Podcasts about boalt hall school

Despite multiple tech issues, the live show went on.Tony Delgado is a Puerto Rican-American entrepreneur, software developer, investor, and philanthropist known for co-founding Latino Wall Street, a financial education platform that empowers Latino communities through accessible investment knowledge. Tony joined me to discuss his move from being apolitical to promoting conservative values and what Latino Wall Street is all about.Edward E. Bartlett, the President of DAVIA: Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance, joined me to discuss the disturbing issue of violence and terrorism carried out by a surprisingly large number of supporters of 3rd and 4th wave feminism. And how his organization is working to counter the violence.Robert K. Tanenbaum is one of the most successful prosecuting attorneys, having never lost a felony trial and convicting hundreds of violent criminals. He served two terms as mayor of Beverly Hills and taught Advanced Criminal Procedure for four years at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. He is also the author of thirty-three books—twenty-nine novels and four nonfiction books. Robert joined me to discuss his latest, That Day in Dallas: Lee Harvey Oswald Did NOT Kill JFK.George Sinzer, host of FIREFOXNEWS ONLINE, joined me to discuss President Donald Trump's announcement that he will appoint Fox News host and former prosecutor Jeanine Pirro as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and the lack of a clear leader for the Democratic party.Become a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/supportLatino Wall StreetThe Latino Capitalist podcastDomestic Abuse and Violence International AllianceRobert K. TanenbaumThat Day in Dallas: Lee Harvey Oswald Did NOT Kill JFKFIREFOXNEWS ONLINETake This Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!If you love high-quality jerky, you need to check out Jerky Snob. They deliver small-batch, artisan jerky straight to your door every month—no MSG, no nitrates, just premium cuts and bold flavors. You can choose from 2, 4, or 8-bag subscriptions, and every delivery brings something new and delicious. One of my favorite things is the variety—spicy, smoky, sweet, all from different craft makers. It's like a jerky-tasting adventure every month. Plus, it makes an awesome gift! Grab your subscription at tappintofood.com and treat yourself to better jerky. When planning for your family's preparedness, you want to ensure your emergency backup power solution can withstand an EMP. The problem is, no one could figure out how to make an “EMP-hardened” solar generator at a price regular folks could afford… until now. I'm thrilled to introduce you to the latest preparedness breakthrough from My Patriot Supply, The Grid Doctor 3300 Solar Generator System: The First Solar Generator EVER with built-in EMP Intercept Technology.Diversify and protect your hard-earned wealth. Use America's Premiere Conservative Gold Company, Harvard Gold Group. Use promo code TAPP.Support American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit patriotmobile.com or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!If you are a content creator in need of a professional drone or you just enjoy flying a drone on the weekend, EXO Drones has you covered!  EXO Drones Plus, get 15% off your order by using this link.Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackIf recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplyHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonIsland BrandsBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

(Airdate 2/14/23) Ricardo García is the LA County Public Defender. He was sworn in in October 2018. He is Los Angeles County's first Latino public defender. Mr. García received his Juris Doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, and his Bachelor's of Art in Politics from the University of California, Santa Cruz. On this podcast we take a look at modern justice, what it takes to expunge your record in L.A. County and the Public Defender's role in the L.A. JCOD event called “A Healing Space.” https://pubdef.lacounty.gov/ www.jcod.lacounty.gov

What is adult family mediation? Join us on this episode where we welcome guest Halee Burg, an Affiliate Mediator with Elder Decisions®, a division of Agreement Resources, LLC. Sometimes families get stuck. We can't agree and we don't know how to move forward. Adult family or elder mediation is an effective method of making difficult family decisions. Mediators are highly skilled, neutral, conflict resolution experts who do not provide advice or "take sides" but, instead, facilitate purposeful and directed conversations in which family members are encouraged to express their interests and concerns. Three key takeaways from this episode: First, mediation is one of the least adversarial methods to resolve disputes. It is a method of facilitated negotiation. There are other options, including arbitration and litigation, that leave the ultimate decision up to a third party. Second, the process may not be a quick one. It is a future-orientated, problem-solving process. While this method is designed to be short-term, it doesn't necessarily mean a resolution will come quickly. Third, mediation is not the same as therapy, but it can feel therapeutic. The goal of mediation is to come to a resolution with solutions and actionable plans for moving forward but the process itself often feels helpful and productive. Agreement Resources, LLC - Adult Family and Elder Mediation About Halee Burg: A former practicing attorney who now focuses solely on mediation, to give back and help ensure broader access to mediation, Halee participates in community and court mediations through a number of greater Boston community mediation programs. As an active member of the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation, the Academy of Professional Family Mediators, the National Association of Divorce Professionals, and the New England Association for Conflict Resolution, Halee continually expands her knowledge of the field, regularly participates in dialogues with colleagues about best practices and approaches, and develops relationships with professionals in related fields whose expertise helps support clients as they work to make informed decisions. A graduate of the University of Rochester (BA, Psychology, summa cum laude) and the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley (J.D), Halee discovered she also enjoyed being on the other side of instruction, and regularly teaches adult education classes regarding divorce in Massachusetts. When not helping people become unstuck, Halee keeps busy pursuing her other passions – photographing beautiful landscapes, getting lost in a good novel, traveling, cooking, golfing, or spending special time with friends and family. If you have questions about this topic or other issues related to being in the sandwich generation, please email us at podcast@2sisters-sla.com. To schedule a free initial phone call with a Senior Care Consultant at 2Sisters Senior Living Advisors, click here. Please click the button to subscribe so you don't miss any episodes and leave a review if your favorite podcast app has that ability. Thank you! More information at https://2sisters-sla.com/ © 2022 Michelle Woodbrey and Alyson Powers

Guest: Dr Hatem Bazian, Hatem Bazian is a co-founder and Professor of Islamic Law and Theology at Zaytuna College, the 1st Accredited Muslim Liberal Arts College in the United States. In addition, Prof. Bazian is a lecturer in the Departments of Near Eastern and Asian American and Asian Diaspora Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Bazian between 2002-2007, also served as an adjunct professor of law at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He teaches courses on Islamic Law and Society, Islam in America: Communities and Institutions, De-Constructing Islamophobia and Othering of Islam, Religious Studies, and Middle Eastern Studies. In addition to Berkeley, Prof. Bazian served as a visiting Professor in Religious Studies at Saint Mary's College of California 2001-2007 and adviser to the Religion, Politics and Globalization Center at UC Berkeley. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lebreakdown/message

Dave and Evan chat with Craig Walker, the CEO of Dialpad.Craig Walker is the co-founder and CEO of Dialpad, a born-in-the-cloud UCaaS provider. Previously he led Dialpad Communications Inc., (acquired by Yahoo! for $50 million), a pioneer in VoIP services, and later co-founded GrandCentral (acquired by Google for $100 million). Dialpad has raised $120 million from Andreessen Horowitz, Google Ventures, Felicis Ventures, SoftBank, and Iconiq Capital. Craig was a technology venture investor at Sterling Payot Capital and TeleSoft Partners and was also a corporate attorney at top tier law firms in Silicon Valley, where he represented companies ranging from early stage start-ups to Cisco Systems. He is a graduate of UC Berkeley (BA), Georgetown University (MBA) and Boalt Hall School of Law (JD). Member of the Telecommunications and E-Commerce Committee for the US Chamber of Commerce.In this podcast we discuss how Switch.co got Dialpad back as its name. How Craig can't escape Telecom, and why the restaurant business needs more disruption.

Gerald Chambers, Marriage and Family Therapist, and Dr. Ronnie Siddique, Psychologist, address issues of mental health in different communities of color and race-related trauma. Ronnie and Gerald talk about stigmas attached to getting treatment for mental health issues. There are trust issues of the mental health and medical profession because of historical racist treatment by mental health professions. Ronnie as a member of the South Asian community and Gerald from the African-American community say that too often they hear people say, “Suck it up. Deal with it yourself.” Gerald says that in drug treatment research shows that the darker someone’s skin the more severe the diagnosis and the less likely to get effective treatment. There has been a denial of racism as a factor in trauma and other mental health issues related to race and culture. Intake questionnaires need to include questions about race and cultural experiences. Therapists need to be trained in cultural intelligent therapy and be able to understand how racism impacts people from early ages physically, mentally and emotionally. While it’s crucial for therapists and the whole mental health profession to understand historical issues of race, oppression and trauma, the need for help is real. At the same time every mental health issue of a person of color is not necessarily due to racism. Diversity and inclusion have to be part of the conversation and education of people in the mental health field. Listen to this episode to hear Dr. Ronnie Siddique and Gerald Chambers break down  the challenges, issues and solutions to provide access to  mental health treatment for low income and people of color. Bios: Gerald Chambers Gerald Chambers is a licensed marriage and family therapist who focuses on interpersonal conflict, domestic violence, substance abuse, and 12-Step recovery. He leads a 52-week domestic violence psycho-education group for court-mandated spousal batterers. and frequently speaks to lawyers, psychologists, social workers, as well as middle and elementary school children. Well known for his innovative strategies to reduce domestic violence, Gerald has been a guest speaker at the Boalt Hall School of Law, Golden Gate University, and various community-based organizations.   Contact info: Gerald B. Chambers, LMFT 510-761-6554 www.geraldchambers.com View my blog   Dr. Ronnie Siddique Dr. Siddique is a licensed clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist who works with clients of all ages representing a broad range of concerns, from ADHD and learning difficulties to depression and anxiety. She is the founders and owner of Embolden Psychology, her practice, with three locations in the Washington DC area. She specializes in community mental health and advocacy, clinical work and assessment, and writing and blogging about mental health. For the past 18 years, she has run a weekly community mental health clinic in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. She is a consultant for Doctors Without Borders, the Suhki Project, and the Pro Bono Counseling Project, in Washington, DC. In the summer of 2020, her book about anxiety and young people, Fight/Flight/Flow, will be released. Contact info: Ronnie Siddique, PhD Embolden Psychology Licensed Clinical Psychologist/Neuropsychologist Virginia, Maryland, Washington, DC https://embolden.world 703-973-6534 https://www.facebook.com/Emboldenpsych/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/embolden_psych/

In this episode, I interviewed Adam Feldman. Adam is currently a Fellow in the Empirical Study of Public Law at Columbia Law School.  He has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Southern California as well as a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). Prior to receiving his Ph.D., Adam practiced law at McDermott, Will and Emery (Century City, CA) and Kendall, Brill and Klieger (Century City, CA). Adam and I discuss his interesting study on the gender dynamics of the Supreme Court justices and the underlying, surprising statistics of interruptions and how they play into gender roles. Topics covered: Exploring the data Adam recovered in his research. Understanding the importance of the study and benefits of the research moving forward How Feldman's personal perception evolved throughout the study   Questions? Comments? Email Jeena! hello@jeenacho.com. You can also connect with Jeena on Twitter: @Jeena_Cho For more information, visit: jeenacho.com Order The Anxious Lawyer book — Available in hardcover, Kindle and Audible Find Your Ease: Retreat for Lawyers I'm creating a retreat that will provide a perfect gift of relaxation and rejuvenation with an intimate group of lawyers. Interested? Please complete this form: https://jeena3.typeform.com/to/VXfIXq MINDFUL PAUSE: Bite-Sized Practices for Cultivating More Joy and Focus 5-week program. Spend just 6 minutes everyday to practice mindfulness and meditation. Decrease stress/anxiety, increase focus and concentration. Interested? Please complete this form: https://jeena3.typeform.com/to/gLlo7b Sponsor: Spotlight Branding provides internet marketing services exclusively for solo & small law firms. Unlike most internet marketing firms, they do NOT focus on SEO. Instead, they specialize in branding their clients as trusted, credible experts, increasing referrals, and ultimately driving growth. For our listeners, Spotlight Branding is offering a complimentary website review. Go to: SpotlightBranding.com/trl Check out this episode! Transcript Adam: The Supreme Court justices had all reached this real pinnacle of legal profession that, perhaps, they were on more equal footing than we would see with mixed genders in lower level legal proceedings or practice. Intro: Welcome to the Resilient Lawyer Podcast, brought to you by Start Here HQ -- a consulting company that works with lawyers to create a purpose-driven and sustainable legal career. In this podcast, we have meaningful, in-depth conversations with lawyers, entrepreneurs, and change agents. We offer tools and strategies for creating a more joyful and satisfying life. Now your host, Jeena Cho. Adam: My name is Adam Feldman. I recently completed a Ph.D. in Political Science with the emphasis focusing on law at the University of Southern California. I'm an attorney. I practiced law for about 4 years prior to entering the Ph.D. program. I completed my legal studies at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkley. A little over a year ago I started a blog called Empirical SCOTUS where I look at contemporary and historic issues facing the Supreme Court from a statistical perspective. That goes on my academic work looking at the Supreme Court mainly empirically and also recently extended that work to other court systems both domestically and internationally. My work is mainly focused looking quantitatively at studying judges, judging courts, court opinions, and other phenomenon in the legal sphere. Jeena: Today I want to talk about the study that you've published titled Echoes from a Gendered Court: Examining the Justices' Interactions during Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Can you tell me the genesis of the study and how you became interested in this topic? Adam: Sure. Around 2010, there were few thousands by political scientist that focus mainly on public law. Looking at oral arguments at the Supreme Court and particularly at this phenomena of interruption between justices. It was an interesting focus because although in prior work there was clearly instances of justices interrupting attorneys -- especially the focus on points that were of interest when attorneys were deviating -- there wasn't really much of any scholarship looking at what happens between the justices at oral arguments. There were two studies that looked at interruptions and looked at oral arguments and the justices' speaking behavior and interactions. I initially was going to look at this from an updated perspective. I wanted to see what was happening with the more modern court where Sotomayor had a few more years on the court where there's some data on Justice Kagan. I uncovered the data for the 2015 Supreme Court term. I did this kind of soon after the… I actually did this after oral arguments last year before all the decisions were made. I noticed this kind of interesting from a statistical perspective, difference between the male justices on the court interrupting the females and the females interrupted versus the males where the male justices were interrupting in higher numbers and the female justices were interrupted in higher numbers. This seemed to be interesting because there was this clustering aspect where it wasn't just one justice but there were multiple male justices interrupting at the high end and multiple female justices interrupted at the high end. It seemed like something that was interesting. It was notable because of the scholarship on gender interruptions which I was somewhat familiar with prior when look at greater detail after completing this pilot study. After I completed this pilot study in May of last year, I became very interested in doing a follow up where I look at multiple years of data and also have other variables in the mix. So control factors such as how often the justices were speaking and then other things that might spew interruptions differently for the justices to really focus in on this behavioral interaction between the justices and see if there was really a gender dynamic at play in more than one term. Jeena: To back up a little bit, can you talk a little bit briefly about what you mean by interruptions. I think we all sort of have an intuitive sense of what interruptions are and also the two different types of interruptions that you talk about in your study. Adam: It's somewhat variable how there actually… There's multiple ways that interruptions could be conceptualize. One way would be -- and as I'm listening to oral argument audio and then coding any time, one, justice speaks over another, two, to look at this large number of potential interruptions in our study, we use the transcripts from oral arguments and we use all the available transcripts from 2004 through 2014. We did this because prior to 2004, the justices' names weren't listed on the written transcripts. So we couldn't differentiate who is interrupting whom prior to 2004. Starting with 2004, the justices' names are written on the transcripts. Any point in time when one justice or when any person at oral argument starts speaking and then stops when another one cuts them off, there's a mark in the oral argument written transcript where there's a double dash prior speaker's at the end of their speech and that moves into another attorney or justices' speech. So we were able to use the coding on the written transcripts to then come up with statistics of interruptions where essentially one justice was speaking and before the justice was finished speaking, another justice began speaking. Jeena: In your study you say, at a basic level, research suggests that men tend to dominate conversations while women are traditionally more passive participants. Do you find the same trend at the Supreme Court? Adam: This was somewhat interesting for myself and my co-author because we had some prior expectations on this based on literature that was available to us in prior studies. But there weren't any studies within a political institution at the elite level like the Supreme Court. So we had hypothesis based on other conversational dynamics that we studied but we're applying them to a totally new area. Although based on non-prior literature, even in the legal spirit, we found that men tend to talk more often and to also be more aggressive in conversation where they would interrupt both male and female colleagues at a higher rate. We weren't sure if that was going to translate in the elite environment of the Supreme Court. But once we actually ran the numbers, we saw multiple different trends overtime. One of which was the male justices ending speak more often but also the male justices would interrupt the female justices more often than they would interrupt their male colleagues. Jeena: Why does that matter? Why does interruptions matter? Adam: They matter for several reasons. One is that they can be perceived as threatening. One area of interest for us was what is the effective and interruption. Does it lead to any noticeable effects? One that we pinpoint right off the bat was that when somebody is interrupted they lose their opportunity to speak at a given point in time. This is meaningful in Supreme Court oral arguments because a lot of what is asked is contextual based on the point in oral argument. If a justice is asking a question based on the previous questions and based on where the point in oral argument is at any given point in time, if they're interrupted then it's unlikely that they're going to get back to that same exact place again. The interest of interrupt the justice might be forever lost and so that question is never necessarily answered. Also then the information is lost that might be useful for the opinions for the justices both on the merits. This could potentially shift the outcome of the case depending on when an interruption occurs. A second effect that we found -- and this was something that was drawn from the data -- was that there's a differential impact on the male and female justice on the court for when interruptions occur. This was one of the more interesting and somewhat startling findings of the study but it reverberates based on prior evidence from the studies both within and outside of the law where female justices, when they were interrupted, would tend to speak less after an interruption and would speak less for the oral argument than male colleagues. So there's this perceived threat that we identified in the data where when female justices were interrupted, they tend to speak less. This wasn't only a point in time when they wouldn't speak more -- when any justices would speak more interruption but actually a behavioral shift that we saw that was different in female justices than male justices that very well might disrupt the female justices' positions and the questioning at oral arguments. Jeena: That's fascinating. Is that isolated to that particular argument or does that have a ripple effect meaning the female justices interrupted and cheat then tends to speak less in that particular oral argument but does that sort of carry over into the next oral argument? Adam: We didn't find downstream effects beyond oral arguments in isolation. We think this might have to do with the different questions that are asked in different oral arguments. The justices' engagement often times has a lot to do with both their preparation in given phase, their interest in the subject matter. There are multiple factors that we engage the justices from the outside of oral arguments. We think that it has more to do within oral argument effects and that between oral arguments there are so many factors that need to… whether a justice is prepared to speak at greater length or less. Jeena: I found the study just so fascinating because it really confirmed what I know from my own life experience of being interrupted and having been in lots of different meetings with other lawyers where you just notice the male lawyers just tend to occupy more of the time that's actually available to speak and also has a tendency to interrupt each other more. I'm curious, after having done this study, did that shift your perceptions or shift your own behavior about interruptions and how much you speak? Adam: To better answer that, I should back up for a second and just get into a little bit of how I ended up co-authoring this paper, it shifted the way that I thought about this dynamic between male and female justices and male and female interaction in general. After I completed the pilot study, I went to a friend and colleague who I respect greatly. Who also studies public law but also has background studying gender dynamics. Her name's Rebecca Gill and she's a faculty at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in Political Science. I had several discussions with Rebecca about what I had found in the pilot study, what was interesting about this to me, and how I was thinking about this and how I was interested in studying this in greater detail. Rebecca really had much greater background knowledge of the interruption subject matter than I did. That, along with the first person anecdotal evidence of this, really made it interesting to me to engage her and to see if she would be willing to work on this project with me because I knew she had experience and knowledge that I don't have and that would very possibly deepen my ability to fill in some of the nuances. So, this was really an educational experience for me from the outset. Going through the literature with Rebecca helped me understand a little bit deeper of a level of what the gender dynamics in conversation really amount to and how the effects of interruptions effects the impact men and women in conversation -- how men and women and how different types of speaking behavior. Although this was something that I had seen both in my legal career and in other work settings, it was not something that I studied before and so qualitatively I could base some hypothesis on the observations that I had. I didn't really have a deeper understanding of this behavior in a sociological context. It was very helpful, for me, to have a co-author who would really help me learn about this dynamic and how we could apply what was already known to the Supreme Court. Jeena: I'm curious after, or before or after you've done the study -- I don't know if you'd be willing to out yourself. Do you notice the trend in yourself, just that natural tendency for males to interrupt females more? Adam: I've been more tuned in to this since then. I think you would actually be done to ask a question before about the two different types of interruptions. We look at both interruptions that end up cutting a justice off at a given point in time where a justice brings up a new point. We also look at interruptions where a justice might be supporting in other justices' point but still talking in their place. Even if it's a support of interruption, this very well might lead to the interrupted justice losing their train of thought, losing the ability to ask a question at a given point in time. What I found in speech, and I found this much more in my interactions with female friends and colleagues, was that I might want to insert a point not to change the topic but maybe to echo a thought or to add something that I thought was important into the conversation before the other participant in the conversation was finished making the point. I did notice this happen relatively frequently in conversation. It's something that I was not really at all tuned into prior and it was interesting to me because I never thought of myself as an interrupter. I'm actually, I think, often times somewhat soft spoken. When actually tuning in to this, it was much more of a trend that I notice within myself that I'm happy that I'm more tuned into now because, I think, the first step in changing behavior step we're not thrilled about is becoming aware of them. Jeena: Yes. I teach mindfulness which is all about awareness. I want to put a pin in that about what we can actually do to change this behavior. But before we do that, you talk about the difference between the genders when they speak. So you think about apologizing, politeness, and differential speech. Talk more about that. Adam: We wanted to, in the study, look at speaking behavior in general and see… Sequentially in the paper, we look at the differences in gendered speech behavior prior to looking at the interruptive behavior. Based on prior socio-linguistic literature, there were many different phenomena that we could attempt to understand at the Supreme Court level and that we also thought would correlate with interruptions, that would correlate with aggressive and passive behavior. We thought that if these interruptions were really significantly impact in female justices' ability to speak oral arguments that we might see some of these other behavioral pattern in speech. Two of the patterns that we looked at were deference and politeness. Politeness more in the apologetic sense really. We want to see if the female justices were apologizing more frequently than the male justices. We're also interested in whether the female justices were actively differing to the male justices more often. If two justices were competing to speak at a point in time, if female justices would yield the oral argument speaking time to their male colleagues. We did find that in raw numbers that both of these expectations were occurring where the female justices and one in particular, Justice Sotomayor, was apologizing at a grade higher than her male colleagues. But this was also linked  to the female justices on the courtroom generally. We did see this apologetic behavior and a little bit less so but still to a… This was in the female direction where we saw this deferential behavior as well where the female justices were willing to yield the floor. This was a little bit muddied because we have Chief Justice Roberts also who is a male justice and often times will be the justice that dictates who should speak when it's unclear which justice had the floor at a point in time. Because Chief Justice Roberts has a little bit of a different rule than the other justices as he's somewhat the unofficial moderator of oral arguments, this change, I think, the deference dynamic somewhat from what would have been… We're looking at nine justices who were in exactly equal roles during oral argument. The apologetic behavior was a little bit easier to identify than deferential Jeena: Looking at the study, it's really interesting that Roberts, his “I am sorry account,” is at 30, 34 followed by Justice Kagan at 92. Now, of course, we have more female justices on the court than before, did that actually change the rate of interruption? Adam: It did. What we found which, I think, kind of helps explain the story and conceptualize a little bit more is that the two more recently appointed Supreme Court female justices: Justice Kagan and Sotomayor were more active speakers in oral argument than the two prior female Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg and Justice O'Connor. There is a correlation that we found between how often the justice speaks, how many words a justice speaks, and how frequently they're interrupted. With greater rates of speech we did see more interruptions. But we also found that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor were interrupted at higher rates than Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg. Justice O'Connor, we only have limited data for because she retired in 2005 and our study begins in 2004. We only have preliminary remarks that make about interruptions that involved her. We do see the rate increase with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor and it made us wonder whether their increased speech or their greater speech relative to the other female Supreme Court justices acted as some… would have been a threat to a male justices' dominating oral argument and backlash to that whether conscious or more likely subconscious was more aggressive behavior from some of the male colleagues. Jeena: Interesting. Is that because they're violating gender norms? Adam: Very possibly. We did find that gender norms were prevalent in oral arguments. Somewhat surprisingly getting back to this point that we began kind of naively, assuming the possibility that because the Supreme Court justices had all reached this real pinnacle of legal profession. That perhaps they were on more equal footing than we would see with mix genders in lower level legal proceedings or legal practice. We expected, at least the possibility, that the gender norms wouldn't hold strongly in the Supreme Court but they did for the most part. And so because of the other norms that we noticed and that we found with our data, we think that a greater number of these norms were likely and are likely prevalent in the Supreme Court oral arguments and justices' interactions. Very possibly, this is due to the socialization of the justices because even though they're at oral argument, they're at this high point in legal profession, the justices all had careers prior to that and had backgrounds where they were raised based on gender stereotypes and where this likely created into their subconscious behavior from an earlier point in time. At the point where they reach their careers in the Supreme Court, they're already prime gender norms that were not, and are not, easily shed. We assume that the justices' backgrounds likely contribute to the way that they interact in oral argument than the way that the interrupted behavior is really spewed to where the female justices are interrupted at a greater rate than the male colleagues. Jeena: You point that in your study that professional women, including politicians, are expected to sort of conform to the gender norms. What happens when we break these gender norms? What happens if a woman justice, or a woman lawyer, or woman politician asserts herself, becomes more aggressive .What does the study tell us about what happens when women break the gender norms? Adam: We find in the Supreme Court that when the female justices are more active speaker, they're also interrupted more frequently. This seems like almost like a backlash and then it can work to… Since we see that female justices tend to become more passive after they're interrupted, this backlash is somewhat effective if the goal is to reassert these gender norms where the male justices speak more often and the female justices was often. One thing that we found from other studies that was really interesting that we can't say for certain apply at the Supreme Court level but we do feel like there's a relatively reasonable chance because this works in other settings but is also occurs at the Supreme Court level is that in behavioral studies of gender interactions, when females interrupt male, this has been seen both by the group as a whole as more detrimental and really is more a negative behavior than when males interrupt. This notion that females interrupting are judged to a higher standards or to a different standard than men, this plays into our findings that the female justices are treated differently and treat themselves differently after they're interrupted in the Supreme Court. And that this very well might have to do with these differing perceptions on the effect of male justices interrupting female justices. Jeena: When women break the gender norms, they're judged more negatively by both genders. It's not just the other men in the room that sort of judges that behavior as a negative behavior. Adam: Yeah. Both the literature and our own findings show that both genders are -- both men and women, I should say, are judging according to the same standard or similar standards that the priming really [unclear 00:34:42] to everyone. Because we're primed and socialized into this culture of male dominance, we see this effect in both men and women. Jeena: What is the goal? Is the goal to sort of get rid of these gender norms? Is that even possible? Is that even desirable? Is it a matter of train the men to interrupt less? Is it training the women to speak up more and to take a more assertive position? What does literature say? What are your personal thoughts on this issue? How do we change this? Adam: I think there are two ways to look at that question. One is what might be the best approach and two is what is most practical. If we were looking for true equality, we could come up with a system, through oral arguments, that is more equitable from the starting point so that more aggressive behavior doesn't necessarily garner the ability to speak more often. Whether that's pushing a button when the justices break speak, whether that's ordering the justices eventually so they each are given equal share of time to question or even having the chief justice possibly be the one who has a greater role in moderating with this notion in mind that the allotment of speaking opportunity should be equal between the justices. There are some of these more rigid frameworks that could be employed although we don't think are necessarily practical given the history of oral argument and the likelihood of major change at this point in time. It's a practice that's been in place since… We are from England prior to coming to United States and so it's unlikely that we're going to change the dynamics so greatly in a formal way. Although we think of these as possibilities, we think that informal means of change might be the most effective. We're not certain that, just like I noted in my own experience, we're not certain that the justices are aware of this behavior. We're not certain that they're not only aware that behavior occurs but also at the numbers and the relative frequencies with which female justices are interrupted and male justices are interrupted. The starting point might very well be to educate the justices a little bit about both the differential behaviors and about the differential outcomes between the male and female justices and how this affects the trajectory of oral argument, we think that a starting point might very well be to make this more of a conscious subject on the justices' minds rather than something that's whether subconscious or conscious, something that is done because the justices are used to certain gender dynamics due to their socialization. Jeena: Will the similar awareness training be effective for the general populations or for lawyers in particular? Adam: Possibly as a starting point. But the problem with going about it this way is that some of this is so deeply rooted in our culture and in our psyches that it's unlikely do necessarily change even with education. It might be something that shifts in the short term. But to make long term change, it's a point that really has to be reasserted and on a continuous basis. One approach might be changing the setting somewhat making settings more accommodating for the speakers. This might be taking more active approaches for lawyers, taking more active approaches in meetings to engage the female attorneys and then to prevent some attorneys from taking most of the time from others. I think, at some situations, there might be more formal means to shift this differential type of interaction. So education is definitely a starting point. It's not an end point. And because this is something that most everyone has grown up with, it's not likely that education, in one point in time, is going to then drastically change behavior moving forward. Jeena: Right. And I would also imagine it's not just enough to educate but also that there has to be a desire to actually want to change it. If a male just thinks, “Well, I'm happy with the way I talk and I think it's just fine that I'm interrupting,” I think all the awareness in the world is probably not going to shift the behavior. Adam: Yeah. I think that's definitely true. What's hard to gauge is what level of awareness both men and women have of this to begin with because as I've seen and as the studies show, this has become… we become so acculturated to these type of interruptions that it's not even recognized. It's just a normal pattern of speech. Education is definitely, at least it means, to make sure that this becomes a subject of discussion. That it's something that's on the forefront rather than the background of people's minds. You're right that education isn't going to change somebody's behavior that doesn't wish to change if there are no associated penalties for acting in a certain way or no guidelines that specify the way that people should talk in a given environment, giving equal opportunity to all participants. We really see this, the possibility of bringing this up as bringing this to people's attention as it might not be. Beyond that, more active approaches within different settings, I think, could equalize the situation somewhat and then some of this is going to likely have to be the way that we socialize the next generation so that the norms that were set that are really hard to move away from, that are still being reiterated with current professionals, don't take hold as strongly in the future. Jeena: At what age do these gender norms become the norm? Are there studies that show at what age that you're seeing these gender norms in? Adam: I guess the differentiating factor is there's studies that are pre-oral behavior -- so pre-speaking -- that show that we're already priming boys and girls to act in a certain way, to interact in a certain way. Where some of this… looking for more differential behavior in females, girls, and more aggressive behavior than men is already becoming something that boys and girls are shown and are taught. Some studies also show that kids mirror their parents. They see the way that their parents interact. When they see these gendered rules that they very well might see that as a way that they should act as well. This happens from a very early age. By the time that kids are beginning to speak and interact with one another, some of this already might be filtered into their understanding of how to behave. Jeena: Wow, that's shocking. How do we reverse this? How do we change this if these kids are sort of soaking up these gender norms before they're even able to speak? Adam: Well, I think that gets back to somewhat how we educate ourselves; how we raise the next generation. If we're somewhat conscious of this and also take a more active approach to equalization in different settings and allowing equal opportunity to both men and women, then perhaps we'll have a better shot at beginning to mirror the types of behaviors that we hope to see in the next generation in ourselves. It's a multi-faceted approach to both educate kids when they're young and to try to engage in some of this shifting behavior in ourselves. That's really the only way that we're going to see change from the ground up. It's important to both integrate this as best we can within our own lives but also to start kids off in early age and seeing that it doesn't have to be a situation where males are dominating interaction. Jeena: Adam, thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate the conversation. I think it was really enlightening. Adam: Thank you for having me. I enjoyed it as well. Jeena: Adam, for those that are interested in learning more about your study or want to get a hold of you, what's the best way? Adam: My email address is adfeld@gmail.com. I'm more than happy to respond to questions via email. If people are interested in some of this empirical work, along with the pilot study and want to look at in greater detail, my blog is Empirical SCOTUS. So www.empiricalscotus.com and you're more than welcome to browse the site. Jeena: Fantastic. Well, hopefully our listeners are a little bit more educated about these gender norms and interruptions and, perhaps, might feel inspired to just notice these patterns in their own lives and perhaps we can slowly, but surely, change these interruptions between people so we can all have better communications. Adam: That does sound like a plan that we should try to bring to fruition. Closing: Thanks for joining us on the Resilient Lawyer Podcast If you'd like to build a more profitable and purpose driven law practice, learn more about us at startherehq.com. If you've enjoyed the show, please tell a friend. It's really the best way to grow the show. To leave us a review on iTunes, search for the Resilient Lawyer and give us your honest feedback. It goes a long way to help with our visibility when you do that so we really appreciate it. As always, we'd love to hear from you and you can drop us an email anytime at hi@startherehq.com. Thanks and look forward to seeing you next week.   Closing Thanks for joining us on the Resilient Lawyer Podcast. If you'd like to build a more profitable and purpose driven law practice, learn more about us at startherehq.com. If you've enjoyed the show, please tell a friend. It's really the best way to grow the show. To leave us a review on iTunes, search for the Resilient Lawyer and give us your honest feedback. It goes a long way to help with our visibility when you do that so we really appreciate it. As always, we'd love to hear from you and you can drop us an email anytime at hi@startherehq.com. Thanks and look forward to seeing you next week.

Robert K. Tanenbaum is the author of 31 books – 28 novels and three non-fiction books. Over 14 million copies of those 31 books are in circulation, something very few authors can say. Robert served two terms as Mayor of Beverly Hills and is a member of the State Bars of New York, California, and Pennsylvania. He has also taught at the Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Robert and Jason Hartman talk about his book Fatal Conceit, as well as our dysfunctional legal system. Key Takeaways: [3:25] How our legal system needs to be revamped [6:50] The prosecution has an easy job when everything is done properly [11:03] Whether prosecutors should face consequences when a case is overturned [13:17] Some steps to take to fix the legal system [17:02] Several troubling signs that were ignored by the government when investigating Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting of President Kennedy. [19:01] How Benghazi and Fatal Conceit correlate [22:55] Writing from experience is how Robert's been able to sell so many books Website: www.robertktanenbaumbooks.com

John Somorjai is Executive Vice President of Corporate Development and head of Salesforce Ventures. Salesforce has over 3,000 partners and 150+ enterprise cloud and SaaS companies in their current investment portfolio. They’ve also had 30+ exits and five IPOs (on top of the 150!) You can look up more about Salesforce, its acquisitions, and investments at Salesforce.com. They’re @Salesforce on twitter, but also have various other handles including @SalesforceVC, and @MarketingCloud. But you can find John at @jsomorjai on twitter. He’s extremely smart and definitely worth a follow, so give him a shout. One of the things we didn’t get to discuss in this interview is that Somorjai has his JD from the Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley. I think that’s interesting context for how he got to where he is at Salesforce and how he might think in evaluating startup companies for potential investment. He was a senior director of corporate development at Oracle for almost 5 years before taking on a VP of Business Development role at Ingenio, a high growth company that was eventually acquired by AT&T. Somorjai then joined forces with Marc Benioff at Salesforce, and since 2005, John has led the evaluation, deal execution and integration for all mergers and acquisitions, and investments at Salesforce. His team has helped bring the company into insane growth areas through acquisitions including Demandware, Exact Target, Radian6, Buddy Media, Heroku, the list goes on and on…. Here’s what we discuss in this episode with John Somorjai EVP at Salesforce and Salesforce Ventures: 1.) How John progressed through his career to eventually lead investments with Salesforce Ventures 2.) How Salesforce investment has helped nurture growth in the ecosystem of enterprise cloud 
companies. 
 3.) Lessons from Salesforce’s expansion into European markets, and how the set themselves apart from 
other Corporate VCs 4.) Why Salesforce embraces corporate philanthropy and the 1/1/1 model 
 5.) Key strategies Corporate VCs for potential investment and maximizing the opportunities they offer 6.) What makes an attractive investment for a Corporate VC Download show notes and transcripts at www.powderkeg.co This episode of Powder Keg is brought to you by DeveloperTown. If you’re a business leader trying to turn a great idea into a product with traction, this is for you. DeveloperTown works with clients ranging from entrepreneurs to Fortune 100 companies who want to build and launch an app or digital product. They’re able to take the process they use with early stage companies to help big companies move like a startup. So if you have an idea for a web or mobile app, or need help identifying the great ideas within your company, go to developertown.com/powderkeg. Thanks again to everyone who has shared an episode of Powderkeg, subscribed to us on iTunes, or left us a review. It’s the only way we’re going to spread this message and reach new people and we could do it without you. We’re coming out with new episodes every Tuesday, so make sure you subscribe on iTunes or at powederkeg.co/itunes

January Jones-The Beautiful Woman Syndrome How 2 Hit on Beautiful Women Retiring after 45 years of practice in tax law, Michael Anstin has devoted himself to music and the theatre. His teaching as a Visiting Professor at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California Berkeley, and in other countries brings special perspective to his writing. A cabaret singer heard some of his work and motivated Michael to write what first musical, Answer the Call. Additional experiences in getting to know people led to the development of Butterfly, Sophia. He writes under the pseudonym of Jake Kelly,with his latest book< The Beautiful Woman Syndrome and the Invisible Man.

Panel — Surveillance on the Silver Screen- Fact or Fiction? Nicole Ozer Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director, ACLU of California Kevin Bankston Policy Director, New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute Timothy Edgar Fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University Join ACLU and others for a fun-filled surveillance tour of the movies - from Brazil to Bourne - to talk about what is still fiction and what is now fact. What is technologically possible? What is legal? And what is happening in the courts, Congress, and in companies and communities to reset the balance between government surveillance and individual liberties. Kevin Bankston is the Policy Director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, where he works in the public interest to promote policy and regulatory reforms to strengthen communities by supporting open communications networks, platforms, and technologies, with a focus on issues of Internet surveillance and censorship. Prior to leading OTI's policy team, Kevin was a Senior Counsel and the Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology. From that position, he spent two years advocating on a wide range of Internet and technology policy issues both international and domestic, most recently organizing a broad coalition of companies and civil society organizations to demand greater transparency around the US government's surveillance practices. Prior to joining CDT, he worked for nearly a decade at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, specializing in free speech and privacy law with a focus on government surveillance, Internet privacy, and location privacy. As a Senior Staff Attorney at EFF, he regularly litigated issues surrounding free expression and electronic surveillance, and was a lead counsel in EFF's lawsuits against the National Security Agency and AT&T, challenging the legality of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program first revealed in 2005. He received his JD at the University of Southern California Law School after receiving his BA at the University of Texas at Austin. Timothy H. Edgar is a visiting fellow at the Institute and adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. His work focuses on the unique policy challenges posed by growing global cyber conflict, particularly in reconciling security interests with fundamental values, including privacy and Internet freedom. Mr. Edgar served under President Obama as the first director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security Staff, focusing on cybersecurity, open government, and data privacy initiatives. From 2006 to 2009, he was the first deputy for civil liberties for the director of national intelligence, reviewing new surveillance authorities, the terrorist watchlist, and other sensitive programs. He has also been counsel for the information sharing environment, which facilitates the secure sharing of terrorism-related information. He has a JD from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review, and an AB from Dartmouth College. Nicole Ozer developed and has led the technology and civil liberties work for the ACLU in California since 2004. Nicole is a nationally recognized expert on issues at the intersection of consumer privacy and government surveillance and free speech and the Internet. Nicole developed Demand Your dotRights, ACLU's national online privacy campaign and spearheaded the passage of both the first RFID and digital book privacy laws in the nation. Nicole is the author of numerous legal and policy publications, including Losing the Spotlight: A Study of California's Shine the Light Law, Privacy & Free Speech: It's Good for Business, a primer of dozens of case studies and tips for baking safeguards into the business development process. Her most recent law review article, Putting Online Privacy Above the Fold: Building a Social Movement and Creating Corporate Change, was published by the NYU Review Law & Social Change in 2012. Nicole graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, studied comparative civil rights history at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and earned her J.D. with a Certificate in Law and Technology from Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California Berkeley. Nicole blogs at www.aclunc.org/tech and tweets @nicoleozer.

Since 2002, Ms. Stewart has served as Chief Deputy City Attorney under San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, overseeing the City and County's civil litigation and representing San Francisco and its officials in key cases. Previously, she was a partner at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, where she handled complex business litigation in state and federal courts. From February 2004 through May 2008, Ms. Stewart headed a team of deputy city attorneys and private firm lawyers representing Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco in the Marriage Cases, which were litigated in the state trial and appellate courts. She presented oral argument to the California Supreme Court on March 4, 2008, and the high court decision was issued on May 15, 2008. The Marriage Cases consisted of six coordinated cases involving state constitutional challenges to California's laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage. These cases are the first in the nation in which a local government body has joined with lesbian and gay couples to challenge a state's marriage laws. The City and the couples raised claims under the California Constitution's equal protection, liberty, privacy and free association clauses. They prevailed in the Superior Court, lost on appeal, and ultimately won in the California Supreme Court. The May 15, 2008 decision held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage unjustifiably discriminates against lesbians and gay men and denies them of fundamental liberty and autonomy privacy interests in entering into a state-sanctioned family relationship equal in dignity to other state-sanctioned family relationships. Ms. Stewart and the City Attorney team also defended Mayor Newsom when his decision to issue marriage licenses to thousands of same-sex couples was challenged in 2004. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Mayor and other City officials lacked the power to refuse to enforce the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples based on their belief that such limitation violated the Constitution. To learn more about the San Francisco City Attorney's Office go to www.sfgov.org. Ms. Stewart has long represented parties and amicus curiae in LGBT civil rights cases, including the airlines' challenge to San Francisco's Equal Benefits Ordinance, a lesbian police officer discrimination suit against the City of Sacramento, an early equal protection challenge to the State's denial of equal benefits to partners of lesbian and gay employees, and a case challenging the Defense Department's denial of security clearances to lesbians and gay men. In the 1990's, Ms. Stewart served as the first Co-Chair of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Committee on Sexual Orientation, which developed guidelines for legal employers on eliminating sexual orientation discrimination. In the 1980's, she served on the Board of the Lesbian Rights Project (currently known as the National Center for Lesbian Rights), and her firm later assisted NCLR in changing its name and obtaining non-profit status. She also served on the Board of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, San Francisco's lesbian and gay bar association. In 1999, Ms. Stewart served as the first openly gay President of the Bar Association of San Francisco. In that capacity, she co-founded BASF's School-To-College Program, which provides mentoring and guidance to inner city high school students to help them prepare for, select, and apply to college. Ms. Stewart currently serves on a Task Force of the California Judicial Council's Commission on Judicial Independence, and the Boards of the Northern District of California Historical Society and the Legal Aid Society/Employment Law Center. She is also a member of the American Bar Association's recently established Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Commission. She has previously been a lawyer delegate for Northern District of California to the Ninth Circuit and a State Bar delegate to the American Bar Association. Ms. Stewart was recognized as a California Superlawyer in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Ms. Stewart received her B.A. with Distinction from Cornell University in 1978 and her J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law in 1981, where she was awarded Order of the Coif and received Am Jur awards in Constitutional and Criminal Law. Ms. Stewart was Editor-in-Chief of Ecology Law Quarterly and a research assistant to Professors Paul Mishkin and William Fletcher. From 1981-1982, she was a law clerk to Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

David Lieberman joined the Boalt Hall School of Law at University of California, Berkeley in 1984. Lieberman's lecture examines modes and projects of legal history in 18th century England. (April 4, 2008)

Host: Colette Vogele Guest: Jason Schultz, Electronic Frontier Foundation Jason is a staff attorney for the EFF specializing in intellectual property and reverse engineering. He currently leads EFF’s Patent Busting Project and also teaches graduate classes on Cyberlaw at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law and School of Information.

Host: Colette Vogele Guest: Jason Schultz, Electronic Frontier Foundation Jason is a staff attorney for the EFF specializing in intellectual property and reverse engineering. He currently leads EFF’s Patent Busting Project and also teaches graduate classes on Cyberlaw at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law and School of Information. Topic for Episode 004: In this episode, Jason discusses the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (the “DMCA?) and how podcasters and video bloggers are affected by this law enacted nearly 10 years ago. We start with some background on how the DMCA came about in 1998, then turn to discussing the two key provisions of the act — anti-circumvention (17 U.S.C. §1201) and notice/takedown/safe-harbor rules (17 U.S.C. §512). This episode mostly focuses on the anti-circumvention issues faced by video bloggers and podcaters, while next week’s episode will break down the notice and takedown process of section 512.