POPULARITY
123 episodes with Law360
61 episodes with Law360
16 episodes with Law360
7 episodes with Law360
5 episodes with Law360
6 episodes with Law360
2 episodes with Law360
4 episodes with Law360
3 episodes with Law360
This Day in Legal History: The First Act of CongressOn this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the first statute ever enacted by Congress under the new Constitution — “An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths,” codified at 1 Stat. 23. The substance was modest: the law prescribed the form of the oath that members of Congress, federal judges, and executive officers were to take to support the Constitution, and gave the states a window in which to swear in their own officials. But the symbolism was enormous. It was the first time the new federal government did the thing governments actually do, which is to pass a law and require people to obey it, and the choice of subject was telling.Before Congress regulated commerce, levied taxes, or built courts, it bound its own officers to the Constitution by oath. The oath clauses in Article II and Article VI have been doing quiet doctrinal work ever since: they ground the Supremacy Clause, they undergird Marbury's claim that judges are bound to follow the Constitution as supreme law, and they sit at the center of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 disqualification debate that the Supreme Court took up in Trump v. Anderson just two years ago. The Oath Act of 1789 is not the kind of statute that gets quoted on bar exams, but it is the original instance of Congress speaking in legal form, and everything the federal government has done since rests on top of it.Uber went after one of its own bellwether plaintiffs Friday in the sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros in the Northern District of California to impose sanctions on plaintiff B.L. and her counsel at Wagstaff Law Firm for what Uber called “pervasive bad faith” in discovery.The headline accusation, made by Kirkland & Ellis's Michael Vives for Uber, is that B.L.'s privilege log cites cases that don't exist — what Vives suggested may be “hallucinated case law” generated by an AI tool — and Vives floated that as an independent basis for sanctions on top of the alleged document withholding, redactions, and undisclosed witnesses Uber catalogued in its April motion.he legal vehicle here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which gives a federal court a tiered menu of sanctions for discovery misconduct — fees and costs at the low end, adverse-inference instructions and claim preclusion at the high end — and Uber is asking the court to throw B.L.'s case out of the next bellwether wave entirely. Judge Cisneros noticed during the hearing that what struck her about the briefing was the pattern, not any single incident; she pointed to one example where the plaintiff identified a person as a “friend” and only later produced a fuller set of text messages showing the person was actually a therapist.The judge ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply by Thursday before ruling, which means a sanctions order is now teed up. The case sits within In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) before Judge Charles R. Breyer, and any sanctions ruling will set the tone for how the rest of the bellwether pool conducts discovery. If the hallucinated-caselaw piece sticks, this also becomes one of the first real Rule 11 / Rule 37 hybrid sanctions vehicles for generative AI misuse in the MDL context — and the bar will be reading it closely.‘Pervasive Bad Faith': Uber Targets Sex Assault MDL Plaintiff | Law360The Seventh Circuit on Friday told the Northern District of Illinois that the now-standard practice of serving Chinese e-commerce defendants by email in “Schedule A” trademark cases doesn't fly under the Hague Service Convention — at least not when the convention applies, which is a question the district court has to actually answer first. The dispute came up in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205, where the hat-maker Kangol sued more than twenty Chinese vendors for trademark infringement and identified them on a sealed “Schedule A” exhibit attached to the complaint — the same procedural pattern that drives the enormous Schedule A docket in Chicago's federal court.Kangol got a default judgment after serving the defendants by email, but one defendant, Hangzhou Chuanyue, appeared and moved to vacate, arguing that the Hague Convention prohibits email service in China and that the convention applies because Hangzhou's address is discoverable. The legal hook is Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service “by postal channels” only when the destination state has not objected — and China has affirmatively objected to Article 10(a), full stop.The Seventh Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, held that whether or not email counts as a “postal channel,” Article 10(a) is unavailable in China, so email service in this case was improper if the convention applied at all. The panel — Judges Thomas Kirsch, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Doris Pryor — reversed the denial of Hangzhou's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the threshold question the district court skipped: did Kangol make reasonably diligent efforts to find Hangzhou's address, which would have triggered the convention.The practical fallout will reach hundreds, possibly thousands, of pending Schedule A cases in Chicago that rely on email service as a matter of course, and plaintiff firms in this space will be scrambling