Podcasts about amlaw

When permanent capital, AI disruption, and a rapidly fracturing talent market collide inside the legal industry, the old rules for how law firms grow, get funded, and build their next generation of lawyers stop making sense.   David Perla, Vice Chair of Burford Capital, joins hosts Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg to break down why permanent capital is a fundamentally different proposition than traditional private equity for boutiques and founder-controlled firms ready to grow, and why the AmLaw 100 is unlikely to move anytime soon.   The more urgent conversation is about what neither capital nor strategy can fully solve. Law firm leaders are making multi-year associate class decisions without any reliable sense of what their workforce looks like in twelve months. Startups that needed fifty people eighteen months ago now run on seven or eight. The associate pipeline, in-house departments, recruiting timelines: all of it is under pressure that is accelerating faster than most leaders want to admit.   Perla's advice is deceptively simple. Get curious. Ask hard questions of people who think differently. The firms that navigate this moment well are the ones willing to challenge assumptions before the market forces the issue.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Introduction: David Perla, Vice Chair of Burford Capital 06:05 Building Pangea3 and Pioneering Legal Outsourcing 12:51 How Burford Capital Invests in the Legal Industry 23:44 Where Private Capital Is Heading in Law Firm Investment 29:51 AI, Legal Talent, and the Associate Pipeline Crisis 39:23 Legal Tech Valuations and the Coming Shakeout 46:06 Advice for Law Firm Leaders Navigating Disruption Links Connect with David Perla: Company Bio: https://www.burfordcapital.com/about-us/our-team/david-perla/  LinkedIn Profile link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidperla/   Connect with Howard Rosenberg: LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hrosenberg/ Company web profile: https://www.baretzbrunelle.com/howard-rosenberg   Connect with Chris Batz: Connect with Chris on LinkedIn  Follow Columbus Street on LinkedIn Columbus Street Website  MergerWatch Website Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm

Michael R. Caplan is the Chief Operating Officer of Lowenstein Sandler, where he oversees the firm's business, financial, and administrative operations. Before joining Lowenstein, Mike served as COO at an Am Law 50 firm for nearly a decade and spent years leading legal operations at Goldman Sachs and Marsh McLennan, giving him a client-side perspective most law firm COOs simply don't have. With more than 25 years of experience across accounting, financial services, and consulting, he has worked with more than 30 general counsels on data analytics, technology implementation, and law firm relationship management. His leadership has earned him recognition as one of the Financial Times North America's top five Legal Intrapreneurs, Legal Innovator of the Year from The Changing Lawyer Awards, and a spot on NJBIZ's Law Power List for two consecutive years. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT HOW A CLIENT-FACING COO IS CHANGING THE BUSINESS OF LAW Law firm COOs typically manage operations and execute on what firm leadership puts forward. They respond to partners, oversee administration, and stay behind the scenes while lawyers own every client relationship. Even when clients have their own operational counterparts who would benefit from connecting with their law firm's business professionals, those introductions rarely happen. Michael Caplan has spent the last decade building a different model. At Lowenstein Sandler, he and his Business Enterprise Solutions Team work alongside lawyers in pitches, RFP negotiations, and client meetings, bringing expertise in pricing, technology, project management, and data analytics directly into the relationship. The approach requires internal trust, a firm culture that supports it, and the right people on both sides of the conversation. But when it works, clients get a partner that understands both the practice of law and the business of law, and the firm differentiates itself in ways that go beyond the legal work. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge, Elise Holtzman talks with Michael Caplan of Lowenstein Sandler about what it looks like when business professionals are embedded in client development, how to build internal trust so lawyers bring operations leaders into client relationships, the financial discipline that separates good revenue from bad revenue, and where private equity and AI may reshape law firm operations in the years ahead. 2:43- How Mike's client-side experience at Goldman Sachs and Marsh McLennan shaped his approach 5:53 - Building the Business Enterprise Solutions Team (BEST) at Lowenstein 7:18 - Getting lawyers on board and building internal trust 8:55 - Showing wins to bring more lawyers into the model 9:27 - The financial side of the COO role and negotiating pricing with clients 12:49 - Where emerging partners need the most help on collections and client management 15:14 - What smaller and midsize firms should think about when building an operations team 20:02 - Non-lawyer ownership, private equity, and the MSO model in law firms 22:26 - AI, legal technology, and why firms that invest in business resources will be more profitable 27:22 - Why most COOs wouldn't do this podcast and what holds firms back 33:31 - What clients actually get from a firm that embeds operations into relationships 36:19 - Getting the right people in front of the right clients Mentioned in How a Client-Facing COO is Changing the Business of Law Lowenstein Sandler | LinkedIn Michael Caplan on LinkedIn Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE This episode is brought to you by the coaching team at The Lawyer's Edge, a training and coaching firm that has been focused exclusively on lawyers and law firms since 2008. Each member of the team is a trained, certified, and experienced professional coach—and either a former practicing attorney or a former law firm marketing and business development professional. Whatever your professional objectives, our coaches can help you achieve your goals more quickly, more easily, and with significantly less stress. To get connected with your coach, fill out our contact form.

In Episode 319 of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love speaks with Yuliya LaRoe, founder of Leadwise Group, about why partner development has become a strategic imperative for law firms. Yuliya explains that today's legal market demands far more than technical excellence—partners are now expected to be leaders, business developers, managers, and culture builders. As law firms face increasing client sophistication, generational friction, retention challenges, and commercialization of the practice of law, firms can no longer assume that successful lawyers will automatically become effective leaders. Instead, firms must intentionally develop partners through structured leadership, management, and business development training. The conversation explores how firms can create partner development cohorts, competency frameworks, and long-term leadership pipelines that improve retention, strengthen culture, and help income partners progress toward equity partnership. Yuliya also breaks down why business development is a learnable system—not simply networking—and why people management skills are now one of the most critical capabilities for law firm leaders. For managing partners, practice group leaders, legal recruiters, and lawyers seeking long-term growth, this episode delivers a practical roadmap for developing stronger law firm partners and future rainmakers. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/22rk__7_u1M ---------------------------------------- If you are a successful law firm partner or law firm founder and want to hear about other options, please book a time on Scott Love's calendar here: https://calendly.com/scott-736/half-hour-phone-meeting-with-scott Or email Scott to connect with him at: scott@attorneysearchgroup.com ----------------------------------------

Many lawyers inside BigLaw closely follow the AmLaw annual rankings, profits per equity partner, and headline revenue growth as signals of firm strength. But those numbers rarely tell the full story. In this episode, I break down what law firm metrics are actually revealing beneath the surface and why lawyers should look beyond headline rankings when evaluating their own firms, potential lateral opportunities, or broader market trends. I explain how firms can dramatically increase profits per equity partner through structural and compensation changes that do not necessarily reflect stronger business performance, sustainable growth, or healthier economics. I also walk through the difference between gross revenue and revenue per lawyer, why revenue per lawyer is often a much cleaner measure of underlying firm productivity, and how large non-equity partner tiers can create hidden pressure inside firm structures. Finally, I discuss the operational and cultural signals lawyers should pay attention to when assessing whether a firm's success is being driven by stronger client demand and higher-value work versus financial engineering, leverage expansion, and short-term margin management. At a Glance 01:20 Why AmLaw rankings and headline metrics rarely tell the full story about firm strength 02:06 How PEP can rise without true market expansion or stronger business performance 03:12 How equity and non-equity partner structures can inflate profitability metrics 04:07 The hidden financial risks created by large non-equity partner structures during market slowdowns 04:54 Why dramatic PEP growth can reflect short-term cost suppression rather than durable growth 06:08 The difference between focusing on gross revenue and RPL when evaluating firm performance 06:50 Why RPL is often a cleaner measure of economic productivity and demand strength 08:09 How elite boutiques can maintain strong profitability without massive global revenue numbers 08:38 What it means when PEP growth significantly outpaces RPL growth 09:29 Why law firms with high operating leverage become increasingly vulnerable during downturns 11:01 The characteristics of a healthier and more sustainable law firm growth model 11:52 The specific operational and cultural questions lawyers should ask when evaluating firms 12:21 Why client concentration, practice mix, and pricing power matter more than headline rankings 12:44 How firm culture and internal incentives eventually show up in financial performance 13:09 The warning signs of firms driven by leverage expansion instead of stronger client work 13:34 The key distinction between durable growth and fragile financial engineering in BigLaw Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select "Write a Review." Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

Most lawyers are taught to color inside the lines until they realize that won't build the book of business they want. In this episode, you'll learn how to move from random acts of marketing to a focused, scalable rainmaking strategy using relationships, visible expertise, and a true support team.   In this episode, Steve Fretzin and Elise Holtzman discuss: Mindset shift from “born rainmaker” to “learned skill” Getting started: moving beyond random acts of marketing The three pillars of business development (relationships, visible expertise, thoughts/time/team) Breaking through plateaus at $500K+ and $1M+ books of business Delegation, building a team, and the role of a “lieutenant”/sponsor   Key Takeaways: Business development is a learnable skill, not an innate talent reserved for a select few; lawyers who treat it like any other competency they've mastered can grow serious books of business. Hope is not a strategy. Clarity on ideal clients, referral sources, and where they “hang out” must replace scattered networking and random acts of marketing. Visible expertise is essential: becoming “famous in your niche” through speaking, writing, and thought leadership ensures you're not the best-kept secret in your practice area. As a book of business grows, time, team, and the courage to say no become critical levers; lawyers must deliberately delegate and build a trusted support structure if they want to scale beyond early successes. Every revenue level introduces new, different challenges; plateaus are not signs of failure but signals that it's time to reassess, refine strategy, and upgrade how you use your time, team, and leadership.   "Stepping outside the comfort zone with support is the way to go." —  Elise Holtzman   Check out my new show, Be That Lawyer Coaches Corner, and get the strategies I use with my clients to win more business and love your career again.   Ready to go from good to GOAT in your legal marketing game? Don't miss PIMCON—where the brightest minds in professional services gather to share what really works. Lock in your spot now: https://www.pimcon.org/   Thank you to our Sponsor! Rankings.io: https://rankings.io/ Lawyer.com: https://www.lawyer.com/   Ready to grow your law practice without selling or chasing? Book your free 30-minute strategy session now—let's make this your breakout year: https://fretzin.com/   About Elise Holtzman: Elise is the founder and CEO of The Lawyer's Edge, a coaching and consulting firm that helps lawyers and law firms strengthen business development, leadership, and communication skills. A former practicing attorney with experience at Am Law 100 firms, including Fried Frank and Morgan Lewis, Elise combines her legal background with executive coaching to help attorneys grow profitable practices and build healthier firm cultures. She is a frequent speaker on leadership and rainmaking, host of The Lawyer's Edge Podcast, and has been featured in publications including Law360 and The New York Law Journal. Elise earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School and her B.A. in Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania.   Connect with Elise Holtzman:   Website: https://thelawyersedge.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eliseholtzman/   Connect with Steve Fretzin: LinkedIn: Steve Fretzin Twitter: @stevefretzin Instagram: @fretzinsteve Facebook: Fretzin, Inc. Website: Fretzin.com Email: Steve@Fretzin.com Book: Legal Business Development Isn't Rocket Science and more! YouTube: Steve Fretzin Call Steve directly at 847-602-6911   Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it. 

