Law school of Georgetown University
Ep#314 If we get to a litigation somebody has lost already with Brian Boyd As a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee, Brian Boyd helps clients with real estate, construction, and business matters. It is with that knowledge that he and his wife, Dawn, have grown their portfolio to a six-figure income. Brian earned his BA from the University of Tennessee -Chattanooga, a JD from Samford University's Cumberland School of La,w and an LLM in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center. Brian lives in Franklin, Tennessee, with his wife and son, Connor, and their three dogs, Bourbon, Bailey, and Bella. Key Highlights- Best practices around structuring a partnership- There is no win in partnership disputes- Best practices to structure LLC from tax POV- Tax-friendly states- Investing in construction-based investment projects- Best and worst investing experience- Pay attention to your property managersConnect with Brian Boyd- Website: https://www.boydwills.com/team/Follow Rama on socials!LinkedIn | Meta | Twitter | InstagramConnect to Rama KrishnaE-mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgWebsite: www.ushacapital.com Register for this year's Multifamily AP360 virtual conference - multifamilyap360.com
On this episode of Banking on KC, Laura Jackson and Larry Rouse of The Mission Project join host Kelly Scanlon to discuss how the organization provides programming, support and social opportunities to help adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities live independent, meaningful lives. About Laura Jackson Laura has been a passionate leader and advocate for full inclusion in the community for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities field for more than 20 years. A Kansas City native, she began her journey as a direct care support worker as an undergraduate at the University of Kansas, caring for a single mother of four children, two of which had autism and cerebral palsy. This experience launched a lifelong focus for her life's work. After graduating from KU in 2002, she worked at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Institute for Human Development for 14 years, securing foundation and government funding for projects that helped instill self-determination and self-advocacy in public policy practices at local, state and national levels. She has also served as a national advisor to Self Advocates Becoming Empowered, was awarded a fellowship in Washington, DC, to study and shape national disability policy, as well as direct several federal, state, and foundation-funded projects. Ms. Jackson now brings all of that experience and drive to her leadership as executive director of the Mission Project. Laura also holds a master's degree in public administration with an emphasis in non-profit management. About Larry Rouse Larry Rouse helped found the Mission Project and is the parent of a program participant. Larry has a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center and practiced law with Stinson, Mag and Rouse, Hendricks for 50 years. Larry was the president of the Lawyer's Association of Kansas City. He has also contributed his talents as a board member for the Carriage Club, the Saddle & Sirloin Club and the George Washington Carver Community Center. Larry and his wife June also started the Down Syndrome Guild of Kansas City. Country Club Bank – Member FDIC
Please join us for a LIVE Q&A with the hosts of the All Things Co-op podcast on Friday, January 27! Learn more and RSVP: https://www.democracyatwork.info/ask_live_all_things_co_op In this episode of All Things Co-op, Kevin talks to movement lawyer and Clinical Law Professor Julian Hill. Julian's research and teaching focuses on how law can be used as a tool to support the solidarity economy and social movements. Kevin and Julian discuss Julian's background and how they got involved in cooperatives and the solidarity economy, what a movement lawyer is, the many contradictions of laws and lawyering, what the solidarity economy needs in order to grow, some resources around co-ops and movement lawyering for interested listeners to explore, and more. About our guest: Julian Hill is currently an assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law, but they're also a lifelong learner, community organizer, artist, and attorney. Julian joined Georgia State after completing a two-year fellowship as a Clinical Teaching Fellow and Supervising Attorney with the Social Enterprise and Nonprofit Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. They have also partnered with community-based organizations to co-facilitate political education and co-develop policies and campaigns, facilitating workshops, both in English and Spanish, on worker cooperatives and the solidarity economy with Law 4 Black Lives, the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Democracy at Work Institute, and the New York City Network of Worker Cooperatives, among others. To learn more: https://law.gsu.edu/profile/julian-m-hill/ To learn more about the Solidarity Economy Graphic: https://designforsustainability.medium.com/thriving-communities-the-solidarity-economy-464ef874f51f
As a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee, Brian Boyd helps clients with real estate, construction, and business matters. It is with that knowledge that he and his wife, Dawn, have grown their portfolio to a six figure income. Brian earned his BA from the University of Tennessee - Chattanooga, a JD from Samford University's Cumberland School of Law and an LLM in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center. You can find his book: Replace Your Income (A Lawyer's Guide to Finding, Funding, and Managing Real Estate Investments) on amazon! Here's some of the topics we covered: Why Real Estate Is An Incredible Tax Haven The Tax Benefits Of Multifamily The Tax Laws The Encourage Investments The Economy Is a Buyer's Market Buying Real Estate During “The Dip” Getting Over The Hump Of The First Deal To find out more about partnering or investing in a multifamily deal: Text Partner to 72345 or email Partner@RodKhleif.com Please Review and Subscribe
Over the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in E&C programs when it comes to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do these recent reports, policies, and guidance mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices Susan Divers is joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings. Listen in as the two discuss the recent guidance from the US Department of Justice as well as DOJ policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture. To learn more, download the 2022 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report. Guest: Jon Drimmer Jonathan C. Drimmer is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice and is based in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. He resolves complex cross-border problems with the benefit of having sat in every chair at the table: senior legal officer for a global 500 company, federal prosecutor, and seasoned advocate. He is a recognized international expert on anticorruption and business and human rights, and is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on issues related to both topics. Before joining Paul Hastings, he was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Barrick Gold, one of the world's largest mining companies, with operations on five continents. The compliance program he built at Barrick has served as an industry standard, and elements of it have largely been duplicated by numerous other companies inside and outside of the extractive sector. Mr. Drimmer has directed hundreds of investigations around the world related to anti-corruption, human rights, AML and export controls, tax controversies, environmental incidents, public disclosures, fatalities and health and safety injuries, sexual harassment and discrimination, and other areas. He has represented companies and individuals in numerous government enforcement proceedings in the U.S. and overseas, in relation to FCPA and bribery claims, human rights issues, and a wide array of other matters. He has participated in dozens of major disputes in the U.S., Canada, and abroad, including transnational torts, anti-corruption claims, environmental cases, international arbitrations, tax disputes, construction claims, and land controversies. He previously served in the Justice Department as Deputy Director of the Criminal Division's Office of Special Investigations, where he led cross-border investigations, first-chaired numerous prosecutions, and argued federal appeals. He was a partner at an Am Law 100 law firm in Washington, D.C., a former Bristow Fellow in the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General, and a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Drimmer served on the board of directors of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative from 2012-2014, and again from 2015-2017. He served on the board of TRACE International from 2012 until 2018, and currently sits on the board of the TRACE Foundation. He has also taught international law courses at Georgetown University Law Center for nearly 20 years. Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.
Our Body Politic celebrates the new year by re-airing our 100th episode. Farai reflects on some of the show's most impactful moments of news and political coverage over the past two years with OBP regular contributors Karen Attiah, columnist for the Washington Post and Tiffany Jeffers, associate professor at Georgetown University Law Center. The trio examines the current political atmosphere, its origins, and reflect on how issues like reproductive rights, the COVID-19 crisis, and the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Insurrection could impact this year's midterms elections and why cultivating hope and safeguarding democracy is more important than ever.
We continue our Best of 2022 episodes with an episode from the Our Body Politic podcast, hosted by Farai Chideya.Our Body Politic celebrates its 100th episode. Host Farai Chideya reflects on some of the show's most impactful moments of news and political coverage over the past two years with OBP regular contributors Karen Attiah, columnist for the Washington Post and Tiffany Jeffers, associate professor at Georgetown University Law Center. The trio examines the current political atmosphere, its origins, and reflect on how issues like reproductive rights, the COVID-19 crisis, and the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Insurrection could impact this year's midterms elections and why cultivating hope and safeguarding democracy is more important than ever. Additional InformationOur Body Politic PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group
The Islamic Republic has imposed a near total blockout of independent information coming out of the Iran. While protestors search for savvy workarounds, the regime only further cracks down with heightened censorship and surveillance. This week, host Elisa is joined by Shervin Taheran, JD Candidate at the Georgetown University Law Center. Through her research with Georgetown's National Security Technology Incubator Project, she brings extensive analysis of the risks and effects of social media in Iran. How does the Islamic Republic treat and control information? What communication technologies are available to protestors, and are these methods aiding in their mission? Shervin Taheran is a JD Candidate at the Georgetown University Law Center and a Research Consortium member of the school's National Security Technology Incubator Project: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/national-security-center/incubator/natsec-tech/shervin-taheran/
2022 is nearly over, and it's been a wild year for privacy. In this episode, Reema sits down with Keir Lamont, Senior Counsel and U.S. Legislation Lead at the Future of Privacy Forum. Keir recaps what happened in the world of privacy legislation in 2022, and what the tech policy world can expect out of privacy legislation in the New Year. Keir Lamont, CIPP/US, is a Senior Counsel with the Future of Privacy Forum's U.S. legislation team. In this role, he supports policymaker education and independent analysis concerning federal, state, and local consumer privacy laws and regulations. Previously, Keir held positions at CCIA and the Program on Data and Governance at Ohio State University. He holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in Political Science & Economics from the University of Florida. Follow him on Twitter @keir_lamont. Check out Keir's latest blog post, “Five Big Questions (and Zero Predictions) for the U.S. State Privacy Landscape in 2023” on the FPF website. If you would like to sponsor an episode or propose a guest for the show, get in touch with us: email@example.com If you'd like to support the show, please donate to the Foundry here.
The 2020 election was…unique. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many states took steps to make voting safer and more accessible. After that, we saw a backlash and some states erected barriers to voting access. The 2022 midterm election then offered an opportunity to assess our voting landscape. In this episode, we discuss what we learned from the 2020 presidential election, the 2022 midterms, and how we can work together to make the promise of democracy real for us all.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Trevor Potter is the founder and President of Campaign Legal Center. He leads CLC in its efforts to advance democracy through law. A Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Trevor was general counsel to John McCain's 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns and an adviser to the drafters of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. To many, he is perhaps best known for his recurring appearances on The Colbert Report as the lawyer for Stephen Colbert's super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, during the 2012 election, a program that won a Peabody Award for excellence in reporting on money in politics. Trevor has provided testimony and written statements to Congress on federal election proposals, campaign finance regulation and, recently, the effects of the January 6th attack on our democracy. He has also taught campaign finance law at the University of Virginia School of Law and Oxford University, and he has appeared widely in national broadcast and print media. During the 2020 election season, Trevor was named to the cross-partisan National Task Force on Election Crises. Aseem Mulji is Legal Counsel for Redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. He litigates voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance cases, and supports advocacy efforts to improve democracy at the federal, state and local levels. Aseem previously worked at the Participatory Budgeting Project, where he supported efforts to expand participatory democracy in the U.S. At CLC, Aseem has served as counsel in voting rights and redistricting cases such as TN NAACP v. Lee (M.D. Tenn.), VoteAmerica v. Schwab (D. Kans.), and Soto Palmer v. Hobbs (W.D. Wash.). He supports CLC's actions against the Federal Election Commission for failures to enforce campaign finance laws. He also works to advance various democracy reforms, including state-level voting rights acts, ranked-choice voting, public financing and measures to ensure ballot access for justice-involved voters. Derek Perkinson is the New York State Field Director and Crisis Director for the National Action Network (NAN). He oversees NAN's advocacy and organizing efforts throughout the state of New York, the thirteen New York City chapters and coordinates national crisis concerns. Derek was recently a part of the coalition which helped bring about the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York. He has moderated and served as a panelist on numerous occasions to speak up against discriminatory practices. Before joining NAN, Derek worked at the Black Institute – a think tank and nonprofit advocacy organization – where he served as the Chief Community Organizer in their New York City office. He has years of experience organizing communities of color to advocate and engage in political campaigns, criminal justice reform, economic justice, census, and voting rights, civic engagement, and immigration policy.Gilda Daniels is a Voting Rights Consultant for Campaign Legal Center. She provides her expertise and support on CLC's Voting Rights cases. Gilda has served as a deputy chief in the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. She has more than a decade of voting rights experience, bringing cases that involved various provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and other voting rights statutes. Before beginning her voting rights career, Gilda was a staff attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights, representing death row inmates and bringing prison condition cases.Links:New York Joins Other States in Enacting State-Level Voting Rights Act (Campaign Legal Center)Virtual Event Video — Barriers to the Ballot Box: A Conversation with Author Gilda Daniels (Campaign Legal Center)Ranked Choice Voting (Campaign Legal Center)About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. You can visit us on the web at campaignlegalcenter.org.
On this week's show, I welcome Garen Meguerian back to the show. We'll be digging into Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court case that could upend American democracy as we know it. In the Bucks County Beacon, Meguerian warned that the fringe constitutional argument at the heart of this case known as the independent state legislature theory paves the way for single-party rule and disenfranchisement of voters. Meguerian is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer licensed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. He has represented clients in both state and federal courts. He is AV peer review rated from Martindale-Hubbell reflecting achievement at the height of professional excellence and integrity. Meguerian received his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1995, where he served as an Associate Editor of the American Criminal Law Review. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Honors Philosophy from Villanova University in 1992, where he was awarded the University's Valedictory Medallion. Meguerian is a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association, and the Chester County Bar Association. LINKS: "The US Supreme Court Intends To Dismantle Democracy," Garen Meguerian. Bucks County Beacon https://bit.ly/3VWHzwo "Moore v. Harper, Explained," Eliza Sweren-Becker & Ethan Herenstein. The Brennan Center for Justice https://bit.ly/3Hm8JJi "Explaining Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court Case That Could Upend Democracy," Ari Savitzky & Kristi Graunke. ACLU https://bit.ly/3VStRea You can support this show by becoming a patron for as little as $5/month at https://www.patreon.com/rcpress. Don't Let Paul Martino & Friends Buy Our Schools and push extremist politics in our community. Raging Chicken has teamed up with LevelField to launch a truly community-rooted PAC to invest in organizing, support local and state-wide progressive candidates, and unmask the toxic organizations injecting our communities with right-wing extremism. We're putting small-dollar donations to work to beat back the power of Big Money. You can get more information and drop your donation at https://ragingchicken.levelfield.net/. Join our Discord to continue the conversation all week long: https://discord.gg/BnjRNz3u
Senator Dan Sullivan, along with 11 other Republican Senators, voted recently to enshrine same-sex "marriage" into Federal law. The consequences are real and forthcoming.As my guest today on "I'm Glad You Said That", Travis Weber, has described what Sullivan and others like him did in terms of a giant boulder and a few pebbles. Republicans who claim they were protecting people of faith in voting for this law opened the floodgate for litigation and harassment that will be like an enormous rock rolling downhill onto those with traditional, Biblical views on marriage. The supposed protections ? Those are the pebbles.And Travis knows this subject well. Travis Weber, J.D., LL.M., is Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, where he oversees policy development and engagement with federal and state government officials on issues related to life, family, and religious liberty.Before joining FRC, Travis practiced law in the areas of civil rights, criminal defense, and military law. He holds a J.D. from Regent University School of Law, where he served as the Notes & Comments Editor on Law Review. Travis also graduated with an LL.M. in International Law (with distinction) and a Certificate in International Human Rights Law from Georgetown University Law Center.Travis previously served as a Navy pilot after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy, where he was captain of the Intercollegiate Sailing Team and a two-time College Sailing All-American.Hope you can tune in.Support the show
Voting in person is still the most popular way to vote for many people. Whether it's a personal preference, a cultural experience in one's community, or an opportunity to get help from poll workers, millions of Americans head to the polls in person on the first Tuesday in November. In this episode we learn about the history of Election Day (seriously, why a weekday in late fall?) and the challenges that many Americans face when they try to vote in person.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Valencia Richardson is Legal Counsel for Voting Rights at Campaign Legal Center. Her work focuses on addressing local-level election compliance under the Voting Rights Act in the Deep South. Prior to joining CLC, Valencia was a voting rights organizer and activist. Before law school, Valencia was a Fulbright grantee to Mexico and a student voting rights organizer for the Andrew Goodman Foundation, for which she served as a board member. She is the author of a nonfiction book, “Young and Disaffected,” and published “Voting While Poor: Reviving the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and Eliminating the Modern-Day Poll Tax” in the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy. Valencia has litigated various voting rights cases in state and federal court, including Pascua Yaqui v. Rodriguez, Pettaway v. Galveston County, as well as Aguilar v. Yakima County, the first case litigated under the Washington Voting Rights Act.Samantha Kelty is a Staff Attorney with the Native American Rights Fund in its Washington, DC, office. Samantha litigates to eliminate obstacles to voting faced by Native Americans. At NARF, she has successfully litigated or settled major victories for Native American voting rights, including securing compliance with the National Voter Registration Act in South Dakota, ballot assistance in Montana and Nevada, ballot receipt extension deadlines in Nevada, and on-reservation polling places in Montana and Nevada. She also represented amicus curiae National Congress of American Indians before the United States Supreme Court in advocating for the use of ballot collection and equal access by Native American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In addition to litigation, she is a member of the Native American Voting Rights Coalition, a nationwide alliance of advocates, lawyers, academics, and tribal representatives that addresses Native American voting issues nationwide.Terry Ao Minnis is the senior director of the census and voting programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC. Terry is a widely respected authority on voting rights. She was one of the key leaders in the campaigns to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006 as well as to address the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Appointed to the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Elections in 2020, Terry was named one of the four living 2020 National Women's History Alliance Honorees: Valiant Women of the Vote. She is one of NOW's 100 Sisters of Suffrage as part of their celebration of the centennial anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment.Links:Voting Must Be Accessible (Campaign Legal Center)Why the U.S. Needs Equitable Access to In-Person Voting (Campaign Legal Center)Giving Voters Time Off To Vote Would Help Promote Fair Representation (Campaign Legal Center)Fair Fight Action v. Raffensperger (Campaign Legal Center)Native Voters Still Face Obstacles, White House Outlines a Path Forward (Campaign Legal Center)Securing Safe Voting Options on the Pascua Yaqui Reservation (AZ) (Campaign Legal Center)About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. You can visit us on the web at campaignlegalcenter.org.
Let's face it: Work can be complicated. Layoffs are widespread, and workplace issues like harassment and discrimination can be daunting. But then there are also less scandalous topics like non-compete agreements and new offer contracts. This week on LEAVE YOUR MARK, I talk with Peter Rahbar, my friend and personal attorney, and we unpack all of this. Peter is the founder of The Rahbar Group and has represented individuals and major companies in nearly every aspect of employment law and other workplace issues. After almost twenty years of representing major international corporate clients in high-profile matters, including over a decade as the chief employment attorney for Hearst, Peter has established a boutique employment practice representing individuals, including C-Suite executives, media personalities, and other professionals working in finance, media, sports, real estate, fashion, and tech. Peter has a unique perspective on workplace dynamics and trends due to the broad scope of his practice. He has real-time insight into hiring trends through his extensive experience in the negotiation and drafting of employment agreements, talent agreements, and separation agreements, and his specialty of representing individuals in negotiating non-competition agreements. Peter is also a tireless advocate for equal treatment in the workplace – representing and advising individuals in the negotiation, investigation, litigation, and mediation of employment disputes, including employment discrimination and harassment claims. Peter is based in New York City. He received his undergraduate degree from Duke University and his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. Pete and I dive into every major employment law issue in this episode and cover their do's and don'ts. This is the episode you will save and play on repeat. The big topics we cover are layoffs, non-compete agreements, pay transparency laws, how to deal with harassment in the workplace, and so much more. *This episode will provide commentary and tactical career advice from a workplace expert. It is not intended to provide legal advice or counsel.
Hosts Niranjan Seshadri and Eric Tarosky discuss the process and challenges in crafting public policies. They are joined by Professor Jeffrey Crowley, a health policy expert at the O'Neill Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center. Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, click here. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Thank you to our Sponsor! The George Washington University Paralegal Studies Program: As Washington D.C.'s only academic-credit bearing paralegal studies program, the master's degree in Paralegal Studies is more than a powerful credential: it's a signal to the best employers that you withstood the academic rigor of one of the nation's best paralegal programs. George Washington University's Paralegal Studies program has met the approval of the American Bar Association for the excellence of its curriculum, faculty and administration, the only such program granted the designation in Washington, D.C. GW joins 260 programs nationally that have met the organization's requirements. Visit https://www.cps.gwu.edu/paralegal-studies-master-professional-studies to learn more.
Steven Salop is a Professor of Economics and Law (Emeritus) at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, where he teaches antitrust law and economics. His research and consulting focuses on antitrust, competition and regulation. He has written numerous articles in various areas of antitrust and competition which take a modern “Post-Chicago” approach.He recently co-wrote a paper with Jennifer E. Sturiale laying out a proposal for how antitrust enforcers and courts can fix "Litigating the Fix."
Voting at a polling place on Election Day may be easy for some, but many voters face significant challenges. Transportation, work schedules, and the location of polling places can make it tough for voters with families, jobs, a disability, and more to vote in person.During the 2020 presidential election, when the COVID-19 pandemic was in full force, many states expanded vote-by-mail access to protect voters from getting sick. There were also drive-thru voting and ballot drop-boxes, which opened many voters' eyes to how accessible voting could be.In this episode we look at how vote-by-mail works, why it's secure and accurate and how it helps more voters make their voice heard.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Reynaldo (Rey) Valenzuela has been working in the field of elections for over 32 years. He currently serves as the Director of Mail-In Voting and Election Services for Maricopa County, Arizona that presently serves over 2.4 million registered voters. He supports the administration of several election processes to include the candidate/campaign filing division, customer service division, early voting department, and shared oversight of the tabulation process. Rey serves or has served on various election related panels for various organizations to include as a local election official representative for Arizona on the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) or as a deputy member of the Election Officials of Arizona (EOA) Association. He also served for 15 years as one of the two Representatives from Arizona on the Election Assistance Commission Standards Board.Jonathan Diaz is Senior Legal Counsel for Voting Rights at Campaign Legal Center. He litigates voting rights cases on behalf of voters across the United States, and works to advance laws and policies that expand the freedom to vote for all Americans. Before joining CLC, Jonathan was a litigation associate in the New York office of Jenner & Block LLP, where he litigated a variety of civil and criminal matters. He represents voting rights plaintiffs and amici in numerous cases, including Raysor v. Lee, VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger, Thompson v. Alabama and Brnovich v. DNC. Jonathan also participates on behalf of CLC on a number of democracy reform coalitions, coordinating CLC's work with partner organizations at the national, state and local levels. He also frequently provides commentary on voting rights and election law issues in the media; he has been quoted in publications including the New York Times, the Miami Herald and ProPublica, and has appeared on Univision, NPR and CNN, where he was an election law analyst for the 2020 election cycle.Michelle Bishop leads a team to support NDRN's national network on voting rights and voter engagement for people with disabilities. She also works in coalition with the civil rights community in Washington, DC to ensure strong federal policy regarding voting rights and election administration from a voter-centric and intersectional perspective. Michelle loves democracy so much that she registered to vote on her 18th birthday, even though it wasn't an election year. It is ill-advised to get her started talking about the historical significance of the first peaceful transfer of the US presidency or the intricacies of the Electoral Count Act. Disabled herself, Michelle comes to NDRN with over 15 years experience in the disability vote.Links:Here's Why You Should Have the Freedom To Vote By Mail (Campaign Legal Center)Demystifying Vote-by-Mail for All Americans (Campaign Legal Center)Combatting State-Level Bills Restricting The Freedom To Vote (Campaign Legal Center)Voter Participation Nonprofits Are Crucial for Democracy. We Must Protect Their Work. (Campaign Legal Center)About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. You can visit us on the web at campaignlegalcenter.org.
Key Takeaways The heart follows the habit. Nothing, in the household, is normal, until it is. Put conversation in simple places, like car rides, so we don't become people of absence. Pause prayers before moments of discipline. dadAWESOME We're on a mission to add LIFE to the dad life. We're passionate about helping dads live fully alive as they lead their kids to God's awesomeness. | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook Justin Earley Justin Whitmel Earley is a lawyer, author and speaker from Richmond, VA. He is married to Lauren and has four sons – Whit, Asher, Coulter and Shep. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a degree in English Literature before spending four years in Shanghai, China, as a missionary. Justin got his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center and he now runs his own business law practice in Richmond, Virginia at Earley Legal Group. His book, The Common Rule – Habits of Purpose for an Age of Distraction, was published with InterVarsity Press in 2019. He frequently speaks at businesses and legal events on habits, technology and mental health; and at churches and conferences on habits, spiritual formation and parenting. His second book, Habits of the Household – Practicing the Story of God in Everyday Family Rhythms, released with Zondervan in November of 2021. Justin also writes fiction and poetry, and is working on a children's book. Key Quotes (Full Transcript of the Conversation Here) 22:53 - "The idea of a pause prayers, before approaching a moment of discipline, have a short emphasis on short moment of prayer in your head, just to say, Lord, help me discipline this child like you discipline me, which is full of grace and truth, right? And it could just be Lord help, but some way of looking up to God before you look down at them so that you can be more like the God who parents you as you parent them." 27:49 - "I want to step on that so much because the fact that you fight with your kids or your spouse is completely ordinary. That's what happens to everyone in every family, whether you reconcile with your spouse and your kids, it's completely unordinary, that's what barely ever happens. And that's why families often go the way they do, in dysfunction. So the question of a Christian household is not whether we fight, we all do, question of a Christian household is whether we reconcile to them the way God reconciles to us. You need habits for that." Conversation Links Justin's Website The Earley Legal Group The Common Rule Habits of the Household Links from dadAWESOME https://dadawesome.org/life/ Make a Donation to dadAWESOME Join the dadAWESOME Prayer Team Receive weekly encouragement by texting "dad" to 651-370-8618
The right to vote is a basic American freedom, but for people with felony convictions, figuring out if they can vote is a huge task. This episode looks at the history of felony disenfranchisement laws and explains how denying the freedom to vote to an entire class of citizens hurts voters, communities and our democracy. Also, Tennessee voters share their experiences regaining the freedom to vote after a felony conviction.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Dawn Harrington is the founder and Executive Director of Free Hearts, an organization which was created to reunite families and keep families together by providing support, education, and advocacy, organizing families impacted by incarceration. During her time in prison, Dawn was disturbed by the impact of incarceration on families, especially moms and kids, and was inspired to make a difference upon her release. Today, Dawn is also Director of Special Projects of National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, Just Leadership USA fellow, and advisory board member for Nashville Defenders and Unheard Voices Outreach. She has a Bachelor's degree in Recording Industry Management and Public Relations from Middle Tennessee State University and a Master of Business Administration degree in Information Technology from Bethel University.Blair Bowie manages CLC's Restore Your Vote project, which focuses on ending felony disenfranchisement by democratizing access to rights restoration services and working with directly impacted communities to dismantle systemic barriers to the ballot box through advocacy, litigation and policy change. Prior to joining CLC, Blair worked for five years as an advocate and organizer with the aim of increasing political equality and accountability. As the democracy advocate with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, she co-authored several reports on the post-Citizens United impact of money in politics, coordinated campaigns and messaging across the organization's chapters, and served as its federal lobbyist on campaign finance reform.Gicola Lane works directly with CLC's Restore Your Vote team to restore voting rights to people with past felony convictions through direct services, community empowerment and public education. Prior to joining CLC, Gicola served as a community organizer for more than five years for nonprofits, campaigns and grassroots groups. From 2018 to 2021, as a statewide organizer for Free Hearts, a Tennessee-based nonprofit led by formerly incarcerated women that organizes and provides support to families impacted by incarceration, Gicola trained hundreds of people across the state of Tennessee on the rights restoration process, and helped numerous people restore their right to vote. Milton Thomas was born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee and now works as a maintenance worker at the Martha O'Bryan Center. The Martha O'Bryan Center is a faith-based organization which provides assistance to residents in Nashville experiencing poverty, and Milton enjoys being able to help his community through his job there. He is passionate about voting and has voted in every election since having his voting rights restored in 2020. He would like to thank Gicola Lane, Keeda Haynes, and Howard Gentry for being very instrumental in him getting his voting rights back. Milton is also the father of five children.Links:Success! Study Shows That CLC's Restore Your Vote Outreach Increases Voter Participation (Campaign Legal Center)CLC's Restore Your Vote Toolkit Cited As Key Resource in DOJ Guide (Campaign Legal Center)CLC Urges Federal Agencies To Offer Greater Assistance with Voting Rights Restoration (Campaign Legal Center)About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. You can visit us on the web at campaignlegalcenter.org.
America is a democracy, but is that democracy accessible to every American? When the Constitution was ratified, only white men who owned property could vote, which was only 6% of the population. In the more than 200 years since then, many Americans are still being denied the right to have a say in key decisions that impact our lives. In this episode Simone talks with Brittany Carter from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund about the history of voting rights, and how African Americans risked their lives and safety for the freedom to vote. Then, CLC lawyers Paul Smith and Danielle Lang explain what voting access looks like today, and what barriers still exist for many Americans including people with disabilities, people of color and those with felony convictions.Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at CLC, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Paul Smith has four decades of experience litigating a wide range of cases. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 21 times and secured numerous victories, including Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case. In addition, Paul has argued several voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, including Vieth v. Jubelirer and Gill v. Whitford, involving partisan gerrymandering, LULAC v. Perry, involving the legality of Texas's mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, involving the constitutionality of a voter identification law. Paul previously served as a partner in the law firm of Jenner & Block, where he was chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and co-chair of the firm's Election Law and Redistricting Practice. Danielle Lang has worked as a civil rights litigator her entire career and now leads CLC's voting rights team dedicated to safeguarding the freedom to vote. She has led litigation against Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law, Florida's modern-day poll tax for rights restoration, Arizona's burdensome registration requirements, North Dakota's voter ID law targeting Native communities, and numerous successful challenges to signature match policies for absentee ballots. Previously, Danielle served as a Skadden Fellow in the Employment Rights Project of Bet Tzedek Legal Services in Los Angeles, where she represented low-wage immigrant workers in wage and hour, discrimination, and human trafficking matters. From 2012 to 2013, Danielle clerked for Judge Richard A. Paez on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Brittany Carter is the Political Participation Fellow at LDF, focusing on voting rights litigation and voter protection efforts. She is a member of the legal team litigating Milligan v. Merrill, a high-profile case which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, charging that the congressional redistricting map drawn by the Alabama legislature denied Black residents equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice. Prior to LDF, Brittany served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.Links:Voting Must Be Accessible (Campaign Legal Center)To Make Elections Accessible, Modernize Voter Registration (Campaign Legal Center)About CLCDemocracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization which advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American's right to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process. You can visit us on the web at campaignlegalcenter.org.
Every election cycle provides a preview of what advocates for national defense and sea power will have on their side - or not on their side - in the next Congress.New people arrive, experienced people leave, and priorities, agendas, and advocacy will shift change with them.What can we expect in the next Congress based on changes we see and those national security issues waxing or waning in the mind of legislators and their counterparts in the Executive Branch?Politics matter.Our guests for the full hour to discuss the implications of this years election in the national security arena, will be Claude Berube and Derek (Dirk) Maurer.Claude Berube, PhD, is the author of “On Wide Seas: The US Navy in the Jacksonian Era” and several other books. He has worked on Capitol Hill, in the defense industry, and the Office of Naval Intelligence. A Commander in the US Navy Reserve, he is currently assigned to a unit with Navy Warfare Development Center. Since 2005 he has taught in the Political Science and History Departments at the US Naval Academy.Dirk Maurer currently is Vice President at Layer 8 Security, & a Visiting Fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is the Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Continuity and Mission Assurance and as DASD for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction. and was DASD for Defense Support and Civil Authorities during the George W. Bush administrationMr. Maurer has served on multiple Senate committees and in the personal offices of three Senators. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve after twenty years. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Washington and a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center.
D.C.'s criminal code has not been significantly reformed since its adoption by the federal Congress in 1901. In 2016, the D.C. City Council began the most comprehensive effort to date to bring the City's criminal code into the 21st century when it established the Criminal Code Reform Commission. For the past six years, the Commission has endeavored to create a new criminal code for D.C. that is more in step with modern society and modern notions of what it means for a law to be fair and just. Hosts Eric Tarosky and Niranjan Seshadri, both law students at the Georgetown University Law Center, are joined by Patrice Sulton, Executive Director of DC Justice Lab and former senior attorney advisor to the Criminal Code Reform Commission, to talk about the past, present, and future of the District's criminal law. To learn more about the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2021, visit https://revisedcode.org/. UPDATE: On November 1, 2022, this bill unanimously passed an initial vote by the D.C. Council. In a few weeks, the council will hold a second and final vote on the bill which, if passed, will then head to Mayor Bowser's desk for her signature. Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, click here. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Thank you to our Sponsor! The George Washington College of Professional Studies, Paralegal Studies Program: As Washington D.C.'s only academic-credit bearing paralegal studies program, the master's degree in Paralegal Studies is more than a powerful credential: it's a signal to the best employers that you withstood the academic rigor of one of the nation's best paralegal programs. George Washington University's Paralegal Studies program has met the approval of the American Bar Association for the excellence of its curriculum, faculty and administration, the only such program granted the designation in Washington, D.C. GW joins 260 programs nationally that have met the organization's requirements. Visit https://www.cps.gwu.edu/paralegal-studies-master-professional-studies to learn more.
Content warning: Please be aware that rape and sexual abuse are discussed in this episode. If you are particularly sensitive to these issues, then please take care when listening.How have identity politics and social media changed sex work? To what extent is sex work work? Under what conditions is a sex worker a victim of abuse? Why does rape seem so much worse than other kinds of physical abuse? Does an increase in access to sex workers necessarily cause an increase in infidelity? Are there psychological risks associated with sex work even for people that enjoy the work and are not otherwise harmed or abused? (For example, compared to the average person, is it harder for sex workers to form romantic relationships with others?) Does sex work reinforce or even amplify unwanted objectification and commodification of bodies? What are the various legal models of sex work being used around the world right now?Melissa Sontag Broudo, JD, MPH, has been part of the sex-worker-rights and harm-reduction movements since the late 1990s, furthering policy, advocacy, and capacity-building efforts that support the rights of sex workers and survivors of human trafficking. She has been able to push rights-based policies and legislative initiatives that support sex workers and survivors of human trafficking, including: expanded criminal record relief for survivors of trafficking, immunity for victims of crimes who engage in sexual labor, and the formation of study commissions to review data related to better health outcomes for all people in the sex industry. She won the first-ever vacatur motion for a survivor of human trafficking and provided technical expertise on these critical motions throughout New York state and the country. Melissa received her Bachelor of Arts from Brown University in gender studies in 2001. She received her Master of Public Health from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center through their dual degree program in 2006. Read more about Melissa's work at DecriminalizeSex.Work, or follow her on Instagram at @decrimsexwork or on Twitter at @decrimsex.
Read the full transcriptContent warning: Please be aware that rape and sexual abuse are discussed in this episode. If you are particularly sensitive to these issues, then please take care when listening.How have identity politics and social media changed sex work? To what extent is sex work work? Under what conditions is a sex worker a victim of abuse? Why does rape seem so much worse than other kinds of physical abuse? Does an increase in access to sex workers necessarily cause an increase in infidelity? Are there psychological risks associated with sex work even for people that enjoy the work and are not otherwise harmed or abused? (For example, compared to the average person, is it harder for sex workers to form romantic relationships with others?) Does sex work reinforce or even amplify unwanted objectification and commodification of bodies? What are the various legal models of sex work being used around the world right now?Melissa Sontag Broudo, JD, MPH, has been part of the sex-worker-rights and harm-reduction movements since the late 1990s, furthering policy, advocacy, and capacity-building efforts that support the rights of sex workers and survivors of human trafficking. She has been able to push rights-based policies and legislative initiatives that support sex workers and survivors of human trafficking, including: expanded criminal record relief for survivors of trafficking, immunity for victims of crimes who engage in sexual labor, and the formation of study commissions to review data related to better health outcomes for all people in the sex industry. She won the first-ever vacatur motion for a survivor of human trafficking and provided technical expertise on these critical motions throughout New York state and the country. Melissa received her Bachelor of Arts from Brown University in gender studies in 2001. She received her Master of Public Health from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center through their dual degree program in 2006. Read more about Melissa's work at DecriminalizeSex.Work, or follow her on Instagram at @decrimsexwork or on Twitter at @decrimsex.
Marriage is one of the most significant decisions one has to make. It is designed to foster a partnership, a lifelong commitment, and a sense of shared success and happiness between two people. Nobody enters into a marriage expecting it to end in divorce, but as couples spend more time together and get to know one another better, conflicts may arise, responsibilities and priorities may change, and if couples can't work it out, it may result in divorce. There are marriage and couple's therapists who can assist couples in working through conflicts, but if the relationship is beyond saving, you might want to speak with a divorce lawyer who can guide you through the legal process. Have you heard of a divorce attorney that helps couples stay in their marriage? That sounds ironic. While most divorce lawyers focus on getting the best settlement offer their clients can get, even if that means adding fuel to the fire, David Erdman approaches his cases differently. David has been happily married for 38 years and has practiced divorce law for over 40 years. He is a graduate of Duke University and the Georgetown University Law Center. David is an advocate and ally for clients who are working to save their marriages with a focus on children. He is also a veteran of over 5,000 marriage-related legal consultations, which inspired him to write the book, The Ten Commandments of Marriage: Secrets of a Divorce Lawyer. In this episode, David discusses his unique approach to handling divorce cases. We'll discover how he is shifting the emphasis from the impending separation to making your marriage the way you want it to be by asking the right questions. Furthermore, he outlines what is in his book while focusing on the most important rules and delivering some insightful advice. Check out the transcript of this episode on Dr. Jessica Higgin's website. In this episode 4:54 David's motivation for writing The Ten Commandments of Marriage: A compilation of what he discovered from more than 5000 other marriages over the course of 40 years. 13:28 Asking clients probing questions to help them prepare for negotiations. 19:12 What is unforgivable? 25:29 Thou shalt learn to resolve differences. 28:34 What happens in a relationship when there is equality. 35:35 Top reasons for divorce: the percentage of women who are more likely to initiate divorce. 38:36 How to make sex satisfying for both you and your partner. 42:49 Spouses' superpowers that you should not neglect. 44:47 Thou shall NOT allow children to obstruct your marriage 49:04 Golden nuggets of advice Mentioned The Ten Commandments of Marriage: Secrets of a Divorce Lawyer (*Amazon Affiliate link) (book) Relationship Map To Happy, Lasting Love Connect with David Erdman Website: tencommandmentsofmarriage.com Connect with Dr. Jessica Higgins Facebook: facebook.com/EmpoweredRelationship Instagram: instagram.com/drjessicahiggins Podcast: drjessicahiggins.com/podcasts/ Pinterest: pinterest.com/EmpowerRelation LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/drjessicahiggins Twitter: @DrJessHiggins Website: drjessicahiggins.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.org If you have a topic you would like me to discuss, please contact me by clicking on the “Ask Dr. Jessica Higgins” button here. Thank you so much for your interest in improving your relationship. Also, I would so appreciate your honest rating and review. Please leave a review by clicking here. Thank you! *With Amazon Affiliate Links, I may earn a few cents from Amazon, if you purchase the book from this link.
The midterm elections are around the corner, and health care is likely to be a major factor in how Americans vote. Abortion and reproductive health access will motivate many people, as will inflation (which impacts the cost of care). On the latest episode of The Dose, host Shanoor Seervai talks about the most pressing health care battles to watch with Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University Law Center's O'Neil Institute. Keith talks about how access to abortion may play out at the federal and state level, legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act's guarantee of free preventive care, and the impact of the impending end of the public health emergency.
What you'll learn in this podcast episode Over the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in E&C programs when it comes to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do these recent reports, policies, and guidance mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices Susan Divers is joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings. Listen in as the two discuss the recent guidance from the US Department of Justice as well as DOJ policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture. Featured guest: Jon Drimmer Jonathan C. Drimmer is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice and is based in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. He resolves complex cross-border problems with the benefit of having sat in every chair at the table: senior legal officer for a global 500 company, federal prosecutor, and seasoned advocate. He is a recognized international expert on anticorruption and business and human rights, and is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on issues related to both topics. Before joining Paul Hastings, he was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Barrick Gold, one of the world's largest mining companies, with operations on five continents. The compliance program he built at Barrick has served as an industry standard, and elements of it have largely been duplicated by numerous other companies inside and outside of the extractive sector. Mr. Drimmer has directed hundreds of investigations around the world related to anti-corruption, human rights, AML and export controls, tax controversies, environmental incidents, public disclosures, fatalities and health and safety injuries, sexual harassment and discrimination, and other areas. He has represented companies and individuals in numerous government enforcement proceedings in the U.S. and overseas, in relation to FCPA and bribery claims, human rights issues, and a wide array of other matters. He has participated in dozens of major disputes in the U.S., Canada, and abroad, including transnational torts, anti-corruption claims, environmental cases, international arbitrations, tax disputes, construction claims, and land controversies. He previously served in the Justice Department as Deputy Director of the Criminal Division's Office of Special Investigations, where he led cross-border investigations, first-chaired numerous prosecutions, and argued federal appeals. He was a partner at an Am Law 100 law firm in Washington, D.C., a former Bristow Fellow in the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General, and a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Drimmer served on the board of directors of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative from 2012-2014, and again from 2015-2017. He served on the board of TRACE International from 2012 until 2018, and currently sits on the board of the TRACE Foundation. He has also taught international law courses at Georgetown University Law Center for nearly 20 years. Featured Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: Good afternoon. From time to time, but particularly in the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in ethics and compliance programs when companies present them as a defense to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do the recent flurry of reports, policies and guidance mean for compliance professionals? How should they be applied to improve E and C programs? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. And today, I'm joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the international law firm of Paul Hastings. We're going to talk about the recent DOJ guidance and policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture, and hopefully help everyone understand what it is and how they should apply it to their programs. Jon is a real expert, as well as a friend in this space. He has the unusual distinction of serving in three of the principal seats that affect ethics and compliance, once as a federal prosecutor at DOJ, another time as a chief ethics and compliance officer and deputy general council for a large mining company, and now as an ethics and compliance advocate with a leading law firm. Jon, thanks so much for joining me at Principled Podcast. Jon Drimmer: Thanks, Susan. It's great to be with you. Susan Divers: Super. Well, let's jump right in. Last week, we saw a new policy come out of the Department of Justice that both Lisa Monaco and also Ken Polite have talked about with great emphasis. We've also seen the report come out of the sentencing commission about their 30 years of accomplishments. And we've also seen some major guidance in the last two years. Can you put it in perspective for us and talk about how it fits together, and how they interplay. And then we can jump in and start figuring out what they mean. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. No, happy to do it. So let me take each one in sequence. So what we saw come down from the deputy attorney general was a new policy memo. And in essence, what that means is policies are, they are the rules that apply to federal prosecutors and prosecuting entities around the country. They are the standards that are going to be applied. Guidance, which is something that we see come out in a number of different ways through formal guidance as well as through statements and speeches and other informal approaches, this is basically how those rules are interpreted, how prosecutors should be thinking about the application of those policies as they're applied to any given circumstance. And then finally, reports, and you mentioned the sentencing commission's 30 year look back, those are more general. And they do tend to come out for transparency purpose, they're often retrospective, like the sentencing commission report. But they generally talk about how these rules have been applied. So policies are the rules, the guidance effectively aids in their interpretation, and the reports generally are a bit of a look back as to how they have been applied to date. Susan Divers: That's really helpful. It really helps me put all of those in perspective. Talk a little bit more than about the policies and the guidance. Are they mandatory? Are they voluntary? Jon Drimmer: Well, for prosecutors, they're mandatory. So when you look at the policies, this is effectively how prosecutors are to approach any given situation. It is a directive to them in terms of how it is they should go about doing their jobs. And I'll tell you it's critical. It's critical for chief compliance officers to understand those types of initiatives, those types of emphases. It's critical to prosecutors as well, as they get that direction in terms of what they should be focusing on. So really, it's a very important part of the process and helping to shape how investigations are run and scoped from the government's end, and what can be expected on the company side as well for chief compliance officers. Susan Divers: But it's not technically a rule, if I'm correct. But it sounds like you strongly recommend that ethics and compliance professionals pay great attention to it. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. No, that's fair. It's not a regulation. It isn't something that goes through a formal regulatory process. It's not the equivalent of a law. It's a direction. It's a directive that's basically given. And so it doesn't have the force of law, but it is a very important set of instruments to understand the relevant DOJ policies, the justice manual. So yeah, that's a fair assessment. I do strongly recommend understanding it in detail, but it isn't technically a law or regulation. Susan Divers: And if I understand correctly, and I've been in this situation myself too as a chief ethics compliance officer, if there's a misconduct inquiry or investigation, and 95% of those are resolved without prosecution or probably more, basically, you'll be asked to come in and meet with the Department of Justice prosecutors, possibly the SEC too, and part of that is talking about your ethics and compliance program. Can you put that in context and explain why they want you to do that, and how you should do it? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, absolutely. So what they're really looking for is a discussion of A, what the compliance program was at the time of the incident in question, and where it is today at the time of charging. It's really both time periods are really quite important to them. And they want to understand how with a compliance program the issue or event might have occurred. But they also want to understand what changes have been made to improve its effectiveness since that time period. And often, given the way that investigations go and timelines, there may be a good bit of time between the original incident and the time a formal compliance program presentation is ultimately made. And in making that presentation, the guidance, the policies, these are incredibly important in shaping the factors that you're ultimately going to present on. But the real tip is not just presenting on the formal approach, the formal program, the policies, procedures. But how do you know they are working in practice? And that has been a huge emphasis from the government in the last couple of years, and one that ethics and compliance professionals should take heed of. It's not just a matter of rolling out the program, but with the rollout, including those steps to validate its effectiveness in mitigating the relevant risks it's designed to address. Susan Divers: I want to get into that in more depth in just a second. But before we leave sort of setting the scene for why this is so important. So if you go in and you meet with the Department of Justice and its prosecutors, and you do a good job, a credible job, of presenting your ethics and compliance program, and it's clear that it's a strong program, and you've got hopefully evidence of effectiveness, what's the consequence of that? Jon Drimmer: Well, at the end of the day, I mean, the most significant issue is monitors. And if you've been involved in an issue that violates a federal law, federal criminal law, and the question is: Are you sufficiently capable of addressing your compliance issues going forward without day to day regular oversight from a monitor? That is a critical inquiry, and so number one, an effective compliance program and design and implementation is really important for a monitor. It's also important in charging decisions. It can be important in terms of disgorgement and fines and penalties as well. It's taken into account in the federal sentencing guidelines. So in the end, an effective compliance program really is a critically important part of a resolution process for a DOJ investigation. Susan Divers: So that's basically why ethics and compliance programs, if I understand correctly, came into being. It's really to mitigate the impact of misconduct investigations, and hopefully allow the company to go forward with it's E and C program. We won't talk about monitors today. That can be another podcast. But that's something that you want to avoid, generally. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. You generally want to avoid that, yeah. I mean, look, there's another element we probably won't get into today as well, that you and I have talked about extensively, and that is how programs ultimately help shape the values and culture of a company, so aside entirely from proactively mitigating relevant risks, affirmatively driving a culture that does increase productivity, increase retention, increase morale, that's a critical component of a compliance, an ethics and compliance program as well. It does dovetail a bit with culture of compliance, which is something that is important to demonstrate when you're in front of the government. It's something the government is increasingly emphasizing. There's a positive aspect that isn't just preventing potential problems from happening that are associated with ethics and compliance programs, as you've written about quite persuasively. Susan Divers: Well, you too. And I'm glad you reminded everybody of that because that is a critical reason for having an effective ethics and compliance programs. So let's leave the sort of rewards and penalties side and start talking about: What are the prosecutors and the Department of Justice leadership really saying in this plethora of policies, guidance that's come out in the last couple of years? What are the key messages? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I would say in reading through the recent speeches, the policies, coupled with the guidance, I think we can take away several messages. And two of them are, number one, there is this enormous focus on program effectiveness, and I can't say that enough. And as I read the memo from the deputy attorney general colloquially calling the Monaco memo, I see as a major sub theme, and as a former chief compliance officer, this absolute drive towards the effectiveness of programs. And just to take a step back for a minute, in some ways, this is how the sentencing commission's report actually becomes relevant in this discussion, and the 30 year look back report was issued roughly at the same time as the DAG memo. And if you look at the report, a few interesting statistics jump out. And these again, this is focusing on companies that actually went through a court sentencing, so it isn't settlements, which is typically how corporate resolutions are resolved. But 2021 was the first year that more than half of the companies sentenced under the guidelines had a compliance and ethics program. And the previous high was 2018, when it was about 28%. But in 30 years, since 1992, only 11 companies have had a reduction by a court because their compliance program was effective. That's .5% of all of the companies sentenced, and most of those are actually small companies. So most of the time, for those companies that are going through the process, they aren't getting credit for having an effective program. And with the Monaco Memo, if you actually look at a lot of what policies are ultimately looking to drive, it does center around effectiveness, driving performance, driving commitment through a focus on individuals. And so it talks about producing information in a timely way, focusing on individuals because that is what incentivizes effective performance. For chief compliance officers, it might mean if you're going to do an investigation, a thorough investigation, you do have to include that within your scope, the focus on individual culpability to a degree that you might not have before. The same is true with ephemeral messaging, which is a big emphasis in the recent memo. Ephemeral messaging has been part of their calculus for several years now. But here, they do want to focus on whether the company policies regarding ephemeral messaging are effective. Is the company capturing messaging that's occurring on company related devices? Are we allowing personal devices? If so, are they limited to certain apps that are capturing company business related discussions? Is there training? Is there auditing? Are there other steps on ephemeral messaging? So they really want to see not just: Are there policies? But are they effective? And those are just two examples. But if you do dig into what's behind a lot of these policy announcements in the memo, it really is looking to drive effective programs. Susan Divers: Well, I want to dig in a little bit. And just to clarify by ephemeral messaging, you mean that if we have senior execs using What's App to communicate, rather than company systems that are subject to discovery, then we might have a problem. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. It can be company, it can be teams messaging, it can be What's App on company issued devices or personal devices. It's any of the messaging systems that are used to communicate that ultimately may not ordinarily be retained by the company in the way that email is. Susan Divers: So that's an area that the policy makes clear, compliance officers ought to really take a hard look at and may need to make some changes, or at least provide some clarity. I want to get information effectiveness more in a minute too. But just to deal with the other very specific granular recommendation that I saw in the Monaco Memo, it was that you really have to have an incentive system that's aligned to ethics and compliance. And by that, it's both positive and negative. In other words, you have to reward ethical behavior as part of your system of incentives, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions. And you have to penalize misbehavior, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions, but also claw backs. Can you talk about that a little bit? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. It really was fairly prescriptive, as you say, in terms of, in ways that I think should make chief compliance officers happy. That's the stuff that we always advocate for with human resources and with executives. Hey, we want ethics. We want ethics and compliance included in hiring decisions and promotions and bonus frameworks and performance commitments. And that's really what helps integrate ethics and compliance into business operations and prioritize it along with operational considerations, so that should be welcome news for chief compliance officers. The claw back aspect, which is the stick, that's the carrot, this is the stick, it's interesting. They really emphasize it's not good enough just to have claw back provisions that are theoretically applicable, that are present in policies and are never applied. They want to see them applied in cases where there is appropriate individual culpability. And that may mean applied in different ways. They're clearer that there is no uniform approach to a claw back provision, but it isn't good enough just to have it as a policy. You need to talk about it. You need to train on it. And you need to actually implement it in appropriate situations, which is part of the focus on the individual responsibility and again, driving effectiveness. Susan Divers: That's a very good segue into effectiveness. I do want to emphasize what you said, which is this is something that ethics and compliance professionals need to pay attention to. And it should be a welcome development to have that kind of accountability and importance placed on ethics and compliance considerations. But it's: What do you do about it, as you said, if you've got claw back? I think the SEC says that about 50% of publicly traded companies have claw back, but you have to use it. Otherwise, you're probably worse off if you have it as a tool and then you don't use it if you've got senior level misconduct. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, I think that's right. But better to have it than not have it, and if you've got it, you've actually got to apply it, is kind of what they're signaling. But look, this is hard. I mean, it is really hard when you are doing investigations of your own people. As a chief compliance officer, this was the least favorite part of my job is doing investigations into people I work with, people I knew, people who in other aspects of my job, I had to trust. I had to trust them in terms of implementing or overseeing certain aspects of the program. And when you have to do an investigation into them, it feels lousy. It screams out for why independence is important. And those particular instances is just a matter of investigative integrity, but it's a lousy part of the job. And applying a claw back provision to senior executives who you have worked with, who you have traveled with, whatever it is, it's a lousy part of the job, but they are saying it is an important part and a part that has to be applied in practice. Susan Divers: Yeah. I agree with you. That is really the worst part of being a chief ethics and compliance officer, for sure. Let's dive deeper into effectiveness. As I've gotten to know you and worked with you on thought leadership, I've always been extremely impressed with you focus when you're a chief ethics and compliance officer on effectiveness. And I remember some of the things you did, even including short pulse surveys in your investigations to get feedback from employees, so that's just one example. But can you talk about what do we really mean by effectiveness in terms of ethics and compliance programs? What should we be measuring? What should we be looking at? And where should the focus be? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I mean, really what effectiveness means is: Are the goals of any particular element of your program being achieved? Are you meeting the goals that you have set out for that particular element of the program? So for instance, your goal might be to roll out a new training, and to roll it out to 90% of everybody on a mapped basis. That isn't going to get into effectiveness. Effectiveness is: How well do they retain the critical aspects of the content that is being conveyed? And that can be done through surveys, that can be done through tests, et cetera. But when we're talking about effectiveness here, again, it isn't just about roll out, it isn't just about robustness and good faith commitment to implementing a program. But is it working in practice? How do you know it? How do you test it? How do you validate it? Often, that's done through KPIs and through metrics. I personally like surveys, sentiment survey, I've always liked surveys as a way of getting information. And beyond that, it brings employees into the program when they are talking to you, providing information about their own experiences. I think that's a very effective way to do it. I think 360s in terms of reviews that include ethics compliance is another important part, so you do again get perspectives of employees on individual performance, particularly for supervisors, from an ethics and compliance standpoint. I think you need to look at audit results. I think you need to look at investigations. I think you need to look at a number of different factors that all indicate on a lag indicating basis, what is working and what isn't working. But I think that should be a relentless focus, personally. And I think for every element of your program, you should be looking at multiple ways to try to assess. Is what I'm doing actually working to the degree that I want it to, and in the way that I want it to? And if not, you have to make an adjustment. That's what effectiveness is about. Susan Divers: That's a really good definition. I think one of the traps people can fall into easily is to focus on activities rather than impact. And I like your phrasing of it as a relentless focus on effectiveness. I mean, one of the things we're just doing is rolling out a short, I think it's 10 question ethical culture pulse survey that comes up at the end of a code of conduct course. And it asks questions about respect and trust and organizational justice, which as you know are key elements of an ethical culture. So always trying to get at perceptions and concerns and to the degree that you can measure how that's playing out, I think is really essential to effectiveness. I want to talk about in a minute how non US companies are affected by all this, and also the most common mistakes you've seen people make in your long and in depth, varied career. But before we get there, I was just looking at some of the DOJ material, and I see that Matt Galvin has joined the team. And now I think there's at least three or four former chief ethics and compliance officers. And Matt came for Anheuser, and he has a particular focus on data analytics. What are you seeing in terms of using data analytics for effectiveness? And what do you recommend in that area? Jon Drimmer: I think that's a great hire. I think it'll be great for Matt, and I think that's a great hire for the government, really bringing in somebody who ran a compliance program and who has had a very substantial focus on data analytics. And at AB InBev, the Brew Right program that he put together is one that's usually been held up as an industry leader. I mean, I do think data analytics is critically important. One of the challenges with data analytics that you have to always get around is making sure that your data is good, that things are being recorded and described in like manners that allows for apples to apples comparison. And you have to understand what to do with that information. And so it's not enough to run the analytics, but when you get the analytics back, you have to have a program in place, resources in place, to act on it. And so thinking through holistically what the data is, where it's coming from, how you're going to act on it, depending on what you get is all a really important part of the equation to think about ahead of time before you just start collecting and running. Look, it's critically important. It's been something that's been emphasized for years as a key way of identifying effectiveness, as well as potential risks that you might not otherwise see, and trends, and patterns. So it really is a very important part of a program with the caveat that you've got to make sure that your data is really good and that you know what you're going to do with it on the back end. But that's a great hire, and I'm sure it's really going to advance compliance thinking in the government around the use of data. Susan Divers: I think that's a good way to characterize the importance of data metrics and particularly stressing that it's not enough to have them and get the insights, you have to act on them. It's similar to risk analysis and risk assessment. It's great that you're running a yearly risk assessment, but are you factoring those results into your training or your policies? So that's part of that focus on effectiveness. Talk to me a little bit, Jon, if you would, about we've been talking about the Department of Justice. It does seem to me that what DOJ does in areas like this has a lot of impact on international companies. It's not limited to the US. And you're in a great position to discuss that a bit, if you would. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Of course. No, absolutely. Look, and to be clear, when the government emphasizes things like data and benchmarking and metrics and KPIs, I can't applaud them enough for bringing in someone like Matt, who has seen it on the ground, has put into place a great program to really help educate. And that's going to be true for US and non US companies. The government focuses on violations of the law, where there is jurisdiction, where there's something that will touch the US, or you have US companies or US issuers. But if you're a foreign company and you're doing business in the United States, or you're listed on a US exchange, the US laws very well may apply to you. The FCPA certainly very well may apply to you. And some of the biggest settlements, again just sticking with the FCPA, have been with non US companies in the last two years. And I don't want to limit this to the FCPA because the memo from Lisa Monaco, it's not limited to the FCPA, but it will extend to throughout the criminal division. And so whether it's antitrust, or healthcare fraud, or other areas that the criminal division might oversee, this is going to apply to companies regardless of whether they're US or non US, depending on the jurisdictional components, so it's a very important part for all companies doing business in the United States, not just US companies. Susan Divers: And I think sometimes people forget how broad that actually is. People sort of think, "Okay, there's US companies, there's French companies, there's Indian companies," but if you're doing business here, or you're using the banking system, then you are basically within the ambit of US jurisdiction if you commit bribery violations, or antitrust, or sanctions violations, or whatever they happen to be. So it really is a very broad net. And I think for that reason, I think the guidance has driven the evolution of ethics and compliance programs globally, not just in the US. Is that your sense too? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah. No question about it. I think if you look around the world, whether it's the UK, or France, or throughout Latin America, for those governments that have formally put out either guidances, or they've integrated into their laws what compliance programs ought to look like, I mean, it really looks a lot like what the Department of Justice and the SEC have put out, which of course is premised on a sentencing guidelines foundation. But really, it is driving global compliance processes and programs around the world, even for those companies that don't touch the US, even in their home jurisdictions. It's driving very similar approaches and ways of thinking about compliance. Susan Divers: Yes. And I think if anybody needs proof of that, they should read the Glencore CPA settlement, which I was just looking at, which is a huge fine for anti bribery for basically a non US company. But we're starting to run out of time. I could do this all day, as you know. But let's wrap up with: Given your unique perspective, having sat in all of the key positions, what are the most common mistakes you see people make in ethics and compliance programs? And if you can relate some of those to the guidance, that would be great. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Look, I mean, I think first and foremost, it isn't really understanding and looking to integrate into programs what drives an ethical culture. And we talked before about the absolute importance of organizational justice as one of the key drivers in thinking about how that should get integrated into your program. And another is managerial modeling. And truthfully, what people seem to often forget is that most employees look at their supervisors, and maybe their supervisors' supervisors as the company. They look at them as management. And so focusing on, quote, unquote, tone from the top, and the most senior leaders of a company, to the exclusion of direct supervisors, middle managers, I think is often a mistake. And so driving behaviors expected of managers is critically important. I think people also ignore the absolute singular importance of confidence in internal reporting mechanisms and hotlines, which is often a proxy for whether your culture of compliance is strong, and whether organizational justice exists, whether managerial modeling is occurring. But I think beyond that, we've talked about the focus on effectiveness. And I think too often, you do see compliance programs that really are driving towards activities and robustness and metrics and numbers that don't take into account. Is it really working in practice? And I do think that has to be, especially in light of the guidance, which talks about culture, it talks about effectiveness, it focuses on effectiveness, I think that's got to be a critical emphasis for any program. And I think a lot of programs aren't sufficiently mature in that particular aspect, which may be why this guidance or this policy is coming out now. Susan Divers: So it sounds like if you were advising let's say a startup, or a relatively small company that's program is just getting underway, you would advise them to focus very much on the value side on getting organizational justice right, on getting speak up culture going and creating that atmosphere of trust, and also on making sure that managers know what the ethical and compliance considerations that affect them are, and what that means in practice. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. And look, that relates directly to the guidance as we look at rewards, in terms of pay, of performance commitments, presumably of bonuses, of promotions. So setting those expectations for management, along with organizational justice and speak up, I think are really vital components. And so if you are just starting out, the sooner you look to embed that within the company, the more effective it's going to be hopefully as the company grows. Susan Divers: Wow, this has been such a terrific, insightful conversation. And I really feel like I've benefited a lot personally just from hearing the way you've wove together the policy, the guidance. And just for one point of clarification before we sign off, I've been looking at the guidance since I think 2013. I've seen an evolution, actually. It's gotten stronger and it's gotten smarter in focusing on the right things like culture. I don't see it really weakening or changing, even during the Trump administration, interestingly. Is that your perception as well? Is that your expectation for the future? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Look, they are clearly sharpening the guidance. They are sharpening their policies in a way that is actually quite healthy. And I completely applaud the degree of transparency that we've seen in terms of talking about how these are applied, in terms of talking about how these are to be interpreted. So I applaud the transparency and I completely agree. It is getting much sharper, particularly around those aspects that really impact compliance professionals, like culture, like incentivization, like trying to establish commitments, like integrating compliance into employment processes. So I think it is getting smarter. And again, I think the transparency is really helpful, and particularly for chief ethics and compliance officers. Susan Divers: Great. And I agree. I mean, it's actually making people's jobs easier if they take the key messages in the guidance and are able to use the guidance to drive change in their organizations. So Jon, thanks so much for joining me on this episode. Just to wrap up, I'm Susan Frank Divers, and I want to thank everyone for listening to Principled Podcast by LRN. Jon Drimmer: Thank you. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.
Marlon Primes served more than 30 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Ohio before recently joining the law firm of Brennan Manna Diamond handling complex civil litigation. Primes has risen to the heights of the legal profession while at the same time, giving back to his community. He stresses the importance of the rule of law in a democracy and orderly society. He notes that no one should be above the law. His sterling legal career reflects that dedication. He has been active in both work for the legal profession and community improvement work. Primes is the Past President of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association ("CMBA"). It is one of the largest associations of lawyers and judges in Ohio. He was the first African American attorney to serve as president of the CMBA and the first government attorney to do so. He also served as national Vice President of the National Bar Association, which is the nation's oldest and largest association of African American lawyers and judges. Primes also was the Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Ohio State Bar Association and has spent countless hours educating young lawyers and K-12 students on the importance of the law. In 2020, he received the first ever Craig Tame Award for Excellence in Community Outreach based in part on his teaching of high school students about both rights and responsibilities under the U. S. Constitution. In 2022, he was named one of Crain's Cleveland “People on the Move.” He received his undergraduate degree from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University and his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.
In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Jeff Clark, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Renewing America and former Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Justice Department, to discuss his experience serving in the Bush 43 and Trump 45 administrations, stories of biased politicking within the Department of Justice, his tenuous confirmation process, and what future administrations can do to counter the corrupt influence of both the deep state and administrative state.Jeff Clark is the former President Trump-selected and Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General of the Environment & Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Justice Department. From 2020-2021, Jeff was also named and simultaneously served as the former Acting Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Civil Division. In this capacity, by the end of 2020, Jeff was responsible for supervising approximately 1,400 lawyers at DOJ. Jeff graduated from Harvard University in 1989 with an A.B. in economics and Russian history, from the University of Delaware in 1993 with an M.A. in urban affairs, and from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1995 with a J.D.Learn more about Jeff Clark's work:https://americarenewing.com/about/https://twitter.com/JeffClarkUSSupport Jeff's Legal Defensehttps://www.givesendgo.com/jeffclark––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jake Mercier and Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"ACast – https://shows.acast.com/moment-of-truthApple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
When does a work of art qualify for fair use? On October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Andy Warhol used celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith's picture of Prince, taken in 1981, for his artwork. Did Andy Warhol violate Lynn Goldsmith's copyright? Professor Kristelia Garcia Esq., an expert in copyright law, helps shed light on this question that could have far-reaching implications for art and copyright. This episode of “Let's Brief It” is hosted by Niranjan Seshadri, and Eric Tarosky, both law students at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington D.C. Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, click here. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Thank you to our Sponsor! The George Washington College of Professional Studies, Paralegal Studies Program: As Washington D.C.'s only academic-credit bearing paralegal studies program, the master's degree in Paralegal Studies is more than a powerful credential: it's a signal to the best employers that you withstood the academic rigor of one of the nation's best paralegal programs. George Washington University's Paralegal Studies program has met the approval of the American Bar Association for the excellence of its curriculum, faculty and administration, the only such program granted the designation in Washington, D.C. GW joins 260 programs nationally that have met the organization's requirements. Visit https://www.cps.gwu.edu/paralegal-studies-master-professional-studies to learn more.
