Podcasts about hostetler llp

The aftermath of trust litigation brought by beneficiaries against trustees is too often a lawyer malpractice claim against the drafting lawyer.  Listen to Sean McKissick and Kristin Yokomoto discuss the 1958 balancing test applied to lawyer malpractice cases and the messages from the courts in recent cases. About Our Guest:  Sean McKissickSean McKissick is a partner at Downey Brand LLP in Sacramento, California, where he specializes in trust and estate litigation.  He serves as the Vice Chair of the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the Sacramento County Bar Association.  He is the current Editor of Trust on Trial, a blog focusing on trust and estate litigation in California that was founded by the Honorable Jeffrey Galvin prior to his ascension to the bench.  Listeners can receive Sean's blog posts via email as they are posted by subscribing at https://www.trustontrial.com/subscribe/.  About Our Host:  Kristin YokomotoKristin Yokomoto, Esq., is a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP in Costa Mesa, California. She practices in the areas of estate planning for high net worth clients, business succession planning, trust administration, and probate. She is a Legal Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law certified by the State Bar of California. Kristin is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC), Executive Committee Member of the CLA Trust and Estate Section (TEXCOM), and Committee Member of the Orange County Bar Association Professionalism & Ethics Committee.Thank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Todd Gajdusek and Cat Hammons

In this episode of Trust Me!, Bette Epstein discusses the magic of the trust and estate mediation process to informally resolve disputes, which includes party engagement, active listening, patience and problem solving. About Our Guest:Bette Epstein is a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc.  Ms. Epstein has been mediating trust and estate disputes since 2000.  Following a remarkable career as a trust and estate litigator, she turned her focus to alternative dispute resolution 24 years ago and has been helping parties settle their disputes since. Ms. Epstein is located in Northern California and mediates disputes virtually throughout California.bepstein@adrservices.comhttps://betteepstein.com/About Our Host:Kristin Yokomoto is a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP in Costa Mesa, California and focuses on tax and estate planning for high-net-worth individuals, trust administration and probate. She is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the American Bar Association. Ms. Yokomoto is a member of the Executive Committee of the California Lawyer Association's Trusts and Estates Section.kyokomoto@bakerlaw.comThank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Todd Gajdusek

In this episode of Trust Me!, Kristin Yokomoto discusses ethical considerations in the estate planning world. She covers issues relating to engagement letters, conflicts, communication, capacity and more.About Our Guest:Kristin Yokomoto is a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP in Costa Mesa, California and focuses on tax and estate planning for high-net-worth individuals, trust administration and probate. She is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the American Bar Association. Kristin is a member of the Executive Committee of the California Lawyer Association's Trusts and Estates Section and the Orange County Bar Association Professionalism and Ethics Committee. She is a Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law with the California Bar Association of Legal Specialization. Kristin recently published an article on the Trusts and Estates Mediation and the Role of the Mediator for the Trust and Estates Quarterly and is earning an LL.M. in Dispute Resolution.About Our Host: Host Anna Soliman is Trust Counsel and Managing Director for Fiduciary Trust International of California out of the Los Angeles Office. Prior to joining Fiduciary Trust International, Anna was an estate tax attorney for the Internal Revenue Service and also worked in private practice, specializing in estate planning and trust administration for ultrahigh net worth individuals. She is also a TEXCOM member and is a Vice-Chair of the Fiduciary Income Tax Section of the American Bar AssociationThank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Todd Gajdusek

Lynn Sessions, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, speaks with Jim Vint, Managing Director, Secretariat Advisors, about what the health law community needs to know about advertising technology on health care websites. They discuss what the technology is and how organizations are using it, why this is such a priority for the HHS Office for Civil Rights and other regulators, who is reviewing how organizations are using these technologies and the legal consequences that can arise from those reviews, recent OCR guidance, and steps that organizations can take to proactively mitigate risk.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Moore v. Harper.Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state's supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court's own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections. Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the same day, December 7, 2022.Featuring:Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm's Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases that will be covered are included below.Percoco v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a private citizen who can influence government decision-making owes a duty to the public, so that he can be convicted of bribery.Ciminelli v. United States (Nov. 28) - Criminal Law; whether a defendant can be convicted under the federal wire-fraud statute based on a “right to control” theory.United States v. Texas (Nov. 29) - Immigration; a challenge to the Biden administration's policy of prioritizing certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and detention.Wilkins v. United States (Nov. 30) - Property Rights, whether the 12-year statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit under the Quiet Title Act is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.303 Creative v. Elenis (Dec. 5) - Civil Rights; whether applying Colorado's public-accommodation law to require an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Constitution's free speech clause.MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (Dec. 5) - Bankruptcy; whether a provision of federal bankruptcy law limits the power of the courts of appeals over an order approving the sale of a debtor's assets.Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (Dec. 6) - Bankruptcy; whether a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person's fraud.Moore v. Harper (Dec. 7) - Election Law; whether a state supreme court's order invalidating a state's congressional map and ordering the state to draw a new one violates the Constitution's elections clause.Featuring: -- Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP; Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute-- Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity Network-- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University -- Moderator: Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn

Signed into law on January 5, 2021, Public Law 116-321 requires HHS to take into consideration certain recognized security practices of covered entities and business associates when determining potential fines, audit results, or other remedies for resolving potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule. Dawn Morgenstern, Chief Privacy Officer and Director of Consulting Services, Clearwater, speaks with Aleksandra Vold, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, about Public Law 116-321's impact on OCR investigations, how covered entities and business associates are approaching the question of recognized security practices, and recommended frameworks for meeting the expectations of Public Law 116-321. Sponsored by Clearwater.

This week, your Message Engineer Podcast host, Maureen Shaffer (CEO of Mingletoe LLC), sits down with La Toya Sutton, JD, Senior Attorney at the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs to discuss claims and advertising for medical devices, healthcare, and consumers. La Toya Sutton, JD, shares compelling marketing and messaging insights that will drive future success in planning for and making marketing and health claims.Listen now to hear key takeaways, including: What constitutes a claim – including a discussion of emojisHow a founder speaking on the company's IG live may constitute product claimsWhy securing marketing claims is as important as securing intellectual property (IP)Why an attorney in advertising and claims law is an integral partner for your startupWhen the marketing landscape changes rapidly and there is unclear regulatory guidance, how to consider claims support, and much, much more!La Toya has 15 years of deep experience in claims and advertising law. She has counseled clients regarding the development, substantiation, approval, and defense of advertising claims, as well as compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling and marketing requirements. La Toya has worked on matters involving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other federal and state agencies. Previously, La Toya worked at Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells), post-Georgetown Law, as well as Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and Baker & Hostetler LLP.Listen to the full episode on the Message Engineer Podcast everywhere!https://redcircle.com/shows/message-engineer-for-the-medical-device-startupWatch full video episode: https://youtu.be/OLxKvLYgCq0Follow La Toya Sutton: https://www.linkedin.com/in/la-toya-sutton-1476266/Follow Maureen Shaffer: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maureenashaffer/___________________________________________________________Welcome to the Message Engineer for the Medical Device Startup! We are focused on how to create clear, compelling, and competitive messages for the medtech and medical device startup to drive funding and revenue. We will be posting every week, so comment your questions and Subscribe/Follow!

Ann O'Brien, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, and Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case LLP, discuss the intersection of antitrust, labor, and health care; recent trends; and criminal antitrust no poach and wage fixing cases. They also discuss the recent historical focus on labor and competition, current trends at the FTC and across the Biden Administration related to the intersection of competition and non-compete/labor markets, and tips for health care companies in this era of heightened enforcement.

REP. DEVIN NUNES U.S. Representative for California's 22nd congressional district   Rep. Nunes joins Larry O'Connor to discuss the latest revelations behind the Obamagate scandal and the failure of California's environmental policies that have led, he says to the recent wild fires.  JAMES O'KEEFE Founder of Project Veritas    O'Keefe has a brand new expose on ballot harvesting activities in Rep. Ilhan Omar's district in Minneapolis.  ANDREW GROSSMAN A partner at the law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP   [HOS-STET-LER] An Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies While the mainstream media discuss Judge Amy Coney Barret's faith, her children, her adoptions and other superfluous issues, we discuss her actual record as a judge on the 7th circuit court of appeals. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today’s sponsored episode of Legal Drugs Podcast, Host Angela Stoyanovitch, speaks with Lee Rosebush, Partner at Baker & Hostetler, LLP. Lee is one of the scheduled speakers at the upcoming compounding pharmacy live stream salon hosted by PharmaSalon.  To learn more about the Aug. 18-20th, 2020 event and to register, go to www.pharmasalon.com. Lee Rosebush is the Pharmacy & Reimbursement Team Leader and Co-Leader of the FDA Practice at Baker & Hostetler. With a unique background as a defense, regulatory, and registered patent attorney who has also worked as a pharmacist, Lee provides his clients with legal counsel that is grounded in first-hand experience. He possesses a unique understanding of the pharmaceutical industry (legal drugs business as we like to say) which, combined with his attention to detail and experience with biologics, medical device, and healthcare companies, gives clients a single source for regulatory and litigation counsel. He is a star when it comes to navigating legal, governmental, and pharmaceutical environments, which helps him to more easily reduce the time needed to secure operating licenses or assist drug manufacturers to avoid compliance actions from governmental agencies. For more on Lee, go to; https://www.bakerlaw.com/LeeHRosebush.  In this episode, Lee and Angela discuss some of the issues arising around outsourcing drug manufacturing abroad (where standards are different) and how the pandemic has exasperated these problems in the legal drug manufacturing business. The Outsourcing Facilities Association (OFA) is the trade association representing FDA-registered 503B outsourcing facilities who focus on providing patients and healthcare providers with safe and effective compounded medications. To learn more about the Outcoursing Facilities Association to go www.503bs.org. *As referenced on the episode, here is the link to Lee's article, Outsourcing U.S. Drug Manufacturing to China was a Mistake - A Lethal One [Opinion]; https://www.newsweek.com/pharmaceutical-manufacturing-america-china-lethal-mistake-1502008.  This episode edited and produced by Margaret Beveridge.

On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

On June 11, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel titled "Third Party Litigation Financing: A Distorting or Reinforcing Practice?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.Third party litigation financing (TPLF) is the practice of external financiers investing in lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or judgment. TPLF is a global industry with approximately $100 billion available to funders and firms. Proponents argue that the practice makes it possible for marginalized plaintiffs to bring difficult cases that wouldn't otherwise be brought. Critics, however, claim that it harms the legal system, distorting the plaintiff and defendant roles and making lawsuit settlements more difficult and expensive. Are these criticisms fair? Or do the benefits outweigh the objections? Join us on June 11 for an expert panel who will consider these questions and more.As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolAndrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Erin M. Hawley, Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Fellow at the Independent Women's ForumHon. Luther Johnson Strange, III, Former Senator, State of AlabamaModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

On June 11, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel titled "Third Party Litigation Financing: A Distorting or Reinforcing Practice?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.Third party litigation financing (TPLF) is the practice of external financiers investing in lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or judgment. TPLF is a global industry with approximately $100 billion available to funders and firms. Proponents argue that the practice makes it possible for marginalized plaintiffs to bring difficult cases that wouldn't otherwise be brought. Critics, however, claim that it harms the legal system, distorting the plaintiff and defendant roles and making lawsuit settlements more difficult and expensive. Are these criticisms fair? Or do the benefits outweigh the objections? Join us on June 11 for an expert panel who will consider these questions and more.As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolAndrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Erin M. Hawley, Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Fellow at the Independent Women's ForumHon. Luther Johnson Strange, III, Former Senator, State of AlabamaModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato InstituteProf. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of LawProf. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of LawBrianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability CenterModerator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

With more than 10 percent of Americans moving each year, how can states ensure that their voting lists are kept up to date and that ineligible persons are removed? In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court held that states can look at failure to vote as evidence to identify people who may have moved, but that it can’t be the sole factor used to remove a voter from the rolls. By a 5-4 vote, the decision upheld an Ohio law that removes from the voter rolls voters who don’t vote in any election for two years, fail to respond to a return card mailed to their registered address, and then don’t vote in any election for another four years. That scheme, according to the advocacy groups that challenged it, violated a section of the National Voter Registration Act that provides that failure to vote “shall not result in the removal of the name of any person” from the rolls. But, as Justice Alito’s majority opinion explained, another section provides that states may mail a “return card” to registered voters and, if they don’t respond, remove them if they fail to vote in the next two federal elections. And nothing in the statute says that states can’t rely on failure to vote as a basis to send out return cards. What states can’t do, the Court concluded, is rely on nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a voter from the rolls. The majority’s decision preserves the tools that states have used for years to remove ineligible persons from voter-registration rolls and may spur more states to adopt approaches like Ohio’s. It also has important things to say about the courts’ respect for the policy judgments made by Congress and the states.Featuring:Mr. Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

With more than 10 percent of Americans moving each year, how can states ensure that their voting lists are kept up to date and that ineligible persons are removed? In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court held that states can look at failure to vote as evidence to identify people who may have moved, but that it can’t be the sole factor used to remove a voter from the rolls. By a 5-4 vote, the decision upheld an Ohio law that removes from the voter rolls voters who don’t vote in any election for two years, fail to respond to a return card mailed to their registered address, and then don’t vote in any election for another four years. That scheme, according to the advocacy groups that challenged it, violated a section of the National Voter Registration Act that provides that failure to vote “shall not result in the removal of the name of any person” from the rolls. But, as Justice Alito’s majority opinion explained, another section provides that states may mail a “return card” to registered voters and, if they don’t respond, remove them if they fail to vote in the next two federal elections. And nothing in the statute says that states can’t rely on failure to vote as a basis to send out return cards. What states can’t do, the Court concluded, is rely on nonvoting as the sole criterion for removing a voter from the rolls. The majority’s decision preserves the tools that states have used for years to remove ineligible persons from voter-registration rolls and may spur more states to adopt approaches like Ohio’s. It also has important things to say about the courts’ respect for the policy judgments made by Congress and the states.Featuring:Mr. Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.