.” Environmental law and administrative law expert, Professor Lisa Heinzerling (Georgetown Law Center) unpacks the Court's decision in WV v. EPA and explains the broad powers of the judicial doctrine.Prof. Heinzerling goes on to explain how major questions may prove to be the death knell for a prior test known as “Chevron deference.” Where Chevron assured judicial restraint toward federal policy, major questions now threatens to stymie agency action on some of the most critical and contentious issues of the moment, from climate change policy and far beyond.

When algorithms take the wheel and human drivers move to the back seat, who's to blame when an accident occurs? The future of driverless cars is already here, with Waymo test offering its autonomous taxi services and more companies like GM, Nissan, and even Amazon entering the race to market. As driverless cars become the norm, the laws governing its development and use will have to adapt accordingly. RAND Corporation's James Anderson discusses the complicated legal and policy issues that will need to be contemplated, including tort liability, the insurance regime, cybersecurity, and the regulatory framework.

On June 23rd, 2022 the Supreme Court decided the landmark gun rights case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The case, widely seen as a win for advocates of personal gun rights, fundamentally altered the test that courts use to evaluate constitutionality under the 2nd Amendment and expanded gun rights outside of the home. Prof. Joseph Blocher of Duke Law School explains how Bruen fits into the evolving Second Amendment doctrine. In Bruen, Justice Thomas writing for the majority knocks down New York's concealed carry law and along with it calls into question laws in other states where significant discretion is given to the state in determining whether they may issue a permit. As Prof. Blocher explains, the case further replaces the two-part Second Amendment test used by the nation's circuit courts of appeals in favor of a new test focused on historical tradition. After analysis of the decision of the court as well as concurring and dissenting opinions, Blocher goes on to explore the impact of Bruen on laws and individuals across the nation.

More than ever before, Americans are turning to assisted reproduction to start their families. In this interview, leading family law expert Professor Douglas NeJaime (Yale Law School) explains how U.S. laws are attempting to catch up to this shift. Traditionally parental rights are based on the marital presumption – the parents are, by default, the woman who birthed the child and her husband. This can then result in the denial of parental rights to non-biological mothers or fathers who start a family using assisted reproduction. In these circumstances, states may assign parental rights to the egg donor, sperm donor, or surrogate, despite the intentions and sometimes written agreements of the parties. Finally, Prof. NeJaime discusses how new laws in a number of states better fit modern reproduction practices and rethinks what it means to be a legal parent.

Press Freedom vs. Privacy—Newsworthiness in a Self-Publishing Era (Part 2)An interview with Prof. Amy GajdaThe First Amendment provides broad but not absolute freedom of press protections. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first famously articulated the right to privacy in 1890, a “right to be let alone” from undue prying by the press in private matters. While historically the press has enjoyed considerable latitude in determining what is newsworthy and publishable, there have been recent movements in the courts to constrict press freedoms and broaden individual privacy rights. Professor Amy Gajda of Tulane Law School examines how the concept of newsworthiness has evolved and what happens to press freedoms when “quasi-journalists,” self-publishers, bloggers and the like who don't abide by traditional ethics codes overstep the editorial line.

Press Freedom vs. Privacy—Newsworthiness in a Self-Publishing Era (Part 2)An interview with Prof. Amy GajdaThe First Amendment provides broad but not absolute freedom of press protections. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first famously articulated the right to privacy in 1890, a “right to be let alone” from undue prying by the press in private matters. While historically the press has enjoyed considerable latitude in determining what is newsworthy and publishable, there have been recent movements in the courts to constrict press freedoms and broaden individual privacy rights. Professor Amy Gajda of Tulane Law School examines how the concept of newsworthiness has evolved and what happens to press freedoms when “quasi-journalists,” self-publishers, bloggers and the like who don't abide by traditional ethics codes overstep the editorial line.

On May 2, 2022, a secret draft of Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was published by the website Politico. The opinion is the first unpublished Supreme Court draft known to be leaked. Drafted by Justice Alito, the decision of the Court would also be the first to overturn a constitutional right, overturning the abortion protections established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It its wake, dozens of states (including Mississippi, the state whose law was approved by the decision) will be permitted to to restrict and even ban abortion.Given the impact and the urgency, we rushed out this SCOTUS update explaining Alito's leaked draft, what are his arguments, and what it means in terms of constitutional law. TalksOnLaw's founder, Joel Cohen read the opinion in the hours immediately after it was dropped and gives a detailed, politically neutral (we hope) summary of the arguments presented by Justice Alito.

As troves of personal data are collected, stored, and used by governments and private companies in today's digital age, privacy is becoming an increasing concern. Privacy is essentially about setting boundaries to limit the power that information confers on entities, whether public or private, over individuals. Without adequate privacy safeguards, governments have a blank check to interfere in legitimate political exercise. Companies are free to manipulate consumers through “dark patterns” and presenting an illusion of choice. Professor Neil Richards of the University of Washington in St. Louis School of Law explores where the U.S. legal framework potential falls short, namely in consumer protection against private entities, and the problems he sees ripe for reform. He proposes a few starting points to craft meaningful regulations for privacy, including combating deception and restricting surveillance-based advertising.

As troves of personal data are collected, stored, and used by governments and private companies in today's digital age, privacy is becoming an increasing concern. Privacy is essentially about setting boundaries to limit the power that information confers on entities, whether public or private, over individuals. Without adequate privacy safeguards, governments have a blank check to interfere in legitimate political exercise and companies are free to manipulate consumers through “dark patterns.” Professor Neil Richards of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law discusses why privacy matters in the digital age and the current framework of constitutional protections against government surveillance. He then explores where the U.S. legal framework falls short, namely in consumer protection against private entities, and the ways in which the digital world is designed by tech companies to steer consumers into giving up ever more personal information.

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the risks that states and private entities face in the new realm of cyberwarfare and the need for establishing and clarifying international norms in this context. In this interview we examine cyberattacks under the lens of international law. Professor Duncan Hollis of Temple Law explains the development of international cyberspace law, starting with the preliminary questions of whether and how existing international laws apply. This is part 1 of a two part interview with Prof. Duncan Hollis.

In part 2 of the interview with cyberlaw Professor Duncan Hollis, Hollis explains the standards proposed to assess whether a cyberattack amounts to a use of force and how states may respond when non-state actors engage in cyber operations. Prof. Hollis then goes on to discuss how states can obfuscate their actions by contracting out the work or by failing to crack down on cybercriminals who target certain nations. Finally, Hollis discusses influence operations and to what extent international laws and norms apply when influence operations do not involve traditional force.

Bourbon is a uniquely American spirit and has played an outsized role in developing aspects of American law. Bourbon history is peppered with dramatic legal battles and legal (and illegal) innovations, whether it's laying the foundation for trademark protections or establishing the concept of brand name in the 1800s. Brian Haara, attorney and author of Bourbon Justice: How Whiskey Law Shaped America, explains how bourbon is legally defined and explores this American whiskey's shady past and the legal concepts “that bourbon built,” from trademark to consumer protection to truth in advertising.

If a lawyer suspects, but does not know, that a client or potential client is seeking their services to engage in criminal activity, can they still offer legal counsel? When does a lawyer have a duty to investigate her own clients? In its Formal Opinion 491 issued in 2020, the American Bar Association addressed lawyers' obligations to inquire further to determine whether a client may be attempting to perpetrate a crime or fraud. Professor Peter Joy, legal ethics scholar, explains the ethics rules governing the lawyer's scope of representation. He examines the standards put forth in Opinion 491 and raises surprising questions as to whether such standards actually fit with the ethics rules as they are drafted.

The Batson rule, prohibiting exclusions from jury based on race, is widely viewed as nearly impossible to enforce in practice. However, where Botson fails, do the Model Rules of Professional Conduct have anything to say?. The United States has a long history of racial discrimination in juries. In 1875, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which prohibited race-based discrimination in jury service. Despite the federal law, states continued to remove prospective black jurors. Over time, techniques to exclude nonwhites shifted from vague requirements for jury service to excluding jurors using peremptory challenges. Despite the landmark case Batson v. Kentucky (1986) in which the Supreme Court held that the state may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on the basis of race, the practice persists today. Legal ethics scholar, Prof. Peter Joy, explains the Batson standard and the ways in which the framework falls short. He discusses the legal ethics of racial discrimination in jury selection and considers alternatives to peremptory challenges to combat discrimination.

In 2008, a woman in India was convicted of murder for the death of her fiancé on the basis of evidence derived from a brain-based memory detection exam. The test measured brain activity which purportedly indicated that she in fact had personal knowledge of the poisoning of the victim. While such technology is highly controversial and not in common use in U.S. courts, significant advances in brain science now justify analysis of both the potential applications of memory evidence as well as the constitutional implications of doing so. In part 2 of this 2-part interview, Professor Emily Murphy of UC Hastings Law evaluates how evidence from brain-based memory detection may be admitted in courts under Daubert. She then explores whether such evidence should be admitted even if the technology were perfect, given technological and biological limits, and how it may infringe upon constitutional and privacy rights if the government compels individuals to undergo brain imaging to decode memories.

In part 1 of this 2-part interview, Professor Emily Murphy of UC Hastings Law explains the current state of brain-based memory detection technology and how it differs from lie detection tests. She discusses the hypothetical use cases for forensic purposes and the framework for admissibility of expert testimony under the Daubert standard.

Police officers have broad authority and discretion to enforce order — they can take property, stop, detain, and arrest people — at times under threat of lethal force. In this conversation, we explore the laws that regulate the police with Professor Rachel Harmon of UVA Law and the director of its Center for Criminal Justice. In part 2 of this 2-part series, Professor Harmon explains the constitutional right to record the police and under what circumstances that right may be limited, and explores the potential federal reforms that may bring about systemic changes in policing.

Police officers have broad authority and discretion to enforce order — they can take property, stop, detain, and arrest people — at times under threat of lethal force. With such great power comes a significant risk of abuse, evidenced by the high-profile instances of brutality and misconduct. In part 1 of this 2-part series, Joel sits down with Professor Rachel Harmon of UVA Law and the director of its Center for Criminal Justice to explore the jurisprudential framework of policing. Prof. Harmon then explains the constitutional and statutory limits of police conduct, including the use of deadly and non-deadly force in police-citizen encounters, arrests for protests and verbal opposition, and “contempt of cop” or retaliatory arrests.

In part 2 of this 2-part series, space law expert Professor Frans von der Dunk discusses how the Outer Space Treaty applies to space tourism and other private space activities and explains the laws on militarization and weaponization of space.Frans von der Dunk is a professor at Nebraska College of Law and an expert in space, cyber, and telecommunications law. Von der Dunk is the series editor of ‘Studies in Space Law.' and in 2004, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Award of the International Institute of Space Law of the International Astronautical Federation.

At the height of the space race in the 1960s, countries around the world first ratified the Outer Space Treaty to prevent any nuclear conflict from extending into outer space and to ensure its use for peaceful purposes. Today, there's a new kind of space race, one that involves private tourism and resource mining and extraction. And with more players entering the field, including nation-states like India and China and private companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX, how will existing treaties apply? Space law expert Professor Frans von der Dunk explores how the Outer Space Treaty and customary international law applies to modern space activities and addresses the open questions of property rights for celestial and lunar natural resources and liability issues when private enterprises operate in space.

Problems in forensic labs have contributed to scores of wrongful convictions, resulting in innocent individuals being imprisoned for years, sometimes decades. Dr. Peter Stout and Prof. Brandon Garrett sit down with TalksOnLaw's Joel Cohen to expose critical structural flaws in American forensics. Stout (a national leader in forensic sciences) and Garrett (an expert of criminal justice outcomes) explain how unscientific forensic systems drive wrongful convictions and injustice.In part 2 of this 2-part series, Professor Brandon Garrett and Dr. Peter Stout discuss how the Houston Forensic Science Center (often regarded as a model of reform) operates, including implementing blind quality control programs and independent oversight. They explore the legal and policy changes that can be instituted at the lab level and systemwide to address the failures in forensic labs. 

Problems in forensic labs have contributed to scores of wrongful convictions, resulting in innocent individuals being imprisoned for years, sometimes decades. Dr. Peter Stout and Prof. Brandon Garrett sit down with TalksOnLaw's Joel Cohen to expose critical structural flaws in American forensics. Stout (a national leader in forensic sciences) and Garrett (an expert of criminal justice outcomes) explain how unscientific forensic systems drive wrongful convictions and injustice.In part 1 of this 2-part series, Professor Brandon Garrett of Duke Law School and Dr. Peter Stout of the Houston Forensic Science Center explain the impact forensic evidence can have at trial and the severe consequences when forensic labs get it wrong. They discuss the sway of forensic evidence among juries, how judges determine the admissibility of forensic evidence, and the role of defense attorneys in the courtroom.

In negotiations, can lawyers lie to their advantage? Can lawyers ethically use bullying or threatening to benefit clients? Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow of UC Irvine Law explores the boundaries of ethics requirements in negotiations. In part 2 of this 2-part series, Prof. Menkel-Meadow explores the tactics and behaviors permissible and impermissible, including bullying and threats, and the concept of fairness in negotiations.