Podcasts about Bar association

In this latest episode of the series, "Intersections: Energy and Environmental Issues in Law and Tech," Cathy Pagano of the Women's Bar Association of D.C. (WBA) interviews Lorraine Spradley Wilson, Founder and Strategic Advisor at Blue Horizon.Lorraine explains how she founded Blue Horizon, a DC based advisory firm that helps organizations from early-stage startups to nonprofits, achieve sustainable growth. She also explains how thoughtful sustainability reporting and the resulting data help these organizations become more resilient and successful. In addition, Lorraine shares resources for organizations starting this process.Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

Each episode on Unstoppable Mindset I ask all of you and my guests to feel free to introduce me to others who would be good guests on our podcast. Our guest this time, Erin Edgar, is a guest introduced to me by a past podcast guest, Rob Wentz. Rob told me that Erin is inspirational and would be interesting and that she would have a lot to offer you, our audience. Rob was right on all counts. Erin Edgar was born blind. Her parents adopted an attitude that would raise their daughter with a positive attitude about herself. She was encouraged and when barriers were put in her way as a youth, her parents helped her fight to be able to participate and thrive. For a time, she attended the Indiana School for the Blind. Her family moved to Georgia where Erin attended high school. After high school, Erin wanted to go to college where she felt there would be a supportive program that would welcome her on campus. She attended the University of North Carolina at Chapple Hill. After graduating she decided to continue at UNC where she wanted to study law. The same program that gave her so much assistance during her undergraduate days was not able to provide the same services to Erin the graduate student. Even so, Erin had learned how to live, survive and obtain what she needed to go through the law program. After she received her law degree Erin began to do what she always wanted to do: She wanted to use the law to help people. So, she worked in programs such as Legal Aid in North Carolina and she also spent time as a mediator. She will describe all that for us. Like a number of people, when the pandemic began, she decided to pivot and start her own law firm. She focuses on estate planning. We have a good discussion about topics such as the differences between a will and a living trust. Erin offers many relevant and poignant thoughts and words of advice we all can find helpful. Erin is unstoppable by any standard as you will see. About the Guest: Erin Edgar, Esq., is a caring, heart-centered attorney, inspirational speaker and vocal artist. She loves helping clients: -- Plan for the future of their lives and businesses, ensuring that they have the support they need and helping them find ways to provide for their loved ones upon death. --Ensure that the leave a legacy of love and reflect client values -- Find creative ways that allow them to impact the world with a lasting legacy. She is passionate about connecting with clients on a heart level. She loves witnessing her clients as she guides them to transform their intentions for their loved ones into a lasting legacy through the estate planning process. Erin speaks about ways to meld proven legal tools, strategies, and customization with the creative process to design legal solutions that give people peace of mind, clarity, and the assurance that their loved ones will be taken care of, and the world will be left a better place Ways to connect with Erin: Facebook: https://facebook.com/erin-edgar-legal LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/erinedgar About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson ** 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us.   Michael Hingson ** 01:21 Hi everyone, and welcome to another edition of unstoppable mindset. We're glad that you're here with us, wherever you may be. Hope the day is going well, and we have Erin Edgar on our episode today. Edgar is a very interesting person in a lot of ways. She's a caring, heart centered attorney. She is also an inspirational speaker and a vocal artist. I'm not sure whether vocal artistry comes into play when she's in the courtroom, but we won't worry about that too much. I assume that you don't sing to your judges when you're trying to deal with something. But anyway, I'll let her answer that. I'm just trying to cause trouble, but Erin again. We're really glad you're with us. We really appreciate you being here, and I know you do a lot with estate planning and other kinds of things that'll be fun to talk about. So welcome to unstoppable mindset.   Erin Edgar ** 02:14 Thank you, Michael. It's great to be here, and I haven't sung in a courtroom or a courthouse yet, but I wouldn't rule it out.   Michael Hingson ** 02:23 I have someone who I know who also has a guide dog and his diet. His guide dog, it's been a while since I've seen him, but his guide dog tended to be very vocal, especially at unexpected times, and he said that occasionally happened in the courtroom, which really busted up the place. Oh, dear.   Erin Edgar ** 02:45 I imagine that would draw some smiles, hopefully, smiles.   Michael Hingson ** 02:48 Well, they were, yeah, do you, do you appear in court much?   Erin Edgar ** 02:53 Um, no, the type of law that I practice, I'm usually, I don't think I've ever appeared in court after I've written people's wills, but I have done previous things where I was in court mediating disputes, which is a kind of a separate thing that I used to do, so I've been in court just not recently. Yeah.   Michael Hingson ** 03:17 Well, that's understandable. Well, let's start a little bit with the early Erin and growing up and all that sort of stuff. Tell us about that? Sure.   Erin Edgar ** 03:26 So I was born in cold, gray Indiana, and, yeah, chilly in the wintertime, and I started out I was blind from birth, so my parents thought it would be a good idea to send me to the school for the blind for a while. And back when I was born, um, teen years ago, they did not mainstream visually impaired and disabled students in that state, so you went where you could, and I was at the blind school for until I reached third grade, and then we moved to Georgia, and I've been in the south ever since I live in North Carolina now, and I started going to public schools in fourth grade, and continued on that route all the way up through high school.   Michael Hingson ** 04:21 Oh, okay. And so then, what did you do?   Erin Edgar ** 04:29 So after, after that, I, you know, I was one of those high school students. I really wanted to get out of dodge and leave my high school behind. I went visiting a couple of colleges in Georgia, and I said to my parents, I said, I really don't like this. It's like going to high school again. Literally, I was meeting people I had been in high school with, and I decided, and was very grateful that my parents. Were able to rig it some way so that I could go to an out of state school. And I went to UNC Chapel Hill here in North Carolina, Tar Heels all the way. And I was there for undergrad. And then I got into law school there as well, which I was very excited about, because I didn't have to go anywhere, and graduated from law school again a while ago in the early 2000s   Michael Hingson ** 05:31 Okay, and so then you went straight into law from that.   Erin Edgar ** 05:37 I didn't I did some other things before I actually went into law itself. I worked with some local advocacy organizations, and I also mediated, as I said earlier, I did mediations with the county court, helping mediate criminal disputes. And we're talking about like things with you get in a dispute with your neighbor and you yell at each other, those kind of People's Court type things. They were fun and interesting. And then I did go into law. After that, I started working with Legal Aid of North Carolina, which is a an organization that helps people in poverty who cannot afford a lawyer to go and have have their options communicated to them and some help given to them regarding their public benefits or certain other, you know, public things that we could help with we weren't able to help with any personal injury, or, you know, any of the fun stuff you see on TV. So and then, when the pandemic hit, I started my own law practice and completely changed gears and went into writing estate plans and wills for a living.   Michael Hingson ** 07:07 Do you think that your time doing mediation work and so on taught you a lot about humanity and human nature and people?   Erin Edgar ** 07:16 It did. I bet it did. It was invaluable, actually, in that area taught me a lot about, I don't know necessarily, about human nature. However, it did teach me a lot about how to talk to people who were on different pages. You know, they had, perhaps, values and principles that weren't quite the same, where they had a different way of looking at the same exact situation, and how to bring those those people together and allow them to connect on a deeper level, rather than the argument we're able to get them to agree to kind of move forward from that, so nobody has to be found guilty, right? And you know a judge doesn't have and you don't have to drag a criminal conviction around with you. I think the most rewarding cases that I had, by far were the education cases. Because I don't know if anyone knows this, but in most states, in the United States, if you don't send your kids to school, you are guilty of a crime. It's called truancy, and you can be arrested. Well, the county that I live in was very forward thinking, and the school system and the court said, that's kind of dumb. We don't want to arrest parents if their kids aren't going to school, there's something behind it. You know, there the school is not providing what the child needs. The child's acting out for some reason, and we need to get to the bottom of it. So what they did was they set up a process whereby we come in as neutral observers. We did not work for the court. We were part of a separate organization, and have a school social worker there or counselor, and also have a parent there, and they could talk through the issues. And in a lot of cases, if the children were old enough, they were teenagers, they were there, and they could talk about it from their perspective. And truly amazing things came out of those situations. We could just we would discover that the children had a behavioral issue or even a disability that had not been recognized, and were able to come up with plans to address that with you know, or the school was with our help,   Michael Hingson ** 09:42 going back a little bit, how did your parents deal with the fact that you were blind? I gather it was a fairly positive experience   Erin Edgar ** 09:50 for me. It was positive. I was so fortunate, and I'm still so grateful to this day for having parents who you. I were very forward thinking, and advocated for me to have and do whatever, not whatever I wanted, because I was far from spoiled, but, you know, whatever, yeah, yeah, you know. But whatever, however I wanted to be successful, they advocated for me. And so my mother actually told me, you know, when I was born, they went through all the parent things like, oh, gosh, what did we do wrong? You know, why is God punishing us? You know, all that. And they, very early on, found support groups for, you know, parents with children with either blindness or disabilities of some sort, and that was a great source of help to them. And as I grew up, they made every effort to ensure that I had people who could teach me, if they couldn't, you know, how to interact with other children. I think, for a while when I was very little, and I actually kind of remember this, they hired an occupational therapist to come and teach me how to play with kids, because not only was I blind, but I was an only child, so I didn't have brothers and sisters to interact with, and that whole play thing was kind of a mystery to me, and I remember it sort of vaguely, but that's just A demonstration that they wanted me to have the best life possible and to be fully integrated into the sighted world as much as possible. So when I was at the blind school, and I was in this residential environment, and there was an added bonus that my parents didn't really weren't happy in their jobs either, and they weren't happy with the education I was getting, that they decided, well, we're just going to pick up and move and that was, quite frankly, as I look back on it now, a huge risk for them. And they did it, you know, 50% for me and 50% for them, maybe even 6040, but as I look back on it now, it's another demonstration of how supportive they were, and all the way through my school age years, were very active in ensuring that I had everything that I needed and that I had the support that I needed.   Michael Hingson ** 12:19 That's cool. How did it go when you went to college at UNC?   Erin Edgar ** 12:25 Yeah, that's an interesting question, a very good question.   Michael Hingson ** 12:29 You didn't play basketball, I assume? Oh no, I figured you had other things to do.   Erin Edgar ** 12:33 Yeah, I had other stuff to do. I sang in the choir and sang with the medieval chorus group, and, you know, all this other, like, musical geek, geeky stuff. But, or, and when we were looking for colleges and universities, one of the criteria was they had to have a solid kind of, like disability, slash visually impaired center, or, you know, support staff that would help in, you know, allow people with disabilities to go through the university. So at UNC Chapel Hill, the they had as part of their student affairs department Disability Services, and it just so happened that they were very aware of accommodations that blind people needed. I wasn't the first blind student to go through undergrad there. That's not law school, that's undergrad. And so you know, how much was it? Time and a half on on tests if I was doing them on the computer, double time if I was doing them in Braille. A lot of the tests were in Braille because they had the technology to do it. And also the gentleman who ran the Disability Services Department, I think, knew Braille, if I'm not mistaken, and could transcribe if necessary. But I was at the stage at that point where I was typing most of my exams anyway, and didn't need much that was in Braille, because I had books either electronically or they had a network of folks in the community that would volunteer to read if there was not, you know, available textbooks from RFD, and what is it, RFP and D? Now was at the time, yeah, now Learning Ally, there wasn't a Bookshare at that time, so we couldn't use Bookshare, but if there weren't textbooks available, they would have people in the community who would read them for them, and they would get paid a little bit. Now, when I went to law school, it was a totally different ball game, because I was the first law student who was blind, that UNC Chapel Hill had had, and it was a different school within the school, so that student affairs department was not part of law school anymore, and we had quite a time the first semester getting my book. Works in a format that I could read them in. They did eventually, kind of broker a deal, if you will, with the publishers who were either Thompson Reuters or Westlaw at the time to get electronic versions. They were floppy disks. This is how old I am. Floppy disks. They were in this weird format. I think it was word perfect or something. Usually it was, and they   Michael Hingson ** 15:27 didn't really have a lot of them new or no, they didn't know now, newer publishing system,   Erin Edgar ** 15:32 yeah, there wasn't PDF even, I don't think, at the time. And the agreement was I could get those, and I actually had to buy the print textbooks as well. So I have this whole bookcase of law books that are virgin, unopened, almost. And they are, you know, some of them almost 25 years old, never been opened and of no use to anyone. But I have them, and they look nice sitting down there in that bookshelf antiques books. They're antiques. So the first year was a little rough, because for a while I didn't have books, and we were able to make arrangements so that I could kind of make up some classes on a later year and switch things around a little bit. And it ended up all working out really well once we got started.   Michael Hingson ** 16:16 Yeah, I remember when I was going through getting my bachelor's and master's in physics, I needed the books in braille because, well, it's the only way to be able to really deal with the subject. You can't do it nearly as well from recordings, although now there's a little bit better capability through recording, because we have the DayZ format and so on. But still, it's not the same as reading it in Braille and for mathematics and physics and so on. I think that the only way to really do it is in Braille. And we had challenges because professors didn't want to decide what books to use until the last minute, because then, oh, a new book might be coming out and we want to get the latest book, and that didn't work for me, right? Because I had a network that I, in part, I developed with the Department of Rehabilitation out here, helped our office for disabled students didn't really have the resources to know it. They were very supportive. They just didn't really deal with it. But the bottom line is that we had to develop, I had to develop the network of transcribers, but they needed three to six months to do the books, at least three months and and sometimes I would get them one or two volumes at a time, and they barely kept ahead of the class. But, you know, it worked, but professors resisted it. And my the person who ran the Office for Students with Disabilities, said, Look, you have to work on these things, but if you're not getting cooperation from professors, and you come and tell me, and I will use the power of this office to get you what you need, there's another thing you might consider doing, she said. And I said, What's that? And Jan said, Go meet the chancellor. Make friends, yeah, friends in high places. And so I did. And Dan, oh, there you go. Became pretty good friends over the years, which was pretty cool,   Erin Edgar ** 18:15 you know, it was weird because we didn't, I didn't have that problem with the professors. They were, you know, I had a couple of old codgers, but they weren't really worried about the books. They were fine with me having the books, but it was the publishers. The publishers were irritated that that I needed them, and, you know, in an alternative format. And I didn't really, I was not. I was one of those people that if someone said they were going to do something for me, I kind of let people do it. And at the time, I was really not an advocate, advocator for myself, at that time, a very good self advocate. And so I kind of let the school interface with that. I think it would have been really interesting, if I look back on it, for me to have taken a hand in that. And I wonder what would have happened well, and at this point, you know, it's neither here nor there, but that's really fascinating. Making Friends with the chancellor, sometimes you have to do stuff like that   Michael Hingson ** 19:15 well. And the idea was really to get to know Him. And what there was, well, obviously other motivations, like, if we needed to go to a higher court to get help, we could go to the chancellor. I never had to do that, but, but the reason for meeting him and getting to know him was really just to do it and to have fun doing it. So we did,   Erin Edgar ** 19:36 yeah, and I kind of had a comparable experience. I met the Dean of the Law School for that very reason. And he said, you know, if you've got trouble, come to me, my parents got involved a little bit. And we all, you know, met together and maybe even separately at some points just to make sure that I had everything that I needed at various times. Mm. Yeah, and I made friends with the some of the assistant deans at the law school, in particular because of the situation, and one of whom was the Dean of the Law School Student Affairs, who was helping me to get what I needed. And for a while, when I was in law school and beyond. He was like, We lent books to each other. It was very funny. We found out we had the same reading tastes beyond law books. It wasn't, you know, legal at all, but we were like, trading books and things. So a lot of really good relationships came out of that.   Michael Hingson ** 20:37 And I think that's extremely important to to do. And I think that's one of the things that that offices for students with disabilities that tend to want to do everything for you. I think that's one of the things that it's a problem with those offices, because if you don't learn to do them, and if you don't learn to do them in college, how are you going to be able to be able to really act independently and as an advocate after college, so you have to learn that stuff   Erin Edgar ** 21:05 Absolutely. That's a very good point.   Michael Hingson ** 21:09 So I, I think it was extremely important to do it, and we did, and had a lot of fun doing it. So it was, was good. What are some of the biggest misconceptions you think that people had about you as a blind child growing up?   Erin Edgar ** 21:25 Oh yeah, that's a great question. I think that one of the biggest misconceptions that people had about me, especially when I was younger, is that I would know I would be sort of relegated to staying at home with parents all of my life, or being a stay at home parent and not able to be kind of professionally employed and earning, you know, earning a living wage. Now, I have my own business, and that's where most of my money goes at the same at this point. So, you know, earning a living wage might be up in the air at the moment. Ha, ha. But the the one thing I think that the biggest misconception that people had, and this is even like teachers at the blind school, it was very rare for blind children of my age to grow up and be, you know, professionals in, I don't want to say high places, but like people able to support themselves without a government benefit backing them up. And it was kind of always assumed that we would be in that category, that we would be less able than our sighted peers to do that. And so that was a huge misconception, even you know, in the school that I was attending. I think that was the, really the main one and one misconception that I had then and still have today, is that if I'm blind, I can't speak for myself. This still happens today. For instance, if I'm if I want, if I'm going somewhere and I just happen to be with someone sighted, they will talk whoever I'm, wherever I'm at, they will talk to the sighted person, right? They won't talk to you. They won't talk to me. And so, for instance, simple example, if I'm somewhere with my husband, and we happen to be walking together and we go somewhere that I need to go, they will talk to him because he's guiding me, and they won't talk. And he's like, don't talk to me. I have no idea, you know, talk to her, and part of that is I'm half a step behind him. People naturally gravitate to the people that are leading. However, I noticed, even when I was a young adult, and I would go, you know, to the doctor, and I would be with my my parents, like, maybe I'm visiting them, and I need to go to the doctor, they would talk to them and not me, yeah, which is kind of sad. And I think it happens a lot, a lot more than people realize.   Michael Hingson ** 24:10 Yeah, it does. And one of my favorite stories is, is this, I got married in 1982 and my wife has always been, or had always been. She passed away in 2022 but she was always in a wheelchair. And we went to a restaurant one Saturday for breakfast. We were standing at the counter waiting to be seated, and the hostess was behind the counter, and nothing was happening. And finally, Karen said to me, she doesn't know who to talk to, you know? Because Karen, of course, is, is in a wheelchair, so actually, she's clearly shorter than this, this person behind the counter, and then there's me and and, of course, I'm not making eye contact, and so Karen just said she doesn't know who to talk to. I said, you know? All she's gotta do is ask us where we would like to sit or if we'd like to have breakfast, and we can make it work. Well, she she got the message, and she did, and the rest of the the day went fine, but that was really kind of funny, that we had two of us, and she just didn't know how to deal with either of us, which was kind of cute. Mm, hmm. Well, you know, it brings up another question. You use the term earlier, visually impaired. There's been a lot of effort over the years. A lot of the professionals, if you will, created this whole terminology of visually impaired, and they say, well, you're blind or you're visually impaired. And visually impaired means you're not totally blind, but, but you're still visually impaired. And finally, blind people, I think, are starting to realize what people who are deaf learned a long time ago, and that is that if you take take a deaf person and you refer to them as hearing impaired, there's no telling what they might do to you, because they recognize that impaired is not true and they shouldn't be equated with people who have all of their hearing. So it's deaf or hard of hearing, which is a whole lot less of an antagonistic sort of concept than hearing impaired. We're starting to get blind people, and not everyone's there yet, and we're starting to get agencies, and not every agency is there yet, to recognize that it's blind or low vision, as opposed to blind or here or visually impaired, visually impaired. What do you think about that? How does and how does that contribute to the attitudes that people had toward you?   Erin Edgar ** 26:38 Yeah, so when I was growing up, I was handicapped, yeah, there was that too, yeah, yeah, that I was never fond of that, and my mother softened it for me, saying, well, we all have our handicaps or shortcomings, you know, and but it was really, what was meant was you had Something that really held you back. I actually, I say, this is so odd. I always, I usually say I'm totally blind. Because when I say blind, the immediate question people have is, how blind are you? Yeah, which gets back to stuff, yeah, yeah. If you're blind, my opinion, if you're blind, you're you're blind, and if you have low vision, you have partial sight. And visually impaired used to be the term, you know, when I was younger, that people use, and that's still a lot. It's still used a lot, and I will use it occasionally, generally. I think that partially sighted, I have partial vision is, is what I've heard people use. That's what, how my husband refers to himself. Low Vision is also, you know, all those terms are much less pejorative than actually being impaired,   Michael Hingson ** 27:56 right? That's kind of really the issue, yeah. My, my favorite example of all of this is a past president of the National Federation of the Blind, Ken Jernigan, you've heard of him, I assume, Oh, sure. He created a document once called a definition of blindness, and his definition, he goes through and discusses various conditions, and he asks people if, if you meet these conditions, are you blind or not? But then what he eventually does is he comes up with a definition, and his definition, which I really like, is you are blind if your eyesight has decreased to the point where you have to use alternatives to full eyesight in order to function, which takes into account totally blind and partially blind people. Because the reality is that most of those people who are low vision will probably, or they may probably, lose the rest of their eyesight. And the agencies have worked so hard to tell them, just use your eyesight as best you can. And you know you may need to use a cane, but use your eyesight as best you can, and if you go blind, then we're going to have to teach you all over again, rather than starting by saying blindness is really okay. And the reality is that if you learn the techniques now, then you can use the best of all worlds.   Erin Edgar ** 29:26 I would agree with that. I would also say you should, you know, people should use what they have. Yeah, using everything you have is okay. And I think there's a lot of a lot of good to be said for learning the alternatives while you're still able to rely on something else.   Michael Hingson ** 29:49 Point taken exactly you know, because   Erin Edgar ** 29:53 as you age, you get more and more in the habit of doing things one way, and it's. Very hard to break out of that. And if you haven't learned an alternative, there's nothing you feel like. There's nothing to fall back on, right? And it's even harder because now you're in the situation of urgency where you feel like you're missing something and you're having to learn something new, whereas if you already knew it and knew different ways to rely on things you would be just like picking a memory back up, rather than having to learn something new. Well, I've never been in that position, so I can't say, but in the abstract, I think that's a good definition.   Michael Hingson ** 30:34 Well, there are a lot of examples, like, take a person who has some eyesight, and they're not encouraged to use a cane. And I know someone who was in this situation. I think I've told the story on this podcast, but he lived in New Jersey and was travel. And traveled every day from New Jersey into Philadelphia to work, and he was on a reasonably cloudy day, was walking along. He had been given a cane by the New Jersey Commission for the Blind, but he they didn't really stress the value of using it. And so he was walking along the train to go in, and he came to the place where he could turn in and go into the car. And he did, and promptly fell between two cars because he wasn't at the right place. And then the train actually started to move, but they got it stopped, and so he was okay, but as as he tells the story, he certainly used his cane from then on. Because if he had been using the cane, even though he couldn't see it well because it was dark, or not dark, cloudy, he would have been able to see that he was not at the place where the car entrance was, but rather he was at the junction between two cars. And there's so many examples of that. There's so many reasons why it's important to learn the skills. Should a partially blind or a low vision person learn to read Braille? Well, depends on circumstances, of course, I think, to a degree, but the value of learning Braille is that you have an alternative to full print, especially if there's a likelihood that you're going to lose the rest of your eyesight. If you psychologically do it now, that's also going to psychologically help you prepare better for not having any eyesight later.   Erin Edgar ** 32:20 And of course, that leads to to blind children these days learn how to read, yeah, which is another issue.   Michael Hingson ** 32:28 Which is another issue because educators are not teaching Braille nearly as much as they should, and the literacy rate is so low. And the fact of the matter is even with George Kircher, who invented the whole DAISY format and and all the things that you can do with the published books and so on. The reality is there is still something to be said for learning braille. You don't have sighted children just watching television all the time, although sometimes my parents think they do, but, but the point is that they learn to read, and there's a value of really learning to read. I've been in an audience where a blind speaker was delivering a speech, and he didn't know or use Braille. He had a device that was, I think what he actually used was a, was, it was a Victor Reader Stream, which is   Erin Edgar ** 33:24 one of those, right?   Michael Hingson ** 33:25 I think it was that it may have been something else, but the bottom line is, he had his speech written out, and he would play it through earphones, and then he would verbalize his speech. Oh, no, that's just mess me up. Oh, it would. It was very disjointed and and I think that for me, personally, I read Braille pretty well, but I don't like to read speeches at all. I want to engage the audience, and so it's really important to truly speak with the audience and not read or do any of those other kinds of things.   Erin Edgar ** 33:57 I would agree. Now I do have a Braille display that I, I use, and, you know, I do use it for speeches. However, I don't put the whole speech on   Michael Hingson ** 34:10 there that I me too. I have one, and I use it for, I know, I have notes. Mm, hmm,   Erin Edgar ** 34:16 notes, yeah. And so I feel like Braille, especially for math. You know, when you said math and physics, like, Yeah, I can't imagine doing math without Braille. That just doesn't, you know, I can't imagine it, and especially in, you know, geometry and trigonometry with those diagrams. I don't know how you would do it without a Braille textbook, but yeah, there. There's certainly something to be said for for the the wonderful navigation abilities with, you know, e published audio DAISY books. However, it's not a substitute for knowing how to   Michael Hingson ** 34:55 read. Well, how are you going to learn to spell? How are you going to really learn sit? Structure, how are you going to learn any of those basic skills that sighted kids get if you don't use Braille? Absolutely, I think that that's one of the arenas where the educational system, to a large degree, does such a great disservice to blind kids because it won't teach them Braille.   Erin Edgar ** 35:16 Agreed, agreed. Well, thank you for this wonderful spin down Braille, Braille reading lane here. That was fun.   Michael Hingson ** 35:27 Well, so getting back to you a little bit, you must have thought or realized that probably when you went into law, you were going to face some challenges. But what was the defining moment that made you decide you're going to go into law, and what kind of challenges have you faced? If you face challenges, my making an assumption, but you know what?   Erin Edgar ** 35:45 Oh, sure. So the defining moment when I decided I wanted to go into law. It was a very interesting time for me. I was teenager. Don't know exactly how old I was, but I think I was in high school, and I had gone through a long period where I wanted to, like, be a music major and go into piano and voice and be a performer in those arenas, and get a, you know, high level degree whatnot. And then I began having this began becoming very interested in watching the Star Trek television series. Primarily I was out at the time the next generation, and I was always fascinated by the way that these people would find these civilizations on these planets, and they would be at odds in the beginning, and they would be at each other's throats, and then by the end of the day, they were all kind of   Michael Hingson ** 36:43 liking each other. And John Luke Picard didn't play a flute,   Erin Edgar ** 36:47 yes, and he also turned into a Borg, which was traumatic for me. I had to rate local summer to figure out what would happen. I was in I was in trauma. Anyway, my my father and I bonded over that show. It was, it was a wonderful sort of father daughter thing. We did it every weekend. And I was always fascinated by, like, the whole, the whole aspect of different ideologies coming together. And it always seemed to me that that's what human humanity should be about. As I, you know, got older, I thought, how could I be involved in helping people come together? Oh, let's go into law. Because, you know, our government's really good at that. That was the high school student in me. And I thought at the time, I wanted to go into the Foreign Service and work in the international field and help, you know, on a net, on a you know, foreign policy level. I quickly got into law school and realized two things simultaneously in my second year, international law was very boring, and there were plenty of problems in my local community that I could help solve, like, why work on the international stage when people in my local community are suffering in some degree with something and so I completely changed my focus to wanting to work in an area where I could bring people together and work for, you know, work on an individualized level. And as I went into the legal field, that was, it was part of the reason I went into the mediation, because that was one of the things that we did, was helping people come together. I realized, though, as I became a lawyer and actually started working in the field, most of the legal system is not based on that. It's based on who has the best argument. I wanted no part of that. Yeah, I want no part of that at all. I want to bring people together. Still, the Star Trek mentality is working here, and so when I when I started my own law firm, my immediate question to myself was, how can I now that I'm out doing my own thing, actually bring people together? And the answer that I got was help families come together, especially people thinking about their end of life decisions and gathering their support team around them. Who they want to help them? If they are ever in a situation where they become ill and they can't manage their affairs, or if you know upon their death, who do they want to help them and support them. And how can I use the law to allow that to happen? And so that's how I am working, to use the law for healing and bringing people together, rather than rather than winning an argument.   Michael Hingson ** 39:59 Yeah. Yeah, well, and I think there's a lot of merit to that. I I value the law a great deal, and I I am not an attorney or anything like that, but I have worked in the world of legislation, and I've worked in the world of dealing with helping to get legislation passed and and interacting with lawyers. And my wife and I worked with an attorney to set up our our trust, and then couple of years ago, I redid it after she passed away. And so I think that there was a lot of a lot of work that attorneys do that is extremely important. Yeah, there are, there are attorneys that were always dealing with the best arguments, and probably for me, the most vivid example of that, because it was so captivating when it happened, was the whole OJ trial back in the 1990s we were at a county fair, and we had left going home and turned on the radio, only To hear that the police were following OJ, and they finally arrested him. And then when the trial occurred, we while I was working at a company, and had a radio, and people would would come around, and we just had the radio on, and followed the whole trial. And it was interesting to see all the manipulation and all the movement, and you're right. It came down to who had the best argument, right or wrong?   Erin Edgar ** 41:25 The bloody glove. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Yeah, yep, I remember that. I remember where I was when they arrested him, too. I was at my grandparents house, and we were watching it on TV. My grandfather was captivated by the whole thing. But yes, there's certainly, you know, some manipulation. There's also, there are also lawyers who do a lot of good and a lot of wonderful things. And in reality, you know, most cases don't go to trial. They're settled in some way. And so, you know, there isn't always, you know, who has the best argument. It's not always about that, right? And at the same time, that is, you know, what the system is based on, to some extent. And really, when our country was founded, our founding fathers were a bunch of, like, acted in a lot of ways, like a bunch of children. If you read books on, you know, the Constitution, it was, it was all about, you know, I want this in here, and I want that in here. And, you know, a lot of argument around that, which, of course, is to be expected. And many of them did not expect our country's government to last beyond their lifetimes. Uh, James Madison was the exception, but all the others were like, Ed's going to fail. And yet, I am very, very proud to be a lawyer in this country, because while it's not perfect, our founding documents actually have a lot of flexibility and how and can be interpreted to fit modern times, which is, I think the beauty of them and exactly what the Founders intended for.   Michael Hingson ** 43:15 Yeah, and I do think that some people are taking advantage of that and causing some challenges, but that's also part of our country and part of our government. I like something Jimmy Carter once said, which was, we must adjust to changing times while holding to unwavering principles. And I think absolutely that's the part that I think sometimes is occasionally being lost, that we forget those principles, or we want to manipulate the principles and make them something that they're not. But he was absolutely right. That is what we need to do, and we can adjust to changing times without sacrificing principles. Absolutely.   Erin Edgar ** 43:55 I firmly believe that, and I would like to kind of turn it back to what we were talking about before, because you actually asked me, What are some challenges that I have faced, and if it's okay with you, I would like to get back to that. Oh, sure. Okay. Well, so I have faced some challenges for you know, to a large extent, though I was very well accommodated. I mean, the one challenge with the books that was challenging when I took the bar exam, oh, horror of horrors. It was a multiple, multiple shot deal, but it finally got done. However, it was not, you know, my failing to pass the first time or times was not the fault of the actual board of law examiners. They were very accommodating. I had to advocate for myself a little bit, and I also had to jump through some hoops. For example, I had to bring my own person to bubble in my responses on the multiple choice part, it. And bring my own person in to kind of monitor me while I did the essay portion. But they allowed me to have a computer, they allowed me to have, you know, the screen reader. They allowed me to have time and a half to do the the exam. And so we're accommodating in that way. And so no real challenges there. You know, some hoops to jump through. But it got all worked out.   Michael Hingson ** 45:23 And even so, some of that came about because blind people actually had to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Yes, the bar to the Bar Association to recognize that those things needed to be that way,   Erin Edgar ** 45:37 absolutely. And so, you know, I was lucky to come into this at a time where that had already been kind of like pre done for me. I didn't have to deal with that as a challenge. And so the only other challenges I had, some of them, were mine, like, you know, who's going to want to hire this blind person? Had a little bit of, you know, kind of challenge there, with that mindset issue for a while there, and I did have some challenges when I was looking for employment after I'd worked for legal aid for a while, and I wanted to move on and do something else. And I knew I didn't want to work for a big, big firm, and I would, I was talking to some small law firms about hiring me, small to mid size firms. And I would get the question of, well, you're blind, so what kind of accommodations do you need? And we would talk about, you know, computer, special software to make a talk, you know, those kinds of things. And it always ended up that, you know, someone else was hired. And I can, you know, I don't have proof that the blindness and the hesitancy around hiring a disabled person or a blind person was in back of that decision. And at the same time, I had the sense that there was some hesitation there as well, so that, you know, was a bit of a challenge, and starting my own law firm was its own challenge, because I had to experiment with several different software systems to Find one that was accessible enough for me to use. And the system I'm thinking about in particular, I wouldn't use any other system, and yet, I'm using practically the most expensive estate planning drafting system out there, because it happens to be the most accessible. It's also the most expensive. Always that. There's always that. And what's it called? I'm curious. It's called wealth Council, okay, wealth. And then the word councils, Council, SEL, and it's wonderful. And the folks there are very responsive. If I say something's not accessible, I mean, they have fixed things for me in the past. Isn't that great? And complain, isn't that wonderful? It is wonderful. And that's, that's awesome. I had a CRM experience with a couple of different like legal CRM software. I used one for a while, and it was okay. But then, you know, everyone else said this other one was better and it was actually less accessible. So I went back to the previous one, you know. So I have to do a lot of my own testing, which is kind of a challenge in and of itself. I don't have people testing software for me. I have to experiment and test and in some cases, pay for something for a while before I realize it's not, you know, not worth it. But now I have those challenges pretty much ironed out. And I have a paralegal who helps me do some things that, like she proof reads my documents, for instance, because otherwise there may be formatting things that I'm not, that I miss. And so I have the ability to have cited assistance with things that I can't necessarily do myself, which is, you know, absolutely fine,   Michael Hingson ** 49:04 yeah. Now, do you use Lexus? Is it accessible?   Erin Edgar ** 49:08 I don't need Lexus, yeah, yeah. I mean, I have, I'm a member of the Bar Association, of my, my state bar association, which is not, not voluntary. It's mandatory. But I'm a member primarily because they have a search, a legal search engine that they work with that we get for free. I mean, with our members, there you go. So there you go. So I don't need Lexus or West Law or any of those other search engines for what I do. And if I was, like, really into litigation and going to court all time and really doing deep research, I would need that. But I don't. I can use the one that they have, that we can use so and it's, it's a entirely web based system. It's fairly accessible   Michael Hingson ** 49:58 well, and. That makes it easier to as long as you've got people's ears absolutely make it accessible, which makes a lot of sense.   Erin Edgar ** 50:08 Yeah, it certainly does well.   Michael Hingson ** 50:10 So do you regard yourself as a resilient person? Has blindness impacted that or helped make that kind of more the case for you? Do you think I do resilience is such an overused term, but it's fair. I know   Erin Edgar ** 50:24 I mean resilience is is to my mind, a resilient person is able to face uh, challenges with a relatively positive outlook in and view a challenge as something to be to be worked through rather than overcome, and so yes, I do believe that blindness, in and of itself, has allowed me to find ways to adapt to situations and pivot in cases where, you know, I need to find an alternative to using a mouse. For instance, how would I do that? And so in other areas of life, I am, you know, because I'm blind, I'm able to more easily pivot into finding alternative solutions. I do believe that that that it has made me more resilient.   Michael Hingson ** 51:25 Do you think that being blind has caused you, and this is an individual thing, because I think that there are those who don't. But do you think that it's caused you to learn to listen better?   Erin Edgar ** 51:39 That's a good question, because I actually, I have a lot of sighted friends, and one of the things that people just assume is that, wow, you must be a really good listener. Well, my husband would tell you that's not always the case. Yeah. My wife said the same thing, yeah. You know, like everyone else, sometimes I hear what I want to hear in a conversation and at the same time, one of the things that I do tell people is that, because I'm blind, I do rely on other senses more, primarily hearing, I would say, and that hearing provides a lot of cues for me about my environment, and I've learned to be more skillful at it. So I, I would say that, yes, I am a good listener in terms of my environment, very sensitive to that in in my environment, in terms of active listening to conversations and being able to listen to what's behind what people say, which is another aspect of listening. I think that that is a skill that I've developed over time with conscious effort. I don't think I'm any better of a quote, unquote listener than anybody else. If I hadn't developed that primarily in in my mediation, when I was doing that, that was a huge thing for us, was to be able to listen, not actually to what people were saying, but what was behind what people were saying, right? And so I really consciously developed that skill during those years and took it with me into my legal practice, which is why I am very, very why I very much stress that I'm not only an attorney, but I'm also a counselor at law. That doesn't mean I'm a therapist, but it does mean I listen to what people say so that and what's behind what people say, so that with the ear towards providing them the legal solution that meets their needs as they describe them in their words.   Michael Hingson ** 53:47 Well, I think for me, I learned to listen, but it but it is an exercise, and it is something that you need to practice, and maybe I learned to do it a little bit better, because I was blind. For example, I learned to ride a bike, and you have to learn to listen to what's going on around you so you don't crash into cars. Oh, but I'd fall on my face. You can do it. But what I what I really did was, when I was I was working at a company, and was told that the job was going to be phased out because I wasn't a revenue producer, and the company was an engineering startup and had to bring in more revenue producers. And I was given the choice of going away or going into sales, which I had never done. And as I love to tell people, I lowered my standards and went from science to sales. But the reality is that that I think I've always and I think we all always sell in one way or another, but I also knew what the unemployment rate among employable blind people was and is, yeah, and so I went into sales with with no qualms. But there I really learned to listen. And and it was really a matter of of learning to commit, not just listen, but really learning to communicate with the people you work with. And I think that that I won't say blindness made me better, but what it did for me was it made me use the technologies like the telephone, perhaps more than some other people. And I did learn to listen better because I worked at it, not because I was blind, although they're related   Erin Edgar ** 55:30 exactly. Yeah, and I would say, I would 100% agree I worked at it. I mean, even when I was a child, I worked at listening to to become better at, kind of like analyzing my environment based on sounds that were in it. Yeah, I wouldn't have known. I mean, it's not a natural gift, as some people assume, yeah, it's something you practice and you have to work at. You get to work at.   Michael Hingson ** 55:55 Well, as I point out, there are people like SEAL Team Six, the Navy Seals and the Army Rangers and so on, who also practice using all of their senses, and they learn, in general, to become better at listening and other and other kinds of skills, because they have to to survive, but, but that's what we all do, is if we do it, right, we're learning it. It's not something that's just naturally there, right? I agree, which I think is important. So you're working in a lot of estate planning and so on. And I mentioned earlier that we it was back in 1995 we originally got one, and then it's now been updated, but we have a trust. What's the difference between having, like a trust and a will?   Erin Edgar ** 56:40 Well, that's interesting that you should ask. So A will is the minimum that pretty much, I would say everyone needs, even though 67% of people don't have one in the US. And it is pretty much what everyone needs. And it basically says, you know, I'm a, I'm a person of sound mind, and I know who is important to me and what I have that's important to me. And I wanted to go to these people who are important to me, and by the way, I want this other person to manage things after my death. They're also important to me and a trust, basically, there are multiple different kinds of trusts, huge numbers of different kinds. And the trust that you probably are referring to takes the will to kind of another level and provides more direction about about how to handle property and how how it's to be dealt with, not only after death, but also during your lifetime. And trusts are relatively most of them, like I said, there are different kinds, but they can be relatively flexible, and you can give more direction about how to handle that property than you can in a will, like, for instance, if you made an estate plan and your kids were young, well, I don't want my children to have access to this property until they're responsible adults. So maybe saying, in a trust until they're age 25 you can do that, whereas in a will, you it's more difficult to do that.   Michael Hingson ** 58:18 And a will, as I understand it, is a lot more easily contested than than a trust.   Erin Edgar ** 58:24 You know, it does depend, but yes, it is easily contested. That's not to say that if you have a trust, you don't need a will, which is a misconception that some, yeah, we have a will in our trust, right? And so, you know, you need the will for the court. Not everyone needs a trust. I would also venture to say that if you don't have a will on your death, the law has ideas about how your property should be distributed. So if you don't have a will, you know your property is not automatically going to go to the government as unclaimed, but if you don't have powers of attorney for your health care and your finance to help you out while you're alive, you run the risk of the A judge appointing someone you would not want to make your health care and financial decisions. And so I'm going to go off on a tangent here. But I do feel very strongly about this, even blind people who and disabled people who are, what did you call it earlier, the the employable blind community, but maybe they're not employed. They don't have a lot of   Michael Hingson ** 59:34 unemployed, unemployed, the unemployable blind people, employable   Erin Edgar ** 59:38 blind people, yes, you know, maybe they're not employed, they're on a government benefit. They don't have a lot of assets. Maybe they don't necessarily need that will. They don't have to have it. And at the same time, if they don't have those, those documents that allow people to manage their affairs during their lifetime. Um, who's going to do it? Yeah, who's going to do that? Yeah, you're giving up control of your body, right, potentially, to someone you would not want, just because you're thinking to yourself, well, I don't need a will, and nothing's going to happen to me. You're giving control of your body, perhaps, to someone you don't want. You're not taking charge of your life and and you are allowing doctors and hospitals and banks to perpetuate the belief that you are not an independent person, right? I'm very passionate about it. Excuse me, I'll get off my soapbox now. That's okay. Those are and and to a large extent, those power of attorney forms are free. You can download them from your state's website. Um, they're minimalistic. They're definitely, I don't use them because I don't like them for my state. But you can get you can use them, and you can have someone help you fill them out. You could sign them, and then look, you've made a decision about who's going to help you when you're not able to help yourself,   Michael Hingson ** 1:01:07 which is extremely important to do. And as I mentioned, we went all the way and have a trust, and we funded the trust, and everything is in the trust. But I think that is a better way to keep everything protected, and it does provide so much more direction for whoever becomes involved, when, when you decide to go elsewhere, then, as they put it, this mortal coil. Yes, I assume that the coil is mortal. I don't know.   Erin Edgar ** 1:01:37 Yeah, who knows? Um, and you know trusts are good for they're not just for the Uber wealthy, which is another misconception. Trust do some really good things. They keep your situation, they keep everything more or less private, like, you know, I said you need a will for the court. Well, the court has the will, and it most of the time. If you have a trust, it just says, I want it to go, I want my stuff to go into the Michael hingson Trust. I'm making that up, by the way, and I, you know, my trust just deals with the distribution, yeah, and so stuff doesn't get held up in court. The court doesn't have to know about all the assets that you own. It's not all public record. And that's a huge, you know, some people care. They don't want everyone to know their business. And when I tell people, you know, I can go on E courts today and pull up the estate of anyone that I want in North Carolina and find out what they owned if they didn't have a will, or if they just had a will. And people like, really, you can do that? Oh, absolutely, yeah. I don't need any fancy credentials. It's all a matter of public record. And if you have a trust that does not get put into the court record unless it's litigated, which you know, it does happen, but not often,   Michael Hingson ** 1:02:56 but I but again, I think that, you know, yeah, and I'm not one of those Uber wealthy people. But I have a house. We we used to have a wheelchair accessible van for Karen. I still have a car so that when I need to be driven somewhere, rather than using somebody else's vehicle, we use this and those are probably the two biggest assets, although I have a bank account with with some in it, not a lot, not nearly as much as Jack Benny, anyway. But anyway, the bottom line is, yeah, but the bottom line is that I think that the trust keeps everything a lot cleaner. And it makes perfect sense. Yep, it does. And I didn't even have to go to my general law firm that I usually use. Do we cheat them? Good, and how so it worked out really well. Hey, I watched the Marx Brothers. What can I say?   Erin Edgar ** 1:03:45 You watch the Marx Brothers? Of course.   Michael Hingson ** 1:03:49 Well, I want to thank you for being here. This has been a lot of fun, and I'm glad that we did it and that we also got to talk about the whole issue of wills and trusts and so on, which is, I think, important. So any last things that you'd like to say to people, and also, do you work with clients across the country or just in North Carolina?   Erin Edgar ** 1:04:06 So I work with clients in North Carolina, I will say that. And one last thing that I would like to say to people is that it's really important to build your support team. Whether you're blind, you know, have another disability, you need people to help you out on a day to day basis, or you decide that you want people to help you out. If you're unable to manage your affairs at some point in your life, it's very important to build that support team around you, and there is nothing wrong. You can be self reliant and still have people on your team yes to to be there for you, and that is very important. And there's absolutely no shame, and you're not relinquishing your independence by doing that. That. So today, I encourage everyone to start thinking about who's on your team. Do you want them on your team? Do you want different people on your team? And create a support team? However that looks like, whatever that looks like for you, that has people on it that you know, love and trust,   Michael Hingson ** 1:05:18 everybody should have a support team. I think there is no question, at least in my mind, about that. So good point. Well, if people want to maybe reach out to you, how do they do that?   Erin Edgar ** 1:05:29 Sure, so I am on the interwebs at Erin Edgar legal.com that's my website where you can learn more about my law firm and all the things that I do,   Michael Hingson ** 1:05:42 and Erin is E r i n, just Yes, say that Edgar, and   Erin Edgar ** 1:05:45 Edgar is like Edgar. Allan Poe, hopefully less scary, and you can find the contact information for me on the website. By Facebook, you can find me on Facebook occasionally as Erin Baker, Edgar, three separate words, that is my personal profile, or you can and Michael will have in the show notes the company page for my welcome as   Michael Hingson ** 1:06:11 well. Yeah. Well, thank you for being here, and I want to thank all of you for listening. This has been a fun episode. It's been great to have Erin on, love to hear your thoughts out there who have been listening to this today. Please let us know what you think. You're welcome to email me at Michael H i@accessibe.com M, I, C, H, A, E, L, H i at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S, i, b, e.com, or go to our podcast page, www, dot Michael hingson.com/podcast, I wherever you're listening, please give us a five star rating. We really appreciate getting good ratings from people and reading and getting to know what you think. If you know anyone who you think might be a good guest, you know some people you think ought to come on unstoppable mindset. Erin, of course, you as well. We would appreciate it if you'd give us an introduction, because we're always looking for more people to have come on and help us show everyone that we're all more unstoppable than we think we are, and that's really what it's all about, and what we want to do on the podcast. So hope that you'll all do that, and in the meanwhile, with all that, Erin, I want to thank you once more for being here and being with us today. This has been a lot of fun. Thank you so much,   Erin Edgar ** 1:07:27 Michael. I very much enjoyed it.   Michael Hingson ** 1:07:34 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on September 29th 2025. You can hear more reports on our homepage www.radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio. Presenter/Producer: Kris Boswell.

This bonus episode of Leading the Bar features a special installment from the Council of Firsts series, which spotlights trailblazing leaders who were the “first” to break barriers in their bar associations. ----- In this episode of the Council of Firsts, Amanda Arriaga, first Latina president of the Austin Bar talks to Carl Smallwood, Director of the Divided Community Project at Moritz Law School and the first African American President of the Columbus Bar Association. This episode was recorded at the American Bar Association/National Conference of Bar Presidents meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. To learn more about NCBP, visit https://ncbp.org For more information about the Divided Community Project, visit https://go.osu.edu/dcp. To contact Carl directly, you can find him at smallwood.21@osu.edu. For more resources about DCP's democracy work, visit https://go.osu.edu/dcpdemocracy or Speaking Out to Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy. For information about the American Bar Association's Task Force and Advisory Commission on American Democracy, visit https://ambar.org/democracy. For additional resources about the rule of law, the World Justice Project can be found at https://worldjusticeproject.org/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Procédure disciplinaire contestée de la Mauritius Bar Association: la demande de Judicial Review d'Anoup Goodary sera examinée le 6 octobre by TOPFM MAURITIUS

We kick start a new season of Activist Lawyer with dual-qualified solicitor Miglena Ilieva.  Miglena is founder of ILEX Law Group – a law firm specialising in UK and Irish immigration law.  Miglena shares what motivated her to build upon her career as an immigration lawyer practicing in multiple jurisdictions before setting up her own practice providing services across the UK and Ireland.  Miglena touches on some important cases flagging challenging areas of immigration law impacting her clients.  If you ever contemplated working in immigration law, listen in for solid advice and insights from an experienced immigration lawyer.   Miglena Ilieva - Founding Partner of ILEX Law Group, a law firm specialising in UK and Irish immigration law Miglena Ilieva is a dual-qualified solicitor in Ireland and in England and Wales with over 15 years of experience in immigration law. Her practice covers nationality, asylum, human rights, personal and corporate immigration. She has worked in leading markets including London, New York and Dublin and advises on both UK and Irish immigration matters.   Originally from Bulgaria, Miglena moved to the UK as a teenager. Her personal experience informs her practical, client-focused approach. She has handled a wide range of cases, including high-profile and complex matters, and has undertaken extensive pro bono work throughout her career. Miglena is motivated by helping clients succeed against systemic barriers in an area of law that is politically sensitive, fast-moving and often adversarial. Miglena has lived and worked across four continents. She is Co-Chair of the International Women's Rights Committee at the New York Women's Bar Association and previously co-chaired the Professional Support Lawyers Group at ILPA. Under her leadership, the PSL team she managed was shortlisted for a LexisNexis Award in 2019. Miglena also provides training on  Immigration Advice Authority (previously OISC) exams with Free Movement - a prominent UK immigration publication   She founded ILEX Law Group, a law firm specialising in UK and Irish immigration law in January 2025. 

Kicking off a year of events commemorating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, as well as Constitution Day, Montgomery County Community College will host “Give Us Liberty and the Right to Vote: The Journey to the 19th Amendment” a panel discussion on the 19th amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote. Judge Carolyn T. Carluccio will be among the panelists for the discussion moderated by Seth D. Wilson, Esquire. They talk about the importance of civics education, the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Recorded and edited by Quinn Szente, from the College's Sound Recording and Music Technology Program

Across the country, bar associations are increasingly at the center of legal and political controversy. Recent disciplinary proceedings—such as efforts by the DC Bar to disbar Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Clark, ethics complaints against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—have raised urgent questions about the line between professional regulation and ideological weaponization of legal licensing.Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession? Featuring: James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLCMichael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCGene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal FoundationProf. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law

(The Center Square) – Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell is the focus of a Washington State Bar Association complaint alleging misconduct for responding on Attorney General Nick Brown's behalf in a separate bar complaint, and directly communicating with private law firm Perkins Coie without its attorney's consent. The complaint comes right after news broke that Brown faces an inquiry by the bar association over an amicus brief filed in support of Perkins Coie, The Center Square reported this month. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx Read more: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_18d2bfb4-df4c-4673-ba96-fb702a5ba87c.html

Getting probate attorney referrals comes down to two things: timing and nurturing.In this coaching call, Bill Gross and Bruce Hill share:-When to approach probate attorneys so they actually listen-Tips to nurture those relationships without feeling salesy-How networking moves turn into referral pipelines-Why attorneys can become your most consistent probate lead source

In this episode of LAWsome, cohosts Tanner Jones and Matt Smyers speak with Miami-Dade Bar executive director Bret Berlin. The Miami-Dade Bar is Florida's largest and most active voluntary bar association. The trio explores Brett's journey to his current role and dives into the hidden value of voluntary bar associations. Brett shares how bar associations can and should be more than just networking hubs—they're vital spaces for community-building, leadership development, and mentorship. He discusses the shift brought on by the pandemic, highlighting the rise of smaller, more targeted events that foster deeper connections. Brett also emphasizes the need for bar associations to step up in filling mentorship and training gaps, especially for newer attorneys navigating a post-COVID landscape. Tune in to learn how involvement in your local bar association can not only elevate your reputation but also drive business growth and lasting community impact. You can connect with Brett on his website here - https://www.miamidadebar.org/  and his LinkedIn here - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bret-berlin-8abab7/ TLDR: In this episode, you will learn about Bar associations go beyond networking—they build community, mentorship, and leadership. Getting involved can boost your reputation, grow your practice, and support your community.

In a statement, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations pointed out that "one of the fundamental factors behind the occurrence of what is suspected to be arbitrary non-payment of benefits this time is the disability certification standards based on a medical model and far removed from the actual living conditions of people with disabilities." They called for "immediate improvement to the current situation in which the rights of those who are entitled to benefits are unfairly violated.” Episode notes: ‘“Standards far removed from the real life of people with disabilities”: Japan's Lawyers Call for Review of Disability Certification Standards': https://barrierfreejapan.com/2025/07/12/standards-far-removed-from-the-real-life-of-people-with-disabilities-japans-lawyers-call-for-review-of-disability-certification-standards/

Ciaran Ramsay SC and Dearbhla Cunningham BL break down the latest on the Susquehanna case, which has significant implications for US LLCs and Irish subsidiaries. For more from the Tax Bar Association, visit www.taxbar.ie

Host Tricia Pritchard sits down with Joe Smith of the Butler County Bar Association to discuss their Foundation and all of the nonprofits that they support. https://www.butlercountypabar.org/

Celina Stewart is the Chief Executive Officer of the League of Women Voters of the United States. Prior to joining the League, she was acting Chief Operating Officer and Director of Philanthropy at an electoral reform nonprofit; served as a litigation consultant to several Am 100 law firms handling complex merger and acquisition transactions; legislative aide at the Michigan legislature handling the public interest portfolio for the House Tax Chair; and as Legal Counsel to the Minority Leader Stacey Abrams at the Georgia House of Representatives. She has served on the Boards of the Bar Association of DC; the Women's Bar Association of DC; the NAACP ; and was an American Bar Foundation Law Practice Fellow. Join us as Celina describes the League's critical efforts in educating and engaging voters while defending and protecting our civil, voting and reproductive rights in the era of Donald Trump. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

     Slam the Gavel welcomes back James Schoch to the podcast. James was last on Season 3, Episodes 3, 37 and 109 and Season 4, Episodes 81, 113. Today we discussed updates to his case and the growing trend of putting Family First. We discussed Mike "Thunder" Phillips article on Substack, "A Second Declaration: How The Family Court Crisis Mirrors The Reasons We Fought For Independence," and how well written and on point it was in discussion of this national and global crisis.     Jim recommends to parents, after having 10 lawyers in NY State, 12 lawyers across 3 states and 8 judges in Florida, Pennsylvania and NY combined is, "that the only way to win is not to play the game. Who gets hurt? The child who doesn't get to see both parents."To Reach Jim Schoch mule1991@yahoo.com Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

The American Bar Association files a major lawsuit against Trump, the DOJ and 24 other government agencies on behalf of lawyers and law firms across the country. Dina Doll reports on how this lawsuit asks the Court to stop Trump's attack on the legal profession. Go Pure: Get 25% OFF @GoPure with Code: MISSTRIAL at https://GoPureBeauty.com/misstrial #gopurepod Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane

Stephanie is a Cooley Law School Graduate and works as the Founder of Growthset Coaching. Stephanie's Legal journey was a constant tug and pull with the Law. With a Global upbringing and having lived in Costa Rica for a couple of years, College brought her interests together, and she decided the legal route was for her. Stephanie and I started after she graduated from Mount Holyoke College. She would go on to join the Women's Bar Association, which she highly suggests, and also become a Legal Assistant for a year. Stephanie described her pre-law legal job as a critical experience in preparing her for Law School, which is one of the best ways to build a network and gain great insights into what the Law School experience is like. Following this, Stephanie spoke about her first year at Cooley Law School, saying that it was incredibly difficult, overwhelming, and truly an experience unlike anything else she has ever encountered. She suggested how crucial having a support system is, talking to Peers at the school, and saying yes to every opportunity you can get your hands on. Also, Stephanie suggested using a physical timer to keep you focused and using your voice to study while cooking, cleaning, or any other daily activities. Finally, we spoke about her experiences after Law School, finding what sector of the Law she enjoyed most. Each experience would be delved into, leading us to her opening Growthset Coaching, something that stemmed from her experience as a TA, helping Neurodivergent Law Students gain the techniques and principles they need to flourish in Law School. This episode with Stephanie is a fantastic one, full of quick tips for those in and out of Law School to live out your legal dreams! Stephanie's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-didomizio-rayGrowthset Coaching: https://www.growthsetcoaching.comBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

All-Western New York basketball standout and current president of the New York State Bar Association, Kathy Sweet on her introduction for the Greater Buffalo Sports full 130 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 08:30:00 +0000 fdKOsyxThMrQZjURYRbnMoNq5ym7vDvT basketball,buffalo,wben,greater buffalo sports hall of fame,kathy sweet,new york state bar association,news WBEN Extras basketball,buffalo,wben,greater buffalo sports hall of fame,kathy sweet,new york state bar association,news All-Western New York basketball standout and current president of the New York State Bar Association, Kathy Sweet on her introduction for the Greater Buffalo Sports Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. New

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Legal correspondent Jeremy Sharon and health editor Diana Bletter join host Jessica Steinberg for today's episode. The controversy over the appointment of a Shin Bet chief continues, says Sharon, discussing the implications of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara's instructions to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he continues to disregard the instructions about appointing a new Shin Bet chief. Sharon reviews the potential for a constitutional crisis as the situation comes to a head. Sharon also reviews some of the statements made by the attorney general and President of the Supreme Court Isaac Amit during Monday's Bar Association conference, as they both accused the government of quietly advancing far-reaching changes to Israel’s form of government. Bletter speaks about several Israeli medical centers and how hospitals prepared for and responded to the needs of returning hostages in the earlier stages of the war and more recently. She discusses the particular care given to children and the expectation that hospitals will care for released hostages and their families for months and years to come. The Druze community in Israel is in touch with and actively supports relatives in Syria, reports Bletter, with concerns over the future of Druze in Syria, given the new government in place. They're also questioning the strength of their own Druze identity in Israel. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: AG tells Netanyahu that choosing Zini to head Shin Bet ‘invalid and unlawful’ AG: ‘Not a warning, but reality – under cover of war, regime change has sped up greatly’ Netanyahu’s appointment of David Zini as Shin Bet chief is fraught with obstacles Facing a hostage situation without precedent, Israeli hospitals innovate to rehabilitate ‘Maybe God put Druze in Israel to save the Druze there’: Minority fights for Syrian cousins Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves and video edited by Thomas Girsch. IMAGE: A billboard showing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, 'The judicial seamstress to the government! in Tel Aviv on December 6, 2024 (Photo by Miriam Alster/Flash90)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NEW: Send us Your Comments!This Week's Topics:Memorial Day Message 2:30Gas Prices Lowest in 20 Years 7:00House Passes “Big Beautiful Bill” 8:30VIDEO: What is in the Bill 10:30Pro-Trump Group Buys Ads for GOP 14:00Biden's $93 Billion Scandal 16:00Trump Golden Dome Defense Plan 19:00Manhattan Project 2 Nuculear Plan  21:30Trump Threatens New Tariffs on EU 25:00Biden Coverup Explodes 26:30Big Questions Need to Be Asked 28:00VIDEO: Megyn Kelly Destroys Tapper 32:00Trump Ends Harvard Foreign Students 36:00DOJ to End DEI with False Claims Act 38:30Must Watch Video: Patel & Bongino 43:30Dem House Rep Charged by DOJ 45:30DOJ Investigates Chicago Mayor 48:00DOJ Looking at Bar Associations 50:00Trump Violates Impoundment Act 53:00VIDEO: Russ Vought on Budget &More 56:00The End of Climate Lawfare 58:30Trump Gets Gas Pipeline in NY 1:03:00Two Innocent Jews Assasinated in DC 1:16:30Trump & Putin Advance Peace Talks 1:20:30China has “Off-Swtich” to America 1:23:00Migrants Now Coming Through North 1:29:30SAVE will Stop Illegals from Voting 1:30:30Only 8 Republican Mayors! Why? 1:33:00MAHA Releases US Health Report 1:38:00Report: Biden Admin Hid Vax Risks 1:39:00Pfizer Delayed Covid Study Release 1:42:00NIH Staff Can't Handle the Truth 1:45:00Kamala's Paid Celebrity Endorsements 1:49:00Black Fatigue Goes Viral 1:53:00Pentagon Accepts Quatary Jet 1:55:00Trump Signs “Take it Down” Act 1:59:00Justice Dept. Ends Consent Decrees 2:01:30Harmeet Dhillon W/Tucker Video 2:04:30Babbit Family Settles for $5 Mill 2:07:30Tom's Closing Message 2:09:30Support the showView our Podcast and our other videos and news stories at:www.WethePeopleConvention.orgSend Comments and Suggestions to:info@WethePeopleConvention.org

     Slam the Gavel podcast welcomes Elizabeth McNeese to the podcast. Elizabeth is an Ohio mother of three who has been advocating for her youngest son since birth as he is a special needs child who will soon be 18.     Advocating isn't new for Elizabeth, who  is speaking out for reform and justice in the court systems. Elizabeth has co-authored legislation and is working with Ohio lawmakers to try and make things better for Ohio's families.      Living close to Columbus, Elizabeth went to the State House and started meeting with lawmakers. Starting five years ago with her first co-authored bill which was well received, as there were 61 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. It was very popular, however it caught the judiciary and the Bar Association by surprise. They retaliated by creating their own bill and Elizabeth has been battling them to this day.      Liz also got two bills passed that were "equal parenting" bills (200 pages). The judges and the Bar successfully blocked both of them. At taxpayer expense, the Judge's then wrote their own bill (SB174), 400 pages long. Three years ago the Ohio Judicial Conference sent Elizabeth a copy of this bill that was introduced in the senate by two family law attorneys on behalf of the judges. The main judge, Judge Denise McColley, mother of Senate President Robert Mc Colley, who successfully blocked Elizabeth's bill and pitched his mother's bill at the same time. He got two family law attorneys to pick it up and it has gathered momentum. The judges support it. It was a counter bill to what Elizabeth was trying to do with her bill. Essentially SB174 wants to take away Parental Rights.      The public can help Ohio citizens, share information and email legislators and State House.To Reach Elizabeth McNeese: ermcneese@gmail.com and her YouTube channel We The Parents MovieSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetri*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

This episode examines I Just Didn't Do It, a 2007 Japanese film written and directed by Masayuki Suo. In the film, 26-year-old Teppei Kaneko (played by Ryo Kase) is traveling to a job interview on a packed Tokyo commuter train when a 15-year-old school girl, who was standing in front of him on the train and whom Kaneko hardly noticed, wrongly accuses him of groping (chikan). Kaneko is  arrested. He is advised by a lawyer to plead guilty and pay a small fine, after which he will be freed. But Kaneko maintains his innocence and decides to fight the case, even though he is told that nearly everyone who takes their case to trial in Japan is convicted. The film then documents Kaneko's nightmare odyssey through the Japanese criminal justice system, where he is detained for months and ultimately convicted despite significant problems with the prosecution's case. I Just Didn't Do It provides important insights into the Japanese criminal justice system and a critique of how it operates, including its treatment of the presumption of innocence.Timestamps: 0:00   Introduction2:52     Background on the Japanese criminal justice system5:19      The crime of groping (chikan) in Japan8:57      The pressure to plead guilty17:12     The interrogation of suspects18:46    Criminal defense lawyers in Japan22:31    Why defendants tend to testify at trial23:52    The prosecution's disclosure obligations28:30    How bail operates in Japan31:04    The rotation of judges in Japan34:06    The incentives in favor of conviction38:44    Finding the defendant guilty despite reasonable doubt43:20    The lay judge (saiban) system in Japan46:54    A critique of Japan's treatment of the presumption of innocenceFurther reading:Aronson, Bruce E. & Johnson, David T., “Comparative Reflections on the Carlos Ghosn Case and Japanese Criminal Justice,” 18 Asia-Pacific Journal 24(2) (Dec. 15, 2020)Doi, Kanae, “Inquiry Needed into Japan's Flawed Criminal Justice System,” Human Rights Watch (Nov. 4, 2024)Japan Federation of Bar Associations, “The Japanese Judicial System”Keiichi, Muraoka & Toshikuni, Murai, “Citizens on the Bench: Assessing Japan's Lay Judge System,” Nippon.com (June 26, 2019) Meehan, Susan, “I Just Didn't Do It,” The Japan SocietyLaw on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Leticia James faces being disbarred in New York, just as she sues the Trump Administration — again. The Trump Administration is livid over what many deem a failed FAA after Newark New Jersey warns people not to fly into the airport following a 90 second outage. And, the Dems are propping up Kamala for having attended the Met Gala in NYC. Is that really the best look for a party that wants to bill itself as ‘working class’? Those stories and more in today’s Trish Regan Show. LIVE! SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL: https://Youtube.com/TrishReganChannelBecome a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks: ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join

Arbitrators and counsel can use artificial intelligence to improve service quality and lessen work burden, but they also must deal with the ethical and professional implications. In this episode, Rebeca Mosquera, a Reed Smith associate and president of ArbitralWomen, interviews Benjamin Malek, a partner at T.H.E. Chambers and former chair of the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center AI Task Force. They reveal insights and experiences on the current and future applications of AI in arbitration, the potential risks of bias and transparency, and the best practices and guidelines for the responsible integration of AI into dispute resolution. The duo discusses how AI is reshaping arbitration and what it means for arbitrators, counsel and parties. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello, and welcome to Tech Law Talks, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Group. In each episode of this podcast, we will discuss cutting-edge issues on technology, data, and the law. We will provide practical observations on a wide variety of technology and data topics to give you quick and actionable tips to address the issues you are dealing with every day.  Rebeca: Welcome to Tech Law Talks and our series on AI. My name is Rebeca Mosquera. I am an attorney with Reed Smith in New York focusing on international arbitration. Today we focus on AI in arbitration. How artificial intelligence is reshaping dispute resolution and the legal profession. Joining me is Benjamin Malek, a partner at THE Chambers and chair of the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center AI Task Force. Ben has extensive experience in commercial and investor state arbitration and is at the forefront of AI governance in arbitration. He has worked at leading institutions and law firms, advising on the responsible integration of AI into dispute resolution. He's also founder and CEO of LexArb, an AI-driven case management software. Ben, welcome to Tech Law Talks.  Benjamin: Thank you, Rebeca, for having me.  Rebeca: Well, let's dive in into our questions today. So artificial intelligence is often misunderstood, or put it in other words, there is a lot of misconceptions surrounding AI. How would you define AI in arbitration? And why is it important to look beyond just generative AI?  Benjamin: Yes, thank you so much for having me. AI in arbitration has existed for many years now, But it hasn't been until the rise of generative AI that big question marks have started to arise. And that is mainly because generative AI creates or generates AI output, whereas up until now, it was a relatively mild output. I'll give you one example. Looking for an email in your inbox, that requires a certain amount of AI. Your spellcheck in Word has AI, and it has been used for many years without raising any eyebrows. It hasn't been until ChatGPT has really given an AI tool to the masses that question started arising. What can it do? Will attorneys still be held accountable? Will AI start drafting for them? What will happen? And it's that fear that started generating all this talk about AI. Now, to your question on looking beyond generative AI, I think that is a very important point. In my function as the chair of the SAMC AI Task Force, while we were drafting the guidelines on the use of AI, one of the proposals was to call it use of generative AI in arbitration. And I'm very happy that we stood firm and said no, because there's many forms of AI that will arise over the years. Now we're talking about predictive AI, but there are many AI forms such as predictive AI, NLP, automations, and more. And we use it not only in generating text per se, but we're using it in legal research, in case prediction to a certain extent. Whoever has used LexisNexis, they're using a new tool now where AI is leveraged to predict certain outcomes, document automation, procedural management, and more. So understanding AI as a whole is crucial for responsible adoption.  Rebeca: That's interesting. So you're saying, obviously, that AI and arbitration is more than just chat GPT, right? I think that the reason why people think that and relies on maybe, as we'll see in some of the questions I have for you, that people may rely on chat GPT because it sounds normal. It sounds like another person texting you, providing you with a lot of information. And sometimes we just, you know, people, I can understand or I can see why people might believe that that's the correct outcome. And you've given examples of how AI is already being used and that people might not realize it. So all of that is very interesting. Now, tell me, as chair of the SVAMC AI Task Force, you've led significant initiatives in AI governance, right? What motivated the creation of the SVAMC AI guidelines? And what are their key objectives? And before you dive into that, though, I want to take a moment to congratulate you and the rest of the task force on being nominated once again for the GAR Awards, which will be unveiled during Paris Arbitration Week in April of this year. That's an incredible achievement. And I really hope you'll take pride in the impact of your work and the well-deserved recognition it continues to receive. So good luck to you and the rest of the team.  Benjamin: Thank you, Rebeca. Thank you so much. It really means a lot, and it also reinforces the importance of our work, seeing that we're nominated not only once last year for the GAR Award, but second year in a row. I will be blunt, I haven't kept track of many nominations, but I think it may be one of the first years where one initiative gets nominated twice, one year after the other. So that in itself for us is worth priding ourselves with. And it may potentially even be more than an award itself. It really, it's a testament to the work we have provided. So what led to the creation of the SVAMC AI guidelines? It's a very straightforward and to a certain extent, a little boring answer as of now, because we've heard it so many times. But the crux was Mata versus Avianca. I'm not going to dive into the case. I think most of us have heard it. Who hasn't? There's many sources to find out about it. The idea being that in a court case, an attorney used Chad GPT, used the outcome without verifying it, and it caused a lot of backlash, not only from opposing party, but also being chastised by the judge. Now when I saw that case, and I saw the outcome, and I saw that there were several tangential cases throughout the U.S. And worldwide, I realized that it was only a question of time until something like this could potentially happen in arbitration. So I got on a call with my dear friend Gary Benton at the SVAMC, and I told him that I really think that this is the moment for the Silicon Valley Arbitration Mediation Center, an institution that is heavily invested in tech to shine. So I took it upon myself to say, give me 12 months and I'll come up with guidelines. So up until now at the SVAMC, there are a lot of think tank-like groups discussing many interesting subjects. But the SVAMC scope, especially AI related, was to have something that produces something tangible. So the guidelines to me were intuitive. It was, I will be honest, I don't think I was the only one. I might have just been the first mover, but there we were. We created the idea. It was vetted by the board. And we came up first with the task force, then with the guidelines. And there's a lot more to come. And I'll leave it there.  Rebeca: Well, that's very interesting. And I just wanted to mention or just kind of draw from, you mentioned the Mata case. And you explained a bit about what happened in that case. And I think that was, what, 2023? Is that right? 2022, 2023, right? And so, but just recently we had another one, right? In the federal courts of Wyoming. And I think about two days ago, the order came out from the judge and the attorneys involved were fined about $15,000 because of hallucinations on the case law that they cited to the court. So, you know I see that happening anyway. And this is a major law firm that we're talking about here in the U.S. So it's interesting how we still don't learn, I guess. That would be my take on that.  Benjamin: I mean, I will say this. Learning is a relative term because learning, you need to also fail. You need to make mistakes to learn. I guess the crux and the difference is that up until now, at any law firm or anyone working in law would never entrust a first-year associate, a summer associate, a paralegal to draft arguments or to draft certain parts of a pleading by themselves without supervision. However, now, given that AI sounds sophisticated, because it has unlimited access to words and dictionaries, people assume that it is right. And that is where the problem starts. So I am obviously, personally, I am no one to judge a case, no one to say what to do. And in my capacity of the chair of the SVAMC AI task force, we also take a backseat saying these are soft law guidelines. However, submitting documents with information that has not been verified has, in my opinion, very little to do with AI. It has something to do with ethical duty and candor. And that is something that, in my opinion, if a court wants to fine attorneys, they're more welcome to do so. But that is something that should definitely be referred to the Bar Association to take measures. But again, these are my two cents as a citizen.  Rebeca: No, very good. Very good. So, you know, drawing from that point as well, and because of the cautionary tales we hear about surrounding these cases and many others that we've heard, many see AI as a double-edged sword, right? On the one hand, offering efficiency gains while raising concerns about bias and procedural fairness. What do you see as the biggest risk and benefits of AI in arbitration?  Benjamin: So it's an interesting question. To a certain extent, we tried to address many of the risks in the AI guidelines. Whoever hasn't looked at the guidelines yet, I highly suggest you take a look at them they're available on svamc.org I'm sure that they're widely available on other databases Jus Mundi has it as well. I invite everyone to take a look at it. There are several challenges. We don't believe that those challenges would justify not using it. To name a few, we have bias. We have lack of transparency. We also have the issue of over-reliance, which is the one we were talking about just a minute ago, where it seems so sophisticated that we as human beings, having worked in the field, cannot conceive how such an eloquent answer is anything but true. So there's a black box problem and so many others, but quite frankly, there are so many benefits that come with it. AI is an unlimited knowledge tool that we can use. As of now, AI is what we know it is. It has hallucinations. It does have some bias. There is this black box problem. Where does it come from? Why? What's the source? But quite frankly, if we are able to triage the issues and to really look at what are the advantages and what is it we want to get out of it, and I'll give you a brief example. Let's say you're drafting an RFA. If you know the case, you know the parties, and you know every aspect of the case, AI can draft everything head to toe. You will always be able to tell what is from the case and what's not from the case. If we over-rely on AI and we allow it to draft without verifying all the facts, without making sure we know the transcript inside and out, without knowing the facts of the case, then we will always run into certain issues. Another issue we run into a lot with predictive AI is relying on data that exists. So compared to generative AI, predictive AI is taking data that already exists and predicting another outcome. So there's a lesser likelihood of hallucinations. The issue with that is, of course, bias. Just a brief example, you're the president of Arbitral Women, so you will definitely understand. It has only been in the last 30 years that women had more of a presence in arbitration, specifically sitting as an arbitrator. So if we rely on data that goes beyond those 30, 40, 50 years, there's going to be a lot of male decisions having been taken. Potentially even laws that applied back then that were not very gender neutral. So we need, we as people, need to triage and understand where is the good information, where is information that may have bias and counterbalance it. As of now, we will need to counterbalance it manually. However, as I always say, we've only seen a grain of salt of what AI can do. So as time progresses, the challenges, as you mentioned, will become lesser and lesser and lesser. And the knowledge that AI has will become wider and wider. As of now, especially in arbitration, we are really taking advantage of the fact that there is still scarcity of knowledge. But it is really just a question of time until AI picks up. So we need to get a better understanding of what is it we can do to leverage AI to make ourselves indispensable.  Rebeca: No, that's very interesting, Ben. And as you mentioned, yes, as president of ArbitralWomen, the word bias is something I pay close attention. You know, we're talking about bias. You mentioned bias. And we all have conscious or unconscious biases, right? And so you mentioned that about laws that were passed in the past where potentially there was not a lot of input from women or other members of our society. Do you think AI can be trained then to be truly neutral or will bias always be a challenge?  Benjamin: I wish I had the right answer. I think, I actually truly believe that bias is a very relative term. And in certain societies, bias has a very firm and black and white standing, whereas in other societies, it does not. Especially in international arbitration, where we not only deal with cross-border disputes, but different cultures, different laws, laws of the seats, laws of the contract. I think it's very hard to point out one set of bias that we will combat or that we will set as principle for everything. I think ultimately what ensures that there is always human oversight in the use of AI, especially in arbitration, are exactly these type of issues. So we can, of course, try to combat bias and gender bias and others. But I don't think it is as easy as we say, because even nowadays, in normal proceedings, we are still dealing with bias on a human level. So I think we cannot ask from machines to be less biased than we as humans are.  Rebeca: Let me pivot here a bit. And, you know, earlier, we mentioned the GAR Awards. And now I'd like to shift our focus to the recent GAR Life on Technology that took place here in New York last week on February 20th. And to give our audience, you know, some context. GAR stands for Global Arbitration Review, a widely read journal that not only ranks international arbitration practices at law firms worldwide, but also, among other things, organizes live conferences on cutting-edge topics in arbitration across the globe. So I know you were a speaker at GAR Live, and there was an important discussion about distinguishing generative AI, predictive AI, and other AI applications. How do these different AI technologies impact arbitration, and how do the SVAMC guidelines address them?  Benjamin: I was truly honored to speak at the GAR Live event in New York, and I think the fact that I was invited to speak on AI as a testament on how important AI is and how widely interested the community is in the use of AI, which is very different to 2023 when we were drafting the guidelines on the use of AI. I think it is important to understand that ultimately, everything in arbitration, specifically in arbitration, needs human oversight. But in using AI in arbitration, I think we need to differentiate on how the use of AI is different in arbitration versus other parts of the law, and specifically how it is different in arbitration compared to how we would use it on a day-to-day basis. In arbitration specifically, arbitrators are still responsible for a personal or arbitrators are given a personal mandate that is very different to how law works in general. Where you have a lot of judges that let their assistants draft parts of the decision, parts of the order. Arbitration is a little different, and that for a reason. Specifically in international arbitration, because there are certain sensitivities when it comes to local law, when it comes to an international standard and local standards. Arbitrators are held to a higher standard. Using AI as an arbitrator, for example, which could technically be put at the same level as using a tribunal secretary, has its limits. So I think that AI can be used in many aspects, from drafting for attorneys, for counsel, when it comes to helping prepare graphs, when it comes to preparing documents, accumulating documents, etc., etc. But it does have its limits when it comes to arbitrators using it. As we have tried to reiterate in the guidelines, arbitrators need to be very conscious of where their personal mandate starts and ends. In other words, our recommendation, again, we are soft law guidelines, our recommendation to arbitrators are to not use AI when it comes to any decision-making process. What does that mean? We don't know. And neither does the law. And every jurisdiction has their own definition of what that means. It is up for the arbitrator to define what a decision-making process is and to decide of whether the use of AI in that process is adequate.  Rebeca: Thank you so much, Ben. I want to now kind of pivot, since we've been talking a little bit more about the guidelines, I want to ask you a few questions about them. So they were created with a global perspective, right? And so what initiatives is the AI task force pursuing to ensure the guidelines remain relevant worldwide? You've been talking about different legal systems and local laws and how practitioners or certain regulations within certain jurisdictions might treat certain things differently. So what is the AI task force doing to remain relevant, to maybe create some sort of uniformity? So what can you tell me about that?  Benjamin: So we at the SVAMC task force, we continue to gather feedback, of course, And we're looking for global adaptation. We will continue to work closely with practitioners, with institutions, with lawmakers, with government, to ensure that when it comes to arbitration, AI is given a space, it's used adequately, and if possible, of course, and preferential to us, the SVAMC AI guidelines are used. That's why they were drafted, to be used. When we presented the guidelines to different committees and to different law sections and bar associations, it struck us that jurisdictions such as the U.S., and more specifically in New York, where both you and I are based, the community was not very open to receiving these guidelines as guidelines. And the suggestion was actually made to creating a white paper, And as much as it seemed to be a shutdown at an early stage, when we were thinking about it, and I was very blessed to have seven additional members in the Guidelines Drafting Committee, seven very bright individual members that I learned a lot from during this process. It was clear to us that jurisdictions such as New York have a very high ethical standard, and where guidelines such as our guidelines would potentially be seen as doubling ethical rules. So although we advocate for them not being ethical guidelines whatsoever, because we don't believe they are, we strongly suggest that local and international ethical standards are being upheld. So with that in mind, we realize that there is more to a global aspect that needs to be addressed rather than an aspect of law associations in the US or in the UK or now in Europe. Up-and-coming jurisdictions that up until now did not have a lot of exposure to artificial intelligence and maybe even technology as a whole are rising. And they may need more guidance than jurisdictions where technology may be an instinct away. So what the AI task force has created. And is continuing to recruit for, are regional committees for the AI Task Force, tracking AI usage in different legal systems and different jurisdictions. Our goal is to track AI-related legislation and its potential impact on arbitration. These regional committees will also provide jurisdiction-specific insights to refine the guidelines. And hopefully, or this is what we anticipate, these regional committees will help bridge the gap between AI's global development and local legal framework. There will be a dialogue. We will continue, obviously, to be present at conferences, to have open dialogue, and to recruit, of course, for these committees. But the next step is definitely to focus on these regional committees and to see how we, as the AI task force of the Silicon Valley Arbitration Mediation Center, can impact the use of AI in arbitration worldwide.  Rebeca: Well, that's very interesting. So you're utilizing committees in different jurisdictions to keep you appraised of what's happening in each jurisdiction. And then with that, continue, you know, somehow evolving the guidelines and gathering information to see how this field, you know, it's changing rapidly.  Benjamin: Absolutely. Initially, we were thinking of just having a small local committee to analyze different jurisdictions and what laws and what court cases, etc. But we soon came to realize that it's much more than tracking judicial decisions. We need people on the ground that are part of a jurisdiction, part of that local law, to tell us how AI impacts their day-to-day, how it may differ from yesterday to tomorrow, and what potential legislation will be enacted to either allow or disallow the use of certain AI.  Rebeca: That's very interesting. I think it's something that will keep the guidelines up to date and relevant for a long time. So kudos to you, the SVAMC and the task force. Now, I know that the guidelines are a very short paper, you know, and then in the back you have the commentary on them. So I want to, I'm not going to dissect all of the guidelines, but I want to come and talk about one of them in particular that I think created a lot of discussion around the guidelines itself. So for full disclosure, right, I was part of the reviewing committee of the AI guidelines. And I remember that one of the most debated aspects of the SVAMC AI guidelines is guideline three on disclosure, right? So should arbitrators and counsel disclose their AI use in proceedings? So I think that that has generated a lot of debates. And that's the reason why we have the resulting guideline number three, the way it is drafted. So can you give us a little bit more of insight what happened there?  Benjamin: Absolutely. I'd love to. Guideline three was very controversial from the get-go. We initially had two options. We had a two-pronged test that parties would either satisfy or not, and then disclosure was necessary. And then we had another option that the community could vote on where it was up to the parties to decide whether their AI-aided submission could impact the outcome of the case. And depending on that, they would disclose or not disclose whether AI was used. Quite frankly, that was a debate we had in 2023, and a lot changed from November 2023 until April, when we finally published the first version of the AI guidelines. A lot of courts have implemented an obligatory disclosure. I think people have also gotten more comfortable with using AI on a day-to-day. And we ultimately came to the conclusion to opt for a flexible disclosure approach, which can now be found in the guidelines. The reason for that was relatively simple, or relatively simple to us who debated that. Having a disclosure obligation of the use of AI will very easily become inefficient for two reasons. A blanket disclosure for the use of AI serves nobody. It really boils down to one question, which is, if the judge, or in our case in arbitration, if the arbitrator or tribunal knows that AI was used for a certain document, now what? How does that knowledge transform into action? And how does that knowledge lead to a different outcome? And in our analysis, it turned out that a blanket disclosure of AI usage, or in general, an over-disclosure of the use of AI in arbitration, may actually lead to adverse consequences for the parties who make the disclosure. Why? Because not knowing how AI can impact these submissions causes arbitrators not to know what to do with that disclosure. So ultimately, it's really up to the parties to decide, how was AI used? How can it impact the case? What is it I want to disclose? How do I disclose? It's also important for the arbitrators to understand, what do I do with the disclosure before saying, everything needs to be disclosed. During the GAR event in New York, the issue was raised whether documents which were prepared with the use of AI should be disclosed or whether there should be a blanket disclosure. And quite frankly, the debate went back and forth, but ultimately it comes down to cross-examination. It comes down to the expert or the party submitting the document, being able to back up where the information comes from rather than knowing that AI was used. And if you put that in aspect, we received a very interesting question of why we should continue using AI, knowing that approximately 30% of its output are hallucinations and it needs revamping. This was compared to a summer associate or a first-year associate, and the question was very simple. If I have a first-year associate or a summer associate whose output has a 30% error rate, why would I continue using that associate? And quite frankly, there is merit to the question, and it really has a very simple answer. And the answer is time and money. Using AI makes it much faster to receive using AI makes it faster to receive output than using a first year associate or summer associate and it's way cheaper. For that, it's worth having a 30% error margin. I don't know where they got the 30% from, but we just went along with it.  Rebeca: I was about to ask you where they get the 30%. And well, I think that for first-year associates or summer associates that are listening, I think that the main thing will be for them to then become very savvy in the use of AI so they can become relevant to the practice. I think everyone, you know, there's always that question about whether AI will replace all of us, the entire world, and we'll go into machine apocalypses. I don't see it that way. In my view, I see that if we, you know, if we train ourselves, if we're not afraid of using the tool, we'll very much be in a position to pivot and understand how to use it. And when you have, what is the saying, garbage in, garbage out. So if you have a bad input, you will have a bad output. You need to know the case. You need to know your documents to understand whether the machine is hallucinating or giving you, you know, an information that is not real. I like to play and ask certain questions to chat GPT, you know, here and there. And sometimes I, you know, I ask obviously things that I know the answer to. And then I'm like, chat GPT, this is not accurate. Can you check on this? And he's like, oh, thank you for correcting me. I mean, and it's just a way of, you got to try and understand it so you know where to make improvements. But that doesn't mean that the tool, because it's a tool, will come and replace, you know, your better judgment as a professional, as an attorney.  Benjamin: Absolutely. One of the things we say is it is a tool. It does nothing out of its own volition. So what you're saying is 100% right. This is what the SVAMC AI guidelines stand for. Practitioners need to accustom themselves on proper use of AI. AI can be used from paid versions to unpaid versions. We just need to understand what is an open source AI, what is a close circuit AI. Again, for whoever's listening, feel free to look up the guidelines. There's a lot of information there. There's tons of articles written at this point. And just be very mindful of if there is an open AI system, such as an unpaid chat GPT version. It does not mean you cannot use it. First, check with your firm to make sure you're allowed to use it. I don't want to get into any trouble.  Rebeca: Well, we don't want to put confidential information on an open AI platform.  Benjamin: Exactly. Once the firm or your colleagues allow you to use ChatGPT, even if it's an open version, just be very smart about what it is you're putting in. No confidential information, no potential conflict check, no potential cases. Just be smart about what it is you put in. Another aspect we were actually debating about is this hallucination. Just an example, let's say you say this is an ISDS case, so we're talking a little more public, and you ask Chad GPT, hey, show me all the cases against Costa Rica. And it hallucinates, too. It might actually be that somebody input information for a potential case against Costa Rica or a theoretical case against Costa Rica, Chad GPT being on the open end, takes that as one potential case. So just be very smart. Be diligent, but also don't be afraid of using it.  Rebeca: That's a great note to end on. AI is here to stay. And as legal professionals, it's up to us to ensure it serves the interests of justice, fairness, and efficiency. And for those interested in learning more about the SVAMC AI guidelines, you can find them online at svamc.org and search for guidelines. I tried it myself and you will go directly to the guidelines. And if you like to stay updated on developments in AI and arbitration, be sure to follow Tech Law Talks and join us for future episodes where we'll continue exploring the intersection of law and technology. Ben, thank you again for joining me today. It's been a great pleasure. And thank you to our listeners for tuning in.  Benjamin: Thank you so much, Rebeca, for having me and Tech Law Talks for the opportunity to be here.  Outro: Tech Law Talks is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Practice, please email techlawtalks@reedsmith.com. You can find our podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts.  Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers.  All rights reserved. Transcript is auto-generated.

President of the Massachusetts Bar Association, Victoria Santoro, says President Trump's actions target American's constitutional rights.

  William (“Bill”) Jhaveri-Weeks is the founder of The Jhaveri-Weeks Firm, P.C., a law firm in San Francisco that focuses on representing employees in employment disputes.  The firm handles both individual cases and class actions, including harassment and discrimination.  Bill is a member of the Executive Committee of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Labor & Employment Section, was a partner at a class action firm, practiced in Big Law, and clerked for a federal Court of Appeals judge.  Bill graduated with honors from Yale College and NYU Law School.   In this podcast, Bill and Samorn share advice for professionals navigating today's challenging job market.  They dive deep into: Employment law: understanding your legal rights during layoffs, firings, and severance negotiations. Career advice: strategies for career change and job satisfaction and fulfillment. Job market: navigating the current tough job market.   Lawyer happiness: aligning with your personal values, striving for well-being, and achieving work-life harmony. Networking: building essential connections leading to mentorship and job opportunities.   Legal advice: practical guidance for employees facing job insecurity and legal remedies to employers wrongly accusing you of poor performance.   Connect with us: Connect with Bill on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhaveri-weeks/ and https://www.jhaveriweeks.com/attorneys-jhaveri-weeks.html.   Follow Samorn on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/samornselim/. Get a copy of Samorn's book, “Belonging: Self Love Lessons From A Workaholic Depressed Insomniac Lawyer” at https://tinyurl.com/2dk5hr2f.  Get weekly career tips by signing up for our advice column at www.careerunicorns.com.  Schedule a free 30-minute build your dream career consult by sending a message at www.careerunicorns.com.   

In this week's episode, Hemma sits down with Patricia Godoy Oliveira to explore her remarkable journey in compliance—spanning leadership roles at Google and Uber to her current position as LatAm Compliance Officer at Gallagher. Join us as Patricia shares how she keeps people at the heart of her compliance strategies, leveraging behavioral science and Trust and Inspire leadership to empower business partners. With practical insights, book recommendations, and a deep passion for ethics and compliance, Patricia offers a refreshing perspective on leading with purpose in this engaging and thought-provoking conversation.  Highlights include:  Navigating personal and professional transitions and reflecting on purpose How to build trust with your regional business teams in a global company Practical tips on incorporating behavioral science into your compliance program Fabulous reading recommendations for thought leadership and continuous learning in compliance Biography "Patricia is the LatAm Compliance Officer for Gallagher. Her career encompasses senior leadership roles at prominent American and Brazilian companies, including her tenure as Regional Chief Compliance Officer at Google and Director of Ethics & Compliance at Uber. Patricia's impactful contributions have garnered repeated recognition, including being named one of the "Most Admired Professionals" in Compliance in Brazil on multiple occasions. A graduate of Instituto Presbiteriano Mackenzie (Law School, Brazil) with a Masters degree (LL.M.) from the University of Chicago (US) and an MBA from Fundação Getúlio Vargas (CEAG, Brazil), Patricia complements her academic achievements with specialized courses in Insurance, Reinsurance and Law. Her profound understanding of both mature and evolving regulatory environments is a testament to her 15 years of experience in the Insurance and Reinsurance industry and 5 years in the dynamic Tech sector. Patricia's pragmatic approach to legal and compliance is grounded in economic and behavioral principles. She empowers organizations to achieve their goals by translating complex challenges into sound business strategies. Her leadership has been instrumental in implementing innovative programs and training initiatives that foster ethical conduct and drive sustainable growth. A respected voice in the field, Patricia actively shapes industry standards through her roles as a lecturer, professor, and at the Compliance Committee of AMCHAM, Brazil Chapter. Her unwavering commitment to ethical business practices is evident in her extensive involvement in various professional organizations, including the Ethics Tribunal of the Bar Association in Sao Paulo and the Global Compact of the United Nations. Patricia's journey exemplifies a dedication to building a more just and responsible business world." Resources Patricia on LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patricia-godoy-oliveira/ Subscribe to her newsletter Etica do Dia a Dia here: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/%C3%A9tica-do-dia-a-dia-7265210572445548545/ Patricia's Book Recommendations during the show: Carlos Muitos, Gabriel Cabral et al Trust & Inspire, Stephen Covey Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahnemann Humankind, Rutger Bregman The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt Why They Do It, Eugene Soltes The Heart of Business: Leadership Principles for the Next Era of Capitalism, Hubert Joly

With a new year, came a new executive director of the Connecticut Bar Association. We met Lina Lee and did a deeper dive into the purpose of the CBA and its impact in our state. Image Credit: Getty Images

Listen to two experienced real estate attorneys battle through key aspects of a purchase and sale agreement in front of a live audience receiving CE credit. This segment features Kaitlyn Sayne-Slugg with Stanley Esrey & Buckley and Viraj P. Deshmukh with Cushing, Morris, Armbruster & Montgomery, and is moderated by show host and broker Michael Bull, CCIM.    Bull Realty - Customized Asset & Occupancy Solutions: https://www.bullrealty.com/ Commercial Agent Success Strategies - The ultimate commercial broker training resource: https://www.commercialagentsuccess.com/ Watch the video versions of our show on YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/c/Commercialrealestateshow Follow us at: @BullRealty https://twitter.com/bullrealty @CRE_show https://twitter.com/CRE_show      

GTP hosts Steve Lowery and Yvonne Godfrey delve into the riveting case of Donald Clark vs. the State of Iowa with guest Mel Orchard from the Spence Law Firm. They explore the wrongful conviction of Donald Clark, a school counselor accused of sexual assault in 2009, and the subsequent legal malpractice case against his public defender for inadequate representation. The discussion highlights the significant emotional and physical toll on Clark during his six and a half years in prison, the courtroom strategies employed, and the eventual $12 million verdict for emotional distress.   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   Case Details: The case revolves around a legal malpractice action against a state public defender, who represented a client convicted of sexual abuse. The client, Donald Lyle Clark, was convicted and sentenced to prison. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. However, in postconviction proceedings, the court determined that Clark's defense counsel had provided ineffective assistance and ordered a new trial. The state declined to prosecute, and Clark filed a civil action for legal malpractice against the state as the lawyer's employer. The district court granted partial summary judgment, holding that the finding of ineffective assistance in the postconviction proceedings established counsel's negligence as a matter of law. The jury found the lawyer negligent and awarded Clark $12 million in emotional distress damages. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the judgment for emotional distress damages. The court clarified that to recover emotional distress damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must prove more than negligence. The court held that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that the criminal defense attorney acted with willful and wanton disregard for the client's rights or safety. The court concluded that the district court erred by instructing the jury that negligence was sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Source)   Guest Bio: Mel Orchard Mel Orchard is a trial lawyer, trying cases in the courtrooms across America, for the past 27 years. Mel has litigated and/or tried hundreds of cases in his career and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement and verdicts for his clients. During his trial career, Mel has been a part of record-breaking civil jury verdicts in various jurisdictions (Wyoming, Arizona, and Iowa). He has also devoted significant time to pro bono work through Lawyers and Advocates for Wyoming, and many local and national charities. In addition to preparing for trial or being in trial, Mel was a senior faculty member and board member at the Trial Lawyer's College in Wyoming and was recently selected to join the Board. Mel also lectures and presents to various legal organizations throughout the country including Bar Associations, Leadership Organizations and has taught Judicial Ethics to various groups of judges. He was Chairman for the Wyoming Commission for Judicial Conduct and Ethics where he served as a member for six years after appointment. Read Full Bio   Links: The Spence Law Firm on Facebook: Spence Law Firm Check out previous episodes and meet the GTP Team: Great Trials Podcast   Show Sponsors: Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Jan. 8, 2025 - We are joined in the studio by Domenick Napoletano, president of the New York State Bar Association, who discusses the group's priorities for 2025, including increasing the right to counsel and Medical Aid in Dying. He also weighs in on the budget for the court system and increasing access to guardians.

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, Smothered Benedict New Year's Day Wednesday, is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, Jack Smith pulled a surprising move by transferring Trump's Mar-a-Lago espionage case to the US Attorney's office.Then, on the rest of the menu, C-SPAN is set to return to filming Congress this Friday; legal experts slammed Chief Justice John Roberts' yearly whine fest report as ‘chilling and 'disingenuous;' and, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by the Bar Association against the Assistant Attorney General to take away his law license for “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” by joining Paxton's challenge of the 2020 election results that Biden won in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Montenegro extradited a South Korean mogul known as “the cryptocurrency king” to the United States; and, the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland condemned the violence in Georgia by pro-Vlad authorities against the nation's pro-democracy movement.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“It may be safely averred that good cookery is the best and truest economy, turning to full account every wholesome article of food, and converting into palatable meals what the ignorant either render uneatable or throw away in disdain.” - Eliza Acton ‘Modern Cookery for Private Families' (1845)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

19. Februar 1996: Kasino-Angestellte aller Planeten, vereinigt euch! Viele Jahre lang musste sich Rom von seinem Bruder Quark, einem der größten Halsabschneider seiner Zeit, ausnutzen und erniedrigen lassen, doch eine akute Mittelohrentzündung ist der Tropfen, der den Schneckensaft zum Überlaufen bringt. Die Belegschaft der Bar gründet eine Gewerkschaft und lehnt sich gegen den Turbokapitalisten auf. In Deutschland: Der Streik, ausgestrahlt am 31. Oktober 1996.

Send us a textIn this inspiring episode of Badass Women in Business, we sit down with Miranda K. Hawkins, President and Owner of Hawkins Gordon, an all-female estate planning law firm, and founder of Miranda K. Hawkins Coaching LLC. Miranda shares how her experience as a top-rated attorney and community leader led her to become a certified professional coach, guiding women professionals through life's biggest transitions.Miranda opens up about overcoming fear, tackling imposter syndrome, and following “positive energy” to create clarity and growth in her life. From balancing her law practice, coaching business, and leadership roles to redefining prenuptial agreements as a tool for clarity—not conflict—Miranda offers actionable advice on building a life and career that align with your values.Whether you're navigating career changes, starting a business, or simply striving to find balance, this episode will inspire you to trust your intuition, ask for support, and embrace the journey with confidence.Show Notes:1. Meet Miranda K. Hawkins:President of Hawkins Gordon (estate planning) & Founder of Miranda K. Hawkins Coaching LLC.Recognitions: Best Lawyers in America, Colorado Super Lawyers, “AV” Martindale-Hubbell Rating.Past President, Colorado Women's Bar Association.2. Estate Planning Essentials:Not just for the wealthy—key during life transitions.Prenuptial agreements: proactive tools for clarity and protection.3. Attorney to Transition Coach:Inspired by her leadership coach during a challenging personal chapter.Supports women through transitions: career, business growth, and leadership.4. Overcoming Fear & Self-Doubt:Challenge assumptions: “What evidence do you have?”Follow positive energy: prioritize what lights you up.5. Balancing it All:Prioritize, set boundaries, and ask for help.6. Supporting Women:Foster confidence and clarity by surrounding yourself with peers and mentors.7. Key Takeaways:Follow the positive energy: Trust your intuition and pursue what excites you.Ask for support: Whether through coaching, mentorship, or community, you don't have to navigate transitions alone.Embrace imperfect growth: Life transitions can feel messy, but clarity comes from taking one step at a time.Connect with Miranda Hawkins:Website: www.mirandakhawkins.comLinkedIn: Miranda K. Hawkins CoachingLaw Practice: Hawkins GordonFinal Thought:Miranda Hawkins reminds us that life's biggest transitions—whether personal or professional—are opportunities for growth. By following your intuition, trusting your energy, and seeking the right support, you can move forward with clarity and confiKeep up with more content from Aggie and Cristy here: Facebook: Empowered Women Leaders Instagram: @badass_women_in_business LinkedIn: ProveHer - Badass Women in Business Website: Badasswomeninbusinesspodcast.com

Watch two experienced real estate attorneys battle through key aspects of a commercial lease negotiation in front of a live audience receiving CE credit. This segment features Chris Troutman with Alston & Bird and Meghan Gordon with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, and is moderated by show host and broker Michael Bull, CCIM.  ShareFile - Secure, digital solutions to simplify workflows and improve collaboration. https://ShareFile.com Bull Realty - Customized Asset & Occupancy Solutions: https://www.bullrealty.com/ Commercial Agent Success Strategies - The ultimate commercial broker training resource: https://www.commercialagentsuccess.com/ Watch the video versions of our show on YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/c/Commercialrealestateshow Follow us at: @BullRealty https://twitter.com/bullrealty @CRE_show https://twitter.com/CRE_show  

In this episode, we are joined by Lisa Driendl-Miller, the Executive Director of the Lancaster Bar Association and the Lancaster Law Foundation. With over 25 years of experience as a paralegal, Lisa transitioned into her current leadership role five years ago, bringing a wealth of knowledge and a deep commitment to the legal community. Under her leadership, the Bar Association has undergone a revitalization, with numerous initiatives that have strengthened both the organization and its impact on Lancaster's legal professionals. Lisa shares her journey from paralegal to executive director, discusses the importance of fostering collaboration and access to justice, and highlights the ways she is helping to shape the future of legal services in Lancaster County. Whether you're a legal professional or someone interested in the intersection of leadership and community development, this episode offers valuable insights.

The Government wants to give sexual abuse survivors the power to decide if their abuser gets permanent name suppression. Criminal Bar Association vice-president Sumudu Thode spoke to Corin Dann.

This episode was recorded on July 2, 2024. Scott and Sam discuss the much-anticipated "Bar Association" episode, in which the employees of Quark's bar go on strike in protest of unfair treatment by management. Support the show and find season 5 at: https://www.southpawpod.com/

Yumi Itakura is a feminist theorist and practicing lawyer who runs the Sakura International Law Office in Japan. The conversation delves into Yumi's extensive work on addressing gender violence, workplace discrimination, and sexual harassment, especially for foreign women. We are so fortunate to have Yumi working on these issues to support families and women in particular. If you are wondering what it's like to work in this area or you are in need of legal support for a family matter such as divorce or a gender violence related matter in Japan then this is the episode for you. You can find a full list of Yumi's recommended legal resources and lawyers on the page for this episode on my website. If you enjoyed this episode and it inspired you in some way, we'd love to hear about it and know your biggest takeaway. Head over to Apple Podcasts to leave a review and we'd love it if you would leave us a message here! In this episode you'll hear: How Yumi's work supporting gender violence against foreign women in Japan is her true passion Some recent cases Yumi has worked on which demonstrate the challenges that foreign women face in Japan Yumi's guidance on the four kinds of divorce proceedings available in Japan and what not to select if you are two foreigners deciding to divorce.  Her favourite author, her favourite Hollywood actor and what she would do if she was not a lawyer About Yumi Yumi Itakura, is a feminist theorist and a practicing lawyer admitted in Japan as a bengoshi. She  is at the Sakura International Law office and has been based in Tokyo for 20 years. Yumi graduated from Tsuda University with a BA in International Relations (1994) and did her Diploma at the Legal Training and Research Institute of the Supreme Court of Japan (2005). Yumi was a visiting scholar dispatched from the Japan Federation of Bar Associations to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law to research the U.S Labor system for gender equality in the workplace.  After working in the Tokyo Public Law Office and in a private law firm in Tokyo she took the step to open her own practice. Yumi specializes in family law and labor law. She has worked in the fields of domestic violence, discrimination in the workplace, sexual assault, and harassment for many years through her legal consultation, representing victims in their legal proceedings as well as advocacy activities as a member of Gender Equality Committee of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. As there is an increasing number of cases where foreign national women living in Japan are also suffering from gender related violence and discrimination in the family and the workplace. They can find it difficult to locate a capable lawyer to help them in Japan. Yumi Itakura is one such lawyer who can provide legal services to foreign clients in both Japanese and English. Yumi is also an adjunct lecturer of labor and employment law at Hitotsubashi Business School of Law. In her spare time, she likes to do yoga and listen to Jazz fusion music. In particular, Yumi is a big fan of Eliane Elias and Pat Metheny Group. Connect with Yumi  Sakura International Law Office: https://skrint-law.com/en/  Links Star Bar Ginza: ​​ https://www.starbar.jp/  Bar Lupin Ginza: http://www.lupin.co.jp/  Natsuo Kirino https://www.amazon.com/stores/Natsuo-Kirino/author/ Connect with Catherine  Linked In https://www.linkedin.com/in/oconnellcatherine/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawyeronairYouTube: https://youtube.com/@lawyeronair

Since the 1963 Gideon decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to a lawyer has been guaranteed to defendants facing criminal charges – even if they can't afford to pay.  Advocates say that guarantee is in  jeopardy in our state because of a lack of personnel. Washington State public defenders are in short supply and that's having cascading effects on the criminal legal system.  The Washington State Bar Association is recommending a counterintuitive solution to the shortage: they want to cap the number of cases that public defenders can take on in a year, but the plan has its detractors.  Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.  Guests: Jason Schwarz, Director of Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and Chair of the Washington State Bar Association, Council on Public Defense Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys Relevant Links: Washington State Standard: Can smaller caseloads help Washington fill its public defender ranks? Seattle Times: WA's public defender system is breaking down, communities reeling See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Dimensions of Diversity, Lloyd Freeman interviews Judi O'Kelley, Chief Program & Policy Officer and Paul Thaler, Chief Development Officer of the LGBTQ+ Bar Association. They discuss their roles and the association's initiatives. The LGBTQ+ Bar Association, with over 1,700 members, advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and organizes the Lavender Law Conference, which is the largest gathering of LGBTQ+ legal professionals. Judi and Paul talk about their respective roles and emphasize the significance of the Lavender Law Conference in recruiting LGBTQ+ legal professionals and promoting inclusivity in the legal profession.This episode also examines the association's advocacy efforts which includes supporting the ban of the LGBTQ panic defense, addressing discrimination against LGBTQ+ jurors, and creating a comprehensive bench guide for LGBTQ+ inclusion in courtrooms. The conversation highlights the importance of allyship, ongoing education, and inclusive policies in the legal profession, while underscoring the need for more progress in LGBTQ+ representation at the partner level. At the conclusion of the episode, Paul encourages listeners to support the LGBTQ+ Bar Association's mission by becoming members and getting involved with local affiliates, emphasizing the importance of building community and advancing LGBTQ+ inclusion in the legal field.Dimensions of Diversity is a podcast created by Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, highlighting diversity in the workplace. Hosted by Lloyd Freeman, Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer, the podcast features meaningful conversations with industry and community leaders working to advance D&I.

Rundown -   Intro - 00:35   Beth McCann in the Inner Sanctum of Craig's Lawyers' Lounge - 08:07   Troubadour Dave Gunders - 01:25:32   "Some Days" by Dave Gunders - 01:28:04   Outro - 01:33:35   Denver District Attorney Beth McCann makes a historic trip into the Inner Sanctum of Craig's Lawyers' Lounge. She's about to conclude two terms and will be stepping off the public stage, but not without some public expressions, as you will hear.   Beth McCann is a trailblazing figure in Denver's legal landscape. She was sworn in as the city's first female District Attorney on January 10, 2017. Her journey to this historic position reflects groundbreaking achievements and a commitment to public service.   McCann spent her childhood moving frequently due to her father's career as an Army colonel, including stints in Japan and Taiwan. Inspired by feminist role models, she pursued higher education to establish a career. McCann graduated magna cum laude from Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio.   Former President Trump is now stirring up hate against lawful Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, and he's telling lies about Aurora, Colorado. McCann assures us that Denver law enforcement will be ready if Trump comes to our neighboring city of Aurora.   Like California AG-Elect Kamala Harris, who was also elected on the first Tuesday of November 2016, Denver DA-Elect Beth McCann felt queasy about our country despite achieving her lifetime pinnacle job. Eight years later, Beth McCann voluntarily surrendered power to her successor, John Walsh (Ep 193), whom she endorsed.    McCann's legal journey began at Georgetown University Law School in 1971, where she was one of only a handful of women in her class. After graduating in 1974, she moved to Denver, becoming only the second female law clerk for Colorado's U.S. District Court Judge Sherman G. Finesilver.   McCann served as a deputy and then Chief Deputy District Attorney in Denver from 1975 to 1982, prosecuting hundreds of cases. In the early 1990s, McCann became Denver's first female Manager of Safety under Mayor Wellington Webb.   For eight years, McCann served as Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation and Employment Law for the Colorado Attorney General's Office. McCann was also a four-term elected state representative for HD 8 in Denver, focusing on criminal justice matters and health care reform.   McCann has long been a strong advocate for women in the legal profession. She is a founding member and former president of the Colorado Women's Bar Association, and she explains why most of her new hires are female prosecutors.   Kamala Harris's virtues as a fellow big-city prosecutor are extolled. Beth and Kamala have inevitably faced specific difficult everyday top prosecutor experiences. We agree that Tim Walz is a fine man and educator. We talk with Denver DA McCann about character and leadership.   McCann explains her recent decision no charges will be filed in connection with a deadly shooting in July at an apartment near the University of Denver. https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/du-apartment-intruder-shot-killed/73-a62f1a45-d7ce-49ed-a055-907d65887ed5   According to Denver Police, a resident returned to their apartment inside One Observatory Park around 1 a.m. on  July 21 and was startled by an intruder. The apartment building is on East Evans Avenue, just east of South University Boulevard.   We discuss how Kamala Harris said she'd shoot any intruder into her family home. Beth McCann explains the burden of proof on prosecutors and how she's made thousands of such decisions. https://people.com/kamala-harris-tells-oprah-intruder-getting-shot-if-try-to-break-in-8716045   Show Troubadour Dave Gunders plays hurt, coming off the recovery table from knee replacement surgery and offering his toe-tapping song "Some Days." Some days this week started off bad for NC Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who had nasty laundry exposed. It could not happen in a better swing state.   The host starts the show by decrying Trump's blaming of the Jews in case he does not get elected. Is he talking to Craig? It appears so. What's he going to do about it? Have friends extract retribution? WTF. Kamala continues to be calm and bright. This episode is hopeful.

Our second part of a conversation with Christopher (Chris) Black -- a Canadian attorney-activist, writer, author, community organizer and poet.  Chris Black is a member of the Bar Association of the International Criminal Court and acted as the lead defense counsel before the ICC for Rwanda, later defending Rwanda's General Augustin Ndiniliyimana against dozens of genocide charges leading to his acquittal. He was among the first lawyers to lay war crime charges against NATO for its attack on Yugoslavia, and served as vice-chair of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobadan Milosevic. Other crimes Chris laid down on behalf of the ICC include charges against Rwandan president Paul Kagame on behalf of Congolese groups, and charges against NATO for its invasion of Libya. Chris is currently an executive member of the Canadian Peace Council and Toronto Association for Peace and Solidarity. Chris' articles appear in the Near Eastern Outlook, Global Research and other outlets. He is the author of the novel "Beneath the Clouds: The Struggle for Truth and Justice Can Turn Deadly" and a collection of poems "From a Passing Stranger? He holds a degree in psychology from McMaster University in Ontario and received a law degree, specializing in international law, from York University.  His website is Christopher-Black.com

Christopher (Chris) Black is a Canadian attorney-activist, writer, author, community organizer and poet.  He is a member of the Bar Association of the International Criminal Court and acted as the lead defense counsel before the ICC for Rwanda, later defending Rwanda's General Augustin Ndiniliyimana against dozens of genocide charges leading to his acquittal. He was among the first lawyers to lay war crime charges against NATO for its attack on Yugoslavia, and served as vice-chair of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobadan Milosevic. Other crimes Chris laid down on behalf of the ICC include charges against Rwandan president Paul Kagame on behalf of Congolese groups, and charges against NATO for its invasion of Libya. Chris is currently an executive member of the Canadian Peace Council and Toronto Association for Peace and Solidarity. Chris' articles appear in the Near Eastern Outlook, Global Research and other outlets. He is the author of the novel "Beneath the Clouds: The Struggle for Truth and Justice Can Turn Deadly" and a collection of poems "From a Passing Stranger? He holds a degree in psychology from McMaster University in Ontario and received a law degree, specializing in international law, from York University.  His website is Christopher-Black.com

On today's episode of the Justice Team Podcast, Bob is joined by Quincy Booth to discuss how lawyers can make multiple streams of income; specifically having a multi-jurisdictional practice. Quincy is a licensed attorney in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (and soon, New Mexico!) state courts where he maintains active memberships with the Barristers, American Association for Justice, Trial Lawyers Associations, Bar Associations, and state-specific Associations for Justice. 

Deep Space Nine is rocked by a brand new craze that's sweeping the far distant future - UNIONIZATION! What do our two incredibly loudmouthed leftist tree-huggers have to say about THIS ONE, folks?! (It's mostly jokes like usual, but still) This is the 3rd episode of VidaZen's "Ballroom BLITZ!" Collection as chosen by and voted on our patrons! You can join in and tell us what to watch by becoming a patron today! SUPPORT US ON PATREON WITH YOUR LATINUM! - www.patreon.com/mclasspodcast Need info about the show? Find it at www.mclasspodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: @MClassPodcast And/or follow our personal accounts: @_JeffPennington @henderson1983

What’s Trending: The Washington State Bar Association is covering for Bob Ferguson. The latest Washington gubernatorial fundraising data is out. Bob Ferguson sent out a weird brag on Twitter. A barista smashed a hammer into a customer’s windshield after she feel she was threatened. A witness got testy with Senator John Kennedy when being questioned about late-term abortion. // Big Local: Residents in Shoreline are fighting to preserve trees that the City plans to remove to make sidewalks safer. Tacoma is providing 25k dollars to help businesses repair broken windows. The Tacoma Humane Society is getting rid of adoption fees until Sunday to help move their stockpile of animals. // Joey Chestnut has been barred from the 2024 Nathan hot dog eating contest for his partnership with a vegan meats company.

The military junta in Burkina Faso extends its military rule for another five years. So does this mean it is consolidating its power?There have been chaotic scenes in Sierra Leone during the Bar Association's ballot for a powerful executive, deeply steeped in the country's politics, and Gen Z's desire for promotion in the South African workplace – what are employers doing to accommodate them?