Podcasts about big law

It's been a huge week for the female gaze (and gays)! Jodi and Nora begin by supplying some insider info about Big Law's favorite biter (1:55) before recapping a few cursed news headlines from this week, including Matt Rife purchasing the Connecticut home and occult museum of paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (13:42). Then they discuss the potential return of culture from the mid-2010s and how they're personally feeling about earnestness making a comeback (30:00). And finally … it's a sapphic summer! To celebrate, Jodi and Nora discuss Chappell Roan's new song, the Reneé Rapp Award for Power in Lesbianism at the Las Culturistas Culture Awards, and the hit Netflix series 'The Hunting Wives' (40:48). To close out the show, they reveal their weekly obsessions (1:18:39). Hosts: Jodi Walker and Nora Princiotti Producers: Devon Baroldi, Sasha Ashall, and Belle Roman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Daily Mastermind podcast, host George Wright III delves into an insightful conversation with Charlene Gisèle, a former big law litigator turned high-performance burnout coach. They explore the challenges of balancing high-stress careers with personal wellbeing and sustainable success. Charlene shares her personal journey from being a workaholic litigator to facing her father's health crisis, which catalyzed her career shift into wellness. They discuss the physical and mental changes associated with burnout, the importance of recognizing early signs, and the need for a holistic approach to recovery. Charlene emphasizes the significance of professional guidance and offers practical strategies for managing stress and achieving sustainable success. The episode also highlights valuable resources for listeners, including burnout assessments and sleep aids.00:46 Challenges of Scheduling and Coordination01:44 Background and Career Journey03:41 Building Brands and Authority06:55 Client Focus and Target Audience15:21 Personal Burnout Story23:16 Recognizing Burnout Signs28:58 The Importance of Hard Work and Balance29:15 Recognizing Burnout and Its Effects30:35 Neuroscience Behind Burnout33:30 Physical and Mental Impact of Burnout37:00 Addiction to Work and Dopamine42:16 Seeking Help and Recovery Strategies45:55 Holistic Approach to Burnout Recovery48:05 Resources and Final ThoughtsYou have Greatness inside you. I know you can Learn, Grow and Accomplish anything you put your mind toward. I appreciate you listening today.George Wright IIICEO, The Evolution Group_________________________________________________________1. Subscribe to The Daily Mastermind Podcast- daily inspiration, motivation, education2. Follow me on social media Facebook | Instagram | Linkedin | TikTok | Youtube3. Get the Prosperity Pillars Poster I Developed over 20 years from my Mentors.About the Guest: Charlène GisèleCharlène Gisèle is a former Big Law litigator turned High-Performance Coach and the founder of the Charlène Gisèle® Coaching Method. Her journey from high-pressure legal environments to holistic health and performance coaching has equipped her with deep insight into the modern epidemic of burnout and the tools necessary for sustainable recovery.After personally experiencing the toll of corporate stress, Charlène transitioned into the wellness space—integrating biohacking, neuroscience, performance psychology, and lifestyle coaching into her signature methodology. Rather than advocating for simply “working less,” she focuses on dopamine regulation, recovery optimization, and personal alignment to help her clients achieve elite-level performance without sacrificing their wellbeing.Charlène works with CEOs, entrepreneurs, and high-achievers to bridge the gap between ambition and sustainability—empowering clients to achieve more by doing less, with greater intention and balance.Guest ResourcesWebsite: charlenegisele.comInstagram: @charlenegiseleLinkedIn: Charlène Gisèle BourlioutPodcast: The Charlène Gisèle ShowYouTube: Charlène Gisèle on YouTube

Machine learning is already saving office workers from laborious research, but it also could herald the end of professional services' fee structure. In this Viewsroom podcast, Breakingviews columnists debate how lawyers, auditors and other consultants can mitigate the risk. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt-out of targeted advertising.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're early in your legal career—or even well into it—it can feel like raising your professional profile is only possible if you're already visible. But in this episode, I share how lawyers at all levels can expand their reputation strategically, even without headlining conferences and events, or getting opportunities to publish in legal journals and publications. I walk through the barriers lawyers face with getting more external visibility, including for attorney working in-house or at firms with less resources or ability to assist their practictioners, and break down practical, ethical, and effective ways to build your brand in both the legal and business communities. From LinkedIn strategies to industry group engagement, from social circles to generosity-based networking, I cover a range of tactics that can help to gain traction. Whether you're trying to become known as a trusted expert in your niche or simply want to find a path to more leadership and client-facing opportunities, this episode outlines steps you can take now to build a stronger, more memorable presence—starting today. At a Glance: 00:00 Why visibility is hard in both junior and senior stages of your career 02:30 What to do when legal speaking and publishing opportunities feel limited 02:59 How to answer “What do you do?” in a way that reflects your expertise 04:23 The difference between title-based and value-based branding 05:09 How to quietly build industry presence on LinkedIn 06:15 A low-effort way to become a recognized voice in your niche 07:10 Why business groups (not just legal ones) matter 08:16 How social and civic groups can organically build your brand 09:02 Letting your best traits speak for themselves outside of legal roles 09:48 Writing about law-adjacent topics when legal topics are off-limits 11:01 The role of generosity in expanding your reputation 12:14 How being a “connector” gets you invited to speak and lead Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

“Every employment case is a story about betrayal,” says George Moschopoulos, who recently convinced jurors that the Los Angeles Unified School District failed to work in good faith to find his disabled client another role in the organization. Host Dan Ambrose unpacks the case, from the six-figure pretrial offer to the juror who compelled the team to pivot their strategy to the $3 million verdict. Tune in for George's insights about presenting clients as resilient survivors and mastering trial skills through deliberate practice.Train and Connect with the Titans☑️ George Moschopoulos | LinkedIn☑️ The Law Office of George Moschopoulos☑️ Trial Lawyers University☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode SnapshotEngineer by day, law student by night: George traces his path.George describes how his first mentor, a Cornell Law grad with a BigLaw pedigree, guided his early career.At plaintiff's bar panel in the early-2000s, George was impressed by a speaker who discussed sexual harassment and disability discrimination and retaliation law. “I said, ‘Who's discriminating against anybody these days?' Just goes to show how little I knew.”George characterizes every employment case as a story of betrayal: the trusted relationship intentionally broken for the wrong reasons.George's first trial victory came in a disability discrimination case he thought was hopeless until discovering a smoking-gun email that advised the employer to "delete this email, smiley face."George credits TLU bootcamps for helping him change tactics, from focusing on "selling the bad" (victim suffering) to "selling the glad" (client resilience and recovery).In unpacking his recent victory on behalf of an injured school safety officer, George explains how he reframed the case after jury selection, when a 30-year district employee described school safety officers' physical intervention duties. George and Dan role-play cross-examining a defense medical expert.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Texas Republicans are busy gerrymandering their already gerrymandered congressional map, and other red states are looking to do the same—all aimed at blocking the Dems from winning back the House and shielding Donald Trump at all costs. Meanwhile, the DOJ is trying to get state voter rolls and is laying the groundwork for interfering in the midterms. Democrats need to fight fire with fire in blue states. Plus, the cowardice of Big Law, the power politics behind the Emil Bove confirmation, and the pathetic deference Republicans are showing to convicted sex crimes monster Ghislaine Maxwell. Marc Elias joins Tim Miller. show notes Elias's Democracy Docket  F*%k your khakis and get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code BULWARK15 at theperfectjean.nyc/BULWARK15

Get it together, people! ----- It was a very bad week for lawyers and hallucinations. A federal judge had to withdraw an opinion with fake cites. One Biglaw firm fired a partner over an invented case, while another firm got tossed off a case over AI shenanigans. And the scribe of Ashurbanipal got mercilessly trolled by a judge pointing out that his fake AI cite apology included... another fake cite. Why does it seem like this is all getting worse? A Biglaw firm pushes its start date leaving incoming associates in the lurch and Alina Habba might be the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. Or maybe not. Or maybe yes.

If you've ever wondered why business development in BigLaw feels so slow, frustrating, and opaque even when you're doing everything right, this episode is for you. I break down the structural and strategic reasons many top-tier BigLaw attorneys struggle to build books of business.  From long sales cycles to limited access to decision makers and visibility issues within firms, I explore what's really going on beneath the surface. If you're doing all the “right” things but not seeing results yet, I walk through the key signals that you're still on the right path and why your firm might not be noticing what you're doing well.  You'll leave this episode with a better understanding of how to reframe your timeline, assess your positioning, and advocate for yourself with clarity. At a Glance: 00:00 Why business development in BigLaw often feels slow—even for high performers 02:01 Structural barriers: access, trust cycles, and firm dynamics 03:30 Why early efforts rarely lead to immediate results 04:50 How your practice area impacts business development timing and strategy 06:04 Building credibility without headline matters or public wins 07:21 Finding your authentic style even if it's not networking events 08:29 What quiet traction looks like (and why your firm might miss it) 10:14 Engagement signals that show you're on the right track 11:07 Roles and visibility that deepen client relationships 12:25 Taking ownership of your business development strategy with structure and follow-up Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

Get it together, people! ----- It was a very bad week for lawyers and hallucinations. A federal judge had to withdraw an opinion with fake cites. One Biglaw firm fired a partner over an invented case, while another firm got tossed off a case over AI shenanigans. And the scribe of Ashurbanipal got mercilessly trolled by a judge pointing out that his fake AI cite apology included... another fake cite. Why does it seem like this is all getting worse? A Biglaw firm pushes its start date leaving incoming associates in the lurch and Alina Habba might be the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. Or maybe not. Or maybe yes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kirsten Branigan was facing an existential crisis. Working at a large New Jersey law firm with young children, she felt the rubber meeting the road in a significant way. She couldn't do everything she wanted to do with her family while meeting all the firm's requirements. Instead of just accepting the situation, Kirsten made two bold decisions. She started her own employment law firm built around flexibility and empathy. And when she heard that the New Jersey Women Lawyers Association was dying out because "women of your generation don't care about these issues," she decided to prove that wrong by leading the effort to revitalize the organization. Twenty years later, Kirsten's firm is thriving as a refuge for women lawyers, and that "dying" organization now draws over 700 people to its annual gala. As someone currently conducting research with Rutgers University on women's advancement in the legal profession, she has insights on what's actually changing for women lawyers and what isn't. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman speaks with Kirsten about building a law firm culture that works for women lawyers, the challenges that persist across generations, and her advice for creating change: Build an Army. 3:24 - Why Kirsten left Big Law to start her own firm after an existential crisis  5:51 - The values and culture Kirsten built into her firm from day one  9:02 - How to maintain firm ideals while dealing with business pressures  11:19 - The story of revitalizing the New Jersey Women Lawyers Association  16:03 - Current challenges women face in the legal profession based on Rutgers research  23:16 - Positive shifts and trends for women in law  28:05 - The mental health crisis in the legal profession and available resources  30:31 - Understanding generational differences and approaching them with empathy  32:40 - What lawyers can do to make the profession better for everyone  38:36 - Kirsten's advice for creating lasting change: Build an Army MENTIONED IN CREATING LAW FIRM CULTURE THAT WORKS FOR WOMEN LAWYERS KS Branigan Law PC | LinkedIn New Jersey Women Lawyers Association | LinkedIn NAMWOLF New Jersey Lawyers Assistance Program Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE… Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession. If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

This week on Conflict Managed, Alejandra Ramirez shares how the Head, Hearts, & Hands framework builds trust, strengthens culture, and aligns teams for success. Listen in to discover what it really takes to create a healthy, thriving workplace.

You're successful on paper but can't shake the feeling you haven't really "made it" without a prestigious law firm on your resume. Tiffany Obeng lived with that impostor syndrome for over a decade before finally getting her shot at Biglaw in 2023. Nine months later, she was back out. In this episode, Tiffany shares what she learned during those nine months that changed everything about how she views success, plus how she's built a children's book publishing company focused on diverse representation while working full-time in employment consulting. If you've ever wondered whether the grass is really greener at a prestigious firm, this episode is for you.See show notes at formerlawyer.com/278

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 231 welcomes back Mengyue Wang, Owner and Online Coach at MW Fitness.Mengyue first joined us nearly two years ago, and this time, she shares her inspiring journey transitioning to life in Hawaii. Once an Ivy League executive, Mengyue has evolved into a Fitness and Nutrition Coach for high-performing, career-driven professionals around the world. In this episode, Mengyue emphasizes that you don't have to sacrifice your health to build a successful career. She's passionate about creating transformational experiences by identifying the GAP in each of her clients' lives and delivering real, tailored solutions.

What do you do when you realize your practice isn't working for you, and you want to do something else or leave the law altogether? You turn to an expert like Jessica Medina, who can help you figure out the financial plan to make a transition possible. Jessica is a lawyer turned Accredited Financial Counselor whose specialty is helping lawyers in this exact scenario. In this episode, listen in as Jessica and I talk about her personal transitions from Biglaw to government and eventually out of the law altogether and how she helps her clients prepare for their own transitions. Head to rhothomas.com/270 for the full episode show notes.

Listen to The Jabot podcast as Kathryn Rubino interviews attorney and author Audrey Ingram, who shares her compelling transition from a law career to writing. Explore Audrey's journey, motherhood's role in her life choices, and get a glimpse of her new novel, “The Summer We Ran,” about first loves turned political rivals. A must-listen for aspiring writers and anyone seeking inspiration to chase their dreams!   Highlights Transition from Big Law to Novel Writing Fulfillment in Motherhood Navigating Guilt and Finding Balance Inspiration for Debut Novel Elements of an Ideal Summer Beach Read Creativity and Storytelling Sources Crafting Imperfect Characters Integrating Legal Skills in Writing Balancing Creative and Business Aspects in Writing   Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus   Links and Resources https://www.instagram.com/audreyingramwrites/?hl=en  https://www.instagram.com/zibbypublishing/?hl=en  https://audreyingramwrites.com/    Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

Late last year, the chief people officer for national law firm Gilchrist Connell was announced as the BigLaw player's new chief executive - a role she assumed in July. Here, she reflects on her vocational experience and details how coming from an HR background and wearing “many, many hats” lends well to leading a large legal practice. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with Gilchrist Connell chief executive Belinda Cohen about her career prior to joining the BigLaw firm five years ago, the work she did as CPO, balancing the proactive and reactive as an HR professional, and how she came to be the firm's CEO. Cohen also discusses the firm's vision as set out by her predecessor, Richard Wood, and how her HR background will assist in furthering that vision, how and why HR professionals are well placed to step into such senior leadership roles, how HR professionals can create such vocational pipelines for themselves, and what excites her moving forward.   If you like this episode, show your support by  rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au for more insights!

Few lawyers in America have handled more headline-making cases than Marc Agnifilo of Agnifilo Intrater. A former prosecutor in both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey—where he and I met and became friends, around 20 years ago—Marc has defended a number of famous (some might say infamous) figures. His clients over the years have included so-called “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli, former NXIUM cult leader Keith Raniere, and Luigi Mangione, who faces state and federal charges in connection with the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.Earlier this month, Marc and his colleagues won acquittals for Sean “Diddy” Combs on federal racketeering and sex-trafficking charges—the most serious charges that Combs faced, which could have landed him in prison for life had he been convicted. Last week, I interviewed Marc about the trial and shared some highlights in these pages; now, I'm pleased to provide the complete podcast.Thanks to Marc for taking the time to speak with me, so thoughtfully and openly, about an interesting and momentous case—as well as his remarkable career as one of the nation's leading trial lawyers.Show Notes:* Marc Agnifilo bio, Agnifilo Intrater* How Diddy's Likable Defense Lawyer Helped Save His Unlikable Client (gift link), by Corinne Ramey and James Fanelli for The Wall Street Journal* The husband-wife legal team working on two of today's biggest criminal cases, by Eric Levenson for CNNPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

If you've ever lost credit for work you led, grown a client relationship that someone else now claims, or watched a colleague take center stage at a pitch you prepared, this episode is for you. I walk through what professional credit theft looks like in Big Law and how to respond in a way that's smart, strategic, and fact-based. Whether it's origination, execution, or visibility, losing credit can hit your comp, promotion, and internal standing hard, and it can happen pretty often in law firms. I break down how to document your contributions, when (and how) to raise the issue, and what to do if things escalate. I'll also share some specific language you can use in emails and comp memos to reclaim credit without causing unnecessary friction. Big Law isn't always a level playing field, but this episode arms you with the tools to assert your value and protect your future. At a Glance: 00:00 Why credit theft is such a serious issue in Big Law 01:20 The three types of credit theft: origination, execution, and visibility 02:41 How to assess the real impact—on comp, promotions, and perception 03:40 What to document: emails, billing records, client praise, and more 04:57 Power dynamics: how seniority affects your strategy 05:39 When and how to confront the credit thief directly 06:20 Sample email language that's assertive but professional 07:51 The range of responses you might receive—and how to handle them 09:01 What to do next if the response is defensive or dismissive 09:40 Escalating the issue without sounding like a complainer 10:13 What to say to a mentor, group head, or comp committee member  11:02 Proactively increasing your internal visibility 11:44 A real example of leadership backing the right person 12:35 What to include in your comp memo to document your role 13:36 Why context, not just credit, matters in compensation conversations 14:23 How to quote client feedback to strengthen your case 14:57 Sample language for your comp memo when someone else has claimed your work 15:41 Why visible, fact-based stories beat vague complaints every time 16:06 The importance of defending your contributions at every stage Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

A recent Fair Work decision noted that a primary carer doesn't have to be the sole carer in order to receive primary carer parental leave. Here, a BigLaw special counsel unpacks the decision and what it means for employers and lawyers moving forward. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with Maddocks special counsel Meredith Kennedy about her work in the BigLaw firm's employment, safety, and people practice, the case of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (and what happened at first instance and then in front of the full bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), how “primary carer” was defined in the proceedings and relevant enterprise agreement, and how and why the FWC full bench reached its conclusions. Kennedy also delves into why this matter is so significant, the takeaways for employers nationwide, the need to ensure that workplace policies and frameworks account for all circumstances, overcoming collective biases, riding the wave of sociocultural shifts, best practice for lawyers in this space, and what else such lawyers need to be looking out for.

Candisse Williamson is a highly accomplished General Counsel known for her creative deal-making and extensive legal expertise across the entertainment and corporate sectors. After graduating from Northwestern Law, she refined her corporate law skills, with a focus on M&A and private equity, at prestigious firms including Paul Weiss and King & Spalding. Her career then transitioned to entertainment, where she served as VP of Business and Legal Affairs at The Madison Square Garden Company, notably as lead attorney for the renowned Christmas Spectacular Starring the Radio City Rockettes. Later, as General Counsel at Skybound Entertainment, Candisse built the company's legal department from the ground up, overseeing all transactions in film, TV, and gaming. She is now the GC of Hartbeat, actor and comedian Kevin Hart's media company. In this role, she established the legal department and now drives strategic deal-making across film, TV, audio, live events, and branded content, all while serving as a key member of the executive team. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT BUILDING LEGAL TEAMS AND MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL Most lawyers follow predictable career paths, but some find themselves in industries where the landscape shifts constantly. Candisse Williamson made the transition from corporate M&A at top firms to building legal departments in entertainment companies, where deal structures evolve rapidly and traditional contracts often don't fit. As General Counsel at Hartbeat, Kevin Hart's media company, Candisse has learned that success requires more than legal expertise. She's built two legal departments from the ground up, developed strategies for working effectively with outside counsel, and discovered that understanding the business is often more important than perfecting the legal details. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman speaks with Candisse about her journey from Big Law to entertainment, how she approaches building and managing legal teams, and practical advice for lawyers looking to work with entertainment companies. 2:34 - Why Candisse wanted a legal career and her transition into entertainment law 5:30 - The biggest challenge for Candisse as VP/General Counsel 8:06 - How Candisse built Hartbeat's legal department from the ground up 11:09 -  Two main purposes of outside counsel and how Candisse maintains relationships  13:56 - Candisse's philosophy about handling difficult conversations with outside counsel 16:52 - How you can rise above the crowded field and grow a book of business as a private practice lawyer 23:18 - Why Candisse emphasizes diversity in her staffing decisions 25:43 - Challenges in the constantly evolving world of entertainment and media 30:03 - Candisse's personality and adaptability as an attorney  33:53 - Highly critical advice for in-house counsel   MENTIONED IN STRATEGY AND TALENT: HOW ONE GENERAL COUNSEL BUILDS LEGAL TEAMS AND CHOOSES OUTSIDE COUNSEL Hartbeat | LinkedIn | Instagram Laugh Out Loud Network: YouTube | TikTok | Instagram | Facebook | Snapchat | Twitter/X Anthony Desimone | Making AI Work For Your Law Firm Without Compromising Security or Excellence Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE... Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession.  If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

Your network often sees your magic before you do. J. Kelly Hoey, author of Build Your Dream Network, proved this when her colleagues had to convince her that networking was actually her superpower. As my very first podcast guest, Kelly set the tone for what Branding Room Only is all about: clarity, candor, and community-centered insight.Kelly's brand is grounded in helping others succeed through meaningful connections. Her approach has transformed careers for countless entrepreneurs and leaders, and her journey from Big Law to entrepreneurship proves the power of strategic relationship building. In this special re-release, we dive deep into what personal branding really means, how your network reflects and reinforces your brand, and why your elevator pitch should be an invitation, not a monologue.Whether this is your first time hearing this conversation or you're back for a refresher, get ready to take notes. This episode is packed with foundational wisdom that never goes out of style.2:30 – What personal brand means to Kelly and why you need to listen to your network5:04 – Kelly's approach to elevator pitches and networking your ambitions11:11 – How Kelly describes herself and the Central Park analogy that changed everything16:14 – The Oscar Wilde quote that guides Kelly when she feels off track18:12 – Kelly's hype song from a Quincy Jones compilation20:00 – How Kelly's network convinced her to write Build Your Dream Network23:40 – Why personal branding became the confidence builder she needed27:04 – Mentors who shaped Kelly's career (including some unexpected lessons)31:45 – The pivotal career change that taught Kelly about plan B35:00 – The best advice about having a plan B (spoiler: you shouldn't have one)37:19 – The biggest networking mistake and why "don't be a jerk" is the real secret41:41 – Kelly's best advice for building your brand through your network43:25 – How to handle network feedback about your ambitions45:04 – Kelly's "Stand By Your Brand" moment and her networking magicMentioned In Building Your Personal Brand Through Authentic Connections with J. Kelly HoeyJ. Kelly Hoey Books by J. Kelly Hoey“Carla Harris | The 2016 MAKERS Conference” - YouTube“Rock With You” | Brandy and Heavy D | From Q. With Love - YouTubeNew York City Bar AssociationPearls of Power: How to Use Authenticity, Boldness, and Intentionality with Carla HarrisLearn More About Paula's Personal Branding Strategy Session OfferFollow & Review: Help others find the podcast. Subscribe and leave a quick review.Sponsor for this episodePGE Consulting Group LLC empowers individuals and organizations to lead with purpose, presence, and impact. Specializing in leadership development and personal branding, we offer keynotes, custom programming, consulting, and strategic advising—all designed to elevate influence and performance at every level.Founded and led by Paula Edgar, our work centers on practical strategies that enhance professional development, strengthen workplace culture, and drive meaningful, measurable change.To learn more about Paula and her services, go to www.paulaedgar.com or contact her at info@paulaedgar.com, and follow Paula Edgar and the PGE Consulting Group LLC on LinkedIn.

This Day in Legal History: Jane Matilda Bolin Appointed to BenchOn this day in 1939, Jane Matilda Bolin shattered a historic barrier when she was appointed by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia as a judge of the city's Domestic Relations Court. With that appointment, Bolin became the first Black woman to serve as a judge in the United States. A graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School—where she was the first Black woman to earn a law degree—Bolin entered a profession that had few women and even fewer people of color. Her appointment was more than symbolic; she used her position to advocate for children and families, ensuring fair treatment for all who appeared before her court.Judge Bolin served with distinction for four decades, retiring in 1979. During her tenure, she challenged policies that segregated children based on race in publicly funded childcare agencies and fought to assign probation officers without regard to ethnicity or religion. She approached family law not as a soft discipline, but as a critical area where justice, equity, and social stability intersect. Bolin's presence on the bench helped normalize the inclusion of women—and particularly women of color—in legal authority roles.Her quiet determination and policy reform work made lasting impacts in juvenile justice and child welfare. Despite the deep racial and gender bias of her era, Bolin held fast to a vision of a fairer legal system. Today, her legacy lives on in the increasing diversity of the judiciary and in reforms aimed at making family courts more humane and equitable. Her appointment marked the beginning of a broader movement toward inclusion in American legal institutions.Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal faces a significant procedural hurdle under Florida law, as legal experts point out he may not have followed the state's five-day pre-suit notice requirement for suing a media outlet. Trump filed the suit in Miami federal court, seeking at least $10 billion per defamation count over a July 17 article linking him to a birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that allegedly included a sexually suggestive drawing and reference to shared secrets. The Journal has stood by its reporting and pledged to defend itself.Beyond the timing issue, Trump will also need to meet the demanding “actual malice” standard, which requires public figures to prove that a publication knowingly or recklessly published false information. Legal experts note that simply disputing a claim's truth doesn't suffice—Trump must show the Journal deliberately lied. The large monetary figure Trump is seeking appears to be more for public attention than legal plausibility, especially considering recent precedent like Fox News' $787.5 million settlement with Dominion and Alex Jones' $1.3 billion defamation judgment.Trump's suit follows a pattern of litigation against the press, with mixed outcomes. Courts have dismissed previous cases against CNN and The New York Times, while some outlets like ABC and Paramount have settled. Experts caution that while Trump's case may ultimately fail, his persistent use of defamation claims could chill press freedom due to the high cost of legal defense. The article also draws a parallel to former Trump ally Dan Bongino, whose defamation case was dismissed for a similar procedural misstep.Trump's Wall Street Journal suit over Epstein story faces timing hurdle | ReutersFormer Louisville police officer Brett Hankison was sentenced to 33 months in prison for violating Breonna Taylor's civil rights during the 2020 raid that led to her death. The sentence came despite a surprising, that is to say not at all surprising, request from the Trump Justice Department for only a one-day sentence. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings criticized that recommendation, calling it politically influenced and inconsistent with the gravity of the case. Although Hankison didn't fire the fatal shots, a federal jury convicted him in 2024 for endangering Taylor and her neighbors by firing blindly during the raid.Taylor, a Black woman, was killed when officers executed a no-knock warrant at her home. Her boyfriend, thinking the officers were intruders, legally fired a shot, prompting a hail of police gunfire. Her death, along with George Floyd's, fueled nationwide protests against police brutality.Hankison apologized in court, claiming he would have acted differently if he had known the warrant was flawed. The sentence was at the low end of federal guidelines but far exceeded what Trump's Justice Department sought. That sentencing memo was notably unsigned by career prosecutors and was submitted by political appointees, signaling a shift in the department's stance on police accountability.Taylor's family and boyfriend urged the court to impose the maximum penalty, calling the lenient recommendation an insult. Under President Biden, the Justice Department had reversed course, bringing charges in both the Taylor and Floyd cases to hold officers accountable.US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor | ReutersThe Justice Department has appealed a federal court ruling that struck down a directive from President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Jenner & Block. The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that Trump's March 25 order violated the firm's First Amendment rights. The directive had cited Jenner's past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a former partner involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation—an affiliation Trump viewed as politically adversarial.Judge Bates found the order to be retaliatory, noting it punished Jenner for its court work and lawyer associations. Trump's order was part of a broader pattern of targeting major law firms linked to perceived political opponents. Other actions under similar orders included attempts to cancel federal contracts, revoke security clearances, and block law firm personnel from federal buildings.Jenner & Block, represented by a legal team from Cooley, said it welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the lower court's ruling on appeal, defending its right to represent clients without political interference. The Justice Department's move mirrors similar appeals in cases involving Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey, signaling a continued legal defense of Trump actions against Big Law firms.DOJ Appeals Ruling for Jenner & Block in Trump Big Law BattleMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS's recent retreat from enforcing the Johnson Amendment through a consent decree signals a quiet dismantling of the traditional legal framework governing political speech by churches. The Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law, prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While the IRS hasn't officially repealed the rule, its failure to enforce it undermines its authority and creates legal uncertainty. I point out that in today's media environment, religious speech and political messaging often blur, making enforcement even more complicated.I propose a clearer, more functional alternative: creating a new legal category called “Religious-Political Entity.” Under this designation, churches that wish to engage in explicit political activity could do so—provided they accept trade-offs like losing the ability to receive tax-deductible donations, disclosing their political spending, and separating charitable and campaign funds. This approach would preserve the rights of churches to speak on political issues aligned with their missions while drawing a firm line at partisan campaigning.The current ambiguity risks selective enforcement and invites abuse. Only Congress, not courts or ad hoc consent decrees, can craft the statutory structure needed to balance religious free speech with tax law integrity.New ‘Religious-Political Entity' Category Would Clear Up Tax Law This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Former Davis Polk associate Ryan Powers started writing op-eds for local newspapers earlier this year criticizing the Trump administration's agenda. A few months later, the Wall Street firm he worked for fired him. Powers' story is one example of how some Big Law lawyers have had to make tough career choices since the president retook office. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Powers speaks with Bloomberg Law reporter Tatyana Monnay about what happened and the purposefully ambiguous reason Davis Polk cited for his dismissal. The firm declined to comment for this podcast. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Herbert Washer pushed Wall Street's Cahill Gordon & Reindel to expand its business after taking the helm, but he doesn't see the century-old firm joining the ranks of Big Law's largest players. "For us, the key has been to pick areas where we can be top of the market," said Washer, who took over from as Cahill's sole leader last year. "You don't want to enter a market space where you're going to be the tenth most successful law firm." On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Washer spoke to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens about what spurred the firm to start playing in the lateral recruiting market, look beyond its leveraged finance roots, and target new types of clients—particularly those with cryptocurrency interests. "Our loyalty has been and always will be, to a large degree, to the banks," Washer said. But a dip in bank activity in the leveraged finance space in 2023 took a bite out of Cahill's bottom line. "It caused us to sort of rethink the overall strategy that had worked so well for so long," he said. The firm bounced back last year, bringing in nearly $464 million in gross revenue and boosting profits per equity partner to $5.3 million. It also added partners in private credit, restructuring, and litigation, among other key practices. Washer would rather excel in the firm's core focus areas than try to be everything to every client. He's wary of expanding too quickly from a headcount of under 300 lawyers, both for business reasons and to preserve the firm's culture. "When a firm gets to 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 lawyers, no one person—no matter how successful they are—is really critical to the operation of the place," he said. This conversation is a part of our Leading Law Firms project, in which we score law firms using more than just traditional metrics like a firm's bottom line. Throughout the rest of this month, we'll be sharing more interviews with the leaders of other firms like DLA Piper and Susman Godfrey. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Lots to chew on this week. ----- Biglaw summer associate let go after biting upwards of 15 people at the firm. Now that sounds crazy, but that's because it is. We also discuss a lawyer's biting response to a demand letter. A lot of the professional decorum advocates objected to the tone, but at a certain point how does the profession pushback against aggressive and unfounded demands without public shaming? There's not another readily accessible disincentive. Finally, we address the gnashing of teeth in conservative media ecosphere over Superman being an immigrant and the knots they're willing to tie themselves into in order to avoid the obvious.

If you've ever found yourself rewriting an email ten times, hedging every sentence in a memo, or avoiding a hard conversation with a colleague or client—you're not alone. In this episode, I dive into why communication is one of the most underestimated challenges in Big Law, and how it can make or break your success. Lawyers are trained for precision and risk mitigation—not for clarity or connection. And firm culture only reinforces that. But when your writing is dense, your feedback is vague, or your tone is overly formal, it's not just style—it's a barrier to effective leadership, client trust, and team performance. In this episode, I break down the most common communication traps in Big Law, why even the top attorneys fall into them, and how to shift toward language that is actually helpful, direct, and practical. From speaking up without a fully formed answer to giving (and receiving) better feedback, this episode is packed with specific strategies you can apply right away. At a Glance: 00:00 Why communication challenges are so common in Big Law 01:20 How legal training encourages hedged, dense, and formal language 02:09 The difference between being technically correct and being useful 03:00 Real examples of communication breakdowns with clients and teams 04:13 The cultural factors that cause lawyers to avoid directness 05:03 Why fear of being wrong leads to silence or delay 05:33 How conflict avoidance undermines feedback and clarity 06:32 Expertise isn't communication—why tone, context, and structure matter 07:27 What better communication actually looks like 07:51 How to write clearly: start with what the reader needs to know 08:18 The role of senior lawyers in modeling direct, contextual feedback 08:41 What to say (and ask) when vague comments like “fix this” come up 09:06 Why it's okay not to have all the answers—and what to say instead 09:29 Spotting and replacing gobbledygook language in firm conversations 09:53 How firm hierarchy silences real dialogue 10:15 The importance of regular, real-time, two-way feedback 10:55 How to ask clarifying questions without apologizing 11:44 Why lawyers sound overly formal—and how to sound human again 12:10 Read the room: adjust your tone and delivery to your audience 12:33 Final thoughts: break bad habits, aim for clarity over complexity Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

Lots to chew on this week. ----- Biglaw summer associate let go after biting upwards of 15 people at the firm. Now that sounds crazy, but that's because it is. We also discuss a lawyer's biting response to a demand letter. A lot of the professional decorum advocates objected to the tone, but at a certain point how does the profession pushback against aggressive and unfounded demands without public shaming? There's not another readily accessible disincentive. Finally, we address the gnashing of teeth in conservative media ecosphere over Superman being an immigrant and the knots they're willing to tie themselves into in order to avoid the obvious. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Darin Klemchuk is the CEO of Klemchuk PLLC, a leading litigation, intellectual property, and business law firm based in Dallas, Texas. Klemchuk focuses his practice on IP litigation (patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets), IP enforcement and anti-counterfeiting programs, and IP strategy.  He helps clients build market share and block competitors through intellectual property law.  Darin is also the co-founder of Engage Workspace for Lawyers, an executive suite built by and for lawyers. He writes and speaks about human performance optimization, marketing and business development, leadership, entrepreneurship, law firm culture, and intellectual property law–all designed to encourage others to rethink what it means to be a lawyer, business owner, and leader in today's legal profession and beyond. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT LAW FIRM LEADERSHIP Most lawyers follow the traditional path of making partner, building a book, and climbing the ladder. But what happens when you're wired differently? When the conventional approach to practicing law feels fundamentally wrong for who you are as a person and leader? Darin Klemchuk faced exactly this crossroads. With a stable Big Law job, a second child on the way, and zero portable business, he made what most would consider a crazy decision. He walked away from partnership to build something better. Twenty years later, he's proven that leading from within can create strong results in both law and life. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman speaks with Darin about his journey from Big Law to entrepreneurship, his 62-minute plank hold experience, why the "platinum rule" works better than the golden rule for leaders, and how personal growth became the foundation for his firm's success. 2:06 - Darin's “Jerry Maguire” moment of launching his firm and how he got his first clients 5:57 - How the seeds of leadership and entrepreneurism were planted in Darin's youth 7:56 - The difference between leadership, management, and coaching  9:38 - One critical aspect of leadership that requires self-awareness 12:49 - The plank hold method and how you can apply it in your practice 17:33 - The immense value of peer networks for business development 22:06 - Why Darin designed anti-counterfeiting software programs to protect luxury brands' IP 23:58 - The better rule to follow for leaders with unique personality traits 28:15 - What Darin finds fascinating about the concept of happiness  32:16 - One of the greatest tragedies you can experience when you become successful   MENTIONED IN LEADING FROM WITHIN: HOW PERSONAL GROWTH FUELS LAW FIRM LEADERSHIP Klemchuk PLLC | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram Engage Workspace for Lawyers | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram Unbeatable Mind Entrepreneurs' Organization Vistage Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill Culture Index Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE... Today's episode is brought to you by the coaching team at The Lawyer's Edge, a training and coaching firm that has been focused exclusively on lawyers and law firms since 2008. Each member of The Lawyer's Edge coaching team is a trained, certified, and experienced professional coach—and either a former practicing attorney or a former law firm marketing and business development professional. Whatever your professional objectives, our coaches can help you achieve your goals more quickly, more easily, and with significantly less stress. To get connected with your coach, just email the team at hello@thelawyersedge.com.

In this powerful conversation, I sit down with writer and creator Lia Higgins (@onelitmama_) to talk about the unraveling and rebuilding that often comes with new motherhood. A former Big Law attorney turned full-time content creator and writer, Lia opens up about the trauma of childbirth, the crushing weight of postpartum depression, and the unconventional treatment that changed everything: ketamine therapy. Please note: this is one woman's personal experience under the guidance of trained professionals. Consult your doctor with any questions.Lia shares the raw truth about becoming a mother, navigating rage, resentment, identity loss, and what it's like growing her online presence alongside her mother-in-law, Shark Tank's Barbara Corcoran. We talk about Lia's viral essays for Oprah Daily and HuffPost, the cultural silence around maternal mental health, and how privilege, money, and access can shape the path to recovery.From religion and marriage to social media and storytelling, this episode is a must-listen for anyone who's ever felt isolated in the chaos or craved a little more honesty in the motherhood space.Watch this episode in video form on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjmevEcbh5h5FEX0pazPEtN86t7eb2OgX To apply to be a guest on the show, visit luciefink.com/apply and send us your story. I also want to extend a special thank you to East Love for the show's theme song, Rolling Stone. Follow the show on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/therealstuffpod Find Lucie here: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/luciebfink/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@luciebfink YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/luciebfinkWebsite: https://luciefink.com/ Executive Producer: Cloud10Produced by Dear Media.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Jonathan Keen.Jonathan is the Senior Director of Legal, International at Figma, a leading collaborative design tool for building meaningful products. With over 12 years of experience as an in-house lawyer for high-growth businesses, he provides legal advice on strategic initiatives.He is also a Member of the Global Legal and International Leadership Teams at Figma. Jonathan has been recognised in the Lawyer Hot 100, Legal Business GC Powerlist and the British Legal Awards. So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and Jonathan discussing:- Jonathan Moving from Private Practice to In-House Legal Roles- Figma's International Growth and Success- Legal Team Empowerment and Motivation- The Importance of Continuous Improvement in Tech Company Culture- Career Advice and Key Recommendations from JonathanConnect with Jonathan here - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-keen-6748a9143/

Join host Kathryn Rubino with guests Laurice Rutledge Lambert and Jennifer Whitton. Discover their unique journey from Big Law to founding a boutique health law firm. Explore their mission-driven approach and the challenges they face in healthcare regulation. Perfect for aspiring entrepreneurs and legal enthusiasts   Highlights Jennifer's journey: from international relations to law. Laurice's shift from medicine ambitions to health law. Misconceptions about lawyers and real pathway insights. Importance of persistence in career focus. Jennifer's mentor-driven transition to actual healthcare law. Challenges and implications of starting their own firm. Big law vs. entrepreneurship: Laurice's turning point. Values-driven alignment in forming their firm. Organic growth and values attract talent. Overcoming misconceptions about small firms lacking sophistication. Team strength and client faith as major successes. Current challenges and future of health care law.   Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus   Links and Resources Jennifer's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenniferpwhitton/  Laurice's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauricelambert/    Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

Latham & Watkins took the perch as Big Law's leading M&A dealmaker in the first half of the year, surging past rival Kirkland & Ellis as things started to look up for firms whose fortunes are closely tied to corporate transactions. Many law firms were expecting a spike in M&A deals in the first quarter of this year, but that largely failed to materialize. Now, with 2025 half over, we're starting to see a lot more activity on this front and firms are reaping the financial benefits. Global deal volume for the first half of the year is up nearly 20% compared to the same time last year, and that includes Meta Platforms' $14 billion investment in Scale AI. In fact, deals involving AI, either directly or indirectly, have been driving a lot of the activity of the past few months, according to reporter Mahira Dayal, who crunched the numbers for Bloomberg Law's quarterly league tables. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Mahira speaks to host Mike Leonard about this and other reasons why the deals market is rebounding after a slow start to the year why it's probably a little too early to start betting against Kirkland. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

If you've ever left a conference wondering whether it was worth the time, money, and disruption to your client work, this episode is for you. I break down how Big Law attorneys can approach conferences more strategically—before, during, and after—so they actually generate business, deepen client relationships, and build visibility with the right people.  Too often, conferences are treated as obligatory or status-based, without a clear plan for return on investment. But with tight schedules and high expectations, you can't afford to attend just to check a box. I share the steps I walk through my coaching clients to evaluate which events are worth attending, prepare for targeted interactions, and follow through to maximize long-term value. This isn't about collecting badges or LinkedIn selfies—it's about making sure the time you spend translates into opportunities that move your practice forward. At a Glance: 00:00 Why many Big Law attorneys struggle to get ROI from conferences 01:44 How to choose events that align with your business development goals 03:04 The problem with conferences filled only with other law firm lawyers 04:04 How to assess whether attendees include real decision-makers 05:10 Why smaller, niche conferences can offer greater access 06:08 Hidden pitfalls of vendor-heavy conferences and VIP sponsor tiers 06:55 Mapping a before-during-after strategy for each event 07:44 Defining specific goals for client relationship-building 08:43 Using LinkedIn and firm connections to prep in advance 09:25 What to say when meeting new people—and how to reconnect 10:25 Why personal touches help build rapport faster than a hard pitch 11:04 How to use dedicated time (like meals and coffees) to go deeper 11:43 Smart ways to continue the conversation without being transactional 12:20 Why taking real-time notes is non-negotiable 13:05 Capturing your own visibility as a speaker or attendee 14:00 How to spotlight clients and earn goodwill through social content 14:22 The most common reason great conference connections fizzle out 14:41 The 72-hour rule: blocking time for personalized follow-up 15:05 Follow-up ideas that feel helpful, not salesy 15:24 Coordinating with your firm's client team on next steps 15:47 Turning one insight into scalable content or broader BD initiatives 16:08 Measuring conference ROI over 6, 12, and 24 months 16:28 Final thoughts on being intentional with your time and brand Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

David Lat spent years climbing the legal ladder, clerking, working at Wachtell, joining the DOJ, before realizing that the most meaningful part of his career wasn't going to happen in a courtroom. Joining Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg, David talks through the decisions that shaped his path, from writing a cheeky anonymous blog about federal judges to launching “Above the Law” and building one of the most influential voices in legal media. He reflects on the pressure to follow prestige, the pull of creative work, and the unexpected ways his early writing opened doors he didn't even know existed.   A serious case of COVID-19 in 2020 forced him to pause and take stock. What would it look like to return to writing on his own terms? What parts of the legal world still felt worth exploring? Those questions led to “Original Jurisdiction,” a Substack newsletter where David now shares sharp, thoughtful takes on the profession he never fully left. David also opens up about parenting two young kids with his husband Zach, navigating surrogacy, and finding ways to stay engaged without burning out. This episode is a look at what it means to shift gears without losing momentum, and how the best version of your work might be the one that feels the most like you.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Meet David Lat: From Wachtell to Legal Media 05:41 The Birth of Underneath Their Robes 06:59 Launching Above the Law 10:54 The Rise and Reach of Above the Law 13:25 Why David Stepped Away from Legal Journalism 16:23 A Life-Changing COVID-19 Experience 18:02 Starting Over with Original Jurisdiction 27:00 Legal Parenthood, Surrogacy, and Family Life 31:45 Candid Advice for Aspiring Writers and Lawyers 39:54 Big Law, AI, and the Future of the Profession   Links Connect with David Lat: Substack: https://davidlat.substack.com/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidlat/   Connect with Howard Rosenberg: LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hrosenberg/ Company web profile: https://www.baretzbrunelle.com/howard-rosenberg   Connect with Chris Batz: LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisbatz/  LinkedIn Company page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/columbus-street/ Columbus Street website: https://www.columbus-street.com/  Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm  

You've probably seen the headlines about major law firms pulling out of diversity programs and capitulating to executive orders. Sarah has been calling out these decisions and explaining why DEI isn't actually the problem in Biglaw. But what does someone who works specifically with diverse attorneys see when firms make these choices?Sarah recently talked with Bryson Malcolm, a legal recruiter who has unique insight into how these changes are playing out. He owns Mosaic Search Partners, a recruitment firm that focuses on historically underrepresented attorneys in Biglaw. When firms started abandoning their diversity commitments, Bryson had a front-row seat to the consequences.See show notes at formerlawyer.com/275

Most BigLaw firms offer a broad array of benefits, including to meet important needs for caregiving for children. But there is still a large gap in many firms for lawyers and other professionals when it comes to benefits that assist in meeting broader family needs, including when it comes to caring for parents, adult dependents, spoues and other family members. In this episode, I speak with Thomas Adrian, who leads HR and wellness at Sheppard Mullin, a firm which has adopted one of the most comprehensive programs in BigLaw to address overall family caregiver needs. We talking about how Sheppard Mullin's partnership with  HomeThrive helps lawyers and other professional staff to handle real-life carer responsibilities without having to sacrifice their careers.  Thomas walks through how the program works, including how it is structured to avoid red tape, and how it delivers tangible ROI through increased retention, better productivity, and stronger firm culture. For firms that want to lead in talent strategy, and attorneys looking for better ways to share with their firms how to meet this challenge in the marketplace, this episode is worth a close listen. At a Glance: 00:00 Why adult caregiving needs more attention in law firm benefits 01:46 Key statistics on working caregivers and the impact on careers 03:07 Sheppard Mullin's motivation to address caregiving needs 04:20 How the firm began identifying caregiving as a wellness priority 07:13 Why Sheppard Mullin chose Homethrive and how the program works 09:46 Real-life examples of remote caregiving support across the U.S. 11:09 The range of support Homethrive offers beyond elder care 12:25 How Sheppard Mullin defines “family” inclusively  14:15 How the program has been leveraged by those who benefit from it 15:16 Impact stories from attorneys and staff who avoided burnout or resignation 16:40 Extending the benefit to all employees—not just lawyers 17:59 Gaining leadership buy-in for progressive benefits 19:23 ROI vs. Return on Value: how the firm measures program success 20:50 Billing more hours thanks to offloaded caregiving logistics 22:07 Vendor collaboration: why integration across wellness programs matters 24:16 How word-of-mouth drives adoption across practice groups 25:11 Why Sheppard Mullin is committed to leading in this area 26:21 Thomas's personal passion and family experience that inspires his work Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. To reach out to Thomas Adrian for more information about Sheppard Mullin's approach: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomadrian/ www.sheppardmullin.com  To reach out to HomeThrive about the benefits and parternships they offer to law firms and companies: https://homethrive.com/  Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 227 welcomes back Massimo D'Angelo, Partner & Co-Chair of the Real Estate Industry Group at Black Rome LLP in NYC — and a longtime friend from UMass-Amherst. In this powerful return to the show (last featured in Episode 3), Massimo dives into his roots as the son of Southern Italian immigrants and traces his journey to becoming a legal force in high-stakes real estate litigation. He recounts his pivotal role in the Atelier Condo board raid, where his investigation led to a sweeping crackdown on short-term rentals in Manhattan. Massimo also shares how that case opened the door to representing none other than former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Don't miss this gripping conversation with a lawyer making headlines. 

In this episode, Stories of Service host Theresa Carpenter talks with Navy SEAL veteran Bill Brown and his attorney Chris D'Alessandro about Bill's firing from McCarter & English. What began with a LinkedIn post reveals a deeper story of alleged discrimination and retaliation tied to Bill's military service and beliefs.Chris breaks down the legal side as Bill shares what it's like to challenge a system that preaches diversity but often excludes veterans.

What happens when a lawyer stops accepting inefficiency as “just the way things are”? In this episode, Zack Glaser talks with attorney and legal tech founder Katya Fisher about her journey from launching a solo practice during the Great Recession to building scalable tools for transactional lawyers.  Katya shares how her legal experience—spanning BigLaw, in-house, and solo practice—revealed pain points in the dealmaking process that technology still hadn't solved. She explains how she went from identifying those issues to building software that brings clarity, organization, and efficiency to high-stakes legal work.  Along the way, Katya unpacks:  The scrappy start to her legal career  How working solo gave her an edge inside a global corporate group  What legal professionals need to know about scaling their ideas  Why tech tools fail lawyers—and how that can change  Whether you're a lawyer thinking beyond the billable or simply curious how innovation happens in the legal world, this episode delivers practical insights with an entrepreneurial twist.  Listen to our other episodes on entrepreneurship:   #411: Staying Entrepreneurial at a Bigger Firm, with Nick Pleasants  Apple Podcast |  Lawyerist  #268: Riding the Entrepreneurial Rollercoaster, with Cameron Herold Apple Podcast | Lawyerist   #205: Entrepreneurial Poverty & Why Average Law Firms Lose, with Mike Michalowicz Apple Podcast | Lawyerist     Have thoughts about today's episode? Join the conversation on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and X!  If today's podcast resonates with you and you haven't read The Small Firm Roadmap Revisited yet, get the first chapter right now for free! Looking for help beyond the book? See if our coaching community is right for you.  Access more resources from Lawyerist at lawyerist.com.     Chapters/Timestamps:   00:00 Introduction: The Entrepreneurial Lawyer  01:02 Quarterly Planning: Intentional Business Growth  07:15 Solo Practice Origins: Scrappy Beginnings  13:36 The Competitive Advantage of Broad Experience  17:51 ADHD as a Superpower: Hyperfocus and Foresight  23:36 Accurately Identify a Business Problem  30:40 From Idea to Product: Building a Product or Workflow  36:10 Articulating Vision and Gaining Buy-In  41:14 Lessons Learned: Advice for Aspiring Innovators 

What happens when a lawyer stops accepting inefficiency as “just the way things are”? In this episode, Zack Glaser talks with attorney and legal tech founder Katya Fisher about her journey from launching a solo practice during the Great Recession to building scalable tools for transactional lawyers.  Katya shares how her legal experience—spanning BigLaw, in-house, and solo practice—revealed pain points in the dealmaking process that technology still hadn't solved. She explains how she went from identifying those issues to building software that brings clarity, organization, and efficiency to high-stakes legal work.  Along the way, Katya unpacks:  The scrappy start to her legal career  How working solo gave her an edge inside a global corporate group  What legal professionals need to know about scaling their ideas  Why tech tools fail lawyers—and how that can change  Whether you're a lawyer thinking beyond the billable or simply curious how innovation happens in the legal world, this episode delivers practical insights with an entrepreneurial twist.  Listen to our other episodes on entrepreneurship:   #411: Staying Entrepreneurial at a Bigger Firm, with Nick Pleasants  Apple Podcast |  Lawyerist  #268: Riding the Entrepreneurial Rollercoaster, with Cameron Herold Apple Podcast | Lawyerist   #205: Entrepreneurial Poverty & Why Average Law Firms Lose, with Mike Michalowicz Apple Podcast | Lawyerist     Have thoughts about today's episode? Join the conversation on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and X!  If today's podcast resonates with you and you haven't read The Small Firm Roadmap Revisited yet, get the first chapter right now for free! Looking for help beyond the book? See if our coaching community is right for you.  Access more resources from Lawyerist at lawyerist.com.     Chapters/Timestamps:   00:00 Introduction: The Entrepreneurial Lawyer  01:02 Quarterly Planning: Intentional Business Growth  07:15 Solo Practice Origins: Scrappy Beginnings  13:36 The Competitive Advantage of Broad Experience  17:51 ADHD as a Superpower: Hyperfocus and Foresight  23:36 Accurately Identify a Business Problem  30:40 From Idea to Product: Building a Product or Workflow  36:10 Articulating Vision and Gaining Buy-In  41:14 Lessons Learned: Advice for Aspiring Innovators  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Growing up, I knew I wanted to be an attorney since I was a sophomore in high school; my guest this week had me beat by 8 years. All of my peers thought I was crazy to have a kid right as I was about to finish law school; my guest this week earned her JD at night while working a full-time job. I could do more of these comparisons, but the point is that hurdles take on a lot of different forms, sometimes obvious but sometimes not. As lawyers we want the necessary facts, and while that's great for understanding a case, people are often a lot more nuanced. My conversation this week was one of the best reminders I've had in a while to slow down and get to know someone else's story. So with that in mind, my guest this week is Breeana Somers, a litigation associate with Ballad Spahr whose practice focuses on consumer financial services matters.Earning a place in 2024's “Ones to Watch” by Best Lawyers in America, her journey has been anything but traditional, but nothing short of extraordinary.Enjoy the show. 

I've been writing about the judiciary for more than 20 years, and in my opinion, the current time is the most difficult I've seen for serving as a federal judge. This is especially true in courts where a disproportionate number of cases challenging actions of the current administration have been filed, such as the U.S. District Courts for Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) and the District of Columbia (D.D.C.).Judges in these districts face heavy dockets, and high-profile cases involving the administration present special challenges. They often involve requests for urgent forms of relief, such as preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, that must be heard on short timetables. Many of the cases present novel and knotty legal issues. And depending on how a judge rules, the judge could face strong criticism, from either the right or the left—and sometimes even more than that, such as impeachment efforts or even threats, whether to themselves or their families.What is it like to be a judge at the eye of this storm, trying to calmly uphold values like the rule of law and judicial independence during tumultuous times? To find out, I interviewed Judge Ana Reyes, who was appointed to the D.D.C. by President Biden in 2023. Although she's been on the bench for only two and a half years, Judge Reyes has already handled a number of headline-making cases—and while we could not and did not discuss any specific matters still pending before her, she spoke honestly and directly about many fascinating subjects, including her overall approach to judging, the rule of law and judicial independence, how she treats the lawyers appearing before her, media coverage of the judiciary, and more.Thanks to Judge Reyes for a great conversation—and thanks to her and her fellow judges for the crucial work that they do. While observers of the courts, myself included, might disagree with specific rulings, I suspect I'm not alone in believing that on the whole, the federal judiciary is holding up well during an unusually stressful time.Show Notes:* Judge Ana C. Reyes bio, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia* Judge Ana C. Reyes bio, Wikipedia* A D.C. lawyer learned English as a child from a teacher who tutored her each day. She found her to say thank you, by Sydney Page for The Washington PostPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Paralegals on Fire, Ann Pearson answers a question submitted by one of her longtime email subscribers—a seasoned litigation paralegal with nearly four decades of experience who's ready for a change but not quite ready to retire. Drawing from her own background and insights from the industry, Ann offers practical advice on career paths that allow experienced paralegals to leverage their skills while achieving better work-life balance. Ann highlights several alternative career options outside of Big Law, including in-house corporate legal departments, litigation vendor roles such as project manager or litigation consultant, and regulatory or compliance positions across industries like healthcare, environmental law, and risk management. She also discusses potential opportunities in teaching and training for those considering a more flexible or part-time path. Whether you're a paralegal with decades of experience or simply exploring new professional avenues, this episode provides actionable guidance on how to parlay your legal expertise into new roles that fit your evolving career goals.   Key Takeaways: In-House Transition: Paralegals with a background in litigation and big law experience may find fulfilling roles within corporate legal departments, offering more balanced, less intense work environments. Vendor Opportunities: The role of a project manager or litigation consultant at ediscovery or trial vendors can be an ideal fit for experienced paralegals looking for new challenges without direct sales pressures. Compliance and Regulatory Roles: Transitioning into sectors such as healthcare compliance or environmental regulation can be a lucrative and fulfilling path using transferable skills from the legal field. Documenting Wins: Highlighting and documenting key career accomplishments can facilitate the shift to new roles by allowing potential employers to see the breadth of transferable skills. Teaching and Mentoring: Leveraging years of experience to educate upcoming professionals by teaching or creating courses can be both rewarding and impactful. Get more free paralegal resources:  https://paralegal-bootcamp.com/paralegal-resources 

When you've been assured you're “on track” for partnership, but still don't have a clear timeline, it's time to push for specifics. In this episode, I walk through how to navigate one of the most sensitive—but critical—conversations in Big Law: asking WHEN you'll actually be put up for partner. I lay out the right questions to ask, the right people to approach, and how to handle vague responses or firm-wide delays that stall your trajectory. If you've been hearing encouragement without clarity, this episode gives you the tools to stop guessing and start getting real answers. Because timing is everything. At a Glance: 00:00 The disconnect between “you're on track” and having real, concrete timelines 02:30 How to initiate a formal conversation and what to say 04:35 Questions to ask when timing remains unclear 06:06 What to do when you're told “it's not my decision” 08:22 How to bring mentors and sponsors into the loop strategically 09:29 Using metrics to frame your case with practice group leaders 11:26 When to escalate beyond your group for real answers 12:54 Why in-person meetings matter and how to push through excuses 14:00 What to make of vague delays—and what they reveal about firm culture 16:22 Final thoughts on asking the harder, more important question: when Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

What if the biggest opportunity in your law practice isn't about getting more clients, but doing more with the ones you already have?In this episode, guest host Mike Smith—estate planning attorney and co-founder of Smith Barrett LLC—dives into a powerful conversation with Leah Del Percio, a former Big Law attorney turned tech founder.With experience at DLA Piper, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan, Leah shares how the pain points of trust and estate work led her to launch Trustate, a platform designed to help law firms future-proof plans, streamline workflows, and elevate client service.This isn't just a conversation—it's a blueprint for staying relevant, efficient, and indispensable in the modern legal landscape.Free Training for Law Firm OwnersDon't miss The AI-First Law Firm Blueprint — a live masterclass showing how to automate intake, client updates, and operations without hiring more staff.

Dan Lemon thought Biglaw was the peak—until the job started crushing his mental health. What looked like success on paper was making his life unlivable. In this conversation, Dan shares how he went from corporate litigation to a more meaningful career in family law. We talk about the lies lawyers are told about prestige, the realities of mental health in the profession, and what it actually takes to build something better. Whether you're thinking about leaving law or just changing how you practice it, Dan's story is proof that you're not trapped.See show notes at formerlawyer.com/272

President Trump has issued executive orders targeting certain law firms, seeking to restrict their business endeavors. While some firms have settled, others have fought back. We look at why firms have chosen different paths, and whether Trump's orders — some of which have been struck down in court — present legal questions themselves. This podcast: voting correspondent Miles Parks, national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs, and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy