Podcasts about kirkland ellis

Kevin Werbach interviews Dale Cendali, one of the country's leading intellectual property (IP) attorneys, to discuss how courts are grappling with copyright questions in the age of generative AI. Over 30 lP awsuits already filed against major generative AI firms, and the outcomes may shape the future of AI as well as creative industries. While we couldn't discuss specifics of one of the most talked-about cases, Thomson Reuters v. ROSS -- because Cendali is litigating it on behalf of Thomson Reuters -- she drew on her decades of experience in IP law to provide an engaging look at the legal battlefield and the prospects for resolution.  Cendali breaks down the legal challenges around training AI on copyrighted materials—from books to images to music—and explains why these cases are unusually complex for copyright law. She discusses the recent US Copyright Office report on Generative AI training, what counts as infringement in AU outputs, and what is sufficient human authorship for copyirght protection of AI works. While precedent offers some guidance, Cendali notes that outcomes will depend heavily on the specific facts of each case. The conversation also touches on how well courts can adapt existing copyright law to these novel technologies, and the prospects for a legislative solution. Dale Cendali is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, where she leads the firm's nationwide copyright, trademark, and internet law practice. She has been named one of the 25 Icons of IP Law and one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America. She also serves as an advisor to the American Law Institute's Copyright Restatement project and sits on the Board of the International Trademark Association. Transcript Thompson Reuters Wins Key Fair Use Fight With AI Startup Dale Cendali - 2024 Law360 MVP Copyright Office Report on Generative AI Training

This Day in Legal History: Louisiana PurchaseOn this day in legal history, April 30, 1803, the United States signed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty with France, dramatically altering the legal and territorial landscape of the country. The treaty, signed in Paris by American envoys Robert Livingston and James Monroe, officially transferred approximately 828,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River from French to American control. President Thomas Jefferson, though uncertain whether the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorized such a land acquisition, ultimately supported the deal, citing the necessity of expanding the republic and securing trade access to the port of New Orleans.The purchase, which cost $15 million (roughly four cents an acre), effectively doubled the size of the United States and set a precedent for executive power in foreign affairs. It raised important legal questions regarding the role of the executive branch, the powers of Congress, and the interpretation of constitutional authority in territorial expansion. The acquisition also intensified debates over the expansion of slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples, both of which would become central legal and political issues throughout the 19th century.In addition to expanding national territory, the Louisiana Purchase laid the groundwork for the exploration and legal organization of new states. Soon after, Congress passed legislation governing how the territory would be divided and admitted into the Union. This required new legal frameworks for property rights, governance, and federal versus state authority in previously foreign lands.The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on whether Oklahoma can fund a religious charter school—the first case of its kind. At issue is the state's attempt to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a K-12 online institution run by two Catholic dioceses, using public funds. A state court previously blocked the school, ruling it would act as a “governmental entity” and violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion.The school's supporters, including Oklahoma's governor and President Trump, argue that denying the school solely because it is religious constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, opponents, including the state's attorney general, warn that the move would amount to taxpayer-funded religious indoctrination and could erode public education standards, particularly around non-discrimination.Charter schools in Oklahoma are considered public entities, which complicates claims that St. Isidore would operate as a private, independent institution. Organizers maintain that contracting with the state doesn't make the school an arm of the government. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could redefine the boundaries between church and state in education.The legal element worth highlighting here is the Establishment Clause vs. Free Exercise Clause tension—the case tests how far states can go in accommodating religious institutions without endorsing them. This clash sits at the core of modern debates about public funding and religious liberty. Under the current Supreme Court composition, it is likely we will see an expansion of the former at the cost of the limits in the latter. US Supreme Court mulls legality of milestone religious charter school | ReutersGoogle CEO Sundar Pichai is set to testify in a high-stakes antitrust trial where the U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to break up parts of Google's business to restore competition in online search. The DOJ is urging the court to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and stop paying major tech partners like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their devices. Prosecutors argue these deals entrench Google's monopoly and hinder innovation, especially as search overlaps more with emerging generative AI tools like ChatGPT.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has already found that Google maintains a dominant position in the search market with no real rivals. The government is also asking the court to make Google share search data with competitors to level the playing field. Google, in response, claims that such measures would harm user privacy and undercut smaller partners like Mozilla that depend on Google funding.Pichai is expected to argue that the proposed remedies would have unintended consequences across the tech ecosystem. Google has already made some adjustments, allowing phone makers to pre-install alternative search and AI apps, but it still plans to appeal any adverse ruling. The case could have sweeping implications for the future of search, digital competition, and AI integration online.Google CEO Sundar Pichai to take the stand at search antitrust trial | ReutersPresident Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to coordinate free legal defense for police officers accused of misconduct. The order calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to organize pro bono support from private law firms, aiming to protect officers who, in the administration's view, face "unjust liability" for actions taken in the line of duty. Though the order doesn't name specific firms, it expands Trump's broader effort to harness the legal industry to support his administration's priorities.This follows recent agreements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms—including Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis—to commit $940 million worth of pro bono work to causes the administration endorses, such as veterans' services and combating antisemitism. Critics, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and 20 Democratic state attorneys general, have raised concerns about political pressure and lack of transparency in how these firms were selected and what they've agreed to.The order also calls for improved pay and training for police while denouncing efforts to “demonize law enforcement.” Critics warn this could undermine accountability and place pressure on firms to align their legal services with political goals. Meanwhile, some firms have publicly stated they will maintain control over their pro bono work, even as Trump claims the right to “use” them for administration-selected causes.Trump executive order seeks law firms to defend police officers for free | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I examined President Trump's renewed push to replace income taxes with tariffs, particularly targeting relief for Americans making under $200,000. The idea sounds populist, but it's economically misleading. Tariffs, after all, are simply hidden taxes that show up in the form of higher prices on imported goods. For lower- and middle-income Americans—those Trump claims to want to help—this shift would likely increase, not reduce, their financial burden.The proposal doesn't change the amount of money the government needs—just where it's extracted. Instead of the IRS, the “bill collector” becomes stores, suppliers, and foreign producers, with consumers footing the bill at checkout. Trump's approach, I argue, banks on the psychological difference between writing a tax check and absorbing incremental price hikes, though the economic effect is the same.Historically, tariff-based revenue systems led to inequality and volatility—conditions that helped inspire the adoption of the income tax through the Sixteenth Amendment. And practically speaking, tariffs simply cannot generate the hundreds of billions needed to sustain modern federal programs. Relying on them also cedes revenue control to foreign exporters, which undermines national fiscal stability.Ultimately, this policy doesn't tackle the real issue—Americans' frustration with a high cost of living. Instead, it disguises taxation while dodging the deeper structural question of who should be paying more. I emphasized that real reform must address not just how taxes are collected, but also the fairness of who bears the burden.Trump Continues To Push Idea Of Replacing Income Tax With TariffsSpecial ThanksStephanie Himel-Nelson, Jennifer Porter Law, PLLC This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Fair Housing ActOn this day in legal history, April 11, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, a pivotal expansion of civil rights protections in the United States. Commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation was enacted just days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy of nonviolent activism heavily influenced its passage. The law made it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing based on race, color, religion, or national origin.It aimed to dismantle the systemic barriers that had long segregated American cities and suburbs, including redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory practices. Title VIII of the Act directly addressed these inequities and empowered the federal government to enforce fair housing standards for the first time. Though political resistance to housing integration had stalled similar legislation for years, the national mourning following Dr. King's death shifted public and congressional sentiment.Johnson, in a nationally televised address, described the signing as a tribute to Dr. King's life and a necessary step toward realizing the full promise of civil rights in America. Subsequent amendments expanded protections to include sex, disability, and familial status, making the Fair Housing Act one of the most comprehensive civil rights laws on the books. Enforcement mechanisms, however, remained a challenge, and litigation over housing discrimination has continued into the present day.The law has been central to major legal battles over zoning laws, gentrification, and access to affordable housing. It also laid the groundwork for subsequent legislation aimed at combating economic and racial segregation. While the Act did not instantly eliminate housing discrimination, it marked a legal turning point that recognized the home as a critical site of equality and opportunity.A small team from the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), created under Elon Musk's initiative to reduce government spending and staffing, has arrived at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), according to an internal email from the agency. While the team is working with FDIC leadership to identify internal efficiencies, it does not have access to sensitive or confidential bank data, including resolution plans, deposit insurance records, or examination materials. The FDIC emphasized that the DGE operatives are full-time federal employees working under formal interagency agreements and have not sought access to confidential information.DGE has previously drawn concern from industry participants during its visit to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due to fears over data exposure. The FDIC oversees highly sensitive information about major U.S. banks and their failure plans, which regulators rely on during crises. The number and identity of DGE team members at the FDIC have not been disclosed, and the agency declined to comment further.The agency is also preparing for staff reductions, following the Trump administration's deferred resignation program that has already led to the loss of 500 FDIC employees. Additional buyouts and formal layoffs are expected soon. The timing of DGE's involvement comes as global markets react to new tariffs announced by President Trump, prompting concerns from former officials about weakening regulators' ability to respond to potential financial instability.DOGE Arrives at FDIC but Doesn't Have Access to Bank Data (2)At least three major law firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—are in talks with the Trump administration to reach a joint agreement that would commit over $300 million in pro bono services to causes favored by the White House. The potential deal is also intended to resolve federal investigations into the firms' diversity programs, which the administration has scrutinized for alleged discriminatory practices. If finalized, the arrangement would bring the total pledged in pro bono services from various firms to at least $640 million.President Trump, speaking at a Cabinet meeting, hinted that a handful of firms remain in negotiations, emphasizing that many firms have already paid significant sums or made concessions. He stated that he expects lawyers from participating firms to assist with policy efforts such as implementing tariffs and expanding coal mining.The administration has previously targeted several firms with executive orders for representing causes or clients viewed as oppositional to Trump's agenda. These orders have included punitive measures such as revoking security clearances and restricting federal access. Some firms—like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block—have successfully blocked these actions in court, while others like Paul Weiss settled by agreeing to pro bono contributions. Firms such as Skadden and Milbank preemptively negotiated similar deals.Trump Talks Deal With Three Massive Law Firms as Others FightA U.S. immigration judge is set to rule today on whether Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist at Columbia University, can be deported. Khalil, who holds Algerian citizenship and became a lawful U.S. permanent resident last year, was arrested last month at his New York City apartment and transferred to an immigration jail in rural Louisiana. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for Khalil's removal under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his presence in the U.S. poses foreign policy risks due to his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.Rubio's letter to the court claims Khalil was involved in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” but does not accuse him of any crimes. Instead, Rubio argues the government can revoke legal status based solely on speech or associations if deemed harmful to U.S. interests. Khalil's attorneys say the case is an attempt to punish constitutionally protected speech and have called the letter politically motivated and authoritarian in tone.They are requesting to subpoena and depose Rubio as part of their defense. The immigration court hearing the case operates under the Department of Justice and is separate from the federal judiciary. Khalil is also suing in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that his arrest, detention, and transfer far from his legal team and family were unconstitutional.US immigration judge to decide whether Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil can be deported | ReutersPresident Trump signed a bill nullifying a revised IRS rule that would have broadened the definition of a “broker” to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges, or DeFi platforms. The rule, finalized in the final weeks of the Biden administration, was part of a broader IRS effort to tighten crypto tax enforcement and was rooted in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It would have required DeFi platforms to report user transactions to both the IRS and the users themselves.The crypto industry strongly opposed the rule, arguing that DeFi platforms do not function like traditional brokers and lack access to user identities, making compliance impossible. Centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, by contrast, already meet these reporting requirements as intermediaries. Both the House and Senate voted in March to repeal the IRS rule through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn recent federal regulations with a majority vote.Trump, who has positioned himself as a pro-crypto candidate, had campaigned on promises to support digital asset innovation. Since taking office, he has formed a federal cryptocurrency working group and signed an executive order to establish a national bitcoin reserve.Trump signs bill to nullify expanded IRS crypto broker rule | ReutersThis week's closing theme takes us back to April 13, 1850, when Richard Wagner's opera Lohengrin premiered in Weimar under the baton of his friend and supporter, Franz Liszt. Wagner, one of the most influential and controversial figures in classical music, was then in political exile, and unable to attend the debut of what would become one of his most iconic works. Known for his revolutionary approach to opera—melding music, drama, and mythology—Wagner crafted Lohengrin as a sweeping, mystical tale of a knight of the Holy Grail who arrives in a swan-drawn boat to defend the innocent Elsa of Brabant. The opera's shimmering textures, leitmotif-driven score, and spiritual overtones would set the stage for his later monumental works like Tristan und Isolde and the Ring Cycle.Lohengrin remains best known for its third-act bridal chorus—“Here Comes the Bride”—but the opera's deeper themes of identity, trust, and the cost of forbidden questions give it lasting emotional and philosophical weight. Set in a quasi-medieval world laced with mystery, the opera tells of a hero who must depart the moment his name is asked, leaving love suspended in silence. Wagner's orchestration in Lohengrin is luminous and patient, often evoking shimmering water and distant prophecy, with long-breathed phrases that seem to float above time.As a closing theme for this week, Lohengrin invites reflection—on belief, on leadership, and on how history so often pivots on names, silence, and the tension between loyalty and doubt. Its premiere on April 13th marks not only a moment in Wagner's evolution as a composer but also a cultural point of departure, where German Romanticism began leaning toward something darker and more transcendental. We end the week, then, with the slow unfurling of Lohengrin's prelude: a gentle, ascending shimmer that begins almost imperceptibly, and rises—like the swan on the river—toward the unknown.This week, we close with the prelude to Lohengrin by Richard Wagner—music of undeniable beauty from a composer whose legacy includes both brilliance and deeply troubling beliefs. We share it for its artistry, not its ideology. Without further ado, Richard Wagner's Lohengrin, the prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History:  Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil ServiceOn April 7, 1933, the German government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a key early legal step in the Nazi regime's campaign to marginalize and exclude Jews and political dissenters from public life. The law targeted civil servants, stating that anyone who was not of “Aryan” descent or who held views deemed politically unreliable—especially Communists and Social Democrats—could be dismissed from government service. While phrased in bureaucratic language, the law was a thinly veiled act of political and racial purging. Jewish teachers, professors, judges, and other state employees were removed from their posts, some having served Germany for decades, including veterans of World War I.The law also gave the regime a tool to begin shaping state institutions along Nazi ideological lines. Its vague language about “unreliability” gave officials wide discretion to remove not only Jews but anyone who opposed the Nazis or failed to show sufficient loyalty. Although certain Jewish individuals were temporarily exempted under a “front-line fighter” clause—meant to placate concerns about fairness—the loophole would soon be closed in later legislation.This marked the first legal codification of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, providing a model for further exclusionary laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. It also demonstrated how laws could be used not only to formalize discrimination but to normalize it, embedding it into the everyday machinery of the state. By disguising oppression as administrative reform, the Nazi government laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic system of persecution that would escalate into far more violent phases in the years to come.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's highest-grossing law firm, is in negotiations with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by an executive order similar to those issued against several of its competitors. The firm reportedly reached out to the White House proactively, hoping to strike a deal that would spare it from the penalties imposed on others—such as revoking security clearances, limiting federal access, or canceling client contracts.Other cowardly firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Milbank have already secured deals involving multimillion-dollar pledges for pro bono legal work aligned with White House priorities. These agreements also include commitments to avoid discriminatory diversity practices and to recruit ideologically diverse attorneys. Kirkland, though not yet the subject of an executive order, is one of 20 firms under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scrutiny following Trump's directives.In 2024, Kirkland earned nearly $9 billion, with its lawyers playing key roles in major private equity and M&A deals, topping Bloomberg Law's transactional rankings. The firm's aggressive style and market dominance have made it a heavyweight in the legal world, and this move signals its intent to shield its interests amid the Trump administration's ongoing pressure campaign against firms seen as politically opposed.$9 billion in earnings is, apparently, not enough to buy a spine. Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid OrderMore than 500 law firms have signed onto a court brief supporting Perkins Coie in its legal challenge against a Trump executive order that penalizes the firm over past political work and diversity policies. The brief, filed with U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticizes what it describes as a dangerous effort to intimidate the legal profession, warning that legal representation of disfavored causes may now provoke government retaliation. Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on March 11, following Trump's order targeting the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its internal diversity policies. Several firms targeted by similar orders—such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling—have either sued or signed the brief. Others, including once again the aforementioned Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached deals with Trump to avoid formal action.Judge Howell has already blocked parts of Trump's order, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to the legal system's foundations. The White House maintains the orders are lawful exercises of presidential authority. The brief was spearheaded by former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who now practices at Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of several prominent firms suing the administration over related matters. Many top law firms have stayed silent, but the growing backlash reflects broad concern about the use of presidential power to retaliate against legal opposition. Critics say the executive orders weaponize the law to chill dissent and undercut core legal protections.More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie suit against punitive Trump order | ReutersA U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been placed on administrative leave after failing to defend the government's actions in a wrongful deportation case that a federal judge described as “wholly lawless.” The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran migrant with a valid work permit, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that he be returned to Maryland and found no legal basis for his arrest, detention, or deportation, noting he had complied with all immigration requirements and had no criminal record.At a recent hearing, DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni struggled to explain the deportation and admitted he lacked evidence justifying the government's actions. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that Reuveni and his supervisor August Flentje have been sidelined from the case. The administration is appealing the order but has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's deportation was a mistake.The deported man is now being held in a high-risk prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming gang affiliations, though there are no charges against Abrego Garcia. The case highlights broader concerns about due process and immigration enforcement under the current administration, with critics pointing to a pattern of ignoring legal protections in deportation proceedings.US sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History:  MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Zak is a 2L at Widener Delaware Law, and currently works as the Founder of Balancing the Scales. Zak's journey is a testament to not only taking opportunities, but making your own! Zak and I start prior to his arrival to Delaware Law, where Zak would participate in fascinating Pre-Law programs, being Eversheds Sutherland Scholar, as well as an Afro Scholar at Kirkland Ellis. These experiences would lay the foundations for his interest in Law School, as well as what he would want to do in the future, as they touched on all areas of the Law, with a wealth of experience. We then moved to Zak's first year of Law School, where it was extremely difficult but by leveraging the mentors and connections from the Pre-Law programs it allowed him to get a better understanding of the material. Zak would key in on how vital setting and sticking to your expectations and goals is in terms of grades. Zak would be in the top of his class, and they directly aligned to the action steps he was taking. During spring semester of his 1L year, after finding a lack of resources for pre-law and law students alike, Zak would take the initiative and found Balancing the Scales, a passion project and brainchild of Zak as he sought to "level the playing field" by increasing access to information and resources for diverse and first-generation law students. Through webinars, mentorship, networking events, and scholarship opportunities, the Balance The Scales platform is intended to do exactly what its name suggests.Finally, we went through Zak's internships and their impact on his future plans, finding areas that are interesting and intellectually challenging. Zak suggests to those going to Law School and those in it to send emails to professionals and build out a network of veteran lawyers to help and support them through their journey. This episode with Zak further shows how important it is to take the initiative and create opportunities for yourself that will pay dividends for the rest of your life! Zak's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zakariyya-allenBalancing the Scales: https://sites.google.com/view/balancingthescales/homeBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

Brennan is a current 3L at the University of Georgia Law School. Brennan's journey is just getting underway but is full of amazing insights about the Law School experience, while still fresh in the mind. Brennan and I started before Law School, during his time at UPenn. He would explore many different routes before deciding on Law, but his inspiration for Law School came before arriving at UPenn. His late father was a prosecutor and family law attorney, so Brennan was surrounded by the law at a young age. He always questioned the law and was interested in the wall between those in the legal world and everyday people.We then moved to Brennan's first year of Law School, which he thoroughly enjoyed, and understood as well, that he was not going to enjoy and love every second of it. Brennan loved the structure it brought to his life, and accepted and was ok with doing it for hours on end every week, always having goals in mind. Brennan then spoke about his work experiences throughout Law School, focusing on a topic we talk about with every Law Student and Lawyer who comes on the podcast, finding out what they want to do with the law, which is important, but especially finding out what he did not want to do with the law, in terms of specialization. Finally, Brennan and I would look towards the future, where, after being a summer associate at Kirkland & Ellis this past summer, Brennan will be returning there post-graduation, so a huge congratulations to him! This episode with Brennan is wide-ranging in topics but also full of wisdom and advice about achieving success at any Law School!Brennan's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brennanroseRhetoric's Moot Court Madness Competition registration is now live, with a grand prize of $5,000! This competition will be judged by Rhetoric's AI oral argument platform, Cicero. Registration is open today. Space is limited so please apply early. Link below!Registration link: https://www.userhetoric.com/moot-court-madness/Be sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the TMA Chicago Midwest podcast, Jamie Sprayregen, Vice Chairman at Hilco Global, shares insights from his journey in the field of restructuring, the serendipitous events that shaped his career and the strategies he employed to build a wildly successful practice. He discusses his time at prominent firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, where he founded its renowned Restructuring Group, Goldman Sachs and Hilco Global, as well as his vision for the future of the firm. Jamie goes on to discuss the importance of creativity and commercial pragmatism in the legal space, particularly in restructuring, and the evolving landscape of bankruptcy practice, highlighting the rise of liability management transactions, the growth of private credit and the shift toward out-of-court restructurings. Finally, he emphasizes the value of participating in professional organizations such as TMA to foster meaningful relationships and develop one's network. Jamie encourages our podcast listeners to send him questions in advance of his conversation with keynote speaker Bob Costas, which he will be moderating, at the upcoming TMA Chicago Midwest's 16th Annual Executive Speaker Forum. You can reach Jamie at jsprayregen@hilcoglobal.com. 

This Day in Legal History: NYC Rent ControlOn November 1, 1943, New York City implemented rent control for the first time, under the federal Office of Price Administration (OPA), in response to housing scarcity and skyrocketing rents caused by World War II. As millions flocked to urban centers for war-related jobs, New York's housing demand surged, outpacing supply and creating a crisis of affordability. To protect tenants from exploitative rent increases, the OPA set strict limits on rent hikes, freezing rates at March 1, 1943 levels. This marked one of the first large-scale interventions by the federal government in the private rental market, signaling an extraordinary step toward tenant protections in the U.S. Rent control in New York City became a hotly debated issue, with proponents arguing it was essential to ensure stable, affordable housing and opponents claiming it would stifle investment in housing maintenance and new development. The 1943 regulations laid the groundwork for the modern rent control policies still seen in New York City today, although the laws have since evolved with the establishment of state and local rent stabilization laws in the 1970s. The legacy of these rent controls remains significant; they continue to influence housing policies across the United States, serving as both a blueprint and a cautionary tale for balancing tenants' rights with landlords' financial incentives. Over time, New York's rent control laws have been adjusted but remain among the most stringent in the country, applying to thousands of apartments even as new buildings and market-rate rentals transform the city. The establishment of rent control in wartime New York thus represents an enduring chapter in housing law, reflecting ongoing tensions between affordability and market freedoms.Former President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against CBS Broadcasting Inc., accusing the network of election interference by altering an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump claims CBS edited Harris's responses to questions about the Gaza conflict to improve her image, removing what he describes as a confusing answer and replacing it with a clearer response in a second airing of the interview on 60 Minutes. Trump argues that the alteration violates federal laws prohibiting intentional news distortion, stating that CBS's reasoning—that the edits were made for time constraints—is implausible. The lawsuit, filed in Texas federal court, seeks $10 billion in damages, claiming harm to Trump's fundraising efforts. Trump also requests that CBS release the full, unedited transcript and remove the modified version of the interview. CBS, denying the claims, asserts that the lawsuit lacks merit and that no part of Harris's answer was hidden. The legal team representing Trump includes Edward Andrew Paltzik, Daniel Z. Epstein, and Chris D. Parker.Trump Sues CBS, Says Harris Interview Was Edited To Help Her (1)Since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, state supreme court elections have become key battlegrounds in the fight over abortion rights. This ruling shifted control over abortion laws to the states, leading to abortion bans in conservative states and constitutional amendments in several others protecting abortion rights. Consequently, state supreme courts, which interpret state constitutions, are seeing increased attention and record campaign spending, especially in states like Michigan, Ohio, Montana, and North Carolina.In Michigan and Ohio, advocacy groups are supporting pro-abortion rights candidates, aiming to shape court rulings on abortion-related cases. Planned Parenthood Votes and other Democratic groups have invested millions in judicial campaigns in states with seats at stake. Meanwhile, conservative organizations, such as the Republican State Leadership Committee's Judicial Fairness Initiative, are financing campaigns for candidates who support abortion restrictions. These efforts reflect the high stakes of ideological control over state courts, with implications for future rulings on abortion.It's worth noting here how large the influence of Citizens United and the broader movement to bring more money into politics looms when these kinds of issues are kicked down to states. In some states, judicial candidates are selected through direct elections, making these races highly susceptible to political spending from advocacy groups with vested interests. Other states attempt to limit the injection of politics into judicial decisions by relying on appointments made by governors or legislatures. However, regardless of the selection process, campaign contributions are increasingly flowing into judicial races, raising concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary. With high-dollar donors on both sides of contentious issues like abortion, the rise in judicial campaign spending intensifies the ideological divides within state courts, potentially impacting how justices interpret and apply the law.Battles over abortion access fuel US state supreme court races | ReutersA Missouri jury ruled that Abbott and Reckitt's Mead Johnson unit are not liable for a young boy's severe intestinal disease, a case where the companies were accused of failing to warn about risks associated with formulas for premature infants. This verdict is a win for Abbott and Reckitt following substantial losses in earlier, similar trials, which had resulted in multimillion-dollar awards against them. As a result, Reckitt's shares rose sharply, with investors seeing reduced risk for future liability costs. The plaintiff, Kaine Whitfield, developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious intestinal disease affecting premature infants, after receiving formula at a hospital. His family's lawsuit sought over $6 billion, arguing that the companies should have warned of potential risks. However, Abbott and Mead Johnson defended the safety of their products, citing the lack of scientific evidence directly linking formula to NEC and noting that hospitals incorporate widely known benefits of human milk into neonatal care practices. This trial is part of around 1,000 similar lawsuits across the U.S., and medical experts have expressed concern that such litigation could limit formula availability or impact medical decisions. Previous cases resulted in large verdicts against the companies, but recent support from regulatory bodies and scientists could strengthen Abbott and Mead Johnson's position in ongoing and future cases.Abbott and Reckitt unit secure win in infant formula trial | ReutersThe rapid growth of the private credit market, now valued at $2 trillion, is creating increased demand for U.S. finance lawyers. Private credit, which involves loans from non-bank lenders, has expanded significantly due to fewer regulatory restrictions than traditional bank lending. This has led major law firms, such as Mayer Brown, Kirkland & Ellis, and Paul Hastings, to hire specialized attorneys to capitalize on the market's rise. For example, Mayer Brown recently appointed Sheel Patel to lead its private credit practice, while Kirkland brought on H.T. Flanagan, whose clients include prominent investment firms like Hayfin and CPPIB.Traditional banks are also entering the space, often by forming partnerships with investment firms to tap into private credit opportunities. These collaborations, such as Citigroup's $25 billion private credit program with Apollo, leverage banks' relationships to generate new transactions. Legal work is further expanding as private credit diversifies into asset-based financing, exemplified by an $850 million financing deal involving music rights. The surge in private credit work has driven law firms to establish dedicated private credit practices, including Gibson Dunn, Akin Gump, and others, with an increase in partner moves seen this year. This trend reflects the high value of private credit for law firms, positioning them for more lucrative deals and consistent legal work in a rapidly evolving finance sector.Law firms ride private credit wave as market evolves | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week's closing theme is Johann Sebastian Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, a thrilling and dramatic piece that perfectly captures the eerie spirit of the Halloween season. Known for its powerful opening chords and haunting, descending melodies, this iconic work by Bach has become synonymous with all things spooky. Originally composed for the organ in the early 1700s, *Toccata and Fugue in D Minor* has an unmistakable dark grandeur that makes it a Halloween favorite across the world.The piece begins with a bold, almost theatrical flair, setting an ominous tone before weaving into intricate passages that create an atmosphere of suspense and mystery. Bach's masterful use of the organ's range and dynamics pulls listeners into a world of gothic beauty and intensity, making this work as timeless as it is chilling. As the Toccata and Fugue builds and resolves, it reminds us why Bach remains one of classical music's greatest storytellers. Let this piece bring a bit of that Halloween spirit into your weekend!Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Norm Champ is a partner at the global law firm Kirkland & Ellis and the former director of the Division of Investment Management at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under his leadership, the SEC adopted a series of new regulations following the Great Recession.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Long-time host Jon Amarilio reflects on his six-year tenure and introduces the new hosts: Tracy Brammeier, a partner at Clifford Law Offices; Nikki Marcotte, a litigation associate at Kirkland Ellis; Mathew Kerbis, founder of Subscription Attorney LLC; and Kellie Snyder, an associate attorney at The Law Offices of Lane & Lane. (Don't worry, Trisha Rich and Maggie Mendenhall Casey are sticking around to show them the ropes!) Each new voice brings unique backgrounds and expertise, from personal injury law to innovative legal practices. Stick around this season for entertaining interviews and unique conversations.   

Long-time host Jon Amarilio reflects on his six-year tenure and introduces the new hosts: Tracy Brammeier, a partner at Clifford Law Offices; Nikki Marcotte, a litigation associate at Kirkland Ellis; Mathew Kerbis, founder of Subscription Attorney LLC; and Kellie Snyder, an associate attorney at The Law Offices of Lane & Lane. (Don't worry, Trisha Rich and Maggie Mendenhall Casey are sticking around to show them the ropes!) Each new voice brings unique backgrounds and expertise, from personal injury law to innovative legal practices. Stick around this season for entertaining interviews and unique conversations.   

Caroline Flanagan is a transformational coach, an inspirational keynote speaker, the author of two books and host of two podcasts. A magic circle trained ex-City lawyer, Caroline's mission is to bring greater diversity, equality and inclusion to the legal industry by increasing the number of people of colour who stay in the profession and progress to leadership. A woman of colour from a low income background, Caroline learned to navigate the challenges of being the only one in the room and achieve success in a white world. She is a recognised expert on Imposter Syndrome and specialises in career progression coaching for black lawyers. Caroline has had the pleasure of working with many of the world's leading law firms, including: Allen & Overy, White & Case, Mayer Brown, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, Ashurst, Eversheds Sutherland and Weil, Gotshal & Manges. She has also worked with some of the world's most recognised organisations and brands, including: Morgan Stanley, Google, Accenture, Michael Kors, Shell and Starbucks.   Caroline is the author of the following books: – Be The First: People of Colour, Imposter Syndrome and the Struggle to Succeed in a White World (2022) – Business Book of the Year Awards finalist, and BabyProof Your Career: The Secret to Balancing Work and Family So You Can Enjoy It All (2015) Caroline's 3 mindset messages: Be the first You are uniquely valuable The conditions are never perfect The Food I have to quote Caroline's words for this part when I asked her what she would like me to cook for her, to explain why I chose this meal: ” I don't think I've been asked that question in a VERY long time. My sincere answer is anything you want to! But if it's more helpful for me to specify: I love Mediterranean food. Light, healthy and delicious. Fish would be delightful (altho I also eat meat) with something grainy or pulsey on the side perhaps.”  I love it when I get a challenge and get to experiment with new culinary recipes! I wanted to include all of the above to Caroline's meal and I decide to make Japanese infused salmon fillet, with buckwheat, roasted vegetables, cucumber & coconut yoghurt salad on a side. It was a very nourishing meal and Caroline enjoyed my creation.   Visit www.mindsetkitchen.co.uk for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Scopes Monkey TrialOn July 24, 1925, John Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was found guilty of teaching evolution, a violation of the Butler Act. This state law prohibited the teaching of any theory that denied the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, specifically targeting Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The trial, famously known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, became a focal point for the intense debate between modern science and religious fundamentalism. Scopes was represented by the prominent attorney Clarence Darrow, while William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution.The courtroom drama was a media sensation, highlighting the cultural clash of the Roaring Twenties. Although Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, the trial's significance extended far beyond the verdict. It sparked national discussion on academic freedom, the separation of church and state, and the role of science in education. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality, but the Butler Act remained in force until 1967. The trial's legacy endures, symbolizing the ongoing struggle between progressive and conservative values in American society.Attorneys are rallying behind Vice President Kamala Harris as she ascends to the top of the Democratic ticket following President Joe Biden's decision to step down. Around 100 law firm partners showed interest in fundraising for Harris right after Biden's announcement. Jon Henes, a former Kirkland & Ellis partner, is organizing a significant event for her campaign, highlighting a vigorous four-month effort to the election. Harris has a history of strong support from the legal community, with lawyers contributing over $5 million to her previous campaigns. Notable attorneys like David Frederick and Roberta Kaplan have pledged their support, emphasizing the importance of defeating the former president and preserving the rule of law. The legal sector has proven to be a reliable fundraising source for Harris, with her receiving substantial donations from firms such as Paul Weiss and Kirkland. Prominent figures like Brad Karp and Brian Mathis are mobilizing Democratic supporters, while liberal mega-donors have already begun to contribute significantly. The Biden campaign infrastructure has transitioned to support Harris, with key leaders and an experienced legal team staying in place. Former US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm are assisting in vetting potential running mates for Harris.Big Law Donors Jump to Pad Harris' War Chest for White House BidTop Industries, federal election data for Kamala Harris, 2020 cycle • OpenSecretsDonald Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), contesting Vice President Kamala Harris's takeover of funds raised by President Joe Biden's reelection campaign. After Biden, who was competing closely with Trump, endorsed Harris and ended his bid for reelection, Harris assumed control of Biden's campaign accounts. The Trump campaign accused Harris of committing a significant campaign finance violation, describing it as a "brazen money grab."David Warrington, Trump's campaign general counsel, asserted that Harris's actions represented the largest campaign finance violation in American history. However, Saurav Ghosh from the Campaign Legal Center stated that Harris, as the vice presidential candidate, should legally have access to the funds. The FEC has not commented on the unresolved matter and is unlikely to settle the dispute before the November 5 presidential election.Meanwhile, Harris's campaign has dismissed the complaint, emphasizing their strong fundraising success, having raised $100 million since Biden's endorsement. Harris campaign spokesperson Charles Kretchmer Lutvak criticized the complaint as a baseless legal tactic by Republicans to distract from their efforts to mobilize voters and win the election.Trump campaign files complaint against Harris taking over Biden war chest | ReutersTrump Files Complaint Over Biden Giving Harris $96 MillionElectric vehicle manufacturer Rivian Automotive will face trial over allegations that it encouraged employees who left Tesla to steal trade secrets. This decision follows a tentative ruling by Judge Theodore C. Zayner of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, who denied Rivian's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge determined that Tesla had provided sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, citing that some Rivian employees were not thoroughly investigated or disciplined regarding the alleged thefts.The dispute began in 2020 when Tesla accused Rivian of systematically poaching its employees and misappropriating confidential information. Although Rivian presented evidence of its internal investigation into the allegations, the judge found it insufficient to conclusively prove the adequacy of their efforts. Rivian has consistently denied the accusations, while Tesla has yet to comment on the recent ruling. A final hearing on the matter is scheduled for Wednesday in Santa Clara court.Rivian to face trial in Tesla trade secrets theft case, judge says | ReutersA federal judge has upheld the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) ban on noncompete agreements, rejecting a challenge by ATS Tree Services, a small Pennsylvania company. Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge ruled that the FTC has clear authority to issue rules to prevent unfair competition methods. ATS Tree Services, which employs about 12 people, failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if the ban took effect and could not prove the FTC lacked authority.This ruling contrasts with a July 3 decision by Judge Ada Brown in Texas, who sided with a Texas tax firm and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, arguing the FTC lacks the authority to enforce such rules. The White House praised Hodge's decision as a victory for workers and small businesses, while the FTC spokesperson highlighted that the ruling supports the FTC's role in banning noncompete clauses.ATS Tree Services argued that banning noncompete agreements would harm its business by undermining employee training investments, but the judge found insufficient evidence to support this claim. The case reflects a judicial split, with another final ruling on the challenge due by August 30, potentially impacting the rule set to go into effect on September 4.FTC Gets Win on Noncompete Ban After Loss in Another Court (3)A bipartisan group of Congress members introduced the Ending Corporate Bankruptcy Abuse Act to target the "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcy tactic used by companies like Johnson & Johnson to manage mass liabilities. The tactic involves placing an affiliate into bankruptcy to evade responsibility and delay justice for consumers. The proposed legislation aims to prevent such maneuvers by presuming bad faith in bankruptcies with clear signs of being a Texas Two-Step.Indicators of bad faith include manufacturing a connection to the bankruptcy venue, gaining a litigation advantage, prearranged deals capping liability funds, recent formation through divisional mergers, fraudulent transfers, or lack of valid reorganization purpose. The bill seeks to standardize federal rules for dismissing such bankruptcies across circuit courts. Additionally, it prohibits litigation pauses for nonbankrupt affiliates involved in a Texas Two-Step within the past four years, specifically targeting cases with over 100 tort claims.Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a co-sponsor, emphasized that the bill ensures victims get their day in court. Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) criticized corporations for using the tactic to avoid accountability. The bill is also backed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio).Bipartisan Bill Aims to Deter ‘Texas Two-Step' Bankruptcy Tactic This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

My guest is Youngro Lee! Youngro is a 2x-FinTech startup founder, and currently the President of Brassica, an API-enabled RWA infrastructure provider (acquired by BitGo in 2024), as well as CEO of BitGo Singapore and BitGo Korea where he leads Bitgo's strategic expansion into Asia. Youngro's first startup NextSeed (acquired by Republic in 2020) was the first SEC-registered Funding Portal under the JOBS Act and successfully closed the first Regulation Crowdfunding offering in US history; following acquisition he served as Republic COO during its pre-Series A to post-Series B phase and led Republic's international expansion.  In 2019-2023 Youngro served as a member of the SEC Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee, which advised the SEC in making positive amendments to the JOBS Act in 2020 to increase the max funding limits under Reg CF and Reg A.  Prior to launching his FinTech career, Youngro was a private equity funds attorney for 8 years at Cleary Gottlieb, Kirkland & Ellis and Weil Gotshal in US, Europe and Asia.  Social and Website: Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/youngrolee/ Website: https://www.brassicafin.com/ Follow Digital Niche Agency on Socials for Up To Date Marketing Expertise and Insights: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/digitalniche... Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/digi... Instagram: DNA - Digital Niche Agency @digitalnicheagency • Instagram photos and videos. Twitter: https://twitter.com/DNAgency_CA YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDlz…

Join host Sean Mooney and Brian Bank, a seasoned strategy and client relations executive from Kirkland & Ellis, for an enlightening discussion on the private equity landscape. With over 25 years of experience as both an institutional limited partner and placement agent, Brian delves into the nuances of fundraising, the evolving role of ESG, and the transformation of annual meetings in the post-COVID era, leveraging his extensive background and deep network within the investment funds community. Key Highlights: 3:12 - Fundraising Dynamics: Insights into current trends and challenges. 5:32 - Mid-Market Success: The importance of LP relationships. 18:22 - Continuation Funds: Their reshaping role in private equity. 35:12 - ESG's Growing Influence: On investment strategies. 43:56 - Annual Meetings Evolved: Innovative approaches in a digital age. For more information on Kirkland & Ellis, go to https://www.kirkland.com For more information on Brian Bank, go to https://www.linkedin.com/in/briandbank For more information on BluWave and this podcast, go to https://www.bluwave.net/podcasts

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comI've been honored to have some of the nation's leading litigators on this podcast. But I have not had a guest who's both a renowned courtroom advocate and parent of 11 children—until today.Meet Michael Williams. After graduating from Georgetown Law, summa cum laude and first in his class, he clerked for then-Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the D.C. Circuit and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court. Mike then joined the D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis, where he is a share aka equity partner. He has won numerous honors and accolades over the years, recognized by Chambers and Partners, the Legal 500, and The American Lawyer, among others.Despite his dazzling legal career, Mike is most proud of being a dad. He had his first child while still in law school, two children during his clerkships, and eight children during his time at K&E. In our conversation, we talked about his contrasting clerkship experiences; what it's like being a litigator at Kirkland, including how the firm has evolved over the years; why at heart he's more of a trial rather than an appellate lawyer; and most importantly, how he balances his busy practice with the demands of parenthood (although note that he's not a fan of the term “work-life balance”).Kudos to Mike on all his professional and personal success, and early wishes for a happy Father's Day to him and all the other dads out there.Show Notes:* Michael F. Williams, P.C., Kirkland & Ellis* Michael F. Williams profile, Chambers and Partners* How Does He Do It? Kirkland Partner at Home With 11 Kids, by Vivia Chen for Law.comPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. VirginiaOn June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., in 1958 but were arrested upon their return to Virginia for violating the state's anti-miscegenation laws. The Lovings were convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, with the sentence suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. Challenging their conviction, the Lovings argued that Virginia's laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, agreed with the Lovings. The Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes were rooted in racial discrimination and served no legitimate purpose other than to maintain racial segregation. This decision effectively invalidated similar laws in 15 other states, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right that cannot be restricted by racial classifications. The Loving v. Virginia decision was a significant step forward in the civil rights movement, reinforcing the principle that all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law.Paul Weiss has been aggressively recruiting top-tier mergers and acquisitions and private equity partners, hiring over 20 from prominent firms such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins. This hiring spree, focused mainly in London and New York, reflects a broader trend of escalating compensation for elite lawyers, with some earning over $20 million annually. To fund these high-profile hires, Paul Weiss revamped its partner pay system and adopted a "black box" approach, where pay details are kept confidential among partners. The firm also introduced a new tier of non-equity partners to retain senior attorneys without sharing profits.This strategy mirrors moves by other top firms like Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Davis Polk & Wardwell, which have adjusted their compensation structures to remain competitive. Paul Weiss's London office has notably expanded, recruiting high-profile partners from Kirkland to build a comprehensive practice there. The firm's longstanding relationship with Apollo Global Management continues to bolster its M&A and private equity profile. Despite lagging behind top deal advisors like Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Paul Weiss's aggressive hiring positions it well for future market share gains.The firm's recruitment efforts underscore the importance of attracting top legal talent to handle complex and lucrative deals, reflecting a fiercely competitive legal market.Paul Weiss Hiring Binge Shows Big Law's Dealmaker Recruiting WarPower grid technologies (GETs) have gained traction recently as a way to integrate more renewable energy and meet increasing power demands without building new transmission lines. Historically, US electric utilities preferred constructing new lines because they offer guaranteed returns and are seen as less risky, despite the high consumer costs and long timelines associated with them. However, grid congestion in 2022 raised consumer bills by nearly $21 billion, pushing utilities to consider GETs. These technologies optimize existing infrastructure, offering significant cost savings and increased grid capacity.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's new rule requires regional grid planners to consider using GETs. Additionally, a White House meeting led to a federal-state initiative involving 21 states to upgrade 100,000 miles of transmission lines in five years. Studies indicate that implementing GETs could save billions annually and facilitate the connection of more clean energy projects.Despite their benefits, GETs face challenges due to the traditional utility business model that favors large capital investments. Some states like Minnesota and Virginia are now mandating GETs in resource planning and offering incentives. Vermont Electric Power Co. and AES Corp. are examples of utilities testing GETs, such as dynamic line ratings and valve technology, to improve efficiency and reliability. As utilities and technology providers collaborate more, the industry aims to reduce the need for new transmission lines and overcome the associated regulatory and logistical hurdles.Grid Upgrades Gain Favor to Meet Power Demands of AI, Clean TechOn June 11, 2024, Elon Musk moved to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. The lawsuit, filed in February, accused OpenAI of deviating from its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Musk's attorneys did not provide a reason for the dismissal, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Musk the option to refile later.Musk co-founded OpenAI but has since expressed dissatisfaction with its direction, particularly its focus on profitability following substantial investments from Microsoft. The lawsuit sought to compel OpenAI to release its research and technology to the public and prevent its use for financial gain.OpenAI countered that Musk's claims were baseless and motivated by his desire to compete with OpenAI through his own AI venture, xAI, which recently raised $6 billion in funding. The court was scheduled to hear OpenAI's motion to dismiss the case the day after Musk's withdrawal. Neither OpenAI nor Musk's legal representatives commented on the latest development.Elon Musk withdraws lawsuit against OpenAI | ReutersAdobe faced significant backlash over updates to its terms of use, which users feared allowed the company to seize intellectual property and use data to train AI models. The controversy highlighted the need for clear communication of legal terms, especially in the context of evolving technologies like generative AI. In response, Adobe pledged to revise its terms, explicitly stating it won't train AI models on cloud content, with new terms set to be issued on June 18.The uproar began after Adobe's February update, which included provisions for automated and manual review of user content to screen for illegal material. Users, notified in May, expressed concerns on social media, fearing their confidential content could be exploited. Adobe's general counsel, Dana Rao, emphasized that the language had long been part of Adobe's agreements and was essential for practical tasks like uploading content to the cloud.Industry experts noted that such terms are common among cloud service providers but acknowledged the heightened sensitivity among creatives towards potential misuse of their work for AI. Adobe's commitment to clearer, user-friendly legal terms aims to rebuild trust, recognizing the unique and personal relationship users have with its products. The incident underscores the importance of transparent communication and the need for companies to preemptively address user concerns in the AI era.Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans For Updated Legal TermsJohnson & Johnson has agreed to a $700 million settlement with 42 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., resolving an investigation into the marketing of its talc-based products, which were allegedly linked to cancer. The settlement, announced on June 11, 2024, addresses accusations that J&J misled consumers about the safety of its talc products. While J&J did not admit any wrongdoing, it continues to assert that its products are safe and asbestos-free.This settlement, led by Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, marks a significant step in consumer product safety, according to Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody. Despite the settlement, J&J still faces tens of thousands of lawsuits related to its talc products, primarily from women with ovarian cancer and some with mesothelioma. As of March 31, approximately 61,490 individuals were suing the company.J&J ceased the global sale of talc-based baby powder last year, opting for corn starch instead. The company has made several attempts to resolve the litigation, including two failed efforts to use bankruptcy to manage its talc liabilities. On May 1, J&J proposed a $6.48 billion settlement to resolve most of the litigation through a third bankruptcy filing and has allocated an $11 billion reserve for talc liabilities. Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, stated that the company is pursuing various strategies to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the litigation.Johnson & Johnson reaches $700 million talc settlement with US states | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In dieser Folge Eures Jura-Karrierepodcasts sind zwei spannende Partner aus dem Münchener Büro von Kirkland & Ellis zu Gast: Greta Harnisch und Fabrice Hipp. Fabrice ist im Bereich Akquisitionsfinanzierung tätig, während Greta in allen Fragen rund um M&A-Transaktionen berät. Warum haben sie sich für den Weg in die Großkanzlei entschieden? Wie war ihr Weg zur Partnerschaft? Gab es eine Situation, in der sie gemerkt haben, dass sie auf dem richtigen Weg sind? Was bedeutet für sie Teamwork im herausfordernden Alltag bei Kirkland? Was ist die Kirkland Women Leadership Initiative? Warum benötigt es solche Initiativen heute noch? Antworten auf diese und viele weitere Fragen in Folge 226 von IMR. Viel Spaß und schöne Ostertage!

Today's college or university president is expected to be highly influential and effective in their leadership. These higher ed CEOs are expected to positively impact every aspect of their institutions, regardless of size. The employee experience, however, can often be one of the least prioritized areas. How did one of the most respected and recognized presidents in the country work with his faculty and staff? Walter Kimbrough visited “I Wanna Work There!” to talk about how he worked to create a positive talent experience during his presidencies.Here are the takeaways for this episode:We will hear about the importance of establishing a culture from the president's seat.We will learn what it means to communicate honestly with faculty and staff.Walter will share his advice for aspiring presidents to help foster a productive campus work culture. Guest Name: Walter KimbroughGuest Social: LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/walterkimbrough/X (Twitter) - https://twitter.com/HipHopPrezGuest Bio: Dr. Walter M. Kimbrough is the president in residence for the Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions and the former president of Dillard University and Philander Smith College (now Philander Smith University). Under his leadership, Dillard's endowment grew 115% and alumni giving increased from 4% to 23%. Dillard also recorded its largest alumni gift, its largest single private donation, a $5 million gift from MacKenzie Scott, and a $5 million gift from Kirkland & Ellis for the university's Center for Racial Justice. Dillard was also noted as one of the nation's top producers of Black physics graduates, and the university's pre-law program averaged over a 90% law school acceptance rate.Prior to Dillard, Walter enjoyed a fulfilling career in student affairs, serving at Emory University, Georgia State University, Old Dominion University, and finally Albany State University in 2000 where he became the vice president for student affairs at the age of 32. At the age of 37, he became the twelfth president of Philander Smith College (now Philander Smith University) where he was given the moniker “Hip Hop Prez” for his skillful use of hip hop culture and music to educate students as well as his effective use of social media for public conversation. His use of social media has been noted in articles by The Chronicle of Higher Education and in Dan Zaiontz's book “#FollowTheLeader: Lessons in Social Media Success from #HigherEd CEOs.” BachelorsDegree.org named him one of 25 college presidents you should follow on Twitter, Education Dive regarded Walter as one of their “10 college presidents on Twitter who are doing it right,” and Josie Ahlquist included him on her list of “25 Higher Education Presidents to Follow on Twitter.” He also captured national attention in 2021 when journalist Malcolm Gladwell interviewed him and featured Dillard on his highly regarded “Revisionist History” podcast.Walter's leadership has earned him numerous honors including:  the coveted Ebony Magazine Power 100 list, The Grio 100: History Makers in the Making, one of TheBestSchools.org's “20 Most Interesting College Presidents,” one of the HBCU Campaign Fund's “10 Most Dominant HBCU Leaders of 2018,” and one of College Cliffs' “50 Top U.S. College and University Presidents” in 2020. In 2021, Walter received a Distinguished Alumni Award from his alma mater, Georgia State.With a background in student affairs, Walter has been recognized for his research and writings on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and African American men in college; and he is regarded as a national expert on historically Black, Latin and Asian fraternities and sororities. He is the author of the book “Black Greek 101: The Culture, Customs and Challenges of Black Fraternities and Sororities” and has served as an expert witness in a number of hazing cases. A proud native of Atlanta, Walter earned his Ph.D. in higher education from Georgia State University, his master's from Miami University in Ohio, and his bachelor's from the University of Georgia. He and his wife, Adria Nobles Kimbrough, an attorney, are the proud parents of two children, Lydia Nicole, and Benjamin Barack. - - - -Connect With Our Host:Eddie Francishttps://www.linkedin.com/in/eddiefrancis/https://twitter.com/eddiefrancisAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:I Wanna Work There is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too! Some of our favorites include Confessions of a Higher Ed Social Media Manager and Talking Tactics. Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — the next-generation AI student engagement platform helping institutions create meaningful and personalized interactions with students. Learn more at element451.com.Connect with Us at the Engage Summit:Exciting news — many of your favorite Enrollify creators will be at the 2024 Engage Summit in Raleigh, NC, on June 25 and 26, and we'd love to meet you there! Sessions will focus on cutting-edge AI applications that are reshaping student outreach, enhancing staff productivity, and offering deep insights into ROI. Use the discount code Enrollify50 at checkout, and you can register for just $200! Learn more and register at engage.element451.com — we can't wait to see you there!

This Day in Legal History: Jay Treaty SignedOn this day in legal history, February 29, 1796, the Jay Treaty, also known as the Treaty of London, was formally proclaimed, marking a significant moment in the post-Revolutionary War era between the United States and Great Britain. Negotiated by John Jay, the U.S. Chief Justice at the time, the treaty aimed to resolve lingering tensions and disputes that had persisted since the end of the war, particularly regarding territorial claims, trade relations, and maritime rights. The agreement facilitated the withdrawal of British forces from frontier forts in the Northwest Territory, which they had continued to occupy, in violation of the Treaty of Paris of 1783.The treaty also addressed American grievances related to British seizures of American ships and cargo, which had been a major source of conflict between the two nations. In return, the United States offered most-favored-nation trading status to Great Britain, an important economic concession that allowed for British goods to enter the U.S. market under favorable terms. Additionally, the treaty established a commission to resolve outstanding border disputes along the Canada–United States border and agreed to compensate American merchants for losses due to British ship seizures.Despite its diplomatic successes, the Jay Treaty faced significant opposition within the United States, particularly from supporters of Thomas Jefferson who viewed it as too conciliatory to British interests and a betrayal of France, America's ally during the Revolutionary War. The treaty's ratification in the Senate and subsequent implementation, however, played a crucial role in averting a potential war with Great Britain, solidifying the United States' sovereignty, and enhancing its economic independence. Thus, the Jay Treaty stands as a pivotal agreement that helped define the early foreign policy of the United States, ensuring peace with Great Britain while establishing a framework for handling international disputes through diplomacy rather than conflict.A federal judge in Texas has ruled against a new Texas law, SB 4, which allowed for the arrest and removal of migrants entering the U.S. without proper documentation, declaring it infringes on the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration. This decision, a victory for the Biden administration, comes from Senior US District Judge David Ezra, who also issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect as scheduled. Judge Ezra highlighted that permitting Texas to enact its own immigration policies would effectively nullify federal law, emphasizing the problems with allowing states to have their own disparate immigration laws. The ruling, subject to appeal by Texas to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, underscores a significant clash between state and federal visions of immigration enforcement. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has been a vocal advocate for state-level enforcement, citing high numbers of border crossings as justification. However, the law has faced criticism for potentially leading to a fragmented approach to immigration, similar to previous legal challenges against similar laws in other states.Texas Immigration Law Struck Down by Judge in Win for BidenA California state judge has made a tentative ruling that allows nearly 6,000 Black workers at Tesla's Fremont factory to sue the electric vehicle manufacturer collectively over allegations of widespread racial discrimination and harassment. This decision by Judge Noel Wise centers on the accusation that Tesla was cognizant of the misconduct but failed to address it. The lawsuit, initiated by former assembly line worker Marcus Vaughn in 2017, claims that Black employees were subjected to racial slurs, graffiti, and nooses at their workstations. Tesla has yet to respond to the ruling but has previously stated its zero tolerance for workplace harassment, asserting that it has terminated employees found guilty of racial harassment. The ruling, which Tesla has an opportunity to contest, sets the stage for a potential multimillion-dollar judgment against the company and schedules a trial for October. This case is part of a broader legal challenge Tesla faces regarding racial bias, including a separate lawsuit by a California state civil rights agency and federal court claims by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Additionally, Tesla is appealing a $3.2 million jury verdict awarded to another Black former employee in a related racial harassment case.Tesla must face race bias class action by 6,000 Black US workers | ReutersA novel legal technology venture, Bench IQ, founded by legal tech entrepreneur Jimoh Ovbiagele and former Kirkland & Ellis partner Jeffrey Gettleman, aims to revolutionize how lawyers prepare for court by using artificial intelligence to analyze and predict judges' decision-making patterns. This Toronto-based startup has successfully secured $2.1 million in pre-seed funding from a mix of law firms and venture capital firms. Bench IQ's technology promises to provide comprehensive insights into judges' rulings, not limited to their written opinions, by employing large language model-based AI. Although specifics about the technology and data are under wraps due to pending patents, the company has already attracted 12 large law firms as pilot customers. Bench IQ offers flexible pricing models tailored to the needs of different law firms. The venture is entering a competitive market of AI-based legal services but distinguishes itself by focusing on explaining judges' legal reasoning rather than just describing it. This initiative represents a significant step forward in legal research, offering a tool that could potentially change the standard approach to legal arguments and courtroom strategy.New legal AI venture promises to show how judges think | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding Donald Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. This decision puts a temporary hold on the criminal case led by Special Counsel Jack Smith and will examine the extent of presidential immunity for actions taken while in office. The Court of Appeals previously ruled against Trump's claim, emphasizing the limits of executive power and the importance of election integrity. Scheduled for oral arguments in April, this case is significant as Trump, a leading Republican candidate for the upcoming election, faces multiple criminal charges. These include accusations of conspiring to defraud the United States and obstructing the congressional certification of Joe Biden's victory. Trump argues that presidential immunity is crucial for a president's effective functioning and to prevent post-office prosecutions, which he views as politically motivated. The Supreme Court's involvement in this and related cases highlights its central role in addressing issues surrounding the 2020 election and its aftermath, including a case that could affect Trump's charges directly.US Supreme Court to decide Trump criminal immunity claim in 2020 election case | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In today's episode, I'm joined by Savaria Harris, formerly a partner with Kirkland & Ellis and DLA Piper, who subsequently made a move to become an in-house legal advisor, first as Vice President in the legal department at Johnson & Johnson, and now as Associate General Counsel and Director for Health Care Compliance at Amazon. We discuss why she decided to move from a partner role in BigLaw to working in-house, and what she found to be key to making that move successfully. Savaria also shares how her business-focused interests have impacted her legal career, and why giving back and making a difference is important to her. She also talks about her experience as a co-founder of the Unlocked Foundation, a 501(c)(3) focused on empowering women to close the wealth gap in their own lives. Savaria offers valuable advice for lawyers considering a similar path to make a pivot from private practice to in-house, and her experience provides a unique perspective on staying business-focused as a way to increase your influence.   A Few Takeaways… 1. Openness to New Roles: Savaria advises lawyers to remain open to new opportunities, highlighting the importance of keeping an active profile on platforms like LinkedIn.   2. Proximity to Business Operations: For those transitioning in-house, choosing roles that are close to core business operations can be essential for career growth.   3. Adaptability and Interpersonal Skills: Success in in-house roles often hinges on the ability to adapt and effectively collaborate with diverse teams.   4. Viewing Career Changes Positively: Savaria suggests seeing career moves as a part of personal and professional development, rather than as a reaction to negative circumstances.   At a glance… - 00:02:48: Insights into the transition from law firm to in-house roles. - 00:04:51: Savaria's experiences at Kirkland & Ellis, DLA Piper, and Johnson & Johnson. - 00:10:21: Choosing between litigation and regulatory roles. - 00:14:03: Adapting to new roles and skill sets. - 00:16:07: Transition to Amazon; networking and career development tips. - 00:20:29: Importance of a comprehensive professional profile. - 00:22:31: Qualities needed for transitioning from Biglaw to in-house. - 00:32:03: Savaria's involvement with Unlocked, focusing on the women's wealth gap. - 00:37:31: Alignment of personal values with professional roles. - 00:41:28: Strategies for job interviews in legal roles. - 00:44:28: Maintaining and enhancing a professional brand.   Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law. Click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast! A new episode releases every week! Follow now!  Ways to reach Savaria Harris and Laura Terrell Savaria Harris LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/savaria-harris-3030822a The Unlocked Foundation: https://www.experienceunlocked.com/   Laura Terrell www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/

This Day in Legal History: The Raven is PublishedOn January 29, 1845, a significant event in literary history indirectly influenced the development of copyright law. Edgar Allan Poe's iconic poem, "The Raven," was published in the New York Evening Mirror. This moment, while primarily literary, holds substantial relevance in the context of copyright law and the protection of creative works."The Raven" quickly became a sensational hit, illustrating the immense commercial potential of literary works. However, Poe's financial gains from the poem were minimal, highlighting the inadequacies in the copyright system of the time. Poe's struggles with securing fair compensation for his works, including "The Raven," underscored the need for stronger legal protections for authors.During Poe's era, copyright laws were still in their infancy, particularly in the United States. The lack of robust international copyright agreements meant that Poe's works were often republished abroad without his consent and without any royalties paid to him. This was a common plight for many authors of the time, leading to widespread calls for reform."The Raven's" popularity, coupled with Poe's public struggles for rightful earnings, played a role in stirring public and legislative awareness about the rights of authors. It highlighted the importance of legal frameworks that balance the interests of creators, publishers, and the public.The plight of authors like Poe eventually contributed to the strengthening of copyright laws, both domestically and internationally. In the following decades, laws evolved to offer more comprehensive protection for intellectual property, ensuring that creators could reap the benefits of their work.Significantly, Poe's experience foreshadowed the complexities of copyright in the age of mass reproduction and distribution. His challenges anticipated the modern dilemmas faced in a digital era where replication and dissemination of works are effortless and widespread.In sum, while "The Raven" is primarily remembered as a masterpiece of poetry, its impact extends into the realm of legal history. Edgar Allan Poe's experiences with this poem contributed to the discourse on copyright law and the need for effective legal protections for intellectual property. His legacy, therefore, is not just literary, but also legal, underscoring the crucial relationship between creative works and the laws that safeguard them.The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating the healthcare industry's use of AI in patient records, which influences doctors' treatment recommendations. This scrutiny arises from concerns about AI's role in potential anti-kickback and false claims violations. Investigators are probing pharmaceutical and digital health companies, examining the impact of AI on healthcare decisions. These investigations are still in early stages, with DOJ attorneys seeking information about AI algorithms and their effects on medical care.The background of these probes can be traced to the 2020 criminal settlements with Purdue Pharma and Practice Fusion. They were penalized for creating AI-based alerts in electronic medical records (EMRs) that encouraged prescriptions of addictive painkillers. This case highlighted the risks of AI in healthcare, particularly when used unethically.Current AI tools in healthcare can both improve diagnoses and be exploited for profit. DOJ's challenge lies in applying laws like the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act to AI's complex, automated nature. Prosecutors are exploring civil and criminal avenues, considering evidence like internal communications and the AI's impact on prescriptions. These investigations signal a growing focus on the legal responsibilities of companies using AI in healthcare.DOJ's Healthcare Probes of AI Tools Rooted in Purdue Pharma CaseElite UK law firms, known as the Magic Circle, are losing the salary battle to US firms in London. These UK firms pay junior lawyers 35-40% less than the Cravath scale used by top US firms. UK firms' lower profits, due to increased competition and post-Brexit currency changes, hinder their ability to match US salaries. Since 2015, US firms have aggressively entered the UK market, especially in private equity work, often outbidding UK firms for talent. Kirkland & Ellis and Paul, Weiss are notable for hiring several partners in London.This competition has led to about 370 associates leaving Magic Circle firms in the last year, with US firms benefiting. UK firms have responded by increasing associate salaries and introducing bonus schemes. However, they still struggle to close the pay gap with US firms. The Cravath scale, adopted by US firms in London, offers significantly higher salaries, with first-year associates earning around $225,000. The salary disparity and market conditions raise concerns about the sustainability of high associate salaries.Elite UK Firms Are Losing London Salary Battle to US InvadersInvestors are concerned about Exxon Mobil's lawsuit against two shareholders for proposing a resolution on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, bypassing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Under Biden's SEC, it's become harder for companies to block shareholder resolutions, leading to a rise in such proposals. Exxon's lawsuit, which claims the resolution aims to diminish its fossil fuels business rather than increase shareholder value, is seen as potentially chilling for small investors. This action deviates from the norm where companies historically viewed the SEC as a fair arbiter for shareholder proposals.The Exxon case is significant as it challenges the recent SEC policy change that makes it difficult for companies to argue against resolutions on the grounds of micromanagement. The number of shareholder resolutions has increased, with 889 proposals filed during the 2023 proxy season. If Exxon succeeds in court, it might encourage other companies to follow suit, bypassing the SEC.This lawsuit comes amidst broader debates over the SEC's authority in enforcing shareholder proposals, with conservative courts possibly playing a role in the outcome. Exxon's approach is a departure from the standard practice of engaging with the SEC on such matters, and its success could reshape the landscape of shareholder activism, particularly in environmental and social governance issues.Activist investors fret over Exxon Mobil's lawsuit bypassing US regulator | ReutersReddit Inc. is considering a valuation of at least $5 billion for its initial public offering (IPO), based on early feedback from potential investors. However, this figure is still tentative and dependent on the recovering IPO market. The social media company, known for its significant role in the meme-stock era, is potentially aiming for a listing as early as March. Despite these ambitions, private trades of Reddit's unlisted shares currently suggest a lower valuation, between $4.5 billion and $4.8 billion. These private share valuations, which are often lower due to their illiquidity, contrast with Reddit's peak valuation of $10 billion in 2021.The fluctuating valuation reflects the broader downturn in the tech sector, where companies are valued lower in public markets compared to their peak private funding valuations. For instance, Instacart, once valued at $39 billion, debuted with a valuation of $9.9 billion and has since dropped to around $7.1 billion. Reddit's situation and potential IPO come at a time when tech IPOs are less lucrative than during the private funding boom of 2021. The company's decision and valuation are subject to ongoing deliberations and market conditions.Reddit Advised to Target at Least $5 Billion Value in IPO (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!If you're looking for a more meaningful New Year's resolution than losing five pounds, I have a suggestion for you: do more pro bono. To make it concrete, maybe even set a numerical goal for yourself, like 50 hours.Over the years, as Biglaw firms have grown in size and profitability, many of them have invested more in pro bono. As a result, there now exists a job that really didn't exist when I graduated law school: “pro bono counsel.” These lawyers oversee the pro bono programs of Biglaw firms, which means they get to work full-time on pro bono, backed by Biglaw resources (and earning Biglaw salaries). Not surprisingly, these roles are some of the most highly coveted jobs not just in Biglaw, but the entire legal profession.As part of my continuing focus during the holiday season on pro bono and public interest work, I decided to interview a Biglaw pro bono counsel. And as is my wont when picking podcast guests, I decided to go straight to the top: my latest guest is Jacqueline Haberfeld, global program director of pro bono at Kirkland & Ellis, the world's #1 law firm in terms of both revenue and profits per partner.In our wide-ranging conversation, Jackie and I discussed her path to becoming pro bono counsel, some of her most meaningful projects, how firms handle political and reputational concerns related to pro bono work, and how to get a job as pro bono counsel today. I hope you enjoy this interview—and I hope that it inspires you to do more pro bono work in the coming year.Show Notes:* Pro Bono | Social Commitment, Kirkland & Ellis* Notable Women in Law 2021: Jacqueline Haberfeld, Crain's New York Business* Innovation: Jacqueline Haberfeld, pro bono counsel, Kirkland & Ellis, New York Law JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

On the latest installment of Movers, Shakers, and Rainmakers, we chat with Robert Ingalls, Founder & CEO of LawPods, to explore his transition from legal practice to revolutionizing podcasting for lawyers. In a detailed discussion, Robert tackles the challenges law firms face in marketing, particularly in podcasting, and how to stand out in a crowded market. He offers strategic advice for lawyers or firms considering launching their own podcasts and how to effectively craft their brand. As for our Moves of the Week, they feature significant industry shifts: the departure of litigation and corporate leaders from FisherBroyles, hinting at a possible mass exodus from the first distributed firm in the Am Law 200, and the notable move of Josh Birenbaum from Allen & Overy's Los Angeles office to Kirkland & Ellis. Tune in, and remember to rate, review, subscribe, and share Movers, Shakers, and Rainmakers with your network

On this day in legal history, November 27, 1815, marked a significant moment in the constitutional journey of Poland. Emperor Alexander I of Russia, in his capacity as King of Poland, signed a constitution for the Kingdom of Poland, a state reconstituted under Russian dominance. This event followed the Congress of Vienna's directive to provide a constitutional framework for Poland, leading to the unofficial naming of the state as Congress Poland or Kongresówka.The Kingdom of Poland, established as one of the smallest Polish states in history, was significantly smaller than both the preceding Duchy of Warsaw and the earlier Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The constitution was unilaterally granted by the ruler without parliamentary vote, reflecting a top-down approach to governance.Prince Adam Czartoryski played a pivotal role in drafting this constitution, although its final version bore the edits and influences of Emperor Alexander I and his advisors. Notably liberal for its time, the constitution promised freedoms including speech and religious tolerance, showcasing the influence of both Polish and Russian Enlightenment thought. However, in contrast to the Constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw, it favored the nobility and rolled back certain rights previously extended to Polish Jews and peasants.The Russian authorities never fully honored the constitution's provisions. Its liberal yet vague articles were frequently manipulated, avoided, or outright violated. The promised parliament, scheduled to convene biennially, only met sporadically, with sessions in 1818, 1820, 1826, and 1830, the latter two held secretly. The infrequent sessions and the government's conservative stance within them sparked liberal dissent among deputies.This growing dissatisfaction, fueled by the disregard for constitutional promises, eventually led to the November Uprising in 1830. During this tumultuous period, the constitution underwent modifications, but following the uprising's failure, it was replaced by the Organic Statute of the Kingdom of Poland on February 26, 1832. This new statute, far more conservative and granted by Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, never saw actual implementation, marking the end of a brief but pivotal chapter in Poland's constitutional history.Kirkland & Ellis, a top-grossing law firm in Big Law, recently reported substantial earnings from retainer payments connected to the bankruptcies of Rite Aid Corp. and WeWork Inc., totaling $41.5 million. These payments come in addition to a $2.5 million retainer from another bankrupt client, SmileDirectClub Inc. Kirkland, recognized for its large number of nonequity partners, has recently inducted seven new partners from its restructuring practice, which gained prominence for representing several cryptocurrency companies in Chapter 11 cases.Kirkland's notable role in high-profile bankruptcies involves complex legal and financial navigations, though the firm did not comment on its specific work for WeWork and Rite Aid. In WeWork's case, Kirkland received over $22 million in retainers and is involved in the company's bankruptcy process to address lease issues, with billing rates for its lawyers ranging from $685 to $2,245 per hour. Other law firms, including Munger, Tolles & Olson; Cole Schotz; and Canada's Goodmans, are also advising WeWork, with varying retainer fees and hourly rates.For Rite Aid's bankruptcy, Kirkland disclosed receiving about $19.5 million in retainers, with similar hourly rates as in the WeWork case. Rite Aid has engaged additional legal counsel, including Cole Schotz, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Kobre & Kim, each receiving significant retainer payments and billing at various hourly rates. The company, under new legal leadership, faces a deadline to emerge from Chapter 11 by March 1.WeWork, Rite Aid Bankruptcy Fees $41.5 Million Haul for KirklandThe Federal Defender Supreme Court Resource & Assistance Panel (DSCRAP) has become instrumental in aiding federal public defenders in preparing for arguments before the US Supreme Court. Andrew Adler, a federal defender, exemplifies this effort, making his third appearance at the Supreme Court, a rare achievement for federal public defenders who usually argue only once before the justices. This trend is notable, as federal defenders across the nation have argued at least one case each term since 2000, according to Adler.The Supreme Court's limited case docket intensifies the competition for arguing cases, with elite law firms often pressuring defenders to hand over their cases to more experienced advocates. To counter this, DSCRAP supports first-time advocates by partnering them with experienced federal defenders. This initiative is a response to criticisms from Supreme Court justices regarding the quality of representation provided by criminal defense attorneys.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for instance, criticized attorneys unwilling to pass their cases to seasoned Supreme Court advocates, labeling it as "malpractice." This sentiment reflects the dominance of a small, elite group of big firm lawyers in the Supreme Court bar. However, federal defenders often possess deep subject matter expertise and extensive experience in federal appellate courts.Andrew Adler's preparation for his current case, Jackson v. United States, demonstrates the collaborative efforts to ensure successful arguments. DSCRAP assisted in brainstorming strategies and planned moot courts for Adler, while he also worked with Supreme Court veteran Jeff Fisher for brief preparation. Michael Caruso, the federal public defender for the Southern District of Florida, emphasizes the value of partnering with experienced high court veterans for insights and argument preparation.This collaborative approach aims to balance the often David and Goliath-like scenario federal defenders face when opposing top government lawyers, like the U.S. Solicitor General's Office attorneys. The partnerships and support systems developed within the federal defender community illustrate their commitment to providing quality representation in the nation's highest court, countering the perceived home court advantage of repeat players.Federal Defenders Combine Forces to Argue at US Supreme CourtThe new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules for clawing back executive pay are causing significant challenges and discussions in corporate America. These rules, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 but only issued in 2022, require companies to adopt policies to recoup bonuses from executives in cases of accounting errors. Failing to implement these policies by the December 1 deadline risks expulsion from stock exchanges like Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange.The complexity of these rules is considerable, as demonstrated by a legal team at Latham & Watkins LLP, who spent over five hours on a call just to create a flowchart for clients. The SEC's directive primarily targets bonuses linked to earnings metrics that are later found to be miscalculated. This not only includes major financial restatements, known as "Big R" corrections, but also smaller, often unnoticed adjustments labeled "Little R" revisions.These "Little R" revisions, typically slipped into regular financial filings, are more common than the more conspicuous "Big R" restatements. However, the SEC's new rules do not cover out-of-period adjustments, which are minor fixes to immaterial errors in past financial statements. Despite this, companies must now indicate on their annual financial statements if any past correction, including out-of-period adjustments, was made.This means companies must now discern between "Little R" revisions and out-of-period adjustments more carefully, a task that has gained new significance under these rules. As Keith Halverstam of Latham & Watkins LLP notes, this represents a new reality where both executive and accounting teams need to be acutely aware of these distinctions.Beyond accounting complexities, the SEC rules also raise questions about their applicability to overseas companies listed on US exchanges, especially in countries where clawing back pay is prohibited. Additionally, the rules apply to the pre-tax amount of wrongly awarded compensation, posing challenges for long-term incentive programs tied to company stock performance.As companies navigate these new regulations, the focus will also shift to how these policies are implemented in practice, leading to further questions and potential issues, as noted by Veronica Wissel of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This situation indicates a significant shift in executive compensation and corporate governance, requiring meticulous compliance and strategic planning.SEC Executive Clawback Rules Bring Late Nights as Deadline NearsIn recent days, New York has seen a surge in lawsuits filed against notable individuals under the Adult Survivors Act (ASA). This act, passed in May 2022, was a critical amendment to state law, allowing alleged victims of sexual offenses, where the statute of limitations had lapsed, to file civil suits within a one-year period. This "lookback window" began on November 24, 2022, and was set to close on November 24, 2023, creating a sense of urgency for filings.The ASA was designed to address the delayed effects of trauma often experienced by survivors of sexual assault, recognizing that many are unable to come forward immediately after the incident. This legislation mirrors the earlier Child Victims Act of 2019, providing a similar opportunity for adults.As the deadline approached, there was a notable increase in high-profile lawsuits. Figures like Sean "Diddy" Combs, New York Mayor Eric Adams, and former President Donald Trump were among those sued under the ASA. For example, Trump was ordered to pay $5 million in damages to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation and battery related to an incident alleged to have occurred in 1996.This wave of lawsuits highlights a crucial aspect of the ASA: its capacity to empower survivors of historic sexual abuse to seek justice, regardless of the elapsed time. While the law initially saw relatively few filings, the rush near the deadline indicates a significant response from survivors seizing this opportunity.Overall, the ASA has facilitated over 2,500 legal actions, underscoring the widespread impact of sexual assault and the need for legal avenues to address long-standing grievances. The law's expiry has prompted a final push for justice, bringing numerous cases into the public eye and spotlighting the pervasive issue of sexual misconduct across various sectors.Adult Survivors Act deadline prompts rush of sexual assault lawsuitsGovernor Hochul Signs Adult Survivors ActActor Jamie Foxx accused of sexual abuse in New York lawsuit | ReutersNew York Mayor Eric Adams accused of sexual assault in 1993 | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 - Introductions 02:44 - Two new legal conferences last week: KM & Innovation in NYC and LegalOps in Vegas (Selected by Bob Ambrogi and Connie Brenton) 24:10 - LSAT scraps 'logic games' section, adds more logical reasoning (Selected by Victor Li) 25:00 - Standing by in case of 'dystopian problems,' court allows use of keyword search data to find suspects (Selected by Victor Li) 31:52 - vLex (Fastcase) Unveils Beta Version Of Its Global, Multi-Language Generative AI Legal Research Tool (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 35:42 - Pras Michel of Fugees seeks new trial, contends former attorney used AI for closing argument - related to vLex 48:35 - The NoFakes Act: is outlawing deepfakes good? bad? practical? (Selected by Stephen Embry) 55:30 - Kirkland & Ellis Announces SideTrack, a Lawyer-Built Platform for Investment Funds Attorneys (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins)

On this day in legal history, October 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, marked a shift in U.S. immigration policy. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the act abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been in place since the 1920s and favored immigration from Western and Northern Europe. This change came during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and was seen as a step toward ending racially discriminatory immigration policies. The act introduced a seven-category preference system that prioritized family reunification, professionals with specialized skills, and refugees.Before the 1965 act, U.S. immigration policy was heavily skewed towards preserving American homogeneity. Laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924 had been enacted to limit immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. The 1965 act was a response to both domestic and international pressures to end such discriminatory practices. It received bipartisan support, although there was notable opposition from Southern Democrats.For the first time, the act also set a numerical limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, capping it at 120,000 per annum. The immediate effect of the act was a diversification of the immigrant population in the U.S., with increased numbers coming from Asia, Africa, and Eastern and Southern Europe. Despite its progressive steps, the act did not fully eliminate discrimination; for instance, members of the LGBTQ+ community were still denied entry on the grounds of being "mentally defective" until the Immigration Act of 1990.The act was signed into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, symbolically ending preferences for white immigrants that dated back to the 18th century. It laid the groundwork for the multicultural society that the United States is today, although it was not without its critics and limitations.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's leading law firm in terms of revenue, has set a new record by promoting 205 attorneys to partnership, effective October 1. This marks the sixth consecutive year the firm has broken its own record, with 193 lawyers promoted last year and 151 the year before that. Over the past decade, the size of the firm's partnership class has surged by more than 156%, growing from 80 new partners in 2013 to over 200 in 2023. The firm, founded in Chicago, reported a gross revenue of $6.5 billion in 2022 and profits per equity partner exceeding $7.5 million. Kirkland & Ellis also maintains a large tier of nonequity partners, distinguishing it as the most successful firm with such a structure.Kirkland & Ellis Promotes the Largest Class Ever to PartnershipX Corp., formerly known as Twitter Inc., is facing a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by X Social Media LLC in a Florida federal court. The lawsuit alleges that X Corp. was aware of X Social Media's pre-existing rights to the "X" trademark before undergoing a rebranding campaign in July, led by owner Elon Musk. The rebranding has caused confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that X Social Media is associated with X Corp., according to the complaint. The name change is said to be "financially and strategically harmful" to X Social Media, which claims to have already lost revenue due to the rebranding.Founded in 2015, X Social Media specializes in connecting law firms with clients through social media platforms. The company has invested over $2 million in building its brand and owns the federal trademark registration for "X SocialMedia," which it has used continuously for five years. The letter "X" in its name symbolizes the "beginning of a life-changing journey towards justice," according to the company.X Social Media sent a cease-and-desist letter to X Corp. in August, but the latter refused to comply. X Corp. has also applied for seven trademark registrations with the US Patent and Trademark Office. The lawsuit against X Corp. is not an isolated incident; other tech companies have faced similar legal challenges following rebranding efforts. For example, Meta Platforms Inc.'s 2021 name change from Facebook led to multiple lawsuits, including from a VR company and a blockchain group. Similarly, Block Inc., formerly Square, settled a trademark dispute with H&R Block Inc. earlier this year.Musk's X Corp. Sued Over Trademark by Legal Marketing Firm (1)Elon Musk's X hit with trademark lawsuit from marketing agency | ReutersThe civil fraud trial against former U.S. President Donald Trump has commenced in New York, with the state's Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump of generating over $100 million through fraudulent means related to his real estate empire. James is seeking at least $250 million in fines and a permanent ban on Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York. The case revolves around allegations that Trump inflated the value of his assets and net worth between 2011 and 2021 to secure favorable bank loans and lower insurance premiums.Trump has vehemently denied the allegations, calling the case a "scam" and a "sham," and accusing James and the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, of political bias. Engoron is hearing the case without a jury and last week found Trump and his companies liable for fraud, including inflating the value of assets like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. The trial will also review six additional claims, including falsifying business records and insurance fraud.The state's first witness was Donald Bender, a partner at Mazars USA and a longtime accountant for Trump's businesses. Bender testified that he relied on information provided by Trump and his companies when compiling Trump's personal financial statements. More than 150 people, including Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, could testify in the trial, which is expected to run through early December.Trump's legal team countered that his financials were entirely legal and that there was no intent to defraud. They argued that disagreements over asset valuations do not necessarily constitute fraud. This trial is one of several legal challenges Trump is currently facing, including criminal charges in Washington, Georgia, Florida, and New York for various alleged offenses. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in all cases.Trump reaped over $100 million through fraud, New York says as trial starts | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day in legal history, September 22, 1692, eight people were executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts during the so-called “Salem Witch Trials.”The Salem Witch Trials were a series of witchcraft cases brought before local magistrates in a settlement called Salem, which was a part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th century. The trials took place between February 1692 and May 1693 and are one of the most notorious episodes in early American history. It all began when a group of young girls claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. As mass hysteria spread through the community, a special court convened in Salem to hear the cases.The first convicted witch, Bridget Bishop, was hanged in June 1692. As the trials proceeded, accusations spread to individuals from surrounding villages. At the height of the witch hunt, more than 150 people were found guilty and 19 were hanged. Another man, Giles Corey, was pressed to death with large stones for refusing to enter a plea. Many others languished in jail for months without trials until the hysteria that swept through Puritan Massachusetts subsided.The Salem Witch Trials have long fascinated historians and psychologists as a cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process. It wasn't until 1711 that the colony passed a bill to exonerate the accused and provide financial restitution to their heirs. However, the damage had been done, and the events in Salem have since become synonymous with paranoia and injustice, serving as a vivid cautionary tale for more than three centuries.In a highly unusual move, U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten removed a white juror from a tax trial involving wealthy developer Jack Fisher, citing the juror's "racist behavior." Fisher is accused of arranging $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions through syndicated conservation easements. The juror, known as Juror 26, had told the judge that she was "standing up for White people," leading to her removal and replacement with an alternate juror. The defense has indicated that they will appeal if Fisher is convicted, citing the rare step of juror replacement during deliberations.The trial has been fraught with racial tensions and discord among jurors. Judge Batten had to warn jurors against using profanity with each other and interviewed several members of the predominantly Black jury about their disagreements. Juror 26 had falsely accused another juror, a Black man, of saying the defendants should be jailed "because they are rich, White and entitled."Prosecutors had urged for the removal of Juror 26 due to her comments, lying to the judge, and refusal to deliberate. Defense lawyers argued that her statements were misconstrued and that she had resumed deliberations. Batten eventually decided to remove her, stating that he could not in good conscience allow her to continue on the jury.Fisher's lawyers have filed a motion requesting the removal of five other jurors or a declaration of a mistrial, which the judge has denied. The trial is set to resume with an alternate juror, and the jury will return on Friday after failing to reach a verdict.White Juror Tossed at Trial as Judge Cites ‘Racist Behavior' (1)Pharmaceutical companies like Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Novartis AG are gearing up to negotiate drug prices with Medicare in compliance with the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act. Companies have until October 1 to agree to enter these negotiations. Those who refuse will face a starting tax of 65% on the U.S. sales of the product in question, with the tax rate increasing by 10% each quarter up to a maximum of 95%. The Internal Revenue Service is yet to issue a proposed rule on how this tax will be reported and paid.Pharmaceutical companies argue that this tax violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines. However, they are not waiting for further guidance from the Biden administration, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax could exceed a manufacturer's profits when combined with corporate income taxes. The primary focus for manufacturers is to collect data for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services by October 2, which will help in determining each drug's maximum fair price.The Congressional Budget Office has not provided a clear estimate on the revenue from the tax penalty but predicts that drug manufacturers will comply due to the high costs of non-compliance. Companies have the option to withdraw their products from Medicare and other federal health programs to avoid the tax, but this would mean losing access to a vast customer base. Industry experts believe that non-compliance is not a feasible option and expect companies to accept whatever price the government dictates. The general consensus is that the tax is not designed to be paid but to force compliance with Medicare's drug pricing program.Drugmakers Aren't Waiting Around for Details on Medicare TaxA non-profit group opposing race-based education policies has filed multiple civil rights complaints against U.S. universities. These complaints challenge the legality of minority scholarships and other programs aimed at promoting racial diversity. The actions follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that banned the use of race in college admissions, commonly known as affirmative action. The group, called the Equal Protection Project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, argues that the Supreme Court's decision should extend to all educational programs.The latest complaint accuses Western Kentucky University of violating civil rights law by offering scholarships exclusively to minority students. Other universities targeted include Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The U.S. Department of Education has not yet indicated whether it will launch formal investigations into these complaints.Advocates of race-conscious programs argue that they are essential for combating societal disadvantages faced by minority students. They warn that removing race as a factor in admissions and scholarships will result in fewer minority students at top schools. Some schools, like the University of Missouri, have already announced the elimination of race as a factor in awarding scholarships.Legal experts note that it's unclear whether the Supreme Court's ruling will extend to other race-conscious programs beyond admissions. The Department of Education's civil rights office is expected to become a key battleground for these issues. Meanwhile, some schools are exploring alternative methods to improve racial diversity, such as recruiting from underprivileged schools.Anti-affirmative action group, emboldened by US Supreme Court, targets scholarships | ReutersCisco Systems Inc. has announced its largest acquisition to date, buying cybersecurity company Splunk Inc. for approximately $28 billion. The deal is significant, accounting for about 10% of Cisco's market value. Cisco plans to pay $157 per share in cash for the acquisition. Once the deal is finalized, Splunk's CEO, Gary Steele, will report to Cisco's CEO, Chuck Robbins, and join Cisco's executive leadership team.Legal counsel for the deal involves several major law firms. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is serving as legal counsel to Cisco, while Cravath, Swaine & Moore is acting as Cisco's regulatory counsel. On the other side, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is providing legal counsel to Splunk, and Cooley is advising Qatalyst, the financial advisor to Splunk.The acquisition aims to strengthen Cisco's cybersecurity defenses and enhance its artificial intelligence capabilities. The deal is expected to close by the end of the third quarter of next year, pending approval from Splunk's shareholders. Private equity firm Hellman & Friedman, which owns 7.5% of Splunk stock valued at $1.4 billion, was advised by Kirkland & Ellis on their voting and support agreement as part of this acquisition.Simpson Thacher Advises Cisco on $28 Billion Splunk Acquisition (1)Just 10 days before a scheduled trial, lawyers for Donald Trump will attempt to convince a New York judge to dismiss most or all of a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Letitia James. The lawsuit accuses the former U.S. President of "staggering" fraud. On the other hand, James' legal team will argue that Trump and other defendants, including his adult sons and the Trump Organization, should be found liable for fraud even before the trial begins.The case is being reviewed by Justice Arthur Engoron and focuses on allegations that Trump inflated the value of more than 20 properties between 2011 and 2021 to obtain better loan and insurance terms. James claims that Trump inflated his own fortune by as much as $3.6 billion. Trump's lawyers argue that James has no authority to sue over what they claim are non-fraudulent private transactions and that most of her claims are beyond the statute of limitations.The trial comes at a time when Trump is leading in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, despite facing multiple legal challenges. Last week, Trump accused James of ignoring a court decision and called for a delay in the trial. This led an appeals court judge to temporarily stay the trial, with a decision on whether it should proceed expected next week.James' lawsuit aims to prevent Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York and seeks at least $250 million in penalties. James has called Trump's request for a delay a "brazen and meritless" attempt to undermine the court's authority and warned that even a brief delay could disrupt this and other trials that Trump faces.Trump, NY attorney general to argue over scope of looming fraud trial | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In our latest episode of Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers: The Biglaw Lateral Market, we delve into the timely and crucial topic of mental health in the legal profession with Jordana Alter Confino, Founder of JC Coaching & Consulting and Adjunct Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law. Jordana explained how the science of positive psychology helped her to transform her life and career—and how she is now using it to help others do the same. Covering both institutional reforms that law firms can adopt and small but important changes that individual lawyers can make, our conversation offers actionable insights for lawyers looking to thrive both personally and professionally. On the Moves of the Week segment, we spotlight Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP's strategic addition of 13 private equity partners from Kirkland & Ellis, spanning the U.S and U.K., and dive into the launch of an exciting new Denver litigation boutique, Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC. As always, be sure to rate, review, subscribe, and tell a friend!

On this day in legal history, September 13, 1971, the Attica Correctional Facility prison revolt came to an end when National Guardsmen took back control of the prison–in so doing 43 people died, all but four from law enforcement's efforts to regain control.The Attica Prison Uprising, a grim milestone in the history of prisoners' rights movement, occurred from September 9 to 13, 1971, at the Attica Correctional Facility in New York. Rooted in a growing wave of prison activism and exacerbated by appalling living conditions and racial brutalization occuring at the prison, the revolt began with approximately 1,281 inmates taking control of the prison and holding 42 staff members hostage. Their grievances encompassed a myriad of issues including overcrowding, racial discrimination, lack of proper medical care, and restrictions on their educational and political engagements.Historian Howard Zinn wrote of Attica, prior to the revolt, in his A People's History of the United States:Prisoners spent 14 to 16 hours a day in their cells, their mail was read, their reading material restricted, their visits from families conducted through a mesh screen, their medical care disgraceful, their parole system inequitable, racism everywhere.Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who communicated with President Richard Nixon during the crisis, adamantly refused to visit the prison or engage in direct dialogues with the inmates. Instead, he authorized a forceful retaking of the prison, which tragically resulted in the deaths of 39 individuals - nearly all by law enforcement gunfire. Post the assault, it was verified that aside from one officer and three inmates, all fatalities were caused by the enforcement's gunfire, contradicting Rockefeller's claim that inmates had committed "cold-blood killings". The incident drew widespread criticism, with many pointing out that the massacre could have been avoided through negotiated settlements.In the aftermath, the New York Corrections Department initiated changes to meet some of the inmates' demands and alleviate tensions within the prison system. Despite these efforts, many improvements were reversed in the 1980s and 1990s. The event remains a somber testament to the harsh realities of prison life during that period, and today, and stands as a significant marker in the broader history of prisoner activism and the fight for better living conditions and political rights in American prisons.PwC, under the guidance of US chairman Tim Ryan, is implementing several measures to enhance the credibility of its audits and foster investor confidence. The initiatives include linking leadership compensation to audit quality and sharing the financial repercussions of any scandalous events within the firm equally, including with top-tier leaders from consulting and tax departments. Beginning in 2024, PwC plans to initiate expanded access to specialists to augment fraud monitoring and business viability assessments during audits. The firm is also reducing potential conflicts of interest by discontinuing certain consulting services for audit clients, worth less than $100 million.Let's read that carefully, they are divesting their consulting services for clients they also provide audit services for … but only their least profitable consulting clients. Regular listeners will remember I, along with many other professionals, have called for a complete divorce of consulting and audit wings among the Big Four. We aren't getting that. A quick excerpt from my column on the problem:An accounting firm often will act as both a consultant on the bulk of transactions entered into by a bank and the auditor of those transactions. If you thought not wanting to lose a sweet auditing gig was motivation to give a thumbs-up on financials, imagine if your firm—your colleagues—were responsible for structuring much of the underlying deals that gave rise to those financials. And perhaps a former colleague is the CEO of that bank.You begin to see the conflict of interest. Anyway, as a part of these reforms, leadership will verify that the firm's internal controls pertaining to audits are operating effectively, aligning with potential new US audit regulations. Ryan emphasized that these transformations, developing over the next three years, aim at adapting to the fast-changing business landscape and are not superficial adjustments. The changes follow the firm's 2021 restructuring and are expected to enhance audit report details, risk management disclosures, and conflict of interest management, to be disclosed in a voluntary audit quality report. Observers anticipate that PwC's strategies may influence other firms in the industry to take similar steps to improve audit quality.PwC Puts Partner Pay on Line in Bid to Boost Faith in Audits (1)PwC partners to be paid £906,000 this yearSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has been denied pretrial release by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, ahead of his October 3rd trial for fraud charges related to the FTX collapse. Bankman-Fried claimed that his current detention conditions have hindered his ability to adequately prepare his defense, as it restricts his access to the evidence presented by the prosecutors. However, Judge Kaplan noted that he had not detailed the specific pieces of evidence he couldn't access and did not request a trial postponement.Earlier in August, Bankman-Fried was incarcerated due to suspected witness tampering, including the alleged sharing of personal writings of his ex-partner and colleague, Caroline Ellison, with a journalist. Ellison, formerly at the helm of Bankman-Fried's Alameda Research hedge fund, has admitted to fraud charges and is slated to testify against him. Despite these developments, Bankman-Fried, who is accused of misappropriating billions from FTX to cover Alameda's losses and other personal expenditures, maintains his innocence, acknowledging only shortcomings in risk management at FTX. His appeal against the detention order will be heard on September 19th.Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid for pretrial jail release | ReutersThe law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison is considerably expanding its private equity practice by hiring numerous partners from rival firms Kirkland & Ellis and Linklaters, particularly enhancing its presence in London, New York, and Los Angeles. Last month, they secured the services of renowned debt finance lawyer Neel Sachdev and other partners from London and New York. Adding to this list, Roger Johnson, Andreas Philipson, Timothy Lowe, Cian O'Connor from Kirkland, and William Aitken-Davies from Linklaters are set to join Sachdev in spearheading various global practices at Paul Weiss' London office.Meanwhile, in the US, Ben Steadman, Matthew Leist, and Caroline Epstein from Kirkland are linking up with Eric Wedel to bolster the corporate department in New York and inaugurate a new branch in Los Angeles. Paul Weiss's chairman, Brad Karp, emphasized that the incorporation of these premier teams would notably amplify the firm's global capacities in the private equity and M&A sectors, promising substantial benefits for both current and prospective clients. This massive recruitment drive, characterized as a raid, has sent ripples through the London legal circles, prompting speculation about the future of Kirkland's operations in the UK. It's noted that the departure of Sachdev from Kirkland occurred amidst internal power tensions.Paul Weiss Continues Raid on Kirkland & Ellis in London and USThe National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) has revealed that the upcoming NextGen Bar Exam, set to commence in July 2026, will be approximately three hours shorter than the existing Uniform Bar Exam (UBE). The new format, which will span one-and-a-half days with a total of nine hours of testing time, aims to measure knowledge and skills more accurately, employing a mix of various question types that will enhance efficiency, according to Andreas Oranje, the NCBE's managing director of assessment programs. Despite the reduction in time, the bar exam preparation period will remain extensive, highlighted Amit Schlesinger, executive director at Kaplan. The revamped exam aims to be more skills-oriented, reducing the emphasis on law memorization, a change partly spurred by critiques that the current exam doesn't adequately mirror the real-world practice of law. From July 2027 onwards, only the NextGen test will be available, with jurisdictions being given a choice between the new and existing exams until that time. Initial announcements regarding state adoptions of the new exam are anticipated this fall.New bar exam shaves three hours off testing time | ReutersA group of prominent authors, including Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Chabon, have filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, alleging that their works were improperly used to train Meta's artificial intelligence software called Llama. The writers, which also include David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman, claim that datasets containing pirated versions of their writings were used to train the AI in responding to human text prompts. They filed a similar lawsuit against OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, highlighting that books and plays represent premium examples of long-form writing, making them valuable for AI language training. This lawsuit joins a series of copyright cases against AI companies, including a July lawsuit involving comedian Sarah Silverman. While Meta disclosed the datasets used for the initial version of Llama, the details for the recently released Llama 2 have not been revealed. Llama 2, available for commercial use, is viewed as a pivotal release in the competitive generative AI software market. Meta has not commented on the lawsuit as of now.Pulitzer winner Chabon, other authors sue Meta over AI program | ReutersThe 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Cincinnati, has deferred a decision on the $650 million judgment against pharmacy operators CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens, asking the Ohio Supreme Court to provide their input initially. This judgment was made in relation to the pharmacies' role in exacerbating the opioid crisis in certain Ohio regions. The court seeks clarification on the state law pertaining to the public-nuisance claim which forms the basis of this case. Initially, oral arguments were scheduled for October 20 but have been canceled due to the absence of a guiding precedent from the state's highest court. This case, initiated by Ohio's Lake and Trumbull counties, marks the first trial the three companies faced out of the numerous lawsuits filed against them concerning the U.S. opioid crisis. The initial trial concluded that the firms contributed to the public nuisance created by an oversupply and subsequent black market distribution of addictive pain pills. While the companies agreed to a substantial settlement in other cases, they persist in appealing this Ohio ruling, emphasizing the amended Ohio Product Liability Act which, they argue, restricts such public nuisance claims related to product-liability arising from the sale or distribution of products like opioids.Pharmacies' appeal of $650 mln opioid judgment heads to Ohio top court | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Crain's contributor Graham Meyer, who writes the weekly Big Ticket column, talks with host Amy Guth about can't-miss arts and culture events for the month ahead, including the return of "Hamilton," the Chicago Underground Film Festival and more. Plus: Where Illinois' jobs engine is sputtering; Allstate cuts agent pay again, creatively; WeWork taps Kirkland & Ellis in effort to stave off bankruptcy; and Mayor Johnson's plan to tackle soaring car thefts? Sue the automakers.

On this day in history, August 24, 1894, the US Congress passed the first graduated income tax law, 2% on all income over $4,000, which lasted a year before it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and overturned. The tax, which was imposed under the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, slightly reduced U.S. tariff rates from those set in the 1890 McKinley tariff and imposed a 2% tax on income over $4,000. Named after William L. Wilson and Senator Arthur P. Gorman, both Democrats, it marked the first peacetime income tax, affecting fewer than 1% of households. The income tax was introduced to compensate for revenue lost due to tariff reductions, aligning with the Democratic Party's push away from protectionism. The bill initially lowered tariff rates significantly, but protectionists in the Senate added over 600 amendments, nullifying most reforms. The "Sugar Trust" made changes favoring itself, leading to President Grover Cleveland's denunciation of the revised measure as a disgrace, though he allowed it to become law without his signature. The act was seen as an improvement over the McKinley tariff, despite its controversy. The income tax provision was considered odious by some, but was supported as the lesser of two evils compared to a tariff tax.On April 8, 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that the taxes levied by the Wilson-Gorman Act on income from property were unconstitutional, treating them as direct taxes. Chief Justice Melville Fuller stated that taxes on real estate and the income of real estate, as well as personal property, were direct taxes. The Constitution required that direct taxes be imposed in proportion to the states' population, and the tax in question had not been apportioned, rendering it invalid. The Court did not rule that all income taxes were direct taxes but held that taxes on interest, dividends, and rents had a profound effect on the underlying assets, viewing them as direct taxes. Direct taxes were required to follow the rule of apportionment, dividing the tax collected by the number of members in the House of Representatives and multiplying by each state's representatives to determine each state's share. A separate holding regarding federal taxation of interest on state bonds was later declared "effectively overruled."The dissenting Justices, John Marshall Harlan, Howell Edmunds Jackson, Edward Douglass White, and Henry Billings Brown, strongly disagreed with the majority. Justice White deplored the decision, arguing that it deprived the government of a necessary power of taxation. Justice Brown's dissent emphasized that the decision surrendered the taxing power to the moneyed class, nullifying not only this law but every similar law not based on an "impossible theory of apportionment."  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. et al. HYDE v. CONTINENTAL TRUST CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al. | Supreme CourtDollar Tree Inc., one of the largest U.S. retailers, has reached a settlement with the federal government to enhance working and safety conditions at its stores across the country. The agreement requires Dollar Tree to pay $1.35 million to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and implement numerous changes in business practices. Violations included blocked aisles, hazardous work areas, unsafe stacking of boxes, and blocked fire safety equipment. OSHA will close most of its open cases against Dollar Tree, allowing the company to correct some safety issues before inspections. Since 2018, Dollar Tree has been fined $13.1 million for violations found during 360 inspections, with fines escalating due to repeat violations. The settlement aims to address the "root causes" of common violations, with measures including increased safety staff, monitoring compliance, engineering controls, and improved business practices. Dollar Tree will also open a 24-hour hotline for safety concerns and form a committee with workers to address safety issues. The agreement runs until August 2025 and does not call for increased staffing. If OSHA receives a complaint and believes Dollar Tree isn't addressing the issue, the retailer could face a fine of up to $100,000 a day for five days. The settlement follows a similar agreement in 2015 that expired in 2018, which did not lead to systematic changes, and comes as Dollar General Corp., a competitor, also faces OSHA fines.Dollar Tree Reaches Wide-Ranging Safety Settlement With OSHAFormer U.S. President Donald Trump is set to surrender at an Atlanta jail after being indicted in Georgia over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The conditions of his $200,000 bond package include standard provisions that bar him from making direct or indirect threats against witnesses or his 18 co-defendants in the case. This also applies to social media posts, including on Trump's platform, Truth Social. Trump is also prohibited from discussing the case with co-defendants or potential witnesses unless lawyers are present. Legal experts believe that judges in Georgia are unlikely to revoke bail over social media posts or inflammatory statements, even as Trump is seeking the Republican nomination for the 2024 U.S. election. Judge Scott McAfee does have the power to jail Trump for egregious acts of witness tampering. Trump has been indicted in three additional cases and has pleaded not guilty in all. His social media postings have been contentious in the Washington case, leading to a protective order barring him from disclosing sensitive evidence and grand jury information. Unlike in Georgia, his bond in other cases do not explicitly restrict his social media posts.Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has ruled that cameras will be allowed in the courtroom for former President Trump's Georgia arraignment, marking the first time one of Trump's criminal proceedings will be televised. The judge granted a request from four local television stations to bring in live cameras and other recording devices through September 8. The Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, is planning to hold the arraignments for all the defendants, including Trump, within that window. The order does not specify whether cameras will be allowed during a trial or any other future proceedings. Trump and 18 co-defendants were charged last week over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Cameras have been barred from all of Trump's other three criminal cases so far.Trump's bond in Georgia election case: No threats, no jail | ReutersTrump's Georgia arraignment expected to be televised, Fulton County judge says | The HillIn response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision banning race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities, law schools are modifying their admission essays. The ruling prohibits schools from considering candidates' race in admissions, leading to changes in essay questions to understand candidates' backgrounds without violating the ruling. Law school admission consultant Mike Spivey noted that the process will be less uniform and more time-intensive for applicants. Several schools, including Duke Law School and the University of Texas School of Law, have replaced open-ended diversity statements with specific prompts. Harvard Law School now requires both a "statement of purpose" and a "statement of perspective." Yale Law School offers a choice of four essay prompts, focusing on meaningful communities or changes in perspective. The University of Michigan Law School has updated its supplemental essay prompts to include nine options, aiming to understand the candidates' experiences and perspectives. The changes reflect a broadening interest in contextual information, seen as beneficial for making admissions decisions.Law schools' admission essays revamped after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling | ReutersA former associate at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, Zoya Kovalenko, has defeated the firm's attempt to dismiss her sex discrimination claims. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam of Oakland, California, maintained most of Kovalenko's bias, retaliation, and defamation case against the firm, although he dismissed most of her claims against individual partners. Kovalenko alleged that she was treated unfairly compared to male associates and was fired in retaliation for her complaints. She also claimed that the firm and its partners overloaded her with work, cutting into her vacation time, while ensuring a male associate had a work-free vacation. Gilliam found that the individual partners could not be held liable under state and federal law, but some will have to face Kovalenko's defamation claims. One partner was dismissed from the lawsuit entirely due to jurisdictional reasons.Ex-Kirkland associate can proceed with sex bias lawsuit against firm - Calif. judge | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join us for a new episode of Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers, as we welcome Marta Ricardo, the dynamic Director of Lawyering Skills and Assistant Dean of Professionalism at Fordham Law. Charting her course from big law into finance before transitioning into academia, Marta delivers insights about the skills lawyers must develop to thrive in today's world. Marta offers her perspective on how the profession is changing while making her case for the principles of practice that remain immutable.   For our Moves of the Week, we spotlight seismic industry shifts: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison onboards four top-tier partners from Kirkland & Ellis, including renowned debt finance expert Neel Sachdev. Meanwhile, in a particularly notable move, public M&A partner Andrew Elken from Cravath heads to Latham in New York City.

On this day in legal history, August 7, 1789, Congress passed an act known as the 9th Act of the First Congress, which established the Lighthouse Service. This marked a crucial commitment to maritime navigation safety in the United States and was a key piece of legislation designed for the establishment and support of lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers. Remarkably, this was the first non-revenue responsibility assigned to Collectors of Customs. They were tasked with the design, construction, staffing, and management of lighthouses within their Customs districts, broadening their role beyond mere revenue collection. Two centuries later, the importance of this act was commemorated when Congress designated August 7, 1989, as National Lighthouse Day, celebrating both the history and the continued significance of lighthouses and other navigational aids in American maritime history.National Lighthouse Day – August 7thRoger Johnson, a prominent M&A partner at Kirkland & Ellis in London, specializing in private equity deals, was asked to leave the firm after it was discovered he was in talks with a rival company. Johnson, who joined Kirkland from Linklaters in 2015, was instrumental in the U.S. firm's efforts to expand into the private equity M&A sector in London. His departure was confirmed by a spokesperson from Kirkland, who wished him well but declined to comment further on personnel matters. Johnson's recent achievements include representing EQT in a £4.5 billion takeover of Dechra, a veterinary pharmaceuticals company. This personnel change follows the departure of David Holdsworth, a fellow Linklaters alumnus, from Kirkland last year. Separately, on August 2, Kirkland announced the hiring of Alvaro Membrillera, Paul Weiss's London head, a highly rated private equity M&A partner. Meanwhile, Kirkland's average equity partner pay reached $7.5 million in 2022, with the firm's revenue rising nearly 8% to $6.5 billion.Wake Up Call: Kirkland Boots Deals Partner Over Talks With RivalKirkland & Ellis M&A star asked to leave after exit plans leakedDonald Trump's lawyers have dropped a lawsuit in Georgia seeking to force a state judge to rule on Trump's request to discard evidence gathered by a special purpose grand jury and to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the investigation. This decision came three days after the judge denied the request to remove Willis. Though disagreeing with Judge Robert McBurney's ruling, Trump's lawyers stated that they will explore other channels to seek judicial review. Fulton County DA Willis plans to decide this month whether to ask a new grand jury to charge Trump and his associates. The special purpose grand jury Trump is challenging had only an advisory role and could not indict. This legal maneuvering comes as Trump already faces three other indictments. Additionally, the Fulton County Sheriff's Office announced they will close streets around the courthouse for two weeks starting August 7th as a security measure.Trump Drops Georgia Lawsuit Over Grand Jury, Promises New CaseDemocratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has filed a lawsuit against Google LLC for removing his YouTube videos that questioned the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. Kennedy, a well-known anti-vaccine activist, labeled the company's medical misinformation policies as “impermissibly vague” and the video removal as “unconstitutional,” asserting it violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The lawsuit also criticized the Biden Administration, claiming officials colluded with tech companies to “censor dissenting views” on the pandemic. Kennedy has faced significant backlash for his misleading claims about vaccines and controversial remarks related to the pandemic. The lawsuit reflects broader critiques against social media platforms implementing policies to combat misinformation. YouTube defended its actions, stating that it enforces its Community Guidelines transparently and consistently, and a Google spokesperson described the claims as meritless. Kennedy, seeking an order to restore all removed videos and demanding a jury trial, likens YouTube to a “digital town square” where censorship of political speech is inappropriate.RFK Jr. Sues Google, YouTube For Removal of Anti-Vaccine SpeechOn Sunday, Donald Trump targeted the federal judge overseeing the case that charges him with conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump expressed in a social media post that he cannot receive a fair trial from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and intends to seek her recusal and a change of venue. No formal request has yet been filed. Trump faces a Monday deadline to respond to a proposed protective order meant to shield witnesses and evidence after Chutkan denied his request for a delay. Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, defended Trump's actions after the 2020 election loss, referring to them as "aspirational asks" rather than directives, and expressed opposition to the protective order. Former Vice President Mike Pence countered Trump's claims, saying he had no right to overturn the election result. Additionally, Trump is facing other legal troubles, including possible charges in Georgia, along with ongoing charges related to classified documents and hush money payments.Trump targets DC judge in 2020 election case | ReutersAccording to a new report from the Thomson Reuters Institute, large and midsized law firms experienced a boost in financial performance in Q2 2023, with demand growth for legal work in specific areas like bankruptcy, labor and employment, litigation, and antitrust. The demand increased by 1.5% year-over-year, and the Law Firm Financial Index jumped six points in Q2 to reach its highest level since Q1 2022. The average rate a client agreed to pay for legal services grew by 5.9% in comparison to the same period the previous year. Demand specifically grew for bankruptcy work (5.7%), antitrust and regulatory work (4.6%), and labor and employment work (2.4%), with litigation climbing by 4%. On the other hand, demand for mergers and acquisitions fell by 6%, and real estate demand dropped by 8.4%. The report also highlights differing tactics between midsize and large firms to strengthen profitability, with midsize firms increasing their associate headcount, and top 100 firms trimming theirs. While some large U.S. law firms have made layoffs, the industry is not conducting mass layoffs like in the 2008 financial crisis.Law firms saw rising demand in Q2, report says | ReutersElon Musk's social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter, will pay legal bills for users who have been treated unfairly by employers for posting or liking something on the site. Musk announced this commitment in a post on X, stating that there would be no limits to funding the legal bills. He also emphasized that legal action would be "extremely loud," and that the company would target the boards of directors of offending companies. This move comes at a time when the platform is experiencing a new high in monthly users, with over 540 million as of last month. X is currently going through organizational changes and is aiming to boost falling advertising revenue. The platform was rebranded from Twitter to X in July, with Musk stating a new focus on building an "everything app." However, the platform's cash flow remains negative due to a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue and a substantial debt load, with an expected upturn in advertising revenue failing to materialize in June.Musk's X to pay legal bills of people 'unfairly treated' for posting on platform | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day, June 14th, in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia State Board v. Barnette, holding that students cannot be compelled to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.When issues of compelled patriotism are discussed, advocates of compulsion generally frame these issues as unique “problems” of modernity. So you may be surprised to hear that the Barnette decision was handed down on this day in 1943. In the midst of World War II, no less.In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling: they declared a compulsory flag salute law in public schools unconstitutional, affirming that students have First Amendment rights.The Court determined that mandatory flag salutes violated the First Amendment. The decision was made on Flag Day and overturned a previous case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940). The West Virginia statute in question imposed harsh penalties on children and their parents if the children refused to comply, including expulsion and fines of $50 or even imprisonment for parents.In the Gobitis case, two Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren were expelled for refusing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court recognized the state's interest in promoting national cohesion and considered mandatory flag salutes as a permissible means of fostering patriotism.However, in Barnette, the Court shifted its focus. It highlighted that the central issue was not whether the children could be excused from the flag salute due to religious beliefs, as in Gobitis. Rather, it examined whether the state had the power to enforce the flag salute on all schoolchildren.The Court emphasized that the compulsory flag salute and pledge required an affirmation of belief and an attitude of mind. It noted that Congress had recently recognized the Pledge of Allegiance as voluntary, indicating that compulsory salutes were not necessarily the most effective way to cultivate patriotism.Justice Robert H. Jackson's opinion in Barnette reevaluated the role of public schools in educating young citizens. The Court asserted that public education should not stifle free thinking or teach youth to disregard essential principles of government as mere platitudes. Instead, education should enable students to make informed choices.The Court, echoing Congress, concluded that patriotism is strengthened through voluntary participation rather than compulsion. Justice Jackson emphasized that no official, regardless of their position, could dictate orthodoxy in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other opinions, or force citizens to confess their faith in those matters.This landmark ruling in Barnette established the principle that students possess First Amendment rights, including the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, within the context of public schools.In the latest sign BigLaw is in a bit of a holding pattern, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, a San Francisco-based law firm, is laying off approximately 90 attorneys and staff members and delaying the start date for its incoming class due to reduced demand and market uncertainty. The layoffs will affect 40 associates and 50 staff members, amounting to around 6% of the firm's global workforce. The firm has decided to postpone the start date for its first-year class until January 16, 2024. Orrick will provide a $15,000 stipend and additional funds for health insurance to its class of 2023. The firm attributes these actions to reduced client demand in certain areas and the impact of technology and evolving work environments on the firm's operations. Orrick joins other prominent law firms such as Cooley, Gunderson Dettmer, Kirkland & Ellis, and Fenwick & West in implementing workforce reductions and start date delays in response to sluggish demand for legal services.Orrick Lays Off 90 Lawyers and Staff, Delays Start DatesA U.S. judge has granted the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) request to temporarily block Microsoft's acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard and scheduled a hearing for next week. The judge set a two-day evidentiary hearing on the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction for June 22-23 in San Francisco. Without a court order, Microsoft could have closed the $69 billion deal as early as Friday. The FTC had asked an administrative judge to block the transaction in December and an evidential hearing in the administrative proceeding is set to begin on August 2. The federal court will decide based on the late-June hearing whether a preliminary injunction is necessary during the administrative review of the case. Microsoft and Activision must submit legal arguments opposing the preliminary injunction by June 16, with the FTC's reply due on June 20. The FTC argues that the deal would give Microsoft's Xbox exclusive access to Activision games, potentially excluding Nintendo and Sony consoles. Microsoft has stated that accelerating the legal process will bring more choice and competition to the gaming market.US judge temporarily blocks Microsoft acquisition of Activision | ReutersAs the indictment is being reviewed and ingested, and experts are weighing in, it seems clear: Former U.S. President Donald Trump is facing significant challenges in defending himself against charges of illegally retaining top-secret documents after leaving the White House in 2021. Yesterday, Trump pleaded not guilty to the 37 counts, which include violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Experts noted that the indictment contains a wide range of evidence, such as documents, photos, text messages, audio recordings, and witness statements, making a strong case for the prosecution's allegations. The conspiracy to obstruct justice charges may pose the greatest risk for Trump, carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Legal experts believe the evidence suggests Trump knew about the documents and refused to turn them over, instructing his lawyers to mislead the FBI. Obstruction of justice is challenging to defend against and can have significant public backlash. Trump's alleged efforts to conceal documents over the years likely played a role in the decision to indict him. The classification status of the documents may be irrelevant, as the Espionage Act criminalizes the unauthorized retention of national defense information, regardless of classification. While Trump has potential defense strategies, such as challenging witness accounts or blaming others, the case could be delayed until after the 2024 election, and opinions vary on whether he could pardon himself if he wins.Here's what happens next in the case against Donald Trump. It could be a year or more before a trial takes place and all indications are Trump will continue to seek to win back the presidency. Federal prosecutors will begin handing over evidence to Trump's lawyers, including years of correspondence related to the documents in question. Trump's lawyers are expected to file a motion to dismiss the case, citing reasons such as his claim that he declassified the documents before taking them. However, motions to dismiss in criminal cases rarely succeed.The trial timeline will likely be extended as the parties review evidence and argue legal disputes. Trump testifying in the case would be his decision, but it is unlikely as defendants often choose not to testify. If Trump were to win the 2024 presidential election, it is unlikely that the prosecution would proceed due to the Department of Justice's policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the policy can be deviated from with the approval of the U.S. attorney general. But that would almost certainly be Trump's attorney general. So it is clear to me, as it is probably clear to Trump, that his best chance at kicking this can down the road will be to delay the trial long enough to win back the presidency and pardon himself. 2024 is going to be a helluva year. Trump faces difficult odds in documents case | ReutersTrump documents case: what happens now that he pleaded not guilty? | ReutersIllinois has become the first state in the United States to pass a law aimed at curbing book bans in public libraries. The legislation comes in response to the growing trend of conservative efforts to suppress books addressing topics such as race, history, and LGBTQ issues. Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, signed the law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2024. Under the new law, Illinois public libraries will only be eligible for state grants if they adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, which prohibits the removal of materials due to partisan or doctrinal disapproval. The push to ban books has intensified during the 2021-2022 school year, particularly in conservative Republican-dominated states like Florida and Texas. According to the American Library Association, there were 67 attempts to ban books in Illinois alone in 2022, with many of the targeted books focusing on LGBTQ people or people of color. Critics of book bans argue that librarians should be the ones selecting books, not politicians, and that such bans infringe on freedom of expression. The Illinois law is seen as a step in the right direction by supporters who believe that books in libraries should be chosen by professionals, not extremist politicians.Illinois becomes first state to pass law curtailing book bans | ReutersThe European Commission, Europe's top antitrust regulator, has announced that it may pursue the breakup of Google's ad-tech business. The commission has charged Google with abusing its dominant position in the online advertising technology industry. It alleges that Google used its control over the buying and selling of online ads across third-party websites and apps to favor its own advertising auction house. The commission's preliminary view is that Google must divest parts of its ad-tech business to address the inherent conflicts of interest. Google will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint, and if found guilty, it could face a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide revenue. This move by the European Commission aligns with the ongoing antitrust scrutiny Google is facing in the United States and would mark a major sea change in the online advertising space. EU Says It May Seek Breakup of Google's Ad-Tech Business - WSJ Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comIf you've been defamed, and it don't look good, who you gonna call?Clare Locke (if you can afford them). Founded in 2014 by Tom Clare and Libby Locke, who left the partnership of Kirkland & Ellis to build a plaintiff-side defamation practice free from the constraints of Biglaw, Clare Locke has become the go-to firm for major corporations and high-net-worth individuals who have suffered reputational attacks.I've known Tom and Libby for years, and I've been meaning to invite them on the podcast for a long time. After they secured what's believed to be the largest defamation settlement in history—$787.5 million for their client, Dominion Voting Systems, in the landmark litigation of Dominion v. Fox—I couldn't wait any longer.So this is actually a bonus episode. I usually post episodes every other Wednesday, I posted an episode last week, and my next episode—which also has an amazing guest—will go live next Wednesday, May 3. But in light of last week's Dominion settlement, I didn't want to delay, so I'm slipping in this episode now.It's also a double episode, which is why it's longer than usual—but worth it. I interview Libby and Tom about their interesting personal and professional backgrounds; their decision to leave Kirkland to launch a boutique firm, including why it would be impossible to have a practice like theirs in Biglaw; what it's like to practice alongside your spouse; how they got involved in the Dominion case, including why the settlement was so darn large; and the future of New York Times v. Sullivan.In the interest of getting this out in timely fashion, I have not included in a transcript. It's surprisingly laborious to clean up the auto-generated transcript, since the voice-recognition technology has a long way to go. So if you'd like to get the substance of our fascinating conversation, please listen to our dulcet tones, via the embed at the top of this post or in your podcast player of choice. Enjoy!Show Notes:* Thomas A. Clare bio, Clare Locke LLP* Elizabeth M. Locke bio, Clare Locke LLP* ‘Brilliant and Lucky': Clare Locke Makes Headlines by Keeping Clients Out of Them, American Lawyer* Winning Litigators: Tom Clare & Libby Locke, Clare Locke, National Law Journal* Clare Locke LLP, Chambers and PartnersSponsored by NexFirm, which helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Between the various recent cases in the Delaware courts, such as Boxed, which involved the different SPAC voting classes, or the Multiplan case, or Arrival, all of which are in addition to the 1% excise tax on share buybacks, there has been a noticeable trend of SPACs moving to off-shore domiciles. We spoke with Derek Dostal, from the law firm of Davis Polk, and Christian Nagler, from Kirkland & Ellis, to help explain these trends in greater detail and if the pending SEC proposal could affect some of these considerations going forward. Give it a listen.  

In this episode of the Legal Marketing 2.0 Podcast, Guy is joined by Justin Bernbrock. Justin Bernbrock is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Chicago office and the head of Chicago's complex restructuring team. Justin has worked on some of the most complex Chapter 11 cases in the world over the last 11 years. Prior to Sheppard Mullin, Justin was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago. Before his legal career, Justin served with distinction in the United States Navy.

0:00 -- Intro.1:42 -- Start of interview.3:31 -- Mario's "origin story". 9:25 -- The origin, evolution and impact of CFIUS. "The (regulatory) process is the bottle, national security is the wine." The driver of CFIUS is national security.13:11 -- On the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). 18:18 -- His recommendation on how boards should think about CFIUS matters.  His book: "A Dealmaker's Guide to CFIUS: Answers to Common Questions from Boards, Bankers and Investors." 21:40 -- On the new CFIUS Enforcement Guidelines (Fall 2022). "Since FIRRMA, CFIUS has been significantly resourced by the U.S. Government and today there is an independent office within CFIUS that is entirely focused on transactions that were not notified to the Committee." (see CFIUS annual reports to Congress). There are hundreds of transactions reported per year at this stage.25:58 -- The proposed outbound investment screening regulatory framework. "[It may impact] a U.S. person sitting in a Chinese board (for example)." "The U.S. has jurisdiction over U.S. capital, U.S. persons, U.S. technology, etc and the U.S. wants to slow down adversary countries." "We will know a lot more about this framework by the end of February 2023 when the report comes out."29:47 -- On the different approaches to industrial policies by China and the U.S. The Chips and Science Act and IRA Act of 2022.36:36 -- On how boards should consider geopolitical risks and opportunities ("how to optimize outcomes"): Three questions to consider: 1) The U.S.- China relationship, 2) What the US is doing with its allies / What China is doing with its allies, and 3) What are national governments doing to independently enhance their own sovereignty and security resilience.39:17 -- On US jurisdiction over U.S. foreign-listed companies. Example of Canada ordering divestment from Chinese investments in Canadian lithium companies.43:30 -- Final thoughts for directors on geopolitics and national security issues. 44:24 - The books that have greatly influenced his life: Moby Dick, by Herman Melville (1851)The Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom (1987)45:56 - His mentors, and what he learned from them. Donald Rumsfeld (former U.S. Secretary of Defense)Aviva Diamant (retired, Fried Frank)Norm Augustine (former Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin)48:20 -  Quotes he thinks of often or live his life by. From his mother "This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice.” (psalms)49:05 - An unusual habit or an absurd thing that he loves: early rising and journaling at a coffee shop or diner.50:06 - The living person he most admires: his dad.Mario Mancuso is a Partner of Kirkland & Ellis and leads the firm's international trade and national security practice. A former senior member of the President's national security team, Mario provides strategic and legal advice to companies, private equity sponsors, and financial institutions operating or investing across international borders.__ You can follow Mario on social media at:Twitter: @MancusoOnlineLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariomancuso/__ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Crain's health care reporter Katherine Davis talks with host Amy Guth about Horizon's nearly $28 billion sale to Amgen. Plus: Chicago-focused VC outfit debuts first fund with backing of Grubhub and Cameo veterans, Pritzker family; United CEO meets Mesa pilots after carrier's split with American; Kirkland & Ellis inks deal for big Miami office; and Walgreens, CVS limiting sales of kids' pain and fever medicine amid high demand.

Hosts Andrew Nettels and Sydney Taylor are joined by Kate Barry, Pro Bono director at the D.C. office of Kirkland Ellis, for a robust discussion about one of the country's largest providers of pro-bono legal counsel to those who need it most. If you're interested in pro-bono work but perhaps hesitant to join big-law, this episode will provide you with new insights into the important contributions that large firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis, are making to our society. 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.

Jon Ballis is the Chairman of the Executive Committee of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the world's leading law firms and the market leader in private equity. Kirkland generated $6 billion in revenue last year, including work with 700 investment fund clients and $443 billion in M&A deals across 1,000 transactions. Jon has been recognized in every edition of the Best Lawyers in America since 2006 and one of the top private equity lawyers by Private Equity Magazine. Our conversation offers a different angle on what it takes to grow and manage a high-performance professional services firm. We cover Jon's background and path to Kirkland, growth alongside private equity, oversight of Kirkland's business model for attracting, compensating, and motivating talent, and management of a large professional services firm. We discuss his perspectives on changes in fund and deal terms in the private markets, private credit, retail interest, and the role of private capital on social issues and regulation. Access Stream by AlphaSense Free Trial Learn More  Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn  Subscribe to the mailing list  Access Transcript with Premium Membership 

Brian Bank, Strategy and Client Relations, Investment Funds at Kirkland & Ellis, joins host Sean mooney to discuss what LPs are looking for, investment trends and other things every GP should know. To learn more, visit: https://bit.ly/3CfZxmZ

Who is the nation's top Supreme Court advocate?If you were to poll the SCOTUS bar, many members would name Paul Clement. The 43rd Solicitor General of the United States and a veteran of over 100 arguments before the Court, he has argued more Supreme Court cases since 2000 than any lawyer in or out of government. Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal described Clement as “the preeminent advocate in his generation,” while SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein dubbed Clement “a god.”And Clement, 56, has been having quite the year. He won two of the biggest cases of the last Term: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the landmark Second Amendment case, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the case of the praying football coach. Despite his win in Bruen, his law firm at the time, Kirkland & Ellis, announced that it would be withdrawing from all Second Amendment cases—on the day that Bruen was handed down. So Clement and his longtime colleague Erin Murphy withdrew from Kirkland, leaving to launch Clement & Murphy, their own appellate and Supreme Court boutique.After I had a top trial lawyer, Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel, as my first podcast guest, it seemed like a logical next step to welcome a leading appellate advocate as my next guest—especially since the episode would air during the first week of October, the start of the new Supreme Court Term. I invited Paul Clement to join me, and I was delighted when he agreed.In our conversation, we discussed a wide range of topics, including his high school and college debate career, his advice for appellate advocates, some additional backstory behind his departure from Kirkland, his concern about Biglaw's increasing unwillingness to take on controversial cases and clients, and the time he may or may not have attended a Green Day concert with Elena Kagan. You can check out the episode by clicking on the embed at the top of this post.Show Notes:* Paul Clement bio, Clement & Murphy PLLC* The Law Firm That Got Tired of Winning, by Paul Clement and Erin Murphy for the Wall Street Journal* You Won Your Gun Case. You're Fired, by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board* The Legal Wunderkind Challenging The Health Law, by Nina Totenberg for All Things Considered/NPR* The Paul Clement Court, by Jason Zengerle for New York MagazinePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers of Original Jurisdiction, a transcript of the entire episode appears below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Adam Struck is the Founder and Managing Partner at Struck Crypto. Adam is also the Founder and Managing Partner of Struck Capital as well as the CEO of Struck Studio. Struck Crypto is a permanent capital evergreen vehicle with over $100M AUM and has been investing in the blockchain space since 2017. The firm was the first ever investor in leading deals such as Mythical Games and Zero Hash. The firm was also an early backer of leading Layer-1s in the space such as Algorand and Hashgraph, as well as leading DeFi projects such as 1inch. Before Struck Crypto, Adam was a Co-Founder of Long Island Brand Beverages, a CPG company taken public on the NASDAQ. Earlier in his career, Adam was an M&A attorney at Kirkland & Ellis. He has also been recognized for his work by Forbes' 30 Under 30 List for Venture Capital.  Adam graduated from Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management, and Georgetown Law, and originally hails from South Africa.   -----   This episode is brought to you by:   Skolem Technologies provides institutional grade data and trade execution services for decentralized financial markets.  Skolem is the first full-stack DeFi platform with a robust infrastructure and unique interface layer that provides clients with reliable execution, an easy-to-use web UI and API, and full trade lifecycle support. Skolem's systems are built on a deep understanding of the underlying smart contracts and a security research mentality. For more information on Skolem visit skolem.tech   Global Coin Research ("GCR") is a community-first research and investment DAO. GCR's mission is to create a community-driven investment DAO where the best web3 deals are sourced by community members for community members.  This discussion was recorded in our Discord.  You can find more information about us and how to join at GlobalCoinResearch.com   -----   Remember to rate, review and subscribe to the Podcast!

After a short break, Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers: The Biglaw Lateral Market is back with A LOT to unpack! David Lat breaks down SCOTUS rulings from the past two weeks and their impact on Biglaw, while Zach Sandberg discusses which markets are growing in 2022—and how, despite some negative sentiment, the lateral market is actually doing better in 2022 compared to 2021. For their big moves, our hosts discuss the departure of Paul Clement and Erin Murphy from Kirkland & Ellis and recent additions by King & Spalding in California. Please join us as you begin your long July 4th weekend, and be sure to rate, review, and subscribe! 

This week your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Nathan Werksman of Merson Law PLLC (https://mersonlaw.com/) and Jon Davidi at Panish|Shea|Boyle|Ravipudi LLP (https://www.psbr.law/)   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: Trial lawyers Nathan Werksman of Merson Law PLLC and Jon Davidi at Panish|Shea|Boyle|Ravipudi LLP discuss how they secured justice for a woman who was viciously attacked by a dog as well as the challenges of conducting a jury trial held at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. On December 15, 2016, plaintiff Jennefer Jones took a walk around her neighborhood and attempted to pass neighbor Mathew Epstein, who was walking a 55-pound Rhodesian Ridgeback named Turkey on the sidewalk. Turkey lunged and attacked Jennefer, biting her right forearm, breaking the skin and dragging her to the ground, where she fell on her elbow. Jennefer was later diagnosed with two injuries: radial tunnel syndrome in her forearm and lateral epicondylitis in her elbow. Despite being put in a cast, injected with platelet-rich plasma and more than 80 physical therapy sessions, Jennefer continued to experience pain that greatly affected her ability to perform everyday tasks and to work as a golf instructor. The defense argued that Turkey didn't bite Jennefer but simply scratched her and asserted that any pain is from a pre-existing condition or an overuse injury related to her golf instruction career. Nathan Werksman and Jon Davidi called out the defense's tactic of referring to Jennefer's lateral epicondylitis by its more common name of "tennis elbow" to persuade the jury of the injury's true origin. In October 2020, an Orange County, California jury found in favor of Jennefer and awarded her $309,250 in damages.  Click Here to Read/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Nathan Werksman As a trial attorney at Merson Law PLLC, lawyer Nathan Werksman fights for the injured and wronged in complex personal injury, medical malpractice, products liability, sexual abuse, and mass tort litigation. Prior to joining Merson Law, Mr. Nathan Werksman recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for his clients through both settlement and trial at the distinguished California personal injury firm Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP. Prior to that, Mr. Werksman clerked at internationally renowned law firm Kirkland & Ellis, plaintiffs'-side class-action giant Robbins Geller Rudman Down, and at the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender. While at Robbins Geller, he worked on behalf of cities and counties across the U.S. suing the opioid manufacturers for the irreparable damage caused by their products. During his time at the San Francisco Public Defender, Mr. Werksman assisted in a trial resulting in an acquittal on all felony counts for his client. Mr. Werksman obtained his law degree from Stanford Law School where he founded and served as president of the Stanford Plaintiffs' Lawyers Association. While at Stanford, he also served as co-president of the American Constitution Society (ACS) and earned prizes for achieving the highest marks in several classes, including The Plaintiffs' Lawyer: Institutional Constraints and Ethical Challenges. He also served as research assistant to Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom, a scholar on tort law and legal ethics. Mr. Werksman completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated summa cum laude double majoring in History and Spanish. Nathan is very involved in the New York legal community and in making New York a more just place for the injured.  He is on the Board of Directors of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, is a member of the Products Liability Committee at the New York City Bar Association, and is on the Executive Committee of the UJA's Young Lawyers Division. Fluent in Spanish, Mr. Werksman is admitted to practice law in New York, California, and Nevada. Read Full Bio   Jon Davidi As a trial attorney at Panish | Shea | Boyle | Ravipudi LLP, Jon Davidi represents individuals in complex personal injury, wrongful death, and product defect cases. Passionate about trial work and representing people in their time of need, Mr. Davidi has obtained over $10 million in verdicts and settlements for his clients. Most recently, he obtained two jury verdicts that were more than double the defense's best offer. Notably, one of those verdicts was awarded during the first post-Covid, socially-distanced jury trial in Orange County, California. Mr. Davidi received his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law where he was a member of the Honor Society and graduated cum laude. He was also a member of the mock trial team and recognized as one of the nation's top advocates after winning the National Championship in the American Association for Justice (AAJ) Trial Tournament. Throughout the competition, judges commented on his ability to be persuasive and to evoke compassion for his client. Fluent in Farsi, Mr. Davidi is a member of the State Bar of California as well as an active member of both the Consumer Attorneys Association of California (CAALA) and the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC). Outside of work, he enjoys live music, new restaurants, and the Los Angeles Lakers. Ironically, he's never seen an episode of Law & Order. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

 Do the traditional "moats" around the legal services industry still exist? And is the legal industry still slow to embrace technology? I wanted to bust a few myths today and learn how the industry embraces technological change and does things differently.  Today I want to explore the world of legal tech, document automation, negotiation, and analysis platforms. Giles Thompson, Head of Growth at Avvoka, a lawyer by trade (formerly Kirkland & Ellis and Herbert Smith Freehills) shares his story on Tech Talks Daily and how he is now a tech investor and entrepreneur. I ask if LegalTech is the next FinTech, and who/what will be the next DocuSign? We also discuss how many lawyers are beginning to ask why they still have to negotiate contracts over email, with track changes and several lawyers building a different future that makes their lives easier. I also learn how Avvoka is a document automation, negotiation and analytics tool designed to help law firms, in-house legal teams and businesses draft documents, negotiate them, and leverage data insights from that process to draft better documents and get to “yes” faster.