This Day in Legal History: Frontiero v. RichardsonOn May 14, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Frontiero v. Richardson, a major case in the development of constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Under federal law at the time, a male service member could automatically claim his wife as a dependent, but a female service member had to prove that her husband depended on her for more than half of his support. Frontiero argued that this rule treated women in the military as less legitimate breadwinners than men. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A plurality of the Court reasoned that sex-based legal classifications often reflected outdated assumptions about women's roles in family and public life.The decision came only a year after Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, giving the case a larger political and constitutional backdrop. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then working with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to treat sex discrimination with the same suspicion it applied to race discrimination. The Court did not produce a majority for strict scrutiny in sex-discrimination cases, but Frontiero still marked a sharp move away from judicial tolerance of laws based on gender stereotypes. Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion emphasized that women had long faced legal and social discrimination, including restrictions on property ownership, voting, employment, and civic participation.The ruling helped establish that administrative convenience was not a sufficient reason for the government to impose unequal burdens on women. It also signaled that servicewomen were entitled to equal treatment within institutions, including the military, that had historically been structured around male service members. In later cases, the Court would settle on an intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications, but Frontiero remains one of the key cases that pushed constitutional law in that direction.The U.S. Department of Justice has settled an investigation into PayPal over a 2020 investment program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. The DOJ said PayPal's Economic Opportunity Fund gave preferences based on race, color, and national origin without being tied to a specific remedy for past discrimination. PayPal did not admit liability, and the settlement says the DOJ did not make a formal finding that the company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or other federal law. As part of the agreement, PayPal will create a new small business initiative that waives processing fees on $1 billion in transactions.The fee waivers are valued at about $30 million and will apply to small businesses in farming, manufacturing, and technology, as well as businesses certified through the SBA's Veteran Small Business Certification Program. PayPal must also submit plans for the initiative, train employees on ECOA requirements, and report annually to the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge corporate DEI programs. PayPal said it was pleased to launch the new initiative and emphasized its long history of helping small businesses use digital financial tools. The settlement follows another recent DOJ resolution with IBM over workforce diversity-related allegations, showing continued federal scrutiny of corporate DEI practices.PayPal Settles Gov't DEI Probe With Small Biz Program - Law360The SEC and Elon Musk are scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to defend their proposed $1.5 million settlement over Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. The SEC's lawsuit accused Musk of delaying his disclosure that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter, allegedly allowing him to save about $150 million before the market reacted. Musk later bought Twitter for $44 billion.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has not automatically approved the deal and said she must evaluate whether it is fair, in the public interest, and free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered both sides to appear in court and be ready to suggest a schedule for briefing in support of the settlement. The SEC filed the case in January 2025, shortly before President Biden left office. Musk has argued the case was politically motivated and has said the late disclosure was accidental.The proposed settlement would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or surrender the money the SEC claimed he saved. Although the amount is much lower than what the SEC initially sought, a source told Reuters it was still the largest SEC penalty for that type of disclosure violation.US SEC, Musk to argue for Twitter settlement before DC judge | ReutersU.S. law firms saw strong client demand and higher billing rates in the first quarter of 2026, but those gains were limited by rising expenses and lower productivity. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute's latest Law Firm Financial Index, the quarter was healthy overall but not as financially impressive as firms might have expected given the level of demand. The report suggests that 2026 may not match the strong profit growth many firms saw in 2025, though analysts said it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Average demand rose 2.7% from the same period last year, which the report described as an unusually strong increase. M&A work grew 4.4%, while litigation and overall corporate work each rose 2.9%. Large firms continued to push billing rates sharply higher, with Am Law 100 firms raising rates by 9.8%, while midsized firms increased rates by 5.3%. But expenses climbed almost as quickly, with direct expenses up 8.1% and overhead up 8.3%. A major driver of overhead growth was spending on technology, including artificial intelligence tools.Geopolitical instability, including the war in Iran, has also created uncertainty, with deal activity slowing in March and restructuring work not rising as expected. The report frames the market as still strong, but with enough warning signs that firms may need to watch costs, productivity, and client demand closely in the next quarter.Rising US law firm expenses offset strong demand and rate hikes in first quarter - report | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had favored three challengers to the Trump administration's 10% global tariff. The pause means the tariffs remain in effect for two businesses and Washington state while the appeal continues. The U.S. trade court had ruled against the tariffs last week but did not issue a broad order stopping their collection nationwide. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short-term administrative stay while it considers whether to grant a longer pause. The challengers now have seven days to argue against keeping the lower court ruling on hold. Washington state qualified as an importer in the case because the University of Washington, a public research institution, paid tariffs. The tariff was imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's 2025 tariffs. Unless Congress extends it, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July.US appeals court pauses ruling against Trump's 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

And is Alito really going to retire? ----- The 2026 Super Rich list has 37 firms clearing $1.45M RPL and $625K PPL thresholds after Am Law had to raise because last year's bar was too easy. Then Kirkland proved what super rich really means by dropping a guaranteed $80M over three years to snatch a star lawyer from Wachtell. The PAC Trump uses to pay lawyers is nearly $500K in the red and owes roughly $1.6M to 12 firms. When will lawyers learn that he's never going to pay his bills... at least with money. Will Sam Alito retire to cheer on insurrections as a private citizen? If he does, Senate Republicans are ready to embrace the hypocrisy and ram through a replacement. Could it be Ted Cruz? Subscribe to Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer: https://play.megaphone.fm/lpff6i7nq9wlb-pkdudwtw Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Dan Spector, partner at Hanson Bridgett, an Am Law 200 California-based law firm and the first law firm recognized as a certified B Corp. Dan is a trial lawyer, mediator, and arbitrator whose practice focuses on trust, probate and complex civil cases involving families. He has been named in multiple years as a Super Lawyer by his peers for Northern California in the area of Trust and Estate Litigation and a statewide mediation and private neutral panelist for Judicate West, a professional neutral company with offices throughout California. Dan is a member of the California Lawyer's Association's (CLA) Trust and Estates Section and Litigation Section, as well as the Sacramento County Bar Association's Probate, Trust and Estate Planning Section. He has recently been selected to serve on the Executive Committee for CLA's Trust and Estate Section (TEXCOM), for which he participates in various subcommittees, including the Litigation, Incapacity and Legislation subcommittees. He also serves as a Judge Pro-Tem in the Sacramento Superior Court and has been named as an expert witness on issues relating to trust, probate, and litigation matters. Dan has lectured at U.C. Davis before the Sacramento County Bar Association, CCLSA and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants on the topics of civil litigation and trust and probate litigation. He has served on numerous non-profit boards throughout Sacramento, including as Chair of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Sacramento, board member of the San Juan Unified School District Superintendent's Advisory Board, board member of the St. Ignatius School Advisory Board, board member of the Anthony M. Kennedy Learning Center, and Chairman of the Board of Del Paso Country Club. Dan served as General Chairman of the 2015 United States Senior Open Golf Championship, the single largest sporting event in Sacramento's history. Dan and his firm Hanson Bridgett are values advisor members of FOX, and we are thrilled to have their expertise within our membership community. We've talked about conflict on this podcast before, but today we'll learn more about Dan's area of expertise – "active conflict". Dan explains for our listeners how active conflict is defined and how it is manifested in both pre-litigation and litigation situations. Families are complex, and family dynamics and the emotional undercurrents that run through the relationships among family members present a unique challenge for both clients and professionals in our field. Dan shares his experience on how families get to the active conflict stage, and he describes the common pathways and the ways family members and their family offices can recognize them. In many cases, significant changes – and resulting conflicts – within a family are triggered by the death of a key family principal. So, one practical consideration is to distinguish between pre-mortem and post-mortem conflict situations. Dan talks about the main differences between family conflicts that take place before vs. after a major death in the family. Active conflict can be very painful for families. Dan provides an outline of the options available to families for managing and resolving active conflict, including the different professional channels and techniques they can resort to. Don't miss this illuminating conversation with a leading expert and practitioner in the field of family conflict management and resolution.

This episode with Kimberly is one that I think a lot of law students and young attorneys will find themselves in. Kimberly is a triple-graduate of the University of Florida, a diehard Gator, and is currently a partner at an AmLaw 100 firm with 17+ years as a commercial litigator, specializing in work for banks and financial institutions. Kimberly takes us down her journey, from originally wanting to be a journalist at the Orlando Sentinel, to discovering law through a media law class in her junior year of undergrad, to pursuing a joint JD and master's in mass communications at UF with dreams of becoming a First Amendment attorney, to eventually finding her path in commercial foreclosure and secured transactions litigation an area she never would have imagined herself in but has come to truly love.Beyond her practice, Kimberly is the creator of Latina Legal Minds, a podcast and platform she started during the pandemic as a creative outlet that has since become her passion project. She also founded the Latina Legal Minds Power Summit, a live event creating space for Latina attorneys to have critical conversations about salary negotiations, big law, and navigating the profession. Her message on authenticity, that it isn't something to figure out later but something to protect from day one, is one that every law student and professional needs to hear.This was an incredible conversation with someone who truly exemplifies what it means to advocate for yourself and build community along the way. Kimberly's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberlylopez/Latina Legal MindsBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - Empowers your teaching and training with AI that strengthens learning, protects integrity, and proves authentic understanding, for students and professionals alike, with CICERO. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 22-year-old superstar, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110, you get the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10, you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use codeLITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

And is Alito really going to retire? ----- The 2026 Super Rich list has 37 firms clearing $1.45M RPL and $625K PPL thresholds after Am Law had to raise because last year's bar was too easy. Then Kirkland proved what super rich really means by dropping a guaranteed $80M over three years to snatch a star lawyer from Wachtell. The PAC Trump uses to pay lawyers is nearly $500K in the red and owes roughly $1.6M to 12 firms. When will lawyers learn that he's never going to pay his bills... at least with money. Will Sam Alito retire to cheer on insurrections as a private citizen? If he does, Senate Republicans are ready to embrace the hypocrisy and ram through a replacement. Could it be Ted Cruz?

Marcie Borgal Shunk is the founder and president of The Tilt Institute and creator of Leadership Foundations, a high-impact virtual program designed to give law firms essential leadership skills and practical solutions. For nearly three decades, she has worked with more than 3,000 law firm leaders on talent, culture, and leadership, helping dozens of AmLaw firms anticipate and prepare for the future of law. A Harvard graduate, Marcie holds two fellowships, four certifications in culture and coaching, and several board advisory positions. She is a frequent contributor to the American Lawyer, Thomson Reuters, and Bloomberg Law. Sona Spencer is the Chief Legal Talent Officer at Troutman Pepper Locke, where she leads the firm's legal recruiting, professional development, inclusion, and career coaching functions. Drawing from more than 15 years of experience in AmLaw 50 firms, she collaborates closely with firm stakeholders to implement training, compensation frameworks, and inclusion and retention strategies that ensure the firm can attract and retain talent at all levels to exceed client service goals. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT THE DEATH OF APPRENTICESHIP IN LAW FIRMS The apprenticeship model built generations of lawyers, and for a long time it worked. Junior associates learned by proximity, absorbing how to think and practice by working alongside more experienced attorneys over the course of years. Hybrid work, lateral mobility, and generational shifts in how people learn have quietly dismantled that model, and many firms are still operating as though it's intact. Addressing the problem requires more than plugging holes. Firms need to rethink how they signal investment in their people, build structured pathways that make expectations explicit, and develop the human and leadership skills that AI cannot replicate. The firms getting this right have moved beyond standalone training programs and created systems where talent can see the path, understand what's expected, and take an active role in their own development. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge, Elise Holtzman talks with Marcie Borgal Shunk of The Tilt Institute and Sona Spencer of Troutman Pepper Locke about why the apprenticeship model is failing, what the most forward-thinking firms are doing differently, how AI is reshaping the skills lawyers need to develop, and where firm leaders should start if they want to make a real change. 2:38 - The origin of "The Death of Apprenticeship" article 4:08 - Why hybrid work and generational differences are breaking down the model 7:08 - Why what made senior lawyers successful may not work for the next generation 8:07 - Lateral mobility and compensation wars as added pressure on retention 10:45 - Making the business case for talent development 13:27 - Breaking down the true cost of replacing an associate 15:13 - AI and the risk of outsourcing junior associate learning 19:08 - The human skills firms need to be building deliberately 22:13 - Executive presence and how lawyers show up on camera and in rooms 27:07 - Why leaders have to model what they teach 29:34 - How Troutman Pepper Locke's YOUniversity achieved 75% participation in year one 32:02 - Benchmarks, Learning Management System (LMS) integration, and self-directed development paths 34:48 - Takeaways for smaller firms without large Learning & Development resources 38:44 - Starting small with pilots and building intentionally 41:26 - Don't assume your path is everyone's path 43:36 - Clear communication and moments of kindness Mentioned In The Death of Apprenticeship: What it Means for Lawyers and Law Firms Marcie Borgal Shunk on LinkedIn | The Tilt Institute Sona Spencer on LinkedIn | Troutman Pepper Locke The Death of Apprenticeship: Reimagining Law Firm Talent Strategy for a New Era Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge

What happens when you've "made it" in big law but still feel stuck? Business law attorney Matthew Fornaro hit that wall. After years at two prestigious AmLaw 200 firms, he found himself facing another offer from a top-ten national firm with more money and more prestige. Instead, he walked away to build his own practice.Matt shares the real story of going solo: the defining moment he recognized he'd hit a "plateau" that more money wouldn't fix, the terrifying excitement of day one, and the culture shock of losing big-law infrastructure overnight.Matt is refreshingly honest about what firm ownership actually looks like. The freedom is real, but so is the weight of responsibility. Nobody deposits a paycheck when you don't work. There's no back office printing your documents or managing your calendar. You become the CEO, the marketing department, and the IT help desk all at once.But here's what changed for Matt: the work started to matter in ways it never had before. Inspired by watching his own father struggle to find competent legal counsel for his small business, Matt built a practice dedicated to serving entrepreneurs and startups. Now he watches businesses launch, employees get hired, and communities grow because of work he did with his own hands.We explore the challenges every solo practitioner faces: cash flow management, technology decisions, and the critical importance of choosing the right clients. Matt shares hard-won lessons about red flags he wished he'd heeded earlier and the business education law school never provided.Whether you're considering leaving big law, already running your own firm, or simply searching for a more aligned and fulfilling way to practice, this conversation delivers wisdom from someone who made the leap and built a practice that actually fits his life.Key Takeaways:Why hitting the "plateau" in big law was actually a giftThe culture shock of losing big-law resources overnightHow serving small businesses unlocked deeper fulfillment than Fortune 500 clients ever didThe business education law school never provided and how Matt filled the gapRed flags that signal a client will cost you more than they payBuilding a practice aligned with your values, not just your bank account[01:18] Matt's decade inside AmLaw 200 firms[01:40] The "plateau" that changed everything[06:21] Day one of firm ownership: excitement, fear, and chaos[08:15] What surprised him most about leaving big law[10:05] Freedom without a safety net[12:44] The work that actually feels worth doing[15:05] The parts nobody warns you about[16:10] Cash flow, clients, and constant decisions[17:43] How technology leveled the playing field for small firms[20:01] Why Matt teaches what he learned the hard way[22:06] The mentorship that filled the gaps[24:16] Practical advice for lawyers ready to go soloMatthew Fornaro spent over a decade at two AmLaw 200 law firms before walking away from an offer at a top-ten national firm to build something of his own. Today he serves small businesses, entrepreneurs, and startups from his Coral Springs, Florida office, bringing big-firm expertise to clients often underserved by traditional law firms. A member of the Florida Bar and District of Columbia Bar, Matthew practices commercial litigation, contract disputes, construction law, intellectual property, and business formation. He also teaches legal compliance as an instructor for the Kauffman Foundation's FastTrac NewVenture Program and Florida State University's Jim Moran Institute for Global Entrepreneurship, helping the next generation of business owners avoid the mistakes he learned to navigate the hard way.Contact me: gary@garymiles.nethttps://www.garymiles.net/You can find The Free Lawyer Assessment here- https://www.garymiles.net/the-free-lawyer-assessmentWould you like to schedule a complimentary discovery call? You can do so here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-call

Matthew Fornaro is a South Florida business and commercial litigation attorney who has been serving clients since 2003. After working at two AmLaw 200 firms, he launched his own practice focused on contract disputes, construction law, intellectual property, and business formation. As both an attorney and small business owner, Matthew brings practical legal insight to entrepreneurs and mentors emerging business leaders throughout the community.

Research from Barna and C12 Business Forums shows that 51% of "Faith-Forward" CEOs consider faith a major motivation in leadership. A survey by Houston Christian University found that 74% of Christian business leaders rely on spiritual practice for decision-making and 63% look to scripture for guidance. Carl Grant III is an experienced leader in professional services business development, having worked with AM Law 50 firms and a Big Four accounting firm. He led Cooley LLP's business development team for 20 years, contributing to $1.7B in annual revenue growth, and drove a 33% market share increase at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Grant also doubled venture funds as part of Fairfax County Economic Development Authority and currently serves as Chairman and CEO of Cyrulion, Inc. He is a founding board member of the Austin Venture Association, an Army veteran, best-selling author, and has degrees from Indiana University and Harvard Business School. As a Christian business leader and founder of Bridges of Faith, Carl helps integrate faith, purpose, and leadership, advising executives on building trust and results without sacrificing values. His work includes promoting respectful Muslim–Christian dialogue, peacemaking, and living out faith with integrity. Married for 31 years with five adult children, he brings practical insights on faith both at home and in leadership roles. -- Follow: @carl.grant.iii Get the book: https://www.amazon.com/Live-Abundant-Life-Carl-Grant/dp/1637351941#:~:text=%22How%20to%20Live%20the%20Abundant,to%20live%20their%20best%20life.%22&text=%22Thoughtful%2C%20accessible%2C%20and%20compelling Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A top AmLaw chair makes the case that the future of Big Law belongs to firms bold enough to put business leaders in charge, rethink the billable hour, and prove that remote attorneys can outperform the office. Joe Glynias, Chair of Husch Blackwell, joins Chris and Howard for a candid look at how a national firm grows without losing its footing. At the center is a deliberate structural choice: a non-lawyer chief executive runs the business so lawyers can focus on practicing law. That separation has brought operational discipline, sharper cost control, and growth that has continued well beyond the firm's last major merger. The strategy is simple in theory and demanding in practice: expand where clients need depth and bring in people who fit the culture. What if growth were driven less by geography and more by alignment? The conversation turns to the pressures facing every firm. AI, rising rates, talent mobility, and private equity are all reshaping expectations. Joe sees AI as a tool that strips out low-value work and elevates judgment. He expects clients to push harder on efficiency and pricing. He remains curious about outside capital as a way to fund innovation, though cautious about what partners would trade away. The throughline is discipline. Protect the culture. Invest with purpose. Stay clear about what makes the firm distinct. One of the most compelling examples is The Link, Husch Blackwell's remote office model. With hundreds of professionals working outside traditional offices, engagement scores in that group surpass those of in-office teams. Culture and development do not happen by proximity alone. They require intention. Joe closes with a reminder that law at its best is problem solving in service of others. In uncertain times, that calling feels more relevant than ever.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 The Future of Big Law and Modern Law Firm Leadership 08:46 Strategic Growth Through Law Firm Mergers and Client Alignment 15:03 AI in Legal Services and the Shift in Law Firm Economics 25:21 Private Equity, Enterprise Value, and the Law Firm Model 38:44 Remote Work in Big Law and The Link Engagement Model 42:57 Why the Future of Law Is Bright   Connect with Joe Glynias: Connect with Joe on LinkedIn Joe's Company Web Profile   Connect with Howard Rosenberg: Connect with Howard on LinkedIn Howard's Company Web Profile   Connect with Chris Batz: Connect with Chris on LinkedIn  Follow Columbus Street on LinkedIn Columbus Street Website  MergerWatch Website Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm  

Today is an update on 2 of our brilliant guests and the powerful art they are putting out into the world. In episode 128 we interviewed Kristin Marrs and Anne Marie Nest about a theatre/dance piece they created called Chalk, which is about both of their journeys through miscarriage and infertility. These amazing women have been busy in the last year because they developed the piece into a full length show that opened in Denver last weekend, and will open in Iowa City for 4 shows at the James next weekend, March 21-24. Tickets can be found at http://www.thejamesic.com. In today's episode we: Hear about how Anne Marie & Kristin met during their challenges with infertility and multiple miscarriages, and how this eventually led to creative collaboration and birthing of a new piece of art. The process of creating this piece, and the magic of how it all came together when they set the intention of “this can be easy”. Ancestral patterning, and stories of women that came before Anne Marie and Kristin that had challenges with child bearing. The infertility journey that both women experienced,  including all the ups and downs, the limits of the medical system, and the deep, hidden grief and shame. Why the topic of infertility and miscarriage has been so  “silenced” in our culture. Why we need these stories more than ever in our current political arena when so many women are having challenges receiving the health care they need. Bios: Iowa native Kristin Marrs is a dancer, choreographer, and movement teacher. She is an Associate Professor of Instruction and Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Iowa Department of Dance, where she teaches a wide variety of courses across the dance and somatic curriculum. She is also a certified Alexander Technique teacher, and has a private studio in Iowa City where she works with students of all ages and abilities in improving alignment, breathing, postural tone, and ease of movement. She is a proud mama of two kids.  www.kristinmarrs.com Anne Marie Nest-Pinero met Kristin at the University of Iowa while she was professor of voice and speech in the Theater Department. Prior to her career in academia, Anne Marie was a professional actor, working primarily in regional theaters and Shakespeare Festivals.  Anne Marie now works as an executive coach and communications consultant for the Fortune 500 and AM Law 200.  She is an Associate Teacher of Fitzmaurice Voicework, trained mediator through Columbia University, and certified CTI coach. www.annemarienest.com Past Episodes You Might Like About Women's Health, Medical Systems & Well-Being   Episode 122:  Nina Lohman: The Body Alone: A Lyrical Articulation of Pain Episode 105: Kate O'Donnell: Ayurveda for Women's Health Episode 99: Cate Stillman: The Witch's Cancer Journal  Episode 88: Sam Ferm-LeClere: Healing with Chronic Illness Episode 37: Can We Trust Other Women and Their Bodily Autonomy Seasoned Wisdom Date: April 1st, 11am – 1pm Come soak up the wisdom that only comes from age…A signature event of the Water Bearer Collective in partnership with the Tend HER Wild Podcast. Join the Water Bearer Collective in partnership with Tend HER Wild Podcast hosts Dr. Betsy Rippentrop and Kate Moreland, for a special live podcast event, “Seasoned Wisdom.” This intimate and powerful conversation will feature 4 legendary older women who are overflowing with unapologetic authenticity, hard-won insight, and deep self-trust and wisdom that only comes with age. Event Details: This event will be held at the James Theatre, Iowa City on April 1st from 11am – 1pm. A light lunch will be served and time to network will follow the recording. REGISTER HERE Today's Episode sponsored by: The Local Hub (https://thelocalhub-ic.com/) Kate Moreland Coaching (https://www.katemorelandcoaching.com/) Dr Yoga Momma (https://dryogamomma.com/) Heartland Yoga (https://heartlandyoga.com/) Want to go on retreat? Want to join Betsy in Costa Rica in May 11-18 2026 at her favorite retreat center to help you connect with your inner healer using yoga, meditation, energy medicine, and creativity?  At this retreat, broadway director Kristin Hanggi is joining to lead on the power of creativity to move us through our collective and personal anxiety.   All the details here! Source

Let's talk about every lawyer's favorite subject: exams. It seems like every day, there's another threshold that generative artificial intelligence crosses. First, it was able to take a bar exam and do reasonably well. Then it was able to ace it. Same with law school exams. Right now, AI would probably graduate at the top of its class, edit law review and land a six-figure associate's job with an Am Law 50 firm. Now comes another milestone. Subscribe to ABA Journal: Legal Rebels: https://play.megaphone.fm/yo1baz8xraemljru5ra-tw Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when a global law firm treats AI as a way to sharpen human judgment rather than replace it and uses change as a chance to rebuild stronger rather than cling to the past.   Client Centric Innovation anchors this conversation with Lorie Almon, Chair and Managing Partner of Seyfarth Shaw, one of the largest global law firms in the AmLaw 100. Lorie shares how she thinks about leading a firm of more than a thousand lawyers through rapid technological change while staying grounded in client-defined value and strong professional culture.   The Japanese concept of Kintsugi becomes a powerful lens for understanding this moment in the legal profession. When long-standing systems crack under pressure, do leaders rush to preserve the old shape or intentionally rebuild something stronger? Lorie explains how this mindset influences decisions around AI adoption, strategic growth, and the way knowledge and judgment flow across the firm.   What does it really mean to future-proof a law firm? How do leaders decide which traditions deserve protection and which need to evolve? And as technology accelerates, which human skills become even more essential? This conversation offers a thoughtful and pragmatic look at the future of legal leadership with people firmly at the center.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Client-Centric Innovation as a Leadership Strategy 06:08 Kintsugi and Rebuilding the Future of the Legal Profession 12:04 Strategic Lateral Growth Without Sacrificing Culture 19:02 The Role of AI in the Future 21:52 Capturing Institutional Knowledge With Data and AI 23:22 Why the Future of Law Firms Is Still Human Connect with Lorie Almon: Connect with Lorie on LinkedIn Lorie's Law Firm bio     Connect with Howard Rosenberg: Connect with Howard on LinkedIn Howard's Company Web Profile   Connect with Chris Batz: Connect with Chris on LinkedIn  Follow Columbus Street on LinkedIn Columbus Street Website Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm

Episode 298 of The Rainmaking Podcast features Scott Love in conversation with Eva Wisnik on how to fit business development into an already hectic schedule—especially for busy law firm partners and associates. Eva explains that many lawyers are trained to “issue spot” (anticipate what can go wrong), which is great for client service but can sabotage rainmaking unless it's replaced with an opportunity-focused mindset. She reframes BD as “selling through substance”: asking better questions, showing genuine curiosity, and positioning outreach as problem-solving rather than “sales.” Her core message is that most BD resistance is fear (rejection, failure, imposing), and the antidote is shifting from self-focused thinking to client-centered value. Eva then gets tactical: build a pipeline by staying in touch with intent and consistency, because meaningful business relationships often take 2–5 years to convert. She recommends simple, repeatable habits—“one action a day” (send a thoughtful note, share a relevant article, set a meeting, register for a conference), plus tracking micro-actions to build momentum. Practical examples include handwritten notes, small meaningful gifts, and “thinking of you” outreach tied to something useful. Her three action steps: look backward to identify the clients/relationships you most enjoy and then find more like them, take one BD action daily, and track those actions as wins so the process stays sustainable and you maintain control of your career. Visit: https: //therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/VT4jwamTMtI ----------------------------------------

Let's talk about every lawyer's favorite subject: exams. It seems like every day, there's another threshold that generative artificial intelligence crosses. First, it was able to take a bar exam and do reasonably well. Then it was able to ace it. Same with law school exams. Right now, AI would probably graduate at the top of its class, edit law review and land a six-figure associate's job with an Am Law 50 firm. Now comes another milestone.

Let's talk about every lawyer's favorite subject: exams. It seems like every day, there's another threshold that generative artificial intelligence crosses. First, it was able to take a bar exam and do reasonably well. Then it was able to ace it. Same with law school exams. Right now, AI would probably graduate at the top of its class, edit law review and land a six-figure associate's job with an Am Law 50 firm. Now comes another milestone.

Welcome to the first Original Jurisdiction podcast episode of the new year, an opportune time to both reflect on 2025 and look ahead to 2026. To kick things off, I decided I wanted to interview a Biglaw leader, to get a sense of both the challenges and opportunities facing large law firms today.I was delighted to be joined by Jon Van Gorp, who has served as the chair of Mayer Brown since 2021. A member of both the Am Law 100 and the Vault 100, Mayer Brown has around 2,000 lawyers, $2 billion in revenue, and 150 years of history. As for Jon, he's a Chambers-ranked, leading practitioner in structured finance—and we began our conversation by discussing his distinguished career in practice.We then moved on to discuss his leadership of Mayer Brown, which Jon views as a way of giving back to an institution that has given so much to him. We covered his approach to leadership, the firm's strategic plan, and its approach to AI adoption.But Jon was also willing to tackle topics that other Biglaw leaders have been avoiding, such as partner pay and the (rather fraught) relationship between the Trump administration and large law firms. Thanks to Jon for his time, insight, and willingness to discuss delicate—but incredibly important—issues.Show Notes:* Jon D. Van Gorp bio, Mayer Brown LLP* Beyond cold hard cash, warm fuzzies are the way to a lawyer's heart, firm chair says, by Jenna Greene for Reuters* Mayer Brown Chair On Why Law Leaders Need To Listen More, by Kevin Penton for Law360Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

What actually determines whether a healthcare business compounds, or quietly stalls? In this episode of Bright Spots in Healthcare, Eric Glazer sits down with Scott Becker, Founder and Publisher of Becker's Healthcare and host of the Becker Private Equity & Business Podcast, for a candid, experience-driven conversation about building businesses that scale with confidence. Scott has spent decades building, advising, and investing in companies across healthcare, media, law, and private equity. Rather than walking through a framework or checklist, this conversation focuses on the real decisions founders and operators are facing right now, especially in a market defined by long sales cycles, regulated buyers, capital pressure, and increasing scrutiny on value. Using Scott's new book, Building Great Businesses, as a backbone, the discussion explores how leaders can cut through noise and false urgency to focus on what actually matters. In this episode, we cover: The difference between motion and real momentum in healthcare go-to-market Why founders often mistake pilots, logos, or activity for traction What healthcare leaders tend to over-optimize early, and under-invest in What true product-market fit looks like when buyers are risk-averse Why niche focus and reference customers matter more in healthcare than in other sectors How and when outside capital helps—and when it quietly distorts focus Why the right people matter more than the right idea when building enduring businesses This episode is designed for founders, operators, and senior leaders who are already in the arena, and want clearer thinking about the few decisions that truly determine long-term success. About Scott: Scott Becker is a distinguished entrepreneur, investor, and legal professional who has built a remarkable career at the intersection of healthcare, media, and law. As the founder and publisher of Becker's Healthcare, a leading healthcare media company, and a longtime partner at McGuireWoods, a top AmLaw firm, Scott has established himself as an authority in his field. With a mission to provide valuable insights and strategies for entrepreneurs and business leaders, Scott draws upon his extensive experience to help others navigate the complexities of building and scaling successful ventures. His expertise spans across various industries, including healthcare, private equity, and venture capital, where he has made significant investments and contributes as an active investor. Scott is also a prolific author, having written several books, including Health Care Law: A Practical Guide, The Physician's Managed Care Success Manual, The ASC Handbook, and The Entrepreneur's Edge. He hosts two highly ranked podcasts, Becker's Healthcare Podcast and Becker Private Equity and Business Podcast, where he shares his knowledge. He has interviewed prominent figures such as George and Laura Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nikki Haley, and Michael Strahan via Becker's Healthcare conferences. Scott currently resides in the Chicago suburbs, Palm Beach Gardens, and Deer Valley. When he's not working on his business endeavors, he can be found pursuing his passions for golf, tennis, fitness, skiing, writing, and speaking.   Pre-Order Scott's book, Building Great Businesses: Create Momentum, Overcome Setbacks, and Scale with Confidence - https://a.co/d/3gDAz7B   Notes: Book Recommendations Measure What Matters — John Doerr Profit from the Core: A Return to Growth in Turbulent Times — Chris Zook & James Allen The ONE Thing — Gary Keller 10x Is Easier Than 2x — Dan Sullivan & Dr. Benjamin Hardy Who Not How — Dan Sullivan & Dr. Benjamin Hardy Unreasonable Hospitality — Will Guidara Podcast Recommendation Becker Private Equity & Business Podcast — hosted by Scott Becker Partner with Bright Spots Ventures: If you are interested in speaking with the Bright Spots Ventures team to brainstorm how we can help you grow your business via content and relationships, email hkrish@brightspotsventures.com. About Bright Spots Ventures: Bright Spots Ventures is a healthcare strategy and engagement company that creates content, communities, and connections to accelerate innovation. We help healthcare leaders discover what's working, and how to scale it. By bringing together health plan, hospital, and solution leaders, we facilitate the exchange of ideas that lead to measurable impact. Through our podcast, executive councils, private events, and go-to-market strategy work, we surface and amplify the "bright spots" in healthcare—proven innovations others can learn from and replicate. At our core, we exist to create trusted relationships that make real progress possible. Visit our website at www.brightspotsinhealthcare.com. Visit our website:  www.brightspotsinhealthcare.com. Follow Bright Spots in Healthcare: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shared-purpose-connect/

In this episode, James Barclay, CEO of Passle, discusses how legal technology is evolving to solve a big challenge in the legal industry: cross-selling. James shares the journey of Passle—from its roots in the early internet gold rush to becoming a leading thought leadership platform for the Am Law 200. The conversation covers Passle's new AI-driven tool, CrossPitch, which helps attorneys overcome the "trust and awareness" barriers that prevent internal collaboration and revenue. James explains that while content marketing is essential for lawyers to showcase expertise, the real value lies in how that expertise is shared internally within a law firm. Research suggests that firms leave at least 10% of their revenue on the table due to ineffective cross-selling. To address this, Passle developed CrossPitch, an AI tool that analyzes attorney bios and firm-wide thought leadership to automate internal networking. Key Takeaways: The Problem of Silos: Large firms often suffer from a lack of awareness; attorneys in different offices or practice groups are often unaware of their colleagues' specific expertise. AI-Powered Matching: Cross Pitch reads a firm's thought leadership and matches it with the bios of attorneys whose clients would benefit from that specific knowledge. Data Visualization: The platform provides a "Cross-Selling Intelligence Map" to help managing partners visualize collaboration and identify "dark spots" where practice groups are not engaging. Episode Credits Editing and Production: Grant Blackstock Theme Music: Home Base (Instrumental Version) by TA2MI  

In this episode of the Great Trials Podcast, host Steve Lowry interviews John Rushing, a prominent trial lawyer and partner at Rushing McCarl, LLP. The discussion delves into a significant business dispute case, Virgin Scent Inc. dba ArtNaturals vs. BT Supplies West Inc., tried in federal court in Los Angeles in November 2022.   CASE SUMMARY:  Rushing McCarl LLP secured a $17.8 million jury verdict on behalf of cosmetics manufacturer Virgin Scent, Inc. dba Artnaturals. The jury found that defendant BT Supplies Inc. had breached contracts to buy millions of hand sanitizer bottles and masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. BT Supplies was represented by Nixon Peabody LLP, an Am Law 100 firm. (READ MORE)   JOHN RUSHING BIO: John Rushing is a premier trial attorney and oral advocate who, as the leader of Rushing McCarl's trial team, has secured multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in several state and federal jury trials since co-founding the firm in 2020. These victories included wins in contract and partnership disputes brought for California businesses, including a unanimous $17.8 million jury verdict won for a large manufacturer. Mr. Rushing was named to Super Lawyers in 2025. (READ MORE)   CONNECT WITH OUR GUEST: Rushing McCarl LLP on LinkedIn Rushing McCarl LLP on YouTube Rushing McCarl on X Rushing McCarl LLP on Facebook   LISTEN TO PREVIOUS EPISODES & MEET THE TEAM: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services  Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2  

In this episode, Steve Fretzin and Matthew Fornaro discuss:Making solo practice more accessible than everUsing AI as a force multiplier for small firmsPracticing ethical and intentional AI adoptionRethinking legal business models and skill sets Key Takeaways:Starting a firm no longer requires a large office, full staff, or major upfront investment. A focused LinkedIn presence paired with a simple, low-cost website can be sufficient early on.Matthew relies on AI for email triage, document review, and marketing support across his practice. These tools increasingly replace costly vendors while delivering speed, consistency, and scale.Responsible lawyers review and verify AI outputs instead of submitting them unchecked. Those who ignore AI entirely or misuse it are falling behind or facing real professional consequences.AI-driven efficiency puts pressure on traditional billable-hour structures in Big Law and beyond. Matthew emphasizes that business education is as critical as legal skills for long-term success. "In dealing with some of the attorneys I deal with who don't use AI or whatever, they're getting consistently outworked and beat by people who do use AI, particularly people who use AI correctly and responsibly." —  Matthew Fornaro Check out my new show, Be That Lawyer Coaches Corner, and get the strategies I use with my clients to win more business and love your career again. Ready to go from good to GOAT in your legal marketing game? Don't miss PIMCON—where the brightest minds in professional services gather to share what really works. Lock in your spot now: https://www.pimcon.org/ Thank you to our Sponsor!Rankings.io: https://rankings.io/ Ready to grow your law practice without selling or chasing? Book your free 30-minute strategy session now—let's make this your breakout year: https://fretzin.com/ About Matthew Fornaro: Matthew Fornaro is a business law attorney serving South Florida since 2003. He began his career at two AmLaw 200 firms, focusing on civil litigation, before founding his own practice.His work includes complex commercial litigation, contract disputes, construction law, intellectual property, and business formation and documentation. A member of the Florida and District of Columbia Bars, Matthew also mentors new attorneys and entrepreneurs through the Kaufman Foundation's FastTrac NewVenture Program and Florida State University's Jim Moran Institute.As a small business owner himself, he is proud to support and represent businesses throughout his community. Connect with Matthew Fornaro: Website: https://fornarolegal.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/fornarolegal/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewfornaro/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZn4sEROz6hErV5Fb5vvOtQInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/fornaro_legal/X: https://twitter.com/FornaroLegalAdditional Resources: Jeremy Baker - https://operationpalmtree.com/ Connect with Steve Fretzin:LinkedIn: Steve FretzinTwitter: @stevefretzinInstagram: @fretzinsteveFacebook: Fretzin, Inc.Website: Fretzin.comEmail: Steve@Fretzin.comBook: Legal Business Development Isn't Rocket Science and more!YouTube: Steve FretzinCall Steve directly at 847-602-6911 Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it. 