As a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee, Brian Boyd helps clients with real estate, construction, and business matters. It is with that knowledge that he and his wife, Dawn, have grown their portfolio to a six-figure income. Brian earned his BA from the University of Tennessee—Chattanooga, a JD from Samford University's Cumberland School of Law, and an LLM in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center. When not practicing law or working with Dawn on their real estate ventures, Brian can be found on the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu mats at his local gym. His newest book is Replace Your Income: A Lawyer's Guide to Finding, Funding, and Managing Real Estate Investments Today Brian talks about corporate structures, how they differ, and what you could be doing to protect your assets. Episode Links: www.briantboyd.com. www.boydwills.com --- Transcript Before we jump into the episode, here's a quick disclaimer about our content. The remote real estate investor podcast is for informational purposes only, and is not intended as investment advice. The views, opinions and strategies of both the hosts and the guests are their own and should not be considered as guidance from Roofstock. Make sure to always run your own numbers, make your own independent decisions and seek investment advice from licensed professionals. Michael: What's going on everyone? Welcome to another episode of The Remote Real Estate Investor. I'm Michael Albaum. And today with me, I have Brian Boyd, who is a legal tax professional as well as an author and active investor. He's gonna be talking to us today about what we need to do to protect our rear ends. So let's get into it. Brian, what's going on, man, thanks so much for taking the time to hang out with me today. I appreciate you. Brian: Hey, Michael, thanks for having me today. I'm glad to be here. Michael: I am super excited to chat with you. Because you are a legal attorney and investor something we don't often see too much of. Brian: Yeah, I am. I started out in Washington, DC as a tax attorney at a company called Ernst and Young. And over the years, I got into real estate and investing because I was representing a lot of contractors and developers and started looking at the way they were doing their businesses. And from there, I started tweaking their models trying to figure out well, how can I make this a little bit more tax efficient, create a little bit more loss with a lot more cash flow. And so that's when my wife and I in 2017, decided to get into real estate investing on our own. And now we're up to 25 doors, and we're cash flowing just fine. You know, in, in fact, maybe in the next year or two, she could step away from her full time job. And we'll just manage real estate. Michael: Man, I love it. And so is your background in tax or on the legal side of things, or both. Brian: So I have a JD and I have an LLM, which is a master's degree in, in law. But It specializes in tax. So yes, I do corporate formations. I do business transactions, helping people the real estate, anything and everything to do with businesses, individuals and their finances. In real estate investing. That's what I do. So there was a time I used to go to court, but I don't go to court anymore. My partner goes to court, and I just do business transactions and real estate investing. Michael: Man, I love it. And before we get everyone's hopes up, you are located out in Tennessee. But is that the only state in which you practice in? Or can you help folks all over the place? Brian: So I am licensed in Tennessee and Vermont of all places. My partner is licensed in Tennessee in Maryland. But if it has to do with federal law, I can work all over the country. However, if people are asking specifically about California law, I'm not your guy, call a local attorney speak to a local attorney. But from a structural standpoint, I can give you the basics and kind of point you in the right direction. But unless you're in one of those jurisdictions, and you want me to practice in those jurisdictions, those are the jurisdictions I'm limited to. Michael: Okay. Well, let's talk about that for a minute. Because I think we were chatting before the show, we hit record, and there are a ton of Californians physically moving out to Tennessee. But my guess is they're probably a lot of Californians investing out in Tennessee. And so for those folks that maybe live outside Tennessee, but are investing in Tennessee, in terms of structuring their team around them, should they be thinking about having a local attorney local to them, as well as someone such as yourself or a an attorney located where the property is? How should you be thinking about that? Brian: No, that's great question. I actually had an attorney contact me a few weeks ago and he is a he's in Chico, California. He called me and said, Hey, I properties in Tennessee. Can you help me on what? Yeah, I'll absolutely be happy to help you. And so what we did is we structured a Tennessee holding company with a wholly owned Tennessee subsidiary. And even though he's out there, he owns the LLC here. And as he invests around the country, like Texas, or Florida, or you know, any of the other states, you know, we'll set up other holding companies to represent those entities. But he can stay in California and own these companies, as long as they're structured properly, to pass through to him over in California. Michael: Okay, awesome. Well, Brian, give us like, the quick and dirty if there is such a thing of what investors need to know, because I think a lot of our investors are starting to scale their portfolios that got a couple of deals under their belt, and they're really looking for some asset protection. What are some things they need to be aware of and where have you seen people go wrong? Brian: So I have seen people go wrong with a few misnomers about what they believe series LLCs are and what land trusts are. So a series LLC, I know that everybody hears therefore multiple properties. and they are. But they also don't understand that when you have a series LLC, you have to have a separate bank account, a separate tax ID separate books, all of that creates an administrative burden on you to keep all these bank accounts separate all these books separate all these tax IDs separate. And typically I see those used more efficiently if you're a developer, that way you can develop a series, sell it, and not worry about it. Again, if you're holding your assets in series LLC, and you have series one through 10, for example, that's 10 tax IDs, that's 10 sets of books, that's 10 book keeper entries every month for those separate things. Whereas if you just have an LLC, and you treat it properly, so your corporate veil cannot be pierced. And a corporate veil is the corporate formalities that you have to adhere to. So your corporate structure is honored by the courts. And typically, here are the things that people get popped for, they'll pay for their groceries out of their LLC, they'll pay their own mortgage out of their LLC, or they'll just treat their LLC like a checkbook. And that's not what it's for. It is a standalone entity, and it has to be treated and respected that way. So if you don't do those things, you're fine. Your one LLC is going to handle it just fine. For example, my wife and I have, we have a parent company, and that parent company has two LLC is underneath it. And one LLC is for our portfolio over here. And the other LLC is for that portfolio over here. And it all flows up into the holding company, which is a perfectly fine way to structure your holdings. Yes, it is more filing fees every year, it's three filing fees. But if you're trying to get away from filing fees by creating a series, LLC, you're losing the war to win the battle on a filing fee. Because you're gonna pay all these other expenses for tax IDs and book entries and bank statements. And you're just creating a mess. I would not use series LLCs. Now as it relates to land trust, we mentioned that earlier, I've heard a lot of people say, Well, I want to use a land trust. Why do you want to use a land trust? I understand that land trust, get it out of your name. And I'm well aware of that. But it doesn't really create any protections like an LLC would. A lot of people say, Well, I want the anonymity of an LLC, well, you can have the anonymity, you know, of an LLC without using Land Trust. Many states, Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas, you can file your LLC documents, and your name won't appear anywhere on there as long as you use a registered agent. So you can receive the benefits of the anonymity that comes along with the land trust by simply using the LLC. And you'll get more protections with the LLC. So I would encourage your listeners to go talk to a lawyer about setting up an LLC to hold their assets, I tend to eschew Land Trust, they don't really provide the protection that people think they do. Unless you're using an irrevocable trust, which is a trust that gets it out of your estate. Not only does it get it out of your estate, it gets it out of your control, and you can't do anything with it, you have to go through a trustee and that trustee is supposed to use their best judgment on what to do for the trust. So think about that, as you move forward. And these these ideas that people read about online, I really like LLCs, my wife and I use them, I encourage my clients to use them. So that's just coming from my experience and what I do day to day in my practice. Michael: Yeah, from a lot of the folks I've spoken to it sounds like the LLC has come like the Colt 45. For real estate investors. It's reliable, it's standard issue, it can do a lot of the things you need, you need it to do. It's nothing fancy, it just can get the job done. Brian: No, absolutely. I agree with that statement completely. Okay, cool. Michael: And, Brian, I think you're a good person to ask because I think we have similar styles of investing and asset protection, which I'm glad to hear. It sounds like you've broken down your portfolios into two separate LLCs What comfort what level of comfort do you have with the size of your portfolio in each LLC, before you want to further break it up or bring additional LLC online? Brian: And you know, that's a good question. So the way we have treated our LLCs is we go by city, what's in each city. So for example, in Chattanooga, we have an LLC for Chattanooga, and Knoxville and Gatlinburg, we have an LLC for those properties. And in our short term rentals are Montana and the West Tennessee property. We have a separate LLC for that because they're out west So we've kind of broken it down over here, over here and over there. And then we have a parent LLC over top of it. So it's not really a matter of the number of doors or number of properties that have in an LLC. For me, it was geographic, and being able to keep everything separate. And especially for our bookkeeper to know that, hey, these are Chattanooga, they're in that LLC. When you run that k one, it needs to include all these properties. Same over here. So it wasn't a matter of my comfort level with the number of properties, it was just a matter of how can I segregate out all the separate assets that we have and make it user friendly? And also, we're not clumping all of our assets into one LLC. We're spreading them out. But we're doing it geographically. Michael: Right. Okay. And as you and your wife do start to scale, I mean, is there a number of value that you that you'd see hitting in a particular LLC and saying, oh, that's maybe a little heavy, and that LLC, even if I'm investing in the same geographic area, let me bring online, another LLC, just so I don't have so much value sitting in a singular bucket? Or is not? Is that not really a concern of yours? Brian: No, that's not really a concern. And here's why it's not a concern. It's because it doesn't really matter how much my entire portfolio is valued at, I'm always going to be deploying that equity somewhere else to get into another deal. And that equity may get deployed into another LLC. So it's not really a matter of oh, we're too heavy in this particular market. If I had 1000 doors in Chattanooga, I would still leave everything in that one LLC. Michael: Okay, right on. Let's talk about insurance for a minute. Yeah, how much is enough? Brian: I would tell people, you can't have enough. You can't. So we, we have homeowners insurance on every single property. And then our LLC is have business insurance as well. So we also have business insurance for the LLC. And each property is fully insured. And then we require renters to have homeowners insurance. And on top of that, we require renters to use a product called say Rhino, which is security deposit insurance. So they're not paying us a security deposit that we're holding an escrow for them, they're paying monthly, you know, let's say, you know, a month's rent is $1,000, we typically require two and a half months of rent for a security deposit, will Rhyno only requires them to pay like $8 per 1000. So they would much rather pay 20 to 24 bucks, as opposed to tune $2,500 in security deposit. And over the over the year, it comes out a lot cheaper for them. And we're safe and secure, knowing that as long as they're paying that Rhino insurance. If we have to make a claim, it's there, we've got it, they'll take care of it. So we're we're layering insurance, on insurance, on insurance with every everything we can do. So not only from a corporate standpoint of the company, and the asset, but also the tenants and the security deposit. So that's four layers of insurance. Michael: Run that by me again, what rino does so so they are basically ensuring the security deposit, then you can make a claim for damage against that security deposit up to that limit. Brian: Yes, yes, absolutely. That's exactly what they're doing. Michael: And what about the tenant that goes haywire, decides I'm gonna stop paying rent? I'm not paying this right. No nonsense. So they stopped paying it. They've paid six months to date. How does that work? Brian: Yeah, we make a claim. Like if, and so we're, we're on top of our rents and our tenants. And it's in our lease that you have to pay all this stuff. And they do. And if they don't we just make a claim immediately. Michael: And how is your claim experience spin with those folks? Brian: We haven't had to make a claim yet. But the person Yeah, the person I learned this from, he turned us on to it. And we're like, what, have you ever made a claim? He's like, Yeah, they paid us in four days. I'm like, done. You know, Michael: Yeah, I'm sold. I gotta go check this company. What's it called? Brian: Say Rhino. Okay. And, you know, we looked into it. I did my research on it. I think they just did another round of fundraising. And we were sold. We've talked to him, they're easy to work with. They won't reject any of your tenants regardless of credit. As long as you approve them, they're approved. So I take it look, yeah, no longer holding escrow and no longer dealing with security deposits. Let them deal with it. And our experience so far has been great. Let's knock on wood. I don't have to use it. But if I do They'll also pay attorneys fees. So, if you have to let somebody Yeah, go make a claim. Michael: Man, this podcast just took a wild left turn, but I love it. I've totally here for it. Brian: Yeah, it's, it's, it's great. And that all goes into ensuring our company, ensuring our tenants making sure everything's taken care of, but also protecting us, because we have put a lot of money a lot of time into these assets. And, you know, we want to protect those assets. Michael: Yeah, no, it makes total sense. Speaking of Brian, let's talk about this topic for a minute, because you're another good person to ask because you have both short term and long term rentals. Do you see a difference in risk exposure between the two and grouping both asset classes in us in the same LLC? Brian: No, I don't. The only risk that you run with short term rentals is the seasonal market. In that, you know, we were just talking about Gatlinburg, you know, and people don't realize that the high season is actually summer in Gatlinburg, and it's not winter, which is kind of weird. But yeah, people don't want to go to cabins in the winter. So you've got to be able to weather those low months. But no, I would keep both assets in the same LLC if it's in the same geographic area for me. Now, that's not to say it's not right for you. And you know, we could also talk about what's best for you. But no, it doesn't matter to me. Because for us, as everything flows up into our tax structure, we've created this, this LLC step tax structure, that everything flows to the top as a pass through. So everything's flown to the top and the parent company pays all the mortgages on everything. So if you have long term rentals that are just, you know, clicking along and you have a week, month, say in Gatlinburg, like we both know that January, February is a week, month in Gatlinburg. You know, there's plenty of money just to go ahead and pay that note. So that's, that's how we do it. And that's what I encourage clients to do. Because you're, you're not really breaching the corporate veil of everything flows up in the parent company's paying for everything. And that's how we structured it. So we're still, you know, adhering to the corporate formalities, respecting those corporate formalities, and everything is paid from the parent company. Michael: Okay, cool. And then from like a legal risk mitigation perspective, short term rental doesn't sound like it poses any additional risk as compared to a long term rental. Brian: No, I wouldn't think so. Because the the management companies and I don't know, if you use the management company, but they have them sign all these documents, and they have their own attorneys, or all these waivers in there, and they have to put a security deposit down, you know, to rent the property and, you know, a cleaning deposit. And there's so many different deposits that we tend to get good renters at all the properties. Michael: Okay. Okay, fantastic. And as someone is thinking about scaling their portfolio into multiple properties, maybe some different asset classes, from an entity structure, is there anything that they should be aware of, or they should be doing differently, if they've already, you know, started using LLC us in the past? Brian: I would stay with LLCs. If you if you turn to like a C Corp, you get the double layer double layer of tax. If you turn to an S corp, I think you're gonna have to deal with more corporate formalities than you are with an LLC, an LLC is very flexible with what you can do with it. I wouldn't go with a partnership, a general partnership doesn't tend to have the protections nor does a limited liability partnership. You really want the corporate structure of the LLC to stay in place. So there is no other entity out there that I would encourage people to use other than the LLC. You know, reasonable minds can differ on that. I wrote a chapter in the book on it. But at this point, I am not advising clients to use any other structure other than the LLC, it's very flexible, it's easy to buy and sell assets through and quite frankly, you know, it's it's easily respected in the state of Tennessee and in other states as well, I'm sure you know, LLCs are just common now, you know, as common now as s corpse were in the 60s 70s 80s and up to the 90s. I would also encourage people to look at Wyoming, Wyoming is on the cutting edge of LLC formation. You know, they recently came out with a new type of LLC that has to do with crypto currencies and blockchain protections. It's it's crazy what they're doing out there. Tennessee follows shortly thereafter and we're all still trying get our heads around it because one, I'm not a crypto guy. I don't know a whole lot about it. But you're starting to deal with like blockchain technology for the way people can vote. It's, it's really fascinating. So I do like Wyoming, I have a Wyoming LLC for one of my assets. And, you know, it's a great state as well. Michael: I dig it. You mentioned your book, let's talk about that for a minute. What's it called? Where can people find it? And what should they expect to find if they get a copy? Brian: Sure. It's, it's called replace your income, a lawyer's guide to finding funding and managing real estate investments. And they can find it on Amazon. Or they can go to www.BrianTBoyd.com. And they can order it through there. So the reason I wrote this book is because I'm having conversations very similar to what we're talking about now, about, how do I form things? What do I form? Why do I form it? Should I put all my assets in one LLC? And this book came about as a compendium of all those conversations I've had over the years with, with clients in real estate investing, how do they get started? How do they find properties? How do they get a loan? You know, what kind of loans are available? What platforms do I use? Do I do I use, Say Rhino? Or do I use Bildium? Or, you know, what's available? How can I do this using technology to leverage efficiency here? And so it's 13 chapters on all of that, including tax benefits, finance tips, how to structure an LLC, what you need to think about when you're putting together an operating agreement? You know, what's the difference between an operating agreement and bylaws? What's the difference between a charter and an articles of organization. I try to break it down. As if I'm talking to my 11 year old son, anybody can understand it. And that's what I want people to know about this book. It's, anybody can invest in real estate. You don't have to be a professional or have, you know, a six figure income, you can be a college student and start house hacking. You can easily you know, get a loan go buy a small two bedroom, one bath apartment somewhere, and get a roommate, move a roommate and then charge them rent and now your house hacking and now your real estate. And so it's possible for everybody. Michael: Yeah, I love it. I love it. Brian, curveball question here. What's the best compliment you've ever received? Brian: That I married up? Michael: Is that Is that a compliment to your wife? Is that a sort of backhanded compliment to you? Brian: It's probably a backhanded compliment to me, but I I, I could not do what I do without my wife, my wife is, you know, she's an inspiration. She basically runs the entire company. She only lets me talk to people if she can't figure it out. And she is the backbone behind this company. And the funny thing is, I had to drag her into real estate investing, I kept telling her about all the tax benefits of this honey, we can, we can make passive income. And, you know, let me tell you about appreciation and depreciation and how we can, you know, offset some of our income taxes. And she didn't believe me. Now, mind you, I have a master's degree and like, I went to school to do this. And I actually did this for a living for years. And somebody handed her Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and she read it and we're lying in bed when I was like, Hey, did you know that? If we did this, we could pay for a car? I was like, yeah, she's like, did you know we could write our phone bill up? I'm like, Yeah, I did. She's like, did you know like, we could buy a computer and write it off in one year? I'm like, yes. I've been telling you this. And she doesn't believe it coming from me, the guy who has two graduate degrees and does it for a living, but she believes it from the guy that wrote the book, and I'm like, Okay, well, maybe I need to write a book and she'll she'll listen to, but she still doesn't listen to me. So it is what it is. But she she runs this company. And you know, I couldn't do without her. So when somebody says, I'm married up, I'm like, Yeah, I did. And I'm very lucky I did. Michael: Amazing. So amazing. Well, Brian, that brings up maybe my last question for you. Before I let you out of here. I think there are a lot of folks probably listening to this that have a partner significant other that aren't interested or aren't involved with a real estate investing, but they would really like them to be or they need them to be. And so you went through this struggle with your wife, how how should people be thinking about bringing their other partner into the fold? Brian: What I would tell them is you don't have to buy the book. You can look online and see the tax benefits of it. Is that You're going to create positive cash flow. And you're going to create tax deductions that's going to offset not only your cash flow, but your current income tax liability. So if you would like to pay less in income taxes every year, look at real estate investing. Look at it. You know, if you decide not to do and it's not for you, okay, don't do it. There are other things you can invest in. But our Congress has codified our public policy of investing in real estate in our tax code. It is there for you to take advantage of, look, when it comes tax time every year, I always kind of get a little tense, but then I'm like, Okay, well, let's go go buy another property. And then we can cost segregate that property, accelerate the depreciation, and create a larger tax deduction for ourselves, and it's not so painful come tax time. I'm sure you know that as well that, hey, we can cashflow this property. And, you know, the government actually is encouraging us to go buy real estate, the government is encouraging you to succeed. And that's all I want for anybody is to succeed. You know, this book, I think it's 19.99. It's a lot cheaper than sitting down with me for an hour. And this is everything I've already talked about with people, and I do on a regular basis. So if your spouse is struggling to get on board with your idea of real estate investing, you know, maybe buy the book for them and show them that, hey, this is possible. You're talking to a guy who worked two jobs to put himself through law school, and then two jobs while I was in graduate school on top of that, and I'm still paying off student loans. But you know what, I paid off a student loan last week. And I did it because we got a refund. That came back to me as a result of the deductions I have through real estate. And the first thing I did with that check was, hey, it's enough. I'm going to pay off that loan. And I did. So it's, it's a real example of how real estate can affect your bottom line. Michael: I love it. That is awesome. And congrats on getting that loan paid off. That's really exciting. Brian: Oh, thanks so much. Michael: You got it. Brian, we're gonna get you out of here. If people want to continue the conversation, learn more about you. What's the best way for them to do so? Brian: They can get in touch with me at the law firm. The website is www.BoydWills.com. And, you know, you can reach out to me on the Brian T Boyd, Facebook page and on Instagram. Michael: Okay, amazing. We'll be sure to do that. Brian. Thanks again for sharing some amazing wisdom man. Appreciate you coming on. We'll talk soon. Brian: Thanks, Michaels. Good to be here. Michael: You could take care. All right, everyone. That was our episode. A big thank you to Brian for coming on and sharing some wisdom about LLCs asset protection, tax benefits and some loopholes that we can take advantage of as real estate investors. As always, if you enjoyed the episode, feel free to leave us a rating or review wherever you get your podcasts and we look forward to seeing on the next one. Happy investing
Long before “going green” became a hashtag, people like William O. Douglas were on the front lines of the environmental justice movement. Despite being known for some notable accomplishments — for example, the fact that he was the longest serving U.S. Supreme Court justice, having sat from 1939-1975 — Douglas largely remained an unsung environmental advocate. Author and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge M. Margaret McKeown's new book, Citizen Justice: The Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas explores Douglas's impact not only during his near forty-year SCOTUS tenure, but the ripple effects that helped shape environmental policy and practice today. Douglas, nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, embraced both a personal and political connection to nature, which fueled his drive to save trees and protect the land. Despite these achievements, he was not without controversy: impeachments, oppositions, and a series of failed marriages marred his public image. Though a complex figure, his commitment to bettering the earth is indisputable. Joining with McKeown at Town Hall is former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and former CEO of recreational giant REI, Sally Jewell. The two will discuss the ways that Citizen Justice elucidates the tensions that arose from Douglas's efforts, as well as the contemporary lessons that we can draw from them as we examine one man's life — and legacy — on the road to achieving environmental justice. Judge M. Margaret McKeown was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1998. She holds a J.D. and an honorary doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center.Before her appointment, Judge McKeown was the first female partner at Perkins Coie in Seattle and Washington, D.C., and served as a White House Fellow. Judge McKeown has lectured throughout the world on international law, human rights law, intellectual property, litigation, ethics, judicial administration, and constitutional law and has participated in numerous rule of law initiatives with judges and lawyers. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and received the ABA Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement award, the ABA John Marshall Award, and the Girl Scouts Cool Woman Award, among others. Sally Jewell served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior from 2013-17, overseeing the nation's national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands, working closely with Indigenous peoples during a period when President Obama protected more lands and waters than any other U.S. president. Previously, she was President and CEO of outdoor retailer REI. Jewell currently serves on the board of The Nature Conservancy and other corporate and non-profit boards, and has held fellowships at the University of Washington and Harvard. A lifelong outdoor enthusiast, she has explored our public lands from coast to coast, with a deep appreciation of the people who have stewarded them since time immemorial. Citizen Justice: The Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas—Public Advocate and Conservation Champion (Hardcover) Elliott Bay Books