Podcasts about caselaw

In this episode of The AI Report, Christine Walker joins Arturo Ferreira to launch a new series on the legal side of artificial intelligence. Christine is a practicing attorney helping businesses understand how to navigate AI risk, compliance, and governance in a rapidly changing policy environment.They explore how the shift from the Biden to the Trump administration is changing the tone on AI regulation, what the EU AI Act means for U.S. companies, and why many of the legal frameworks we need for AI already exist. Christine breaks down how lawyers apply traditional legal principles to today's AI challenges from intellectual property and employment law to bias and defamation.Also in this episode: • The risk of waiting for regulation to catch up • How companies can conduct internal AI audits • What courts are already doing with AI tools • Why even lawyers are still figuring this out in real time • What businesses should be doing now to reduce liabilityChristine offers a grounded, practical view of what it means to use AI responsibly, even when the law seems unclear.Subscribe to The AI Report:theaireport.aiJoin our community:skool.com/the-ai-report-community/aboutChapters:(00:00) The Legal Risks of AI and Why It's Still a Black Box(01:13) Christine Walker's Background in Law and Tech(03:07) Biden vs Trump: Competing AI Governance Philosophies(04:53) What Governance Means and Why It Matters(06:26) Comparing the EU AI Act with the U.S. Legal Vacuum(08:14) Case Law on IP, Bias, and Discrimination(10:50) Why the Fear Around AI May Be Misplaced(13:15) Legal Precedents: What Tech History Teaches Us(16:06) The GOP's AI Stance and Regulatory Philosophy(18:35) Most AI Use Cases Already Fall Under Existing Law(21:11) Why Precedents Take So Long—and What That Means(23:08) Will AI Accelerate the Legal System?(25:24) AI + Lawyers: A Collaborative Model(27:15) Hallucinations, Case Law, and Legal Responsibility(28:36) Building Policy Now to Avoid Legal Pain Later(30:59) Christine's Final Advice for Businesses and Builders

Today, we're diving into one of my mock trial hot takes: Case law doesn't matter a whole lot in college mock trial.BUY MY BOOK HERE: ⁠bit.ly/MTMBook⁠ SCHEDULE COACHING WITH ME HERE: ⁠bit.ly/MTMCoach⁠Welcome into Mock Trial Masterclass: Your Guide to Controlling the Courtroom. My name is Luke Worsham, and I want YOU to be a mock trial master. I've competed in and coached mock trial for a while, and I want to pass along everything I've learned to you. Whether you're an attorney or a witness, my channel is dedicated to helping you take your craft to the next level. It's game on!The information contained in this podcast is intended for mock trial students and coaches, and it is provided for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter or real-life litigation advice.

Wähle deine Lieblings-Plattform Youtube: https://cutt.ly/rk1EJxY Whatsapp: http://dozz.es/10mja Telegram: https://t.me/zehnmmj Spotify: https://shorturl.at/yGIJ3 Ivoox: https://cutt.ly/Ok1EOoV Web: https://10minutenmitjesus.org Instagram: https://lmy.de/QddR Hast du Fragen oder hat dich diese Betrachtung besonders angesprochen? Du kannst einen Priester aus unserem Team per Mail unter 10minutenmitjesus@gmail.com kontaktieren!

Wähle deine Lieblings-Plattform Youtube: https://cutt.ly/rk1EJxY Whatsapp: http://dozz.es/10mja Telegram: https://t.me/zehnmmj Spotify: https://shorturl.at/yGIJ3 Ivoox: https://cutt.ly/Ok1EOoV Web: https://10minutenmitjesus.org Instagram: https://lmy.de/QddR Hast du Fragen oder hat dich diese Betrachtung besonders angesprochen? Du kannst einen Priester aus unserem Team per Mail unter 10minutenmitjesus@gmail.com kontaktieren!

We've spoken about many employment law cases on the HR Room Podcast over the years which have always been very popular episodes, and we've also spoken to our very own Liam Barton a lot over the years, who has also proven very popular. So this month, we're starting a new monthly series combining your two favourite things, Case Law and Liam Barton, where Liam will be joining us to discuss a high profile every month, and share his advice, guidance and key takeaways for you as employers and HR teams. So for our first episode of Liam's Law, we're delighted to be joined, of course, by Liam Barton, Senior HR Consultant here at Insight HR, to discuss a tricky case regarding sexual harassment, investigations and disciplinary processes.    In this episode we cover... 01:45 Overview of the Sodexo Case 05:30 Key Gaps in the Investigation Process 10:06 Importance of Fairness and Due Process 15:06 The Role of Evidence in Investigations 18:03 Training and Objectivity in Investigations 24:11 Bias and Its Impact on Investigations 27:29 The Rush to Suspend Employees 32:15 Conclusions and Practical Guidance   Check out the first instalment of Liam's Law over on LinkedIn, where he discussed this case! And P.S Here is the Volker Rail case we also mentioned during this chat!   About The HR Room Podcast The HR Room Podcast is a series from Insight HR where we talk to business leaders from around Ireland and share advice what's important to you as a HR professional, an employer or people leader.  If you are enjoying these episodes, do please feel free to share them with colleagues, friends and family. And even better, if you can leave us a review, we'd really appreciate it! We love your feedback, we take requests, and we're also here to help with any HR challenges you may have! Requests, feedback and guest suggestions

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350 where police saw a man seated in a vehicle illegally parked near an apartment door where people would buy drugs. As the police  passed by, the man appeared shocked or surprised and moved forward while slouching down as if to conceal something. When the man provided his name, the police recognized him as being associated to an officer safety alert describing him as possibly armed with a handgun. The man was asked to exit the vehicle and — when patted down — police found he was wearing a bullet proof vest. As police moved in to search the car, the man fled. Police discovered a loaded handgun in an overnight bag that was near where the man had been sitting. Was the man's detention lawful? And, if he had standing to challenge the searches, was the vehicle and bag search valid as an incident to investigative detention? Or is this common law power limited only to a pat-down of the detainee?  Lower court rulingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Mark Morton reviews the recent issues relating to employment status ahead of our Spring Tax Update courses. For more information on this topic and more, please visit www.mercia-group.com for further details.

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Jir, 2010 BCCA 497 where a police officer, after acting on an anonymous tip, stopped a motorist and immediately arrested him. When police searched the trunk of his car without a warrant, 120,000 ecstasy tablets were discovered. Did the police have enough grounds to arrest the man based on the anonymous tip? Or was more needed? Mike looks at these questions and what factors you can use to assess the reliability of information provided by a tipster.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

The new federal deficit is the government's research deficit. ----- Elon Musk's aimless cost-cutting escapades turn to the SEC where DOGE slashed their Westlaw access because no one over there is smart enough to know how legal research works. Apparently now is an opportune time to start committing securities fraud! Speaking of aimless, former judge Alex Kozinski penned a meandering opinion piece about canceling elections in case, maybe, some president might want to consider it. And a few law schools quietly reworked their websites to remove diversity language. They probably won't be the last.

The new federal deficit is the government's research deficit. ----- Elon Musk's aimless cost-cutting escapades turn to the SEC where DOGE slashed their Westlaw access because no one over there is smart enough to know how legal research works. Apparently now is an opportune time to start committing securities fraud! Speaking of aimless, former judge Alex Kozinski penned a meandering opinion piece about canceling elections in case, maybe, some president might want to consider it. And a few law schools quietly reworked their websites to remove diversity language. They probably won't be the last. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bullying and harassment remain pressing issues in Ireland, with nearly 1 in 3 workers experiencing them firsthand according to Matrix Recruitment's recent study: Workplace Equality Report. Despite complaints being raised to HR or senior leaders, only 20% felt they were resolved promptly and discreetly. This begs the question, are the current Codes of Practice enough?Laura McKee, Knowledge Partner, Legal Island is joined by Bernadette Daly, Partner, CC Solicitors and Dr Gerry McMahon, (MD at Productive Personnel Ltd.) as they unpack key cases, share legal insights, and explore practical strategies to foster respectful workplaces.

Karen Read Appealed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling that stated there was no verdict and therefore no double jeopardy. The defense's arguments for dismissal is based on the lack of "manifest necessity" for a mistrial. A look at the United States v. Tribio Lugo case and its relevance to Karen Read's situation might be an open door to get counts 1 and 3 dismissed. With so much happening in this complex case, it's hard to keep up. I'll guide you through the legal maze and explain what it all means for Karen Read's future.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/hQjZkiAIVkcRESOURCESSJC Ruling - https://youtube.com/live/rbYylRyjISkHalted Hearing - https://youtube.com/live/M5p-UrfGKDYCase Law from First District Ruling - https://casetext.com/case/us-v-toribio-lugoBreakdown of Count 2 and Lesser Included - https://youtu.be/zRH39FlfYJIThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In this episode of KC Connect. Pauline O' Hare and Harry Wall from our Employment Law Services Team, discuss recent Workplace Relations Commission cases taken under the Right to Request Remote and Flexible Working, including key takeaways for employers. Thank you for listening. To explore all of Ibec's podcast offering, visit here. Make sure to follow Ibec Podcasts to stay up to date with new episodes.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over Pennsylvania v Labron.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over United States v Wong Sun.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over California v Carney.

Question: What are the three types of designs the language “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” has been interpreted by the case law to include? Answer: The language “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” has been interpreted by the case law to include at least three kinds of designs: […] The post MPEP Q & A 320: What are the three types of designs interpreted by case law to include? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over Cardwell v Lewis.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over Wyoming v Houghton.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over United States v Johns (1985).

There are many issues that Christians get asked about, but are either not knowledgeable enough too answer, or simply are too weak in their faith to give the biblical answer.  One of these issues is God's design for the death penalty.  This sermon will give both encouragement and a biblical knowledge base in order to answer these questions.

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Pearson, 2017 ONCA 389 where a police officer, after stopping a motorist, arrested him for drug impaired driving. Police opened the trunk and searched a knapsack found in it, discovering two shotgun shells, which the officer seized. As it turned out, the driver was later charged with two murders, one occurring the day before the traffic stop and another about two weeks later. The shells found in the knapsack were similar in composition to the ones used to commit the murders and Crown wanted to tender them as evidence at the murder trials. But was their discovery lawful? Was opening the trunk and searching the knapsack as an incident to the drug impaired driving arrest valid? Or did it exceed the scope of the common law power?Lower court rulingSupreme Court of Canada leave dismissalThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Stonefish, 2019 ONCA 914 where a police officer, after stopping a motorist for an equipment violation, smelled the odour of burnt marihauana and saw a green leafy substance in the car's console. The motorist was then arrested for possessing a controlled substance and police opened the car's hood to discover a stash of cocaine in a Ziploc bag valued at between $11,000 — $18,000 on the street. Was opening the car's hood lawful as an incident to the drug arrest for possession of this small amount of marihuana? Or did it exceed the scope of the common law power? Mike looks at these and other questions.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over California v Greenwood.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over Cady v Dombrowski.

In this case law short episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over United States v Forest.

In its first leading judgment (decision of November 18, 2024, docket no.: VI ZR 10/24), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with claims for non-material damages pursuant to Art. 82 GDPR following a scraping incident. According to the BGH, a proven loss of control or well-founded fear of misuse of the scraped data by third parties is sufficient to establish non-material damage. The BGH therefore bases its interpretation of the concept of damages on the case law of the CJEU, but does not provide a clear definition and leaves many questions unanswered. Our German data litigation lawyers, Andy Splittgerber, Hannah von Wickede and Johannes Berchtold, discuss this judgment and offer insights for organizations and platforms on what to expect in the future. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello, and welcome to Tech Law Talks, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies Group. In each episode of this podcast, we will discuss cutting-edge issues on technology, data, and the law. We will provide practical observations on a wide variety of technology and data topics to give you quick and actionable tips to address the issues you are dealing with every day.  Andy: Hello, everyone, and welcome to today's episode of our Reed Smith Tech Law Talks podcast. In today's episode, we'll discuss the recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice, the FCJ, of November 18, 2024, on compensation payments following a data breach or data scraping. My name is Andy Splittgerber. I'm partner at Reed Smith's Munich office in the Emerging Technologies Department. And I'm here today with Hannah von Wickede from our Frankfurt office. Hannah is also a specialist in data protection and data litigation. And Johannes Berchtold, also from Reed Smith in the Munich office, also from the emerging technologies team and tech litigator. Thanks for taking the time and diving a bit into this breathtaking case law. Just to catch everyone up and bring everyone on the same speed, it was a case decided by the German highest civil court, in an action brought by a user of a social platform who wanted damages after his personal data was scraped by a hacker from that social media network. And that was done through using the telephone number or trying out any kind of numbers through a technical fault probably, and this find a friend function. And through this way, the hackers could download a couple of million data sets from users of that platform, which then could be found in the dark web. And the user then started an action before the civil court claiming for damages. And this case was then referred to the highest court in Germany because of the legal difficulties. Hannah, do you want to briefly summarize the main legal findings and outcomes of this decision?  Hannah: Yes, Andy. So, the FCJ made three important statements, basically. First of all, the FCJ provided its own definition of what a non-material damage under Article 82 GDPR is. They are saying that mere loss of control can constitute a non-material damage under Article 82 GDPR. And if such a loss of the plaintiffs is not verifiable, that also justified fear of personal data being misused can constitute a non-material damage under GDPR. So both is pretty much in line with what the ECJ already has said about non-material damages in the past. And besides that, the FCJ makes also a statement regarding the amount of compensation for non-material damages following from scraping incident. And this is quite interesting because according to the FCJ, the amount of the claim for damages in such cases is around 100 euros. That is not much money. However, FCJ also says both loss of control and reasonable apprehension, also including the negative consequences, must first be proven by the plaintiff.  Andy: So we have an immaterial damage that's important for everyone to know. And the legal basis for the damage claim is Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation. So it's not German law, it's European law. And as you'd mentioned, Hannah, there was some ECJ case law in the past on similar cases. Johannes, can you give us a brief summary on what these rulings were about? And on your view, does the FCJ bring new aspects to these cases? Or is it very much in line with the European Court of Justice that already?  Johannes: Yes, the FCJ has quoted ECJ quite broadly here. So there was a little clarification in this regard. So far, it's been unclear whether the loss of control itself constitutes the damage or whether the loss of control is a mere negative consequence that may constitute non-material damage. So now the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the mere loss of control constitutes the direct damage. So there's no need for any particular fear or anxiety to be present for a claim to exist.  Andy: Okay, so it's not. So we read a bit in the press after the decision. Yes, it's very new and interesting judgment, but it's not revolutionary. It stays very close to what the European Court of Justice said already. The loss of control, I still struggle with. I mean, even if it's an immaterial damage, it's a bit difficult to grasp. And I would have hoped FCJ provides some more clarity or guidance on what they mean, because this is the central aspect, the loss of control. Johannes, you have some more details? What does the court say or how can we interpret that?  Johannes: Yeah, Andy, I totally agree. So in the future, discussion will most likely tend to focus on what actually constitutes a loss of control. So the FCJ does not provide any guidance here. However, it can already be said the plaintiff must have had the control over his data to actually lose it. So whether this is the case is particularly questionable if the actual scrape data was public, like in a lot of cases where we have in Germany right here, and or if the data was already included in other leaks, or the plaintiff published the data on another platform, maybe on his website or another social network where the data was freely accessible. So in the end, it will probably depend on the individual case if there was actually a loss of control or not. And we'll just have to wait on more judgments in Germany or in Europe to define loss of control in more detail.  Andy: Yeah, I think that's also a very important aspect of this case that was decided here, that the major cornerstones of the claim were established, they were proven. So it was undisputed that the claimant was a user of the network. It was undisputed that the scraping took place. It was undisputed that the user's data was affected part of the scraping. And then also the user's data was found in the dark web. So we have, in this case, when I say undistributed, it means that the parties did not dispute about it and the court could base their legal reasoning on these facts. In a lot of cases that we see in practice, these cornerstones are not established. They're very often disputed. Often you perhaps you don't even know that the claimant is user of that network. There's always dispute or often dispute around whether or not a scraping or a data breach took place or not. It's also not always the case that data is found in the dark web. I think this, even if the finding in the dark web, for example, is not like a written criteria of the loss of control. I think it definitely is an aspect for the courts to say, yes, there was loss of control because we see that the data was uncontrolled in the dark web. So, and that's a point, I don't know if any of you have views on this, also from the technical side. I mean, how easy and how often do we see that, you know, there is like a tag that it says, okay, the data in the dark web is from this social platform? Often, users are affected by multiple data breaches or scrapings, and then it's not possible to make this causal link between one specific scraping or data breach and then data being found somewhere in the web. Do you think, Hannah or Johannes, that this could be an important aspect in the future when courts determine the loss of control, that they also look into, you know, was there actually, you know, a loss of control?  Hannah: I would say yes, because it was already mentioned that the plaintiffs must first prove that there is a causal damage. And a lot of the plaintiffs are using various databases that list such alleged breaches, data breaches, and the plaintiffs always claim that this would indicate such a causal link. And of course, this is now a decisive point the courts have to handle, as it is a requirement. Before you get to the damage and before you can decide if there was a damage, if there was a loss of control, you have to prove if the plaintiff even was affected. And yeah, that's a challenge and not easy in practice because there's also a lot of case law already about these databases or on those databases that there might not be sufficient proof for the plaintiffs being affected by alleged data breaches or leaks.  Andy: All right. So let's see what's happening also in other countries. I mean, the Article 82, as I said in the beginning, is a European piece of law. So other countries in Europe will have to deal with the same topics. We cannot come up with our German requirements or interpretation of immaterial damages that are rather narrow, I would say. So Hannah, any other indications you see from the European angle that we need to have in mind?  Hannah: Yes, you're right. And yet first it is important that this concept of immaterial damage is EU law, is in accordance with EU law, as this is GDPR. And as Johannes said, the ECJ has always interpreted this damage very broadly. And does also not consider a threshold to be necessary. And I agree with you that it is difficult to set such low requirements for the concept of damage and at the same time not demand materiality or a threshold. And in my opinion, the Federal Court of Justice should perhaps have made a submission here to the ECJ after all because it is not clear what loss of control is. And then without a material threshold, this contributes a lot to legal insecurity for a lot of companies.  Andy: Yeah. Thank you very much, Hannah. So yes, the first takeaway for us definitely is loss of control. That's a major aspect of the decision. Other aspects, other interesting sentences or thoughts we see in the FCJ decision. And one aspect I see or I saw is right at the beginning where the FCJ merges together two events. The scraping and then a noncompliance with data access requests. And that was based in that case on contract, but similar on Article 15, GDPR. So those three events are kind of like merged together as one event, which in my view doesn't make so much sense because they're separated from the event, from the dates, from the actions or non-actions, and also then from the damages from a non-compliance with an Article 15. I think it's much more difficult to argue with a damage loss of control than with a scraping or a data breach. That that's not a major aspect of the decision but I think it was an interesting finding. Any other aspects, Hannah or Johannes, that you saw in the decision worth mentioning here for our audience?  Johannes: Yeah so I think discussion in Germany was really broadly so i think just just maybe two points have been neglected in the discussion so far. First, towards the ending of the reasoning, the court stated that data controllers are not obliged to provide information about unknown recipients. For example, like in scraping cases, controllers often do not know who the scrapers are. So there's no obligation for them to provide any names of scrapers they don't know. That clarification is really helpful in possible litigation. And on the other hand, it's somewhat lost in the discussion that the damages of the 100 euros only come into consideration if the phone number, the user ID, the first name, the last name, the gender, and the workplace are actually affected. So accordingly, if less data, maybe just an email address or a name, or less sensitive data was scraped, the claim for damages can or must even be significantly lower.  Andy: All right. Thanks, Johannes. That's very interesting. So, not only the law of control aspect, but also other aspects in this decision that's worth mentioning and reading if you have the time. Now looking a bit into the future, what's happening next, Johannes? What are your thoughts? I mean, you're involved in some similar litigation as well, as so is Hannah, what do you expect, What's happening to those litigation cases in the future? Any changes? Will we still have law firms suing after social platforms or suing for consumers after social platforms? Or do we expect any changes in that?  Johannes: Yeah, Andy, it's really interesting. In this mass GDPR litigation, you always have to consider the business side, not always just the legal side. So I think the ruling will likely put an end to the mass GDPR litigation as we know it in the past. Because so far, the plaintiffs have mostly appeared just with a legal expenses insurer. So the damages were up to like 5,000 euros and other claims have been asserted. So the value in dispute could be pushed to the edge. So it was like maybe around 20,000 euros in the end. But now it's clear that the potential damages in such scraping structures are more likely to be in the double-digit numbers, like, for example, 100 euros or even less. So as a result, the legal expenses insurers will no longer fund their claims for 5,000 euros. But at the same time, the vast majority of legal expenses insurers have agreed to a deductible of more than 100 euros. So the potential outcome and the risk of litigation are therefore disproportionate. And as a result, the plaintiffs will probably refrain from filing such lawsuits in the future.  Andy: All right. So good news for all insurers in the audience or better watch out for requests for coverage of litigation and see if not the values in this cube are much too high. So we will probably see less of insurance coverage cases, but still, definitely, we expect the same amount or perhaps even more litigation because the number as such, even if it's only 100 euros, seems certainly attractive for users as a so-called low-hanging fruit. And Hannah, before we close our podcast today, again, looking into the future, what is your recommendation or your takeaways to platforms, internet sites, basically everyone, any organization handling data can be affected by data scraping or a data breach. So what is your recommendation or first thoughts? How can those organizations get ready or ideally even avoid such litigation?  Hannah: So at first, Andy, it is very important to clarify that the FCJ judgment is ruled on a specific case in which non-public data was made available to the public as a result of a proven breach of data protection. And that is not the case in general. So you should avoid simply apply this decision to every other case like a template because if other requirements following from the GDPR are missing, the claims will still be unsuccessful. And second, of course, platforms companies have to consider what they publish about their security vulnerabilities and take the best possible precautions to ensure that data is not published on the dark web. And if necessary, companies can transfer the risk of publication to the user simply by adjusting their general terms and conditions.  Andy: Thanks, Hannah. These are interesting aspects and I see a little bit of conflict between the breach notification obligations under Article 33, 34, and then the direction this caseload goes. That will also be very interesting to see. Thank you very much, Hannah and Johannes, for your contribution. That was a really interesting, great discussion. And thank you very much to our audience for listening in. This was today's episode of our EU Reed Smith Tech Law Talks podcast. We thank you very much for listening. Please leave feedback and comments in the comments fields or send us an email. We hope to welcome you soon to our next episode. Have a nice day. Thank you very much. Bye bye.  Outro: Tech Law Talks is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's emerging technologies practice, please email techlawtalks@reedsmith.com. You can find our podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts.  Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers.  All rights reserved.  Transcript is auto-generated.

In this interview, Dave and Natalya discuss several significant court cases related to gift and estate tax valuations, ESOPs, and control issues in business valuations.  Throughout the discussion, they emphasize the need for careful planning and the potential implications of court decisions on future valuation practices: Controversial Connolly Case which included life insurance proceeds in the value of a company for estate tax purposes Importance of Proper Valuation Methods: The discussion emphasized the need for accurate and appropriate valuation methods, particularly in ESOP cases Valuation professionals must stay informed about legal precedents and be prepared to adapt their methods accordingly Guest:  Natalya Abdrasilova, Director of Valuation and Litigation Services, BDM PC Host: David Consigli Jr. , Partner, FAZ Forensics Please share your thoughts about the episode - click here to leave us a review   Want to get involved with future FVS conferences, committees, task forces, or the standing ovation program? Send a message to infoFVS@aicpa-cima.com  RESOURCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION If you're using a podcast app that does not hyperlink to the resources, please visit  https://fvssection.libsyn.com/fvs to access the show notes with direct links.  2024 AICPA & CIMA Forensic & Valuation Services Conference - for purchase Valuation Case Law Update session   Full conference package  Exclusive content – Free for FVS Section members:  If you're not a member, consider joining this active community of your FVS peers. Visit us online, You will get 16 credits of complimentary CPE and access to rich technical content FVS Toolkit for Estate and Gift Estate and gift case law case summaries 2024 Economic Damages Case Law Update - Case Summaries  From the archives: FVS Valuation Podcast episodes  Using AI in Your Valuation Practice – Part 2  Valuations for Gift and Estate Taxes: Review and Best Practices  Valuation Court - Key Takeaways from Recent Cases  LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FOLLOWING AICPA CREDENTIALS: Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV®) – Visit the home page and check out the ABV infographic Certified in the Valuation of Financial Instruments (CVFI®) – Visit the home page and check out the CVFI infographic Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF®) - Visit the home page and check out the CFF infographic This is a podcast from AICPA & CIMA, together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. To enjoy more conversations from our global community of accounting and finance professionals, explore our network of free shows here. Your feedback and comments are welcomed at podcast@aicpa-cima.com  

In this episode, Greg Lois (https://loisllc.com/attorney/greg-lois/) looks back to review and explain important case-law decisions, regulatory changes, and statutory updates that impact the handling and defense of New York workers' compensation (https://loisllc.com/practice/new-york-workers-compensation-defense/) cases. We look at the game-changing cases and decisions in 2024 that will change the way we defend these matters in 2025. Join us for an end-of-the-year review and look ahead! How to attend these webinars live and ask questions Join us for our monthly webinars on New York and New Jersey workers' compensation law. Register for a New York Workers' Compensation Webinar (https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8126129122765451535) Register for a New Jersey Workers' Compensation Webinar (https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/5291331929217948419) Register for a Civil Litigation Webinar (https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2939203908210686476) Schedules and Information Handout materials are provided in advance of each session. The webinar courses follow the "life cycle" of a claim and correspond to chapters in the Workers' Compensation Handbooks (https://loisllc.com/publications/) offered by the Firm. Webinar Archive View archive of prior Workers' Compensation and Civil Litigation webinars (https://loisllc.com/webinars/archive/) Disclaimer This webinar is not legal advice! The materials presented by this webinar/podcast and any affiliated website are for informational purposes only and are not offered as legal advice as to any particular matter. No viewer/listener/reader should act on the basis of these materials without seeking appropriate professional advice as to the particular facts and applicable law involved. The materials are not represented to be correct, complete, or up-to-date. Opinions presented by this video/podcast are the opinions of the author. Neither the use of this web site nor the transfer of information to or from this web site shall create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between Greg Lois, the presenter in the video/podcast, or LOIS LAW FIRM LLC and any person. You should not send any confidential information to this web site until after you have entered into a written agreement for the performance of legal services.

Please tune in to this episode of The Building BITE Podcast, as we hear from industry experts about key topics to help you be successful. The Building BITE hosts Chris Epps, LEED AP, and Mike Diercksen, CRIS, welcome Theresa Guertin, Partner and member of Management Committee at SDV Law. We begin the episode by learning about Theresa and how she found a home early in her career at SDV Law going from Intern to part of the Management Committee at the firm. Theresa takes the time to walk us through some notable cases that have been happening around the country, zeroing in on the impact they will have within the construction industry. Before leaving, Theresa gives our audience three key takeaways. 1. Best Defense Is a Good Offense: Regardless of where you sit at the table, it is important to understand the legal strategy and case law precedent that is currently being used in the construction industry. Having a clear understanding of what has happened will help you better prepare to advocate for yourself in future situations. 2. Contracts Must Be Clear: Take the time to review your contracts and modify them to determine which endorsements are and are not acceptable. Additionally, it is imperative that you review your endorsements and determine that they are fully capturing all of the necessary parties. 3. Clarity is Key: When reviewing your own policies, regardless of the case law in your jurisdiction, you want to make sure that faulty work can constitute as property damage as an occurrence. Taking back coverage should happen in your exclusions rather than your insuring agreements. To learn more about how you can better prepare your firm for the opportunities ahead, listen to our full podcast episode with Theresa on “A Focus on Case Law and the Evolving Landscape of Construction Insurance.” Please like, share, and subscribe to this podcast!

Chichi Lee of the Middlesex District Attorney's Office as they dive into the details of the decision and explore its implications for both First Amendment jurisprudence and practical issues in criminal and civil law, excerpted from MCLE's 5/30/2024 live webcast: Impact of SCOTUS Decision in Counterman v. Colorado on Defining a True Threat. The full program is available as an on-demand webcast or an MP3 here.  Get 24/7 instant access to hundreds of related eLectures like this one—and more—with a subscription to the MCLE OnlinePass. Learn more at www.mcle.org/onlinepass and start your free trial today! Connect with us on socials!Instagram: mcle.newenglandBluesky : mclenewengland.bsky.socialX (Formerly Twitter): MCLENewEnglandLinkedIn: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE│New England)Facebook: MCLE New England

In this episode, Rhys Davies (Kirkland & Ellis International LLP) joins Natalia Urzola (SJD Candidate, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University) to discuss the Court of Appeal's decision in The Hague, Netherlands, in Shell v. Milieudefensie. The court determined that while Shell has obligations to reduce its scope 3 emissions, it is not required to meet a specific reduction target. The podcast explores this ruling in the context of existing and upcoming EU regulatory frameworks, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. It also compares these EU requirements with climate-related regulations in other jurisdictions and examines the broader implications for global businesses. Join Rhys Davies and an expert panel at the ABA CLE Webinar, "Corporate Climate Reporting Requirements: A Fast-Changing Landscape," on Tuesday, December 10, 2024, from 12:00 to 1:30 PM CST. Don't miss this insightful discussion on the evolving landscape of corporate climate reporting. Register here: Corporate Climate Reporting Requirements: A Fast-Changing Landscape

In this episode, we feature our annual Halloween episode entitled Fright Court. In the first segment,  we feature Nelson Nauss, the Executive Director of The Ghost Guild, a North Carolina-based paranormal research organization. Nauss shares four court cases involving claims of the supernatural, where the courts didn't necessarily rule-out the paranormal elements of each lawsuit. In the second segment, Roger Winstead of the Judicial Branch Communications Office narrates the story of John Walker Stephens, a state senator who was murdered in 1870 in the Historic Caswell County Courthouse. Fright Court is an annual episode of All Things Judicial which showcases unexplained occurrences and macabre historical incidents in North Carolina's courthouses. This popular YouTube and podcast series won a first place award for videography from the North Carolina Association of Government Information Officers in 2019 and 2020. 

Nathaniel Mendell, Partner, Morrison Foerster, Kristopher Hult, Principal, Charles River Associates, and Jonathan Porter, Partner, Husch Blackwell, discuss some hot topics related to artificial intelligence in health care and accompanying case law trends. They cover issues related to antitrust, patient facing applications, claims processing and claims maximization, and enforcement efforts. Nathaniel, Kristopher, and Jonathan spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2024 Complexities of AI in Health Care in Chicago, IL.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

Exodus 21-23

In this episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over The Automobile Exception (Part 2)

In this episode of the Street Cop Podcast, Dennis Benigno, founder and CEO of Street Cop Training goes over The Automobile Exception.

Summary of Chapter 12: Case Law and Practical Applications. Chapter 12 explores the key principles of property law through landmark cases, real-world case studies, and practical problem-solving exercises. It emphasizes the importance of understanding legal precedents, such as Pierson v Post, Kelo v City of New London, and Shelley v Kraemer, which have shaped modern property law doctrines related to possession, eminent domain, and anti-discrimination in housing. Landmark Cases in Property Law highlight the evolution of legal concepts like ownership, possession, and public use. These foundational rulings offer key takeaways, such as defining what constitutes possession (as in Pierson v Post), broadening the scope of public use for eminent domain (as in Kelo v City of New London), and prohibiting racially restrictive covenants (as in Shelley v Kraemer). These cases serve as crucial reference points for current property disputes and legal reasoning. Practical Application through Case Studies offers a look at common property law disputes and their resolutions. Case studies cover topics such as Residential Lease Disputes, where tenants might contest retaliatory eviction or demand repairs under habitability laws. Adverse Possession Claims discuss how long-term, open use of land can transfer ownership from one party to another. Zoning Challenges explore legal battles between property owners and municipalities over land use regulations, often involving requests for zoning variances. In Hypotheticals and Problem-Solving, the chapter introduces exercises that require drafting legal documents, negotiating property rights, and resolving disputes. For example, exercises in Drafting Lease Agreements focus on including clauses about rent, repairs, security deposits, and tenant rights. Negotiating Easements teaches how to balance landowner and easement-holder interests, while Analyzing Title Issues delves into resolving disputes over unresolved liens or boundary issues. Chapter 12 provides a comprehensive exploration of landmark cases in property law, real-world case studies, and practical exercises that highlight the application of legal principles. Understanding the evolution of property law through significant cases, such as Pierson v Post and Kelo v City of New London, allows legal practitioners to navigate the complexities of modern property disputes. The chapter also emphasizes the importance of practical problem-solving skills in legal practice, from drafting lease agreements to resolving title issues, offering a well-rounded approach to mastering property law. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Join a panel of disability rights attorneys as they discuss an array of issues from current case law that directly impacts the lives of people who are blind or have low vision.

Robert and Lindsey recap opinions from the DCAs, the Florida Supreme Court, and the 11th Circuit.In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.110.In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.440, & 1.460.In re: Amends to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 and New Rule 1.202.In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130.BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida Off. of Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (intra-district conflict); see also A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal, Robert Scavone Jr., et al. Ripple v. CBS Corp., FSC (surviving spouse under Florida's wrongful death act).Harrell v. Friend, 1st DCA (modification of timesharing based on substantial change in circumstances).Askew v. Fla. Dep't Child. & Fams., FSC (misapplication jurisdiction).Fluhart v. Rasmussen, 5th DCA (preservation; failure to move to vacate magistrate's order).Pradaxay v. Kendrick, 6th DCA (med mal presuit; expert's specialty).Lange v. Houston Cnty. Ga., 11th Cir. (liability under Title VII for denying gender-affirming care).State v. Times, 1st DCA (4th Amendment; knock-and-announce).State v. Creller, FSC (Fourth Amendment; traffic stops). This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals. SAVE $500 off your first month by using referral code Summarily. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date/time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

One of the most prevalent identities of the Church in the Scriptures is that of a Family.  From the Case Law given in Leviticus 20: 4-5, we learn that we are our brothers keeper.  We also see through Redemptive History that health families multiply.  

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have limited protection from prosecution. ‘Do They Have a Case' with Wayne Resnick.

Kavita M. Goyal, Esq., of Rosen & Goyal, PC and Gregory A. Manousos, Esq., of Morgan, Brown & Joy LLP go into detail about how case law impacts workplace investigations, excerpted from MCLE's 10/18/2023 live webcast: Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations. The full program is available as an on-demand webcast or an MP3 here.  Get 24/7 instant access to hundreds of related eLectures like this one—and more—with a subscription to the MCLE OnlinePass. Learn more at www.mcle.org/onlinepass and start your free trial today! Connect with us on socials!Instagram: mcle.newenglandX (Formerly Twitter): MCLENewEnglandLinkedIn: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE│New England)Facebook: MCLE New EngalndThreads: mcle.newnengland

In the fifth episode of our PROPcast series, Heather Tomlinson and Anna Bevan-Jones discuss the impact of some of the latest case law on the 1954 Act, following a spate of interesting cases. Speakers: Heather Tomlinson, Principal Associate PSL | Anna Bevan-Jones, Principal Associate PSL  

Caselaw HousekeepingSouth Carolina domestic violence (4th Cir.); Afghan and Iraqi Allies, et al. v. Blinken, et al (D.C. Cir.); Jajati v. CBP (9th Cir.) Smith v. Garland, No. 22-954 (9th Cir. June 3, 2024)authentication of domestic records; 8 C.F.R. § 287.6; exhaustion; government failure to raise argument; CAT protection; Guyana Smith v. Garland, et. al, No. 23-2874 (7th Cir. June 3, 2024)arbitrary and capricious; motion to dismiss; 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) and (ii); summary of adverse evidence; marriage fraud; procedural due process; substantive due process Soni v. Jaddou, No. 23-3220 (7th Cir. June 6, 2024)I-601A waivers; delay; mandamus; action; INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v) A.P.A. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 21-10496 (11th Cir. June 6, 2024)one year asylum filing deadline; prior precedent rule; “satisfaction of the Attorney General” language in INA; mixed question of law and fact; transgender women; pattern or practice of persecution; Mexico Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Filevine"Your Complete Legal Tech Stack, Supercharged by AI"Promo: Immigration.AI/ImmigrationReview Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the Show.

The rise of poverty. ‘Do They Have a Case' with Wayne Resnick.

For our second episode of Working Smarter, we're talking to University of Toronto law professor Abdi Aidid about AI, the law, and the “possibility of an intelligent division of labor between human and machine.”Aidid is interested in how AI can help legal professionals be better at their jobs and improve the delivery of legal services. He's also the former vice president of legal research for Blue J—a legal tech company that uses machine learning to help lawyers review, analyze, and synthesize information faster and more efficiently than they could on their own—and the co-author of The Legal Singularity: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Law Radically Better.Hear Aidid talk about using AI to spend more time on the things humans do best, how lawyers are already using AI-powered tools, and why he thinks AI could actually make legal services more accessible and better able to meet people's needs. Show notes:To hear more from Abdi Aidid, read our previous interview on Work in Progress.Visit the University of Toronto website to learn more about Abdi Aidid and his work.The Legal Singularity: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Law Radically Better by Abdi Aidid and Benjamin Alarie is available now.Read the full transcript of this interview on our website. ~ ~ ~Working Smarter is a new podcast from Dropbox about how AI is changing the way we work and get stuff done.You can listen to more episodes of Working Smarter on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. To read more stories and past interviews, visit workingsmarter.aiThis show would not be possible without the talented team at Cosmic Standard, namely: our producers Samiah Adams and Aja Simpson, technical director Jacob Winik, and executive producer Eliza Smith. Special thanks to Benjy Baptiste for production assistance, our marketing and PR consultant Meggan Ellingboe, and our illustrators, Fanny Luor and Justin Tran. Our theme song was created by Doug Stuart. Working Smarter is hosted by Matthew Braga.Thanks for listening!

April 24, 2024 Hon. James Blake Scottsdale City Court Materials: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/tOuRfKkxm6 Webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlo3zu__PPw

For anyone familiar with the photo industry, the mammoth lawsuit between The Andy Warhol Foundation and renowned music photographer Lynn Goldsmith should be no secret. This complex battle over the rights to her 1981 portrait of the artist formerly known as Prince lasted seven years and went all the way to the Supreme Court.   But do you know the circumstances behind her original portrait session with the famously reserved musician, and were you aware of all the misinformation about this case that was disseminated in both legal documents and the press?   Lynn is a longtime friend of the show, and our 2017 episode about her extensive, long-term work with the band Kiss, among other crazy stories, was a fan favorite. We invited her back to discuss this case in 2022, when the Supreme Court first agreed to hear it, but heeding the advice of her legal counsel she wisely declined our offer at that time.    In May 2023, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Lynn's favor in a 7-2 decision, which has already been shown to benefit others seeking remedies for the misuse of their creative works.   Yet, while this landmark decision happened last year, the case itself was not officially resolved until very recently—Friday, March 15, 2024, to be exact—a day some might recognize as the Ides of March.   Now that the final resolution has been signed, sealed, and delivered, we felt it was a perfect opportunity for Lynn to give us a recap of this David vs Goliath battle, with all its complexities and underlying bias.   From details about the Fair Use doctrine, to the matter of copyright registration, to her thoughts about the current photographer community, to the importance of standing up for one's rights, Lynn provides a clear and insightful assessment of one of the most traumatic and threatening experiences that any independent artist can face, as only she can.   To her very core, Lynn believes creativity can make anything possible, an ideology she sums up aptly at the end of our chat.   “I felt like some higher power picked me for this,” she says. “And that I had to make myself feel like a 1940s film with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, where there was going to be a happy ending, that everything would work out just fine, and that I was going to prevail.”   Guest: Lynn Goldsmith Top shot © Lynn Goldsmith   Episode Timeline: 2:50: The backstory to Lynn Goldsmith's 1981 photo session with Prince. 7:17: Shooting both color and black-and-white in the days of film, a separate camera for each option. 11:15: Vanity Fair's 1984 use of Lynn's black and white portrait for artist reference.   13:47: Lynn's discovery of the original image use after Prince died in 2016.  19:50: The value of saving detailed records of licensing agreements for future reference. 23:14: The preemptive lawsuit the Andy Warhol Foundation filed against Lynn, and the misinformation contained in the Federal court filing. 32:15: Lynn discusses the Fair Use doctrine and the matter of copyright registration in relation to her case. 36:43: Episode Break 38:04: Meeting with the Andy Warhol Foundation and the deal on offer to resolve the lawsuit. 44:40: Lynn's thoughts about the current photographer community and the importance of standing up for your rights. 48:09: The multiple rounds of the Prince portrait lawsuit, from the first Federal case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. 56:29: Uneven reporting about the lawsuit in the press, with the photo press being fearful to write anything, and the art press releasing misinformation without fact checks. 1:00:27: Behind the scenes at the Supreme Court hearing, the effects of the 7 – 2 decision, as well as Justice Kagan's written opinion. 1:08:48: Lynn's thoughts about generative AI. Guest Bio: Lynn Goldsmith is a multi-awarded portrait photographer whose work has appeared on and in between the covers of top magazines worldwide. Her subjects have varied from entertainment to sports, film directors to authors, and from top celebrities to the ordinary man on the street. Her forty years of photography are both an investigation into the nature of the human spirit, as well as the natural wonders of our planet. As the author of 12 major photo books, Lynn's images are also featured in numerous museum collections, yet her professional achievements are in no way limited to the world of photography. She is the youngest member ever accepted into the Director's Guild of America (DGA), where she achieved several firsts—from the first rock show on network television to the first music documentary released as a theatrical short, and more. In the mid-seventies, Lynn stopped directing to concentrate fully on photography. By the early 80s, she departed from both photography and film, to become the first ‘optic-music' artist. Using the a.k.a. Will Powers, she produced the album "Dancing for Mental Health" on Island Records. Her debut album won critical acclaim and her single, Kissing with Confidence, reached #3 on the British charts. The wide range of Lynn's talents, skills and achievements are products of a belief she holds constant: Creativity is based on breaking limiting thought patterns, thus making anything possible.   Stay Connected: Lynn Goldsmith's Website: https://lynngoldsmith.com/menu.html Rock and Roll Photo Gallery Website: https://rockandrollphotogallery.com/ Lynn Goldsmith's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lynngoldsmith/ Lynn Goldsmith's Twitter: https://twitter.com/goldsmithphoto Lynn Goldsmith's Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lynngoldsmithartist/ Lynn Goldsmith's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lynn-goldsmith/ Lynn Goldsmith's GoFundMe Campaign Lynn Goldsmith's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Goldsmith Pelican 1510TP Carry-On Case: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1241003-REG/pelican_015100_0050_110_1510tp_carry_on_case_with.html

March 1 marked the culmination of an ambitious and audacious project to digitize and provide free and open access to all official court decisions ever published in the United States. Called the Caselaw Access Project, it came about, starting in 2015, through an unusual partnership between Harvard Law School and a Silicon Valley-based legal research startup called Ravel Law.  The massive undertaking involved scanning nearly 40 million pages from some 40,000 law books and converting it all into machine-readable text files, creating a collection that included 6.4 million published cases, some dating as far back as 1658. While Harvard's Library Innovation Lab did all the work, Ravel — and later LexisNexis after it acquired Ravel in 2017  — footed the bill.   Harvard completed that digitization in 2018, making those cases available for free to the general public, but until March 1, 2024, any commercial use of the cases was restricted by the agreement between Harvard and Ravel (and later LexisNexis). The March 1 milestone marked the full release of the cases, free of any restrictions.  On today's LawNext, we will get the inside story of the history of the Caselaw Access Project and talk about the significance of this final lifting of all restrictions on the data. How did the partnership ever come about in the first place? What was the scanning process like? What does this data mean for the future of access to law, particularly in the face of generative AI?  To do all of that, host Bob Ambrogi is joined by three guests who played instrumental roles in the project: Daniel Lewis, the cofounder and CEO of Ravel Law, who is now CEO of the contract review company LegalOn.  Adam Ziegler, the former director of Harvard's Library Innovation Lab and the Caselaw Access Project (who recently wrote a first-person account of the project).. Jack Cushman, the current director of the Library Innovation Lab.  Nik Reed, the cofounder and COO of Ravel Law, and now senior vice president of product, R&D and design at Knowable, was also scheduled to be on the show, but had to cancel as of the recording time.  Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks.   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.