Podcasts about boies schiller

This Day in Legal History: Starve or SellOn August 15, 1876, the United States Congress passed a coercive measure aimed at forcing the Sioux Nation to relinquish their sacred lands in the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. Known informally as the "starve or sell" bill, the legislation declared that no further federal appropriations would be made for the Sioux's food or supplies unless they ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. government. This came just two months after the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had defeated General George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a major blow to U.S. military prestige.The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Sioux in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which recognized their sovereignty over the area. But when gold was discovered there in 1874 during Custer's expedition, settlers and miners flooded the region, violating the treaty. Rather than remove the intruders, the federal government shifted blame and sought to pressure the Sioux into surrendering the land.The 1876 bill effectively weaponized hunger by conditioning life-sustaining aid on land cession. This tactic ignored treaty obligations and relied on exploiting the Sioux's vulnerability after a harsh winter and military setbacks. Despite resistance from many tribal leaders, the U.S. government eventually secured signatures under extreme duress. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Black Hills were taken illegally and ordered compensation—money the Sioux have famously refused, insisting instead on the return of the land.Russian state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the U.S. federal court system and secretly accessed sealed records for years by exploiting stolen user credentials and a vulnerability in an outdated server. The breach, which remained undisclosed until recently, involved the deliberate targeting of sealed documents tied to sensitive matters like espionage, fraud, money laundering, and foreign agents. These records, normally protected by court order, often include details about confidential informants and active investigations. Investigators believe the hackers were backed by the Russian government, though they haven't been officially named in public disclosures.The Department of Justice has confirmed that “special measures” are now being taken to protect individuals potentially exposed in the breach. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti said that while technical and procedural safeguards are being implemented broadly, the DOJ is focusing particular attention on cases where sensitive information may have been compromised. He did not provide specifics but acknowledged that the situation demands urgent and tailored responses. Judges across the country were reportedly alerted in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been affected.This breach follows an earlier major compromise in 2020, also attributed to Russian actors, involving malicious code distributed through SolarWinds software. In response to both incidents, the judiciary has ramped up its cybersecurity efforts, including implementing multifactor authentication and revising policies on how sealed documents are handled. Some courts now require such documents to be filed only in hard copy. However, officials and experts alike have criticized Congress for underfunding judicial cybersecurity infrastructure, leaving it vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated attacks.The situation raises ongoing concerns about the security of national security cases and the exposure of individuals whose cooperation with law enforcement was meant to remain confidential. Lawmakers have requested classified briefings, and President Trump, who is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acknowledged the breach but downplayed its significance.Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed FilesUS taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack | ReutersA federal trial in California is testing the legal boundaries of the U.S. military's role in domestic affairs, focusing on President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles during protests in June. California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump, arguing the deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Testimony revealed that troops, including armed units and combat vehicles, were involved in activities like detaining individuals and supporting immigration raids—actions critics argue cross into law enforcement.The Justice Department defended Trump's actions, asserting that the Constitution permits the president to deploy troops to protect federal property and personnel. They also claimed California lacks the standing to challenge the deployment in civil court, since Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute that can only be enforced through prosecution. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concern about the lack of clear limits on presidential authority in such matters and questioned whether the logic behind the Justice Department's arguments would allow indefinite military involvement in domestic policing.Military officials testified that decisions in the field—such as setting up perimeters or detaining people—were made under broad interpretations of what constitutes protecting federal interests. The case took on added urgency when, on the trial's final day, Trump ordered 800 more National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., citing high crime rates, despite statistical declines. The Justice Department has also invoked the president's immunity for official acts under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, further complicating California's legal path.Trial shows fragility of limits on US military's domestic role | ReutersThe U.S. legal sector added jobs for the fifth consecutive month in July, nearing its all-time high of 1.2 million positions set in December 2023, according to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. While this signals positive momentum, long-term growth remains modest; employment is only 1.7% higher than its May 2007 peak, showing how the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic stalled progress. Big law firms, however, have seen major gains: between 1999 and 2021, the top 200 firms nearly doubled their lawyer headcount and saw revenues grow by 172%.Still, the wider legal job market—including paralegals and administrative staff—hasn't kept pace. Technological efficiencies and AI have reduced reliance on support staff, and the lawyer-to-staff ratio has declined steadily. Some general counsels are now using AI tools instead of outside firms for tasks like summarizing cases and compiling data, suggesting further disruption is on the horizon. Meanwhile, superstar lawyers at elite firms now earn upward of $10 million a year, driven by rising billing rates and high-demand corporate work.Broader U.S. job growth lagged in July, with the BLS issuing significant downward revisions for previous months. President Trump responded by firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her without evidence of data manipulation. On the law firm side, Boies Schiller is handling high-profile litigation over Florida's immigration policies, with rates topping $875 an hour for partners. Separately, Eversheds Sutherland reported a 10% jump in global revenue, citing strong performance in its U.S. offices and a new Silicon Valley branch.US legal jobs are rising again, but gains are mixed | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors, while a legal challenge from tech industry group NetChoice moves through the courts. NetChoice, whose members include Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat, argues the law violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the law is likely unconstitutional, he stated that NetChoice hadn't met the high standard necessary to halt enforcement at this early stage.The Mississippi law, passed unanimously by the state legislature, requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify age and secure “express consent” from a parent or guardian before allowing minors to create accounts. The state can impose both civil and criminal penalties for violations. NetChoice initially won limited relief in lower court rulings, with a federal judge pausing enforcement against some of its members, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that pause without explanation.Mississippi officials welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now, calling it a chance for “thoughtful consideration” of the legal issues. Meanwhile, NetChoice sees the order as a procedural setback but remains confident about the eventual outcome, citing Kavanaugh's statement. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a state social media age-check law. Similar laws in seven other states have already been blocked by courts. Tech companies, facing increasing scrutiny over their platforms' impact on minors, insist they already provide parental controls and moderation tools.US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.On this day in 1875, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was born in London to an English mother and a Sierra Leonean father. A composer of striking originality and lyricism, Coleridge-Taylor rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, earning acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Often dubbed the “African Mahler” by American press during his tours of the U.S., he became a symbol of Black excellence in classical music at a time when such recognition was rare. He studied at the Royal College of Music under Charles Villiers Stanford, and by his early twenties, had already composed his most famous work, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, which became a staple of British choral repertoire.Coleridge-Taylor's music blended Romanticism with rhythmic vitality, often inflected with the spirituals and folk influences he encountered during his visits to the United States. He was deeply inspired by African-American musical traditions and maintained a lifelong interest in promoting racial equality through the arts. His catalogue includes choral works, chamber music, orchestral pieces, and songs—each marked by melodic richness and emotional depth.This week, we close with the fifth and final movement of his 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5—titled "Dance." Composed when he was just 18, the piece captures the youthful exuberance and technical elegance that would characterize his career. Lively, rhythmically playful, and tinged with charm, “Dance” is a fitting celebration of Coleridge-Taylor's enduring legacy and a reminder of the brilliance he achieved in his all-too-brief life.Without further ado, Samuel Coleridge Taylor's 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5 – 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

 John is joined by one of the most famous litigators in the world, David Boies, Chairman and Founding Partner of Boies Schiller Flexner.  They discuss David's career, unique aspects of trial work, and the challenges of transitioning leadership in law firms.  David describes his early years at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, where he became a partner in 1972, and his founding of Boies Schiller in 1997.  He candidly discusses the aging process, especially the balance that exists between somewhat diminishing memory and the ever-improving judgment that comes with experience.  Despite plans to step down as Chairman of his firm at the end of the year, David remains engaged in high-stakes litigation, particularly cases which may improve society, such as marriage equality and sex trafficking litigation.   John and David also discuss trial advocacy.  David believes that trials are both morality plays and peculiar searches for truth, shaped by a unique decision-making process that excludes jurors with specialized knowledge and forbids them from seeking knowledge in the ways they are accustomed to.  They also discuss the unique pressures on courtroom lawyers, including the need to say everything right in real time, having a professional constantly trying to make you look bad, a jury that studies everything you say or do, and clients watching whose fortune or liberty depends on your performance.  John and David also discuss the business of law, critiquing the hourly billing model and reflecting on the challenges of aligning client and firm interests in alternative fee arrangements.  They agree that legal practice, while demanding, remains intellectually and personally rewarding.  David also offers his thoughts on his late friend and sometimes adversary Ted Olson, whose integrity, warmth, and professionalism left a lasting impact.  Finally, John and David discuss the possibility of a follow-up to David's book Courting Justice, which chronicled significant cases from his career in light of the major cases he has had in the years since the book was published.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Day in Legal History: Black Panther Party for Self-Defense FoundedOn October 15, 1966, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was founded in Oakland, California, by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. Although primarily thought of as a political and social movement, its founding also had significant legal implications. The Black Panther Party was established to address systemic racism, police brutality, and economic inequality faced by Black communities, particularly in the legal system and law enforcement practices.One of the key legal aspects of the Black Panther Party's activities was their use of California's open carry gun laws. Members of the Party would patrol Black neighborhoods while armed to monitor police interactions, invoking their constitutional right to bear arms. This practice was known as "copwatching" and sought to hold law enforcement accountable. The Panthers' visible use of firearms and legal knowledge led to heightened tensions between them and law enforcement, prompting legislative responses, such as the Mulford Act in 1967, which was designed to outlaw the public carrying of loaded firearms in California and was supported by then-Governor Ronald Reagan.The Black Panther Party's actions brought attention to issues of police misconduct and unequal treatment of African Americans within the legal system, making October 15 a key date in both the civil rights movement and the history of legal rights advocacy in the U.S.In a boon to litigation financing in the Garden State, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled that litigation finance deals do not constitute "loans" under state law, protecting the industry from claims that high-interest rates violate lending regulations. The case originated from a traffic accident plaintiff who received $9,600 in funding from Covered Bridge Capital to support her litigation. After partially repaying the company and discharging the remaining debt in bankruptcy, she sued, alleging violations of consumer protection laws. The court dismissed her claims, stating she lacked standing as an "aggrieved consumer," given that she financially benefited from the agreements. The panel referenced federal court precedent to classify litigation finance as contracts for recovery interests, rather than traditional loans. Both plaintiff and defense attorneys acknowledged the significance of the ruling, with the defense celebrating the clarification of the legality of these deals, while the plaintiff's lawyer expressed concern over its impact on consumer fraud statutes. New Jersey lawmakers continue to debate potential regulations, including a 40% cap on interest rates for litigation finance deals.Litigation Finance Wins With NJ Court Rejecting Usury Claims (1)In the upcoming November election, voters in New Hampshire, Arizona, and Colorado will consider significant judicial reforms. New Hampshire's proposal (CACR 6) would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, allowing experienced judges to serve longer. This change has bipartisan support, with proponents arguing that judges often start later in life, and the current retirement age cuts short their careers.Arizona voters will decide whether to eliminate judicial term limits and retention elections with Proposition 137. This move, driven by the state legislature, follows controversy over justices upholding an old abortion law, with opponents concerned about reduced voter oversight. Meanwhile, Colorado voters will determine whether to create a new judicial discipline board in response to a scandal involving the former Chief Justice. The amendment would transfer authority from the state Supreme Court to the board, aiming for more transparency in judicial misconduct cases.Each state's proposal reflects broader questions about judicial accountability and the balance between independence and oversight in the legal system; questions that, at the federal level, have no answer coming in the foreseeable future. Voters to Weigh Judicial Retirement Age, Term Limits, DisciplineBoies Schiller Flexner is defending itself against allegations of collusion with a hedge fund in a class action lawsuit accusing United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) of conspiring with brokers to overcharge homebuyers. UWM recently requested that the case be dismissed and the law firm sanctioned, claiming Boies Schiller is working with hedge fund Hunterbrook Capital, which is shorting UWM stock. In response, Boies Schiller denied any involvement with Hunterbrook's stock trades or funding of the lawsuit, calling UWM's accusations a "side-show" aimed at distracting from the case's core issues.The lawsuit, filed in April, stems from an investigation by Hunterbrook Press that raised concerns about UWM's practices. Boies Schiller acknowledged receiving data from the nonprofit Hunterbrook Foundation but maintained full control over the case. UWM accuses the plaintiffs and the firm of attempting to damage its business and stock value, but Boies Schiller has dismissed these claims as unfounded. The case, Escue v. United Wholesale Mortgage LLC, continues in Michigan federal court.Law firm Boies Schiller denies hedge fund collusion in home buyer class action | ReutersIn the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, voters in various states are turning to the courts to address voting accessibility issues. Ericka Worobec, a Pennsylvania voter, successfully sued to ensure that voters are notified if mail-in ballots have errors after hers was rejected due to an incomplete date. Her case is one of nearly 100 election-related lawsuits in key battleground states like Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin.These lawsuits often focus on expanding or restricting voting rights. In Wisconsin, voters with disabilities are seeking electronic ballot access. Some cases have seen partial victories, while others remain unresolved, as courts navigate issues like polling place access, ballot marking, and voter registration. These legal battles highlight the ongoing tension between protecting voter access and ensuring election integrity though it should be noted in all elections, actual voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Some US voters head to court before they head to the polls | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join David Ackert in this episode of the Market Leader's Podcast as he welcomes special guests Robin D. Davidson, Head of Business Development and Communications at Boies Schiller, and Matt Plavnick, Director of Client Development at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell. They engage in a conversation centered around the concept of "constructive pushback" in legal business development and the challenges it presents. David explores Robin and Matt's experiences with past leaders and how their leadership styles have shaped their approach to navigating constructive pushback in the legal industry. They discuss the critical components essential to authentic leadership, emphasizing the importance of framing pushback as a collaborative conversation to improve outcomes rather than opposing ideas. Moreover, they delve into the increasingly blurred lines between personal and work lives and the significance of forging genuine human connections in a digitized economy. The conversation also covers strategies for training and developing junior professionals to handle such interactions effectively, including encouraging observation, modeling, and feedback. Tune in to learn about the power of saying “No” to create space for “Yes” in client interactions, the why behind actions, and the consistent delivery of excellent service. Discover how to empower teams and employees through authentic leadership and gracefully navigate the complexities of legal business development. Listen, Subscribe, Like, & Comment below to gain valuable insights into navigating constructive pushback in legal business development and fostering a culture of collaboration and creativity from our PipelinePlus community.

In today's episode we have litigation funding chickens coming home to roost, more bad news for JPMorgan, the Supreme Court wants more money for protection and Column Tuesday on a Friday, where I try to push traffic to my Bloomberg Tax column like I'm former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie … and the column is … a bridge?Sysco sues litigation funder Burford, blasts Boies Schiller over $140 million soured deal -https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/sysco-sues-litigation-funder-burford-blasts-boies-schiller-over-140-million-2023-03-09/JPMorgan must hand over CEO Dimon's records in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit -https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-must-hand-over-ceo-dimons-records-jeffrey-epstein-lawsuit-2023-03-09/U.S. Supreme Court seeks funding boost to protect the justices -https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-seeks-funding-boost-protect-justices-2023-03-09/Biden's High-Earners Tax to Save Medicare Is DOA With the Public -https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/bidens-high-earners-tax-to-save-medicare-is-doa-with-the-publicThanks so much for listening to Minimum Competence. If you have any questions or story suggestions, find us on Mastodon on the esq.social instance. We also have a link aggregator in the fediverse, at links.esq.social, where some of our stories will be sourced from so feel free to sign up and submit there.We are especially interested in legal happenings from our listeners outside the United States. If you have an interesting case or story, consider recording a 30 second to 2 minute clip on your phone and sending it in. We'd love to run it. Contact information is in the show notes. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Americans can see light at the end of the tunnel from the COVID-19 pandemic, but litigation stemming from the virus is just ramping up. On this week’s Pro Say, we talk you through the latest coronavirus court battles, from a class action filed by Walmart employees over virus screening to a dispute over courtroom access to a constitutional battle over eviction moratoriums. Also this week, a former Boies Schiller attorney gets quickly booted from his new firm, and one of the largest patent infringement verdicts in history lands in Texas.

On May 14, 2020, clients of the litigation firm Boies Schiller Flexner filed a malpractice lawsuit against the law firm alleging that the attorneys in their dispute gave them bad advice and drove up costs through overly aggressive litigation tactics. As a result of these actions, the malpractice plaintiffs claim they were forced to settle as they could not afford to appeal. According to an article published by the ABA Journal on May 18, 2020, Boies Schiller responded to the suit stating “This lawsuit is nothing more than a cynical attempt by a former client to avoid its obligation to pay the firm’s legal fees….the allegations are baseless and will not deter the firm from continuing its efforts to collect its fees.” On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Dick Semerdjian, founding partner of Schwartz Semerdjian, and attorney Jayne Reardon, the executive director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, as they discuss the current state of civility in the courts, the use of overly aggressive litigation tactics, and how the legal profession is promoting civility through various methods. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal. Link: ABA Journal Article: Malpractice Suit Against Boies Schiller Alleges Overly Aggressive Litigation Tactics by Debra Cassens Weiss

On May 14, 2020, clients of the litigation firm Boies Schiller Flexner filed a malpractice lawsuit against the law firm alleging that the attorneys in their dispute gave them bad advice and drove up costs through overly aggressive litigation tactics. As a result of these actions, the malpractice plaintiffs claim they were forced to settle as they could not afford to appeal. According to an article published by the ABA Journal on May 18, 2020, Boies Schiller responded to the suit stating “This lawsuit is nothing more than a cynical attempt by a former client to avoid its obligation to pay the firm’s legal fees….the allegations are baseless and will not deter the firm from continuing its efforts to collect its fees.” On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Dick Semerdjian, founding partner of Schwartz Semerdjian, and attorney Jayne Reardon, the executive director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, as they discuss the current state of civility in the courts, the use of overly aggressive litigation tactics, and how the legal profession is promoting civility through various methods. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal. Link: ABA Journal Article: Malpractice Suit Against Boies Schiller Alleges Overly Aggressive Litigation Tactics by Debra Cassens Weiss

Attorney and activist Ally Coll left her post at prominent law firm Boies Schiller after learning of the firm's partnership with Black Cube in its defense of now-convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein. She founded the Purple Campaign - an organization devoted to making workplaces more inclusive and harassment-free. Two years in, she'll share what's working and what's still to be done. We also check in with listener Jeff Berman, who's part of a coalition with World Central Kitchen, working at scale to feed front line medical workers in Los Angeles in their fight against COVID-19.

Jan 29: US v Michael #Avenatti opening arguments, Mark Geragos meeting with Nike & Boies Schiller described, two ways; today's UN which bans Press is corrupt

After hundreds of thousands of deaths and years of litigation, the opioid epidemic's big day in court has arrived — or has it? A landmark trial is scheduled to kick off Monday against drugmakers accused of fueling the crisis, but there are some signs that a gigantic settlement could avert the whole thing. Joining us to break it all down is Daniel Siegal, Law360's senior trials reporter. Also this week: DLA Piper cuts ties with a rainmaker after accusations of sexual assault; Boies Schiller is disqualifed from a case due to personal ties between David Boies and Alan Dershowitz; and a Cleveland Browns fan says he was wrongly accused of pouring beer on an opponent.

The sexual assault scandal surrounding Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein expanded this week into BigLaw. It was revealed that Weinstein’s long-time lawyer David Boies played a part in hiring a private spy firm to help Weinstein suppress a New York Times article detailing the harassment allegations, even though the Times was also a client of Boies Schiller. Senior legal ethics reporter Andrew Strickler comes on the show to explain what happened and the ethical implications for the famed litigator. Also on this week’s show, we discuss a provision in the GOP tax plan that could keep law firms on the hook for higher taxes; the legal pushback billionaire Joe Ricketts may face after shuttering local news sites DNAinfo and Gothamist after a union vote; and an appellate court weighing in on whether a judge falling asleep while on the bench merits a new trial.