Podcasts about american bar association aba

This Day in Legal History: Abington School District v. SchemppOn this day in legal history, June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Abington School District v. Schempp, a landmark case concerning the constitutional boundaries between church and state. The case arose when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian from Pennsylvania, challenged a state law that required public schools to begin each day with Bible readings. The Schempp family argued that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing religion.In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the Schempps, holding that the mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government must remain neutral toward religion, the school's policy amounted to state-sanctioned religious exercise. The ruling did not ban the Bible from public schools altogether but clarified that its use must be educational, not devotional.This decision built on the precedent set in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down mandatory prayer in schools, and it reinforced a broader interpretation of the separation of church and state. The ruling provoked strong reactions across the country, with many viewing it as an attack on traditional religious values, while others saw it as a vital protection of individual liberties in a pluralistic society.The case remains a cornerstone in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping debates over religion in public education for decades. It also marked a pivotal moment in the Warren Court's broader effort to expand civil liberties through constitutional interpretation.The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using executive orders to intimidate major law firms based on their past clients and hiring choices. Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution and have created a chilling effect on the legal profession. The ABA claims Trump's actions hindered its ability to secure legal representation, especially in cases opposing the federal government.The suit comes after four law firms successfully challenged similar executive orders, with judges temporarily or permanently blocking enforcement. One of these firms, Susman Godfrey, is now representing the ABA in this new case. Despite court setbacks, nine firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration to avoid similar targeting.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the ABA's lawsuit as “frivolous,” asserting presidential authority over security clearances and federal contracting. The ABA also alleges the administration has threatened its accreditation authority and slashed funding, particularly in areas like training legal advocates for domestic violence victims.American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice is undergoing a significant restructuring under the Trump administration, marked by mass resignations, staff reductions, and departmental overhauls. Approximately 4,500 DOJ employees have accepted buyouts through the administration's deferred resignation program, known as “Fork in the Road,” which allows for paid leave through September before official departure. These exits, along with planned eliminations of 5,093 positions, are expected to save around $470 million and reduce the DOJ's workforce from roughly 110,000.The administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year aims to reshape the DOJ in line with conservative priorities. This includes dismantling the tax division—once staffed by over 500 people—and distributing its enforcement functions across the civil and criminal divisions. Despite some added funding to these divisions, they are also set to reduce attorney headcounts. The move has drawn backlash from former DOJ and IRS officials, who warned it could undermine tax enforcement. The DOJ's top tax official resigned earlier this year in protest.Political leadership changes have also prompted an exodus from the civil rights division, where two-thirds of career attorneys have either resigned or been reassigned. Cuts are also planned for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and other oversight bodies, such as the DOJ Inspector General's office and the Community Relations Service.Other structural shifts include folding INTERPOL's U.S. office into the U.S. Marshals Service, closing multiple field offices, and launching a new firearm rights restoration initiative. The administration has also proposed merging the ATF with the DEA and cutting the FBI's budget by over half a billion dollars.Justice Department to Lose 4,500 Staffers to Buyout Offers (1)Justice Department to Eliminate Tax Unit as Workforce ShrinksThe NCAA's $2.8 billion settlement—approved earlier this month—has reignited momentum in Congress for national legislation to address key issues in college athletics, particularly around antitrust liability, name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, and student-athlete classification. Beginning July 1, colleges can directly pay athletes, marking a historic shift that has intensified calls for a federal framework to standardize these changes.The settlement, which also includes back pay for nearly 400,000 athletes, has been described as a stabilizing force in the chaotic NIL landscape. It is now being used by the NCAA to push Congress for a liability shield to prevent further antitrust lawsuits. Although several NIL reform bills have been proposed in the past, none have passed. Two current bills—the bipartisan SPORTS Act and the GOP-led SCORE Act—aim to balance athlete rights with regulatory uniformity while clarifying that student-athletes are not employees.The SCORE Act would create revenue-based limits on athlete pay and involve multiple House committees, while the SPORTS Act focuses on educational support and fair market value benchmarks for NIL deals. Both would preempt state laws and address core NCAA concerns.Despite the settlement, legal uncertainty remains. Female athletes have already filed appeals challenging the deal under Title IX, and further litigation is expected. Experts note that any legislation granting an antitrust exemption—similar to the unique one held by Major League Baseball—would face judicial skepticism and political resistance.NCAA's $2.8 Billion Settlement Gets Congress Moving Toward FixesIn my column this week I write a bit about how a tax amnesty program in Illinois might provide a roadmap for the rest of the nifty fifty. Illinois' new remote seller amnesty program offers a strategic and replicable model for encouraging tax compliance among previously noncompliant businesses. By waiving penalties and interest and applying a simplified, flat 9% tax rate across the state's many local jurisdictions, the program lowers the barriers to voluntary disclosure. This approach addresses the core problem of the “compliance paradox,” where businesses avoid coming clean for fear of triggering audits. In contrast to fear-based enforcement, Illinois' model promotes intelligence-based compliance, exchanging amnesty for valuable insights into evasion tactics and tools.The program's design could be adapted to brick-and-mortar businesses engaged in sales suppression through tools like zapper software. If these businesses were offered amnesty in return for disclosing how they evaded taxes—such as revealing the software they used and methods employed—states could use this intelligence to improve enforcement. Such disclosures would turn voluntary compliance into a form of strategic reconnaissance, identifying enforcement blind spots and bad actors.Illinois' policy doesn't just recoup lost revenue; it also creates opportunities to map the ecosystem of tax evasion tools and techniques. By incentivizing transparency and simplifying compliance, the initiative provides a blueprint for other states facing fiscal pressure and looking to modernize tax enforcement.Illinois Remote Seller Amnesty Program Offers Roadmap for States 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

Chinese Student Visas and Espionage Concerns The Trump administration's decision to revoke visas of Chinese students suspected of ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Broader concerns about intellectual property theft and espionage by China. Discussion of Confucius Institutes and legislation led by Cruz to defund them. Transgender Athletes and Women’s Sports California's policy shift to protect biological girls in track and field competitions. Broader debate on transgender participation in women’s sports. Cruz’s campaign strategy focusing on this issue and its resonance with moderate voters, especially women. Tribute to Phil Robertson Reflections on the life and legacy of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, who recently passed away. Personal anecdotes from Cruz about hunting with Robertson and his support during the 2016 presidential campaign. Emphasis on Robertson’s faith, authenticity, and cultural impact. American Bar Association (ABA) and Judicial Nominations The Trump administration's move to strip the ABA of its special role in vetting judicial nominees. Criticism of the ABA as a biased, left-leaning organization. Examples of perceived ABA bias against conservative nominees and support for unqualified liberal ones. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It is no secret that law students and attorneys exist in a stressful environment. As Amy Levin recently wrote, "[l]aw student mental health is at an all-time low." The American Bar Association (ABA) has conducted a study that shows how this environment tends to contribute to high rates of mental health disorders and substance abuse. In an effort to face this challenge, LSM has launched the Wellness Program—focused on providing students resources and discussions to face this issue, together.   In this special episode, Michelle Williams talks to Ken Sande about relational wisdom, emotional intelligence, and developing healthy habits in navigating the challenges of legal pratice.  Helpful resources for continuing education: Relational Wisdom 360 [Home Page] A Stolen Baby, $200M Lawsuit and an Astonishing Reconciliation [READ] Attorneys as Peacemakers and Conciliators [PDF]  Reconciled by a Baby Moose [READ] Lincoln's Relational Wisdom [READ] Emotional Intelligence for (Secular) Attorneys [READ] For more with Ken Sande, listen to our other conversatioin here. Link to SUBSTACK here. Music Credit: Tokyo Music Walker  

It is no secret that law students and attorneys exist in a stressful environment. As Amy Levin recently wrote, "[l]aw student mental health is at an all-time low." The American Bar Association (ABA) has conducted a study that shows how this environment tends to contribute to high rates of mental health disorders and substance abuse. In an effort to face this challenge, LSM has launched the Wellness Program—focused on providing students resources and discussions to face this issue, together. Our first episode was with Ruth Haley Barton on Establishing Rhythms & Abiding in God (here). Our second was with Dr. Barbara L. Peacock on developing spiritual disciplines for soul care (here). On this episode, we are joined by Starr Tomczak to discuss her brand new book called Living Well: Inspired by the Story behind the Bible. Starr not only went to law school and had a succesful law practice as a corporate lawyer, but she also felt the calling to enter seminary and eventually write this book. She has a BA from Carleton College, a JD from New York University Law School, and an MDiv from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Check out her website here. Music Credit(s): Tokyo Music Walker & Rexlambo.

It is no secret that law students and attorneys exist in a stressful environment. As Amy Levin recently wrote, "[l]aw student mental health is at an all-time low." The American Bar Association (ABA) has conducted a study that shows how this environment tends to contribute to high rates of mental health disorders and substance abuse. In an effort to face this challenge, LSM has launched the Wellness Program—focused on providing students resources and discussions to face this issue, together. Our first episode was with Ruth Haley Barton on Establishing Rhythms & Abiding in God (here). This week, we are joined by Dr. Barbara L. Peacock to talk about spiritual disciplines as soul care. Dr. Peacock is the author of the award-winning book Soul Care in African American Practice (book + workbook). Her newest book is Spiritual Practices for Soul Care 40 Ways to Deepen your Faith (buy). She is passionate about the disciplines of prayer, spiritual direction (soul care), lectio, and visio divina. In 2013 she founded Barbara L. Peacock Ministries. This ministry is committed to providing safe spaces for encounters with God. She founded Peacock Soul Care, whose mission is focused on nurturing souls, educating minds, and cultivating spirituality through soul care and spiritual experiences. Her personal website is here. Her ministry website is here. Music Credit(s): Tokyo Music Walker & Rexlambo.

Dr. Gee talks to Michelle Behnke about how she is motivated by the commitment of the The American Bar Association (ABA) to make the nation and their community better. Michelle is inspired by the ABA's mission of defending liberty and pursuing justice through professional development throughout the nation. They discuss how to encourage Black people to stay in Madison by creating the community for them and how to be the change they want to see. In their experience, to be successful in the local community they have had to be “Bilingual” by knowing how to interact with both the Black community and the white professional community. Listen in to hear about what Michelle calls the “Multiple Realities.” Michelle joined Boardman Clark in 2024 after being elected the 2025 – 2026 president of the American Bar Association (ABA). Outside of her role with the ABA, Michelle has a broad practice, including business and commercial real estate. She is also active in her community and has served on a number of boards including SSM Healthcare of Wisconsin and Dean Health Plan, Inc. alexgee.com Support the Show: patreon.com/blacklikeme Join the Black Like Me Listener Community Facebook Group

This Day in Legal History: Camp David AccordsOn September 11, 1978, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat reached a historic agreement at Camp David, laying the foundation for peace between Israel and Egypt. The Camp David Accords, brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, marked the first time an Arab nation had agreed to recognize Israel, a significant diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East. The accords outlined a framework for peace that included the eventual return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, which had been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War, and the establishment of normalized diplomatic and economic relations.The agreement was formalized in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed in 1979. This peace treaty not only ended decades of conflict between the two nations but also set a precedent for future Arab-Israeli negotiations. The accords earned Sadat and Begin the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978, though Sadat's willingness to make peace with Israel led to his assassination in 1981 by Egyptian extremists. Despite challenges, the treaty has endured, making Egypt the first Arab country to formally make peace with Israel, reshaping geopolitics in the region and establishing the U.S. as a key mediator in Middle East peace efforts.A recent American Bar Association (ABA) survey reveals that financial stress and anxiety affect two-thirds of young lawyers, with student loan debt significantly shaping their career and life choices. The survey, conducted by the ABA's Young Lawyers Division and AccessLex Institute, found that 68% of respondents with student loans felt stressed or anxious due to their debt, while 67% of all young lawyers, regardless of loans, reported financial stress. Many respondents, particularly those owing $100,000 or more, said their debt led to feelings of depression or hopelessness. The survey also showed that student debt delays major life events like marriage and homeownership for 76% of participants. Most respondents borrowed for law school, with a median debt of $137,500. Additionally, 27% reported owing more now than at graduation due to income-based repayment plans. Despite financial challenges, 74% of young lawyers would still pursue a law degree, and 65% would attend the same law school. Public service loan forgiveness programs and Biden administration debt relief efforts have provided some support, though many obstacles remain.Financial stress and anxiety plagues two-thirds of young lawyers, ABA survey finds | ReutersThe U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a six-month stopgap funding bill proposed by Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, aimed at preventing a government shutdown before the fiscal year ends on September 30. The bill faces opposition from Democrats, primarily due to a provision that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, a measure seen as politically charged ahead of the November elections. Former President Donald Trump has urged Republicans to pass this voting measure. However, some Republicans oppose the stopgap due to spending concerns, and two Republicans joined Democrats in blocking a procedural vote to advance the bill.If passed in the House, the bill faces an uphill battle in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the proposal as overly partisan, while the White House has indicated President Biden would veto the bill. Biden's administration is pushing for a shorter funding extension and more disaster relief funding. Additionally, Congress faces a critical January 1 deadline to address the nation's debt ceiling, risking default if no action is taken.US House set to vote on Republican-backed stopgap funding measure | ReutersThree former Memphis police officers are standing trial in federal court for their involvement in the January 2023 death of Tyre Nichols, a Black motorist whose brutal beating by police officers led to widespread outrage and police reform. Video footage showed five officers kicking, punching, and using pepper spray and a baton on Nichols, who died three days later in a hospital. Two of the five officers have pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges, leaving three facing trial, where they could face life in prison if convicted.The incident reignited concerns about racism and police brutality in the U.S., prompting reforms in Memphis, such as disbanding the specialized police unit involved in the incident and implementing stricter traffic stop protocols. The officers also face second-degree murder charges in a separate state case, which has been postponed until after the federal trial. Nichols' family has filed a $550 million lawsuit against the city, seeking damages to push for further changes in police practices nationwide.In response to the assault, additional officers were either fired or suspended, and several fire department employees involved in the incident were also dismissed.Three Memphis police officers go on trial in death of Tyre Nichols | ReutersThe Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of University of Georgia students, alleging discrimination against individuals of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim descent. The complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education, claims the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding. According to CAIR, pro-Palestinian students faced harassment following the escalation of conflict in Gaza, and the university failed to adequately address or prevent this discrimination.The University of Georgia responded by emphasizing its support for free speech and non-discrimination policies, while also maintaining that it enforces rules against policy violations. The complaint comes amid widespread protests across U.S. campuses concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which have seen instances of both antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric. The conflict has led to heightened tensions and a broader discussion on human rights, discrimination, and free speech in academic settings.Muslim advocacy group files civil rights complaint against University of Georgia | 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

This Day in Legal History: American Bar Association FoundedOn August 21, 1878, the American Bar Association (ABA) was founded in Saratoga Springs, New York, by a group of 75 lawyers committed to advancing the legal profession in the United States. The ABA quickly became the nation's premier organization for attorneys, setting standards for legal education, ethics, and professional conduct. It played a crucial role in shaping American jurisprudence, advocating for legal reforms, and providing resources for continuing legal education. Over the decades, the ABA influenced significant legal developments, including the establishment of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which guide attorney ethics nationwide.However, from 2009 to 2019, the ABA saw a substantial decline in membership, reflecting broader challenges within the legal profession, such as the rising cost of legal education, the changing dynamics of legal practice, and competition from other professional organizations. Despite these challenges, the ABA remains a key player in the legal field, continuing to influence policy and uphold the standards of the profession. Its founding marks a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, representing the formalization of efforts to unify and elevate the practice of law across the country.George Santos, a former U.S. congressman representing Queens and Long Island, has pleaded guilty to fraud and identity theft charges, agreeing to serve a minimum of two years in prison. U.S. Attorney Breon Peace highlighted that Santos' acceptance of mandatory prison time was a critical factor in finalizing the recent plea agreement. Originally charged with fabricating fundraising figures and falsifying extensive parts of his biography during his congressional campaign, Santos was expelled from Congress in 2023. The 36-year-old now faces a potential maximum sentence of 22 years, with sentencing set for February 7 by Judge Joanna Seybert. Despite pleading guilty to only two counts, Santos admitted wrongdoing in all 23 original charges, which may influence the severity of his sentence. Peace emphasized the significance of holding corrupt public officials accountable to maintain public trust in governmental institutions.Recent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of what constitutes bribery under federal law, impacting how prosecutors approach corruption cases. In June, the Court decided that accepting gratuities after performing an official act does not violate federal bribery statutes for state and local officials. Another ruling limited the application of honest services fraud charges to non-government individuals, further restricting prosecutorial avenues. These decisions present challenges for federal prosecutors, who must now navigate a more constrained legal framework when pursuing corruption charges. Despite these obstacles, prosecutors like Peace remain committed to holding public officials accountable by adapting their strategies within the revised legal boundaries. Understanding these Supreme Court decisions is crucial for comprehending the current landscape of political corruption prosecutions and the efforts required to secure convictions.Mandatory prison was key to George Santos deal, US prosecutor says | ReutersAnthropic PBC is facing a copyright lawsuit from authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who allege that the company used pirated versions of their works to train its AI model, "Claude." The authors claim that Anthropic used an open-source dataset called The Pile, which included a subset known as "Books3" containing nearly 200,000 pirated books, including their own. Although Books3 was removed from The Pile in August 2023, older versions with the pirated content remain available. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Anthropic of training its AI on this illegally obtained content instead of properly licensing it, likening the situation to a "modern-day Napster."The authors argue that Anthropic's actions harm their ability to earn a living by enabling users to generate text that would otherwise be paid for, thereby undermining the licensing market for copyrighted material. They pointed out that other AI companies, such as OpenAI, Google, and Meta, have struck licensing deals with content owners, highlighting a growing market for legally licensed training data. In a related issue, Anthropic is also being sued by eight music publishers for allegedly using its AI to reproduce song lyrics scraped from the internet. The authors' complaint criticizes Anthropic for claiming to be a public benefit company while allegedly causing significant harm to copyright owners.Anthropic Hit With Copyright Suit From Authors Over Flagship AIA bill passed by the U.S. Senate to add 66 new judges to federal district courts is projected to increase government spending by $349 million over the next decade, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The bill, known as the JUDGES Act, represents the first significant expansion of the judiciary since 1990 and aims to alleviate the increasing caseloads and staffing shortages in several states, including California, Texas, and Delaware. The bill plans to gradually create these judicial positions, including 63 permanent and three temporary ones, starting in January 2025.The CBO estimates that $98 million of the total cost will cover the salaries and benefits of the new judges, which are constitutionally protected and not subject to congressional appropriation. The remaining $250 million will cover administrative costs, including court staff, facilities, security, and technology. Additionally, the bill mandates that the Government Accountability Office report on judges' caseloads and federal detention space needs, which would cost $1 million over the same period.Despite the projected costs, supporters of the bill, including lead sponsor Senator Todd Young, argue that the cost of inaction would be higher, as delays in the judicial system could deny citizens timely access to justice. The bill now awaits consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives.Bill to add 66 US judges would cost $349 mln over a decade, CBO says | ReutersA federal judge in Dallas has blocked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from enforcing its near-total ban on noncompete agreements, which was set to take effect in September. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown ruled that the FTC lacked the authority to implement the ban, describing it as "unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation." This ruling, favoring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a Texas tax firm that challenged the ban, is a significant setback for the FTC. The decision contrasts with a prior ruling by a Pennsylvania judge who supported the FTC's authority.The FTC argued that noncompete agreements harm workers by restricting economic freedom, depressing wages, and limiting innovation, while employers claim they protect investments in employees. Currently, about 20% of U.S. workers are subject to these agreements. Although the FTC planned to use its authority to ban noncompetes as part of its mission to prevent unfair competition, Judge Brown's ruling could lead to an appeal, potentially to the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is one of three ongoing lawsuits against the FTC's rule, with other cases pending in Florida and Pennsylvania.FTC Ban on Worker Noncompete Deals Blocked by Federal Judge (2)US judge strikes down Biden administration ban on worker 'noncompete' agreements | 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

This Day in Legal History: Grant Signs the General Amnesty ActOn May 22, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the General Amnesty Act, marking a significant moment in the post-Civil War reconstruction era. This legislation restored voting rights to most former Confederate rebels who had been disenfranchised under the Fourteenth Amendment as a punishment for their participation in the rebellion. The Act effectively re-integrated approximately 150,000 Southern men back into the political process, leaving only about 500 individuals still excluded from voting and holding office due to their high-ranking roles in the Confederacy.This move was seen as a step towards national reconciliation, aiming to heal the divisions caused by the Civil War. The General Amnesty Act reflected a shift in federal policy from punitive measures towards a more inclusive approach to rebuilding the nation. It acknowledged the need to bring Southern states fully back into the Union by restoring their citizens' civil rights.The process of granting amnesty to former Confederates culminated in full universal amnesty on June 6, 1898. By this time, all remaining restrictions were lifted, allowing every former Confederate the right to vote and hold office. This complete restoration of rights underscored the nation's commitment to moving past its divided history and fostering unity among its citizens. The General Amnesty Act of 1872 was a crucial step in this lengthy process of reconciliation and reintegration.Rudolph Giuliani reached an agreement in bankruptcy court preventing him from making further defamatory statements about Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' Arshaye “Shaye” Moss. This accord, set to be approved by Judge Sean H. Lane, follows accusations from Freeman and Moss that Giuliani defamed them during an April livestream. They are also pursuing a $148 million defamation verdict awarded to them in December for Giuliani's false claims of voter fraud. Freeman and Moss had filed a lawsuit on May 10, alleging Giuliani continued his defamatory actions. Giuliani's radio show was canceled earlier this month amid these allegations.Giuliani Signs Bankruptcy Court Deal Barring Further DefamationPresident Joe Biden is poised to secure his 200th judicial appointment with the U.S. Senate set to confirm U.S. Magistrate Judge Angela Martinez as a district court judge in Arizona. This achievement surpasses the pace set by his predecessor, Donald Trump, despite initial challenges due to a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Biden's success in confirming judicial nominees, facilitated by deals with Republican senators, contrasts with Trump's more conservative appointments, which shifted the federal judiciary rightward, including the Supreme Court. Biden has focused on diversity, with two-thirds of his appointees being women and a significant proportion being racial minorities. Despite potential hurdles, the White House aims to continue pushing nominations to avoid more extreme outcomes in future judicial appointments.Biden to secure 200th judicial confirmation as election looms | ReutersThe Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) has filed complaints against the American Bar Association (ABA), a federal judge, and three law schools, alleging discrimination in student hiring programs. WILL claims these programs violate federal law by using racial quotas and preferences, which they argue have long been illegal. The complaint, filed with the Justice and Education Departments, targets programs that allegedly favor applicants based on race, age, and sexual orientation. South Texas College, the University of the Pacific, and Willamette University are also named in the complaint. Additionally, WILL filed a complaint against Federal Magistrate Judge Leo Brisbois, accusing him of discriminatory practices in ABA's internship and clerkship programs. These actions follow the Supreme Court's 2023 decision to end affirmative action in college admissions. Other conservative groups have similarly challenged diversity programs at major law firms and universities, claiming discrimination against white men.ABA Faces Discrimination Complaint Over Student Hiring ProgramsThe House Energy and Commerce Committee will be holding a legislative hearing today, titled “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” This hearing aims to discuss draft legislation that would terminate Section 230 and push for new regulations.For those unaware, we have covered Section 230 in a Max Min episode, available via a link in the shownotes. By way of brief background here, or reminder for long time listeners, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996, is a crucial piece of U.S. legislation that provides immunity to online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users. This law enables websites, including social media networks and forums, to host user-generated content without the risk of facing lawsuits for defamation, libel, or other legal issues arising from that content. Additionally, Section 230 allows platforms to moderate content in good faith, giving them the flexibility to remove or restrict access to content they consider objectionable without being treated as the publisher of that content. This framework has been key in fostering the growth and diversity of the internet as we know it today–for better or worse.While reforming Section 230 has been a contentious topic, sunsetting the law at this juncture is a misguided approach. Much of the internet's infrastructure relies on the protections offered by Section 230, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. This admittedly jerry-rigged but essential policy enables the free flow of information and supports innovation by allowing platforms to host diverse viewpoints without fear of constant litigation. Over the last 26 years it has unquestionably done more to shield marginalized communities from the most virulent hate speech than it has been used as cover for bad actors and, while it also unquestionably needs tweaking, it needn't be discarded entirely. Removing the protections of Section 230 could immediately and irrevocably stifle innovation and severely impact small platforms that cannot afford extensive moderation. Although Section 230 is not perfect, completely eliminating it without a robust and well-considered replacement could lead to more harm than good. It is crucial that any legislative changes balance the need for accountability with the preservation of the open internet.Bipartisan Energy and Commerce Leaders Announce Legislative Hearing on Sunsetting Section 230 Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Beatles Sign 10 Year Partnership AgreementOn this day in legal history, April 19, 1967, The Beatles, comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, entered into a significant legal agreement that aimed to bind them together as a group for another decade. The partnership deed they signed not only reflected their intent to continue collaborating but also legally formalized the business side of their operations amid their skyrocketing fame.However, the unity that this agreement sought to solidify began to unravel just a few years later. Despite their intentions in 1967, The Beatles faced increasing personal and creative differences which led to their disbandment in 1970, a full seven years short of the agreement's term. The disintegration of their partnership led to one of the most famous legal cases in music history.Paul McCartney took the lead in legally challenging the partnership. In December 1970, he filed a suit against the other members to dissolve The Beatles' contractual partnership. McCartney's move was a response to managerial disputes, particularly concerning Allen Klein, whom John, George, and Ringo favored to manage their business affairs, a decision Paul vehemently opposed.The legal battle that ensued was fraught with emotional and financial tension, highlighting the complexities of music rights, personal relationships, and business interests intertwined within the band. McCartney sought the appointment of a receiver to manage the group's finances, effectively protecting his earnings from decisions made by Klein, whom he distrusted.The court ultimately ruled in McCartney's favor in 1971, leading to the official legal dissolution of The Beatles' partnership. This case not only marked the end of one of the most successful musical collaborations in history but also set a precedent in how legal disputes within bands were viewed and handled in the future.The dissolution of The Beatles not only reshaped their personal and professional lives but also impacted the music industry, emphasizing the importance of legal agreements in artistic collaborations. While their music continues to influence generations, the legal battles they endured serve as a cautionary tale about the potential complexities of combining creative endeavors with business interests.Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders and Locke Lord, two prominent law firms, are currently in discussions about a potential merger that would significantly elevate their market position. If successful, the merger would create a powerhouse legal firm with over 1,600 lawyers and revenues surpassing $1.5 billion, positioning it among the top 30 largest firms by revenue. This strategic alignment is driven by complementary strengths in corporate, litigation, and real estate practices, with both firms having a robust presence in these areas.The merger would also expand Troutman Pepper's geographic footprint into Texas, a key market due to its burgeoning energy sector, where Locke Lord already has established offices in Houston, Dallas, and Austin. This move reflects a broader trend of consolidation within the legal industry, where smaller firms merge to compete more effectively against larger rivals, enhancing their scope, talent pool, and profitability.This discussion is part of an ongoing wave of mergers in the legal sector, highlighting a competitive push among firms outside the Am Law 200 to scale up operations and extend their market influence. Both firms have a history of mergers, with Troutman Pepper emerging from a 2020 merger and Locke Lord from several mergers, the most recent in 2015. These consolidations have historically aided in growth and market presence, as seen in their revenue and lawyer count increases over the years. The potential merger aims to leverage these synergies to create a more formidable competitor in the legal market.Troutman Pepper, Locke Lord Discuss a New $1.5 Billion Firm (2)The legal battle between Jones Day and Soverain Software, which began over two decades ago, continues to unravel in the courts. Initially, Jones Day helped Soverain secure a $40 million settlement from Amazon in a patent infringement suit in 2005. However, tensions arose when Soverain only paid Jones Day $22 million of the fees before their relationship deteriorated in 2010 during a lawsuit against Newegg, where Soverain won significantly less than the $34 million it sought.The dispute escalated when Jones Day claimed that Soverain had not paid all the fees owed, leading to a $1.5 million arbitration award in favor of Jones Day in 2015. Jones Day accuses Soverain of creating a complex scheme to avoid payment, including fraudulent transfers of funds involving Soverain's founder and former chief legal officer.Soverain, known for its aggressive patent litigation over online shopping cart technology, faced a major setback when key patents were invalidated in 2013, diminishing its revenue potential. Despite this, Jones Day alleges that Soverain and its executives engaged in financial maneuvers to siphon funds, complicating the firm's efforts to collect its fees.Currently, the legal wrangling involves attempts by Jones Day to enforce the arbitration award, while Soverain challenges the validity of the claim, arguing it was filed too late. The saga highlights ongoing issues in the legal industry related to client relationships, fee disputes, and the challenges of enforcing legal payments.Jones Day's Messy Split From Client Fuels Long-Running Fee FightIn a significant legal development, lawyers have completed the selection of 12 jurors for the landmark criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump in New York. This trial, notable for being the first in which a former president stands as a defendant, involves allegations that Trump falsified business records to conceal a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. The selection process was marked by challenges, including the dismissal of potential jurors who felt they could not remain impartial, reflecting Trump's polarizing influence.The trial has already seen its share of drama, with the early dismissal of jurors—one due to intimidation concerns after her personal information was inadvertently revealed, and another for failing to disclose previous legal issues. These incidents underscore the heightened tensions surrounding the trial. The jury's task is complicated by the intense public and media scrutiny, as well as Trump's frequent critiques of the legal process and those involved, which has led to concerns about juror safety and the integrity of the trial process.Justice Juan Merchan, overseeing the trial, has implemented measures to protect jurors' anonymity and limit media coverage of certain details to prevent potential harassment. As the trial moves forward, with opening statements expected soon, the world watches closely. This case not only holds significant legal ramifications for Trump, who faces multiple criminal cases, but also carries substantial political implications, especially with Trump's ongoing presidential campaign. The outcome could influence public perception and the political landscape significantly.Lawyers select 12 jurors to serve in Trump hush-money case | ReutersMore than one-third of U.S. law school deans have expressed opposition to a new proposal by the American Bar Association (ABA) aimed at enforcing greater uniformity across law school courses. The proposal has sparked concerns about the ABA's increasing control over academic freedom and the curriculum design within law schools. Seventy-six deans from ABA-accredited schools, including prominent institutions like New York University, Georgetown, and the University of Michigan, have publicly criticized the initiative.Proponents of the proposal argue that establishing more uniform required classes and specific learning goals for each course would ensure that students possess a consistent foundational knowledge, which would support their overall education and benefit faculty teaching advanced courses. This group includes influential figures such as former ABA legal education administrator Barry Currier and several law professors actively involved in student outcomes and assessment.The ABA has outlined that the revised standards would clarify expectations and requirements, moving away from the current broad standards. This adjustment is intended to help law schools more clearly understand and meet accreditation requirements, with the proposal necessitating that law schools regularly review and revise their academic programs every five years.Critics, however, argue that the proposal infringes on the academic freedom of professors and imposes significant administrative burdens on schools. They contend that it unnecessarily dictates specific learning outcomes and course alignments that could stifle educational innovation and diversity in teaching methods.The proposed changes also include new requirements for first-year classes, such as early assessments to provide students with feedback before final exams and mandated academic support for students who underperform. With the comment period now closed, the ABA's legal education council is expected to consider the feedback and make a decision on the proposal at its next meeting on May 17. The ongoing debate highlights a broader tension between regulatory oversight and academic independence in legal education.Law deans balk at course uniformity proposed by American Bar Association | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born on January 27, 1756, in Salzburg, Austria, is one of the most prolific and influential composers of the Classical era. His father, Leopold Mozart, a noted violinist and composer in his own right, was instrumental in nurturing his son's prodigious talent. Mozart showed early signs of genius, mastering keyboard and violin by the age of five and composing by the age of five and a half. His extensive tours of Europe as a child wunderkind brought him into contact with a wide array of musical styles and influential composers, which shaped his own unique compositional voice.Mozart's works encompass all genres of his time, including symphonies, operas, solo concertos, chamber music, and choral music, showcasing his remarkable versatility and creativity. His music is celebrated for its melodic beauty, formal elegance, and rich harmonic and instrumental textures. Despite his profound musical output, Mozart's life was marked by financial instability and he died prematurely at the age of 35 on December 5, 1791, in Vienna, leaving behind an enduring legacy.One of Mozart's lighter, yet deeply admired works is the "Serenade in G Major," also known as "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" (A Little Night Music). Composed in 1787, the same year as his opera "Don Giovanni," this piece exemplifies Mozart's ability to infuse charm and sophistication into his compositions. The second movement, "Romance," is particularly notable for its lyrical and tender qualities. It begins with a gentle, soothing melody that exudes calmness and reflective poise, then transitions into a minor mode that adds a touch of drama before returning to the tranquil themes of the opening. This movement, like the rest of the serenade, is a wonderful example of Mozart's genius in creating music that is both accessible and complex, embodying the elegance and grace of the Classical style. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ethical considerations form the backbone of the legal profession, guiding attorneys in their conduct and decision-making throughout the civil litigation process. The ethical landscape attorneys navigate is complex, marked by both longstanding principles and evolving standards that respond to contemporary legal challenges. This discourse delves into the ethical obligations of attorneys, common ethical dilemmas faced during civil litigation, and recent developments and emerging trends in civil procedure law that impact ethical practice. Professional Responsibility in Civil Litigation The ethical obligations of attorneys in civil litigation are grounded in a set of core principles: competence, confidentiality, loyalty, and the duty to the court. These principles are encapsulated in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA), which serve as the benchmark for legal ethics in the United States, albeit with variations across jurisdictions. Competence (Rule 1.1 of MRPC): Attorneys are required to provide competent representation to their clients, which means having the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. This obligation emphasizes the need for continuous education and staying abreast of the latest legal developments and procedural rules. Confidentiality (Rule 1.6 of MRPC): Lawyers must protect the confidentiality of information relating to the representation of a client. This duty persists beyond the termination of the attorney-client relationship and extends to all information acquired during the course of the representation, regardless of the source or whether the client has requested confidentiality. Loyalty and Conflict of Interest (Rules 1.7-1.9 of MRPC): Attorneys owe a duty of loyalty to their clients, which necessitates avoiding conflicts of interest. This includes not representing clients with opposing interests without informed consent and not representing a new client in a matter that is materially adverse to a former client. Duty to the Court: Beyond their obligations to clients, attorneys have a duty to the court to conduct litigation with integrity, respect, and in a manner that upholds the dignity of the judicial process. This includes avoiding frivolous claims, ensuring that evidence is not falsified, and respecting the bounds of the law in advocacy. Ethical Dilemmas in Civil Litigation Civil litigation often presents attorneys with ethical dilemmas that test their commitment to these principles. Common ethical challenges include: Client Pressure to Pursue Questionable Claims: Attorneys may face pressure from clients to pursue claims or defenses that have little to no legal merit. The ethical attorney must balance the duty to advocate zealously for the client with the obligation not to file frivolous claims or make unwarranted arguments. Discovery Abuses: The discovery process can be a battleground for ethical misconduct, including withholding relevant documents, delaying responses, or submitting overly broad discovery requests as a tactic to burden the opposing party. Ethical attorneys must navigate these challenges by adhering to the rules of discovery and advocating for fair, efficient resolution of disputes. Conflicts of Interest: Situations may arise where an attorney's ability to represent a client is materially limited by a personal interest or a duty to another client, former client, or third party. Navigating such conflicts requires careful analysis, transparency, and, in many cases, the informed consent of the affected parties. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Day in Legal History: United States v. PetersOn this day in legal history, February 20, 1809, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in United States v. Peters, fundamentally shaping the balance of power between federal and state authorities in the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall, presiding over the case, issued a ruling that underscored the supremacy of the federal judiciary over individual states, a principle that has remained a cornerstone of American constitutional law. The decision held, in relevant part:“If the legislatures of the several states may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the Nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.”Marshall's decision came at a time when the young nation was grappling with the delineation of powers between state and federal governments. His ruling made it unequivocally clear that state legislatures cannot annul judgments made by federal courts, nor can they interfere with rights established under such judgments. This was a decisive moment that reinforced the framework of federalism in the United States, ensuring that the Constitution and federal laws would not be undermined by state actions.The case itself revolved around a complex dispute involving a seized ship, but its implications went far beyond the immediate legal question, addressing the fundamental structure of American governance. Marshall's eloquent assertion that allowing state legislatures to override federal court decisions would reduce the Constitution to a "solemn mockery" and strip the nation of its ability to enforce its laws through its own tribunals, resonated deeply. United States v. Peters thus stands as a pivotal moment in the annals of American legal history, affirming the principle of federal supremacy and the crucial role of the federal judiciary in maintaining the constitutional balance. This decision has echoed through centuries, influencing countless rulings and shaping the understanding of the relationship between state and federal powers in the United States.George Santos, a former New York Representative, initiated legal action against comedian Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and the Walt Disney Co. in federal court over allegations that a prank involving Cameo videos aired on Kimmel's late-night show infringed on his copyright. Santos, having joined Cameo after his expulsion from the House, claims that Kimmel used pseudonyms to request at least 14 videos, which were then broadcasted on television and shared online, a move Santos argues goes beyond the personal use license stipulated by Cameo's terms of service. The lawsuit alleges that Kimmel's actions, including the fraudulent induction for creating the videos and breach of contract, resulted in unauthorized commercial exploitation of Santos' content. Santos is seeking $150,000 in damages for each act of infringement, alongside further damages and a permanent injunction to prevent future broadcasts and distributions of the contested videos. The case, highlighting issues around copyright and the boundaries of digital content use, is currently pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.George Santos Sues Jimmy Kimmel for Airing Prank Cameo VideosThe U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating a significant case brought by Corner Post, a convenience store in North Dakota, which challenges the Federal Reserve's rule on debit card "swipe fees." This rule, established in 2011, sets a maximum fee that businesses must pay to banks for debit card transactions at 21 cents. Corner Post's lawsuit, which was dismissed by lower courts, contests the regulation on the grounds it is excessively burdensome and was initiated too late, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply to them since they began operations in 2018, beyond the standard six-year challenge period.This case has attracted attention from various conservative and business groups, including Charles Koch's network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, advocating for businesses' ability to challenge regulations they find onerous. On the opposite side, the Biden administration, representing the Federal Reserve, warns that Corner Post's argument could lead to an increase in legal challenges against government regulations, burdening agencies and courts.Small business associations have urged the Supreme Court to enforce a strict statute of limitations starting when a regulation is finalized, arguing that extending this period could result in regulatory inconsistency and chaos. The background of the dispute traces back to before the imposition of the cap, when retailers often paid up to 44 cents per swipe, a cost they argued was particularly onerous for small businesses. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law's Durbin amendment directed the Fed to cap these fees, which led to the current cap of 21 cents per transaction, although this was contested by retailers who anticipated a lower limit.In 2021, Corner Post filed a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve in North Dakota, claiming the rule contradicted congressional intent and was arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor dismissed the case based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, a decision upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Supreme Court weighs in, with a decision expected by the end of June, the Fed has proposed reducing the cap further to 14.4 cents per transaction, a proposal currently under public review.US Supreme Court weighs bid to challenge debit card 'swipe fee' rule | ReutersJD-Next, an innovative law school admissions program, is under consideration by the American Bar Association (ABA) for approval as a valid predictor of law school performance, similar to the LSAT and GRE. This comes at a crucial time, as nearly 50 law schools have sought ABA permission to use JD-Next scores for admissions following the U.S. Supreme Court's restrictions on race consideration in college admissions. The program, developed by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law with support from AccessLex Institute and Educational Testing Service, aims to address racial score disparities evident in traditional standardized tests. Unlike the LSAT and GRE, JD-Next includes an eight-week online course on contracts, ending with a law school-style exam. The program, operational at a cost of $299 to participants, is seen as a tool for promoting equity, diversity, and efficiency in law school admissions. The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is deliberating whether to fully recognize JD-Next, maintain the current need for special permission for its use, or discontinue its sanctioned use in admissions. This decision is pivotal for the future of law school admissions, signaling a potential shift towards more inclusive and accessible evaluation methods.Law school admissions program JD-Next seeks ABA's blessing | ReutersIn my column, I delve into the contentious issue of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, emphasizing the need for policy reform that eliminates the so-called marriage penalty and introduces an income limit. The current cap, set in 2017, doesn't allow married couples to double the deduction granted to single filers, a discrepancy that has sparked debate and failed reform attempts, most recently in the House this past February. I argue that while raising the cap could offer tax relief to some, it risks exacerbating housing affordability issues by increasing demand and, consequently, prices in high-tax states.The SALT deduction cap's impact on housing markets is profound, particularly in states where supply struggles to meet demand. The cap effectively raises taxable income for homeowners by limiting the amount of state property and sales or income tax they can deduct. This not only affects individual home buyers' budgets but also their eligibility for loans, ultimately influencing the socioeconomic fabric of communities.I propose a nuanced approach to reform: eliminating the marriage penalty but implementing an income phaseout. This would ensure fairness without negatively impacting the housing market. An income limit, particularly one that phases out above the upper level of the middle-income range, would offer relief to the middle class while minimizing unintended market consequences. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that doubling the SALT cap for married filers making less than $500,000 would cost $22 billion over ten years, suggesting a targeted approach could be more financially sustainable.The political landscape complicates the path to reform, with recent opposition from Democrats highlighting the challenges of achieving bipartisan consensus. However, the fact that states most affected by the SALT cap are often Democratic strongholds suggests that opposition may be more about political dynamics than policy substance. I conclude that despite these challenges, advocates for SALT reform should continue their efforts, aiming for a compromise that addresses the marriage penalty and income disparities. This approach not only aligns with principles of equity and efficiency but also offers a pragmatic solution to a complex problem, potentially paving the way for rare bipartisan agreement in a politically charged environment.SALT Deduction Should Cut Marriage Penalty and Add Income Limit Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Alabama Admitted as 22nd StateOn this day in legal history, December 14 marks a significant milestone for the state of Alabama and the United States. On December 14, 1819, Alabama was formally admitted as the twenty-second state in the Union. This momentous event came after a period of rapid growth and settlement in the region, which was initially part of the Mississippi Territory. The admission of Alabama into the Union was not just a geographic expansion; it was a significant legal and political event. It reflected the ongoing debates and complexities of American federalism, state sovereignty, and the balance of power between the northern and southern states. The Constitution of Alabama, first adopted in 1819, laid the foundation for the state's legal and governmental structure, embodying principles of democracy and governance that were essential to the young nation.The original Alabama Constitution, like many state constitutions of the era, was heavily influenced by the U.S. Constitution. It established a framework for state government, including executive, legislative, and judicial branches, while also reflecting the social and economic conditions of the time. For instance, it included provisions related to land ownership, state boundaries, and the rights of individuals, all crucial aspects of state governance and individual liberties.Over the years, the Constitution of Alabama has undergone several revisions and amendments, reflecting the changing needs and values of the state's population. These changes have addressed issues such as civil rights, electoral processes, and the structure of state government, showing the dynamic nature of constitutional law within a state context.The admission of Alabama as a state is not just a historical footnote; it represents a pivotal moment in the development of the United States' legal and political landscape. It highlights the evolving nature of statehood and federalism in American history and serves as a reminder of the complex legal heritage that has shaped the nation. By examining the Constitution of Alabama and its history, one gains insight into the broader narrative of state and national development in the United States.A recent development in law school admissions has seen a growing number of institutions moving away from relying solely on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) for student admissions. This shift is partly in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on race-conscious admissions, as law schools seek alternative methods to foster diversity in their student bodies.Georgetown University Law Center and Washburn University School of Law have received approval from the American Bar Association (ABA) to admit some students without considering the LSAT. Additionally, 14 other law schools have been permitted to use the JD-Next program for admissions. This program involves an eight-week series of online legal courses, culminating in an exam. In total, 47 out of 197 ABA-accredited U.S. law schools are now cleared to use JD-Next this year.The LSAT has been a traditional staple in law school admissions, but its role has been scrutinized due to concerns over potential biases and its impact on minority applicants. Critics argue that the LSAT poses a significant barrier to aspiring minority lawyers, citing that minority test-takers generally score lower than their white counterparts. A 2019 study highlighted this disparity, with average scores for Black LSAT takers at 142, compared to 153 for white and Asian test-takers. The Law School Admission Council, however, maintains that the LSAT is the best predictor of law school performance.In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, law schools are exploring different ways to assess and admit diverse student groups without considering race. For instance, Georgetown plans to admit up to 10 students into its part-time evening program without standardized test scores, focusing instead on applicants' life and work experiences. Washburn Law's program is targeted at Washburn University undergraduates with a minimum GPA requirement, offering guaranteed admission and using the LSAT only for merit aid decisions, not admissions.This trend reflects a broader shift in college admissions, as institutions seek to adapt to legal changes and evolving perspectives on diversity and educational equity.Law schools embrace LSAT alternatives after affirmative action ban | ReutersElon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and the world's richest person, is set to confront the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a San Francisco court over his testimony regarding his takeover of Twitter. The SEC has sued Musk to compel him to provide further testimony as part of their investigation into his 2022 purchase of Twitter, which he later renamed X. The probe is focused on whether Musk adhered to legal requirements when filing paperwork about his Twitter stock purchases and if his statements about the deal were misleading.This legal battle is the latest episode in a long-standing feud between Musk and the SEC, dating back to 2018. The SEC's interest in Musk's dealings with Twitter began in April 2022, when he first disclosed his stock purchases in the company. Although Musk has already provided documents and testified via videoconference for the SEC's investigation, the agency claims it has more questions following the receipt of new documents.Musk's lawyers have called the SEC's actions harassment and argue that individual SEC attorneys lack the authority to issue subpoenas for testimony. In contrast, the SEC maintains that its officials have the legal right to seek additional testimony as investigations progress.The upcoming court hearing, scheduled for Thursday at 9:30 a.m. PST, will see both sides presenting their arguments. The SEC must demonstrate that its probe is within its jurisdiction, follows procedural requirements, and that the sought evidence is relevant and material. Legal experts anticipate the judge may favor the SEC but could impose certain conditions.The conflict between Musk and the SEC goes back to his 2018 "funding secured" tweet, leading to a settlement with the SEC and subsequent legal actions, including a shareholder lawsuit which Musk won. The billionaire's relationship with Twitter has been complex, starting with his initial declaration of being a passive stakeholder, followed by an attempted withdrawal from the $44 billion takeover deal, and culminating in his eventual acquisition of the platform in late October 2022 after legal pressure.Elon Musk and SEC to face off in court over Twitter testimonyIn a federal court in Manhattan, an attorney representing Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's former lawyer, faced scrutiny for filing a motion seeking early termination of Cohen's supervised release. The motion contained citations to cases that were either irrelevant or entirely fabricated. The court ordered the attorney, David M. Schwartz, to explain these misleading citations by providing the actual cases or providing a written explanation by a specified date. Judge Jesse M. Furman expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the citations. One of the references cited as a Second Circuit case was actually a decision from the Fourth Circuit, unrelated to supervised release. Another citation led to a decision from the Board of Veterans Appeals, completely unrelated to the case context. The third citation seemed to have no basis in reality at all.Legal experts speculated that this might be a case of the attorney's misunderstanding or misrepresentation, possibly related to limitations in legal research tools. Schwartz faces possible monetary sanctions, but there's a possibility of more severe actions, such as referral to disciplinary authorities.A new attorney, E. Danya Perry, who took over Cohen's representation, acknowledged the errors in the citations and couldn't verify the referenced case law upon conducting her own research. She informed the court about these issues, maintaining ethical transparency.Perry, in her reply, mentioned different case law to support the motion for early termination of Cohen's release, expressing her belief in its merit. Judge Furman delayed judgment pending Schwartz's response to the order.As of the report, Schwartz hadn't responded to requests for comment. The case, known as United States v. Cohen, awaits further clarification and submissions as ordered by the court.Michael Cohen Lawyer Ordered to Explain Nonsense Case CitationsIn a patent dispute between Sonos Inc. and Google LLC, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) rejected Google's attempt to halt the import of Sonos' smart speakers. The products in question, including Sonos One, Move, Roam, Arc, Beam, and Era 100 and 300, were accused by Google of infringing patents.The ITC declined to review a judge's decision that found no infringement of valid claims from three patents held by Google.Judge Cameron Elliot's initial determination in September stated that Sonos hadn't violated US import laws as the claims it allegedly infringed upon were deemed invalid. Additionally, Google couldn't prove Sonos' infringement on another patent. Google sought a review of these findings, claiming errors in the judgment, but Sonos argued that Google failed to substantiate its grievances.This marks the most recent development in an extensive and convoluted patent battle between these companies, characterized by numerous petitions submitted to the ITC. Amidst this legal tussle, an eight-figure jury verdict was overturned, and a judge criticized the tactics employed in this dispute, labeling them as representative of the most contentious aspects of patent litigation.Sonos Beats Google Attempt to Block US Imports of Smart Speakers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On December 5th, a significant day in legal history, several pivotal events have shaped the legal landscape over the years–let's do a speed run: On this day in 1791, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one of history's most influential composers, died in Vienna, Austria. His death led to numerous speculations and legal inquiries, reflecting the intersection of law and the arts. More specifically, Mozart's untimely demise at the age of 35 spawned various theories, ranging from poisoning to severe illness, fueling debates and investigations that persisted for centuries. The legal scrutiny surrounding his death underscored the complexities of inheritance and authorship rights during a time when the concepts of intellectual property were still in their infancy.In the United States, December 5th, 1933, marked the end of Prohibition with the ratification of the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th Amendment. This legal reversal was a response to widespread public discontent with Prohibition and its ineffective enforcement, highlighting the dynamic nature of law and public opinion.In 1945, a mysterious event known as the disappearance of Flight 19 occurred. Five U.S. Navy bombers vanished over the Bermuda Triangle during a training flight, leading to extensive legal and investigative efforts to uncover the mystery, which remains unsolved.December 5th, 1955, saw the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a seminal event in the American Civil Rights Movement. This boycott, sparked by Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white passenger, led to legal battles that ultimately resulted in the desegregation of public transportation in Montgomery, Alabama.More recently, on December 5th, 2013, the world mourned the death of Nelson Mandela, South Africa's former president and an anti-apartheid icon. Mandela's life and legal work underscored the power of law as a tool for social justice and change.These events, spanning across different centuries, central figures and continents, reflect the diverse and profound impact of legal developments and personalities on our global history. They serve as reminders of how law is intertwined with cultural, social, and political realms, shaping and being shaped by the human experience.Consumer lawyers are advocating for the consolidation of approximately 20 lawsuits filed since August 2023 against pharmaceutical companies Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. These lawsuits, related to the GLP-1 receptor agonists drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, allege that the companies failed to adequately warn consumers about severe side effects, including stomach and intestinal paralysis or obstruction. The motion for consolidation, led by attorneys from Morgan & Morgan, seeks to centralize the cases in the Western District of Louisiana, aiming to streamline the discovery process and avoid conflicting rulings from different judges.Novo Nordisk, responding to the filings, stated that its drugs have been thoroughly studied and are continuously monitored for safety. Eli Lilly, another defendant in the lawsuits, has not yet responded. The companies have previously contested the claims, arguing that the side effects of these drugs are well-known and clearly stated on their labels.Morgan & Morgan, handling a significant portion of these lawsuits and investigating over 10,000 related claims, argues that centralization in Louisiana would be beneficial. U.S. District Judge James Cain, who is currently overseeing the first lawsuit filed with these side effects claims, is also considered for presiding over the potential multidistrict litigation (MDL).The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is expected to hold its next hearing on this matter in January. This legal development underscores the growing scrutiny and legal challenges faced by pharmaceutical companies regarding the safety and disclosure of side effects of their medications.As Ozempic cases mount, consumer lawyers push to consolidate lawsuits | ReutersA new report from the State Bar of California reveals significant disparities in bar exam pass rates and other metrics among different types of law schools in the state. The report found that graduates of the 18 California-accredited law schools, which are not accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), had a pass rate of just 21% on the July 2022 bar exam. In contrast, graduates from ABA-accredited law schools in California had a 67% pass rate.This discrepancy raises questions about the value and regulation of legal education in California. The report also highlighted the diversity and affordability of non-ABA-accredited schools. Students of color account for 56% of enrollment in California-accredited schools and 50% in unaccredited schools, compared to 46% in ABA-accredited schools.Additionally, tuition costs are significantly lower at California-accredited and unaccredited schools. The average cost for a Juris Doctor degree is $174,233 at an ABA-accredited school, $75,348 at a California-accredited school, and $33,115 at an unaccredited school.California's unique law school accreditation system allows graduates of California-accredited schools to take the bar exam only in California, while ABA-accredited school graduates can take the exam in any state. Graduates of unaccredited schools can also take the California Bar, but only after passing the state's First Year Law Students Exam, or "baby bar."The report also notes that California permits aspiring lawyers to study under a lawyer or judge without attending law school, although they must pass the baby bar, a path currently pursued by celebrity Kim Kardashian.Attrition rates differ significantly among the school types, with an 8% rate at ABA-accredited schools, 42% at California-accredited schools, and 51% at unaccredited schools.Overall, the report by the State Bar of California underscores the challenges and policy considerations regarding law school education, diversity, accessibility, and the likelihood of bar exam success in the state.California law schools lacking ABA approval show 21% bar pass rate - state report | ReutersThe board appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to oversee Walt Disney's theme parks has accused the company of providing millions of dollars' worth of benefits to employees of a previous local board, likening these perks to bribes. The 80-page report prepared for DeSantis and the Florida legislature alleges that Disney treated district employees like its own by offering complimentary annual passes, steep discounts, and other benefits. This practice, according to the report, led district employees to prioritize Disney's interests.The Reedy Creek District, established in 1967 to support Walt Disney World's development, enjoyed broad self-regulatory authority under Disney's control. The report claims that the old board was inverted to serve Disney, holding voting control and in need of reform. However, the current board does not accuse the previous board of criminal activity.The Central Florida Oversight Board will soon vote on whether to accept this report, which has been criticized by a Disney spokesperson as "revisionist history" and lacking credibility. Disney has not directly addressed the report's allegations, and the former board members were not immediately available for comment.The report also states that Disney provided benefits to employees, supervisors, retirees, and vendors, including complimentary passes and discounts on various services. From 2018 to the present fiscal year, the district reportedly spent between $1.78 million to $2.54 million annually on these benefits, initially funded by Disney but later reimbursed using taxpayer dollars.Additionally, the report highlights that former District Administrator John Classe charged about $166,000 to his district card over 15 months, with a significant portion on parties and celebrations. The unfolding dispute between Disney and Florida's government has led to lawsuits, with Disney suing Florida for allegedly weaponizing state government and the DeSantis-appointed board counter-suing over favorable deals to Disney.DeSantis board accuses Disney of controlling previous one with gifts | ReutersFormer U.S. President Donald Trump is attempting to appeal a decision that reinstated gag orders in his ongoing New York civil fraud case. These gag orders, initially imposed by Justice Arthur Engoron on October 3, prevent Trump from publicly speaking about court staff. The orders were issued after Trump shared a social media post falsely claiming the judge's top law clerk was U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's "girlfriend," leading to hundreds of threats against the court.The gag orders were briefly paused on November 16 by an appeals court judge, but they were reinstated by a mid-level state appeals court last Thursday. Trump has already been fined $15,000 for violating the gag order twice, with Engoron warning of steeper penalties for future breaches, including possible imprisonment.In the fraud case, Trump is accused of overstating his net worth by billions to deceive lenders and insurers, and the trial is now focused on damages after Engoron found Trump's financial statements fraudulent. Trump's lawyer, Clifford Robert, has requested permission from the Appellate Division to appeal the gag order's reinstatement to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Robert argues that the orders infringe on Trump's First Amendment rights.Meanwhile, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who initiated the case, seeks $250 million in penalties and aims to ban Trump from New York state real estate business. Trump denies the allegations, claiming political bias by James, a Democrat.In addition, Trump faces a similar gag order in a federal criminal case related to actions in the 2020 U.S. election. Overall, Trump is contending with four federal and state criminal indictments, to which he has pleaded not guilty.Trump seeks to appeal reinstated gag orders in New York civil fraud case | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This day in legal history, October 27, 1787, marks the first publication of the Federalist Papers, an event that significantly influenced the ratification of the United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison under the collective pseudonym "PUBLIUS," these essays were intended to sway public opinion in favor of adopting the new Constitution, which had been drafted in Philadelphia earlier that year. The first paper, penned by Alexander Hamilton, was published in a New York newspaper and argued that the proposed system would safeguard against factionalism, a problem that had plagued the country under the Articles of Confederation.The Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays, each dissecting different elements of the Constitution and the broader governmental system it sought to create. From the division of powers among the three branches of government to the mechanisms of checks and balances, the papers provide a comprehensive rationale for the Constitution's architecture. John Jay wrote only a few of the essays due to illness, while Hamilton and Madison carried the bulk of the work. Interestingly, these papers were aimed specifically at the state of New York, as it was a critical swing state for the Constitution's ratification.As an intellectual cornerstone, the Federalist Papers are not just historical artifacts but continue to be cited in legal opinions, scholarly works, and constitutional debates to this day. The trio's incisive arguments succeeded in their immediate goal; New York ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788. However, the enduring legacy of the Federalist Papers stretches far beyond that, serving as an indispensable guide to understanding the intentions of the Framers and the intricate framework of American governance.This year's annual bonus season for Big Law firms is anticipated to be relatively uneventful in terms of changes to the bonus scale. Top firms are expected to maintain the existing bonus structure, offering up to $115,000 for the most senior associates, even as the industry faces a slowdown in corporate work and some firms have reduced staff. While firms that have laid off associates or faced declining profits are expected to offer market-rate bonuses to signal a return to full strength, eligibility criteria are likely to be stricter. Firms are expected to increase the billable hour requirements for bonuses and may also consider office attendance as a factor.Joshua Holt, a former Goodwin Procter lawyer, suggests that the strict criteria allow firms to claim they offer market rates, even if few associates actually qualify for bonuses. Quinn Emanuel has broken the mold by announcing special bonuses based on seniority and billable hours, but this move is not expected to set a trend. According to industry data, lateral associate hiring has also declined by nearly one-third, reducing expectations for additional bonuses.The widening gap between the most profitable firms and the rest raises questions about whether some firms will cease trying to match industry-leading compensation packages. Moreover, firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Sidley Austin, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett have announced they might cut bonuses for associates not meeting office attendance targets, prompting discussions on the fairness of such criteria.Big Law Bonuses Holding Steady But Now Come With More StringsCalifornia has passed a bill (A.B. 39) to license the cryptocurrency industry, making it the second major U.S. state after New York to regulate the sector. While the comprehensive regulations will not come into effect until July 2025, the bill outlines various requirements for applicants and gives the state Department of Financial Protection and Innovation discretion over who should be regulated. Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the bill, indicated that the licensing framework may still require further clarity and potential cleanup legislation. Industry groups are now focusing their attention on the department, which will write the rules for licensing and enforcement.The bill also includes a provision that allows the department to grant exemptions from the licensing requirements if deemed "in the public interest." This has led industry groups like the Crypto Council for Innovation to lobby for broader exemptions, especially for startups and smaller companies. Joe Ciccolo, a board member of the Digital Currency Traders Alliance, said that the department could handle exemptions in various ways, including categorizing activities into different risk classes or regulating on a case-by-case basis.Concerns have been raised about the logistical challenges of implementing the new licensing system. Industry representatives are wary of a slow rollout similar to New York's and are calling for a public plan detailing how the department will manage the expected influx of applications. Despite these challenges, there's optimism about the law's future, as California officials have reportedly been in communication with counterparts in New York, and the state has shown willingness to listen to industry perspectives.Crypto Industry Girds Itself for California's New Licensing LawNew findings suggest that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to fully repay a significant portion of a $267,230 loan he received in 1999 from wealthy friend Anthony Welters. Senate Democrats have intensified their criticism of the Supreme Court for not having a binding code of conduct in light of this information. The loan was reportedly forgiven in 2008, but Thomas did not disclose the "forgiven debt" on his 2008 financial disclosure forms, raising ethical and legal questions. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden has asked Thomas to clarify how much debt was forgiven and whether it was reported on his tax returns.In response, Thomas's attorney stated that the loan was never forgiven and that all payments were made until the agreement's terms were satisfied. The case adds to previous criticisms of Thomas for failing to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions. Unlike other federal judges, Supreme Court justices are not subject to a binding code of ethics, although they do have certain financial disclosure obligations. Legal ethics experts have noted that the failure to disclose the loan is more significant than past omissions, highlighting the absence of a binding ethics code for Supreme Court justices. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a Democratic-backed bill to mandate such a code, but it faces stiff Republican opposition.Clarence Thomas loan report spurs new ethics criticism of US Supreme Court | ReutersLegal academics are expressing concern over a proposal by the American Bar Association (ABA) to standardize what law students should learn and how they are assessed. The ABA suggests that law schools should adopt and publish specific learning objectives for each class to help schools better understand their educational goals. However, numerous law professors and deans argue that the ABA is overreaching its authority and micromanaging how law is taught. They worry that the proposal could stifle the freedom faculty members have to teach courses based on their own expertise and approaches.Law deans from prestigious institutions like Columbia, UC Berkeley, Vanderbilt, and Georgetown have jointly written that the proposal could constrain faculty members and deprive students of a diverse learning experience. The ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, William Adams, explained that the proposed changes aim to provide clearer guidance to schools, as existing standards were criticized for being "too general."The proposal also includes a requirement for all first-year classes to have at least one early assessment and mandates academic support for students who don't perform satisfactorily. Some critics say this proposal could dismantle the successful system of student learning outcomes that the ABA introduced in 2015, which allows schools to set their own objectives and evaluate student progress accordingly.The new proposal extends to individual classes as well, demanding a set of skills and knowledge that students should acquire from each course. Some commenters worry that this could create additional bureaucratic burdens for schools, particularly as the proposal offers no specifics on how these outcomes should be measured. The ABA's legal education council is expected to consider the proposal in its February meeting.Law professors say ABA is 'micromanaging' with proposal to make courses more uniform | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge with active status at 96, is fighting for reinstatement after her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suspended her. The suspension followed an investigation into her mental fitness and her refusal to undergo a full neurological workup. Newman has sued several of her fellow judges and the court's Judicial Council, which voted unanimously to suspend her for at least a year. In a recent filing, Newman argues that the US District Court for the District of Columbia should grant an injunction to restore her to the bench immediately.The Judicial Council contends that the district court lacks the authority to review its disciplinary actions. Newman fired back, stating that a judicial council should not operate without constraints or review mechanisms, as that would be an exercise of "arbitrary power" not tolerated by the Constitution. Newman is also challenging the council's dual suspensions against her; one for a case backlog and another for her refusal to cooperate with the mental fitness investigation.Newman argues that the council was not acting as a court but in an administrative role when they suspended her, which means their actions should be reviewed by a district court, not the Supreme Court. She accused Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of pre-judging her case, arguing that her colleagues merely adopted formal procedures afterwards.Mediation between Newman and the council has reached a deadlock, and both parties are now disputing a confidentiality agreement they signed before the mediation session. Newman also plans to challenge the council's order at the US Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability. The case represents a significant clash over the extent to which judicial councils can exercise authority over individual judges.Nation's Oldest Judge Claps Back as She Seeks Reinstatement (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It is no secret that law students and attorneys exist in a stressful environment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has conducted a study that shows how this environment tends to contribute to high rates of mental health disorders and substance abuse. In an effort to face this challenge, LSM is proud to launch the Wellness Program—focused on providing students resources and discussions to face this issue, together. For our inaugural event, the Wellness Program is privileged to host a very special guest—Ruth Haley Barton. Her topic will focus on pursuing wellness through established rhythms and an abiding relationship with God. Ruth has spent over 20 years as a student, a practitioner, and a leader in the area of Christian spirituality and spiritual formation. She served on the staff of several churches before founding the Transforming Center, a ministry dedicated to creating space for God to strengthen the souls of leaders, equipping them to lead transforming communities. Her website here. She is the author of numerous books, including Embracing Rhythms of Work and Rest, Strengthening the Soul of Your Leadership, and Invitation to Solitude and Silence (purchase here). Music Credit(s): Tokyo Music Walker & Rexlambo.

On this day in legal history, August 21, 1878, the American Bar Association or ABA was formed.The American Bar Association (ABA) was established on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. At a time when the legal profession was primarily comprised of sole practitioners, 100 lawyers from 21 states founded the ABA with the stated aim of advancing jurisprudence, promoting justice, and ensuring uniformity of legislation. Since its inception, the ABA has grown to represent approximately half of all lawyers in the United States, with additional categories of associate and international memberships.Throughout its history, the ABA has not been without its warranted criticisms and controversies. The Association's past stances on race led to marked scrutiny, with a notable incident in 1912 where William H. Lewis's admission was rescinded due to his race, a policy only changed in 1943. This legacy spurred the creation of the National Bar Association by African-American lawyers in 1925. In recent years, the ABA has made attempts to increase diversity, such as electing its first African American and Hispanic-American presidents and achieving a majority-female roster of officers in 2016. More recently, criticism extends to policy positions, drawing ire particularly from conservative viewpoints for its stances on issues like abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage. Additional criticism has been directed at the ABA's failure to keep pace with the changing demands of modern society, its resistance to regulatory reform, and its handling of the practice of law in modernity. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that AI-generated art does not qualify for copyright protection as it lacks human authorship. The case was brought by computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought copyright registration for a piece created by his AI program "Creativity Machine," but the U.S. Copyright Office denied his application. Judge Beryl A. Howell's decision is the first in the U.S. to define legal boundaries for AI-generated art, a rapidly growing field. Citing previous cases where non-human creations were denied copyright protection, Howell stated that courts have consistently refused to recognize copyright in works without human involvement. The ruling opens up questions about how much human input is required for AI-generated works to qualify for copyright and how to determine the originality of such art. Thaler's attorney plans to appeal, but the Copyright Office believes the court's decision was correct. The ruling adds to an ongoing debate about copyrightability in the era of AI, as the Copyright Office recently granted limited copyright registration for an AI-assisted graphic novel, further complicating the issue.AI-Generated Art Lacks Copyright Protection, D.C. Court Says (1)A federal judge has rejected a $6 million class settlement between Tesla Inc. and homeowners who claimed the company engaged in a bait-and-switch with rooftop solar panel prices. In 2016, Tesla introduced a solar panel that resembled a tiled roof, and plaintiffs Matthew Amans and Babek Malek alleged that the company initially lured customers with a low cost before hiking the prices in April 2021. The proposed settlement included specific sums for customers who incurred additional costs or chose to proceed at the increased price. The plaintiffs asked Judge Vince Chhabria to preliminarily approve the deal in June, which would cover around 8,200 class members. However, Judge Chhabria denied the approval motion, stating that the filing didn't adequately explain the case's strengths and weaknesses or sufficiently clarify how the parties calculated the relief amounts. The case was dismissed without prejudice which means we will see a refiling of the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Tesla $6 Million Solar Roof Price-Hike Deal Rejected by JudgeAn investor in AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. will drop a lawsuit demanding a board election at the movie theater chain, as the company has scheduled its first general shareholder meeting in over a year for November 8. The parties agreed to dismiss the litigation in Delaware's Court of Chancery with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled. The lawsuit was filed in July, in conjunction with a separate shareholder case over AMC's APE units. An approved nine-figure settlement on August 11 allowed AMC to enact a plan to convert its preferred stock to common shares, with APE units ceasing to trade on August 25. The Chancery Court denied a motion to stop the conversion from one objecting investor. Meanwhile, another AMC investor filed a new lawsuit this week alleging that the settlement shortchanges APE holders. In a related development, AMC has sued its insurers in Delaware Superior Court for refusing to fund the settlement.AMC Investor Agrees to Drop Lawsuit Over Chain's Annual MeetingCalifornia's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is investigating "recent concerning incidents" involving General Motors' autonomous vehicle unit Cruise, after a robotaxi was involved in a collision with an emergency vehicle in San Francisco. The DMV has requested Cruise to reduce its active fleet by 50% until the investigation is completed and road safety improvements are made, a request Cruise has agreed to. The accident occurred when a fire truck operating in an emergency mode collided with one of Cruise's cars, resulting in non-life-threatening injuries to the sole passenger. Cruise stated that the car identified the risk and initiated a braking maneuver but was unable to avoid the crash. This incident comes after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted to allow Cruise and Waymo's robotaxis to operate at all hours and charge passengers in San Francisco, despite opposition. Following the accident, City Attorney David Chiu has requested a halt to CPUC's decision, citing that the technology is not yet ready.California regulator probes crashes involving GM's Cruise robotaxis | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day in legal history, Richard M. Nixon resigned the office of the presidency, effective at noon. We covered that in yesterday's episode, so we won't go in to detail here. Instead, let's talk about Charles Manson.On this day in legal history, the Manson Family murdered actress Sharon Tate and four others in Los Angeles, California. The Manson Family murders not only shocked the nation but also presented an unprecedented challenge to the legal system. The subsequent trial was one of the longest and most widely publicized in American history, highlighting the difficulties in prosecuting criminal enterprises with deep psychological manipulation and control over its members. The complex nature of the crime, involving a charismatic leader and followers willing to commit murder on his command, pushed the boundaries of legal procedures and criminal responsibility. Moreover, the trial raised serious questions about the role of the media in shaping public opinion and potentially influencing the outcome of a case. Legal experts and scholars took a keen interest in the legal strategies employed, which included an attempt to prove that Manson's control over his followers was so complete that they were not responsible for their actions. The verdict, which saw Manson and several of his followers convicted, set a precedent in dealing with similar cult-like criminal organizations. Overall, the legal proceedings following the Manson murders contributed significantly to the development of legal theories and practices related to cult behavior, group responsibility, and the intersection of law, psychology, and media influence.Three in-house lawyers for Southwest Airlines were ordered to undergo religious freedom training from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) after a federal judge, Judge Brantley Starr, sanctioned them for inappropriate wording in a company notice on employee rights. The ruling came after former Southwest employee Charlene Carter won a religious discrimination case after being fired for anti-abortion social media posts. Judge Starr criticized Southwest's compliance with the court's order and mandated a “verbatim” statement reflecting the court's preferred language. The judge also expressed concerns over Southwest's "chronic failure" to understand federal religious freedom protections and considered the training the “least restrictive means” to ensure compliance. Southwest plans to appeal both the order and the underlying judgment. Meanwhile, the ADF, a Christian legal nonprofit, disputes the Southern Poverty Law Center's characterization of it as a hate group for its anti-LGBTQ views.The case has drawn attention to the balance between company policies and federal laws, especially Title VII, that protect religious freedoms. While Southwest argued it had the right to speak to its workers and maintain its civility policies, the judge's decision reflects the precedence of federal laws over internal company guidelines. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, expressed hope that the order might encourage workers to express religious dissent against company and union political agendas.Southwest Lawyers Must Take ADF Religion Classes, Judge Says (1)The American Bar Association (ABA) has called on U.S. judicial leaders to investigate the mental health effects of violent or traumatic incidents on judges, their staff, and families, and recommend measures to enhance their safety. The request comes in the wake of increased threats and violence, such as an assassination attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the 2020 murder of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas's son. The ABA's House of Delegates supported a resolution at its annual meeting, focusing on the mental health impacts of high caseloads and violence, and encouraging the development of training and professional, confidential treatment for judges and their families.The resolution's report emphasized that existing legislation, such as the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, does not adequately address the whole threat spectrum or all victims. It stressed the need for attention to the broader community affected by traumatic events, including the often "forgotten" staff and families. The report also highlighted that trauma can stem not only from violent threats but also from experiences within court proceedings, such as complex sentencings, divorces, and abuse cases. It called for training on topics such as secondary trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, and overall mental and emotional well-being.ABA calls for mental health study of judiciary amid rising threats | ReutersGoogle has requested a U.S. appeals court to pause a decision that would return an antitrust lawsuit, filed by Texas, back to federal court in Texas. The lawsuit, initially filed in 2020, accuses Google of abusing its dominance in advertising technology. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation initially granted the state's request to send the lawsuit back to Texas, but stayed the decision to give Google time to appeal. Google has disputed the move, arguing that a law granting state attorneys general the right to choose where an antitrust lawsuit will be litigated is not retroactive.This is the case that gave rise to discussions of Google's ad business potentially needing to be split, Bell Telephone-style. Google makes emergency request to block Texas antitrust lawsuit move | ReutersThe wealthy are increasingly using private foundations to create "jewel-box museums," garnering massive tax deductions while retaining control and enjoyment of valuable assets. These foundations, which are just basically 501(c)(3) organizations, are becoming tools of tax avoidance for affluent individuals, especially when they use them to house art or historic properties. The scheme typically involves donating an ostentatious mansion or valuable property to a private foundation, thereby theoretically entitling the donor to a plethora of income tax deductions. However, enforcement is lax, and there are not enough resources to ensure that these "museums" provide genuine public benefits or admit the public regularly.The reduction in IRS funding has hindered the agency's ability to police these quasi-museum schemes. Consequently, there is a need for tighter rules, more specific policies, and more transparent reporting to close existing loopholes. My proposed solutions include requiring explicit reporting of public access details, implementing random audits for compliance, and incentivizing whistleblowers. At the heart of the solution is a requirement for increased IRS funding and the political will to enforce regulations more stringently. Without addressing these loopholes, efforts to increase tax compliance by the wealthy or raise tax rates on top earners will continue to be undermined, perpetuating a system that disproportionately benefits the affluent.‘Jewel-Box' Museums Are the Wealthy's Latest Tax Dodge Scheme Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join us as we dissect the differences between advances and retainers, flat fees and fixed fees, and how the American Bar Association (ABA) defines these types of fees. We stress the importance of checking with your state and jurisdiction for any differences in their rules regarding fees and billing. Listen closely as we dig into the challenges and helpful aspects of the ABA's Formal Opinion 505, a significant development that emerged in May this year. We examine the ABA's opinion on flat fees, fixed fees and how these fee structures influence the language used in engagement letters. Listen as we talk about the importance of using language such as non-refundable and earned upon receipt and why regular reviews of these fee structures are critical. Plus, we shed light on the importance of setting funds in the correct trust or operating account as per your jurisdiction. Show Highlights: Exploration of American Bar Association's (ABA) definitions and interpretations of legal fees such as advances, retainers, flat fees, and fixed fees. Discussion on the ABA's Formal Opinion 505 and its implications on legal fee structures. Examination of terms like non-refundable and earned upon receipt in client engagement letters and their significance. Insight into the ABA's viewpoint that all fees are refundable unless they're a specific retainer, dating back to 1908. Analysis of the ABA's take on flat fees, fixed fees, and their impact on the language used in engagement letters. Importance of setting funds in the right trust or operating account as per jurisdiction rules. Encouragement for regular review and adjustment of fee structures in line with ABA guidelines and jurisdictional rules. Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Schedule a Consultation: https://gngf.com/consultation  Visit the Website: https://gngf.com/  Visit streamlined.legal: https://streamlined.legal/  Twitter: @NextLevel_Legal  Instagram or Facebook: @nextlevel.legal ACTION STEPS: MELANIE: Check with your state or other jurisdiction!  Review your engagement letter Make sure that what you're telling the clients and how you're actually billing them matches with the letter. *** Episode Credits If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Emerald City Productions. They helped me grow and produce the podcast you are listening to right now. Find out more at https://emeraldcitypro.com. Let them know I sent you.

Mary Smith is President-Elect of the American Bar Association (ABA), and is the first Native American woman in this role. Mary is an independent board member and former CEO of a $6 billion national healthcare organization, the Indian Health Service. Mary currently serves on the board of PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTCT), a global biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of medicines that provide benefits to patients with rare disorders. She also serves on the board of HAI Group, a leading member-owned property-casualty insurance company for the affordable housing industry. Mary is also Vice Chair of the VENG Group, a national consulting firm. Earlier in her career, Mary served as an attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, as a senior in-house counsel at Tyco International, and in government, both as Associate Counsel to the President in the White House and as a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice. In her bar association activities, Mary is the immediate past National Secretary of the ABA and a former president of the National Native American Bar Association. She was the first Native American to serve as a commissioner on the ABA's Commission on Women in the Profession, and she has received the ABA Spirit of Excellence award for her trailblazing work on diversity and inclusion. She is also the founder and president of the only national organization that promotes Native American girls in STEM, the Caroline and Ora Smith Foundation. As you move up the leadership ladder, what brought you to the table might make you lunch or cause you to fail. As your legal career progresses, your view of your work is broader and your impact expands. What does it mean to be a leader? What is your leadership style? How do you develop leadership skills. Join Mary Smith, President-Elect of the American Bar Association, to discuss moving into leadership, mistakes along the way, and how to become the best leader you can be.

Lawyer advertisement plays a significant role in attracting clients and building a successful law firm. However, lawyers must abide by ethical guidelines set forth by governing bodies to ensure that they uphold their professional responsibilities. The American Bar Association (ABA) has released a set of guidelines to address some of the most pressing ethical concerns faced by lawyers when it comes to advertising. This guide has gained prominence in recent years and provides practical answers to some critical ethical questions that lawyers encounter in their advertising practices. In this episode, we will explore five common questions and provide actionable advice to help lawyers comply with the guidelines on attorney advertising while still successfully promoting their firms.Link to ABA Rule 7.3: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients/General Info:Are you looking for digital marketing help for your law firm? Are you currently running a few campaigns, but are not getting the results you were hoping for?If you are nodding yes to both questions, check out these case studies of some killer results we have gotten for law firms just like yours and ask us how we can help you get those same results.  Click here to review the case studies: https://lbmsllc.com/lp-attorneys/Want a free evaluation of your digital marketing presence? Simply click here: https://www.lbmsllc.com/online-presence-report/and we'll send you a free snapshot report to get started.For a copy of my book, 7 Steps to Recession-Proofing Your Business, click this link: https://www.lbmsllc.com/bookConnect With Us On Social Media:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lbmsllcInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lbmsllc/Twitter: https://twitter.com/lbmsllcLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/local-business-marketing-solutionsAlignable: https://www.alignable.com/fanwood-nj/local-business-marketing-solutionsConnect With Frank Directly on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdemming/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lbmsllc

We have an interesting “this day in legal history” for today – its Benjamin Cardozo's birthday. If he were alive today he'd be 153 years old and thus very dead. Who is he? Well…Benjamin Cardozo, born on May 24, 1870, in New York City, was an influential associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1932 to 1938. He was known for his creative approach to common-law judging and legal essay writing, which played a significant role in modernizing legal principles and promoting greater involvement with public policy in American appellate judging. While generally considered a liberal, Cardozo's focus was more on the nature of the judicial process than ideology. His most notable contributions were made during his time on the New York Court of Appeals, where he served from 1914 to 1932, including as chief judge from 1926. Cardozo came from a distinguished Sephardic Jewish family and had a stellar personal reputation. As a lawyer, he achieved great success in the courtroom despite his reserved demeanor. Cardozo's decisions in landmark cases such as MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company (1916) and Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) reshaped legal concepts in the United States. In 1932, he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Herbert Hoover. During the New Deal era, Cardozo generally aligned with liberal justices and wrote significant opinions, including the majority opinion in Helvering v. Davis (1937), upholding the Social Security program. His ruling in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) introduced a test for incorporating provisions of the Bill of Rights into state law, which remained in use until 1969. Cardozo's jurisprudential work, particularly his book "The Nature of the Judicial Process" (1921), and his involvement with the American Law Institute further solidify his lasting impact on American law. Benjamin Cardozo's contributions as a jurist continue to shape legal thinking and practice to this day.Jabari Wamble, a federal prosecutor and nominee for a federal trial court judge in the District of Kansas, has requested the White House to withdraw his nomination. In a letter to President Joe Biden, Wamble cited his decision to continue his work at the United States Attorney's Office in the District of Kansas. Initially nominated for a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last year, Wamble did not receive a hearing or a rating from the American Bar Association (ABA), which is customary for federal judicial nominees. Subsequently, Biden nominated him for the trial court judgeship in February, but his confirmation process once again stalled without a hearing. The ABA has not yet rated Wamble's qualifications for the district court position. It was anticipated that he would receive a "not qualified" rating from the ABA. This withdrawal follows another recent withdrawal by Michael Delaney, who asked to withdraw his nomination for a judge on the First Circuit due to bipartisan concerns surrounding his prior representation in a sex assault litigation case.US District Court Nominee Wamble Withdraws from Consideration (1)Chief Justice John Roberts has expressed his commitment to upholding the highest standards of conduct in the Supreme Court. Speaking at an awards ceremony hosted by the American Law Institute, Roberts assured the public and Congress of his dedication to maintaining the court's integrity. He acknowledged the ongoing scrutiny faced by some justices and emphasized the court's efforts to explore practical measures to ensure ethical standards. Roberts's comments come as Congress investigates the conduct of Justice Clarence Thomas and considers legislation for a code of conduct for the high court. The court has recently faced ethical controversies, including questions surrounding vacations and benefits received by Thomas from a Republican donor and his involvement in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. Calls for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court have been amplified by these controversies. Despite the challenges, Roberts has remained mostly silent, declining to testify on ethics reform and attaching a statement signed by all nine justices that reiterates the court's existing ethics practices. Roberts also mentioned the difficulties faced by the court, such as protests outside the homes of justices and the need for round-the-clock marshal protection. The Supreme Court has undergone significant changes with the appointment of three conservative justices under former President Donald Trump, leading to key decisions on abortion rights, gun regulations, religious rights, and federal regulatory power. Roberts, who has occasionally sought to slow down the pace of change, voiced his unsuccessful dissent in last year's abortion case. The court is nearing the end of its current term, with pending decisions on various important issues. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan presented an award to Roberts, highlighting their disagreements but also acknowledging his judicial craftsmanship. So, uh, are your concerns allayed? Chief Justice Roberts Says He's Committed to Highest StandardsReps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Mike Carey (R-Ohio) have introduced the Simplify Automatic Filing Extensions Act, a bipartisan proposal aimed at helping taxpayers qualify for extensions on their federal tax returns. The bill seeks to change the rules regarding tax return deadlines, allowing taxpayers to make a payment of 125% of their prior year's tax liability to qualify for a six-month extension. Currently, taxpayers requesting an extension must estimate and make a payment based on their current year's tax liability. The lawmakers argue that simplifying the process will reduce stress, improve taxpayer compliance, and allow the government to continue providing essential services. The proposal has garnered support from the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants.Bipartisan House Pair Introduces New Tax Return Extension BillThe U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling by the end of June on whether colleges and universities can continue to consider race in their admissions decisions, known as affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to policies aimed at increasing the representation of minority students, such as Black and Hispanic individuals, on campuses. Many selective schools take race into consideration as part of a holistic review process that considers various factors. The litigation before the Supreme Court involves two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions, challenging the admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The court's conservative majority has expressed skepticism about the role of race in admissions, leading legal analysts to anticipate a ruling against the schools. If the court were to ban affirmative action, colleges and universities would need to find alternative ways to promote diversity in their student populations, as eliminating race-conscious admissions could result in fewer minority students on campuses. The possible outcomes include maintaining the current system, eliminating affirmative action entirely, or establishing more stringent limits on the practice.Explainer: What happens if the Supreme Court bans affirmative action? | ReutersU.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean against race-conscious student admissions | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to the season 2 finale! This season has been all about words entering a dark tunnel and coming out on the other end looking completely different. And nothing better encapsulates that than "groomer". As a word that defines a process rather than an outcome, this one is notoriously hard to pin down. It occupies a legal and colloquial grey area which leaves it dangerously vulnerable to misuse. "Groomer" was invented to protect children from abuse but, as so often the case with misused terminology, marginalized people have been harmed as a result (and even children themselves). This episode covers delicate subject matter - please listen at your own discretion. Support us on Patreon and get juicy bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/rehashpodcast Intro and outro song by our talented friend Ian Mills: https://linktr.ee/ianmillsmusic SOURCES: EJ Dickson, “The Problem With How We Talk About Grooming” Rolling Stone (2021). “Grooming: Know the Warning Signs” RAINN (2020). https://www.rainn.org/news/grooming-know-warning-signs Genyue Fu and Kang Lee, “Social grooming in the kindergarten: the emergence of flattery behavior” Developmental Science, Vol. 10 (2) (2007). David J. Ley, “Misuse and Abuse of the Term Grooming Hurts Victims” Psychology Today (2022). “Understanding Sexual Grooming in Child Abuse Cases”, American Bar Association (ABA). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/november-2015/understanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/ Ann Wolbert Burgess and Carol R. Hartman, “On the Origin of Grooming” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 33(1) (2018).  https://calio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/on-the-origin-of-grooming.pdf  2001. Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. 2422). The United States Department of Justice Archives.  https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2001-coercion-and-enticement-18-usc-2422#:~:text=Section%202422(b)%20of%20Title,imprisonment%20and%2For%20a%20fine. 

Law Registrars are registrars, it's right there in their title! But how much do you really know about the differences between the range and scope of responsibilities of a Law Registrar as compared to a University Registrar. In this episode, we talk to three individuals about their experiences working in a Law Registrar's Office, identify and discuss the key challenges and “extra” administrative responsibilities, and highlight the skills and knowledge one needs to be successful as a Law Registrar.Key TakeawaysLaw Schools have to adhere to a different set of standards and practices than other parts of an institution as required by the American Bar Association (ABA). Some of these require additional administrative oversight provided by the Law Registrar, like extended exam schedules, anonymous grading, verifying grade distributions, and calculating class rank, among others.The National Network of Law Officers (NNLSO) is a great way to connect with other individuals who work at law schools (including registrars!). NNLSO hosts a breakfast for members at every AACRAO Annual Meeting and sponsors sessions throughout that conference specifically aimed at Law Registrars' interests. Law Registrars rely on their campus counterparts for a lot. Keeping your Law Registrar in mind (if your institution has a law school, obviously), communicating and collaborating with them can make everyone's lives easier. Reach out, make a connection, and build a strong working relationship. HostsSarah Reed, University RegistrarUniversity of California - BerkeleyDoug McKenna, University RegistrarGeorge Mason UniversityGuestsAmy ChuSenior Director, Academic Services & RegistrationNew York University School of LawJerri CunninghamDirector of Academic Services & RegistrarBaylor UniversityLisa ErckAssociate University Registrar & Law School RegistrarUniversity of the Pacific - Sacramento

Kevin Daisey talks to Roosevelt Jean, the Managing Partner at Law Offices of Roosevelt Jean, LLC in New Jersey. Roosevelt graduated from Syracuse University College of Law, where he began honing his litigation skills in the elite Moot Court Trial Advocacy program – becoming a finalist in National Trial Competitions hosted by the American Bar Association (ABA), National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) and American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA). Recognizing his extensive trial experience, the New Jersey Supreme Court has on three occasions designated him a Certified Civil Trial Attorney, a distinction shared by approximately 2% of New Jersey lawyers. As a result of his early career accomplishments, the New Jersey Law Journal named Roosevelt to their “New Leaders of the Bar” list. Formerly known as “40 Under 40,” the list identifies a select group of distinguished young attorneys for their outstanding career achievements and contribution to the legal community through leadership in the bar. This honor followed his 2010, 2011, and 2013 designation by New Jersey Monthly Magazine as one of the New Jersey Super Lawyers®️ – “Rising Stars” in the field of general litigation. Learn from his expertise and what trends are helping grow his firm on this episode of The Managing Partners Podcast! —- Array Digital provides bold marketing that helps managing partners grow their law firms. arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

Michael Francis is a founder and the managing member of Francis Investment Counsel LLC. He has been advising qualified retirement plan clients since 1988. He holds a B.A. degree in economics from Carleton College and a Juris Doctorate degree from Marquette University Law School. Mike has been a featured columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as the “401(k) Advisor” since 1995 and is a frequent public speaker on retirement plan governance and investment issues. In 2006, PLANSPONSOR Magazine named Mike one of the “Top 25 Retirement Plan Advisors” in the country. In 2018, PLANSPONSOR Magazine named Francis Investment Counsel “Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year” in the Large Team category. Mike is a member of the American Bar Association (ABA).   Listen to this insightful RIA episode with Michael Francis about trends in the Retirement Plan Marketplace. Here is what to expect on this week's show: - How the bulk of any firm's success is predicated on the quality of its people. - Why the retirement planning industry must change. - Why the retirement plan advising industry is fraught with conflicting interests. - How conflicting advice can cost people a lot of money in unnecessary costs. - How people should be having conversations about their 401ks now.   Connect with Michael: Links Mentioned: francisinvco.com Guest Contact Info: Twitter @francisinv Facebook facebook.com/FranchiseInvestmentCounsel LinkedIn linkedin.com/company/francis-investment-counsel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Triage Cancer is a national, nonprofit organization that provides free education on the legal and practical issues that may impact individuals diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers.Life never feels more valuable and finite than after diagnosis. Triage Cancer believes that those diagnosed with cancer should spend their time and energy how they choose, free from the stress and worry about what information they need and where to find it. Everyone should have access to the resources they need to manage their life beyond diagnosis regardless of their type of cancer, where they live, or their financial situation.Monica Fawzy Bryant, Esq., is the COO & Founder of Triage Cancer. She is a cancer rights attorney, speaker, and author, dedicated to improving access to quality information on healthcare-related issues. Monica is also the co-author of the first and only book on Cancer Rights Law, published by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2018. In 2019, she received a 40 Under 40 in Cancer Award, and in 2015, was awarded the Legacy Advocate Award by a leading young adult cancer organization. She is an Adjunct Law Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law, teaching a class on Cancer Rights. Throughout her career, she has provided hundreds of educational seminars for individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer, their caregivers, lawyers, advocates, health care professionals, elected officials, and the general public.

Triage Cancer is a national, nonprofit organization that provides free education on the legal and practical issues that may impact individuals diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers.Life never feels more valuable and finite than after diagnosis. Triage Cancer believes that those diagnosed with cancer should spend their time and energy how they choose, free from the stress and worry about what information they need and where to find it. Everyone should have access to the resources they need to manage their life beyond diagnosis regardless of their type of cancer, where they live, or their financial situation.Monica Fawzy Bryant, Esq., is the COO & Founder of Triage Cancer. She is a cancer rights attorney, speaker, and author, dedicated to improving access to quality information on healthcare-related issues. Monica is also the co-author of the first and only book on Cancer Rights Law, published by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2018. In 2019, she received a 40 Under 40 in Cancer Award, and in 2015, was awarded the Legacy Advocate Award by a leading young adult cancer organization. She is an Adjunct Law Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law, teaching a class on Cancer Rights. Throughout her career, she has provided hundreds of educational seminars for individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer, their caregivers, lawyers, advocates, health care professionals, elected officials, and the general public.

Triage Cancer is a national, nonprofit organization that provides free education on the legal and practical issues that may impact individuals diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers.Triage Cancer is a national, nonprofit organization that provides free education on the legal and practical issues that may impact individuals diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers.Life never feels more valuable and finite than after diagnosis. Triage Cancer believes that those diagnosed with cancer should spend their time and energy how they choose, free from the stress and worry about what information they need and where to find it. Everyone should have access to the resources they need to manage their life beyond diagnosis regardless of their type of cancer, where they live, or their financial situation.Monica Fawzy Bryant, Esq., is the COO & Founder of Triage Cancer. She is a cancer rights attorney, speaker, and author, dedicated to improving access to quality information on healthcare-related issues. Monica is also the co-author of the first and only book on Cancer Rights Law, published by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2018. In 2019, she received a 40 Under 40 in Cancer Award, and in 2015, was awarded the Legacy Advocate Award by a leading young adult cancer organization. She is an Adjunct Law Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law, teaching a class on Cancer Rights. Throughout her career, she has provided hundreds of educational seminars for individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer, their caregivers, lawyers, advocates, health care professionals, elected officials, and the general public.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and state Rep. Mark Finchem filed a motion Wednesday for a preliminary injunction to stop the use of ballot tabulation machines in Arizona. The persecution of Christians in at least 18 countries throughout the world has been increasing, according to a new report. A  judge has said that documents containing the identities of victims and alleged associates of deceased convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein can be made available to the public. The accrediting council for the American Bar Association (ABA) voted 15-1 to no longer require the administering of the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) for law school applications, according to the Wall Street Journal, and more

ESG Decoded is a podcast powered by ClimeCo to share updates related to business innovation and sustainability in a clear and actionable manner. In this episode, Kaitlyn Allen is joined by Susan Maslow and Patrick Miller. Sue is a Co-Founder and Partner of Antheil. Maslow & MacMinn LLP. She also serves as Vice Chair of the Working Group to Draft Human Rights Protections in International Supply Contracts, American Bar Association (ABA) Business Law Section, and as Chair of the ABA Business Law Section's Corporate Social Responsibility Law Committee. Sue concentrates her practice primarily on general corporate transactional work and finance documentation, including stock and asset acquisitions, mergers, distributorships, software services, development and licensing arrangements, and business separations. Patrick is the Founding Attorney of Impact Advocates, a law firm focusing on international commercial dispute resolution through arbitration, mediation, and litigation. He assists companies in implementing responsible supply chain frameworks – recently working with an ABA Business Law Section Working Group, which developed a comprehensive set of contractual provisions to address potential human rights violations in international supply chains. Listen as Kaitlyn, Sue, and Patrick discuss the American Bar Association (ABA)'s Model Contract Clauses (MCCs) for the Human Rights Project, which provides practical tools to help buyers and suppliers protect the human rights of workers in supply chains. We hope everyone who listens to the episode is inspired to do their part (as a business owner or consumer) to eradicate this form of modern-day slavery. Enjoy this episode! Episode Resource Links American Bar Association (ABA) Contractual Clauses Project - ensuring human rights due diligence in business contracting:https://www.americanbar.org/groups/human_rights/business-human-rights-initiative/contractual-clauses-project/ Susan Maslow LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suemaslow/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/antheil-maslow-&-macminn-llp/ Twitter: @AMMLawLLP: https://twitter.com/AMMLawLLP Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ammlaw Patrick Miller LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-miller-ab933520/ Impact Advocates APC LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/impact-advocates-law/ - Make sure to subscribe to ESG Decoded on your favorite streaming platforms and our new YouTube Channel so that you're notified of our vodcast episodes! Don't forget to connect with us on our social media channels. Enjoy this episode! Interested in being a guest on the podcast? For consideration and scheduling, please fill out this form.

Jan Jacobowitz serves as owner and founder of the ethics consulting group, Legal Ethics Advisor, and Director of the Professional Responsibility & Ethics Program (PREP) at the University of Miami's School of Law (UM Law). Jan holds decades of experience teaching and practicing law, equipping her to advise on ethics and risk management in law, specifically with conflicts of interest, advertising, attorney fees, and alternative business strategies. She also offers special expertise on how technology and social media play into modern litigation. Jan began teaching at UM Law in 2007, co-developing and teaching a course called Mindful Ethics: Professional Responsibility for Lawyers in the Digital Age. Under her direction, the program received the 2012 Smythe Gambrell Award from the American Bar Association (ABA). Jan has co-authored two books–Mindfulness & Professional Responsibility: A Guide Book for Integrating Mindfulness into the Law School Curriculum in 2012, and Legal Ethics and Social Media: A Practitioner's Handbook published by the ABA in 2017. She also frequently publishes journal articles, her most notable piece title “Happy Birthday Siri! Dialing in Legal Ethics for Artificial Intelligence, Smart Phones, and Real Time Lawyers.” Before teaching at UM Law and founding her consulting service, Jan spent decades in private practice, specializing in commercial litigation. However she began her career at Legal Aid in Washington D.C., and later served in the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations prosecuting Nazi war criminals. Jan maintains the title of Former President of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) and serves as co-chair of the APRL's Future of Lawyering Committee (FOL). She also served as APRL's 2019-2020 liaison to the ABA's Center for Professional Responsibility Coordinating Counsel. Jan also received the American Bar Foundation's 2018 Foundation Fellow and continues actively speaking on law ethics and social media across the country. Jan Jacobowitz, Legal Ethics Advisor, Social Media LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jan-l-jacobowitz-80805411/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/jan.jacobowitz  Twitter - https://twitter.com/ethicsadvisor Legal Ethics Advisor Website - https://legalethicsadvisor.com/  Legal Ethics and Social Media: A Practitioner's Handbook - https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Ethics-Social-Media-Practitioners/dp/1634257820  Mindfulness and Professional Responsibility: A Guide Book for Integrating Mindfulness into the Law School Curriculum - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mindfulness-and-professional-responsibility-jan-l-jacobowitz/1134638167  SSRN Profile - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1389100   Remember to subscribe and follow us on social media…   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mass-tort-news Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/masstortnewsorg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/masstortnews.org

In my discussion I will use articles, surveys, and reports that show trends for attorneys. I will compare the American Bar Association (ABA) reports with a private vendor company Cleo, that is a case management software system company. Topics of discussion range from good to bad such as: working from home to bad behavior at the law firm.

State Supreme Court Candidate Spotlight - Season 3, Episode 7Ohio's lingering redistricting fight has clearly shown that who sits on the Ohio Supreme Court matters. And beyond redistricting, the Ohio Supreme Court justices also make important decisions on major issues that impact public education, educators and students. That's why OEA members have recommended Justice Jennifer Brunner, Judge Terri Jamison, and Judge Marilyn Zayas for election to three open seats on Ohio's highest court this fall. They introduced themselves to members at a Member Activist Forum last spring.MORE | OEA Members can learn more about the OEA Member-recommended candidates on the ballot in their community by visiting Ohioballot.com. You can also learn more about the OEA Fund and its screening and endorsement process here.SUBSCRIBE | Click here to subscribe to Education Matters on Apple Podcasts or click here to subscribe on Google podcasts so you don't miss a thing. And don't forget you can listen to all of the previous episodes anytime on your favorite podcast platform, or by clicking here. Featured Education Matters guests:  Justice Jennifer Brunner, candidate for Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice https://www.justicebrunner.com/ On November 3, 2020, Jennifer Brunner was elected Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.  Previously she served as a judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals for 6 years and the Franklin County Common Pleas Court for nearly 5 years. As a trial court judge Brunner founded the county's adult felony drug court, known as the TIES (Treatment is Essential to Success) Program, now in operation for more than18 years. She was elected Ohio's first woman Secretary of State on November 7, 2006, and held the office for four years. While in that office, she became the first Ohioan to receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award from the bipartisan board of the JFK Library and Museum in Boston. Justice Brunner was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2010.  She has 17 years of private law practice experience and has provided rule of law technical expertise to the government of the Republic of Serbia, election observation in the Arab Republic of Egypt, and rule of law instruction at the bar association of Sri Lanka through the U.S. state department (USAID), as well as provided remote technical training through the American Bar Association (ABA) to the Republic of Kazakhstan, and in August 2022, in-person assistance to the Republic of Benin's Human Rights Commission.  She has gained a deep understanding of the importance of a strong and well-functioning judiciary to preserving peace and growing democracy through the rule of law.  A native of Springfield, Ohio, Justice Brunner has been married to Rick Brunner since 1978.  They have 3 adult children and 6 grandchildren, 3 dogs and 2 cats and spend time at their home in Columbus and at their farm in Columbiana County in Northeast Ohio. Judge Marilyn Zayas, candidate for Ohio Supreme Court Associate Justice https://judgemarilynzayas.com/ Judge Marilyn Zayas learned from an early age that everyone should be treated fairly and equally. This is a core belief and guides Marilyn in her personal and professional life. She was born in Spanish Harlem and grew up in a tough New York City neighborhood. Although she earned a college degree in computer science and moved to Cincinnati to become an IT Manager for Proctor & Gamble, Marilyn always dreamed of becoming a lawyer. After six years, in 1994, Marilyn left P&G and pursued her dream, enrolling in and then graduating with a law degree from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 1997. In addition to realizing her dream, Marilyn also knew she had found a wonderful home in Ohio where she could raise her children. She went to work serving her community and eventually built her own law firm representing everyone from the poor to millionaires to refugees. Throughout her career, she never lost sight of her passion for justice. In 2016, Marilyn was elected to the First District Court Of Appeals of Ohio. She was proud to know she was the only Latina judge on any district court of appeals in the state. Her reputation for fairness grew. Her commitment to faithfully apply the law and the constitution was recognized by her peers. So Judge Zayas was asked to sit in on cases as a visiting judge on the Second, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth District Courts of Appeals. Judge Zayas was also selected by the Ohio Supreme Court's Chief Justice to be a sitting judge on the Ohio Supreme Court for a recused justice. In 2022, Judge Zayas decided to run for the Ohio Supreme Court.Judge Marilyn Zayas's family includes her three adult children and two adopted rescue dogs, Thor and Sparkle Lou. Judge Terri Jamison, candidate for Ohio Supreme Court Associate Justice https://www.votejudgejamison.com/ Judge Terri Jamison's journey from the coal fields of West Virginia to the highest reaches of the legal profession is a testament to her strength, intelligence, perseverance, and persistence. Judge Jamison worked as one of the few women in the underground coal mines, made Columbus her home, later opened and ran her own insurance agency for over 16 years, and attended college while working full time. Terri sold her agency and enrolled in the Capital University School of Law and obtained her Juris Doctorate in 2004. As an attorney, Terri worked in the Franklin County Public Defender's Office representing indigent clients in the Municipal Court System and served as a Hearing Officer for the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. She practiced in the US District Court, Southern District of Ohio. She opened her own law office, practicing Criminal, Juvenile, Domestic Relations, and Probate law at the trial and appellate level. She was admitted to practice at the Supreme Court of the United States in 2007. In 2012, she was elected judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch. She was overwhelmingly reelected to the Common Pleas bench in 2018 and then elected to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in 2020. During her time on the bench, Judge Jamison has used her experience, perspective, talent, and knowledge to develop new strategies to empower families. She also devoted considerable time, energy, and attention to issues related to equal access to justice, diversity, inclusion, and the need to develop alternatives to detention for juveniles. Along with her many other accomplishments, Judge Jamison is most proud of being a spouse to Ricardo “Ty” Gary, a retired Franklin County Deputy Sheriff who has started a new career as a realtor with E-Merge Realty. Their blended family includes three sons, Tremayne, Demetrius, and Sean, seven grandchildren, and one great-granddaughter. Connect with OEA: Email educationmatters@ohea.org with your feedback or ideas for future Education Matters topics Like OEA on Facebook Follow OEA on Twitter Follow OEA on Instagram Get the latest news and statements from OEA here Learn more about where OEA stands on the issues  Keep up to date on the legislation affecting Ohio public schools and educators with OEA's Legislative Watch About us: The Ohio Education Association represents about 120,000 teachers, faculty members and support professionals who work in Ohio's schools, colleges, and universities to help improve public education and the lives of Ohio's children. OEA members provide professional services to benefit students, schools, and the public in virtually every position needed to run Ohio's schools. Education Matters host Katie Olmsted serves as Media Relations Consultant for the Ohio Education Association. She joined OEA in May, 2020, after a ten-year career as a television reporter, anchor, and producer. Katie comes from a family of educators and is passionate about telling educators' stories and advocating for Ohio's students. She lives in Central Ohio with her husband and two young children. The conversations with Justice Brunner, Judge Jamison and Judge Zayas were recorded at an OEA Member Activist Forum on March 26, 2022.

Our next guest is Monica Bryant, a cancer rights attorney, speaker, and author, dedicated to improving access to quality information on healthcare-related issues. She is the Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer for Triage Cancer, a national non-profit organization that provides education on the practical and legal issues that may impact individuals diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers. Monica is co-author of the first and only book on Cancer Rights Law, published by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2018. In 2019, she received a 40 Under 40 in Cancer Award, and in 2015, was awarded the Legacy Advocate Award by a leading young adult cancer organization. She is an Adjunct Law Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law, teaching a class on Cancer Rights. Throughout her career, she has provided more than one thousand educational seminars for individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer, their caregivers, lawyers, advocates, health care professionals, elected officials, and the general public. In episode number 262 of the Fraternity Foodie Podcast, we find out why Monica chose UC Santa Barbara, how different the nominations process for the Supreme Court was in the past versus today, what made her specialize in Cancer Rights Law, what are the three steps you should take if the insurance company denies a treatment claim, and how you can avoid financial ruin when you get a diagnosis of a severe medical condition. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ORwPcsFw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ORwPcsFw8

Friday on the Stew Peters Show, we blast the American Bar Association (ABA) and their new wave of ideological headcases entering the court systems. It's time to resist and begin a political revolution! Research analyst Steve Kirsch joins Stew to address the latest mark the injectable bioweapon has left on society: America airlines risking the lives of hundreds through clot shot mandates, after a pilot has a heart attack during flight. Check out Steve's substack for more info: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/mainstream-media-covers-up-pilot?s=r Dr. Jane Ruby has a shocking revelation about snake venom peptides found in the shots, and what their composition and function truly is. She also addresses the dangers of vaxxed blood. Nita Shannon shares a maddening story about spontaneous blood clots killing her father after he was given a bioweapon booster. And, J6 political prisoner Jacob Lang provides an update from the DC gulags, as the government continues to persecute patriots, and allow thuggish guards to rough up Christians being held without charges. Go to J6Truth.org to find more on what the media refuses to acknowledge about J6, and important dates for protests for the J6 political prisoners: https://www.j6truth.org/. Don't miss a moment of Friday's edition of the Stew Peters Show, live on StewPeters.com Get Dr. Zelenko's Anti-Shedding Treatment, NOW AVAILABLE FOR KIDS: http://zStackProtocol.com Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Content, Become a Premium user: https://redvoicemedia.com/premium Follow Stew on Gab: https://gab.com/RealStewPeters See all of Stew's content at https://StewPeters.TV Watch full episodes here: https://redvoicemedia.net/stew-full-shows Check out Stew's store: http://StewPeters.shop Support our efforts to keep truth alive: https://www.redvoicemedia.com/support-red-voice-media/

This week we're replaying a classic GTP episode where your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Robin Frazer Clark of The Law Firm of Robin Frazer Clark, P.C. (https://www.gatriallawyers.net/)   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: Former State Bar of Georgia President Robin Frazer Clark explains how she secured justice for the only son of 75-year-old Jayne Fox, a woman who suffered a traumatic vocal cord injury during intubation for a lung biopsy, causing Jayne to suffer post-surgical aspiration pneumonia and leading to her death. Admitted to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for a biopsy of a spot on her lung, Jayne was initially intubated with equipment that was much too large for her petite 97 lb., 5-foot frame. Following the surgery, nurses observed Jayne having difficulty clearing secretions, and an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist found abnormalities indicating aspiration pneumonia.  However, the ENT and nurses failed to report their observations to the attending physician, Dr. Roy Rajan, who also failed to properly supervise Jayne's medical care or visit her in person. As a result, Jayne's treatment plan was not adjusted to treat her condition, and she passed away at Emory University Hospital nearly six weeks after her surgery. Despite the defense's attempts to blame Jayne's age, her son and the rarity of her post-operation condition, a Dekalb County, Georgia jury returned a verdict of $2,350,000 in damages against Emory Clinic and Dr. Rajan.   Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Robin Frazer Clark Robin Frazer Clark is the owner and founder of the law firm of Robin Frazer Clark, P.C., and has practiced law in Georgia for 31 years. Ms. Clark devotes her practice exclusively to plaintiff's personal injury.  Her motto is “A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats.” She is the Co-host of the podcast “See You In Court.”  Ms. Clark was sworn in as the Fiftieth President of the State Bar of Georgia on June 2, 2012, only the second woman ever to serve as President of the State Bar of Georgia and served as President of the 45,000-member association in 2012-2013.  One of Ms. Clark's initiatives she created while President is the State Bar of Georgia's Suicide Prevention Campaign, “How to Save a Life.”   Ms. Clark is a Past President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA), also only the second woman in the organization's history to lead GTLA.  Ms. Clark is a Past President of The Lawyers Club of Atlanta (LCA), in which she has been a member for over 25 years. Ms. Clark is the only person ever to have served as President of all three of those professional associations, the State Bar of Georgia, GTLA and Lawyers Club of Atlanta.  Ms. Clark is a Fellow of the International Society of Barristers (ISOB) whose membership is by invitation only and which is dedicated to the preservation of trial by jury, the adversary system and an independent judiciary. ISOB founders conceived the organization to bring together the best of the trial bar in a setting devoid of partisan interests. Ms. Clark also serves on the Board of Directors of the ISOB Foundation.  Ms. Clark is an Associate of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), a National professional association dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Ms. Clark is also a member of the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers (GAWL), and a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA), a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. She is a Past Chair of the Atlanta Bar Association Litigation Section.  Ms. Clark serves on the Board of Directors of the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation (GCJF) and previously served on the Board of Directors of the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competency (CCLC). Ms. Clark previously served on the Board of Directors for the Commission on Dispute Resolution, on the Board of Directors of the Institute for Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE), the Board of Directors of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) and the Board of Directors for the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism (CJCP).  She is also a member of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and a member of the American Bar Association (ABA).  Ms. Clark has previously served on the State Bar of Georgia Office of General Counsel's Investigative Panel and the Review Panel. Ms. Clark has testified extensively before the Georgia General Assembly on issues as far ranging as the discriminatory effect of caps on damages, the detrimental impact of the proposed elimination of vicarious liability in Georgia, the Juvenile Justice Reform Legislation, signed into law in 2013 by Governor Deal, and the elimination of the assignability of legal malpractice claims.  Ms. Clark served on the Georgia General Assembly Bicameral Evidence Code Committee that was responsible for drafting the Georgia Evidence Code that was passed and signed into law in 2011 and went into effect in January 2013. Through her advocacy on behalf of Georgia citizens with the Georgia Legislature, she has built strong relationships with numerous Legislators and has worked to promote the cause of justice and protect the constitutional rights of all Georgia citizens. Ms. Clark received her Bachelor of Science in Biology from Vanderbilt University in 1985 and received her Juris Doctor from Emory University School of Law in 1988. Ms. Clark has been extensively published.  As President of the State Bar of Georgia she had 162 articles published in 84 different publications, with a total circulation of 3,122,569. Clark is the author of “Who's Your Neighbor? Our Moral Obligation to Discuss Mental Health with Our Peers,” Verdict Magazine, Winter 2018; “I'd Rather See a Sermon,” Verdict Magazine, Fall 2016; Building a Connection: Saving the Life of Your Fellow Lawyer, Daily Report, August 2016; “ARE YOU OKAY? ”The Most Important Conversation No One Wants to Have, Atlanta Bar Association Magazine, March 2015; “Realizing the Dream of Equality for All,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, June 2013; State Bar's Suicide Prevention Campaign Tells ‘How to Save a Life,' Daily Report, September 2013;“All I Really Know About Professionalism I Learned in Golf,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 6, April 2013;  “Decisions Are Made By Those Who Show Up,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, February 2013; “How To Save a Life,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, December 2012; “Legal Trailblazers:  Women in Leadership,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, October 2012; “Sharing the Abundance and Lifting All Boats,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, August 2012;   There is No Me Without You~Don Keenan:  The Road to Serendipity, a Passion for Children, Verdict Magazine, Winter 2011;  There is No Me Without You~Pressing On for a Cure: Patrick Chance's Story, Verdict Magazine, Winter 2009;   Voir Dire: It's Elementary, My Dear Watson, Verdict Magazine, Winter 2009; There You Go Again:  Other Similar Incidents in Medical Malpractice Cases (A Case Study of Bean v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center), Verdict Magazine, Vol. 29, No. 3, Fall/Winter 2004, Essential Tools for Overcoming Trial Fear, Trial Excellence, Advanced Trial Tactics for Attorneys,  May 2001 and Closing Argument Tips: Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Trial Excellence, Tactics, Legal Updates & Samples, September 2001. Ms. Clark is admitted to the State and Superior Courts of Georgia, the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Northern and Middle Districts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.  Ms. Clark has tried over 70 jury trials and has argued before Georgia appellate courts over 40 times.  Ms. Clark has given numerous speeches for the State Bar of Georgia, the Institute of Continuing Legal Education of Georgia and for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, has appeared on The Layman's Lawyer on Atlanta Public Television on the issue of products liability and has appeared on Leyes Cotidianas or Everyday Law on Georgia Public Television on the issue of harmful change of Georgia Civil Justice System in 2005. Ms. Clark has served as volunteer counsel for The Carter Center program “Not Even One Child's Death by a Firearm is Acceptable or Inevitable”, the Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired and the Atlanta Bar Foundation's Truancy Intervention Project. Ms. Clark is also a volunteer lawyer with Civil Lawyers Against World Sex Slavery (CLAWSS).  Ms. Clark is married to William T. Clark, Director of Political Affairs for Georgia Trial Lawyers Association.  They have two children, Chastain “Chaz”, age 25, and Alexandria “Alex”, age 22.  Chaz is a graduate of Georgia College and State University and is attending graduate school at Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Architecture. Alex is a graduate of the University of Georgia, where she was Captain of the UGA Rowing Team and is now a 2L at the University of Georgia School of Law. Ms. Clark is a member of Glenn Memorial United Methodist Church on the beautiful Emory University Campus.  Ms. Clark is an avid golfer, carrying a 19 handicap. You may read more about Ms. Clark on her website, www.gatriallawyers.net, or her blog, www.atlantainjurylawyerblog.com.  You may reach Ms. Clark also at robinclark@gatriallawyers.net and follow her on Twitter @robinfclark. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services -LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton, LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, January 28, 2020 The Left Takes Aim at Conservative Judges https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-chief-justice-roberts-must-overrule-the-judiciarys-outrageous-assault-on-the-federalist-society Josh Hammer, Editor at Large of The Daily Wire writes: “The Judicial Conference of the United States, an arcane body established by Congress and led by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, is responsible for helping establish the national policy guidelines that govern the administration of the federal courts. Alas, the Conference is arcane no longer. Over the past week, the Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, which oversees federal judicial ethics, has forced a national conversation by launching an absolute wrecking ball of a draft advisory opinion. The Committee, which is chaired by Judge Ralph Erickson of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, has 15 total members: Eight Democratic presidential nominees, five Republican presidential nominees, and two others. The Committee's advisory opinion, if formally implemented by the Committee, would “advise[] that formal affiliation” with both FedSoc and the American Constitution Society (ACS), FedSoc's (much) more overtly political progressive counterpart, “is inconsistent with” the governing Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Specifically, the Committee states that “although neither [FedSoc nor ACS] is a ‘political organization'” under the Code, “their activities nevertheless implicate [the Code's] broad prohibition against political activity” — whatever that is supposed to mean. What's worse, the draft opinion also holds that federal judges' law clerks and staff attorneys must not join either FedSoc or ACS. But on the other hand, membership with the leftist, remarkably biased American Bar Association (ABA) “does not raise these same concerns and is not necessarily inconsistent with the Code.” Hammer points out that the Federalist Society takes no positions on political issues, but exists solely in defense of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, that is, that words have definite, objective meanings, and should be interpreted according to those meanings at the time of writing. This shared commitment leaves room for much discussion and debate among originalists. By contrast, the left-leaning legal associations, the American Constitution Society and American Bar Association frequently publish many legislative opinions across the political policy spectrum and generally hold that the Constitution is a “living document,” and may be interpreted according to the changing whims of American culture. Hammer finds the notion that the ABA does not raise these same concerns “ludicrous.” He also points out that the long term effect of something like this will discourage young conservative law students from joining the Federalist Society, leaving them with fewer networking opportunities, generally fewer jobs, and likely additional pressure to keep their opinions or questions to themselves.  No doubt all of this is a result of Trump's aggressive work to re-balance the American judicial landscape. To date, he has nominated 239 individuals, of whom 187 have been confirmed by the Senate. As of January 2, 2020, there were 80 vacancies, and 35 had pending nominations. Most, if not all, of Trump's judicial nominations have been members of the Federalist Society.  Sanctuaries for the Unborn https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/us/sanctuary-cities-for-unborn-anti-abortion-texas-trnd/index.html CNN: Ten towns in Texas have voted to declare themselves "sanctuary cities for the unborn," with most adopting ordinances that outlaw abortion within city limits. At least 13 cities are considering such ordinances, and three -- Mineral Wells, Omaha and Jacksboro -- have already voted against them.  Most of the towns that have enacted the pro-life ordinances have populations of less than 6,000 people. None have abortion clinics. The town of Waskom, with a population of 1,900, became the first "sanctuary city for the unborn" last June, according to the movement leading the charge across Texas. The town of Gary, with a population of 300, became the latest one last week. While Mark Lee Dickson, leader of the Sanctuaries For the Unborn movement and the director of Right to Life of East Texas was quoted by CNN, claiming that criminal penalties would be retroactively applied if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I don't really trust CNN's ability to report news, but it hasn't generally been considered lawful to prosecute people retroactively.   But regardless, there are at least two things to applaud here and encourage: First, the goal for sanctuary cities should initially be something like the underground railroad, and this means that cities that pass these ordinances should be thinking broadly about how they will support these ordinances as communities. The goal should be to have as many citizens and local businesses and lawyers and law enforcement officers committed to defending life and providing for those in need. These important steps toward resisting unjust laws need the support of entire communities. This support should be thought out in terms of providing for mothers in need, sort of city-wide Pro-life network that can provide shelter, counseling, prenatal care, food, clothing, and even assistance after the birth of children, and so on. Sanctuary cities need to give thought to how they will actually be sanctuaries for the unborn.  It may not be long before mothers are literally running for help and support to these cities, and if that happens, you better believe that the legal pressure will come against these cities with even more force. And that leads to the second point, which is that we really do need civil magistrates who are willing to play chicken with the judges and federal enforcers of unjust laws. This need not come to violence, but there is a long and venerable history of peaceful civil disobedience that needs to be cultivated in our cities, with regard to abortion, sexual morality, and marriage, among other things. To our great shame, only Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk stood her ground in 2015 following the Supreme Court's hilarious Obergefell decision, claiming that two dudes can get married.  Citing personal religious objections to homosexual marriage, Davis began denying marriage licenses to all couples to avoid issuing them to homosexual couples.[2][3] A lawsuit, Miller v. Davis, was filed, and Davis was ordered by the U.S. District Court to start issuing marriage licenses. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but her application was denied. Davis continued to defy the court order by refusing to issue marriage licenses "under God's authority";[2] she was ultimately jailed for contempt of court. Davis was released after five days in jail under the condition that she not interfere with the efforts of her deputy clerks, who had begun issuing marriage licenses to all couples in her absence. Davis then modified the Kentucky marriage licenses used in her office so that they no longer mentioned her name. May the Lord be pleased to raise up thousands of Kim Davises who are willing to cheerful defy the insanity of our courts. This is what I mean by playing chicken with them. Make them come and stop us. Make them come and arrest us. And if whole cities and counties, and perhaps, Lord willing, whole states stand together, peacefully resisting the murder of unborn babies, and sodomite mirage, and drag queen story hours, it will at least make their lives really difficult. Which, I think is a very godly thing to do.  The Wuhan Coronavirus is Making Headlines https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-01-27-20-intl-hnk/index.html The US State Department has ordered personnel working at the US Consulate General in Wuhan to depart for the United States, a State Department official told CNN in a statement, with a flight currently scheduled to leave on Wednesday. As of now 82 people have died and more than 2,700 cases have been confirmed, including 13 places outside of China. Nearly 60 million people are affected by full or partial lockdowns in Chinese cities. 5 cases have been confirmed in the U.S. China's health minister reported Sunday that the virus can spread even before symptoms show, making it even more difficult to contain.  Coronaviruses are common in many different species of animals, including camels and bats. Rarely, these coronaviruses can evolve and infect humans and then spread between humans.  This is why Coronaviruses are called “zoonotic,” meaning they are transmitted between animals and people. Common signs of infection include fairly ordinary cold and flu symptoms, with somewhat more intense respiratory issues. And now everyone listening with a cold wonders if they're infected.  Moments like these are good reminders that human beings are but a breath. The Lord took Kobe Bryant and his daughter and their friends in an unexpected moment this last weekend, and God rules every atom, every germ, every virus in His perfect wisdom. God has struck nations with plagues before, and there is no reason why He couldn't again. Despite all of our medical advances, for which we ought to be very grateful, God is still sovereign and men are smoke in the wind. While God has sent plagues in judgment on men for their wickedness, plagues have also been moments of glorious opportunity for followers of Christ to serve and love the sick and dying. In the early church, Christians became famous for their care of the sick and dying in various Roman plague outbreaks. When pagans left their family members behind, Christians cared for the abandoned, no doubt leading many to a saving knowledge of Christ in the process, and of course many succombed to the sicknesses themselves, not considering their own lives more valuable than the glory of laying them down for the cause of Christ.  Whatever becomes of this Wuhan coronavirus, may the Lord find us faithful at our tasks each day, gladly laying our lives down in obedience to our King, fearless of death, because our King has suffered in our place and now He holds the keys of Death and Hades, and we can never die.  This is Toby Sumpter with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, January 28, 2020. You can find this show and past episodes and all the shows on the Fight Laugh Feast Network at CrossPolitic dot com. If this is a helpful resource for you, please consider sharing it with a friend and becoming a club member. Not only will you be supporting this work, you will also get exclusive access to a number of behind the scenes interviews, master classes, and more. See you tomorrow. 

Scott is a Massachusetts licensed attorney and possesses certifications as both a Professional in Human Resources (PHR) and the Society for Human Resources Management Certified Professional (SHRM-CP). He is a member of the American Bar Association (ABA), the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA), the Northeast Human Resource Association (NEHRA), and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).In addition, Scott is an active member of the American Ambulance Association and has been a Site Reviewer for the Commission for the Accreditation of Ambulance Services (CAAS) for many years.Scott is still an active EMT and continues to respond to emergencies as a Call Fire Fighter in his hometown.Moore EMS Consulting LLC

The American Bar Association (ABA) made a major ruling earlier this month allowing law schools to accept the GRE in lieu of the LSAT for admissions decisions. While this opens the door to a larger potential applicant pool, there are a lot of factors you need to consider when determining whether to take the LSAT or GRE when applying to law school. To dissect this major announcement by the ABA and help you make the best decision possible for which standardized test to take, we're joined in this episode by Dave Hall, expert LSAT instructor and law school admissions guru, as we discuss:Why the ABA's decision even matters given that some law schools have already been accepting the GRE for a number of years;Changes taking place within the law school admissions landscape and the motivation behind this move by the ABA;What law school admissions officers are really looking for in an applicant;Whether the GRE is as predictive of law school success as the LSAT — and if it even matters;The format of the LSAT exam and the core competencies it tests;The format of the GRE exam and the core competencies it tests;Key differences between the two tests, and which type of law school applicant is perfectly suited to take the GRE instead of the LSAT;Why there's still a bias toward the LSAT and what it means for applicants looking to earn scholarships to law school (and other practical reasons some applicants should take the LSAT instead of the GRE);The mindset you should take into preparing for whichever exam you choose (hint: law school is hard);And more!Before beginning to prepare in earnest for either the LSAT or GRE, listen to the perspective Dave brings to this important decision. What he shares may confirm what you're already thinking or prompt you to switch gears and go another direction. Either way, you'll come away from this episode with clarity about your key decision points so that you can make the best choice for you between the LSAT vs. GRE for law school.RESOURCES / LINKSArticle: "ABA Gives Law Schools Go-Ahead to Use GRE"Free LSAT Practice TestsFree GRE Practice TestsRegister for Dominate Test Prep's comprehensive GRE Prep Course, taught by Brett EthridgeRegister for Dominate Test Prep's comprehensive LSAT Prep Course, taught by Dave HallContact UsSIMILAR EPISODESIf you enjoyed this episode, we encourage you to check out these other similar episodes of The Dominate Test Prep Podcast:Episode 30: 5 Things I Wish I Had Known Before Starting Law School, with Dave HallEpisode 44: Tangential Benefits of a High Test ScoreEpisode 1: Top 3 Prep Tips for Any Standardized TestA DOSE OF MOTIVATION“The art of life is a constant readjustment to our surroundings.” — Okakaura Kakuzo

When will shifts to remote working bring changes to legal education as well? St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas recently received American Bar Association (ABA) approval to host a cohort of its JD students in a fully online environment. Even before the arrival of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, other US law schools had moved bits and pieces of their programs online. St. Mary's is the first school to receive accreditation for online delivery of a complete JD. In this episode of The Future Law Podcast, host Mike Madison talks with Patty Roberts, Dean of St. Mary's Law, about that school's plans and about how she and her colleagues navigated their proposal through design and accreditation processes. Links Dean Patricia Roberts at St. Mary's University St. Mary's University School of Law See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Elizabeth Kelley is a criminal defense lawyer with a nationwide practice focused on representation and mitigation of people with mental disabilities. Elizabeth co-chairs the Criminal Justice Advisory Panel of The Arc's National Center on Criminal Justice and Disability.  She is the editor of Representing People with Mental Disabilities: A Practical Guide for Criminal Defense Lawyers (2018), Representing People with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Practical Guide for Criminal Defense Lawyers (2020), and Representing People with Dementia: A Practical Guide for Criminal Defense Lawyers (scheduled 2021) all published by the American Bar Association (ABA). She is active in the ABA, serving on the Council of the Criminal Justice Section, the Editorial Board of Criminal Justice Magazine, the Commission on Disability Rights, and the ABA President's Working Group on Building Trust in the American Justice System. She has regularly reviewed books for The Federal Lawyer since 2005. In this episode, we discuss: How Elizabeth's journey brought her to represent the underserved communities of the world The tremendous need is for knowledge of mental health in our criminal justice system The long game of networking for this very specialized niche The reasons that mental health continues to remain an invisible disability How we can better support our mental health community Why support, understanding, and empathy are what is needed in the mental health community Suicide rates in the criminal justice system, and how they were found Elizabeth's new book, “Suicide and Its Impact on the Criminal Justice System” The impactful work of mental health court Website:https://www.elizabethkelleylaw.com/ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-kelley-14110430 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MentalHealthEsq  

In this episode, international lawyer Tom Morante provides keen insights into the opportunities and rewards of becoming an international lawyer, as well as describing the complexities of this practice area. Tom advises clients on U.S. and foreign insurance and financial services regulatory, compliance, and cross-border transactional matters. He handles matters involving life and annuities, health, insurtech, data privacy and cyber risk, and D&O insurance. He is fluent in Spanish, and has studied in Colombia, Mexico, and Spain. He leads Carlton Fields' International Insurance Regulatory Team and serves on the Advisory Board of Inter-American Dialogue's Financial Services Advisor publication. In addition, he chairs the Business Law Section's International Coordinating Committee and its Business Law Now Board, and serves on the Section's Marketing Board. The host of this episode is Shazia Ahmad . Shazia is the Vice President of Regulatory Reporting at Wells Fargo. She has a broad range of experience in areas of legal, regulatory compliance and finance for financial instituitions and media companies including Wells Fargo & Co., Credit Suisse, JP Morgan & Chase and Viacom. She joined the Business Law Section of American Bar Association (ABA) as the national law student liaison and now is the Chair of the Young Lawyer Committee and Vice Chair of the State and Local Banking Subcommittee.

Since 2016, Matt Fisher has combined his two areas of expertise—healthcare and law—to host the Healthcare de Jure podcast. In the bimonthly podcast, Matt talks to various guests about emerging healthcare trends from a legal point of view. He also serves as general counsel for Carium, a telehealth platform company. Before joining Carium, Matt practiced law for more than a dozen years and advised clients across the healthcare spectrum on a wide range of legal matters.Additionally, Matt is active with the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) and the American Bar Association (ABA). He recently spoke to Davida Dinerman on the Look Left @ Marketing podcast. 01:10 - Matt explains the origins of the Healthcare de Jure podcast and talks about some of his more memorable guests.04:05 - His passion for the law and healthcare happened unexpectedly.06:22 - Matt shares details on what Carium does. 09:22 - At HIMSS, he will discuss the intersection of HIPAA and the 21st Century Cures Act and the opportunity for greater collaboration.12:56 - Contrary to what some suggest, Matt doesn't see HIPAA and the 21st Century Cures Act as contradictory regulations.15:30 - How state-to-state privacy regulations impact how data can flow between care organizations.18:32 - Matt explores the state of healthcare and tech and how the pandemic accelerated the use of telehealth.22:23 - Matt shares his thoughts on Zus, the new healthcare platform company founded by former Athenahealth CEO Jonathan Bush. 

Welcome to LawTalk, a podcast series produced by the University of Minnesota Law School featuring events, webinars, and panel discussions about diverse topics at the intersection of law, policy, and education. On this episode, Professor Stein's Great Cases: Brown v Board of Education, Professor Robert Stein '61 discusses the pivotal United States Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education - using a broad historical, political, and legal analysis to address both the case itself as well as the way it shaped our nation. Professor Robert A. Stein '61 is the Everett Fraser Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. From 1994 to 2006, Professor Stein was the Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association (ABA). Prior to that, Professor Stein was Dean of the Law School from 1979 to 1994 and was the first William S. Pattee Professor of Law from 1990 until 1994. Before becoming Dean of the Law School, Professor Stein was Vice President for Administration and Planning of the University from 1977 to 1979. Professor Stein joined the faculty of the Law School in 1964. Professor Stein currently teaches a course titled the Supreme Court and Great Cases that have Shaped the Nation, a Law School favorite and the materials from the course from which Prof. Stein will share on this episode of LawTalk. This event was part of the Spring Alumni Week 2021 panel series. This event was recorded on April 23, 2021. Subscribe to the Minnesota Law podcast feed on SoundCloud, or via your preferred podcast network, for more LawTalk episodes, as well as other podcast content produced by Minnesota Law.

Explaining How to Avoid Conflicts of Interest https://zalma.com/blog It is imperative that the defense attorney and the adjuster both recognize that where the interests of the insurer and the insured conflict in a suit on a liability policy, the attorney's duty is to the insured. The attorney and the adjuster must be careful that the attorney does not become the insurer's agent on any issues that relate to coverage. The insurer may, if it ignores this conflict, find itself paying extracontractual damages and counsel may be surprised to be a defendant in the same suit. Conflicts may be avoided by sending a copy of the reservation of rights letter or nonwaiver agreement to the attorney retained to defend the insured so that he or she is aware of the problem areas. However, the adjuster must not ask the attorney retained to defend the insured to draft a reservation of rights letter for the company or to provide the company any advice regarding coverage. Doing so would create an unnecessary conflict between the attorney and the client/insured and force the defense attorney to withdraw from the case. The adjuster should not instruct the attorney to collect facts without any relevance to the defense of the insured but that are particularly directed to an issue that would tend to defeat coverage. Nor should the adjuster pose hypothetical cases involving similar facts to the attorney hired to represent the insured. Rather, the adjuster should consult experienced coverage counsel regarding coverage issues, including assistance drafting reservation of rights letters to the insured. Coverage counsel should never be involved in the defense of the insured or the insurer because coverage counsel will usually be a key witness in any future litigation resulting from the advice provided. Coverage counsel's work should be limited to providing advice to the person or entity who has retained him or her. The American Bar Association (ABA) established Guiding Principles for Insurance Representation in 1970, which were later incorporated into the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility. The ABA Guiding Principles were rescinded at the annual meeting of the ABA House of Delegates in August 1980. The delegates decided the Guiding Principles no longer needed a separate statement, as the principles had been incorporated into the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility. They include the following suggestions: If a conflict arises between the interests of the insured and the insurer, the insurer and the attorney hired by it must inform the insured of that conflict and invite him to retain his or her own attorney at his or her own expense. © 2021 – Barry Zalma Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

 Debbie Reynolds “The Data Diva” talks to The Honorable Justice Tanya R. Kennedy, Associate Justice, Appellate Division, First Department, New York Supreme Court.  We discuss technology-related changes to court proceedings due to  Covid 19, the digital divide, access to justice and the benefits of technology,  the loss of privacy in the digital age,  explaining technology in court cases, the proactive elements of the NY Shield Act, difficulty in consensus on legal adoption of technology, the American Bar Association (ABA) rule to make sure that lawyers know the risks and benefits of technology, inconsistent data privacy protections on U.S. State level, the loss of anonymity in the digital age,  her wish for data privacy in the future.

Andrew Schpak is the Co-Managing Partner of Barran Liebman LLP. At Barran Liebman LLP, Andrew has worked with government entities, businesses of all sizes and nonprofit organizations to represent management in employment litigation and provide advice on employment matters.  In addition to his work at Barran Liebman LLP, Andrew serves as a Member of the Board of Governors for the American Bar Association (ABA), is a Board Member for the Portland Business Alliance and is a Member of the ABA Standing Committee on Bar Activities and Services. He is a Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and Chair of the Oregon Fellows. Andrew received his Juris Doctorate from Cornell Law School and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Reed College. In this episode: In any law firm, you have to continually evaluate your approach to marketing, inclusion, education and communication. As the law and public opinion shift, it's necessary to adapt on both a personal and professional level in order to set yourself—and your business—apart. For Andrew Schpak and his firm, education and expertise within the industry are what drives business growth. However, professional development is a journey with an immeasurable number of roads and destinations. So, how do you find the path that's right for you? And how can you keep up with the changes happening in the business of law to make sure you're heading in the right direction?  In this episode of Spill the Ink, Michelle Calcote King talks with Andrew Schpak, Co-managing Partner of Barran Liebman LLP, about hiring strategies and marketing for your law firm. Andrew discusses his firm's approach to diversity and inclusion, explains how to develop your expertise and offers pointers for getting everyone involved in the marketing plan. Plus, Andrew shares his tips for managing social media and building a personal brand. Stay tuned.

A Conversation on the Barriers of Advancement and Retention of Women Lawyers and Insights into Gender Discrimination in Utah – a 2020 Study Please join Dean Elizabeth Kronk Warner for her monthly dean's book review. This month we will be discussing the findings of the survey, Barriers to Advancement: Findings from the 2020 Study of Gender & Racial Bias in Utah's Legal Profession, along with insights into gender discrimination in Utah. This topic was selected because March is Women's History Month. On the panel will be Dr. Christy Glass, Professor of Sociology & Interim Director Center for Intersectional Gender Studies & Research, Utah State University, Mica McKinney, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, Utah State University and Margaret Plane, Special Counsel, Park City Municipal Corporation. They will discuss the findings of the survey, discrimination in Utah and some helpful guidance and recommendations for increasing representation of women and avoiding bias in hiring and promotion decisions. To view the study please visit https://initiative.utahwomenlawyers.org/ The study took the findings from over forty-five interviews that took place with a diverse group of interviewees, including women of color, LGBTQ+ women, solo practitioners, judges and women employed outside of the Salt Lake City area. Interview questions focused on work history, career mobility and work/life balance. Project Summary of the Study This study examined barriers to the advancement and retention of women lawyers in Utah. The following report summarizes findings from a statewide survey and in-depth interviews with women lawyers and judges across the state. To analyze changes over time and compare Utah against national trends, the survey replicated the 2010 Women Lawyers of Utah (WLU) survey and the 2018 survey administered by the American Bar Association (ABA). We find evidence of substantial gender and racial bias in Utah's legal profession and minimal improvement over time on key bias indicators. Study's Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to the advancement and retention of women lawyers in the State of Utah. Ranking last in the nation in terms of women's overall professional advancement and the gender wage gap, Utah represents a unique professional landscape for women. This context has important implications for women's advancement in law, as the current study finds that in Utah women comprise 44% of law school graduates yet only 12% of law firm partners. Originally recorded and broadcast March 31, 2021

Captive alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) are changing the way law firms do business. In the latest episode of Strategies LIVE!, Anne Reavis (Wilson Allen) sits down with Brad Blickstein and Beatrice Seravello (Baretz+Brunelle) to talk through what a captive ALSP does, along with what opportunities exist to learn from these new entities. This episode of Strategies LIVE! is coincides with the subject matter featured in the January/February issue of Strategies magazine. A special thank you to this issue’s sponsors, Firmseek, American Bar Association (ABA), Mind Alliance and Introhive and the many partners featured in this issue’s special Partner Directory. These partners are ready to help you identify solutions that fit your firm’s needs. Find out how your company can benefit from partnering with LMA. Contact Scott Narug at 312-673-5974 or via email at SNarrug@legalmarketing,org to start the conversation.

My friend Susan Guthrie, host of Divorce and Beyond Podcast, joins me to talk about why you might want to seek spousal and child support in your divorce. I am especially excited about this episode because it’s a crossover event that we created for you! This episode is Part 1 of the crossover event and you can hear Part 2 on Susan’s show. Alimony is the scariest and complicated topic that comes up during a divorce. Together, Susan and I talk about the complexities of spousal support, including how tax laws/bills affect alimony (currently, not in a good way), and when it’s appropriate to seek out support. In Part 1 of our crossover conversation (this episode, right here!) Susan and I talked about why women should take support. In Part 2, we discuss some of the support pitfalls to watch out for and why it may not be the best solution for everyone. Head over to Susan’s podcast to listen to Part 2! Show Highlights The real-deal about alimony and the factors that go into determining when alimony is appropriate. (4:34) Child support guidelines as they currently stand place children in the middle of a divorce. This is NOT okay. (16:44) As a stay-at-home parent, you’ve invested in the household, therefore spousal support honors the work that you’ve done — as well as the fact that you’ve been removed from the workforce for a time.. However, it’s a minimal return on your investment, which can leave women more disempowered in the end.  (18:15) What you need to know about negotiating support. (28:08) Learn More About Susan: Susan Guthrie, nationally recognized as one of the Top Family Law and Mediation Attorneys in the United States, has been helping individuals and families navigate separation and divorce for 30 years. Susan provides exclusively online divorce mediation and legal coaching services to select clients around the world through her business Divorce in a Better Way. Susan has also recently partnered with mediation legend, Forrest “Woody” Mosten, to create the Mosten Guthrie Academy to provide cutting edge gold-standard training for attorneys, mediators and other professionals. As a leading dispute resolution professional, Susan is honored to serve on the Executive Council of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Section of Dispute Resolution as the Membership Officer and to be a Co-Chair of the Mediation Committee and Annual Advanced Mediation Skills Institute. Susan is also an internationally well-regarded expert in online mediation and has been training colleagues and other professionals in the practical and ethical considerations of conducting their mediations online with her innovative programs and webinars for more than two years. To date, more than 15,000 dispute resolution professionals have benefited from her program and she has trained mediators in countries all around the world including programs for the American Bar Association (ABA), the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Canada (ADRIC), and the National Association of Distinguished Neutrals (NADN) among others. Susan founded Learn to Mediate Online™ in 2018 and now offers more than 7 programs for professionals all designed to help them to advance their skills and their practice to new heights. In addition to her other professional endeavors, Susan is an award-winning podcast host. Having reached a podcast listening audience of almost 4 million in the past two years, Susan is the creator and host of the hit podcast, The Divorce and Beyond Podcast with Susan Guthrie, Esq. which debuted on iTunes “Top Podcasts for Self-Help” List. She recently launched The Learn to Mediate Online Podcast with Susan Guthrie, Esq. to bring current information, updates and news on ODR to her thousands of followers. Susan has been featured in and on media outlets such as CNBC, Market Watch, Forbes, Eye on Chicago, WGN, the ABA’s Just Resolutions Magazine, Thrive Global, The Nook Online among others. She is licensed to practice law in the States of California and Connecticut as well as before the Supreme Court of the United States. Resources & Links:Susan’s website The Divorce and Beyond Podcast Susan on Instagram Divorce and Beyond Podcast on Instagram Divorce Corp (movie) The Ultimate Divorce Survival Guide   JOIN THE SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO FACEBOOK GROUP

Certified Federal Contracts Manager Khalil Memon shares his knowledge of federal contracting to help others get in on this multi-million dollar field Khalil Memon is a Certified Professional Contracts Manager, Certified Federal Contracts Manager, and Certified Commercial Contracts Manager. Khalil has been working as a Managing Director with Dynamic Contracts Consultants, LLC for the last 5 years. Khalil holds a Master’s in Law (LL.M) from Chicago Kent College of Law (Chicago), MBA from KC College of Management (India), LL.B. (law), a BS degree from University of Bombay (India) and is a member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra (India).He has more than 25 years of legal, compliance and procurement experience. He is personally affiliated with the National Contract Management Association (NCMA), US Chamber of Commerce, State Bar of Texas, American Contract Compliance Association (NDIA), American Bar Association (ABA), North American Procurement Council (NAPC), South Asian Chamber of Commerce (SACC) and World Chamber of Commerce – Texas. Khalil works as a procurement liaison assessing product value, negotiating favorable agreement terms and conditions in securing contracts and in compliance with FAR/DFAR. He also specializes in drafting, analyzing, and writing Proposals, reviewing procurement contracts and mitigating and minimizing risk for his clients. 

What did we learn about religious freedom from the Amy Coney Barrett hearings? To kick off season two of Respecting Religion, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman put the Senate's confirmation hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett into context, spotlighting the religious freedom issues raised – or politicized – during the event. And, after so much talk about the Constitution's prohibition on a religious test for office, they ask an important question: Who was imposing a religious test during the hearings? Plus, in segment three, they look at how religion is showing up in our world today, including in a controversy with one of the Hollywood stars named “Chris” and a recent statement by Pope Francis about civil unions. Segment one: Barrett and Ginsburg, Cruz and Cornyn (starts at 1:09) Amanda mentioned two pieces BJC wrote about the impact and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: RBG: Defender of equality, principled dissenter, faithful supporter of religious liberty by Holly Hollman, published by Baptist News Global Ruth Bader Ginsburg's legacy in upholding a key religious freedom law by Holly Hollman and Amanda Tyler,  published by The Christian Citizen Click here to read BJC's review of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's church-state record, which was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee before the hearings began. It includes questions BJC suggested that senators ask of her. For clips of discussions of religious liberty during the two days of hearings that involved questions, check out these two articles by Don Byrd on the “Latest News” section of our website: In Day 2 of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing, some religious liberty discussions, though little depth or insight Religious Liberty discussions on day 3 of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing   Segment two: What did Judge Barrett say about religious freedom during her hearings? (17:43) Read the most recent State of the First Amendment Survey at this link, published by the Freedom Forum Institute. It says only 4% of respondents can name “petition” as one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Holly mentioned the travel ban issued by President Trump in his first week in office. Read more about that case, which eventually was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court as Trump v. Hawaii: BJConline.org/travelban Holly mentioned the upcoming Fulton v. Philadelphia case, which focuses on nondiscrimination in government-funded foster care. Learn more at BJConline.org/Fulton Holly recently presented during a webinar on the future of the Establishment Clause, hosted by the American Bar Association (ABA). You can watch it at this link. The ABA also did a seminar on the Free Exercise Clause, which is available at this link. Amanda wrote a commentary about Article VI and the “no religious test” principle before the confirmation hearings began. You can read it at this link, published by Good Faith Media:  This article from The Washington Post that includes the number of times “religion” was mentioned: Democrats' non-persecution of Amy Coney Barrett.    Segment three: Where did we see religion in our world? Recent discussions on religion and LGBTQ rights in our culture (38:40) Holly mentioned the story surrounding Chris Pratt and his church's stance on same-sex marriage. Here's an article from The Washington Post: The latest celebrity cause: Defending the honor of Chris Pratt. Read more on BJC's website about the recent statement from Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito about the Court reconsidering the Obergefell case in 2015 that upheld same-sex marriage. Statement from Justices Thomas and Alito on religious liberty and same-sex marriage makes tensions worse Amanda mentioned this New York Times article about Pope Francis and his recent support of civil unions: In Shift for Church, Pope Francis Voices Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions

What did we learn about religious freedom from the Amy Coney Barrett hearings? To kick off season two of Respecting Religion, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman put the Senate’s confirmation hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett into context, spotlighting the religious freedom issues raised – or politicized – during the event. And, after so much talk about the Constitution’s prohibition on a religious test for office, they ask an important question: Who was imposing a religious test during the hearings? Plus, in segment three, they look at how religion is showing up in our world today, including in a controversy with one of the Hollywood stars named “Chris” and a recent statement by Pope Francis about civil unions.   Segment one: Barrett and Ginsburg, Cruz and Cornyn (starts at 1:09) Amanda mentioned two pieces BJC wrote about the impact and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: RBG: Defender of equality, principled dissenter, faithful supporter of religious liberty by Holly Hollman, published by Baptist News Global Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy in upholding a key religious freedom law by Holly Hollman and Amanda Tyler,  published by The Christian Citizen Click here to read BJC’s review of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s church-state record, which was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee before the hearings began. It includes questions BJC suggested that senators ask of her. For clips of discussions of religious liberty during the two days of hearings that involved questions, check out these two articles by Don Byrd on the “Latest News” section of our website: In Day 2 of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, some religious liberty discussions, though little depth or insight Religious Liberty discussions on day 3 of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing   Segment two: What did Judge Barrett say about religious freedom during her hearings? (17:43) Read the most recent State of the First Amendment Survey at this link, published by the Freedom Forum Institute. It says only 4% of respondents can name “petition” as one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Holly mentioned the travel ban issued by President Trump in his first week in office. Read more about that case, which eventually was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court as Trump v. Hawaii: BJConline.org/travelban Holly mentioned the upcoming Fulton v. Philadelphia case, which focuses on nondiscrimination in government-funded foster care. Learn more at BJConline.org/Fulton Holly recently presented during a webinar on the future of the Establishment Clause, hosted by the American Bar Association (ABA). You can watch it at this link. The ABA also did a seminar on the Free Exercise Clause, which is available at this link. Amanda wrote a commentary about Article VI and the “no religious test” principle before the confirmation hearings began. You can read it at this link, published by Good Faith Media:  This article from The Washington Post that includes the number of times “religion” was mentioned: Democrats’ non-persecution of Amy Coney Barrett.  Segment three: Where did we see religion in our world? Recent discussions on religion and LGBTQ rights in our culture (38:40) Holly mentioned the story surrounding Chris Pratt and his church’s stance on same-sex marriage. Here’s an article from The Washington Post: The latest celebrity cause: Defending the honor of Chris Pratt. Read more on BJC’s website about the recent statement from Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito about the Court reconsidering the Obergefell case in 2015 that upheld same-sex marriage. Statement from Justices Thomas and Alito on religious liberty and same-sex marriage makes tensions worse Amanda mentioned this New York Times article about Pope Francis and his recent support of civil unions: In Shift for Church, Pope Francis Voices Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions

After graduating from Howard University with a degree in Communications, Tracey Lee inked a recording deal with Bystorm/Universal Records under which he released a solo album entitled, Many Facez (1997). This album included the hit single, The Theme (It’s Party Time), which settled on Billboard’s Top 100 for thirty-seven weeks. He had the opportunity to collaborate with award-winning artists such as the Notorious B.I.G., Busta Rhymes, and Kanye West. Some of Tracey's performances and appearances included BET Rap City: The Basement, BET Teen Summit, Keenan Ivory Wayans Show, and HBO Original Series: ARLI$$. Tracey's whirlwind music industry experience prompted him to earn a Juris Doctorate Degree from Southern University Law Center making Tracey the 1st former major label hip-hop artist to earn the abbreviation Esq. behind his name. Some of his clients include Eric Roberson (Grammy-Nominated R&B Singer/Songwriter), Invisible Productions (for Kelly Rowland, Solange Knowles and Kobe Bryant), and DJ Young Guru (Tour DJ & Engineer for Jay-Z). In 2014, Tracey returned to the music scene as an independent artist under the LLeft Entertainmentlabel that he owns with his wife, Lori Nelson Lee. To date, he has released 3 major projects; ESQ. The Revelation, with appearances by DJ Young Guru, Eric Roberson, and Algebra Blessett, Expect The Unexpected, which received rave reviews from some of music industry's top DJs, and his most recent release, Glory, which is already being revered as Tracey's magnum opus for his ability to so poetically capture the strife of a major societal shift, (Covid-19, Quarantine, Police Brutality, and Civil Unrest), and turn it into pure art. Glory is a product of the now and the way forward on a landscape cultivated entirely by the production of super producer, Ojizz. Fall of 2016, Tracey joined the faculty staff of Coppin State University as an adjunct professor teaching The Business of Music to aspiring artist, and he gave a presentation on Contracts, Copyrights & Performing Rights Societies at the Music Industry Symposium for Singers and Musicians in St. Lucia. Currently, Tracey sits on the Governor's Board for The Recording Academy Washington, DC Chapter, and is a member of Black Entertainment and Sports Law Association (BESLA), American Bar Association (ABA), Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). https://www.traceyleemusic.com

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Robin Frazer Clark of The Law Firm of Robin Frazer Clark, P.C. (https://www.gatriallawyers.net/)   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: Former State Bar of Georgia President Robin Frazer Clark explains how she secured justice for the only son of 75-year-old Jayne Fox, a woman who suffered a traumatic vocal cord injury during intubation for a lung biopsy, causing Jayne to suffer post-surgical aspiration pneumonia and leading to her death. Admitted to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for a biopsy of a spot on her lung, Jayne was initially intubated with equipment that was much too large for her petite 97 lb., 5-foot frame. Following the surgery, nurses observed Jayne having difficulty clearing secretions, and an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist found abnormalities indicating aspiration pneumonia.  However, the ENT and nurses failed to report their observations to the attending physician, Dr. Roy Rajan, who also failed to properly supervise Jayne's medical care or visit her in person. As a result, Jayne's treatment plan was not adjusted to treat her condition, and she passed away at Emory University Hospital nearly six weeks after her surgery. Despite the defense's attempts to blame Jayne's age, her son and the rarity of her post-operation condition, a Dekalb County, Georgia jury returned a verdict of $2,350,000 in damages against Emory Clinic and Dr. Rajan.   Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Robin Frazer Clark Robin Frazer Clark is the owner and founder of the law firm of Robin Frazer Clark, P.C., and has practiced law in Georgia for 31 years. Ms. Clark devotes her practice exclusively to plaintiff's personal injury.  Her motto is “A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats.” She is the Co-host of the podcast “See You In Court.”  Ms. Clark was sworn in as the Fiftieth President of the State Bar of Georgia on June 2, 2012, only the second woman ever to serve as President of the State Bar of Georgia and served as President of the 45,000-member association in 2012-2013.  One of Ms. Clark's initiatives she created while President is the State Bar of Georgia's Suicide Prevention Campaign, “How to Save a Life.”   Ms. Clark is a Past President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA), also only the second woman in the organization's history to lead GTLA.  Ms. Clark is a Past President of The Lawyers Club of Atlanta (LCA), in which she has been a member for over 25 years. Ms. Clark is the only person ever to have served as President of all three of those professional associations, the State Bar of Georgia, GTLA and Lawyers Club of Atlanta.  Ms. Clark is a Fellow of the International Society of Barristers (ISOB) whose membership is by invitation only and which is dedicated to the preservation of trial by jury, the adversary system and an independent judiciary. ISOB founders conceived the organization to bring together the best of the trial bar in a setting devoid of partisan interests. Ms. Clark also serves on the Board of Directors of the ISOB Foundation.  Ms. Clark is an Associate of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), a National professional association dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Ms. Clark is also a member of the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers (GAWL), and a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA), a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. She is a Past Chair of the Atlanta Bar Association Litigation Section.  Ms. Clark serves on the Board of Directors of the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation (GCJF) and previously served on the Board of Directors of the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competency (CCLC). Ms. Clark previously served on the Board of Directors for the Commission on Dispute Resolution, on the Board of Directors of the Institute for Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE), the Board of Directors of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) and the Board of Directors for the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism (CJCP).  She is also a member of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and a member of the American Bar Association (ABA).  Ms. Clark has previously served on the State Bar of Georgia Office of General Counsel's Investigative Panel and the Review Panel. Ms. Clark has testified extensively before the Georgia General Assembly on issues as far ranging as the discriminatory effect of caps on damages, the detrimental impact of the proposed elimination of vicarious liability in Georgia, the Juvenile Justice Reform Legislation, signed into law in 2013 by Governor Deal, and the elimination of the assignability of legal malpractice claims.  Ms. Clark served on the Georgia General Assembly Bicameral Evidence Code Committee that was responsible for drafting the Georgia Evidence Code that was passed and signed into law in 2011 and went into effect in January 2013. Through her advocacy on behalf of Georgia citizens with the Georgia Legislature, she has built strong relationships with numerous Legislators and has worked to promote the cause of justice and protect the constitutional rights of all Georgia citizens. Ms. Clark received her Bachelor of Science in Biology from Vanderbilt University in 1985 and received her Juris Doctor from Emory University School of Law in 1988. Ms. Clark has been extensively published.  As President of the State Bar of Georgia she had 162 articles published in 84 different publications, with a total circulation of 3,122,569. Clark is the author of “Who's Your Neighbor? Our Moral Obligation to Discuss Mental Health with Our Peers,” Verdict Magazine, Winter 2018; “I'd Rather See a Sermon,” Verdict Magazine, Fall 2016; Building a Connection: Saving the Life of Your Fellow Lawyer, Daily Report, August 2016; “ARE YOU OKAY? ”The Most Important Conversation No One Wants to Have, Atlanta Bar Association Magazine, March 2015; “Realizing the Dream of Equality for All,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, June 2013; State Bar's Suicide Prevention Campaign Tells ‘How to Save a Life,' Daily Report, September 2013;“All I Really Know About Professionalism I Learned in Golf,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 6, April 2013;  “Decisions Are Made By Those Who Show Up,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, February 2013; “How To Save a Life,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, December 2012; “Legal Trailblazers:  Women in Leadership,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, October 2012; “Sharing the Abundance and Lifting All Boats,”  Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, August 2012;   There is No Me Without You~Don Keenan:  The Road to Serendipity, a Passion for Children, Verdict Magazine, Winter 2011;  There is No Me Without You~Pressing On for a Cure: Patrick Chance's Story, Verdict Magazine, Winter 2009;   Voir Dire: It's Elementary, My Dear Watson, Verdict Magazine, Winter 2009; There You Go Again:  Other Similar Incidents in Medical Malpractice Cases (A Case Study of Bean v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center), Verdict Magazine, Vol. 29, No. 3, Fall/Winter 2004, Essential Tools for Overcoming Trial Fear, Trial Excellence, Advanced Trial Tactics for Attorneys,  May 2001 and Closing Argument Tips: Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Trial Excellence, Tactics, Legal Updates & Samples, September 2001. Ms. Clark is admitted to the State and Superior Courts of Georgia, the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Northern and Middle Districts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.  Ms. Clark has tried over 70 jury trials and has argued before Georgia appellate courts over 40 times.  Ms. Clark has given numerous speeches for the State Bar of Georgia, the Institute of Continuing Legal Education of Georgia and for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, has appeared on The Layman's Lawyer on Atlanta Public Television on the issue of products liability and has appeared on Leyes Cotidianas or Everyday Law on Georgia Public Television on the issue of harmful change of Georgia Civil Justice System in 2005. Ms. Clark has served as volunteer counsel for The Carter Center program “Not Even One Child's Death by a Firearm is Acceptable or Inevitable”, the Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired and the Atlanta Bar Foundation's Truancy Intervention Project. Ms. Clark is also a volunteer lawyer with Civil Lawyers Against World Sex Slavery (CLAWSS).            Ms. Clark is married to William T. Clark, Director of Political Affairs for Georgia Trial Lawyers Association.  They have two children, Chastain “Chaz”, age 25, and Alexandria “Alex”, age 22.  Chaz is a graduate of Georgia College and State University and is attending graduate school at Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Architecture. Alex is a graduate of the University of Georgia, where she was Captain of the UGA Rowing Team and is now a 2L at the University of Georgia School of Law. Ms. Clark is a member of Glenn Memorial United Methodist Church on the beautiful Emory University Campus.  Ms. Clark is an avid golfer, carrying a 19 handicap. You may read more about Ms. Clark on her website, www.gatriallawyers.net, or her blog, www.atlantainjurylawyerblog.com.  You may reach Ms. Clark also at robinclark@gatriallawyers.net and follow her on Twitter @robinfclark. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

A un mes de la hora cero, conversamos sobre los cambios que podría enfrentar el examen de reválida, las cartas de la American Bar Association (ABA), el estrés que pudo crear la posposición de la reválida de marzo y cómo enfrentamos todos estos retos en medio de la pandemia por COVID-19. Pero ahí no acaba la conversación. Más de una decena de jurisdicciones de Estados Unidos optaron por administrar sus reválidas en línea. Estados como Utah, Washington, Oregon y Louisiana han otorgado el “diploma privilege” a sus aspirantes. Conversamos con el portavoz de Diploma Privilege para Puerto Rico, Rolando Cruz, la portavoz de los y las egresadas 2020 de la Escuela de Derecho de la UPR, Verónica Vega Ferrer, el presidente del Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Puerto Rico, Edgardo Román Espada, y el decano asociado de la Escuela de Derecho de la UPR, Oscar Miranda Miller. ¿Quieres saber qué recomendaron? Dale ▶ al nuevo episodio del Podcast de Microjuris.

Welcome to the HU Movemakers Podcast (www.humovemakers.com), where we highlight folks in Howard University Culture that are blazing the trail and making moves! If you would like to apply or nominate someone to be on the podcast, please email bio/headshot to humovemakers@gmail.com. After graduating from Howard University with a degree in Communications, Tracey Lee inked a recording deal with Bystorm/Universal Records under which he released a solo album entitled, Many Facez (1997). This album included the hit single, The Theme (It's Party Time), which settled on Billboard's Top 100 for thirty-seven weeks. He had the opportunity to collaborate with award-winning artists such as the Notorious B.I.G., Busta Rhymes, and Kanye West. Some of Tracey's performances and appearances included BET Rap City: The Basement, BET Teen Summit, Keenan Ivory Wayans Show, and HBO Original Series: ARLI$$. Tracey's whirlwind music industry experience prompted him to earn a Juris Doctorate Degree from Southern University Law Center making Tracey the 1st former major label hip-hop artist to earn the abbreviation Esq. behind his name. Some of his clients include Eric Roberson (Grammy-Nominated R&B Singer/Songwriter), Invisible Productions (for Kelly Rowland, Solange Knowles and Kobe Bryant), and DJ Young Guru (Tour DJ & Engineer for Jay-Z). In 2014, Tracey returned to the music scene as an independent artist under his LLeft Entertainment label releasing his project entitled ESQ. The Revelation, with appearances by DJ Young Guru, Eric Roberson, and Algebra Blessett. Fall of 2016, he joined the faculty staff of Coppin State University as an adjunct professor teaching The Business of Music. In 2018, Tracey released Expect The Unexpected, an album that brilliantly bridges the gap musically between the new school sound and hip-hop culture's foundation. On July 31, 2020, Tracey released his latest project Glory, which is already being revered as Tracey's magnum opus. Created in the midst of a major societal shift, (Covid-19, Quarantine, Police Brutality, and Civil Unrest), this album is a pure product of the now and the way forward on a landscape cultivated entirely by the production of super producer, Ojizz. Tracey currently sits on the Governor's Board for The Recording Academy Washington, DC Chapter, and is a member of Black Entertainment and Sports Law Association (BESLA), American Bar Association (ABA), Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/humovemakers/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/humovemakers/support

Julie Fershtman, a lawyer specializing in equine law, shares advice on contracts, liability and what horse owners need to know. Julie is a frequent speaker and writer, she has authored 3 books, co-authored one book, and contributed to 4 books published by the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA published her newest book in 2019. In addition, she has written more than 400 published articles, including 6 law journal articles for the ABA Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice Section Law Journal. Equine Law Bloghttp://www.equinelaw.net/

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * Webcast URL: https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/ethics-guide-for-lawyers/ The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association (ABA) recently released a new guideline addressing the ethical obligations of lawyers who are switching firms to ensure that legal services are duly provided to clients especially during the transition period. This helps the firm and the leaving lawyer to meet halfway while protecting the clients' interests. The move further emphasizes the need to uphold integrity and accountability among legal professionals. In this LIVE Webcast, a seasoned panel of thought leaders and professionals brought together by The Knowledge Group will provide the audience with an in-depth discussion of the ethical obligations required of a lawyer. Speakers will analyze the recently released guidelines along with other significant developments to stay compliant in this dynamic legal climate. For any more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.

(0.5 Diversity California MCLE) As humans, we all hold implicit biases which create blind spots that subconsciously affect our understanding and decision-making. Such biases have continue to contribute to low diversity and inclusion rates in law. Paulette Brown, the first woman of color to serve as the president of the American Bar Association, offers concrete examples of biases at play in the legal profession, and what lawyers, firms, and companies can do to mitigate its harmful effects. Paulette Brown is a senior partner and the Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer at Locke Lord LLP. She is a member of the labor and employment practice group. She is a past president of the American Bar Association (ABA). Previously, she served as in-house counsel to several Fortune 500 companies and served as a Municipal Court Judge.

The American Bar Association (ABA) will be voting on a resolution that would urge state legislatures to adopt the controversial “affirmative consent” as the criminal definition of sexual consent at its annual meeting this week. Such a resolution is not merely symbolic, as the ABA sets academic standards for law schools and recommends legislation, prompting concerns from some legal experts. Read the article here!

What is the American Bar Association (ABA) doing to ensure there is a national voice for, not just the legal profession, but for vulnerable people and communities that we serve, to make sure that the Constitution is protected? As his term comes to an end, current ABA President Bob Carlson sits down with ALPS Executive Vice President Chris Newbold to discuss the ABA's work to move the needle on tough topics like lawyer wellbeing, natural disaster relief, immigration, diversity and inclusion, and the vision of global stewardship. Transcript:   CHRIS NEWBOLD:              Good afternoon. This is Chris Newbold, executive vice president of ALPS. Welcome to ALPS in Brief podcast. I'm actually here today in Missoula, Montana. It's July 19, 2019, and I have a very special guest here in our offices. Current ABA president in America, attorney Bob Carlson. Bob Carlson is a former past president of the state bar of Montana and is the second Montanan to ever hold the post of ABA President. Bob, thank you for joining us today. BOB CARLSON:                       Well Chris, thanks for having me. And just to tell your viewers, we just completed another successful ALPS leadership retreat here in Missoula, and had bar leaders and executive directors from around the country. It was inspirational as always, so thank you. CHRIS:                 Yeah, obviously ALPS, in our malpractice insurance, one of the strong partnerships that we enjoy is our relationship with state bars and, and Bob was actually, back in his state bar is, was a major force in the creation of ALPS. And so we obviously appreciate his longtime support of ALPS. Bob, let's talk, I want to talk a little bit about ... Let's talk one year ago today, right? So you were on the cusp of going into the annual meeting in which you were going to be sworn in as president of the ABA, right? Talk to our listeners about just kind of what you were thinking about before you went into the post. Obviously, you went through a pretty long cycle of leadership positions in the ABA, but there's, there's probably nothing like kind of getting ready for the actual year itself. And so talk to us about your mindset, about what you were thinking about going into the year as ABA president. BOB:                          Well, a few things. First of all, my predecessor, Hilarie Bass had started some programs that we wanted the association to continue. Going back a couple of years before that with Linda Klein and Paula Brown, they had started some programs that as an association, we wanted to continue. What we didn't want to do is just start something new, start a fresh initiative that was Bob Carlson's initiative. And I think that Hilarie had a similar mindset and we had worked well together and an issue that was very, very important to both of us was attorney wellness and wellbeing. We were bound and determined to continue to spread the message about the work that the association and state local bars were doing in that area. The second thing was to try to continue to spread the message about what the ABA and its young lawyers division does in the area of disaster relief and disaster resiliency. In the last two years, we've had disasters, significant devastating disasters, whether it's hurricanes or tornadoes or wildfires or earthquakes from the US Virgin Islands to American Samoa. So literally one end of this country to the other, and we wanted to continue to focus on that. Immigration was a critical issue. The ABA has significant policy in this area to try to assist in making sure that, number one, the children that were removed from their families were reunited. We're still working on that. Number two, that unaccompanied minors got a fair hearing and got as much representation, whether direct representation or pro bono representation, that we could provide or at a minimum that they had been provided with some information about what their rights were and also to assist people seeking asylum. We continue to work on that even though the landscape seems to change on a regular basis. And finally we were rolling out a new website and a new membership model. I come from a very small firm in a rural state and I wanted to make sure that we had Hilarie and Judy and some other, Judy Perry Martinez, my successor, and others speaking for the larger firms. Hillary's firm was 2000 lawyers. At the start of my year, we had five or six. We're now three due to a couple of moves out of state of a couple of associates. But wanted to really show to lawyers in small firms around the country that the ABA was relevant to them. And that was a great value in terms of making them a better practitioner, providing them the right tools they needed to assist their clients, and to make it more affordable and accessible. On the eve last, almost what is a 49 weeks ago today? That was the thought. Had a lot of momentum going into the year from things that my predecessors had done, and I think we've kept the momentum up and, and moved the ball forward on a lot of areas. CHRIS:               That's a really interesting thing to kind of note because I think in the governance model of the ABA, there has been a little bit, what's the president's initiative? Best practices in nonprofit governance would tell you that, you know, there's a strategic plan, right? And there's a vision of a board and the president is just the steward of the vision, right? As opposed to, and it seems like there's been a lot of progress with the last couple of leaders of the ABA in terms of executing a coherent, sustainable vision for the organization. BOB:                        And that's been the goal. I grew up in the bar world in the state bar, Montana. When I first became a member of the board, we were just starting, this was back in the 80s, we were just starting our strategic planning process and when I became president we were five, six years into that process and the presidents were moving things forward. A strategic plan keeps getting evolved every year. You look at it every year. You've done retreats, the [inaudible 00:06:43] retreats for the state bar and others, that you know, what have you accomplished but needs more work? What new issues have arisen on the landscape? The legal profession is constantly evolving. Issues constantly evolve, so you have to figure out a way to meet that. Most of the state bars though don't have the turnover, complete turnover in leadership that the ABA does. So you have a board at the ABA that rolls over completely, is a new board every three years We have a strategic plan now for the board that Hilarie pushed through. We have done some reorganization internally, but the mindset has to be at the top. The leaders at the top have to say, listen, we support the association moving forward. This is not about the individuals that are the presidents. This is about the association. This is about the profession. This is about the independence of the judiciary, and diversity and inclusion. What are we going to do to move those things forward? And the way you do it is you sort of have a relay. It's not a sprint. It's not, I'm going to do as much as I can in one year. It is confident in the knowledge that you keep moving the baton forward. That I took it from Hilarie and I'm giving it to Judy and she's giving it to Patricia Refo from Arizona, and we're going to continue to move the association forward in a strategic way, and in an organized way. This gives you the flex. This allows you to meet the ongoing programs, to continue to expand and work on programs, but also meet the new things that happen in every presidency. Whether you're a state bar president or the president of the largest voluntary legal association in the world, every year there's going to be something that happens that you're going to have to react to on behalf of your members and on behalf of the profession. CHRIS:                 So you have those expectations, right? There's continuity in the goals one year later. How do feel like things at one? BOB:                    I actually feel really good. We have moved. We have made progress in a number of areas, and I think the association as a whole has strengthened. We did a lot of things last year to strengthen and we did a number of more to strengthen it, and we are positioned to really have a very strong national association for the future. I think for the listener that's critically important to the independence of the judiciary. It's critically important to due process and the rule of law that you have a national voice for, it's not just for the legal profession, it's for vulnerable people and communities that we serve to make sure that the message gets delivered, to make sure that the Constitution is protected. I feel like we really as an association have made a lot of progress, and one area that we've made significant progress in is the area of lawyer wellness and wellbeing. Thanks a lot in no small part to your work and assistance as the co-chair of the ABA working group on lawyer wellbeing in the profession. I'm sure I've totally messed up the title but we have really created a movement. Primarily my job is taking in as many groups as possible about the issues concerning lawyer wellbeing and lawyer wellness, whether it's a state bar, or a local bar, or law schools, or meetings of managing partners, or to regional bar associations. Not only what the ABA is doing, but how we can partner with all the other stakeholders, including companies like ALPS, who write legal malpractice insurance and have been big supporters of the organized bar since ALPS inception. So I feel really good. We created a pledge we have for legal employers to talk about and think about lawyer wellness and wellbeing for their employees. We've got 120 legal employers that have signed up both law schools, in-house counsel, some of the largest law firms in the country, and then a small firm like myself. So it's not just for big firms, and it's not a one size fits all. It's what can you do to make sure that the consciousness of the law firms and the employers are raised so that they are more aware of the issues that their employees are going through. So if somebody needs help, they know the resources they can get to, the toolkit on lawyer wellbeing with the 80 tips, a [inaudible 00:11:53] that you can download on your phone. I mean that's tremendous progress in an area where we needed something to say, listen, this is okay to talk about. It is okay to get help. It is imperative that you get help. And we're trying to make sure that publicly, every day, everywhere I've gone this year to every audience, those words come out of my mouth. If you need help, we have the resources to get you help. Because to be a good lawyer, you need to be a healthy lawyer. CHRIS:                Yeah. And how would you characterize the state of attorney wellbeing right now if you had to kind of step back and reflect a little bit? Because obviously, we have a long way to go. The numbers are not favorable, right? But education and discussion and as you say, the creation of a movement dedicated to the betterment of the profession is a noble direction for us to take. BOB:                        It is, and we've made progress. I do think we've made progress. The conversations over the past year, I sort of lost track of the count, but I think I spoke in 17, 18, 19 law schools primarily on the topic of lawyer and law student wellbeing, urging law schools to think about it. And there's a number of law schools that are doing great things. There's number of law schools that within an hour after leaving the lunch with the students, they created a working group to discuss how they could do things in their law school, which included faculty, interested faculty members and deans. So I think we've kept this as sort of a fear thing for so long. People were afraid that if they identified as having a problem, whether it's a mental disease problem, anxiety, depression, bipolar, whatever, or if it's a substance issue, they felt that if they sought help that they'd have to report themselves and that they would be stigmatized, and they would be penalized for that either in their admission to the law school or their admission to the bar. So we increased the bandwidth of the stakeholders where we have regular discussions with the conference of chief justices. So the 50 chief justices from every state who can basically oversee the practice of law and the admission to law and to practice in their states. We've had discussions in law schools. We've had discussions with managing partners of big firms, medium firms, and small firms. There was a national summit where educators, lawyers, legal malpractice insurance companies got together to talk about how to move this message forward. I'd say the most important thing we've done is we talked about it every day, and I think that's made a big difference. There's a lot of things, there's a lot of positive things that the legal profession is doing today. A lot of, whether it's volunteering a for pro-Bono in disaster relief areas, whether it's volunteering to assist people seeking asylum at the border or in their communities, whether it's volunteering to help people with their veterans benefits, or the elderly. Whether it's lobbying for legal services, adequate funding and the Legal Services Corporation or the public service loan forgiveness program. All things that the profession is doing, the great things. Those things provide you satisfaction as lawyers. Helping somebody pro bono, for free, provides satisfaction. So we're trying to provide as many opportunities to younger lawyers to do that, as well as more seasoned lawyers like myself. At the same time, it's sort of an individual decision about how you want your life as a legal practitioner to unfold. Do you want to be a professor? Do you want to work in government? Do you want to be in a big firm or small firm? When I taught in law school, since I come from a small firm, and Hilarie comes from a very large firm before me, and Judy comes from a medium-sized firm, I make that analysis. Here's the world's largest legal association. Here's three totally separate, 2000 lawyer firm from Miami, three to five lawyer firm at the time I started from Butte Montana, a few hundred lawyers from New Orleans, Louisiana. That's pretty diverse in terms of practice areas, in terms of scope. You lay that out to people saying these are things that you can do. You can choose to practice where you want, and you need to make part of that decision to make yourself feel like you're giving back. CHRIS:               In many respects, you know, the attorney wellbeing is a one attorney at a time progression. Right? And the more that we're raising the visibility of the issue, willing to have meaningful conversations, be vulnerable at times. Right? And be able to look out for one another. It's amazing how much impact you can have, one lawyer can have, on the people around them. BOB:                       Yeah. And I think for a long time, people were either embarrassed or didn't want to interfere. But if you look at it in terms of if you saw somebody that was stepping out in front of a bus, you know, you'd reach out and grab the person. And people that are suffering from either addiction or anxiety, depression, other mental diseases, that's that equipment. And do you have to at least say something, be willing to raise the issue, not to embarrass them, not to demean them, to treat it as a part of society. These things are in society. Unfortunately, the legal profession has way higher averages of people suffering from these issues than the average population and way more than the other professions. And so we need to be able to speak up. And I think part of it historically was, oh, that was a sign of honor to, I could party hard and then still get up and go to work and be a great a lawyer or I, you know, I feel bad so I'm not going to go help because that would make me seem weak. So I'm going to, you know, ignore it for self-medicate, which compounds the problem. And the more you can normalize this, or de-stigmatize it, the more you can say, this is part of life. We're here to help you. You need to get help and we are not going to judge you when you do it. CHRIS:              Yeah. And one of the things that also I think is interesting is that you know, there seems to be more willingness as a society for us to talk about these issues, right? I mean, you, you hear top 40 songs talking about suicide hotlineS, and you see a lot more stars coming out and being more vulnerable about things that are affecting them. And then you have generational change. Right? And so talk about what you see in terms of just, you know, you spent a lot of time in law schools. I mean, I think the generational shift in terms of the millennials are soon going to be, you know, the majority of lawyers out there. Right? And what that means in terms of the awareness of worK-life balance, professional satisfaction and willingness to talk about these issues more openly and honestly. BOB:                          Yeah, I think the trend is, I think we're seeing some positive results in the more experienced, the baby boomer generation, getting help and being willing to talk about it. But I really do see a great hope for the profession with our younger lawyers and with the law students coming out because they are more willing to seek help. They're more willing to seek fulfillment in both their day jobs, whatever they are, but also volunteering on issues of importance to them. And as an association, we're trying to provide as many opportunities for them as possible so they can volunteer their time and talents to the communities where they live. And I think that is going to pay dividends in terms of their self-fulfillment, their enjoyment of their job. I've practiced law now for, I graduated 40 years ago, and there's been some tough times. The practice of law is difficult, but I've always enjoyed doing this. I've always enjoyed being a lawyer, helping clients. But I think part of what's given me the fulfillment in this is this. I mean I've been active in the state and national bar, you know, since the early eighties, so not too long after I got a law school. And that sense of giving back to the profession, that sense of being around talented lawyers from all over the country, and having that experience has really been fulfilling in not only my life but my family's life. My wife and I have great friends all over the country, that but for doing this volunteer work, we would've never met these people. And I think that part of the thing is to, and I come from a small firm, we've always been a small firm and we've always been committed to giving back to both the bar and the community. But that sense of fulfillment is something that if we can convince more lawyers starting in law school and more young lawyers to participate in that, to take that time and provide more opportunities. You don't have to do this. I mean being the president of this association has been great, but you know, not everybody's going to do this. I do know that in every classroom, every group of young lawyers that I talk to, I say the same thing. There is somebody in this room that in the next 20 years is going to be standing up giving this set of remarks to the next generation of lawyers. Because I do believe that. I believe that you have to be open to the possibilities that one thing you do, one day, one volunteer effort somewhere, you have to be open to the possibility that that is not only going to change the person's life that you're helping, that it's going to change your life. And I think our generation has done a pretty good job. But this next generation I think is ready, willing and able to step up to the plate. And I have great confidence. Is it perfect yet? No, but are we making progress? Did we move the needle this year in a number of areas as an association of profession? Absolutely yes. CHRIS:             That's great. That's great. Tell me how has your small firm perspective been important in your leadership perspective? Not that it's unusual that a small firm lawyer becomes president of the ABA. But when you look at the numbers, right? 49% of, you know, the ABA statistics, 49% of lawyers in private practice are solo practitioners. Right? And then the next, you know, 24, 26% are in firms of two to five. Right? So it's fairly unusual to find somebody who has the capacity, the commitment to step forward and bring that perspective from a leadership perspective. And so I'm wondering how you reflect now about how that perspective has been part of your leadership journey. BOB:                    Well, I certainly think it's helped. It's helped keep me grounded. I've never taken myself too seriously, although I tried to learn something every day and lay awake at night thinking could I have done this better or differently. But I think that being from a smaller firm, when you're out talking to groups of lawyers, most of them are going to be in that category. And I know what they're going through. I mean, I know the day to day ups and downs, and joys and sort of a downside of being in a small firm and being part of the fabric of a community. And being from a rural state, that sort of amplifies that. Because lawyers volunteer everywhere, but if you're in a big city that shouldn't, but it sort of gets lost in the whole, there's a lot of people doing a lot of things. If you're in a small town or from a rural state, you see lawyers on every board. You see lawyers coaching soccer and baseball and refereeing and they're part of the fabric, the literal fabrics of their communities. And to be from that background, I think gives you a better voice when you're talking to those folks. I think the association as a whole and the leaders have always done a great job trying to assist solo and small firm lawyers be better lawyers. We've got great tools for that. We've worked hard over the last several years to expand that. And maybe it was in part because of comments or suggestions that I brought to the table being from that perspective. And so I think that it allows you to walk up and say, listen, I get it. Now the larger firm lawyers who have been president, they're empathetic. They do get it. They want to help everybody there. Their job, you're leading this association, you want to help all the members and you want to increase membership. You want to gain more people so you can help more people help more clients. And so they get it. But it's like when I walk into the room with 50 managing partners of these major law firms, I get it because I've been in those discussions, some of them I've known for a long time, but I don't know what it is they're going through managing 59 offices in 30 countries or whatever it is. I mean I empathize but they're like looking at me like what do you know? And I think that now there's a face because there's been this misperception that the ABA is only for big law firms and coastal law firms. And that's just not true. A vast number of our members are from solo and small firms and, but now they know that you can lead this. Now they know that number one, leadership is for everybody. It's very diverse across all categories. And they know that there's somebody here that they could pick up the phone and say, I'm having this issue, what programs are the ABA running or do you have to help me? And they know that I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking to them. It's just a matter of expanding the bandwidth and pushing the envelope that we have all sorts of people who've risen to the top and leadership of this association. This association is a big tent and it is for everybody, no matter where you come from, no matter what your practice, no matter what your firm size, no matter what your gender, race, social or sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, whatever. This association is for them. We have done I think a better job over the last several years of moving that message, in part because of who we've selected to be the president of this association. CHRIS:                 Well, you sit now in the home stretch of your tenure as president, just a few short weeks you'll be handing off the baton. Have you had any time to reflect on the year? You've, you've been go, go, go, go, go. I'm just curious about the personal side of this type of service, commitment to the profession. I'm sure you'll have a decompression time at some point here in the near future. But you've been in enough airplanes where you probably get some time to think as well. BOB:                         Yeah. I've been trying to take it one hour at a time, literally. Get to the next commitment, be in the moment for the people that I'm speaking to or having conversations with at the time, and then keep moving. I've done some reflection on the plains, but a lot of it is how can I do a better job and the time that's remaining in this term to deliver the message better. Trying to learn from every set of remarks, how could I make more of an impact on the audience? How can I make this work? How can we make a broader impact on other issues facing the profession and the judiciary in the United States and frankly the world? So what can you do to move that forward? And I've been very fortunate. My very small law firm has supported me. I have still practiced law this year, not as much as maybe I would have liked to help my partner out and help the law firm out in our clients, but I've done some, which is a little unusual for an ABA president. And I think I've had great support from my wife Cindy. Because we have two dogs who miss us and we miss them. We haven't traveled a lot together and plus this job is sort of like being on a rock band tour without the band. You're sometimes in multiple cities in a handful of days and she prefers to go to a location to sort of be there for a few days, three or four days at a time. And there's times when you're in a city for two hours. So it's been a little difficult at times. But she's been great. But we've been in this for the whole run. We're going to be 34 years of marriage, but we dated before that. So she's my entire career or bar service, my entire career at my law firm, which I started in 1981, she's been in the picture. And she's got a lot of friends in the state bars, and in the national bar, and people that she's met around the world. This has been a fabulous experience. I'll sit back and reflect later, but we still have three weeks give or take to go and there's still more stuff to do. We're still trying to every day look at things and say, how can we do good today and continue to move the association forward? CHRIS:               Well thank you Bob, obviously for your service. I think anybody who ultimately serves in a service capacity, in a leadership role, I think our ultimate goals that leave the organization better than we found it. Right? And I think that if that's the benchmark versus success, I think you should certainly be proud of what you've been able to achieve in your year as ABA President. And again, there's a lot of people around you. There's an incredible ABA staff, right? This is an organization that's committed to betterment. And you know, while you're the steward of the vision at this point, I know it's got to be fulfilling for you to begin to think about the fact that you've ideally move the needle forward and you're going to leave at a stronger organization than you found it. BOB:                          Yeah, you sort of stole my last set of comments. But yeah, we do have a great, not only a great staff, they're tremendous and they provide a great deal of support. But we have a tremendous number of volunteer members, volunteer lawyer leaders around the country that participate like yourself, on working groups, committees, task force commissions, the sections that provide the substantive practice. We have such a great wealth of talent in this association. We are definitely moving the needle in a number of areas. Do we have more work to do? Yes, but we will continue to do that. We'll continue to speak out where it's necessary in defense of, not only the profession, not only the judiciary, but in defense of due process and rule of law, both in this country and around the world. That's what the association has been doing. I am fortunate enough to be the 142nd president. We've been doing this for 142 years, three years, and we're going to keep doing it. So thanks for your time. I appreciate all that you've done and all that ALPS has done as a company to support the organized bar. CHRIS:                 Bob, it's been fun. I appreciate you taking a couple of minutes on a late Friday afternoon at the conclusion of our ALPS bar leaders retreat. Again, Bob's been a great friend of mine and our organization. We thank him for his service and leadership of this great profession. So thank you Bob. BOB:                        Thank you. Appreciate it. CHRIS:                 That will conclude our ALPS in Brief a podcast. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, please let us know for future topics, and that's it. Have a great weekend. Thanks.  

Host: Nancy May, President and CEO, BoardBench CompaniesGuest: Perry GranofShow: Part 2 of 2There’s so much more than what you might expect is need to ensure that you, a director of a Public, Private, PE/VC, family-owned, or not-for-profit firm, are properly protected, right up until the end game. In this show you’ll learn how to access indispensable resources, some simply right at your fingertips! In addition:Have you heard of the risks associated with GDPR exposures? No? Are you among those who haven’t taken any action on this front? You may be in good company as more than 50% of companies haven’t done so either. But the risks may be more than you might imagine: international penalties could be as much as 4% of your company’s annual revenues! As for Non-Profits, even having the best intentions could impact your wallet. NFP issues are often more sensitive, emotional, and personal, and the desire for some to “teach directors a lesson” could come to hit you, in more way than one, unless dealt with early on. Always be careful when the heart is not in sync with the head.On the Cyber frontier… Ignorance is no longer a defense like it might have been before! Directors are expected to be smarter, so do the work upfront that makes you so. Last in our lineup – but not least on the topic – are intellectual property, R&D assets, and trade secrets. These can protect your future profits and success, yet the door is still wide open for international intrusion, theft, and “accidental” vulnerabilities in markets where you might be less familiar. Hiccups on this front can easily catch you, leaving you with only lint in your pocket. What do you do? Where do you turn to cover both you and the companies you serve? Caught off guard and you could face criminal violation charges, prison, or maybe even a death sentence! So how do you put your mind at rest? Listen and learn as Perry and I show you what’s beneath the surface.Want more? We’ll be hosting a D&O CYA or Bust program for current, new, and prospective directors. We’ll go into some details that will let you better serve at a higher level, with more understanding, while protecting yourself too! Send us your name and contact points for more information. Here's the link! D&O CYA or BustPerry S. Granof JD is the Managing Director at Granof International Group LLC, where he provides insurance consulting, expert witness, and claims resolution services specializing in international and domestic Professional Liability Insurance, having previously served as Vice President and Claims Counsel with The Chubb Corporation. He is the principal editor of and contributor to The Global Directors and Officers Deskbook published by the ABA in September 2014, authored the chapter on “International ADR” for the book entitled Resolving Insurance Claim Disputes Before Trial, published by the ABA in June 2018, and has spoken on Professional Liability Insurance throughout the world.Mr. Granof is a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin, the Washington State Bar, the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, where he attained his Fellowship designation in International Arbitration (FCIArb). He is also an Illinois Licensed Property and Casualty Producer. Mr. Granof graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Wisconsin, was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa honors society, and completed his training in Mediation Skills through Northwestern University.He currently serves on State Bar of Wisconsin Dispute Resolution Section Board and the CIArb-North American Executive Board, having previously served as Chair of the Torts Trial and Insurance Section (TIPS) Dispute Resolution; Professionals’ Officers’ and Directors’ Liability; and International Committees of the American Bar Association (ABA). He is a designated Elite Expert with IMS Expert Services. He also sits as a Public Arbitrator for the Financial Institution Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a certified ARIAS Arbitrator, and a member of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial and Consumer Panels.To ask for more information on this show and others, please go to BoardBench.com and our contact page.Disclaimer: This program is not intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice. Always seek the guidance and advice from a licensed attorney on the matters discussed in this show. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Host: Nancy May, President and CEO, BoardBench CompaniesGuest: Perry GranofShow: Part 1 of 2New directors, typically, have the best intentions to do what’s right in their roles as directors. Despite good intentions, things sometimes happen beyond anyone’s control. Your duties as a board member, whether they be on a public, private, family-owned, venture-backed, investment fund, or not-for-profit board, can vary widely. Regardless, at a base level, your main responsibility is to ensure that the entity that hired you remains financially healthy and able to serve its articulated purposes. Doing this requires organizations to determine and understand the risks they face, and to manage them properly through sound controls, practices, and/or cost-effective insurance coverage. Prudent directors tend to apply these considerations to their own personal and professional welfare, too.In this first of a two-part series, Nancy May and Perry Granof , discuss the basics that every director should know about Directors and Officers Liability Insurance , from understanding your coverage to what to consider to ensure you’re adequately protected.Perry S. Granof is the Managing Director at Granof International Group LLC, where he provides insurance consulting, expert witness, and claims resolution services specializing in international and domestic Professional Liability Insurance, having previously served as Vice President and Claims Counsel with The Chubb Corporation. He is the principal editor of and contributor to The Global Directors and Officers Deskbook published by the ABA in September 2014, authored the chapter on “International ADR” for the book entitled Resolving Insurance Claim Disputes Before Trial, published by the ABA in June 2018, and has spoken on Professional Liability Insurance throughout the world.Mr. Granof is a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin, the Washington State Bar, the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, where he attained his Fellowship designation in International Arbitration (FCIArb). He is also an Illinois Licensed Property and Casualty Producer. Mr. Granof graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Wisconsin, was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa honors society, and completed his training in Mediation Skills through Northwestern University.He currently serves on State Bar of Wisconsin Dispute Resolution Section Board and the CIArb-North American Executive Board, having previously served as Chair of the Torts Trial and Insurance Section (TIPS) Dispute Resolution; Professionals’ Officers’ and Directors’ Liability; and International Committees of the American Bar Association (ABA). He is a designated Elite Expert with IMS Expert Services. He also sits as a Public Arbitrator for the Financial Institution Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a certified ARIAS Arbitrator, and a member of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial and Consumer Panels.To ask for more information on this show and others, please go to BoardBench.com and our contact page. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Season 2 of The Future of Resolution Podcast kicks off with former American Bar Association president Linda Klein. In this episode, Klein touches on a range of important issues impacting the practice of law, including the importance of diversity in alternative dispute resolution; judicial independence; and attorney wellness initiatives.  Klein is a senior managing shareholder at Baker Donelson and a past president for the American Bar Association (ABA), the world's largest voluntary professional association. She previously served as chair of the ABA's House of Delegates, the association's policymaking body. She has also served as chair of the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, chair of the Committee on Rules and Calendar of the House of Delegates, chair of the Coalition for Justice, and chair of ABA Day, the Association's Congressional outreach effort. She is a recent member of the Council of the ABA Section of International Law and also served as a columnist and on the Board of Editors of Law Practice Management Magazine. In 2013,  Klein had the honor of being a McGlothlin fellow on the campuses of William and Mary's Business and Law Schools. She delivered the commencement addresses at Atlanta's John Marshall College of Law (2018), Georgia State University College of Law (2017), Cleveland-Marshall College of Law (2017), Pepperdine University School of Law (2016), and Washington and Lee University School of Law (2012). In 2009, Klein was honored with the Randolph Thrower Award for Lifetime Achievement and was named to the YWCA Academy of Women Achievers. In 2004, the American Bar Association honored Ms. Klein with the prestigious Margaret Brent Achievement Award.

  Jeff Bunn, lawyer, wellness expert and owner of the Mindful Law Coaching and Consulting Group, presents the business case for investing in attorney wellness. As he sits down with ALPS Executive Vice President, Chris Newbold, Jeff lays out why making mindfulness a priority in the legal profession makes sense not just from the health standpoint of health, but also the economics of the practice of law. To learn more about all areas of attorney wellness, visit the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being's Resource Page, featuring the report and more information on what is happening in your state. ALPS In Brief, The ALPS Risk Management Podcast, is usually hosted by ALPS Risk Manager, Mark Bassingthwaighte. This episode is hosted by Chris Newbold, ALPS Executive Vice President. Transcript: CHRIS: All right. Welcome. This is Chris Newbold. Welcome to another version of the ALPS podcast ALPS in Brief. I'm sitting here in downtown Chicago with one of the experts in the field of wellness, Jeff Bunn, who is the owner of the Mindful Law Coaching and Consulting Group. Had a chance to meet Jeff a few weeks ago and he's doing some wonderful work in the field. Today we're going to talk about the business case for wellness and why that makes good sense for firms, law firms, and the legal profession in general. Maybe what we'll do is start, Jeff, by just having you just introduce yourself and what gives you an interest in this particular area. I know you've had a distinguished legal career as well. Maybe just a little context on who you are. JEFF: Absolutely. I'd be happy. Thanks very much for inviting me, Chris. It's a delight to speak with you. My focus is really mindfulness, which is a little piece of the wellness pie, if you will. I happen to think it's a great and very important issue. It's an issue that gets a lot of play, a lot of thought, a lot of curiosity. My story very briefly, I started ... I used to be like your Type A trial guy, long distance running. I was walking the dog one day, slipped on some black ice, got my knee scoped, and long story short couldn't run anymore. I was looking for something that was a low impact, no impact alternative to running. Little did I realize that I used to go out ... When I talk about running I'm talking about an hour or two hours kind of thing. It was meditation for me. What I got into, because of my injury, was yoga. A lot of the men and women that I met practicing yoga talk about not only the poses and the practice but also other things that are more spiritual. I just found that that kind of resonated for me. I took a training session, a meditation training session that is, and I just got into it. Now I'm not a proselytizer. I'm not out there banging the drum for being a spiritual guru. Quite to the contrary, I think that there are a lot of aspects of mindfulness, which is a piece of a larger tradition, like the Buddhist tradition in particular, that I think can be ... It's not an all or nothing proposition as a lot of people, men and women who I respect, feel a great deal of affection for and know. They're kind of an all or nothing ... You're either all in or you're not. I get that. I understand it but I do believe that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There are aspects of that faith or spiritual practice, Buddhism, mindfulness in particular, that can have a business application. My saying is, which I ripped off from Dan Harris who is a great guy, is a news anchor that you or some of your listeners may know of, also the author of a great book, 10% Happier. It's an old book now. He's written more recently. It's about mindfulness and how it changed him. Dan came up with a description of what is mindfulness? Well, if you ask 50 different people you're going to get 50 different definitions. He came up with a great soundbite that just works for me, "Simple, secular, scientific". That's really what it is. To me, it's brain training. Mindfulness, that aspect of a broader practice, can be segmented, can be applied to the business world in terms of helping us focus our attention, prioritize our distractions, and the like. CHRIS: That's the key to it then is the ability? I mean, obviously we know that most lawyers in practice are go, go, go, busy, busy, busy, right? JEFF: Yup. Yup. CHRIS: The value proposition of mindfulness comes in where? JEFF: I think in terms of being able to again focus our attention and then prioritize distractions. There are distractions like emails, telephone calls, partners hanging out with a cup of coffee in the doorway wanting to talk about whatever. Yet we have a filing that we have to get done by such and such a time. Or we have a meeting coming up in 20 minutes and we need to think about that. Or a phone call or what have you. I think that there are a lot of ... I think of it in terms of physical fitness and mental fitness. Everybody gets the idea of physical fitness now. As employee benefits go it's not a stretch at all to have firms or businesses help their employees deal with the ... They'll make contributions towards their monthly gym dues or what have you. Well, let's start taking care of our minds as well as our bodies. I think if you think of mindfulness as not just vague woo woo kind of thing but actually very specific brain training. Attention, prioritizing distractions ... The distractions will come but if one learns to focus one's attention in the midst of all the distractions that come that's going to make you a better lawyer. It'll make you a better professional. Therefore, I think it has ... Those practices, while it might not seem obvious, have an application in the business world. CHRIS: Yeah. We had a chance to be on a panel a couple of weeks ago. I think you've been able to crystallize as succinctly as I've been able to hear it about just the value of mindfulness and the value that it can bring ... If I'm a senior partner at a law firm build the case for me for why this is a good path to pursue. Often times we hear wellness and we think, "Oh, somebody is taking a two hour lunch," which for a lot of senior partners means that's less billable hours, right? JEFF: Yeah. CHRIS: It's a little bit of a ... I think you've been able to turn it on its head a little bit and say, "There are some real definitive business case elements to thinking about wellness, thinking about mindfulness." I'd love for you to present that for our audience. JEFF: Sure. I'd be happy to do that. It really has been a part of my journey. If I was having a conversation with you and you'd ask me, "What is mindfulness?" I'd start talking to you about what mindfulness is but in your mind you could just see people's eyes glaze over. They're just thinking it's all woo woo and, "Oh, Jeff has lost it. He's gone around the bend." I get that. It was very frustrating at first because I felt like I was banging my head against the wall trying to convince people of something that they were disinclined to believe. Then I started thinking, you know, if you can change the conversation ... Don't talk about something that whoever you're speaking to may think of as woo woo, as something vague and ill-defined with a lot of negative connotations. Let's talk about things that we do understand that have real meaning for us. That's how I started thinking about is there such a thing as a business case for mindfulness. I think there is. As I've thought about it I've come up with ... There are five areas that I touched upon that I alluded to when you and I last met ... I'm sure there are more. It just requires more thought. Just knocking them off and here I'm going to call myself out here, I better remember this, recruiting, retention, insurance costs, CLE costs, and basically productivity, which kind of ties all those together. I think in terms of business, hard dollars, the idea of recruiting younger men and women. How does one law firm stand out from the crowd? How does one distinguish one's self? If a recruiter is able to say, "We value the minds of the men and women who work for us, old and young, and we put our money where our mouth is" that's going to help you tell a story that's going to hopefully help you recruit the best and the brightest to your firm. CHRIS: Particularly with this generation, right? JEFF: Absolutely. CHRIS: One that's I think coming into the legal profession with a sense of, "Obviously I want to do incredible work as a new lawyer but I also want to maintain a better work/life balance." JEFF: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I have said and I still maintain that a law firm's greatest asset is its lawyer's minds. If you can begin to make a case, a real case, not just lip service, but a real case that we value our lawyer's minds, we want to protect them and the way we protect them is help them be happier, help them live a life that's more fulfilling, then that's a good thing for them and it's good for us as well, which really gets to the idea of retention. If men and women who are at a law firm five, six, seven years out instead of saying, "I'm going to go in-house. I'm going to go do something else. I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that, but I'm done doing this, the law firm thing." Well, what a cost. The cost to the law firm of replacing the talent is huge. CHRIS: Huge. JEFF: It's huge. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. You lose in terms of continuity, of service to clients. You lose potentially the business of some clients. There's just nothing good I would submit that accrues to a law firm by virtue of a departure of a seasoned professional. I think it behooves a law firm to do what it can to help keep the men and women it has been developing. Recruiting is a big issue but retention I think is a huge issue. I think also insurance costs and kudos to ALPS for recognizing that. I think that both in the area of health costs and perhaps professional liability costs it can be having a real committed, defined program can help deal with both health costs and professional liability costs. Very quickly on the health thing. One might question, "How does taking care of your mind translate into benefits that can accrue to you physically? To your body?" What I mentioned in the talk that you and I participated in recently was a Wall Street Journal article that was two or three weeks ago. Maybe a month at best. That was talking about mindfulness app developers that have begun the process of applying through the FDA for approval of some of their apps as medical devices. Because, now we get into the science that I won't bore you or your listeners with now, the science behind all of this ... If you go to Aetna is a big company that has embraced mindfulness. If you have any interest at all go to their website. Aetna's got a great ... CHRIS: Scientific studies are clearly there now. JEFF: Big time. Big time. On the subject of science too I'm a little bit off-topic here but I'll go there, the idea of neuroplasticity. Relevance for younger men and women in terms of recruiting and retention that's I think something that firms need to pay attention to but what about their older people? People like me? CHRIS: Yeah. JEFF: Why would I care? Well, forget about me but just as an example as a human being who is 65 years old, neuroplasticity, which has driven a lot of the science and a lot of studies, is really the answer. The concept behind neuroplasticity is that regardless of one's age, it's not just babies, it can be 65 year old people, we can rewire our brains. We can learn new things. The brain is a live, malleable, plastic thing. There are good reasons why even older people can and should engage in mindfulness because it relates to neuroplasticity and the ability to learn. Again, back to ... CHRIS: CLE and then productivity. JEFF: Right. Now we've got CLE and productivity. CLE, a lot of states have started ... Well, there are at least a handful, maybe 10, states now that have adopted ABA standards. The ABA did a great service to our profession by appointing the National Task Force on Wellbeing, which authored a report. It's a lengthy report, as you know very well. 70-ish pages including the appendices. It's a great read, by the way. I heartily commend it to anybody who is interested in the topic. Apropos of that task force findings there have been recent changes recommended, not yet adopted by all states but it's just a matter of time, it will be, that include among CLE a requirement that men and women in the legal profession study programs that are either mental health, substance abuse, diversity and inclusion. I would suggest to you that I think in terms of ... Those are costs that are typically borne by a law firm that instituting a program will help a firm qualify and train their people in that area. All of which gets to the issue of productivity, which just makes people who are happier and are better balanced work better. Not longer. The billable hour is still with us. There's going to be plenty of emphasis placed on that by the business people but allowing and putting into place programs that help our men and women work better as opposed to longer ... CHRIS: There's no doubt that to be a good lawyer one has to be a healthy lawyer, right? The more that we encourage those types of cultures I think the more that we're going to see the economic return of that. JEFF: Absolutely. Just in conclusion, it occurs to me ... I think I mentioned this too earlier that I think the airlines really get it right when we all fly for business or pleasure and part of the opening instructions are always, "If in the unlikely event of a water landing or whatever take care of yourself first. Put your mask on first and then take care of other people." CHRIS: Yeah. JEFF: Same concept applies to lawyers. If we learn to take care of ourselves, physically and mentally, we'll do a better job for our clients. CHRIS: Awesome. Well, Jeff, if people want to get a hold of you and want to talk a little bit more about the mindfulness or the wellness things that you are working on how can they reach you? JEFF: Love to do that. Thank you for asking. Probably the best way is to deal with my email address. Right now it's J Bunn Law, J B-U-N-N, Law at Gmail dot com. Just bang me out an email. Whatever is on your mind. I obviously like to talk about this stuff. I'd be delighted to do just that. CHRIS: Good. Well, thank you, Jeff. Thank you listeners. Again, if you have any topics of interest that you'd like us to focus on an upcoming podcast please let us know. Thank you. JEFF: Chris, thanks. Okay.   Jeffrey H. Bunn is a retired litigation attorney, who practiced in both State and Federal courts for nearly 40 years, and was previously member of a three-person Management Committee for a Chicago law firm. “I'm one of us. I've represented many different clients in a variety of civil matters, was a former ethics partner and have managed (and been managed by) others. I understand how lawyers and law firms operate. I also understand business and business people. And I'm a regular meditator, trained in the vipassana tradition”. Jeff was prior chair of the Chicago Bar Association (“CBA”) Commercial Litigation committee, and more recently, the founder and chair of the CBA committee on Mindfulness and the Law. Jeff was the initial vice-chair of the Lawyers' Assistance Program (“LAP”) Illinois Task Force for Lawyer Well-Being (modeled after the National Task Force that was formed by the American Bar Association (“ABA”), which issued a written Report in late 2017). He has led guided meditation sessions for the American Association of Law Schools (“AALS”), and the State Bar of Nevada. In addition, Jeff has presented on matters concerning the incorporation of mindfulness and meditation into the practice of law for the CBA, Chicago Volunteer Legal Services (“CVLS”) and the National Association of Bar Executives (“NABE”), as well as other professional organizations. Jeff was previous blogger-in-chief of the, “The Mindful Law Guy” blog, and has written a book (Canary In The Coalmine) that is submitted for publication, as well as a screenplay (The Meditation Hesitation Blues), that has been submitted for sale and production.

Interview! Richard Angelo, Legislative Attorney for Best Friends Animal Society “Getting those community cat programs started, where cats are not even entering the shelter… it’s so key in saving lives.” Richard Angelo, a legislative attorney for Best Friends Animal Society, is a long-time animal welfare advocate who fell into animal law when he ran across the story of a pit bull in need of help. He simply couldn’t walk away, and with that case, his move into companion animal law began. For years, Richard had a private legal practice dealing with companion animal issues, and towards the end of that part of his career, he began to get more and more involved with community cat caretakers and the issues they were facing with ordinances that prevented or curtailed TNR efforts. It was around that time that Richard saw an ad for a legal position at Best Friends. He got the job, and he’s been going strong ever since, working on a huge variety of animal-related issues around the country, including legislation around community cats. Richard is very proud of the work Best Friends does to make rapid, lasting changes in the cat live release rate in shelters around the country through community cat programs. As a member of the American Bar Association (ABA), and vice-chair of its Animal Law Committee, Richard helped convince the ABA to pass a resolution in support of TNR in 2015, making them one of the first non-animal organizations to do so. Richard advises folks who are having a hard time getting TNR programs going due to legislation in their area to open upon a dialogue with their local shelter and community leaders — and to arm themselves with good data and success stories. He and Stacy both encourage listeners in these situations not to give up. Stacy urges us not to walk away from the cats, as there is always a way to get them the help they need, even if there are ordinances in place that make it more difficult. To learn more about Best Friends Animal Society, visit bestfriends.org. You can also sign up for legislative alerts specific to your area at bestfriends.org/action, or you can email Richard Angelo directly at richarda@bestfriends.org. To learn more about the American Bar Association’s Animal Law Committee, visit apps.americanbar.org, and you can see their TNR resolution by clicking here.

The last time Legal Talk Network interviewed Hilarie Bass, she laid out the pillars of her tenure as president of the American Bar Association (ABA). In this report from On The Road at the 2008 ABA Midyear Meeting, host Laurence Colletti talks to her about how she has addressed some of these issues including women leaving the profession, homeless youth, ABA Legal Fact Check, the future of legal education, attorney wellness, and the effects of the recession on the legal market. Hilarie Bass is currently president of the American Bar Association and co-president of international law firm Greenberg Traurig.

Interview of Elizabeth (Libby) Jamison, a military spouse, an attorney, a member of the Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel, American Bar Association (ABA) and the President of the Military Spouse JD Network. Elizabeth will educate listeners on all of the resources available for military members, veterans and their families through ABA's initiatives/networks such as ABA Home Front, ABA Military Pro Bono Project and the ABA Veterans Claims Assistance Network. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ferah-ozbek/message

You may have heard of the National Association of Bar Executives (NABE) and seen their workshops at ABA Annual, but who are they and why should you consider becoming a member? In this report from On The Road, host Laurence Colletti talks to Elizabeth Derrico about who the NABE is and how they serve and provide support to their members. They also discuss the New York State Bar Association and its relationship with the NABE. Elizabeth Derrico is an executive at the American Bar Association (ABA) and an associate executive director of the New York State Bar Association.