If you are a senior associate staring at year seven, eight, or nine and trying to decode whether you are "behind," I want you to hear this clearly: your timeline is not controlled by your work ethic or your reviews.  In this episode, I break down why partnership timing is driven by structural economics inside your firm, not individual merit. We walk through the forces that actually move or stop the process, including practice group capacity, leverage ratios, PEP pressure, capital constraints, succession bottlenecks, client portability, and internal power dynamics. I also give realistic timing ranges for Am Law 100 versus Am Law 200 firms, explain why non-equity partnership has become a much longer and often permanent tier, and outline what truly accelerates movement toward equity: client dependency and demonstrated revenue that the firm believes it must protect. Finally, I take apart the myths that quietly sabotage senior associates, like assuming seniority triggers review, assuming class-year promotions move in waves, and assuming non-equity is automatically a short bridge to equity. If you want to make smart career decisions in BigLaw, you cannot plan around a "clock." You plan around the system you are in and the conditions required for the firm to say yes. At a Glance 00:00 Why partnership timing creates anxiety for senior associates 01:20 The hard truth: there is no universal partnership clock, only a limited-seat business model 02:58 The structural drivers that actually control timing: capacity, leverage, PEP, capital, succession, portability, and internal power 03:31 Why excellence alone does not create a partner seat 04:02 Realistic timelines: Am Law 100 versus Am Law 200 ranges for non-equity and equity 05:34 Why non-equity is often no longer a short path to equity 06:04 What truly moves the process: client dependency, not hours or "indispensable service" to other partners 06:39 The quiet equity credibility thresholds and why you can be deferred repeatedly below them 07:06 Why lateral paths can promote faster than internal BigLaw timelines 08:03 Why the same firm still has different clocks across different practices 08:53 Myth 1: hitting a year range means you will automatically be up for partner 10:18 Myth 2: if others in your class year are promoted, you should be too 11:41 Myth 3: non-equity is a stepping stone to equity, as long as you build a book 12:20 The moving goalposts: equity thresholds rising, and why conversion is not automatic 13:29 Myth 4: if you are good enough, the firm will speed it up 14:55 The rough odds: who makes non-equity and who makes equity internally 15:30 The practical posture: how to operate if you are serious about partnership 16:24 The most damaging mistake: planning on an orderly, certain process that is designed to be slow and protective Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select "Write a Review." Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

Michael Chad Hoeppner is the Founder and CEO of GK Training, a firm dedicated to giving individuals, companies, and organizations the communication skills to reach their highest goals in work and life.Michael has worked with some of the world's most influential companies and leaders, across a wide range of industries, universities, and professional sectors. His corporate clients include: three of the top eight financial firms in the world, 45 of the AmLaw 100, and multinational tech, pharma, and food and beverage companies. He teaches his unique approach to communication at Columbia Business School, in both the MBA and PhD programs.Michael assists clients in every aspect of their communication: public speaking, business development, executive presence, interpersonal agility, Q&A, speech writing, email skills, and more. His individual coaching clients include varied professionals at the peak of their industries: US Presidential candidates, deans of Ivy League business schools, three of the managing partners of the 25 largest global law firms, founders of asset management firms with $100B+ under management, field officers of international peace keeping organizations, and visionaries in various fields, including the innovator who coined the term cloud computing, the most successful venture capitalist in the US for a consecutive 5-year period, and senior board members of the Special Olympics. Michael advised US democratic presidential candidates in the 2016 and 2020 races, including his role as senior communications strategist and debate coach for the Andrew Yang 2020 Presidential campaign. He also works with political aspirants at the beginning of their careers, including pro bono work for Vote Mama, an org that supports mothers with young children seeking first-time public office.His background in communication, training, and teaching is diverse and rich, having studied linguistics, theatre, speech, rhetoric, philosophy, and communications at the graduate and undergraduate level. His work in professional communications started two decades ago with achieving his Master of Fine Arts degree from NYU's graduate acting program, studying with many of the preeminent vocal and performance teachers in the country. After NYU, Michael enjoyed a prolific first career as a professional actor: playing on Broadway twice, including working with stage legends like Nathan Lane; touring to 30+ US states; performing internationally, including at the 2009 European Capital of Culture; guest starring in prime-time network television; and originating roles in independent film.His passion then evolved, shifting to launching his first and still primary entrepreneurial venture, GK Training. As head of GK, Michael developed his unique, proprietary approach to communications training over a decade plus, an approach that utilizes kinesthetic learning to unlock rapid and lasting behavioral change. In that work he has created a suite of over 40 proprietary kinesthetic drills to address stubborn communication challenges like excessive filler language, lack of eye contact, slouching, talking too fast, and more with innovative tools that activate embodied cognition and circumvent thought suppression. Now entering its second decade, GK Training has clients in 43 industries across five continents.Michael's work in academia at Columbia University spans disciplines. In addition to teaching in the MBA and PhD programs at the Business school, he designed the curriculum for the PhD program's capstone communication course focused on entering the job market, as well as Executive Presence programs for the Law school. One of the GK online courses he designed is integrated into the Advanced Management Program summer curricula. His proprietary kinesthetic learning drills are featured in the curriculum of communication courses in the Management Division. He has coached over 15 members of the business

104 Startups Beware: The Legal Traps Every Founder Faces |  Matthew Fornaro, P.A.   The Entreprenudist Podcast https://entreprenudist.com Running a business without understanding the law is one of the biggest risks an entrepreneur can take. In this episode of The Entreprenudist Podcast, we sit down with Matthew Fornaro, attorney and founder of Matthew Fornaro, P.A., a law firm dedicated to helping businesses, entrepreneurs, and startups navigate complex legal challenges. Matthew breaks down the essential protections every business owner needs, the silent legal threats entrepreneurs overlook, and the costly mistakes that can derail your entire company. In this episode, you'll learn: ✔️ The most common legal risks startups face ✔️ Why solid contracts protect your business more than you think ✔️ Intellectual property basics every founder should understand ✔️ Partnership and equity pitfalls to avoid ✔️ Compliance issues that can quietly sink a business ✔️ When to hire a lawyer and the right questions to ask Whether you're launching a new venture or scaling a growing business, this conversation is packed with practical legal guidance to keep your company protected and future-ready.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Yesterday, Southern California Edison (SCE), the utility whose power lines may have started the devastating Eaton Fire, announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Under the program, people affected by the fire can receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, in a matter of months rather than years—but in exchange, they must give up their right to sue.It should come as no surprise that SCE, in designing the program, sought the help of Kenneth Feinberg. For more than 40 years, often in the wake of tragedy or disaster, Feinberg has helped mediate and resolve seemingly intractable crises. He's most well-known for how he and his colleague Camille Biros designed and administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. But he has worked on many other headline-making matters over the years, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust, the multidistrict litigation involving Monsanto's Roundup weed killer—and now, of course, the Eaton Fire.How did Ken develop such a fascinating and unique practice? What is the most difficult aspect of administering these giant compensation funds? Do these funds represent the wave of the future, as an alternative to (increasingly expensive) litigation? Having just turned 80, does he have any plans to retire?Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ken—the day after his 80th birthday—and we covered all these topics. The result is what I found to be one of the most moving conversations I've ever had on this podcast.Thanks to Ken Feinberg for joining me—and, of course, for his many years of service as America's go-to mediator in times of crisis.Show Notes:* Kenneth Feinberg bio, Wikipedia* Kenneth Feinberg profile, Chambers and Partners* L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice, by Jill Cowan for The New York TimesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fourth episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, October 24.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.I like to think that I've produced some good podcast episodes over the past three-plus years, but I feel that this latest one is a standout. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interview that was more emotionally affecting to me than what you're about to hear.Kenneth Feinberg is a leading figure in the world of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is most well-known for having served as special master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—and for me, as someone who was in New York City on September 11, I found his discussion of that work profoundly moving. But he has handled many major matters over the years, such as the Agent Orange product liability litigation to the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. And he's working right now on a matter that's in the headlines: the California wildfires. Ken has been hired by Southern California Edison to help design a compensation program for victims of the 2025 Eaton fire. Ken has written about his fascinating work in two books: What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 and Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Ken Feinberg.Ken, thank you so much for joining me.Ken Feinberg: Thank you very much; it's an honor to be here.DL: We are recording this shortly after your 80th birthday, so happy birthday!KF: Thank you very much.DL: Let's go back to your birth; let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Massachusetts, I believe.KF: That's right: Brockton, Massachusetts, about 20 miles south of Boston.DL: Your parents weren't lawyers. Tell us about what they did.KF: My parents were blue-collar workers from Massachusetts, second-generation immigrants. My father ran a wholesale tire distributorship, my mother was a bookkeeper, and we grew up in the 1940s and ‘50s, even the early ‘60s, in a town where there was great optimism, a very vibrant Jewish community, three different synagogues, a very optimistic time in American history—post-World War II, pre-Vietnam, and a time when communitarianism, working together to advance the collective good, was a prominent characteristic of Brockton, and most of the country, during the time that I was in elementary school and high school in Brockton.DL: Did the time in which you grow up shape or influence your decision to go into law?KF: Yes. More than law—the time growing up had a great impact on my decision to give back to the community from which I came. You've got to remember, when I was a teenager, the president of the United States was John F. Kennedy, and I'll never forget because it had a tremendous impact on me—President Kennedy reminding everybody that public service is a noble undertaking, government is not a dirty word, and especially his famous quote (or one of his many quotes), “Every individual can make a difference.” I never forgot that, and it had a personal impact on me and has had an impact on me throughout my life. [Ed. note: The quotation generally attributed to JFK is, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” Whether he actually said these exact words is unclear, but it's certainly consistent with many other sentiments he expressed throughout his life.]DL: When you went to college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, what did you study?KF: I studied history and political science. I was very interested in how individuals over the centuries change history, the theory of historians that great individuals articulate history and drive it in a certain direction—for good, like President Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, or for ill, like Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. And so it was history that I really delved into in my undergraduate years.DL: What led you then to turn to law school?KF: I always enjoyed acting on the stage—theater, comedies, musicals, dramas—and at the University of Massachusetts, I did quite a bit of that. In my senior year, I anticipated going to drama school at Yale, or some other academic master's program in theater. My father gave me very good advice. He said, “Ken, most actors end up waiting on restaurant tables in Manhattan, waiting for a big break that never comes. Why don't you turn your skills on the stage to a career in the courtroom, in litigation, talking to juries and convincing judges?” That was very sound advice from my father, and I ended up attending NYU Law School and having a career in the law.DL: Yes—and you recount that story in your book, and I just love that. It's really interesting to hear what parents think of our careers. But anyway, you did very well in law school, you were on the law review, and then your first job out of law school was something that we might expect out of someone who did well in law school.KF: Yes. I was a law clerk to the chief judge of New York State, Stanley Fuld, a very famous state jurist, and he had his chambers in New York City. For one week, every six or seven weeks, we would go to the state capitol in Albany to hear cases, and it was Judge Fuld who was my transition from law school to the practice of law.DL: I view clerking as a form of government service—and then you continued in service after that.KF: That's right. Remembering what my father had suggested, I then turned my attention to the courtroom and became an assistant United States attorney, a federal prosecutor, in New York City. I served as a prosecutor and as a trial lawyer for a little over three years. And then I had a wonderful opportunity to go to work for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington and stayed with him for about five years.DL: You talk about this also in your books—you worked on a pretty diverse range of issues for the senator, right?KF: That's right. For the first three years I worked on his staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with some excellent colleagues—soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was with me, noted litigator David Boies was in the office—and for the first three years, it was law-related issues. Then in 1978, Senator Kennedy asked me to be his chief of staff, and once I went over and became his chief of staff, the issues of course mushroomed. He was running for president, so there were issues of education, health, international relations—a wide diversity of issues, very broad-based.DL: I recall that you didn't love the chief of staff's duties.KF: No. Operations or administration was not my priority. I loved substance, issues—whatever the issues were, trying to work out legislative compromises, trying to give back something in the way of legislation to the people. And internal operations and administration, I quickly discovered, was not my forte. It was not something that excited me.DL: Although it's interesting: what you are most well-known for is overseeing and administering these large funds and compensating victims of these horrific tragedies, and there's a huge amount of administration involved in that.KF: Yes, but I'm a very good delegator. In fact, if you look at the track record of my career in designing and administering these programs—9/11 or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the Patriots' Day Marathon bombings in Boston—I was indeed fortunate in all of those matters to have at my side, for over 40 years, Camille Biros. She's not a lawyer, but she's the nation's expert on designing, administering, and operating these programs, and as you delve into what I've done and haven't done, her expertise has been invaluable.DL: I would call Camille your secret weapon, except she's not secret. She's been profiled in The New York Times, and she's a well-known figure in her own right.KF: That is correct. She was just in the last few months named one of the 50 Women Over 50 that have had such an impact in the country—that list by Forbes that comes out every year. She's prominently featured in that magazine.DL: Shifting back to your career, where did you go after your time in the Senate?KF: I opened up a Washington office for a prominent New York law firm, and for the next decade or more, that was the center of my professional activity.DL: So that was Kaye Scholer, now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. What led you to go from your career in the public sector, where you spent a number of your years right out of law school, into so-called Biglaw?KF: Practicality and financial considerations. I had worked for over a decade in public service. I now had a wife, I had three young children, and it was time to give them financial security. And “Biglaw,” as you put it—Biglaw in Washington was lucrative, and it was something that gave me a financial base from which I could try and expand my different interests professionally. And that was the reason that for about 12 years I was in private practice for a major firm, Kaye Scholer.DL: And then tell us what happened next.KF: A great lesson in not planning too far ahead. In 1984, I got a call from a former clerk of Judge Fuld whom I knew from the clerk network: Judge Jack Weinstein, a nationally recognized jurist from Brooklyn, the Eastern District, and a federal judge. He had on his docket the Vietnam veterans' Agent Orange class action.You may recall that there were about 250,000 Vietnam veterans who came home claiming illness or injury or death due to the herbicide Agent Orange, which had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam to burn the foliage and vegetation where the Viet Cong enemy might be hiding. Those Vietnam veterans came home suffering terrible diseases, including cancer and chloracne (a sort of acne on the skin), and they brought a lawsuit. Judge Weinstein had the case. Weinstein realized that if that case went to trial, it could be 10 years before there'd be a result, with appeals and all of that.So he appointed me as mediator, called the “special master,” whose job it was to try and settle the case, all as a mediator. Well, after eight weeks of trying, we were successful. There was a master settlement totaling about $250 million—at the time, one of the largest tort verdicts in history. And that one case, front-page news around the nation, set me on a different track. Instead of remaining a Washington lawyer involved in regulatory and legislative matters, I became a mediator, an individual retained by the courts or by the parties to help resolve a case. And that was the beginning. That one Agent Orange case transformed my entire professional career and moved me in a different direction completely.DL: So you knew the late Judge Weinstein through Fuld alumni circles. What background did you have in mediation already, before you handled this gigantic case?KF: None. I told Judge Weinstein, “Judge, I never took a course in mediation at law school (there wasn't one then), and I don't know anything about bringing the parties together, trying to get them to settle.” He said, “I know you. I know your background. I've followed your career. You worked for Senator Kennedy. You are the perfect person.” And until the day I die, I'm beholden to Judge Weinstein for having faith in me to take this on.DL: And over the years, you actually worked on a number of matters at the request of Judge Weinstein.KF: A dozen. I worked on tobacco cases, on asbestos cases, on drug and medical device cases. I even worked for Judge Weinstein mediating the closing of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. I handled a wide range of cases where he called on me to act as his court-appointed mediator to resolve cases on his docket.DL: You've carved out a very unique and fascinating niche within the law, and I'm guessing that most people who meet you nowadays know who you are. But say you're in a foreign country or something, and some total stranger is chatting with you and asks what you do for a living. What would you say?KF: I would say I'm a lawyer, and I specialize in dispute resolution. It might be mediation, it might be arbitration, or it might even be negotiation, where somebody asks me to negotiate on their behalf. So I just tell people there is a growing field of law in the United States called ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and that it is, as you say, David, my niche, my focus when called upon.DL: And I think it's fair to say that you're one of the founding people in this field or early pioneers—or I don't know how you would describe it.KF: I think that's right. When I began with Agent Orange, there was no mediation to speak of. It certainly wasn't institutionalized; it wasn't streamlined. Today, in 2025, the American Bar Association has a special section on alternative dispute resolution, it's taught in every law school in the United States, there are thousands of mediators and arbitrators, and it's become a major leg in law school of different disciplines and specialties.DL: One question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter you are most proud of?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the hardest matter you've ever had to deal with?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter that you're most well-known for?” And I feel in your case, the same matter is responsive to all three of those questions.KF: That's correct. The most difficult, the most challenging, the most rewarding matter, the one that's given me the most exposure, was the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, when I was appointed by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to implement, design, and administer a very unique federal law that had been enacted right after 9/11.DL: I got chills as you were just even stating that, very factually, because I was in New York on 9/11, and a lot of us remember the trauma and difficulty of that time. And you basically had to live with that and talk to hundreds, even thousands, of people—survivors, family members—for almost three years. And you did it pro bono. So let me ask you this: what were you thinking?KF: What triggered my interest was the law itself. Thirteen days after the attacks, Congress passed this law, unique in American history, setting up a no-fault administrator compensation system. Don't go to court. Those who volunteer—families of the dead, those who were physically injured at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon—you can voluntarily seek compensation from a taxpayer-funded law. Now, if you don't want it, you don't have to go. It's a voluntary program.The key will be whether the special master or the administrator will be able to convince people that it is a better avenue to pursue than a long, delayed, uncertain lawsuit. And based on my previous experience for the last 15 years, starting with Agent Orange and asbestos and these other tragedies, I volunteered. I went to Senator Kennedy and said, “What about this?” He said, “Leave it to me.” He called President Bush. He knew Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was his former colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he had great admiration for Senator Ashcroft. And so I was invited by the attorney general for an interview, and I told him I was interested. I told him I would only do it pro bono. You can't get paid for a job like this; it's patriotism. And he said, “Go for it.” And he turned out to be my biggest, strongest ally during the 33 months of the program.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.You talk about this in your books: you were recommended by a very prominent Democratic politician, and the administration at the time was Republican. George W. Bush was president, and John Ashcroft was the attorney general. Why wouldn't they have picked a Republican for this project?KF: Very good question. Senator Kennedy told both of them, “You better be careful here. This is a very, very uncertain program, with taxpayer money used to pay only certain victims. This could be a disaster. And you would be well-advised to pick someone who is not a prominent friend of yours, who is not perceived as just a Republican arm of the Justice Department or the White House. And I've got the perfect person. You couldn't pick a more opposite politician than my former chief of staff, Ken Feinberg. But look at what he's done.” And I think to Senator Kennedy's credit, and certainly to President Bush and to John Ashcroft's, they selected me.DL: As you would expect with a program of this size and complexity, there was controversy and certainly criticism over the years. But overall, looking back, I think people regard it widely as a huge success. Do you have a sense or an estimate of what percentage of people in the position to accept settlements through the program did that, rather than litigate? Because in accepting funds from the program, they did waive their right to bring all sorts of lawsuits.KF: That's correct. If you look at the statistics, if the statistics are a barometer of success, 5,300 applicants were eligible, because of death—about 2,950, somewhere in there—and the remaining claims were for physical injury. Of the 5,300, 97 percent voluntarily accepted the compensation. Only 94 people, 3 percent, opted out, and they all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial on who was responsible in the law for 9/11. So if statistics are an indication—and I think they are a good indication—the program was a stunning success in accomplishing Congress's objective, which was diverting people voluntarily out of the court system.DL: Absolutely. And that's just a striking statistic. It was really successful in getting funds to families that needed it. They had lost breadwinners; they had lost loved ones. It was hugely successful, and it did not take a decade, as some of these cases involving just thousands of victims often do.I was struck by one thing you just said. You mentioned there was really no trial. And in reading your accounts of your work on this, it seemed almost like people viewed talking to you and your colleagues, Camille and others on this—I think they almost viewed that as their opportunity to be heard, since there wasn't a trial where they would get to testify.KF: That's correct. The primary reason for the success of the 9/11 Fund, and a valuable lesson for me thereafter, was this: give victims the opportunity to be heard, not only in public town-hall meetings where collectively people can vent, but in private, with doors closed. It's just the victim and Feinberg or his designee, Camille. We were the face of the government here. You can't get a meeting with the secretary of defense or the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. What you can get is an opportunity behind closed doors to express your anger, your frustration, your disappointment, your sense of uncertainty, with the government official responsible for cutting the checks. And that had an enormous difference in assuring the success of the program.DL: What would you say was the hardest aspect of your work on the Fund?KF: The hardest part of the 9/11 Fund, which I'll never recover from, was not calculating the value of a life. Judges and juries do that every day, David, in every court, in New Jersey and 49 other states. That is not a difficult assignment. What would the victim have earned over a work life? Add something for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and there's your check.The hardest part in any of these funds, starting with 9/11—the most difficult aspect, the challenge—is empathy, and your willingness to sit for over 900 separate hearings, me alone with family members or victims, to hear what they want to tell you, and to make that meeting, from their perspective, worthwhile and constructive. That's the hard part.DL: Did you find it sometimes difficult to remain emotionally composed? Or did you, after a while, develop a sort of thick skin?KF: You remain composed. You are a professional. You have a job to do, for the president of the United States. You can't start wailing and crying in the presence of somebody who was also wailing and crying, so you have to compose yourself. But I tell people who say, “Could I do what you did?” I say, “Sure. There are plenty of people in this country that can do what I did—if you can brace yourself for the emotional trauma that comes with meeting with victim after victim after victim and hearing their stories, which are...” You can't make them up. They're so heart-wrenching and so tragic.I'll give you one example. A lady came to see me, 26 years old, sobbing—one of hundreds of people I met with. “Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, Mr. Feinberg, you've calculated and told me I'm going to receive $2.4 million, tax-free, from this 9/11 Fund. I want it in 30 days.”I said to Mrs. Jones, “This is public, taxpayer money. We have to go down to the U.S. Treasury. They've got to cut the checks; they've got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. It may be 60 days or 90 days, but you'll get your money.”“No. Thirty days.”I said, “Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days?”She said, “Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg. I have terminal cancer. I have 10 weeks to live. My husband was going to survive me and take care of our two children. Now they're going to be orphans. I have got to get this money, find a guardian, make sure the money's safe, prepare for the kids' schooling. I don't have a lot of time. I need your help.”Well, we ran down to the U.S. Treasury and helped process the check in record time. We got her the money in 30 days—and eight weeks later, she died. Now when you hear story after story like this, you get some indication of the emotional pressure that builds and is debilitating, frankly. And we managed to get through it.DL: Wow. I got a little choked up just even hearing you tell that. Wow—I really don't know what to say.When you were working on the 9/11 Fund, did you have time for any other matters, or was this pretty much exclusively what you were working on for the 33 months?KF: Professionally, it was exclusive. Now what I did was, I stayed in my law firm, so I had a living. Other people in the firm were generating income for the firm; I wasn't on the dole. But it was exclusive. During the day, you are swamped with these individual requests, decisions that have to be made, checks that have to be cut. At night, I escaped: opera, orchestral concerts, chamber music, art museums—the height of civilization. During the day, in the depths of horror of civilization; at night, an escape, an opportunity to just enjoy the benefits of civilization. You better have a loving family, as I did, that stands behind you—because you never get over it, really.DL: That's such an important lesson, to actually have that time—because if you wanted to, you could have worked on this 24/7. But it is important to have some time to just clear your head or spend time with your family, especially just given what you were dealing with day-to-day.KF: That's right. And of course, during the day, we made a point of that as well. If we were holding hearings like the one I just explained, we'd take a one-hour break, go for a walk, go into Central Park or into downtown Washington, buy an ice cream cone, see the kids playing in playgrounds and laughing. You've got to let the steam out of the pressure cooker, or it'll kill you. And that was the most difficult part of the whole program. In all of these programs, that's the common denominator: emotional stress and unhappiness on the part of the victims.DL: One last question, before we turn to some other matters. There was also a very large logistical apparatus associated with this, right? For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It wasn't just you and Camille trying to deal with these thousands of survivors and claimants; you did have support.KF: That's right. Pricewaterhouse won the bid at the Justice Department. This is public: Pricewaterhouse, for something like around $100 million, put 450 people to work with us to help us process claims, appraise values, do the research. Pricewaterhouse was a tremendous ally and has gone on, since 9/11, to handle claims design and claims administration, as one of its many specialties. Emily Kent, Chuck Hacker, people like that we worked with for years, very much experts in these areas.DL: So after your work on the 9/11 Fund, you've worked on a number of these types of matters. Is there one that you would say ranks second in terms of complexity or difficulty or meaningfulness to you?KF: Yes. Deepwater Horizon in 2011, 2012—that oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico blew up and killed about, I don't know, 15 to 20 people in the explosion. But the real challenge in that program was how we received, in 16 months, about 1,250,000 claims for business interruption, business losses, property damage. We received over a million claims from 50 states. I think we got probably a dozen claims from New Jersey; I didn't know the oil had gotten to New Jersey. We received claims from 35 foreign countries. And the sheer volume of the disaster overwhelmed us. We had, at one point, something like 40,000 people—vendors—working for us. We had 35 offices throughout the Gulf of Mexico, from Galveston, Texas, all the way to Mobile Bay, Alabama. Nevertheless, in 16 months, on behalf of BP, Deepwater Horizon, we paid out all BP money, a little over $7 billion, to 550,000 eligible claimants. And that, I would say, other than 9/11, had the greatest impact and was the most satisfying.DL: You mentioned some claims coming from some pretty far-flung jurisdictions. In these programs, how much of a problem is fraud?KF: Not much. First of all, with death claims like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings or the 20 first-graders who died in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged gunmen—most of the time, in traumatic death and injury, you've got records. No one can beat the system; you have to have a death certificate. In 9/11, where are your military records, if you were at the Pentagon? Where are the airplane manifests? You've got to be on the manifest if you were flying on that plane.Now, the problem becomes more pronounced in something like BP, where you've got over a million claims, and you wonder, how many people can claim injury from this explosion? There we had an anti-fraud unit—Guidepost, Bart Schwartz's company—and they did a tremendous job of spot-checking claims. I think that out of over a million claims, there may have been 25,000 that were suspicious. And we sent those claims to the Justice Department, and they prosecuted a fair number of people. But it wasn't a huge problem. I think the fraud rate was something like 3 percent; that's nothing. So overall, we haven't found—and we have to be ever-vigilant, you're right—but we haven't found much in the way of fraud.DL: I'm glad to hear that, because it would really be very depressing to think that there were people trying to profiteer off these terrible disasters and tragedies. Speaking of continuing disasters and tragedies, turning to current events, you are now working with Southern California Edison in dealing with claims related to the Eaton Fire. And this is a pending matter, so of course you may have some limits in terms of what you can discuss, but what can you say in a general sense about this undertaking?KF: This is the Los Angeles wildfires that everybody knows about, from the last nine or ten months—the tremendous fire damage in Los Angeles. One of the fires, or one of the selected hubs of the fire, was the Eaton Fire. Southern California Edison, the utility involved in the litigation and finger-pointing, decided to set up, à la 9/11, a voluntary claims program. Not so much to deal with death—there were about 19 deaths, and a handful of physical injuries—but terrible fire damage, destroyed homes, damaged businesses, smoke and ash and soot, for miles in every direction. And the utility decided, its executive decided, “We want to do the right thing here. We may be held liable or we may not be held liable for the fire, but we think the right thing to do is nip in the bud this idea of extended litigation. Look at 9/11: only 94 people ended up suing. We want to set up a program.”They came to Camille and me. Over the last eight weeks, we've designed the program, and I think in the last week of October or the first week of November, you will see publicly, “Here is the protocol; here is the claim form. Please submit your claims, and we'll get them paid within 90 days.” And if history is an indicator, Camille and I think that the Eaton Fire Protocol will be a success, and the great bulk of the thousands of victims will voluntarily decide to come into the program. We'll see. [Ed. note: On Wednesday, a few days after Ken and I recorded this episode, Southern California Edison announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program.]DL: That raises a question that I'm curious about. How would you describe the relationship between the work that you and Camille and your colleagues do and the traditional work of the courts, in terms of in-the-trenches litigation? Because I do wonder whether the growth in your field is perhaps related to some developments in litigation, in terms of litigation becoming more expensive over the decades (in a way that far outstrips inflation), more complicated, or more protracted. How would you characterize that relationship?KF: I would say that the programs that we design and administer—like 9/11, like BP, plus the Eaton wildfires—are an exception to the rule. Nobody should think that these programs that we have worked on are the wave of the future. They are not the wave of the future; they are isolated, unique examples, where a company—or in 9/11, the U.S. government—decides, “We ought to set up a special program where the courts aren't involved, certainly not directly.” In 9/11, they were prohibited to be involved, by statute; in some of these other programs, like BP, the courts have a relationship, but they don't interfere with the day-to-day administration of the program.And I think the American people have a lot of faith in the litigation system that you correctly point out can be uncertain, very inefficient, and very costly. But the American people, since the founding of the country, think, “You pick your lawyer, I'll pick my lawyer, and we'll have a judge and jury decide.” That's the American rule of law; I don't think it's going to change. But occasionally there is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a program, or there'll be a company—like the utility, like BP—that decides to have a program.And I'll give you one other example: the Catholic Church confronted thousands of claims of sexual abuse by priests. It came to us, and we set up a program—just like 9/11, just like BP—where we invited, voluntarily, any minor—any minor from decades ago, now an adult—who had been abused by the church to come into this voluntary program. We paid out, I think, $700 million to $800 million, to victims in dioceses around the country. So there's another example—Camille did most of that—but these programs are all relatively rare. There are thousands of litigations every day, and nothing's going to change that.DL: I had a guest on a few weeks ago, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss, who does a lot of work in the mass-tort space. It's interesting: I feel that that space has evolved, and maybe in some ways it's more efficient than it used to be. They have these multi-district litigation panels, they have these bellwether trials, and then things often get settled, once people have a sense of the values. That system and your approach seem to have some similarities, in the sense that you're not individually trying each one of these cases, and you're having somebody with liability come forward and voluntarily pay out money, after some kind of negotiation.KF: Well, there's certainly negotiation in what Chris Seeger does; I'm not sure we have much negotiation. We say, “Here's the amount under the administrative scheme.” It's like in workers' compensation: here's the amount. You don't have to take it. There's nothing to really talk about, unless you have new evidence that we're not aware of. And those programs, when we do design them, seem to work very efficiently.Again, if you ask Camille Biros what was the toughest part of valuing individual claims of sexual-abuse directed at minors, she would say, “These hearings: we gave every person who wanted an opportunity to be heard.” And when they come to see Camille, they don't come to talk about money; they want validation for what they went through. “Believe me, will you? Ken, Camille, believe me.” And when Camille says, “We do believe you,” they immediately, or almost immediately, accept the compensation and sign a release: “I will not sue the Catholic diocese.”DL: So you mentioned there isn't really much negotiation, but you did talk in the book about these sort of “appeals.” You had these two tracks, “Appeals A” and “Appeals B.” Can you talk about that? Did you ever revisit what you had set as the award for a particular victim's family, after hearing from them in person?KF: Sure. Now, remember, those appeals came back to us, not to a court; there's no court involvement. But in 9/11, in BP, if somebody said, “You made a mistake—you didn't account for these profits or this revenue, or you didn't take into account this contract that my dead firefighter husband had that would've given him a lot more money”—of course, we'll revisit that. We invited that. But that's an internal appeals process. The people who calculated the value of the claim are the same people that are going to be looking at revisiting the claim. But again, that's due process, and that's something that we thought was important.DL: You and Camille have been doing this really important work for decades. Since this is, of course, shortly after your 80th birthday, I should ask: do you have future plans? You're tackling some of the most complicated matters, headline-making matters. Would you ever want to retire at some point?KF: I have no intention of retiring. I do agree that when you reach a certain pinnacle in what you've done, you do slow down. We are much more selective in what we do. I used to have maybe 15 mediations going on at once; now, we have one or two matters, like the Los Angeles wildfires. As long as I'm capable, as long as Camille's willing, we'll continue to do it, but we'll be very careful about what we select to do. We don't travel much. The Los Angeles wildfires was largely Zooms, going back and forth. And we're not going to administer that program. We had administered 9/11 and BP; we're trying to move away from that. It's very time-consuming and stressful. So we've accomplished a great deal over the last 50 years—but as long as we can do it, we'll continue to do it.DL: Do you have any junior colleagues who would take over what you and Camille have built?KF: We don't have junior colleagues. There's just the two of us and Cindy Sanzotta, our receptionist. But it's an interesting question: “Who's after Feinberg? Who's next in doing this?” I think there are thousands of people in this country who could do what we do. It is not rocket science. It really isn't. I'll tell you what's difficult: the emotion. If somebody wants to do what we do, you better brace yourself for the emotion, the anger, the frustration, the finger pointing. It goes with the territory. And if you don't have the psychological ability to handle this type of stress, stay away. But I'm sure somebody will be there, and no one's irreplaceable.DL: Well, I know I personally could not handle it. I worked when I was at a law firm on civil litigation over insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center, and that was a very draining case, and I was very glad to no longer be on it. So I could not do what you and Camille do. But let me ask you, to end this section on a positive note: what would you say is the most rewarding or meaningful or satisfying aspect of the work that you do on these programs?KF: Giving back to the community. Public service. Helping the community heal. Not so much the individuals; the individuals are part of the community. “Every individual can make a difference.” I remember that every day, what John F. Kennedy said: government service is a noble undertaking. So what's most rewarding for me is that although I'm a private practitioner—I am no longer in government service, since my days with Senator Kennedy—I'd like to think that I performed a valuable service for the community, the resilience of the community, the charity exhibited by the community. And that gives me a great sense of self-satisfaction.DL: You absolutely have. It's been amazing, and I'm so grateful for you taking the time to join me.So now, onto our speed round. These are four questions that are standardized. My first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law in a more abstract sense.KF: Uncertainty. What I don't like about the law is—and I guess maybe it's the flip side of the best way to get to a result—I don't like the uncertainty of the law. I don't like the fact that until the very end of the process, you don't know if your view and opinion will prevail. And I think losing control over your destiny in that regard is problematic.DL: My second question—and maybe we touched on this a little bit, when we talked about your father's opinions—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?KF: Probably an actor. As I say, I almost became an actor. And I still love theater and the movies and Broadway shows. If my father hadn't given me that advice, I was on the cusp of pursuing a career in the theater.DL: Have you dabbled in anything in your (probably limited) spare time—community theater, anything like that?KF: No, but I certainly have prioritized in my spare time classical music and the peace and optimism it brings to the listener. It's been an important part of my life.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?KF: Well, it varies from program to program. I'd like to get seven hours. That's what my doctors tell me: “Ken, very important—more important than pills and exercise and diet—is sleep. Your body needs a minimum of seven hours.” Well, for me, seven hours is rare—it's more like six or even five, and during 9/11 or during Eaton wildfires, it might be more like four or five. And that's not enough, and that is a problem.DL: My last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?KF: Yes, I'll give you some career and life advice. It's very simple: don't plan too far ahead. People have this view—you may think you know what you want to do with your career. You may think you know what life holds for you. You don't know. If I've learned anything over the last decades, life has a way of changing the best-laid plans. These 9/11 husbands and wives said goodbye to their children, “we'll see you for dinner,” a perfunctory wave—and they never saw them again. Dust, not even a body. And the idea I tell law students—who say, ”I'm going to be a corporate lawyer,” or “I'm going to be a litigator”—I tell them, “You have no idea what your legal career will look like. Look at Feinberg; he never planned on this. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that this would be his chosen avenue of the law.”My advice: enjoy the moment. Do what you like now. Don't worry too much about what you'll be doing two years, five years, 10 years, a lifetime ahead of you. It doesn't work that way. Everybody gets thrown curveballs, and that's advice I give to everybody.DL: Well, you did not plan out your career, but it has turned out wonderfully, and the country is better for it. Thank you, Ken, both for your work on all these matters over the years and for joining me today.KF: A privilege and an honor. Thanks, David.DL: Thanks so much to Ken for joining me—and, of course, for his decades of work resolving some of the thorniest disputes in the country, which is truly a form of public service.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 12. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Vicki Odette is a Partner at Haynes Boone, an Am Law 100 firm with more than 700 lawyers across 19 offices worldwide. Based in Dallas, she serves on the firm's Executive Committee and is Global Chair of the Investment Management Practice Group. Her practice focuses on advising fund sponsors and investors on structuring and negotiating private equity, hedge fund, and venture capital investments, as well as complex partnership and joint venture arrangements. Vicki also counsels ultra high net worth individuals and families with assets exceeding $1 billion on business planning for family offices and their investments. In 2024, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association honored Vicki with its Rainmakers Award, recognizing her as one of the profession's leading business developers and client relationship leaders. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT BECOMING A RAINMAKER For some lawyers, business development feels like a mystery, something reserved for extroverts or senior partners with decades of connections. Vicki Odette proves that's a myth. From her earliest years in practice, she treated business development as part of the job, not an afterthought. By asking questions, watching what successful partners did, and trying her own experiments, she built a network rooted in trust instead of transactions. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge, Elise Holtzman and Vicki Odette talk about what it really takes to become a rainmaker. They highlight the patience, persistence, and consistency that separate future rainmakers from frustrated associates. They also share how finding strategies that fit your personality can lead to something even more valuable than clients, genuine control over your career. 2:35 – Starting business development early and laying the groundwork for future clients 4:31 – Learning by observing successful partners and adapting their strategies 5:49 – Overcoming intimidation and finding networking tactics that feel authentic 7:59 – Why introverts can excel at business development 11:03 – The personal and professional rewards of long-term client relationships 13:19 – How business development creates autonomy, leadership, and compensation growth 15:07 – Making clients feel like a top priority through proactive communication 17:35 – Anticipating client needs and cross-selling across practice areas 19:34 – Why small roundtables and intimate events outperform large networking mixers 22:58 – Handling rejection, asking for feedback, and using lost pitches as data 25:00 – Navigating bias and maintaining confidence in male dominated rooms 26:53 – Gender differences in rainmaking styles and how women can own their strengths 29:17 – Practical advice for young lawyers beginning their business development journey 32:37 – The overlooked key to client loyalty is caring about their business beyond the matter MENTIONED IN HOW LEADING RAINMAKERS PLAY THE LONG GAME IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Haynes Boone | LinkedIn Vicki Odette on LinkedIn Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession. If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

In this episode of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love welcomes David Freeman, award-winning consultant, best-selling author, and founder of Lawyer Book Builder, to discuss how laterals can thrive when joining a new firm. Drawing from over 30 years of coaching thousands of lawyers, David shares actionable strategies to help partners integrate quickly, build internal allies, and accelerate business development. He likens lateral transitions to being “the new kid in school” — success depends on taking ownership of relationship-building rather than waiting for the firm to do it. David explains how laterals can identify internal allies across practice groups, collaborate with marketing and BD professionals, and proactively offer value to colleagues through what he calls “gifts.” He introduces practical tools like the Memory Matrix—a simple spreadsheet to track and maintain relationships—and emphasizes consistency, visibility, and giving before asking. The conversation closes with three key takeaways: create a detailed integration and BD plan, track and nurture high-value relationships monthly, and build an accountability system to ensure consistent follow-through. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/bToVlYNrosk ----------------------------------------

In this legal-focused edition of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love speaks with Randy Peck (CEO) and Jordan Peck (VP of Business Development) of Peck Financial about the crucial but often overlooked issue of partner benefits during law firm transitions. Under the theme “Rainmakers Without Umbrellas”, they discuss how many high-earning partners neglect their own financial protection, leaving themselves and their families exposed when changing firms or going through mergers. From life insurance to disability and long-term care coverage, the Pecks explain how benefits often don't keep pace with rising compensation—and why partners must treat themselves like their own clients by proactively evaluating their protection. They also highlight specific risks such as assuming new firms will provide sufficient coverage, overlooking portability of benefits, and ignoring international complications. With stories from decades of advising AmLaw 100 and 200 firms, Randy and Jordan stress that the biggest pitfall is simply looking past these issues during transitions. Their three key action steps: regularly audit your coverage, inventory benefits before moving, and compare them with offerings at your new firm. By taking these steps, partners can avoid being “rainmakers without umbrellas” and ensure long-term financial security. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/kluHcPD4bqs ---------------------------------------- This show is sponsored by Leopard Solutions Legal Intelligence Suite of products, Firmscape, and Leopard BI. Push ahead of the pack with the power of Leopard. For a free demo, visit this link:https://www.leopardsolutions.com/index.php/request-a-demo/ ---------------------------------------- Peck Financial is an established industry leader specializing in executive benefit solutions. For more than 30 years our core business has focused on developing and administering employer-sponsored executive disability, life, and long-term care insurance plans. While these plans have become more common in recent years, our clients consistently remark on our responsiveness and unmatched customer service. Links: www.peckfinancial.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-peck-992786156/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/randallpeck/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stephen Zubiago, CEO and Managing Partner of Nixon Peabody LLP, joins hosts Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg to share what it takes to lead an AmLaw 100 firm through growth, competition, and change. He talks about how Nixon Peabody LLP aligns talent strategy with client needs, develops attorneys at every level, and builds a culture where collaboration and entrepreneurial drive matter as much as expertise. Their discussion explores the firm's focus on industries like financial services, real estate and affordable housing, healthcare, and technology, and why being selective about expansion is key to long-term strength.   This episode also looks at the bigger shifts reshaping the legal profession, including the race for talent, pressure to scale, and the rise of private equity in professional services. Stephen explains why Nixon Peabody LLP has turned down outside capital, how flexible remote work policies have strengthened retention after COVID, and why artificial intelligence is changing the way law is practiced. At the core of his leadership approach is a simple principle: the firm moves forward when its people do.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Stephen Zubiago's Career Journey 02:49 Vision for Growth at Nixon Peabody LLP 03:54 Attracting and Retaining Top Legal Talent 04:57 Key Practice Areas and Industry Focus 06:33 Balancing Firm Size with Culture and Market Position 11:17 What Differentiates Nixon Peabody LLP 14:01 Private Equity and the Future of Law Firms 16:01 The Partnership Model and Capital Needs 18:16 Managing Pricing Pressures in Legal Services 23:21 Navigating Challenges and Future Opportunities 24:01 Remote Work, Flexibility, and Retention 28:53 Innovation, Industry Focus, and AI in Legal Practice   Links Connect with Stephen Zubiago: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-zubiago-3141815/ Website Bio: https://www.nixonpeabody.com/people/zubiago-stephen-d   Connect with Howard Rosenberg: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hrosenberg/ Company Web Profile: https://www.baretzbrunelle.com/howard-rosenberg   Connect with Chris Batz: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisbatz/  LinkedIn Company Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/columbus-street/ Columbus Street Website: https://www.columbus-street.com/  Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm

Sarah Isgur and David French break down a few 9th Circuit cases, including one on gender ideology and free speech rights. Plus, a super sexy snippet on state standing. The Agenda:—First Amendment and foster parents—15 minutes to buy a gun—No background checks for ammunition—Lower courts struggle with text, history and tradition—The hot mess of state standing—What heavy metal band is each Supreme Court justice?—The great professionalization shift of the 21st century  This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss how Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, is attempting to get out of jail on a technicality. Could a deal with the Department of Justice involving Epstein extend to her? Agenda:—Ghislaine's team identifies a circuit split—MAGA and the Epstein list—189 days of lawlessness on the TikTok ban—The emergency docket is a mess—Justice Elena Kagan's dissent and the precedential value of interim orders—SCOTUS gaining favorability ⁠⁠ This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Alina Habba's removal as U.S. attorney pick and the one consistent position of the Trump administration: We get to do what we want. —Scrutinizing the Vacancies Reform Act—Friendly vs. hostile U.S. Senates—Good luck to the criminals in the Northern District of New Jersey—Listener question: change the vesting clause?—Second Circuit issues decision on remand for Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo.—If you're going to charge a conspiracy, there better be a conspiracy—Critical race theory curriculum—Poisonous fruit of the Garcetti tree—Who has rights over blood spots? ⁠ This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the use of autopens as a permission structure and David's Very Big Problems with technology and the pardon power. —What is an autopen?—The problems with David's problems—Buckets of pardons—Day 182 of ignoring the TikTok law—Dispensing power vs. autopen power—Bullying our way to cultural victory—Mandatory reporting and Catholic priests—Responding to Supreme Court clerks—TL;DR concurrence Show Notes:—New York Times article on Biden's pardons—McMahon v. New York—Andy Smarick's piece for The Dispatch—Bob Bauer piece on progressives This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur, David French, and Kannon Shanmugam again reunite for the annual Paul, Weiss summer associate live recording. The three discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's mysterious jurisprudence, political pressure on the Supreme Court bench, and firmly bound, braggadocious briefs.Plus: billable hours, a (not) blockbuster term, and Sarah's insecurity over Texas' quaint size. The Agenda:—The Biter and Aqua Girl—Trump v. Casa, injunctions, and class actions—Pushback on Justice Jackson as the #Resistance justice (and how to write an email)—Splitting the baby on paper vs. digital cert petitions—Guess where Kannon puts his Supreme Court quill pens—It wasn't a blockbuster term—Circuit court crash course—Don't mess with Texas—My big fat 9th Circuit Court—Free speech or parental rights? United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law.Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control.Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries.Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French, live from the FIRE Student Network Summer Conference, discuss free speech in non-profits and schools before Sarah takes listeners through the history of Citizens United. Before the youth bring their questions, Sarah and David talk Clinton documentaries and how campaign financing could be a little better. The Agenda:—Can 501(c)3's endorse a candidate?—No “false” pronouns in Florida classrooms—The pain of campaign history and the core of protected speech—Citizens United, yay!—Put your money where your speech is—Why Citizens United didn't matter—Discontent in the American public is the American public's fault—Why super PACs stink—Put your money where the name is—Free speech and David's disagreement with FIRE—Mahmoud: right outcome, wrong reasoning This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur returns to her home state of Texas to join a panel of leading constitutional scholars for a deep dive into the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the term. Alongside experts Jonathan Adler, Daniel Epps, and Frederick Lawrence, she examines key cases and explores the growing influence of politicians and the media on how the court is viewed by the public. The Agenda:—Is there a play in the joints between religion clauses and the First Amendment?—Why is it called United States. v Skrmetti?—The Fifth Circuit is the new Ninth Circuit—Will the court rein in excesses of state criminal justice? This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Could a parental consent law finally be headed to the Supreme Court? Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas recently declined to take up a case—but their silence may be saying more than a firm “no.” —Camp Mystic tragedy in Texas—Denial of cert on a case involving minors and abortion—We can't send people to get tortured, even if they're criminals—First Amendment rights and government speech—LA COVID evictions—Not the most sympathetic pro-life protester This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law.Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control.Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries.Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pardon our legal nerd-out as Sarah Isgur, David French, Amy Howe, David Lat, and Zachary Shemtob—our dream team of SCOTUSBloggers and Advisory Opinions hosts—break down the biggest moments from the Supreme Court's term. What made this term so mellow? Which rulings came out of left field? And is Justice Jackson the Supreme Court's breakout star? The Agenda:—Mellow vibes all around—Emergency Docket vs. Merits Docket—Cert petition surprises and denials—Oral argument highlights—Justice Clarence Thomas' post-Dobbs influence—Looking ahead Show Notes:—SCOTUSblog's Stat Pack This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the biggest takeaways from the Supreme Court's latest term using SCOTUSblog's stat pack as their guide. They also explain the outcomes in the Texas explicit content case and the “pride puppy” case. The Agenda:—OT25 in review—The most influential justice—What makes a case “important”—Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton—Explaining tiers of scrutiny—The pride puppy case—Curriculum opt-outs— Mahmoud v. Taylor This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠. 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, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Divided Argument hosts Daniel Epps and William Baude join Sarah Isgur to unpack the Supreme Court's decision (ahem, non-decision) on birthright citizenship. Plus: a little showdown between two justices. The Agenda:—What the Supreme Court did NOT decide—What the Court DID decide—Similarities to Marbury v. Madison,Loper Bright, and Chevron—Justice Amy Coney Barrett v. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—Judicial supremacy?—Sir, this is not a Denny's—Injunction influx—The future of forum shopping—A big July for Advisory Opinion Show Notes:—SCOTUSblog on the 6-3 decision itself This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French face the muddiness of a case on moving criminal aliens to South Sudan, the messiness of death penalty cases, and the potential abortion distortion of a plain ol' statutory question. Today's dessert, though, is analyzing an interview of Justice Samuel Alito by the Hoover Institution. The Agenda:—Mark Justice Clarence Thomas off your bingo card—Supreme Court's yellow light for moving criminal aliens to third-party countries—Gutierrez v. Saenz—Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—Sarah's pet peeve: 18th century life expectancy stats—Chief + Gorsuch = criminal justice case—Alito time This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French cover two less-exhilarating Supreme Court decisions (faxes, anyone?) and re-visit the Skrmetti decision. It's four decisions from the district courts, though, that really steal the show. The Agenda:—TikTok ban ticks on—Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA—McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.—What constitutes gender dysphoria?—Free expression in the spa?—Supreme Court won't bother with Trump's call on the National Guard now—New Mexico kidnapping and murder case and the commerce clause—Public schools' 10 Commandments This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's law that bans transgender medical intervention for minors. It's about age, not sex. The Agenda:—Banning TikTok—Trump defies Congress—Tennessee's ban on certain medical treatment for transgender minors—Queasy about judge-made doctrines—The girls are fighting—Just call it cert Show Notes:—Jack Goldsmith on Iran This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. 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, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French break down Israel's latest strikes on Iran and the legal questions surrounding them. Was it a justifiable preemptive move, a murky act of prevention, or simply part of an already ongoing war? The Agenda:—Hypotheticals and lawful acts of war—The role of international law—Iran's response—Trump's national guard deployment—Raiding Los Angeles—Wrong, wrongy wrong, McWronger face—Time for some role play—Justice Amy Coney Barrett: A New Era in the Supreme Court This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices