Podcasts about amlaw

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

Catherine Tyler is the Founder and CEO at Baer Reed Inc., a women‑owned business and legal process outsourcing firm that delivers secure, cost‑effective support to law firms, corporate legal departments, and regulated industries. A former litigation attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Cruncher and Winston & Strawn, she launched Baer Reed in 2010 after recognizing a need for high‑quality, scalable legal support. Under her leadership, the company has grown to serve Fortune 100 and Am Law 100 clients. Uday Bhasin is the Managing Director at Tradeways, an emerging markets advisory firm specializing in financial and family office strategy in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe He previously held senior finance roles at Sharjah Holding and Dubai Group and spent 11 years at PwC. Uday also serves on the boards of multiple regional banks and insurers, including Diamond Trust Bank in Kenya and Tanzania. Lael Sturm is the Founder of Ogmentor, a virtual assistant agency that connects executive, marketing, and sales assistants with growing businesses. He built Ogmentor as an extension of his marketing agency experience, helping place skilled assistants and providing strategic support to business leaders. In this episode… From legal outsourcing and cross-border financial advisory to virtual staffing and leadership development, the entrepreneurial journey is rarely linear. How can founders navigate burnout, pivot their models, and rebuild with intention? After questioning the status quo of US legal practices, Catherine Tyler launched Baer Reed in the Philippines and joined EO to reshape her personal and professional future. Uday Bhasin reflects on launching Tradeways after a high-powered finance career, the challenge of starting from scratch, and the long game of earning trust across continents. For Lael Sturm, a pandemic-era pivot from agency work to virtual team support sparked rapid growth and deeper engagement in EO's community. All three credit EO with sustaining their growth and helping them rediscover what matters most. In this episode of the Rising Entrepreneurs Podcast, recorded live at the Entrepreneur's Organization Global Leadership Conference in Honolulu, you'll hear how Catherine Tyler, Uday Bhasin, and Lael Sturm overcame burnout, embraced reinvention, and found purpose through EO. You'll also learn how mindset, delegation, and peer support fuel long-term success.

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

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 school faculty. And in a bit of...

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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 at nexfirm dot 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 transcription 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 dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.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 at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.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 at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, 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 a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.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 at nexfirm dot 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 at Substack dot 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 dot substack dot 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, July 23. 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

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

Scott Love is the President of The Attorney Search Group and host of The Rainmaking Podcast, which helps attorneys, professional service firms, and B2B salespeople get more and better business from all their clients. As a prolific thought leader on the topics of rainmaking, recruiting, and leadership, he helps law firm partners mitigate risk and maximize opportunity when transitioning from one organization to another. With his nuanced understanding of high-stakes negotiations, effective partner transitions, and the delicate risks that come with complex career moves, he has placed attorneys among the Am Law 100 and 200 in corporate, finance, private equity, and investment management practices. Scott has also written numerous articles and authored three books on his expertise, been quoted in dozens of premium publications (such as the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Business Insider), and been a popular speaker at conferences, retreats, conventions, sales meetings, and trade associations. Additionally, he served for seven years as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Legal Search Consultants and is a member of the National Association for Law Placement. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT LATERAL MOVES FOR LAW FIRM PARTNERS Law firm partners often find themselves at a crossroads, wondering if they've outgrown their current firm, or if the grass really is greener elsewhere. The thought of making a lateral move can feel risky and emotionally charged, but what if there's a more strategic way to approach these career decisions? Scott Love, who has spent 30 years helping partners navigate these transitions, reveals that the best moves aren't driven by money or ego, but by a clear understanding of what serves your clients best. He breaks down the two main reasons partners actually leave firms, explains why some lawyers hold themselves back from reaching their potential, and shares his proven framework for evaluating whether to stay put or make a move. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman and Scott explore the strategic approach to lateral partner moves, the critical questions to ask before entertaining any offers, and how focusing on your clients' needs often leads to the most successful career decisions. 1:44 - How you can succeed where you are right now and fulfill your potential 4:55 - Two primary reasons why partners leave law firms 5:55 - What your main motivation for a lateral move should be 7:15 - Internal barriers that can block you from realizing your potential as a rainmaker 11:00 - Scott's recommendations to help you navigate a lateral transition 17:20 - Two questions to consider when choosing or trying to decide between firms 20:01 - What you need to understand about compensation before you engage with new firms 23:30 - How to mitigate risk and increase the likelihood of a successful move 30:32 - Two things you can do to successfully bring your clients to a new firm 33:55 - The strategic question lawyers forget when making a major business move MENTIONED IN STRATEGIC LATERAL MOVES FOR LAW FIRM PARTNERS The Rainmaking Podcast  The Attorney Search Group “TRP 252: [Lega] Avoid Landmines in Lateral Partner Moves with Hilary Gerzhoy” 10x Is Easier Than 2x: How World Class Entrepreneurs Achieve More By Doing Less by Dan Sullivan with Dr. Benjamin Hardy 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.

Meet Olga Belosludova, a trailblazing attorney who made history as the first Russian woman to pass the notoriously difficult Japanese bar exam. Born in Siberia, she came to Japan with her family at age two. Olga's journey from a competitive childhood dream to becoming a qualified lawyer in three jurisdictions is nothing short of extraordinary. Her story offers invaluable insights into navigating Japan's legal landscape as a foreign professional, the importance of visibility in service, and practical strategies for building a successful international legal career.If you enjoyed this episode and it inspired you in some way, we'd love to hear about it and know your biggest takeaway. Head over to Apple Podcasts to leave a review and we'd love it if you would leave us a message here!In this episode you'll hear:How Olga conquered the Japanese “Yobi” exam which only 4% of examinees passHer strategies for overcoming assumptions about foreign lawyers with Japanese credentialsHer secret dual-goal system for avoiding burnout Her view that  speaking Japanese is crucial and why internal translators outperform external onesAbout OlgaOlga Belosludova is an accomplished international attorney admitted to practice law in Japan, California, and New York. Currently, she is based in Japan, where she has lived since age two. Olga brings a unique bicultural perspective to complex cross-border legal matters. As an attorney at a prestigious international law firm constantly ranking in AM Law 20, she has built an impressive practice serving Fortune 100 companies across a wide range of high-stakes transactions and disputes.Fluent in both Japanese and English, Olga has become a trusted advisor to foreign companies navigating Japan's business landscape. Her expertise spans cross-border mergers and acquisitions, complex internal investigations, international arbitrations, and privacy and data security compliance for multinational corporations. She also counsels international banks and investment funds on investment and loan transactions involving Japanese entities, leveraging her deep understanding of both legal systems and cultural nuances.Olga's risk management expertise is particularly noteworthy—she has led over 20 internal investigations across various industries, handling everything from routine compliance matters to high-profile misconduct cases. Her approach focuses not just on resolving immediate issues, but also on strengthening organizational health and resilience for the long term. During her time at the firm's New York office from August 2023 to June 2024, she further expanded her expertise in JAMS arbitration and US litigation.The Legal 500 recognised Olga as a “Rising Star” in its Fintech division in 2023, highlighting her emerging leadership in the intersection of law and financial technology. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Olga had been dancing as a ballroom dancer for more than 15 years, ultimately competing as a professional standard ballroom dancer between 2018 and 2020. After the COVID pandemic, in her free time, Olga enjoys spending her time with her family, especially playing with her three-year-old daughter. Whether she is reading books, drawing, or just playing outside, those moments mean the most to Olga. As a new challenge, Olga also began golfing last year.Connect with Olga LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/olga-belosludova-744758287/ Connect with Catherine LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/oconnellcatherine/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawyeronair

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

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

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 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

The Lawyer Stories Podcast episode 226 welcomes Aaron Zimmerman, the Head of Attorney Recruitment at Morgan & Morgan. Aaron shares his journey from Harvard Law School—where he was a member of the Harvard Defenders—to his current role recruiting top trial attorneys for one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the country. Before attending Harvard, Aaron made the strategic decision to defer his admission and work as a legal headhunter at a boutique recruiting firm. There, he trained under two veteran legal recruiters and led litigation placements. This formative experience gave him deep insight into the career trajectories of litigators, helping him understand both immediate and long-term professional pathways in the legal field. As an executive recruiter, Aaron interviewed and placed hundreds of attorneys into prestigious AmLaw 100 firms both domestically and internationally. Now, he brings that wealth of experience to Morgan & Morgan, passionately working "For the People" by ensuring the firm is staffed with the best trial attorneys available.

Seashellgate meets Surrendergate. ----- Since we're cursed to act as keepers of the flame to remind the legal community that several large law firms really did willingly sell out to the Trump administration, this week we discuss our columnist Vivia Chen's exploration of the unique impact of these moves on young lawyers learning early that Biglaw is more than happy to throw them under the bus. We also discuss how James Comey's Instagram pic triggered a tragicomic meltdown of some of the most deranged people on the internet ranting about seashells as a subliminal assassination threat worthy of John Wilkes Squarepants. Unfortunately, some of those internet denizens are also running federal law enforcement. And we conduct a lightning round of quirky Am Law 100 financial facts that will make you appreciate that you took some time off last year.

Seashellgate meets Surrendergate. ----- Since we're cursed to act as keepers of the flame to remind the legal community that several large law firms really did willingly sell out to the Trump administration, this week we discuss our columnist Vivia Chen's exploration of the unique impact of these moves on young lawyers learning early that Biglaw is more than happy to throw them under the bus. We also discuss how James Comey's Instagram pic triggered a tragicomic meltdown of some of the most deranged people on the internet ranting about seashells as a subliminal assassination threat worthy of John Wilkes Squarepants. Unfortunately, some of those internet denizens are also running federal law enforcement. And we conduct a lightning round of quirky Am Law 100 financial facts that will make you appreciate that you took some time off last year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we sit down with Matt Rasmussen, Founder and CEO of ModeOne, to dive into the evolving challenges and solutions around mobile device discovery. What started as a frustration-fueled “passion project” has grown into a powerful, cloud-based legal tech tool that dramatically speeds up mobile data collections while safeguarding user privacy. Rasmussen brings over two decades of litigation tech experience, and his team is focused on automating the traditionally slow, invasive, and expensive process of mobile forensic collection.Matt shares the lightbulb moment that led to ModeOne's founding—after nearly being hit with a book by an executive unwilling to hand over their entire phone during an M&A data collection. That experience crystallized a need for a targeted, remote, and custodian-friendly solution. ModeOne's approach allows for precise data extraction, filtering out personal messages, and narrowing collection to relevant participants or timeframes—thereby reducing friction, legal risk, and cost. The tool shrinks a two-week process into a matter of hours and removes the need for shipping hardware or dispatching personnel.The conversation then turns to the power of cloud scalability and how ModeOne's architecture enables parallel processing of hundreds of phones simultaneously without ballooning costs. Matt recounts a case involving over 400 phones processed in just two weeks—compared to the seven-month timeline it would've required using traditional methods. He explains how operating directly on devices with lightweight agents and leveraging cloud resources allows them to outperform older queue-based systems and ensure defensibility through record-level audits.Beyond litigation, the use cases for ModeOne are growing fast, particularly in corporate compliance and legal holds. With recent updates from the DOJ and FTC increasing expectations for mobile data preservation, companies are now compelled to treat phones with the same seriousness as emails and cloud documents. ModeOne's ability to preserve data in a scalable, minimally invasive way makes it a key player in this regulatory shift. Rasmussen also highlights that while AI may not be the focus of this episode, ModeOne is quietly integrating features like sentiment analysis, emoji flagging, and communication mapping through a partnership with StreamView.As the episode wraps up, Rasmussen discusses the startup journey—from bootstrapping to being named Legal Tech Startup of the Year in 2024. While initial adoption faced the usual “wait-and-see” mentality common in legal tech, ModeOne is now working with several Fortune 10 companies, AMLaw 25 firms, and leading LSPs. Looking forward, Rasmussen predicts mobile data will only grow more central to investigations and legal matters. With privacy and policy changes ahead, ModeOne is doubling down on mobile—not diversifying away from it. As he puts it: “We're digging deep on phones.”Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript:

And the world continues to melt. ----- We've got key financial data from the top law firms and the takeaway is that it's good to be a big firm. The Am Law 100 this year revealed that more and more firms have joined the super rich and things look bright for Biglaw. Unless someone triggers a global depression or something. We also discuss what it means to be "bipartisan" in an environment where the intellectual stars of the conservative legal movement are ALSO lining up to call out the Trump administration as a threat to the rule of law. Finally, we flag a troubling law school story about scholarships getting cut when admissions gets blindsided by applications.

In this episode host Patrick Patino is joined by guest Drew Amoroso to discuss lawyer coaching, non-attachment, and bringing kind and gentle masculine energy to the practice of law.About DrewDrew Amoroso is a former lawyer and the Founder of DueCourse, the legal industry's only platform enabled coaching company. He's a recognized workday coach and thought leader on how to bring a human-centered approach to the future of work and work models that promote ahappier workforce - starting with DueCourse. The company shifted to a four-day workweek in August 2024.Drew founded DueCourse in 2018 to help professionals design an intentional, authentic, and values-driven approach to their workday and career. The company partners withinnovative talent teams at AmLaw 200 firms deliver impactful coaching at scale, specializing in cohort-based and 1-1 coaching.Prior to DueCourse, he was a senior litigation associate at Reed Smith LLP and is a visiting lecturer at three Bay Area law schools where he teaches a Practice Ready Seminar designed to prepare law students to make the transition from students to practice-ready lawyers.https://www.linkedin.com/in/drewamoroso/www.duecourse.coach

In this episode, part two of our conversation with Drew Amoroso, we dive into key insights about balancing personal well-being, embracing risk, and fostering a healthier workday mindset. Drew shares practical strategies for setting boundaries, taking action despite fear, and cultivating a values-driven career. Listeners can also enjoy a fun rapid-fire Q&A where Drew reveals his hidden talents (hints DJing!), aspirations, and recent reflections.Key insights in this episode: Prioritize What Matters: Focus on the most important tasks first and set clear boundaries to protect your time.Embrace Discomfort: Change often feels uncomfortable — lean into it as a sign of growth.Get Comfortable with Risk: Lawyers are trained to avoid risk, but Drew emphasizes that taking action despite uncertainty opens new opportunities.Trust Yourself: Instead of overthinking decisions, take action and know you'll "figure it out" along the way.Pursue Passions: Drew shares his dream of DJing at Coachella, reminding listeners to make time for what brings them joy.This inspiring episode is packed with insights for anyone looking to redefine success, build resilience, and create a more fulfilling career.More about Drew: ⁠Drew Amoroso ⁠is a former lawyer and the founder of DueCourse, a coaching company helping legal professionals build intentional, values-driven careers. A recognized workday coach and thought leader, Drew advocates for human-centered work models, including DueCourse's shift to a four-day workweek in 2024. Founded in 2018, DueCourse partners with AmLaw 200 firms to provide impactful coaching at scale. Previously, Drew was a senior litigation associate at Reed Smith LLP and now teaches a Practice Ready Seminar at three Bay Area law schools.Drew Amoroso Website⁠The Workday Mindset PodcastInstagramDJ Tesser

In this episode, we sit down with Drew Amoroso, a former big law attorney turned founder of Due Course. Due Course is the legal industry's only platform-enabled coaching company with a mission to help legal professionals build intentional, values-driven careers through impactful coaching. Drew shares his journey from senior litigation associate to entrepreneur and productivity coach, revealing the mindset shifts and strategies that helped him along the way.We dive into key concepts like the "workday mindset," the importance of intentional planning, and practical exercises such as the Sphere of Influence and the Openup Checklist — designed to help you focus, stay organized, and handle unexpected disruptions. Drew also introduces Andrew, Due Course's AI coach, and offers insights on how AI can enhance productivity when used as a thought partner.Key insights from the episode:Drew Amoroso's journey from BigLaw attorney to founder of Due CourseHow dissatisfaction in BigLaw led Drew to explore entrepreneurship and coachingThe power of the Workday Mindset and how to build a more intentional, values-driven careerSphere of Influence: Focus on what you can control and manage your reactionsOpenup Checklist: Simple steps to kickstart your workday with focusPlans are Nothing, Planning is Everything: How to adapt when your day doesn't go as plannedFirst Thought, Second Thought, First Action: Techniques for reframing unproductive thoughtsInsights on the unique structure of law firms and how to thrive in environments with multiple “bosses”How AI tools like Andrew can enhance productivity and focusWhy working on your mindset is essential for long-term successWhether you're a lawyer navigating the demands of the legal industry or a professional seeking better focus and clarity, this episode offers actionable advice for mastering your workday and building a career aligned with your values.More about Drew: Drew Amoroso is a former lawyer and the founder of DueCourse, a coaching company helping legal professionals build intentional, values-driven careers. A recognized workday coach and thought leader, Drew advocates for human-centered work models, including DueCourse's shift to a four-day workweek in 2024. Founded in 2018, DueCourse partners with AmLaw 200 firms to provide impactful coaching at scale. Previously, Drew was a senior litigation associate at Reed Smith LLP and now teaches a Practice Ready Seminar at three Bay Area law schools.Drew Amoroso WebsiteThe Workday Mindset Podcast

Elizabeth Zelinka Parsons, J.D., is a Retirement Transition Expert, lawyer, and co-founder of two consulting firms, Zelinka Parsons and Encoraco. A magna cum laude graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and summa cum laude graduate of James Madison University, Elizabeth has spent over two decades shaping professional development and transition strategies for legal professionals. A former attorney at Milbank, she built a national consulting firm assisting AmLaw 100 firms with talent solutions. Author of "Encore: A High Achiever's Guide to Thriving in Retirement " (Feb. 5, 2025), Elizabeth combines analytical rigor with creative vision to help professionals redefine retirement as a dynamic opportunity for growth and fulfillment. Elizabeth Zelinka Parson Vroom Vroom Veer Summary In this episode of "Vroom Vroom Veer," host Jeff Smith welcomes guest Elizabeth Zelinka Parsons, a Retirement Transition Expert and lawyer. After a brief introduction by Michelle e Dickinson and an advertisement for the show, Jeff expresses excitement about the episode's topic, namely tips for retirement, as he has been retired for a long time and is eager to learn. Elizabeth shares insights about her work at her consulting firms, Encoraco and Zelinka Parsons, highlighting her new book, "Encore: A High Achiever's Guide to Thriving in Retirement," which was released in February 2025. She explains that many people overly focus on the financial aspect of retirement, neglecting the personal identity challenges that come with it. Elizabeth emphasizes the importance of redefining retirement as a dynamic opportunity for growth and fulfillment. Jeff and Elizabeth discuss the psychological impact of leaving a long-standing career, touching upon the pressure high achievers feel to remain successful. Elizabeth recounts her experience when she transitioned from a demanding law career to focusing on family, which drastically altered her identity and self-worth. She describes feeling lost and having to rebuild her life without the structure her career provided. They reflect on how their early identities were shaped by their achievements and how challenging it can be to adjust to a new reality without traditional markers of success. Elizabeth encourages listeners to seek engagement and purpose in various aspects of their lives, advocating for a more experimental mindset as they explore new interests and connections. The conversation also covers the difficulties transitioners face regarding social connections and community building post-retirement. Elizabeth speaks about the need to be intentional in forming relationships and finding new activities that bring joy and meaning. As the episode concludes, Elizabeth discusses her process of writing her book, which grew out of her experiences and the desire to help others navigate their retirement transitions. Jeff praises the value of Elizabeth's work and encourages listeners to engage with her content on her website, encoraco.com, and through her LinkedIn page. The episode ends with playful banter as Jeff thanks Elizabeth for her time, reinforcing the importance of navigating life's transitions thoughtfully and intentionally. The show wraps up with a reminder to visit vvvveer.com for more information and show notes. Connections Website LinkedIn

Marcella Burke of Houston, Texas, is the founder and partner of Burke Law Group PLLC. Marcella began her legal career as an energy attorney in AmLaw 100 law firms, where she earned an equity partnership. She was appointed in the Trump Administration to serve in the Environmental Protection Agency as Deputy General Counsel. In addition to her extensive energy and environmental law background, Marcella Burke is at the forefront of legal advocacy for detransitioners and DEI abuse whistleblowers. She defends individuals who have experienced medical malpractice or discrimination in the context of "gender transition," and represents them in lawsuits against employers and medical professionals. Her work ensures that the rights of detransitioners are vigorously protected in the legal system, challenging wrongful practices and advocating for accountability.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of Luke Liss and the host, and do not represent the views of any referenced organizations.   Join us for a powerful conversation with Luke Liss, Pro Bono Partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, as he shares his inspiring journey from adversity to advocacy.  Episode 170 delves into Luke's personal experiences as a biracial (Black and White) adoptee, his path to becoming a social justice leader, and his vision for pro bono work.   Luke opens up about the impact of his unique background on his sense of belonging and purpose. He recounts his challenges, including almost dropping out of high school, and how he overcame them to graduate from Stanford Law School.  He emphasizes the crucial role of mentorship in his success and shares insights on fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace that goes beyond mere compliance.   This episode explores:   Overcoming adversity: Luke's story of resilience and how he transformed challenges into motivation. The impact of adoption and racial identity: Luke's reflections on his personal journey as a biracial adoptee and its influence on his advocacy work. The power of mentorship: How early mentorship shaped his path to success and the importance of finding mentors. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in action: Practical strategies for creating inclusive environments that uplift everyone. Advocating for marginalized communities: Insights into supporting asylum seekers and immigrants, and how to advocate for change. Pro bono and social justice leadership: Luke's journey to becoming Pro Bono Partner at a top Am Law 50 law firm and his passion for social justice. Career development and leadership: Tips for positioning yourself for leadership roles and confidently asking for what you deserve. Immigration law and advocacy: The challenges and rewards of working in immigration law, especially in the face of political uncertainty. Finding hope and joy in challenging times: Strategies for maintaining resilience and finding purpose amidst uncertainty.   Tune in to hear Luke's remarkable story of resilience, leadership, and advocacy, and gain valuable insights on making a difference in the world.   Connect with us: Connect with Luke at https://www.linkedin.com/in/luke-liss-a461907/ and https://www.wsgr.com/en/people/luke-a-liss.html.  Follow Luke's work on Instagram at @wsgives or https://www.instagram.com/wsgives/ and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/wsgives/posts/?feedView=all.   Follow Samorn on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/samornselim/. Get a copy of Samorn's book, “Belonging: Self Love Lessons From A Workaholic Depressed Insomniac Lawyer” at https://tinyurl.com/2dk5hr2f.  Get weekly career tips by signing up for our advice column at www.careerunicorns.com.  Schedule a free 30-minute build your dream career consult by sending a message at www.careerunicorns.com.   

Today Laura and Kevin are joined by Matthew Rasmussen, founder of ModeOne, a trailblazer in the legal tech and eDiscovery space, to explore how his innovative solutions are reshaping digital forensics. Matt shares his insights on the challenges and opportunities in mobile data collection and forensic investigations. We talk about the genesis of ModeOne and how its remote smartphone collection solution disrupts traditional forensic practices, offering a scalable, targeted, and cost-effective approach. Matt explains how innovations like these are leveling the playing field in a sector traditionally dominated by giants like Cellebrite. We discuss the balance between privacy rights and forensic needs in the age of remote work and encrypted communications and the future of forensic investigations with emerging technologies like IoT devices, wearables, autonomous vehicles, and drones. We also cover the challenges of detecting manipulated digital evidence and how forensic tools are evolving to address these issues and the pivotal role of platforms like Signal and WhatsApp in secure communications, contrasted with the vulnerabilities of less secure options. Matt also offers his perspective on high-profile cases like the Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni case and the Alex Jones trial, shedding light on how digital evidence plays a crucial role in litigation today. Finally, Matt shares advice for aspiring innovators in the legal tech space, predictions for the next decade in eDiscovery, and why he believes the best is yet to come for the industry.Matthew is a seasoned leader with over two decades of eDiscovery experience transforming how Fortune 500 companies, AmLaw 200 law firms, and litigation service providers approach complex, high-stakes legal matters. He has held key roles at prestigious organizations like O'Melveny & Myers and Bingham McCutchen, building a reputation for innovation in eDiscovery lifecycle management and legal technology.As the founder of ModeOne, Matthew pioneered the first remote smartphone collection solution designed for targeted, cost-effective data extraction, revolutionizing modern evidence management. Known for his collaborative approach and passion for solving industry challenges, he thrives on delivering new technology to the market that redefine what's possible in the legal tech space.

Unlock the Power of Music with Karen Amlaw Music! Did you know that music offers incredible benefits for both children and adults? Neuroscientists have long known the power of music on brain function. Join Karen and Biochemist Phil George as they explore the fascinating benefits of Music on brain health. For children music education can: - Boost cognitive development and academic performance. - Improve language and communication skills. - Enhance creativity and self-expression. - Build confidence and social skills. For adults, music can: - Reduce stress and promote relaxation. - Improve memory and cognitive function. - Provide a creative outlet and emotional release. - Foster a sense of community and belonging. At Karen Amlaw Music, we offer personalized lessons for all ages and skill levels. Whether it's piano, violin, voice, or guitar, our experienced instructors are here to guide you every step of the way. Visit us online at [karenamlaw.com](https://www.karenamlaw.com/KarenAmlawMusic.html) to learn more and start your musical journey today! Karen Amlaw Music – Where Music Enriches Lives! Please feel free to email Phil at philgeorge@charter.net with any health/nutrition/exercise questions. https://www.wellnesswave.net/

“It's astonishing; it's just mind-blowing,” says Chris Batz about the exponential growth in revenue generated by the AmLaw top 100 firms in the last 22 years. On today's episode of The Future is Bright, Chris takes a closer look at these numbers, what's driving them and which firm comes out on top. He also takes a look at the increasing number of firms who are choosing to merge in order to, among many reasons, increase competition, deepen their benches, and to increase their geographic reach.    On his first solo episode of the podcast, Chris draws from quotes from executives at several high-profile firms who explain their motivation for merging. So often, it was a matter of shared values—very often people-focused values—aligning and that the decision benefits the internal teams just as much as it does the client. Chris, who is now exclusively focused on assisting firms with this process, offers his own insights on the topic.    Join today's episode of The Future is Bright to learn how far corporate law firms have come in the past 20 years, and what it means for the future.    Quotes “I am assisting firms where they are really feeling the effects of these incredibly large law firms and the consolidation that is taking place at a rapid pace right now.” (3:08 | Chris Batz) “Twenty-two years ago, in 2002, there were only two law firms that were generating a billion in revenue annually, a year. The other 98 were, of course, less than a billion in revenue. Twenty-two years later, it is astonishing, but more than half—54 firms—now, of the AmLaw100, are generating more than a billion. To break that down, 33 firms are generating a billion to just under 2 billion. The two to three billion mark, or just under three billion is 14 firms. And then we have three billion and more—seven firms. It's just mind-blowing.” (4:44 | Chris Batz)  “We've had substantial consolidation, explosive growth, and of course, there have been price increases, clients are reducing the amount of firms they're working with, generally speaking. They're finding firms with broader benches and deeper benches, especially sub-specialties is a really important thing, as well as geographic reach.” (7:11 | Chris Batz) “Clients have ‘reputational risk.' General counsel, the boards, CEOs, CFOs, decision-makers of these large clients. And perception—even though you think reality is different—perception shows that smaller firms are riskier decisions to give valuable work to. So, that valuable work goes to the bigger firms—not always, but consistently—it's happening. Valuable being higher rate work, more headline-making work, probably requiring deeper benches, subspecialties, all these things, so that's one of the reasons consolidations happen.” (17:30 | Chris Batz)   Links Connect with Chris Batz: LinkedIn Profile: 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  

As the Chief Executive Officer at Infodash, Ted has over 20 years of experience in the legal technology industry, leading the development and delivery of innovative and impactful solutions for law firms. Infodash is the premier cloud-first legal intranet/extranet platform, built on SharePoint Online and providing seamless Microsoft Teams integration. This technology has been deployed at dozens of Am Law 200 firms and has provided marked improvements in employee productivity and retention.His mission is to help law firms stay connected with their employees, their clients, and their work, especially in this new age of remote and hybrid work. Infodash helps firms leverage their Microsoft 365 investment by enriching user profiles with data that improves the user experience across the entire suite of products. With Infodash, law firms can establish and maintain their culture, communicate their news and events, access their knowledge and resources, and collaborate with their teams and partners.Connect with Ted Theodoropoulos:Website: https://getinfodash.com/ Podcast, Legal Innovation Spotlight: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r2oOlOGR2ia0DFCv1uxun?si=561d43295e0343c1 TurnKey Podcast Productions Important Links:Guest to Gold Video Series: www.TurnkeyPodcast.com/gold The Ultimate Podcast Launch Formula- www.TurnkeyPodcast.com/UPLFplusFREE workshop on how to "Be A Great Guest."Free E-Book 5 Ways to Make Money Podcasting at www.Turnkeypodcast.com/gift Ready to earn 6-figures with your podcast? See if you've got what it takes at TurnkeyPodcast.com/quizSales Training for Podcasters: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sales-training-for-podcasters/id1540644376Nice Guys on Business: http://www.niceguysonbusiness.com/subscribe/The Turnkey Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/turnkey-podcast/id1485077152

“It's all about people management,” says today's guest Kristina Lawson, drawing parallels between her time as the former mayor of Walnut Creek, CA to her current role as managing partner at Hanson Bridgett LLP, a mid-sized firm which like Kristina, whose practice was in real estate and land use, has a deep connection and dedication to California and its communities. This values-based California law firm's equity partners comprise nearly 40 percent women—virtually unheard of in the AmLaw 200—which reflects its pioneering and foundational policies of diversity, equity and inclusion. On today's episode of The Future is Bright, Kristina discusses the firm's guiding principles, their agile workforce policy that pre-dated the Covid 19 pandemic, and its exemplary approach to transitioning power to the next generation.  The key, Kristina explains, is a willingness to adapt to new working styles, seeing them as opportunities for growth rather than points of criticism. She also discusses the biggest threat to the business of law, the crucial piece of work culture she feels was lost to Covid, and how Hanson Bridgett LLP is navigating the advent of AI. Join today's discussion to learn more about Kristina and Hanson Bridgett LLP's shared guiding principle of putting people first, and the number one issue that keeps her up at night.  Quotes “It's helpful to check back in, both to ground me and the reasons I joined Hanson Bridgett and what Hanson Bridgett's all about, and again also to check in on those promises I made to our partnership about the direction we'd head in with me at the helm.” (7:32 | Kristina Lawson) “Being the mayor of a mid-sized town and the managing partner of a mid-sized firm, there's a lot of consensus-building and it's all about people management. Whether it's constituent management as the mayor or managing the other members of the city council…it's all about figuring out where those consensus positions are and building trusted relationships, even with people that you don't agree with, on key issues, so that you can continue to move forward. Those are really the same issues we have here at our partnership.” (8:20 | Kristina Lawson) “We need to adapt to where they're at. Just because they're doing something differently, does not mean they're doing it wrong.” (15:47 | Kristina Lawson) “Founded by a group who really believed in diversity, equity and inclusion and values-based lawyering before it was a thing…One of the reasons I joined Hanson Bridgett was the firm has an equity partnership which is made up of just about 40 percent women.” (18:57 | Kristina Lawson) “The number one thing that keeps me up at night is worrying about whether our people are well and whether we can improve their mental health and wellness as an organization.” (22:22 | Kristina Lawson) Links Connect with Kristina Lawson: LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/klawson/ Firm Website Bio: https://www.hansonbridgett.com/Our-Attorneys/kristina-d-lawson   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: LinkedIn Profile: 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  

This fire

Today Laura and Kevin speak with Mr. Backup himself, W. Curtis Preston. We talk about the biggest opportunities for innovation in legal tech. We hear Curtis' thoughts on AI redefining roles within legal teams. We discuss the biggest technical and logistical obstacles to satisfying an eDiscovery request when it comes to handling backup data. Curtis walks us through why backups present unique challenges in eDiscovery compared to other types of data sources. We also hear Laura and Curtis' thoughts on the PT Cruiser and so much more!W. Curtis Preston is a Legal Tech Evangelist specializing in eDiscovery and Forensic Acquisition. Curtis possesses a unique combination of legal and technical expertise and has been an expert witness on multiple lawsuits, consulting and being deposed on multi-million-dollar matters that included intellectual property, patents, and insurance. He has even been a pro se litigant in three cases – and prevailed in each case. He has brought his expertise to S2|Data, a legacy data and discovery solution aiding Fortune 500 legal teams, AMLAW 100 Law Firms & Sole Practitioners in computer forensics and eDiscovery.

Have you ever considered looking for another avenue to create a more stabilized business in real estate? Then, join us for this week's episode with John Cascarano and his journey to building his expertise in RV parks!John tells us how he achieved massive growth in RV parks and campgrounds, his ways to identify possible opportunities in this asset class, the significance of building a team and systemizing operations, and more. Keep tuning in for more valuable investing strategies!Key Points & Relevant TopicsJohn's background in commercial real estate law before he transitioned into RV park investingThe reason why it's difficult to build new mobile home parksHow John started investing in RV parks and the most challenging part of acquiring his first dealThe RV park's potential income and scalabilityWhy it's important to consider location when investing in RV parksHow to evaluate opportunities and do due diligence in RV parksThe capital raising side of buying multiple RV parksMaintaining business growth in times of multiple projectsJohn's insights into the RV market and his future goals in real estateResources & LinksApartment Syndication Due Diligence Checklist for Passive InvestorAbout John CascaranoJohn is the founder of Blue Metric Group, a private equity firm specializing in the acquisition and operation of RV parks and campgrounds. He is an experienced attorney, brand founder & entrepreneur. John has founded or co-founded multiple companies and served in various roles from CEO to Counsel. He formerly practiced law at an AmLaw 100 firm as a commercial real estate lawyer. John earned his BA degree in English from Duke University in 2001 and his JD from the University of Michigan Law School in 2004. John is a member of the State Bars of Tennessee and Georgia. John is also active in Entrepreneurs' Organization in the Nashville chapter.Get in Touch with JohnWebsite: https://www.bluemetricgroup.com/ Email: john@bluemetricgroup.com To Connect With UsPlease visit our website www.bonavestcapital.com and click here to leave a rating and written review!

In today's episode, I dive into the significant trends and challenges shaping big law as we approach the end of 2024. Joining me is Andrew Maloney, a journalist at The American Lawyer who covers the economics and industry shifts impacting our profession.  We discuss the rise of business-minded strategies within law firms, focusing on key topics like partner compensation trends, mergers, and the evolution of firm culture. Andrew shares his insights on how these developments are changing the landscape and what we might expect as we move into 2025. From the dynamics of cross-border mergers to the impact of non-equity tiers on firm profitability, this episode is full of valuable perspectives on what's next in big law. At a Glance: 0:00 - Introduction to today's guest, Andrew Maloney 1:20 - Reflecting on the rapid changes in the legal industry in 2024 2:19 - Andrew's path to legal journalism and focus on the business of law 8:09 - Emergence of the “business of law” and its impact on firm dynamics 12:05 - Major legal industry stories of 2024: top compensation trends and lateral moves 14:51 - Increased competition among top law firms and strategic expansions 15:52 - 2024 trends in law firm mergers and how they're reshaping firms 19:05 - Laura's reflections on post-merger outcomes and growth sustainability 22:44 - Case study: Chicago as an evolving legal market 26:04 - Predicting significant trends in 2025 28:09 - How upcoming elections may affect law firm talent acquisition and attrition 31:05 - New emphasis on the non-equity partner model as a profitability strategy 32:54 - Closing thoughts and a look ahead into 2025's legal landscape 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. How to reach Andrew Maloney: amaloney@alm.com  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

Clinton Gary, Founder of CREDO Consulting, guides law firms and coaches' lawyers to achieve Collaborative Growth by growing strategically and collaborating effectively. With over 25 years of experience in strategy and business development at leading Am Law firms and global organizations, he is a recognized industry leader. Clinton's expertise and award-winning approach drive sustainable success. Visit www.credocg.com ---------------------------------------- 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/ www.theplacementclub.com Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/clintongary/ https://credocg.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“My journey began in legal technology, where I spent 15 years developing and marketing IP software systems and services. Later, as the head of marketing and business development for three AmLaw 100 firms, I helped lead growth initiatives that resulted in profitable expansion, leveraging technology to enhance productivity, and strengthening of key client relationships. “Throughout my career, I've excelled at developing highly responsive and effective marketing and business development operations and initiatives,  coaching lawyers in business development, tailoring strategies to their individual strengths and firm cultures. I've consistently implemented successful initiatives that have profitably expanded and strengthened the business. My "superpower" is the ability to effectively coach and engage lawyers by meeting them where they are at to help them chart their unique pathway to growth. “Today, as the head of Client Collaboration at Nexl, I help law firms find better ways to grow. By leveraging Nexl's platform, I help our clients to adapt modern tech to expand lawyer engagement, participation in business development, and marketing activities that lead to stronger client relationships and profitable new business. “I'm passionate about bridging the gap between legal services and technology, helping firms overcome change management challenges and embrace modern tech for growth. If you're interested in discussing legal marketing trends, innovative business development strategies, interested in how modern technology can transform law firm operations, let's connect!” ---------------------------------------- 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/ www.theplacementclub.com Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynntell/ lynn.tellefsen@nexl.cloud https://go.nexl.cloud/rainmakerconfidential Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us for an insightful conversation with Matthew Fornaro, a seasoned business law attorney serving South Florida since 2003.   With a robust background in civil litigation from prestigious AmLaw 200 law firms, Matthew has established a comprehensive practice encompassing complex commercial litigation, construction law, intellectual property law, and more.   As a member of the Florida Bar and District of Columbia Bar, Matthew provides expert guidance on business document drafting and revision, including formation documents for new businesses.   He is dedicated to supporting entrepreneurs and small business owners, offering valuable insights on choosing and drafting essential legal documents.   Matthew's commitment to mentoring extends beyond his practice, as he participates in the Kaufman Foundation's FastTrac NewVenture Program and the Florida State University College of Business Jim Moran Institute for Global Entrepreneurship Small Business Executive Program.   As a small business owner himself, Matthew takes pride in representing local businesses and is available to assist with all transactional and litigation needs.   Tune in to learn from Matthew's expertise and experiences, and gain valuable insights into navigating the legal landscape with confidence.   Learn More Here: https://fornarolegal.com/

George Dunn, CEO of CRE8 Independent Consultants, discusses digital transformation in law firms. George has extensive experience helping to improve AMLAW 100 and 200 Law firms. He is highly experienced in Total Quality Management, process Re-engineering, and LEAN/Six Sigma; and in planning for advanced technologies such as digital workflow, process automation, and AI. George is published in Law Technology News, Corporate Counsel, and General Counsel. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest? https://DigitalTransformationPodcast.net/guest

In this episode Stephen Seckler speaks with Lana Manganiello, author of the new book Careers in Business Law: Forging Your Path to Success (American Bar Association 2024). Lana shares insights from her extensive experience working with AmLaw 200 firms on business strategy, attorney development, and implementing innovative growth initiatives. They discuss the evolving landscape of business law, the importance of aligning career choices with personal values, and how thought leadership can be a powerful tool for lawyers. Whether you're a law student, early-career lawyer, or seasoned professional, this episode offers valuable advice on navigating and succeeding in the legal profession. Tune in to learn more about Lana's career journey, her motivations for writing the book, and the key lessons she hopes readers will take away. Additional Episodes Episode 68-Are there Gender Differences in Legal Marketing?—What Men and Women Can Learn From Each Other About Building a Law Practice Episode 118-Paths to Partnership in 2023 and Beyond-With Laura Terrell

Michael Ellenhorn founded Decipher Investigative Intelligence to help clients create safer, more productive, and more profitable workplaces through reliable investigative intelligence. He counsels clients on mitigating risks associated with the hiring process and is a frequent speaker on the topic of lateral hiring, integration, and talent acquisition strategy. Under his leadership, Decipher has been recognized by St. Louis Business Journal's “Best Places to Work” and honored for his innovation in corporate philanthropy. As Chief Growth Officer at Decipher, Julie Henson empowers law firms to make strategic growth decisions. Whether it's lateral hiring, exploring new markets, or seizing M&A opportunities, she helps firms elevate client service, mitigate risk, boost revenue, and foster vibrant cultures. With more than 20 years of legal industry experience, including in business development strategy and as a Chief Client Officer at an AmLaw 100 firm, she offers unparalleled insights into fostering growth and maximizing potential for law firms and other legal organizations. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT STRATEGIC LATERAL HIRING Did you know that 50% of lateral partner hires fail within a few years? Most law firms are focused on growth, whether it's through increased head count or better approaches to profitability, but law firms often make decisions based on what feels right. Growth requires a strategic approach, not one based on gut feeling or limited information. Collecting and analyzing data through investigative intelligence helps you make accurate decisions in talent acquisition that also align with your company's culture. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman sits down with the CEO and Chief Growth Officer of Decipher Investigative Intelligence, Michael Ellenhorn and Julie Henson, to talk about the importance of using investigative intelligence in decision-making for growing and sustaining law firms. You'll learn about various growth strategies, the challenges of integrating lateral partners, avoiding cultural mismatches, and much more! 1:59 - What investigative intelligence is and two ways you can use it to gather the information you need 8:07 - How to define growth and success for your law firm 12:09 - How to start determining the best path for growing through mergers and acquisitions 14:35 - Examples of how cultural divides within a merged organization can create problems 16:52 - Other common mistakes made with lateral hires, mergers, and acquisitions 23:06 - The challenge of finding game-changing lateral partners to fill certain needs in your law firm 25:20 - One way to drastically get ahead of your competition when hiring and how Decipher utilizes information to help 29:11 - Dos and don'ts for successful lateral hiring and integration in your law firm 39:53 - The importance of kindness in your interactions and paying attention to red flags in the hiring process MENTIONED IN GROW YOUR LAW FIRM THROUGH STRATEGIC LATERAL Decipher Investigative Intelligence Michael Ellenhorn on LinkedIn Julie Henson on LinkedIn Get Connected with The Coaching Team at hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE… Today's episode is brought to you by the coaching team at The Lawyer's Edge, a training and coaching firm which has been focused exclusively on lawyers and law firms since 2008.  Each member of The Lawyer's Edge coaching 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, just email the team at hello@thelawyersedge.com.  

Daniel Ritterman brings over a decade of entrepreneurial, legal, and negotiation experience to Tactix. After founding Mainline Delivery, one of the region's first restaurant delivery services, while in college, and acting as its operating manager for over 10 years, he successfully negotiated its sale to a publicly traded company in 2016. While Dan continued to operate in the Philadelphia market for the acquiring company, fueling his passion for helping businesses grow their revenues and maximize their bottom line, Dan also found the time to attend Temple Law School where he earned his J.D. in 2014. Based on his experience as an entrepreneur creating and operating his own business, Dan understand the dedication and commitment required to build a practice in commercial real estate. During his tenure at Tactix, Daniel has represented clients ranging from growth stage technology startups to Am Law 100 law firms to non-profit organizations and retailers. In addition to his brokerage work, Dan still devotes a portion of his time to advising startup founders through various mentorship programs. Dan lives in Dresher, Pennsylvania with his wife Erica, children Spencer and Logan, and dog Jackson. When not at the office or with the kids, you'll likely find Dan on the golf course or playing his guitar. Key Moments [04:09] Using legal expertise to support business plans. [07:12] Built multimillion-dollar business starting as mom and pop. [12:05] Worked Ally Contract at Square for 2 years. [13:42] Connecting with people led to real estate venture. [16:04] Entrepreneur with long-term vision for coworking spaces. [22:09] Salespeople crucial to company success; different skills. [23:48] Attempting to raise money almost led to disaster. Find Dan Online https://tactix.com/team/#dan-ritterman https://www.linkedin.com/in/ritterman/ https://www.theeducationaledge.com/ -- Dan's Wife's Startup! If you're enjoying Entrepreneur's Enigma, please give us a review on the podcast directory of your choice. We're on all of them and these reviews really help others find the show. GoodPods: https://gmwd.us/goodpods iTunes: https://gmwd.us/itunes Podchaser: https://gmwd.us/podchaser Also, if you're getting value from the show and want to buy me a coffee, go to the show notes to get the link to get me a coffee to keep me awake, while I work on bringing you more great episodes to your ears. →  https://gmwd.us/buy-me-a-coffee Follow Seth Online: Seth | Digital Marketer (@s3th.me) • Instagram: Instagram.com/s3th.me Seth Goldstein | LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/sethmgoldstein Seth On Mastodon: https://s3th.me/@pch Seth's Marketing Junto Newsletter: https://MarketingJunto.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of On Record PR, Gina Rubel goes on record with succession consultant David Wood to discuss implementing programs that secure the prosperity of law firms for future leadership. Learn More In the leadup to his retirement from AmLaw 100 firm Barnes & Thornburg, after a 38-year career as a corporate trial lawyer, David Wood transitioned his entire $6M practice to younger partners who his clients have come to know and trust. David consults with law firms and retiring partners, helping them accomplish what he did: The transition of large corporate clients to capable successors. He has a unique perspective on retirement succession, inasmuch as he's actually achieved the transition of a large law practice to younger partners. He is also intimately familiar with the obstacles and politics that managing partners of law firms must overcome to implement effective retirement succession programs. His task-specific training is the “How” of retirement succession.

Send us a Text Message.Navigating The Legal Labyrinth Of Business#law #business #ips #businesslaw #attorney Matthew Fornaro has been a business law attorney serving South Florida, including Coral Springs and Parkland, since 2003. Before starting his law firm, he was an attorney at two prestigious AmLaw 200 law firms focusing on civil litigation.Website: https://fornarolegal.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/fornarolegalX: https://twitter.com/FornaroLegalLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewfornaro/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@matthewfornarop.a.7953Thanks for tuning in, please be sure to click that subscribe button and give this a thumbs up!!Email: thevibesbroadcast@gmail.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/listen_to_the_vibes_/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thevibesbroadcastnetworkLinktree: https://linktr.ee/the_vibes_broadcastTikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeuTVRv2/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheVibesBrdcstTruth: https://truthsocial.com/@KoyoteFor all our social media and other links, go to: Linktree: https://linktr.ee/the_vibes_broadcastPlease subscribe, like, and share!

Show Notes: David Willbrand got married immediately after graduation in 1992. He talks about that period of uncertainty many graduates experience after school, and David did not have a clear professional direction, but with an interest in politics, he started working on a campaign for a city council candidate in Cincinnati, which was short-lived but did lead to a position with the Ohio EPA. David explains that he didn't have a particular interest in working in government or environmental regulation but he needed a job and so took a job with the EPA, which involved climbing smokestacks, not something he had prepared for! Testing Smokestacks for the EPA David's job was to ensure that the testing would take place properly. He was onsite at regulated entities who had big smokestacks that needed to be tested periodically for particulate emissions and didn't welcome the EPA oversight.  He would climb the 300ft smokestacks  in cold weather, sitting up there for eight hours to monitor the people actually doing the testing, aware of the potential impact the emissions were having on his health. Desperate for a new direction, David decided to pursue law  at the University of Cincinnati College of Law.  He shared how his unusual approach (desperation meets urgency) encouraged the admissions department into accepting his application.  He reflects that he hated the smokestack job is glad he did it, because it forced him to take a step in a new direction. Life at Law School and into the .Com Era David shares his love for law school, in particular the direct interaction he had with the faculty. He compares it to his experience at Harvard, where, with respect to the faculty, he felt like he fell through the cracks. He went into law school without a clear understanding of what it meant to be a lawyer. He initially thought about environmental law but found it unsuitable due to the preference for engineers. He stumbled into corporate law and found the deal work and transactional work enjoyable. He was offered a job at a Cincinnati law firm in 1996, graduating in 1996. The date is relevant because 1996 is typically noted as the beginning of the .com era, and suddenly there were multiple  requests to deal with the legalities surrounding startups. Startup work became his area of focus. From Cincinnati to a San Francisco Law Firm and Back Again He was offered a job at a law firm in Boulder and spent three years there, advancing his career and skill set. However, life threw a curveball, and he and his family decided to return to Cincinnati in 2000. David worked remotely for a year with a .com company based in Ottawa and New York City. However, the .com bubble burst, and David decided to leave. At 32 with two kids and a wife, he joined another startup in Cincinnati, a B2B SaaS company. This was a difficult experience, as the company had to lay off many people and he had to take on more responsibilities in finance and HR. Working with Founders and  Startups In 2004, David decided to return to a law firm environment; he joined Thompson Hine, an AmLaw 200 law firm, in 2004. They wanted to create a startup and venture capital practice in the Midwest, and David was interested in being on the front edge of that pioneering activity. Working with startup companies and founders, he had the privilege of being a key advisor and gaining exposure to various industries such as biotech, hardware, devices, apps, and social media, and David shares how he liked being involved at the leading edge of innovation. He also felt that having a stake in the innovation economy was important for the future of the Midwest, and it was emotionally rewarding to participate in that mission. From Private Practice to Chief Legal Officer at Pacaso David shares that he got divorced in 2008 and remarried a year later to a woman he practiced with. He explains why they decided to live remotely for the first decade of their marriage. After the pandemic, David felt restless in his legal practice; he needed either a new direction or to change the configuration of his practice. He kept his eyes open for opportunities. He had worked with a client who had sold a company to Zillow and had started a new company called Pacaso. Pacaso was growing rapidly and needed a chief legal officer due to the complexity of the business and legal demands. In April 2021, David walked away from his practice, which he had built over 17 years, and has been at Pacaso since then. He explains that this experience highlights the importance of adapting to change and staying curious about new opportunities in one's career. Making a Long Distance Marriage Work David discusses the challenges of long distance marriages. He believes that the paradigm may be more workable for second marriages due to different expectations in duties. There are challenges, but a big benefit is that the couple really values their time together and doesn't take it for granted. They also get to spend time together without their children (when their children are with their other parents). This segmented approach can allow for a balanced relationship and lifestyle. Counseling Clients and Monetizing Skills David discusses his experience as an attorney and how he found himself as a business counselor to his clients as well. He talks about the difficulties many startup founders face and how he became a person they could talk to, and how he built strong relationships with his clients. He also shares that he has found that using his legal skills through side hustles can be a rewarding experience. David is currently an adjunct law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, and has taught courses on mergers and acquisitions, business associations, agency and partnership and, currently, startups and venture capital, for 20 years. He also works with various incubators and accelerators to help founders and startups. Influential Harvard Professors and Courses David's undergraduate experience at Harvard helped him develop critical thinking skills, which are essential for success in law school and other careers. He believes that his undergraduate experience at Harvard helped him unpack inherited beliefs and biases, making him a more dimensional human. He was actively involved at Phillips Brooks House, and the Food Salvage initiative, which provided food to homeless shelters around Cambridge. His experience exposed him to social issues and helped him develop a skill set for running an organization. He learned about people, deliverables, supply chains, and customers, which he believes were invaluable in running a business. David also shared his conservative, evangelical Christian background, which influenced his political, social, and cultural views from his youth through his time at Harvard and into his 30s. However, as he grew older, he struggled with this belief system, and eventually moved in a different direction and built his life on a different set of values and principles.    Timestamps: 02:22: Career choices, job dissatisfaction, and law school admission 08:49: Inspecting smokestacks with a wand-like device 11:29: Career path and personal growth in law 17:12: Career changes, challenges, and lessons learned 20:29 Career journey in law firm environment, including startup work and personal life 27:02: Career growth and change, with a focus on a lawyer's transition from outside counsel to chief legal officer 29:33 The benefits of long-distance relationships for couples with children, with insights on how it can positively impact work-life balance and communication 36:35: Career development and pattern recognition in law 39:21: Personal growth, education, and entrepreneurship 45:29: Religious beliefs and their evolution in a Harvard student's life Links: David's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-willbrand-9062011/ Featured Non-profit: The featured non-profit of this episode is The Kentucky Student Voice Team, recommended by Rachel Burg Belin who reports: “Hi, I'm Rachel Burg Belin, class of 1992. The featured nonprofit of this episode of the 92 report is the Kentucky Student Voice Team. The Kentucky Student Voice Team is an independent youth led intergenerationally sustained organization. The mission is to support young people as education research, policy and storytelling partners to co create more just democratic schools and communities. I love the work of this organization. So much so that ever since 2012 When I worked with a team of high school students to conceive and CO design it, I've been pouring my everything into it. I also serve as its managing partner. You can learn more about the Kentucky student voice team@ksvt.org And now here's Will Bachman with this week's episode.” To learn more about their work visit: https://www.ksvt.org/  

This Day in Legal History: Ronald Reagan Fires Air Traffic ControllersOn August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan made a landmark decision to fire over 11,000 striking air traffic controllers. These federal employees, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), had initiated a strike on August 3, demanding better pay, shorter working hours, and improved working conditions. The strike posed significant risks to national air travel safety and disrupted the aviation system.President Reagan responded with a firm stance, citing the controllers' sworn oath not to strike against the government. In a nationally televised address on August 3, Reagan warned that if the controllers did not return to work within 48 hours, they would face termination. When the deadline passed without compliance, Reagan followed through on his ultimatum, effectively dismantling PATCO.The mass firings had profound implications for labor relations and federal employment policies in the United States. It underscored the government's commitment to maintaining uninterrupted air traffic services and demonstrated a strict enforcement of federal labor laws. This event marked a pivotal moment in the Reagan administration, showcasing its determination to curb union influence and assert governmental authority. The firings also led to long-term changes in air traffic control, with the federal government embarking on extensive recruitment and training programs to replace the dismissed controllers.A political action committee (PAC) supported by Elon Musk is under investigation in Michigan for potential legal violations. The Michigan Secretary of State's office confirmed the inquiry on Sunday. The Musk-backed America PAC has been collecting detailed voter information through its website, prompting scrutiny from state authorities. Although America PAC is a federal entity, Michigan officials are reviewing its actions to determine if state laws have been breached. If violations are found, the case may be referred to the Michigan Attorney General. The investigation is in its early stages, and specific focuses have not been disclosed.Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has previously stated he created a PAC to support candidates but denied making specific pledges. He has publicly supported Donald Trump and criticized various Democratic policies and initiatives.Neither the Michigan Attorney General's office nor America PAC has commented on the investigation. Musk also has not responded to requests for comment. The situation underscores concerns about how PACs use personal information collected from citizens, particularly in voter registration efforts.Musk-backed PAC under investigation for potential violations of Michigan laws | ReutersThomas V. Girardi, the famed attorney behind the landmark $333 million Pacific Gas & Electric settlement featured in the film "Erin Brockovich," faces a criminal trial for wire fraud in Los Angeles federal court. At 85, Girardi has been disbarred and bankrupt, charged with misappropriating $15 million in settlement funds intended for his clients over the past decade. This trial could mark the end of his distinguished legal career, tainted by allegations of unethical conduct and questionable ties to the state's lawyer disciplinary agency.Plaintiff's attorney Jay Edelson emphasizes the broader implications for the legal community, suggesting it could either prompt reform or be dismissed as an isolated incident. Girardi also faces additional fraud charges in Illinois, and numerous civil lawsuits. His once-celebrated career has become a cautionary tale of legal misconduct.Prosecutors allege that since 2010, Girardi diverted millions from his firm, Girardi Keese, for personal luxuries and to fund EJ Global, an entertainment company of his estranged wife, Erika Jayne. Girardi's defense argues that he was not responsible for financial mismanagement, attributing it to the firm's CFO, Christopher Kamon, whose trial has been separated. They also claim Girardi's cognitive decline impairs his ability to have intentionally defrauded clients.Girardi's case stands out not just for the legal drama but also for its celebrity connections, given his marriage to a reality TV star, influencing public and juror perception. The trial will focus on whether Girardi's cognitive state affects his culpability for the alleged crimes committed during his competent years. The court's ruling on his competency to stand trial, despite cognitive impairments, adds a layer of complexity to this high-profile case.Thomas Girardi's Legal Drama Approaches Its Hollywood EndingFormer Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. has sued GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen and his company, RC Ventures LLC, seeking to recover $47 million from alleged insider trading in 2022. Cohen, also the founder of Chewy Inc., allegedly used nonpublic information to trade Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) stock profitably between January and August 2022 while serving as a statutory director. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims Cohen and RC Ventures made numerous profitable trades of BBBY securities, which were executed within a six-month period. Under Section 16(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, the company seeks to reclaim these short-swing profits because Cohen and RC Ventures owned more than 10% of BBBY's common stock and had access to inside information through their board appointees.This legal action is part of a broader effort by the bankrupt company and its plan administrator, Michael Goldberg, to recover funds for creditors. Goldberg has also filed a separate suit to reclaim $19 million in tax credits from a New Jersey agency and is pursuing over $300 million from Hudson Bay Capital Management for trading profits related to a failed financing plan.RC Ventures is GameStop's largest shareholder with an 8.7% stake. Bed Bath & Beyond, now operating as 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 Inc., is demanding monetary damages and legal costs. Cohen and RC Ventures have not commented on the lawsuit. The case is titled 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-I Inc. v. Cohen.GameStop CEO Sued by Bed Bath & Beyond for Insider Trading (1)The demand for transactional legal work is recovering after nearly three years of decline, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute's Law Firm Financial Index. The report shows a 2.2% increase in corporate transactional work, including contract drafting, real estate deals, and bank financing, in the second quarter of 2024 compared to the previous year. This rise contributed to a 2.4% overall increase in law firm demand.Additionally, U.S. law firms have seen a 6.6% increase in billing rates and a 5.3% rise in direct expenses, putting them in one of their strongest financial positions in the last decade. Profits per equity partner have increased by 8.8% over the past year.While transactional practices are rebounding, counter-cyclical practices like litigation and bankruptcy continue to drive significant demand. Litigation demand rose by 3.4% and bankruptcy by 2.4% in the same period. These trends provide law firms with greater stability by diversifying their revenue streams.However, the gains are not uniform across the industry. The Am Law 50 firms have not seen the same increase in litigation demand as other firms, and midsize firms have not experienced the same growth in transactional demand as Am Law 100 firms.Overall, the second quarter of 2024 has been positive for the legal sector, with significant improvements in demand and profitability.Law firm transactional work rebounds after 3-year slump, report says | 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

In this compelling rerelease of Episode 63, titled “From Summer Associate to Managing Partner of K&L Gates Miami Office,” Brett Amron and Jeffrey Bast engage in a heartfelt discussion with Steven Weinstein, the Managing Partner of the Miami office of K&L Gates. Recorded on February 23rd, 2022, this episode delves into Steven's remarkable now 33-year tenure with the firm, which began when he joined as a summer associate in 1991, back when the firm was known as Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.Steven shares the pivotal moments of his career, from being one of the founding members of the firm's national healthcare team to ascending to his current role as Managing Partner. He provides insights into the generational and cultural shifts he has witnessed and the firm's transformation from a 400-attorney operation to an AmLaw 100 law firm with nearly 2,000 attorneys.Throughout the conversation, Steven emphasizes the importance of longevity and loyalty in his career. When asked what has kept him at the same firm for over three decades, his answer is simple yet profound: “The DNA has remained the same throughout the firm's evolution, and I still enjoy getting up in the morning and coming to work.”This episode offers a unique perspective on career longevity and firm loyalty, making it a must-listen for legal professionals and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of a successful long-term career in a rapidly evolving industry.Streaming on  YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally.

Let's see if it pays off as well as a billionaire covering up an affair. ----- Donald Trump's hush money trial kicks off after a week of Trump alienating everyone involved in the process by refusing to respect basic decorum and attempting to skirt the gag order by arguing that RTs aren't endorsements. The Am Law 100 is also out and we talk through some of the key takeaways and Judge Ho tried to defend his take on forum shopping and it's... not good.

Privacy and data security lawyer, Dominique Shelton Leipzig shares that she has always wanted to be a lawyer, ever since she was a little girl. She talks about what her role is with clients in protecting and managing their data, sometimes adhering to up to 134 different data protection laws for global companies. Learn that not a lot has changed for an African-American woman partner at an Amlaw 100 firm as far as diversity during Dominique's career, and how Dominique suggests young lawyers should address those odds. Our thanks to Dominque for sharing her story with us.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices