Podcast appearances and mentions of adam feldman

Catch up with the summer cultural calendar with this pledge-drive miniseries.  Today, Adam Feldman , national theater and dance editor and chief theater critic at Time Out New York,  talks about the reopening of the Delacorte Theater in Central Park and other summer theater coming up this summer."Free outdoor theater this summer in New York" (TONY, 5/19/25)

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. V. Merrick Garland TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd.) and Jeffrey Fisher (on behalf of Creator Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.), and Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case: Adam Feldman's “The Universe of TikTok v. Garland in a Nutshell” contains an excellent synopsis of relevant facts and procedural history. Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for TikTok v. Garland Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on D.C. Circuit version of TikTok v. Garland Brief for petitioners TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd. Brief for petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al. Brief for the respondent The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

In today's episode, Dr. Adam Feldman, founder of the EmpiricalSCOTUS blog, joins Andrew Nettels to discuss litigation and the Supreme Court through a statistical lens. For more on Dr. Feldman's work: https://www.scotusblog.com/. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUSand Optimized Legal Consulting joins Sarah and David to discuss the concept of a 3-3-3 Supreme Court and the challenges of measuring ideology. The Agenda: —The role of Chief Justice John Roberts —Similarities and differences between political and judicial conservatism —The jurisprudence of Justice Amy Comey Barrett —The prevalence of unanimous decisions Show Notes: —Adam Liptak's writeup in the New York Times —Feldman's 2023 stat review Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode: Dr. Adam Feldman–a scholar on the Supreme Court, who runs the Empirical SCOTUS blog–joins to break down the recent term and what he's looking out for in next year's term, which'll start in October. Plus – why we've seen the court take on fewer cases per year on average since 1988.  Take a look at the most recent term: https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2023-2024  Check out Feldman's work here: https://empiricalscotus.com/  Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates  Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia. *On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

After discussing SCOTUS voting blocs and public perception, in part two of our discussion Adam Feldman rounds up the 2023-2024 term. We cover:SEC v. Jarkesy, holding that 7th Amendment procedural rights apply in agency proceedings, and whether Adam is surprised at the voting alignment (conservatives pro, liberals con).Loper Bright v. Raimondo, overruling Chevron, and what to make of the liberal bloc joining the government in both these administrative state cases.CFPB v. Comm. Fin. Svcs Assn, holding that CFPB funding fits with history and tradition, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Thomas broke with the conservative group to join.Trump v. Anderson, holding the 14th Amendment did not disqualify Trump from the ballot, and whether Adam was surprised it was 9-0.Fischer v. U.S., holding 18 USC 1512 (prohibiting congressional obstruction) does not apply to Jan. 6, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Jackson joined, and Justice Barrett dissented.Rahimi, holding the text, history, and tradition test supports civil restraining order disarmament, and whether Adam was surprised the court even took this case, and surprised that the court only issued GVRs on companion cases, despite there being so many Rahimi concurrences. (Akhil Amar, renowned constitutional scholar and an originalist of a liberal variety, has an interesting take on Rahimi at his podcast here.)Adam Feldman biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Empirical SCOTUS, https://empiricalscotus.com/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Legal Data Analytics | Optimized Legal Solutions (feldyfied.wixsite.com)

Adam Feldman watches Supreme Court trends: voting blocs both usual and unusual, numbers of concurring and dissenting opinions, and other analytical ways of predicting outcomes. In our discussion, we cover:Recent polls disapprove of how the Supreme Court “is handling its job.” What does “handling its job” mean? Does it mean outcomes, or the decision-making process? And how does Adam rate how the Supreme Court is handling its job?Is this a 6-3 court? Or a 3-3-3 court?Is it fair to group justices along lines of “institutionalist” and “non-institutionalist,” as some experts have done?We then tee things up to do a round up of the 2023-2024 term.Adam Feldman biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Empirical SCOTUS, https://empiricalscotus.com/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Legal Data Analytics | Optimized Legal Solutions (feldyfied.wixsite.com)

You don't want to miss the 27th episode of the Alternative Litigation Strategies podcast where we discuss one of the most innovative and transformative legal technology platforms to hit the litigation marketplace in the last several years – Optimal Legal Audio (OLA).  In this episode Certum Group Director, Kevin Skrzysowski, interviews Adam Feldman, a lawyer, political scientist, professor, Supreme Court scholar, and creator of the Empirical SCOTUS Blog, and Badri Narasimhan, an engineer, serial technology entrepreneur, and all-around analytics wizard.  Adam and Badri discuss their latest invention - Optimal Legal Audio (OLA) – an artificial intelligent (AI) platform that performs audio and textual analysis of oral arguments to predict judicial decisions.  OLA analyzes elements such as word choice, word volume, tonal analysis, and interactions with the bench, to successfully predict votes in State courts, single judge trial courts, the U.S. Supreme Court and more.  OLA helps counsel by steering them in the right direction on specific interactions with judges or Justices allowing them to better inform their clients of potential case outcomes.  OLA is truly a game changer in Appellate Law.  

Supreme Court scholar and creator of the EMPIRICALSCOTUS blog Adam Feldman joins 'Court Watch' host Alex Swoyer to discuss the 2023 term's key rulings, trends and takeaways.

Adam is a University of California Berkeley School of Law Graduate, currently working as a Principal at Optimized Legal Solutions, and writes for his blog, Empirical SCOTUSblog. Adam brings great insights about his own positive and negative experiences with the law, building a brand, and finding what line of work is right for you. Adam's current line of work at Optimized Legal Solutions, shows a fascinating look into the emerging industry of finding solutions and predicting behavior in the law in a data-driven way. Adam is certainly someone to keep your eye on in the coming years, pioneering a new way to view the field of law.⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-feldman-j-d-ph-d-48b91313

In this thirty-eighth episode of Learned Hands, the Official Podcast of the Westerosi Bar Association, Merry & Clint ask: How well does Doran Martell's Water Gardens speech move the ball? Our analysis this week includes:Your Hands finally cover the Dornish plot from the perspective of Prince Doran Martell, as he tries to convince the Sand Snakes to stop saying "OK Boomer" at him.Merry puts on her best Valley Girl accent.So much food porn.We give Ellaria Sand her laurels for delivering one of the most passionate, cogent, and beautiful speeches in the series (that is entirely ignored by everyone who hears it).Clint tells everyone what it's like to be an Old Man relating to The Youths.We ask which TSwift album represents the Sand Snakes the most? Sound off in the comments. No one has any idea what will happen to Doran's plan, other than there will be blood.We analyze Doran as the grass that hides the viper, and cover how his disability covers how people perceive him. A DEFINITIVE ruling is issued as to who does the Dornish plot better: book or show. Listen to find out which we pick!Supplemental reading: Adam Feldman's essay series Water Gardens & Blood Oranges, Vol. I.Where to pay your duesPoint MadeExtensive audio engineering by LittleWolfBird. Intro & Outro music courtesy Sid Luscious & The Pants. None of this should be construed as legal advice OBVIOUSLY. Support the show

Adam Feldman, the creator of Empirical SCOTUS, joined Robert to discuss some of the major cases before the Super Supremes this term, including U.S. v Rahimi - a high-stakes Second Amendment case that could radically undercut DOJ's ability to prosecute certain firearm offenses. CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of AmericaAcheson Hotels v. Laufer Lindke v. FreedO'Connor-Ratcliff v. GarnierU.S. v. RahimiLoper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoMoore v. U.S. Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

Supreme Court scholar Dr. Adam Feldman breaks down key rulings and statistics from the 2022 term with Court Watch host Alex Swoyer.

Adam Feldman stopped by to talk about his creation, Empirical SCOTUS, a blog designed to look at contemporary and historical Supreme Court issues at an empirical level. Adam and Robert chat about the unprecedented sluggish rate of opinions this term, how oral argument has changed, and what the data says about the ideological split among the justices. Adam has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Southern California as well as a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Prior to receiving his Ph.D., Adam practiced law at McDermott, Will and Emery and Kendall, Brill and Klieger. He is also the principal for the legal data consulting firm called Optimized Legal.Follow Adam on LinkedIn and Twitter.Check out Fix the Court, a non-profit “that advocates for non-ideological ‘fixes' that will make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and accountable to the American people.”Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

On the latest edition of Kentucky Newsmakers, WKYT's Bill Bryant talks with political consultant Adam Feldman.

Jackson spoke significantly more than any other justice Was joined by other liberals as most talkative Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark on US Supreme Court arguments like no other new justice in memory. Her historic confirmation as the first Black woman justice was followed by seven months of oral arguments in which she spoke almost twice as much as any other of her colleagues, according to Empirical SCOTUS' Adam Feldman. Jackson so far has defied the norm of junior justices taking a back seat during their first few terms. Latham & Watkins' Roman Martinez joins the podcast to look at Jackson's first term as well as what the future might hold. Co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also breakdown the court's most recent opinions, including a highly anticipated copyright case and a sigh of relief for social media companies. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Guest: Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The 2023 Tony Nominations were released today and we'll talk about them with TimeOut's Theatre and Dance Editor, Adam Feldman.

We speak with Adam Feldman, the Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity in the community surrounding Stomping Ground. Adam discusses his long-term experience going to and working at summer camp and how it shaped his philosophy on community building and play-based learning environments. We also talk about the impact of Habitat for Humanity on the surrounding community and how Adam incorporates his background as a math teacher and investment banker into his leadership style. Join us for an engaging conversation on the importance of play, community, and leadership in shaping the world around us.

A lack of opinions and an increasingly smaller caseload stand in contrast to the hot-button issues that the Supreme Court has agreed to tackle this term. Empirical SCOTUS founder Adam Feldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the possible reasons behind why the court hasn't issued a single opinion since arguments kicked off in October, and how lower caseloads have set a new ceiling on the high court's docket. “While the Roberts Court will be remembered for its ideological splits and key decisions in the areas of individual rights and liberties, it will also be remembered for its slow decision making process and curtailed number of decisions each term,” Feldman wrote on his website. “This term follows the same trajectory.” Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

WTTW Correspondent Amanda Vinicky joins Legal Face-Off to break down new Illinois laws that went into effect 1/1/23. Saul Ewing Partner Justin Danilewitz discusses the latest involving Sam Bankman-Fried.   Professor and Supreme Court scholar Adam Feldman explains why Supreme Court arguments are longer than usual. CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig discusses his new […]

This week your hosts go to lengths to explain why the apparently esoteric cases argued this week are, in fact, much more interesting than they sound. Meanwhile, Texas is back at the Court fighting the feds, something Texas S.G. Judd Stone has a lot of experience doing. Zack discusses that oral argument and then interviews former Congressman, Senator, Governor, and Ambassador Sam Brownback. For trivia this week, GC relies on the always excellent work of Dr. Adam Feldman to quiz Zack about Justice Jackson's early oral argument performance.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Adam Feldman is the CEO and Co-founder of Crispify, an automotive startup. Before founding Crispify, Adam was the VP of Innovation and Strategy of A.L. Group, a global automotive tier-1 company. Adam holds an MBA from Tel Aviv University and an Executive Education Diploma from Wharton Business School.Connect with Behind Company Lines and HireOtter Website Facebook Twitter LinkedIn:Behind Company LinesHireOtter Instagram Buzzsprout

Libraries aren't just about books. They're a community gathering place. But these institutions are severely understaffed and underfunded in our city. City Cast Philly host Trenae Nuri talks with Adam Feldman, a library coordinator at Parkway Central Library and a chief steward and executive board liaison for District Council 47's Local 2187, about where all the librarians went and what needs to happen to bring them back.  Want some more Philly news? Then make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter. We're also on Twitter and Instagram! Follow us @citycastphilly. Have a question or just want to share some thoughts with the team? Leave us a voicemail at 215-259-8170.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every attorney knows that to reverse an order, it's not enough to prove error. You also have to prove the error harmed your client. But when the Court of Appeal in Transcon Financial, Inc. v. Reid & Hellyer reversed a sanctions order for the reason that the offending party was not given the full 21-day safe-harbor period (motion was filed a day early), the court did not explain why the one extra day would have mattered.What's going on here?Jeff and Tim also discuss some other nuts-and-bolts cases that attorneys should bookmark:All defamation lawsuits involving the management of publicly-traded companies are not necessarily SLAPP-able as arising from a public issue. (Heffernan v. Bilzerian.)The 21-Day Safe Harbor Means 21 Days: Motion Filed Day 21 Is Too Early.Don't Seek Default Without Notifying Opposing Counsel.Oral MSJ ruling cuts off ability to accept 998 offer. (Trujillo v. City of Los Angeles.)Forwarding email to hotel clerk to print destroys the privilege.Good recap on recent church-and-state showdowns: Covid-restrictions on churches are likely unconstitutional where secular establishments are exempted.Other items discussed in the episode:Justice Jackson's voluble oral argument style, via Adam Feldman.Memes in judicial writing, via Eric Goldman.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Sign up for “Not To Be Published,” Tim Kowal's Weekly Legal Update, or view his blog of recent cases.Use this link to get a 25% lifetime discount on Casetext.

Today we have on Dr. Adam Feldman, Academic Dean of Metro Baltimore Seminary. Adam talks with us about the state of seminaries today, accreditation, and what Metro Baltimore Seminary is doing to equip pastors for fruitful ministry. Adam is conversational in Korean and is the English Ministry Pastor at a Korean church, Garden Presbyterian Church. It's a great convo we know you'll enjoy.OUR SPONSORSDwellDwell is our favorite Bible app for good reason. And listeners of Doctrine and Devotion can get 10% off a yearly subscription, or 30% off Dwell for life. Get the best Bible app today at dwellapp.io/jofo.Christian Healthcare MinistriesChristian Healthcare Ministries is a budget friendly health-care cost solution. . To Learn more and see how it all works, visit chministries.org/podcast.The FTC Conference - 50% off!The For The Church Conference is going down on September 26 and 27 in Kansas City, MO. The theme this year is For The Nations. The speakers include Jason K. Allen, H.B. Charles, Jr., Matt Carter, J.D. Greear, Tony Merida, and Jared C. Wilson.For the Church is a vital part of Midwestern Seminary and Spurgeon College's aim to train ministry leaders for the magnification of God through the building up of the local church. This is the reason For The Church exists.To see details and get 50% of registration head over to www.mbts.edu/docanddevoSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/doctrine-and-devotion/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Adam is the National Theater and Dance Editor and chief theater critic at TimeOut New York and President of the New York Drama Critics' Circle. And he is here for a big episode about a very big show on a very big, double-LP. Topics include: Patti, Mandy, Patti's rage, Bob Gunton's accent, Mandy being Mandy all over the second act, comma writing, Mark Syers, the worst lyric in Chess, the “Big Apple,” and the agony and the ecstasy of Tim Rice. Adam at TimeOut Featured recordings: Evita - Premiere American Recording (1979) • Pacific Overtures - Original Broadway Cast Recording (1976) • Chess - Original Broadway Cast Recording (1988) MERCH! Visit our Patreon for access to our monthly live stream The Original Cast at the Movies where this year we're talking musical sequels and musical biopics! Patreon • Twitter • Facebook • Email

We welcome our guest speaker, Adam Feldman, to our pulpit this Sunday with a sermon based on John 4:7-15. You can also view each week's sermon/worship service on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5ncsq_QNvCv61bIwKUpP5A SERIES OVERVIEW: Let's be honest: for most of us, the idea of sharing the good news of Jesus with our friends is really bad news. Talking about spiritual issues with those around us is a sure way to lose friends and annoy people. But again and again, we are called to be Jesus' witnesses to those around us (I know, that's more bad news). But what if we could develop a skill (what some may call a “knack”) that makes witnessing less of a chore and more of a relationship? What if evangelism wasn't trying to get someone to sign on the dotted line, but rather, loving the people God puts in our path? And what if we could learn these skills so that we could have a knack of engaging in spiritual conversations or a knack of asking penetrating questions or a knack of inviting people to seek God. And all of this is something we can learn and develop. Evangelism: it's the knack of loving people so that they find God. Now, that's good news.

A Wham-packed episode, as acclaimed celebrity biographer James Gavin joins us to discuss his new tell-all "George Michael: A Life." But first, Time Out New York Theater guru Adam Feldman joins Adam and guest co-host Jeni Aron to dish all the Broadway dirt flying around Beanie Feldstein and Lea Michele. It ain't even funny, girl.  Visit https://linktr.ee/AdamSank 

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for June 8, 2022 is: arrogate • AIR-uh-gayt • verb Arrogate is a formal word that usually means "to take or claim (something, such as a right or a privilege) in a way that is not fair or legal." // The city council has accused the mayor of arrogating to himself decision-making authority that rightly belongs with the council. See the entry > Examples: "Teenage girls rule in the tart but sweet new Broadway musical Mean Girls. But their system of high-school government is far from a democracy: It's a reign of terror, angst and mall fashions, where popularity is arrogated and then ruthlessly enforced." — Adam Feldman, TimeOut New York, 8 Apr. 2018 Did you know? The resemblance between arrogate and arrogant is more than coincidence: they both have the Latin verb arrogare, meaning “to appropriate to one's self,” at their root. This idea of claiming or seizing something as one's right is immediately apparent in the English word arrogate: the word is used primarily to talk about taking or claiming a right or a privilege in a way that is not fair or legal. In arrogant the idea of appropriation is slightly veiled: by showing an offensive attitude of superiority, an arrogant person claims—that is, arrogates—more consideration than they are due.

We are pleased to welcome Adam Feldman as our guest speaker in this service with a message based on 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10. You can also view each week's sermon/worship service on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5ncsq_QNvCv61bIwKUpP5A

Who has it easier – tops or bottoms? This question leads us into what may be the raunchiest and most graphic A.S.S. discussion ever! Then, Time Out NY Theater Critic Adam Feldman classes things up with his list of the worst musicals of the 21st Century. Encore!  Visit https://linktr.ee/AdamSank 

Notable News: Pass Over had their official opening night on Sunday and the reviews are in! Broadway World's Christian Lewis said, “If we can follow the lead of this production, Broadway can pass over into something different, something better, something more equitable and diverse, something more political.” NY Daily News's Chris Jones said, “Pass Over” is a Biblically moralistic work that calls out white America, declares that Black lives matter, and demands structural change, especially regarding the police." Time Out's Adam Feldman gave the play 4 stars and said, "Pass Over is a risky enterprise—a serious non-musical show, opening in the summer amid a public-health crisis—and although Pass Over deals with questions of escape, it is far from escapist entertainment." The Broadway League recently announced that they will not publicly share grosses for the 2021-22 season. Moulin Rouge cast members will headline the 2021 US Open opening night ceremony. The Actors Fund revealed that performer Debbie Allen, philanthropist Niko Elmaleh, producer Stacey Mindich, and “Stars in The House” creators Seth Rudetsky and James Wesley will receive The Actors Fund's Medal of Honor at their 2021 Gala. Casting: Edmund Donovan heads to Broadway this fall in Lynn Nottage's latest play Clyde's. He completes a cast that also includes the previously announced Uzo Aduba, Ron Cephas Jones, Reza Salazar, and Kara Young. Leading the cast, casting office Stewart/Whitley revealed on a now-deleted Instagram post, will be Ana Villafañe (On Your Feet!) as Roxie Hart, Bianca Marroquín (a longtime Roxie in the revival) as Velma Kelly, and Tony winner Lillias White (The Life, How to Succeed…) as Matron Mama Morton. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Ben and Daniel discuss the results of Roses and Daffodils: The Essential Follies Playlist. For this project, listeners voted weekly for their favorite versions of the Follies female solos, and "Friends of the Pod" appeared with Ben and Daniel on "Next Year, Some Year" to weigh in on the deeper cuts. For the male solos, a panel of Follies aficionados were asked to contribute their expertise in deciding the winners. These "Experts" include Jeff Bowen, Ted Chapin, Adam Feldman, Lonny Price, Scott Wittman, and Tony Yazbeck. While comparing these results with their own personal choices, Ben and Daniel deep dive into each recording and break down tracks by Dorothy Collins, Alexis Smith, Yvonne DeCarlo, Gene Nelson, John McMartin, Barbara Cook, George Hearn, Julia McKenzie, Bernadette Peters, Jan Maxwell, Ethel Shutta, and Elaine Stritch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this month's episode of Open House by BCREA, we are joined by Adam Feldman, an Anti-Money Laundering Advisor with The AML Shop, who shares an overview of the new or revised anti-money laundering regulations that come into effect on June 1, 2021, and how they will impact real estate practice. These changes were introduced by the Financial Transactions Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, more commonly known as FINTRAC.This episode was recorded on May 20 and 25, 2021.Rundown:Introduction - 0:00Feature Conversation - 1:45Adam Feldman Introduction - 2:45Regulatory Change Overview - 3:40Beneficial Ownership - 7:20Business Relationships - 11:30Politically Exposed Persons - 16:40Virtually Currency - 23:50Links:BCREA FINTRAC 2021 Gateway PageJune 2 FINTRAC Webinar RegistrationBackground:On June 1, 2021, big changes are coming to FINTRAC. The regulatory amendments will result in new or changes to existing obligations for all reporting entities, including real estate brokerages.The amendments will cover areas such as beneficial ownership, business relationships and ongoing monitoring, politically exposed persons, certain record-keeping obligations and more. BCREA has created a series of resources to support brokerages and REALTORS® and one of those is a conversation with Adam Feldman, who is a certified Anti-Money Laundering Advisor with The AML Shop. He assists clients in taking their AML compliance program to the next level by conducting effectiveness reviews, building compliance programs, and advising clients on navigating the regulatory landscape.

ORIGINAL BROADCAST: April 9, 2021 — Big Red Banter airs BIWEEKLY on WVBR 93.5FM on Saturdays from 4-5 PM EST! Skyler Holzman '22 and Jake Richards ‘22 talk March Madness' wild ending and the changes to the MLB All-Star Game and the NFL schedule (3:39), give their very uneducated takes on the international soccer debate over young players joining an Academy vs taking the money and going pro in the segment Unwanted Advice (21:07), and then special guest/producer Adam Feldman '22 takes us through a speed round of a new segment based on our historically inaccurate predictions, Failed Forecasts (33:07)! Plus, we have ANOTHER special guest from the WVBR Sports Department, Sean Cabrera '23, who adds his hot takes to the show. — Connect with WVBR Sports: Twitter: @wvbrfmsports Instagram: @wvbrfmsports Website: wvbr.com/sports — Produced by Adam Feldman '22 and Skyler Holzman '22

ORIGINAL BROADCAST: March 12, 2021 — Big Red Banter airs BIWEEKLY on WVBR 93.5FM on Saturdays from 4-5 PM EST! Skyler Holzman '22 and Jake Richards ‘22 break down the chaos in the NBA trade deadline (5:07), give their very uneducated takes on who's moving on in the March Madness Sweet 16 in the segment Unwanted Advice (17:03), and then special guest/producer Adam Feldman '22 takes us through another round of Smash or Pass for fantasy baseball, but this time, it's injury edition (36:59)! Plus, we have ANOTHER special guest from the WVBR Sports Department, Michael Farkouh '24, who adds his hot takes to the show. — Connect with WVBR Sports: Twitter: @wvbrfmsports Instagram: @wvbrfmsports Website: wvbr.com/sports — Produced by Adam Feldman '22 and Skyler Holzman '22

Thanks to Adam Feldman, MD, PH, for discussing “Prostate Cancer Detection: Past, Present and Future.” Dr. Feldman is a urologic oncologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Urology. Director of the Combined Harvard Fellowship Program in Urologic Oncology and Director of Research for the Department of Urology at MGH, he will be presenting on this topic at the May 14 virtual symposium, hosted by MPCC. Click here to learn more about the Massachusetts Prostate Cancer Coalition.

Today, our hosts are taking a break from the news cycle to share some fun facts about the Supreme Court and answer a series of questions from their listener mailbox: Are Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices more ideologically reliable than their Republican-appointed counterparts? What are some cases where you are inclined to agree with the legal reasoning but were bothered by the policy outcome? And perhaps most important, how should one go about hiring an attorney? Sarah and David have the scoop.   Show Notes: -“Cleaning Up Quotations” by Jack Metzler in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. -“ ‘(Cleaned Up)’ Parenthetical Arrives in the Supreme Court” by Eugene Volokh in Reason. -“Larry Flynt’s Life in Contempt” by Ross Anderson in Los Angeles Magazine. -“Empirical SCOTUS: Interesting meetings of the minds of Supreme Court justices” by Adam Feldman in SCOTUSBlog. -Federal Tort Claims Act and Immigration and Nationality Act. -Cases they mentioned: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,  Knick v. Township of Scott, Bostock v. Clayton County, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Morse v. Frederick, Rucho v. Common Cause and Kelo v. City of New London. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ORIGINAL BROADCAST: March 12, 2021 — Big Red Banter airs BIWEEKLY on WVBR 93.5FM on Saturdays from 4-5 PM EST! Skyler Holzman '22 and Jake Richards ‘22 wonder if Dak Prescott, Cam Newton and Tom Brady's new contracts are really worth it and try and sort through the pre-March-Madness Covid craziness. Plus, special guest Adam Feldman '23 from the WVBR Sports Department walks us through a wild new segment: Smash or Pass, Fantasy Baseball Edition! — Connect with WVBR Sports: Twitter: @wvbrfmsports Instagram: @wvbrfmsports Website: wvbr.com/sports

White Harbor has changed  in the last six years - is it for the better, or for the worse? Davos feels conflicted as he decides for himself.Adam Feldman's analysis on:Tyrion in ADWD: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/lafylm/spoilers_extended_a_decade_writing_dance_part_1/Dany in ADWD:https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/lc23vz/spoilers_extended_a_decade_writing_dance_part_2_a/Miouooo: A Warrior Cats Pawedcats :https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/miouooo-a-warrior-cats-pawedcats/id1524800759---Eliana's twitter: https://twitter.com/arhythmetricEliana's reddit account: https://www.reddit.com/user/glass_table_girlEliana's blog: https://themanyfacedblog.wordpress.com/Chloe's twitter: https://twitter.com/liesandarborChloe's blog: www.liesandarborgold.comIntro by Anton Langhage

In the second half of this two-part Pro-Talk podcast, Patrick talks to Adam Feldman about Habitat for Humanity’s mission.

In the first half of this two-part Pro-Talk podcast, Patrick talks to Adam Feldman of Habitat for Humanity about making the switch from Wall Street banker to non-profit builder.

Adam Feldman is the Vice President of Business Development at Kendago B2C Media, a media company that drives massive volumes of high-converting traffic for themselves and their clients.  Kendago owns and sells a direct-to-consumer product called Trim Down Club through which they’ve helped over 2 million customers lose weight and live healthier lives. Their success with Trim Down Club has been the magnet that attracted clients from all over the world who are looking to work with an agency that has a proven track record in running successful PPC and monetization strategies. In this episode… How can you turn a traffic that’s gone cold and possibly even drying into a market that’s warm and ready to take what you have to offer? Kendago started 15 years ago as an affiliate marketing company that utilized video sales letters and other strategies to reach out to their audience and convert them into sales. Theirs is an inspirational success story that started with the launch of their direct-to-consumer product, Trim Down Club. With their proven success and the rising demand for their services in the market, Kendago pivoted recently to offer digital marketing services and are helping brands scale to eight figures and beyond.  Listen to this episode of Inspired Insider as Dr. Jeremy Weisz talks with Adam Feldman of Kendago about how they scale brands to 8 figures, the process of turning cold traffic into buyers, things to consider when utilizing traffic sources to generate leads and sales, and how you can do the same in order to unfold your company’s success story.

Time Out Critic, performer. Who knew he was such a nerd!? Adam and I had a lively discussion about US versus Canadian politics and Caroline or Change. Produced by Dori Berinstein, edited by Alan Seales, music by Anthony Norman. A proud member of the Broadway Podcast Network.

Adam Feldman | Theatre & Cabaret Critichttps://www.timeout.com/newyork/theaterAdam Feldman is the Theater and Dance Editor and chief theater critic at Time Out New York, where he has been a staff writer since 2003, and has served as president of the New York Drama Critics' Circle since 2005. He was the contributing Broadway editor for the Theatre World book series and was a regular cohost of the public-television show Theater Talk. A graduate of Harvard University, he lives in Greenwich Village.

Time Out Critic, performer. Who knew he was such a nerd!? Adam and I had a lively discussion about US versus Canadian politics and Caroline or Change. Produced by Dori Berinstein, edited by Alan Seales, music by Anthony Norman. A proud member of the Broadway Podcast Network.

In this episode, Eric Segall, Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law, and Adam Feldman, creator of the Supreme Court blog Empirical SCOTUS, discuss their article, "The Elite Teaching the Elite: Who Gets Hired by the Top Law Schools?," which will be published by the Journal of Legal Education. Segall and Feldman begin by describing their research project and their findings. They observe that 95% of the professors teaching at top 10 law schools graduated from top 10 law schools, and a disturbingly high percentage of all law professors graduated from top 10 law schools, especially Harvard and Yale. They explain how this hiring preference effectively makes the LSAT the determinant of who becomes a law professor, and why it has many discriminatory effects. Segall is on Twitter at @espinsegall and Feldman is on Twitter at @AdamSFeldman.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week we chat with Mary Littlejohn about which of life's truths can be gleaned from the screen-spectacular turned stage-spectacular - Moulin Rouge!Diane Snyder of The Telegraph praised the scenic design, choreography, and costume and wrote that "Moulin Rouge! may not have the depth of some of Broadway’s great musicals... [but] it’s fun, tuneful and entertaining, and that’s exactly what we need right now." Mashable's Erin Strecker said that "This is the best of what a jukebox musical can be; a thrilling burst of color and chorus and nostalgia and bold reimagining." Adam Feldman leaned positive as he called the show "an extravagant Broadway megamix," commenting that it "looks and feels expensive."- FURTHER READING -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulin_Rouge!_(musical)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulin_Rouge!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baz_Luhrmannhttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/https://itunes.apple.com/au/movie/moulin-rouge/id270782779https://open.spotify.com/album/1Kg7AyuyIMTfD6geg9VghILike us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Support us on Patreon!Email us: musicalstaughtmepodcast@gmail.comVisit our home on the web thatsnotcanonproductions.comOur theme song and interstitial music all by the one and only Benedict Braxton Smith. Find out more about him at www.benedictbraxtonsmith.com

Welcome back Innovators! This week I am joined by Public Account, Adam Feldman. He is a friend to many, very insightful, outgoing, witty, motivated, and more. Adam has some important messages he shares about being a human in the 21st century, and it's something that I encourage everyone to tune in to. 

In this episode of Learned Hands, Clint and Merry turn their attention to Dany's Court in Meereen and ask: Does Justice Daenerys Targaryen use Due Process? Does she dispense justice? Our analysis includes:The application of Natural Rights and Rawlsian models of JusticeA friendly reminder to go to jury duty because WE LIVE IN A SOCIETYPeriodic background noises from the Hounds of JusticeA fun new accent for Hizdahr Zo LoraqCheck out Adam Feldman's much acclaimed essays on Dany's arc in Meereen here at his blog the Meereenese Blot.Intro music courtesy Sid Luscious & The Pants.Support the show (https://www.WesterosBar.org)

Today we're going to be teaching you how to go from basic as a media buyer to brilliant. I have Adam Feldman, who is the VP of business development at Kendago. He drops some amazingly interesting bombs here on the show. We go through the steps on how to become a better and ultimately one of the best media buyers. This is an episode you do not want to miss! (https://podcastdomination.mykajabi.com/Work-With-Us)   (https://www.facebook.com/groups/pdvip) In This Episode: - What is media buying - Step One: Have a general realization of marketing - How to create buyer personas based on unique desires - Step Two: Getting deeper with the user - Why do you need to understand the user's state of mind - Step Three: Create the perfect combination of having the power of knowing the network, as well as the user with marketing - How to reach optimal scale with your paid ads - Step Four: Testing - Best practices for ad copy testing - Step Five: Why you must understand the technology side of media buying Connect with Adam: Website - http://www.kendago.com/ (http://www.kendago.com/) LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-dean-feldman (https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-dean-feldman) Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/adam.feldman1 Email Address - adam.feldman@kendago.com Connect with Luis: Website- http://www.luisryan.com (http://www.luisryan.com) Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/luisryandiaz/ (https://www.instagram.com/luisryandiaz/?hl=en) Facebook Group- https://www.facebook.com/groups/pdvip (https://www.facebook.com/groups/pdvip) / Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/luisryan4 (https://www.facebook.com/luisryan4) This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Adam Feldman is the Theater and Dance Editor and chief theater critic at Time Out New York, where he has been a staff writer since 2003. He is the president of the New York Drama Critics’ Circle. To keep up with Adam, his cabaret performances at Club Cumming, and more . . . go check him out on Twitter @feldmanadam.   This week’s #SongwriterOfTheWeek is Michael Mott! If you enjoyed the outro song in this episode, go on over to www.michaelmott.net or check him out on Instagram @michael_mott. Enjoy and thank you for coming back to our new season! Keep up with me @KenDavenportBway on Instagram. Check out my blog for daily content: www.theproducersperspective.com This episode was produced by Mary Dina. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we chat with ourselves about which of life's truths can be gleaned from the new smash musical - The Prom!Adam Feldman of Time Out Magazine gave the show 4 out of 5 stars, saying "It is cheering to see a musical comedy that engages with modern questions, with a teenage lesbian romance at its center to boot... But while the issues are contemporary, there is a 1980s feel to the character types and the overall style of Chad Beguelin and Matthew Sklar’s score, which resembles their work in The Wedding Singer; a stronger dose of reality in the lyrics and the book (by Beguelin and Bob Martin) would better justify the show’s eventual turn to sentimental education. But Casey Nicholaw’s peppy direction helps give the show enough momentum to power past its narrative potholes and occasional bumps of heavy-handedness."- FURTHER READING -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prom_(musical)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sklarhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Beguelinhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Martin_(comedian)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prom_(film)https://theprommusical.com/https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10161886/https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-prom-a-new-musical-original-broadway-cast-recording/1439644985https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2B2t1FljSrujv5XywkxFR4Like us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Support us on Patreon!Email us: musicalstaughtmepodcast@gmail.comVisit our home on the web thatsnotcanonproductions.comOur theme song and interstitial music all by the one and only Benedict Braxton Smith. Find out more about him at www.benedictbraxtonsmith.com

As the decade comes to a close, Time Out critic Adam Feldman joins Rob and Kevin for a stimulating look back at the trends, highlights, milestones, and gossip of the past decade in the world of plays. From War Horse to A Doll's House, Slave Play to The Flick, this decade took audiences on a wild ride that asked them to embrace British playwrights, complete re-examinations of American classics, and the welcoming of new stars to the Rialto. Become a sponsor of Behind The Curtain and get early access to interviews, private playlists, and advance knowledge of future guests so you can ask the legends your own questions. Go to: http://bit.ly/2i7nWC4   To book a room at Shetler Studios, head on over to: https://www.shetlerstudios.com

We are IN THE ROOM with Time Out New York theatre editor and critic Adam Feldman! We talk about our love for Encore! on Disney+, Ken Davenport’s Super Conference, the state of criticism, Adam’s obsession with the show Caroline or Change, being Canadian, downtown & uptown cabaret, Club Cumming on Mondays, John Simon’s complicated critical legacy (RIP), singing again, and we get the scoop on how freelance writers can submit their writing to Adam! @adfeldman @timeoutnewyork @intheroompod @danakellycraig @sferezy  @broadwaypodcastnetwork IN THE ROOM WITH STEVEN & DANA is delightfully sponsored in part by Babe Rosé (@drinkbabe)  We would be gob smacked into next week if you gave us a rating and review on iTunes! We so appreciate your lurve, shout outs, and support! XOXO IN THE ROOM is a proud member of the Broadway Podcast Network. www.bpn.fm

Adam Feldman is theatre critic for Time Out NY. A brilliant guy who shares fascinating insights on Broadway, casting dilemmas (like the whole Scarlett Johannsen playing a trans character), and culture as a whole. We talk about the value of critics in society and why we need to diversify the critic pool (with people like me. Or just me). This episode is a gem not just for theatre buffs, but for people that have never stepped inside one and can’t even stand entertainment as a concept.

In EP4 of FANGS - the pop culture podcast about Dracula - Liam Geraghty hears about the dramatic early days of Dracula on stage with Stoker biographer David J. Skal and Time Out theatre critic Adam Feldman, journalist Emily Asher-Perrin on why reading the novel after seeing other adaptations is an unusual experience, playwright Peter Dunne on the upcoming play The Horrors in the Black Church and Bram's great grand nephew Dacre Stoker talks about writing both a prequel and sequel to Dracula. Show Credits Produced & hosted by Liam Geraghty: www.liamgeraghty.com Theme music by Spencer Thun: www.spencerthun.com www.bramstokerfestival.com

Adam Feldman, from the blog Empirical SCOTUS, offers a quantitative-based preview of Brett Kavanaugh’s first term. And Seth Stodder, former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Border, Immigration, and Trade Policy, unpacks Wednesday’s Supreme Court argument in the 9th Circuit immigration appeal 'Nielsen v. Preap.'

Heavy is the cloak, they say - or is it blinded by the white?  Eliana and Chloe unravel the the legend himself, Ser Barristan Selmy.  Today the girls delve into Barristan's rich history with a world-building episode of Girls Gone Canon.   Check out the ever amazing Meereenese Knot series by Adam Feldman analyzing Daenerys and Meereen under a more attentive eye if essays are your thing: https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/essays/     Barristan intro music Shadow of the Dragon by NCM Epic Music Ender Guney      Eliana's twitter: https://twitter.com/arhythmetric Eliana's reddit account: https://www.reddit.com/user/glass_table_girl Eliana's blog: https://themanyfacedblog.wordpress.com/   Chloe's twitter: https://twitter.com/liesandarbor        

Theater Talk's team Adam Feldman, Jesse Green, Julie Halston, Michael Musto, Patrick Pacheco, Jan Simpson, Elisabeth Vincentelli & Jason Zinoman join Susan Haskins after the Tonys to evaluate the ceremony, make sense of the upsets, & celebrate the season.

Esteemed Theater Talk regulars Jesse Green, Michael Musto, Patrick Pacheco and Elisabeth Vincentelli gather with co-hosts Adam Feldman and Susan Haskins to predict who will win the coveted 2018 TONY Awards and why.

God uses people to accomplish His purposes. And God is using Adam Feldman in Ellicott City, Maryland.  Adam is a community leader, a lead pastor, an author, and a coach.  He is the lead pastor of Metanoia Church. He is the author of two books, Journaling: Catalyzing Spiritual Growth Through Reflection and Addressing the Spiritual Formation Needs of a New Church. He is a coach who works with church planters. And he is a recognized community leader as the chair for The One EC Recovery Project. Adam Shared His faith story - 2:00 His decision to plant a church in Ellicott City, Maryland - 4:20 About the flood that devastated Ellicott City .and One EC Project - 7:22 Why is community involvement is important to him - 10:50 About his work as a church-planter coach - 14:00 Some coaching steps for church planters - 15:40 Insights on how to replant a church - 18:50 Details about his book Addressing the Spiritual Formation Needs of a New Church - What spiritual formation is and why it is important. - 20:34 Details about his book Journaling: Catalyzing Spiritual Growth Through Reflection - 25:17 What makes his book different - 30:00 Some tips on how to get started in journaling - 32:15 His Books Journaling: Catalyzing Spiritual Growth Through Reflection Addressing the Spiritual Formation Needs of a New Church Contact Information Adam@AdamLFeldman.com Closing Thoughts Thanks for listening to this episode of Coaching Christian Leaders. Please subscribe to Coaching Christian Leaders and never miss an episode. You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and most any podcast app. Also, visit our Facebook Page and leave a review there or join the conversation.  Finally, join the Coaching Christian Leaders team. You can do so by clicking HERE.  I send an email to all team members when a new episode is released. This email includes the show notes and Member Only Resources. I will never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Carolyn Shapiro, founder and co-director of Chicago-Kent's Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States and Dr. Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS join the show to talk about significant Supreme Court decisions including one legalizing sports betting. Illinois State Representative Lou Lang discusses his efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Abrams, Fensterman Executive Partner Carolyn Reinach Wolf discusses an important recent case involving the liability of colleges when students commit suicide. Chicago Lawyer Magazine Inside Out’s David Susler joins his co-columnist Tina to talk about the importance of leaving a legacy. In the Legal Grab Bag, Tina and Rich cover breaking legal developments involving Prince, Jay-Z, law school news and whether chimpanzees enjoy habeas corpus rights.

Original air date: May 6, 2018

Original air date: Oct. 8, 2017

“Hello, Dolly!” actors Kate Baldwin, Tony Award-winner Gavin Creel & Broadway newcomer Charlie Stemp; plus Adam Feldman, Michael Musto, Patrick Pacheco & Elisabeth Vincentelli discuss highly-anticipated off-Broadway shows with Jesse Green & Susan Haskins.

Adam Feldman, Michael Musto, Elisabeth Vincentelli and Patrick Pacheco plus co-hosts Jesse Green and Susan Haskins discuss the upcoming spring season on Broadway, including "Harry Potter..." “Angels in America” “Mean Girls" "Carousel" and "My Fair Lady."

This week, Elizabeth & Tiffany talk with Empirical SCOTUS founder Adam Feldman and catch up on the Supreme Court's latest opinions and grants. They also play "Judge or Just Made Up." Can you spot the fake judges? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Adam Feldman, a 52-year-old cardiologist with the Tower Health Medical Group in West Reading, shares his remarkable story as a world-class fencer. Feldman started fencing in 1980, was a three-time All-American at Penn State from 1983-87; the NCAA foil champion in 1986 and won silver in the 1986 U.S. Olympic Festival. With the demand of medical school consuming his time, he stopped competing in 1988. When his daughter Jessica took up fencing at Pitt, Dr. Feldman tells Zeke that he gave her some lessons and that rekindle his interest in fencing. His comeback came in 2015 and immediately returned to form, good enough to go the 2015 Maccabiah Games in Berlin. He tore a meniscus a week before the competition and had surgery a month later. Dr. Feldman tells Zeke that he resumed his comeback in 2016 and with light training won the Keystone Games foil event for veterans. He returned to the national level in 2017, winning his age division in the U.S. Nationals and winning gold medals in the 40-and-up and 50-and-up foil and a silver medal in 50-and-older epee in the Pan-Am Games. Dr. Feldman tells Zeke that his performance in nationals earned him a spot in the Veterans World Championships in Slovenia, where he finished 39th in individual foil.

In this episode, I interviewed Adam Feldman. Adam is currently a Fellow in the Empirical Study of Public Law at Columbia Law School.  He has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Southern California as well as a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). Prior to receiving his Ph.D., Adam practiced law at McDermott, Will and Emery (Century City, CA) and Kendall, Brill and Klieger (Century City, CA). Adam and I discuss his interesting study on the gender dynamics of the Supreme Court justices and the underlying, surprising statistics of interruptions and how they play into gender roles. Topics covered: Exploring the data Adam recovered in his research. Understanding the importance of the study and benefits of the research moving forward How Feldman's personal perception evolved throughout the study   Questions? Comments? Email Jeena! hello@jeenacho.com. You can also connect with Jeena on Twitter: @Jeena_Cho For more information, visit: jeenacho.com Order The Anxious Lawyer book — Available in hardcover, Kindle and Audible Find Your Ease: Retreat for Lawyers I'm creating a retreat that will provide a perfect gift of relaxation and rejuvenation with an intimate group of lawyers. Interested? Please complete this form: https://jeena3.typeform.com/to/VXfIXq MINDFUL PAUSE: Bite-Sized Practices for Cultivating More Joy and Focus 5-week program. Spend just 6 minutes everyday to practice mindfulness and meditation. Decrease stress/anxiety, increase focus and concentration. Interested? Please complete this form: https://jeena3.typeform.com/to/gLlo7b Sponsor: Spotlight Branding provides internet marketing services exclusively for solo & small law firms. Unlike most internet marketing firms, they do NOT focus on SEO. Instead, they specialize in branding their clients as trusted, credible experts, increasing referrals, and ultimately driving growth. For our listeners, Spotlight Branding is offering a complimentary website review. Go to: SpotlightBranding.com/trl Check out this episode! Transcript Adam: The Supreme Court justices had all reached this real pinnacle of legal profession that, perhaps, they were on more equal footing than we would see with mixed genders in lower level legal proceedings or practice. Intro: Welcome to the Resilient Lawyer Podcast, brought to you by Start Here HQ -- a consulting company that works with lawyers to create a purpose-driven and sustainable legal career. In this podcast, we have meaningful, in-depth conversations with lawyers, entrepreneurs, and change agents. We offer tools and strategies for creating a more joyful and satisfying life. Now your host, Jeena Cho. Adam: My name is Adam Feldman. I recently completed a Ph.D. in Political Science with the emphasis focusing on law at the University of Southern California. I'm an attorney. I practiced law for about 4 years prior to entering the Ph.D. program. I completed my legal studies at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkley. A little over a year ago I started a blog called Empirical SCOTUS where I look at contemporary and historic issues facing the Supreme Court from a statistical perspective. That goes on my academic work looking at the Supreme Court mainly empirically and also recently extended that work to other court systems both domestically and internationally. My work is mainly focused looking quantitatively at studying judges, judging courts, court opinions, and other phenomenon in the legal sphere. Jeena: Today I want to talk about the study that you've published titled Echoes from a Gendered Court: Examining the Justices' Interactions during Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Can you tell me the genesis of the study and how you became interested in this topic? Adam: Sure. Around 2010, there were few thousands by political scientist that focus mainly on public law. Looking at oral arguments at the Supreme Court and particularly at this phenomena of interruption between justices. It was an interesting focus because although in prior work there was clearly instances of justices interrupting attorneys -- especially the focus on points that were of interest when attorneys were deviating -- there wasn't really much of any scholarship looking at what happens between the justices at oral arguments. There were two studies that looked at interruptions and looked at oral arguments and the justices' speaking behavior and interactions. I initially was going to look at this from an updated perspective. I wanted to see what was happening with the more modern court where Sotomayor had a few more years on the court where there's some data on Justice Kagan. I uncovered the data for the 2015 Supreme Court term. I did this kind of soon after the… I actually did this after oral arguments last year before all the decisions were made. I noticed this kind of interesting from a statistical perspective, difference between the male justices on the court interrupting the females and the females interrupted versus the males where the male justices were interrupting in higher numbers and the female justices were interrupted in higher numbers. This seemed to be interesting because there was this clustering aspect where it wasn't just one justice but there were multiple male justices interrupting at the high end and multiple female justices interrupted at the high end. It seemed like something that was interesting. It was notable because of the scholarship on gender interruptions which I was somewhat familiar with prior when look at greater detail after completing this pilot study. After I completed this pilot study in May of last year, I became very interested in doing a follow up where I look at multiple years of data and also have other variables in the mix. So control factors such as how often the justices were speaking and then other things that might spew interruptions differently for the justices to really focus in on this behavioral interaction between the justices and see if there was really a gender dynamic at play in more than one term. Jeena: To back up a little bit, can you talk a little bit briefly about what you mean by interruptions. I think we all sort of have an intuitive sense of what interruptions are and also the two different types of interruptions that you talk about in your study. Adam: It's somewhat variable how there actually… There's multiple ways that interruptions could be conceptualize. One way would be -- and as I'm listening to oral argument audio and then coding any time, one, justice speaks over another, two, to look at this large number of potential interruptions in our study, we use the transcripts from oral arguments and we use all the available transcripts from 2004 through 2014. We did this because prior to 2004, the justices' names weren't listed on the written transcripts. So we couldn't differentiate who is interrupting whom prior to 2004. Starting with 2004, the justices' names are written on the transcripts. Any point in time when one justice or when any person at oral argument starts speaking and then stops when another one cuts them off, there's a mark in the oral argument written transcript where there's a double dash prior speaker's at the end of their speech and that moves into another attorney or justices' speech. So we were able to use the coding on the written transcripts to then come up with statistics of interruptions where essentially one justice was speaking and before the justice was finished speaking, another justice began speaking. Jeena: In your study you say, at a basic level, research suggests that men tend to dominate conversations while women are traditionally more passive participants. Do you find the same trend at the Supreme Court? Adam: This was somewhat interesting for myself and my co-author because we had some prior expectations on this based on literature that was available to us in prior studies. But there weren't any studies within a political institution at the elite level like the Supreme Court. So we had hypothesis based on other conversational dynamics that we studied but we're applying them to a totally new area. Although based on non-prior literature, even in the legal spirit, we found that men tend to talk more often and to also be more aggressive in conversation where they would interrupt both male and female colleagues at a higher rate. We weren't sure if that was going to translate in the elite environment of the Supreme Court. But once we actually ran the numbers, we saw multiple different trends overtime. One of which was the male justices ending speak more often but also the male justices would interrupt the female justices more often than they would interrupt their male colleagues. Jeena: Why does that matter? Why does interruptions matter? Adam: They matter for several reasons. One is that they can be perceived as threatening. One area of interest for us was what is the effective and interruption. Does it lead to any noticeable effects? One that we pinpoint right off the bat was that when somebody is interrupted they lose their opportunity to speak at a given point in time. This is meaningful in Supreme Court oral arguments because a lot of what is asked is contextual based on the point in oral argument. If a justice is asking a question based on the previous questions and based on where the point in oral argument is at any given point in time, if they're interrupted then it's unlikely that they're going to get back to that same exact place again. The interest of interrupt the justice might be forever lost and so that question is never necessarily answered. Also then the information is lost that might be useful for the opinions for the justices both on the merits. This could potentially shift the outcome of the case depending on when an interruption occurs. A second effect that we found -- and this was something that was drawn from the data -- was that there's a differential impact on the male and female justice on the court for when interruptions occur. This was one of the more interesting and somewhat startling findings of the study but it reverberates based on prior evidence from the studies both within and outside of the law where female justices, when they were interrupted, would tend to speak less after an interruption and would speak less for the oral argument than male colleagues. So there's this perceived threat that we identified in the data where when female justices were interrupted, they tend to speak less. This wasn't only a point in time when they wouldn't speak more -- when any justices would speak more interruption but actually a behavioral shift that we saw that was different in female justices than male justices that very well might disrupt the female justices' positions and the questioning at oral arguments. Jeena: That's fascinating. Is that isolated to that particular argument or does that have a ripple effect meaning the female justices interrupted and cheat then tends to speak less in that particular oral argument but does that sort of carry over into the next oral argument? Adam: We didn't find downstream effects beyond oral arguments in isolation. We think this might have to do with the different questions that are asked in different oral arguments. The justices' engagement often times has a lot to do with both their preparation in given phase, their interest in the subject matter. There are multiple factors that we engage the justices from the outside of oral arguments. We think that it has more to do within oral argument effects and that between oral arguments there are so many factors that need to… whether a justice is prepared to speak at greater length or less. Jeena: I found the study just so fascinating because it really confirmed what I know from my own life experience of being interrupted and having been in lots of different meetings with other lawyers where you just notice the male lawyers just tend to occupy more of the time that's actually available to speak and also has a tendency to interrupt each other more. I'm curious, after having done this study, did that shift your perceptions or shift your own behavior about interruptions and how much you speak? Adam: To better answer that, I should back up for a second and just get into a little bit of how I ended up co-authoring this paper, it shifted the way that I thought about this dynamic between male and female justices and male and female interaction in general. After I completed the pilot study, I went to a friend and colleague who I respect greatly. Who also studies public law but also has background studying gender dynamics. Her name's Rebecca Gill and she's a faculty at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in Political Science. I had several discussions with Rebecca about what I had found in the pilot study, what was interesting about this to me, and how I was thinking about this and how I was interested in studying this in greater detail. Rebecca really had much greater background knowledge of the interruption subject matter than I did. That, along with the first person anecdotal evidence of this, really made it interesting to me to engage her and to see if she would be willing to work on this project with me because I knew she had experience and knowledge that I don't have and that would very possibly deepen my ability to fill in some of the nuances. So, this was really an educational experience for me from the outset. Going through the literature with Rebecca helped me understand a little bit deeper of a level of what the gender dynamics in conversation really amount to and how the effects of interruptions effects the impact men and women in conversation -- how men and women and how different types of speaking behavior. Although this was something that I had seen both in my legal career and in other work settings, it was not something that I studied before and so qualitatively I could base some hypothesis on the observations that I had. I didn't really have a deeper understanding of this behavior in a sociological context. It was very helpful, for me, to have a co-author who would really help me learn about this dynamic and how we could apply what was already known to the Supreme Court. Jeena: I'm curious after, or before or after you've done the study -- I don't know if you'd be willing to out yourself. Do you notice the trend in yourself, just that natural tendency for males to interrupt females more? Adam: I've been more tuned in to this since then. I think you would actually be done to ask a question before about the two different types of interruptions. We look at both interruptions that end up cutting a justice off at a given point in time where a justice brings up a new point. We also look at interruptions where a justice might be supporting in other justices' point but still talking in their place. Even if it's a support of interruption, this very well might lead to the interrupted justice losing their train of thought, losing the ability to ask a question at a given point in time. What I found in speech, and I found this much more in my interactions with female friends and colleagues, was that I might want to insert a point not to change the topic but maybe to echo a thought or to add something that I thought was important into the conversation before the other participant in the conversation was finished making the point. I did notice this happen relatively frequently in conversation. It's something that I was not really at all tuned into prior and it was interesting to me because I never thought of myself as an interrupter. I'm actually, I think, often times somewhat soft spoken. When actually tuning in to this, it was much more of a trend that I notice within myself that I'm happy that I'm more tuned into now because, I think, the first step in changing behavior step we're not thrilled about is becoming aware of them. Jeena: Yes. I teach mindfulness which is all about awareness. I want to put a pin in that about what we can actually do to change this behavior. But before we do that, you talk about the difference between the genders when they speak. So you think about apologizing, politeness, and differential speech. Talk more about that. Adam: We wanted to, in the study, look at speaking behavior in general and see… Sequentially in the paper, we look at the differences in gendered speech behavior prior to looking at the interruptive behavior. Based on prior socio-linguistic literature, there were many different phenomena that we could attempt to understand at the Supreme Court level and that we also thought would correlate with interruptions, that would correlate with aggressive and passive behavior. We thought that if these interruptions were really significantly impact in female justices' ability to speak oral arguments that we might see some of these other behavioral pattern in speech. Two of the patterns that we looked at were deference and politeness. Politeness more in the apologetic sense really. We want to see if the female justices were apologizing more frequently than the male justices. We're also interested in whether the female justices were actively differing to the male justices more often. If two justices were competing to speak at a point in time, if female justices would yield the oral argument speaking time to their male colleagues. We did find that in raw numbers that both of these expectations were occurring where the female justices and one in particular, Justice Sotomayor, was apologizing at a grade higher than her male colleagues. But this was also linked  to the female justices on the courtroom generally. We did see this apologetic behavior and a little bit less so but still to a… This was in the female direction where we saw this deferential behavior as well where the female justices were willing to yield the floor. This was a little bit muddied because we have Chief Justice Roberts also who is a male justice and often times will be the justice that dictates who should speak when it's unclear which justice had the floor at a point in time. Because Chief Justice Roberts has a little bit of a different rule than the other justices as he's somewhat the unofficial moderator of oral arguments, this change, I think, the deference dynamic somewhat from what would have been… We're looking at nine justices who were in exactly equal roles during oral argument. The apologetic behavior was a little bit easier to identify than deferential Jeena: Looking at the study, it's really interesting that Roberts, his “I am sorry account,” is at 30, 34 followed by Justice Kagan at 92. Now, of course, we have more female justices on the court than before, did that actually change the rate of interruption? Adam: It did. What we found which, I think, kind of helps explain the story and conceptualize a little bit more is that the two more recently appointed Supreme Court female justices: Justice Kagan and Sotomayor were more active speakers in oral argument than the two prior female Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg and Justice O'Connor. There is a correlation that we found between how often the justice speaks, how many words a justice speaks, and how frequently they're interrupted. With greater rates of speech we did see more interruptions. But we also found that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor were interrupted at higher rates than Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg. Justice O'Connor, we only have limited data for because she retired in 2005 and our study begins in 2004. We only have preliminary remarks that make about interruptions that involved her. We do see the rate increase with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor and it made us wonder whether their increased speech or their greater speech relative to the other female Supreme Court justices acted as some… would have been a threat to a male justices' dominating oral argument and backlash to that whether conscious or more likely subconscious was more aggressive behavior from some of the male colleagues. Jeena: Interesting. Is that because they're violating gender norms? Adam: Very possibly. We did find that gender norms were prevalent in oral arguments. Somewhat surprisingly getting back to this point that we began kind of naively, assuming the possibility that because the Supreme Court justices had all reached this real pinnacle of legal profession. That perhaps they were on more equal footing than we would see with mix genders in lower level legal proceedings or legal practice. We expected, at least the possibility, that the gender norms wouldn't hold strongly in the Supreme Court but they did for the most part. And so because of the other norms that we noticed and that we found with our data, we think that a greater number of these norms were likely and are likely prevalent in the Supreme Court oral arguments and justices' interactions. Very possibly, this is due to the socialization of the justices because even though they're at oral argument, they're at this high point in legal profession, the justices all had careers prior to that and had backgrounds where they were raised based on gender stereotypes and where this likely created into their subconscious behavior from an earlier point in time. At the point where they reach their careers in the Supreme Court, they're already prime gender norms that were not, and are not, easily shed. We assume that the justices' backgrounds likely contribute to the way that they interact in oral argument than the way that the interrupted behavior is really spewed to where the female justices are interrupted at a greater rate than the male colleagues. Jeena: You point that in your study that professional women, including politicians, are expected to sort of conform to the gender norms. What happens when we break these gender norms? What happens if a woman justice, or a woman lawyer, or woman politician asserts herself, becomes more aggressive .What does the study tell us about what happens when women break the gender norms? Adam: We find in the Supreme Court that when the female justices are more active speaker, they're also interrupted more frequently. This seems like almost like a backlash and then it can work to… Since we see that female justices tend to become more passive after they're interrupted, this backlash is somewhat effective if the goal is to reassert these gender norms where the male justices speak more often and the female justices was often. One thing that we found from other studies that was really interesting that we can't say for certain apply at the Supreme Court level but we do feel like there's a relatively reasonable chance because this works in other settings but is also occurs at the Supreme Court level is that in behavioral studies of gender interactions, when females interrupt male, this has been seen both by the group as a whole as more detrimental and really is more a negative behavior than when males interrupt. This notion that females interrupting are judged to a higher standards or to a different standard than men, this plays into our findings that the female justices are treated differently and treat themselves differently after they're interrupted in the Supreme Court. And that this very well might have to do with these differing perceptions on the effect of male justices interrupting female justices. Jeena: When women break the gender norms, they're judged more negatively by both genders. It's not just the other men in the room that sort of judges that behavior as a negative behavior. Adam: Yeah. Both the literature and our own findings show that both genders are -- both men and women, I should say, are judging according to the same standard or similar standards that the priming really [unclear 00:34:42] to everyone. Because we're primed and socialized into this culture of male dominance, we see this effect in both men and women. Jeena: What is the goal? Is the goal to sort of get rid of these gender norms? Is that even possible? Is that even desirable? Is it a matter of train the men to interrupt less? Is it training the women to speak up more and to take a more assertive position? What does literature say? What are your personal thoughts on this issue? How do we change this? Adam: I think there are two ways to look at that question. One is what might be the best approach and two is what is most practical. If we were looking for true equality, we could come up with a system, through oral arguments, that is more equitable from the starting point so that more aggressive behavior doesn't necessarily garner the ability to speak more often. Whether that's pushing a button when the justices break speak, whether that's ordering the justices eventually so they each are given equal share of time to question or even having the chief justice possibly be the one who has a greater role in moderating with this notion in mind that the allotment of speaking opportunity should be equal between the justices. There are some of these more rigid frameworks that could be employed although we don't think are necessarily practical given the history of oral argument and the likelihood of major change at this point in time. It's a practice that's been in place since… We are from England prior to coming to United States and so it's unlikely that we're going to change the dynamics so greatly in a formal way. Although we think of these as possibilities, we think that informal means of change might be the most effective. We're not certain that, just like I noted in my own experience, we're not certain that the justices are aware of this behavior. We're not certain that they're not only aware that behavior occurs but also at the numbers and the relative frequencies with which female justices are interrupted and male justices are interrupted. The starting point might very well be to educate the justices a little bit about both the differential behaviors and about the differential outcomes between the male and female justices and how this affects the trajectory of oral argument, we think that a starting point might very well be to make this more of a conscious subject on the justices' minds rather than something that's whether subconscious or conscious, something that is done because the justices are used to certain gender dynamics due to their socialization. Jeena: Will the similar awareness training be effective for the general populations or for lawyers in particular? Adam: Possibly as a starting point. But the problem with going about it this way is that some of this is so deeply rooted in our culture and in our psyches that it's unlikely do necessarily change even with education. It might be something that shifts in the short term. But to make long term change, it's a point that really has to be reasserted and on a continuous basis. One approach might be changing the setting somewhat making settings more accommodating for the speakers. This might be taking more active approaches for lawyers, taking more active approaches in meetings to engage the female attorneys and then to prevent some attorneys from taking most of the time from others. I think, at some situations, there might be more formal means to shift this differential type of interaction. So education is definitely a starting point. It's not an end point. And because this is something that most everyone has grown up with, it's not likely that education, in one point in time, is going to then drastically change behavior moving forward. Jeena: Right. And I would also imagine it's not just enough to educate but also that there has to be a desire to actually want to change it. If a male just thinks, “Well, I'm happy with the way I talk and I think it's just fine that I'm interrupting,” I think all the awareness in the world is probably not going to shift the behavior. Adam: Yeah. I think that's definitely true. What's hard to gauge is what level of awareness both men and women have of this to begin with because as I've seen and as the studies show, this has become… we become so acculturated to these type of interruptions that it's not even recognized. It's just a normal pattern of speech. Education is definitely, at least it means, to make sure that this becomes a subject of discussion. That it's something that's on the forefront rather than the background of people's minds. You're right that education isn't going to change somebody's behavior that doesn't wish to change if there are no associated penalties for acting in a certain way or no guidelines that specify the way that people should talk in a given environment, giving equal opportunity to all participants. We really see this, the possibility of bringing this up as bringing this to people's attention as it might not be. Beyond that, more active approaches within different settings, I think, could equalize the situation somewhat and then some of this is going to likely have to be the way that we socialize the next generation so that the norms that were set that are really hard to move away from, that are still being reiterated with current professionals, don't take hold as strongly in the future. Jeena: At what age do these gender norms become the norm? Are there studies that show at what age that you're seeing these gender norms in? Adam: I guess the differentiating factor is there's studies that are pre-oral behavior -- so pre-speaking -- that show that we're already priming boys and girls to act in a certain way, to interact in a certain way. Where some of this… looking for more differential behavior in females, girls, and more aggressive behavior than men is already becoming something that boys and girls are shown and are taught. Some studies also show that kids mirror their parents. They see the way that their parents interact. When they see these gendered rules that they very well might see that as a way that they should act as well. This happens from a very early age. By the time that kids are beginning to speak and interact with one another, some of this already might be filtered into their understanding of how to behave. Jeena: Wow, that's shocking. How do we reverse this? How do we change this if these kids are sort of soaking up these gender norms before they're even able to speak? Adam: Well, I think that gets back to somewhat how we educate ourselves; how we raise the next generation. If we're somewhat conscious of this and also take a more active approach to equalization in different settings and allowing equal opportunity to both men and women, then perhaps we'll have a better shot at beginning to mirror the types of behaviors that we hope to see in the next generation in ourselves. It's a multi-faceted approach to both educate kids when they're young and to try to engage in some of this shifting behavior in ourselves. That's really the only way that we're going to see change from the ground up. It's important to both integrate this as best we can within our own lives but also to start kids off in early age and seeing that it doesn't have to be a situation where males are dominating interaction. Jeena: Adam, thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate the conversation. I think it was really enlightening. Adam: Thank you for having me. I enjoyed it as well. Jeena: Adam, for those that are interested in learning more about your study or want to get a hold of you, what's the best way? Adam: My email address is adfeld@gmail.com. I'm more than happy to respond to questions via email. If people are interested in some of this empirical work, along with the pilot study and want to look at in greater detail, my blog is Empirical SCOTUS. So www.empiricalscotus.com and you're more than welcome to browse the site. Jeena: Fantastic. Well, hopefully our listeners are a little bit more educated about these gender norms and interruptions and, perhaps, might feel inspired to just notice these patterns in their own lives and perhaps we can slowly, but surely, change these interruptions between people so we can all have better communications. Adam: That does sound like a plan that we should try to bring to fruition. Closing: Thanks for joining us on the Resilient Lawyer Podcast If you'd like to build a more profitable and purpose driven law practice, learn more about us at startherehq.com. If you've enjoyed the show, please tell a friend. It's really the best way to grow the show. To leave us a review on iTunes, search for the Resilient Lawyer and give us your honest feedback. It goes a long way to help with our visibility when you do that so we really appreciate it. As always, we'd love to hear from you and you can drop us an email anytime at hi@startherehq.com. Thanks and look forward to seeing you next week.   Closing Thanks for joining us on the Resilient Lawyer Podcast. If you'd like to build a more profitable and purpose driven law practice, learn more about us at startherehq.com. If you've enjoyed the show, please tell a friend. It's really the best way to grow the show. To leave us a review on iTunes, search for the Resilient Lawyer and give us your honest feedback. It goes a long way to help with our visibility when you do that so we really appreciate it. As always, we'd love to hear from you and you can drop us an email anytime at hi@startherehq.com. Thanks and look forward to seeing you next week.

SHE CAST is a podcast created for youth by youth in Chicago. Welcome to our third episode: The Revolution Will Not be Televised. SHE CASTers interview Lawyers Guild attorney, Jerry Boyle who discovered the use of stingray technology (aka telephone hacking) on youth protestors by Chicago Police. Together they cover how to stay safe while young and attending a protest. The SHE CASTers also discuss the controversial Pepsi Commercial. SHE CAST is a project of {she crew}. Find out more at shecrew.org Credits: Produced and edited by Jessica London-Shields and Meredith Montgomery. Editing help from David Lewis. Music, beats and soundscapes by: Eric Kauffmann "Smooth", Kolibri Kolibri "Revolution", Chris Morrow "Sweetheart" and "Feeling on Top", and Adam Feldman (various).

SHE CAST is a podcast created for youth by youth in Chicago. Welcome to our second episode: Female the Remix. Beauty standards are B.S. (& often super white). We know that. But it’s still hard to not have them affect your life. SHE CASTers discuss reclaiming beauty, not being too hard on yourself, and the difference between appreciation and appropriation. PS: Boys can wear makeup too! SHE CAST is a project of {she crew}. Find out more at shecrew.org Credits: Produced and edited by Jessica London-Shields and Meredith Montgomery. Editing help from David Lewis and Emilie Modaff. Music, beats and covers by: Adam Feldman, Chris Morrow, and Arielle Guevara.

BlazinRy Radio host Ryan Holmes chats with Time Out NY's Theatre & Cabaret critic Adam Feldman about The 2016 Tony Awards. Adam reveals his predictions for who will go home with The American Theatre Wing's most-coveted prize. The Tonys air Sunday June 12th on CBS.

Playwright Danai Gurira, actress Lupita Nyong'o and director Liesl Tommy discuss "Eclipsed," Gurira's powerful drama about the survival of young women during the Liberian Civil War. Plus a Broadway Update with Adam Feldman and Imogen Lloyd Webber.

Andrew Lippa discusses his career as a composer/lyricist for the Broadway stage. Adam Feldman, theatre critic for Time Out NY, discusses theatre and the the changing face of theatre criticism and reviews. Gaby Alter and Tommy Newman share two songs from their musical, Band Geeks; and Nick Kohn talks about his unconventional acting career and time with the long-running Avenue Q Musical.

In Theater Talk's “Spring Season Preview, 2014” Adam Feldman of "Time Out New York," Jesse Green of "New York Magazine," and Michael Musto of Out.com discuss some of the most anticipated shows of the Spring 2014 season, on and Off-Broadway.

Theater Talk sits down with actor Michael Urie and playwright Jonathan Tolins of "Buyer & Cellar," Tolins's new hit comedy with a unique inspiration. Also, critics Adam Feldman and Suzy Evans give us a Broadway Update.

Theater experts Jesse Green, Michael Musto and Adam Feldman look ahead to the fall 2012 season, discussing plays and musicals that are scheduled to open on Broadway and Off.

Our panel of New York drama critics reviews Broadway shows from the spring, 2011 season. It includes: Adam Feldman of Time Out, Jacques le Sourd of WCBS Radio, Terry Teachout of The Wall Street Journal and Elisabeth Vincentelli of the New York Post.

Actress Tovah Feldshuh and critic Adam Feldman of “Time Out/NY” debate the accuracy of “Irena's Vow,” the Holocaust drama in which Tovah stars on Broadway. Also, “Hairspray” composer Marc Shaiman performs a song from his new show, “Catch Me if You Can.”