to redo their service strategy.7th Circ. Revives Chinese IP Defendants' Email Service Case | Law360The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday transferred Randall King's proposed class action — the vehicle for a proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement with Monsanto — into the Northern District of California MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria, despite vehement objections from absent class members who want the case to stay in Missouri state court.The case-within-a-case is unusual: the King action was filed and preliminarily settled in Missouri state court, then a group of objectors (represented by Keller Postman) removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the JPML then tagged it for transfer to the consolidated Roundup MDL. The legal hook here is 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML's transfer authority — paired with CAFA's removal rules, which the settling plaintiffs argue were misused because the objectors aren't “defendants” within the meaning of § 1453 and so cannot remove.The objectors counter that the $7.25 billion deal “launders a liability-management scheme through the courts” by funneling claims of Roundup cancer victims through a Missouri state-court class that an MDL judge would never approve, and they want federal-court scrutiny under Rule 23 and the standards Judge Chhabria has spent years developing in the Roundup litigation. Monsanto, for its part, is on the objectors' side of the venue question — at least tactically — telling Law360 that the case should go back to Missouri state court and it will move to oppose the transfer order.The whole fight is also tied up with the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate Monsanto case that will determine whether the deal survives at all, because the proposed $7.25 billion is structured around what the Court does there. Whichever way this remand/transfer fight comes out, it is going to be cited in every future class-settlement-jurisdiction tug-of-war for the rest of the decade.$7.25B Roundup Deal Sent To Calif. MDL | Law360A U.S. district judge in Florida said Saturday she will take a closer look at the settlement the Trump administration has reached with itself — or more precisely, with President Trump in his personal capacity — over a long-running IRS lawsuit, scheduling further proceedings to examine whether the deal can stand.The procedural posture is what makes this one interesting: the case involves a federal agency under the President's control settling claims with the President personally, which raises immediate questions about whether anyone is actually adverse to anyone, and whether the resulting consent decree or stipulation can carry the legal weight a normal settlement does. The legal mechanism the judge appears to be invoking is the federal court's inherent supervisory authority over consent decrees and settlements involving the federal government, an authority that runs through cases like Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland and that the Tunney Act formalizes for antitrust settlements — though here there is no Tunney Act, just the general principle that a federal court doesn't have to rubber-stamp a settlement when there are serious questions about whether the United States was actually represented in the negotiation.The hearing on the issue was set for late May in Miami, with the judge reportedly skeptical that the deal can be approved without further factual development. The political stakes are obvious, but the legal stakes are arguably bigger: if the court can refuse to approve the settlement on the ground that the executive branch was not adverse to itself in any meaningful way, it would create a precedent that constrains every future administration's ability to make its own personal litigation go away through agency action. Expect this one to generate appellate motion practice within weeks.US judge orders review of Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement | 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
Most lawyers are taught to color inside the lines until they realize that won't build the book of business they want. In this episode, you'll learn how to move from random acts of marketing to a focused, scalable rainmaking strategy using relationships, visible expertise, and a true support team. In this episode, Steve Fretzin and Elise Holtzman discuss: Mindset shift from “born rainmaker” to “learned skill” Getting started: moving beyond random acts of marketing The three pillars of business development (relationships, visible expertise, thoughts/time/team) Breaking through plateaus at $500K+ and $1M+ books of business Delegation, building a team, and the role of a “lieutenant”/sponsor Key Takeaways: Business development is a learnable skill, not an innate talent reserved for a select few; lawyers who treat it like any other competency they've mastered can grow serious books of business. Hope is not a strategy. Clarity on ideal clients, referral sources, and where they “hang out” must replace scattered networking and random acts of marketing. Visible expertise is essential: becoming “famous in your niche” through speaking, writing, and thought leadership ensures you're not the best-kept secret in your practice area. As a book of business grows, time, team, and the courage to say no become critical levers; lawyers must deliberately delegate and build a trusted support structure if they want to scale beyond early successes. Every revenue level introduces new, different challenges; plateaus are not signs of failure but signals that it's time to reassess, refine strategy, and upgrade how you use your time, team, and leadership. "Stepping outside the comfort zone with support is the way to go." — Elise Holtzman Check out my new show, Be That Lawyer Coaches Corner, and get the strategies I use with my clients to win more business and love your career again. Ready to go from good to GOAT in your legal marketing game? Don't miss PIMCON—where the brightest minds in professional services gather to share what really works. Lock in your spot now: https://www.pimcon.org/ Thank you to our Sponsor! Rankings.io: https://rankings.io/ Lawyer.com: https://www.lawyer.com/ Ready to grow your law practice without selling or chasing? Book your free 30-minute strategy session now—let's make this your breakout year: https://fretzin.com/ About Elise Holtzman: Elise is the founder and CEO of The Lawyer's Edge, a coaching and consulting firm that helps lawyers and law firms strengthen business development, leadership, and communication skills. A former practicing attorney with experience at Am Law 100 firms, including Fried Frank and Morgan Lewis, Elise combines her legal background with executive coaching to help attorneys grow profitable practices and build healthier firm cultures. She is a frequent speaker on leadership and rainmaking, host of The Lawyer's Edge Podcast, and has been featured in publications including Law360 and The New York Law Journal. Elise earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School and her B.A. in Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Connect with Elise Holtzman: Website: https://thelawyersedge.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eliseholtzman/ Connect with Steve Fretzin: LinkedIn: Steve Fretzin Twitter: @stevefretzin Instagram: @fretzinsteve Facebook: Fretzin, Inc. Website: Fretzin.com Email: Steve@Fretzin.com Book: Legal Business Development Isn't Rocket Science and more! YouTube: Steve Fretzin Call Steve directly at 847-602-6911 Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.
The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore the subject more fully. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly discuss a recent Law360 post by Hui Chen on the evolving calculus for self-disclosure. Hui Chen's insights into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) evolving self-disclosure strategies are crucial for companies navigating the complexities of compliance in today's uncertain regulatory environment. As a former DOJ compliance counsel and a Microsoft compliance officer, Chen emphasizes the challenges posed by a politicized, understaffed DOJ, urging companies to reassess their compliance programs amid shifting enforcement dynamics. Tom and Matt echo Chen's concerns regarding the DOJ's current state. Tom, acknowledging Chen's expertise, highlights the impact of the department's politicization and understaffing on the effectiveness of compliance efforts, while Matt underscores the importance of proactive self-disclosure despite uncertainties, stressing the potential risks of inaction under the current administration. Both agree that the fractured nature of the DOJ requires a reevaluation of traditional compliance and self-disclosure strategies. Key highlights: Navigating DOJ Self-Disclosure Strategies with Wei Chen Justice Department's Impact on Corporate Prosecutions Mitigating Criminal Violations through Self-Disclosure Benefits of Self-Disclosure in Corporate Enforcement Resources: Hui Chen on Law360 (sub req'd) Tom Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn A multi-award-winning podcast, Compliance into the Weeds was most recently honored as one of the Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcasts, a Top 10 Business Law Podcast, and a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast. Compliance into the Weeds has been conferred a Davey, a Communicator Award, and a W3 Award, all for podcast excellence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the past few days, MrBeast, the YouTube titan Jimmy Donaldson, has been thrust back into the spotlight by a explosive lawsuit that's rocking his burgeoning media empire. According to Law360 on April 27, his companies, MrBeastYouTube LLC and GameChanger 24/7 LLC, fired back at ex-employee Lorrayne Mavromatis, branding her federal FMLA suit a blatant publicity stunt aimed at juicing her influencer profile. HR Dive reports she alleges years of gender harassment, sexual bias, and being axed just three weeks after maternity leave, painting a picture of a cutthroat workplace where she even joined a team call from her hospital bed mid-labor. ABC7 details her claims of a toxic culture straight out of a leaked 36-page employee guide that shrugged off childish boy antics and endless hours, though spokespeople counter with Slack screenshots proving she got FMLA info and was cut in a routine ecommerce shakeup.No fresh public appearances or verified social media posts from Donaldson himself popped up in the last 48 hours, but the drama's timing—right as Beast Industries pushes into TV with Beast Games season two and wild financial ventures—could cast a long shadow on his biography, testing the limits of his do-gooder brand amid whispers of internal cleanup. No major headlines in the past 24 hours, but this legal dust-up dominates chatter, with no unconfirmed rumors warranting mention here.Thanks for listening, please subscribe to never miss an update on MrBeast and search the term Biography Flash for more great Biographies. This has been a Quiet Please production.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.
In this episode of The Get Down: Beyond Bitcoin, Ritzy P and Cleve Mesidor host TuongVy Le, General Counsel at Veda and former SEC official. They discuss bridging the gap between federal regulation and decentralized finance, moving past the "Degen phase" toward institutional-grade consumer protection.All Things ButterscotchEcosystem Updates: Cleve Mesidor highlights the expansion of Butterscotch Media and the rise of niche, founder-led journalism.Events: A preview of the EVE Wealth Summit in Arizona and plans for Consensus 2026 in Miami.Real Talk AI: Ritzy P introduces her new virtual workshop focused on AI ethics and community education.Interview with TuongVy LeFrom SEC to Veda: TuongVy discusses her transition from SEC enforcement to building crypto infrastructure.DeFi Vaults: How Veda abstracts complexity into "Vaults," functioning as the on-chain equivalent of a 401k or ETF.Policy vs. Innovation: Using the "automobile analogy," she argues for policy centered on safety (seatbelts) rather than banning innovation.The Design Partner: Why modern crypto lawyers must help design products that earn the trust of both regulators and everyday users.About TuongVyTuongVy “Vy” Le is General Counsel at Veda, a crypto infrastructure company helping to make DeFi programmable and accessible for all. She has held senior legal and policy leadership roles across the crypto industry, including as General Counsel of Anchorage Digital, Partner and Head of Regulatory and Policy at Bain Capital's crypto venture capital fund, and Deputy General Counsel and Compliance Officer at the digital identity company Worldcoin. Earlier in her career, Vy was Senior Counsel in the Enforcement Division and Chief Counsel of the Legislative Affairs Office at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, advising Congress on emerging financial markets and legislation. Vy has served on the CFTC digital assets advisory committee and on the boards of multiple blockchain policy associations, and began her career at the law firm WilmerHale LLP. She is a graduate of Yale Law School and speaks and writes frequently on how emerging technology can help modernize markets, including in Bloomberg, Fortune, Law360, and CoinDesk. She co-hosts the weekly crypto legal podcast “DEX in the City.”Links from the episodeCONNECT WITH TuongVy Le:X (formerly Twitter): @TuongVyLe12LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/TuongVytle/DEX in the City: https://unchainedcrypto.com/dex-in-the-city/CONNECT WITH BUTTERSCOTCH MEDIA:Register for TRUST MEDIA: https://tr.ee/aYftUgRitzy P's Real Talk AI: https://www.ritzyperiwinkle.com/realtalkaiWebsite: butterscotch.mediaSubscribe to Chews Tipsheet: https://butterscotch.media/subscribeFollow us on X: https://twitter.com/butterscotch360
A visit to Blockbuster Video used to be the ultimate Friday night trip, but today, that blue and yellow ticket is a legal battleground for intangible assets. In this episode of The Pre-Read, we unearth the true drivers of company valuation, from nostalgic trademarks to proprietary AI. "The question isn't whether Blockbuster was famous. It's whether it's famous enough now for trademark law to care in the same way." —Ivan Moreno Guest spotlight: Ivan Moreno, senior reporter at Law360®, breaks down the Blockbuster trademark case against a Mississippi animal feed company. He discusses why heritage brands must fight to stay legally relevant even when they no longer lead the market. Then Alana Chartier, Sustainability Analyst at Workiva, explains the $81 trillion blind spot in global company valuation. She argues that a 21st-century economy cannot run on 20th-century reporting systems that classify human capital and AI as costs instead of assets. Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 03:30 The Blockbuster trademark case vs. Southern Seed and Feed 05:40 Dilution by blurring: Can you protect a legacy name? 08:30 Accounting for brand value: Acquisition vs. internal builds 11:00 Reputation as a corporate credit score 18:40 The orchard analogy: Why we only count the fruit 21:30 Integrated reporting: Connecting financial and non-financial data Subscribe to catch all upcoming episodes of The Pre-Read.
Attorney Billy Davis of Taylor Nelson Slattery Bernard PL joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss their Law360 article on the topic of witnesses using AI for their deposition or trial testimony prep. Billy and Bill talk about how they anticipate the questions from opposing counsel at deposition about AI usage by witnesses is going to play out. Billy shares what he thinks may happen if witnesses admit to using AI in preparation for their deposition. They also discuss the exposure and issues of using AI in preparation for trial testimony and the credibility issues when this inevitably comes up during trial. Lastly, Bill and Billy highlight what attorneys need to discuss with witnesses on the topic of AI usage during litigation.
For almost 30 years, Danny Karon, a member of Sigma Alpha Mu who went to Indiana University, has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in class-action and individual lawsuits. He chairs the American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions. It's the nation's largest and most prominent non-partisan class-action program for lawyers, judges, and professors. Danny is also passionate about educating our next generation of lawyers. That's why he teaches class-action litigation at the University of Michigan Law School and The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and taught complex litigation at Columbia Law School. Danny writes a column on civil justice for Law360, a hugely popular legal daily, and has published articles in countless other publications. His website called YourLovableLawyer.com offers actionable insight on common legal problems and describes pitfalls in a way that everyone can—indeed, needs to—understand. Because in law, as in life, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In episode 648 of the Fraternity Foodie Podcast, we find out what first inspired him to pursue law, what surprised him most when he started teaching future lawyers, what he would do differently as a college student today, what are the most common legal mistakes he sees college students or recent graduates make, what are three basic legal habits every college student should develop, what should someone do if they're being harassed or defamed online, what legal risks come with parties, events, and social hosting, how students can protect themselves when signing leases, contracts, or internships, what legal issues student leaders in fraternities and sororities be aware of, and what inspired him to write "Your Lovable Lawyer's Guide to Legal Wellness". Enjoy!
Money decisions often feel like a tug of war between two “right” instincts. Protect the children or prepare the children. Spend for what you need today or save for what you might need tomorrow. In this episode, Betsy A. Miller, J.D., ACC., a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, brings a powerful framework to those tensions by introducing polarities. Polarities are pairs of interdependent opposites where the goal is not to land in the middle, but to get the benefits of both and avoid the overuses of either. Her perspective is grounded in her own story, growing up around affluence while her family stayed disciplined and worked hard. This shaped her relationship with saving, spending and security, and still guides how she values her work and makes big financial decisions today. What If the Answer Isn’t Either/Or—But Both/And? The most important challenges can’t be solved by choosing sides. Whether it’s navigating stability and change, flexibility and structure, or task and relationship, the Both/And Mindset is at the foundation of this work—transforming either/or deadlocks into a sustainable path forward. Betsy is a strategic advisor, keynote speaker, author and Lecturer at Harvard Law School. She helps clients and students navigate one of the hardest challenges: integrating opposing values instead of choosing between them. For more than 25 years, Betsy has worked in law firms, government and academia—holding leadership positions, prosecuting and defending high-stakes cases, advising clients under investigation, coaching senior executives and teaching the next generation of lawyers. She has led billion-dollar settlement negotiations, served as Chief of Staff to the D.C. Attorney General, worked as Nominations Counsel on the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, and guided family offices through generational transitions. At Harvard Law School, Betsy created and teaches the university’s first course dedicated to the Both/And Mindset, “Polarities: Harnessing the Power of Opposites to Lead and Negotiate in a Complex World.” Her range of experiences—from the courtroom to the boardroom to the classroom—enables Betsy to connect dots others can’t see and to create value from opposites that need each other over time to succeed. Betsy’s scholarship has been published in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, the Leadership Edition of the ABA’s Law Practice Magazine, The American Lawyer, The National Law Journal, Law360 and Law.com. She has written on topics including the Both/And Mindset, change management, talent development, effective feedback and law firm governance. Betsy’s work in the classroom has been featured in the Harvard Gazette and in Harvard Law Today. Betsy is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School. She is an ICF-accredited leadership coach with Certificates in Leadership Coaching and in Polarities (the study of interdependent opposites) from Georgetown University’s Institute for Transformational Leadership. When Both Can Be True Betsy's reflections show that some of our most meaningful money questions are not “either/or” choices but living tensions we navigate over time. Through the lens of polarities such as reveal and conceal, save and spend, present and future she illustrates how families can move beyond false trade-offs and instead seek the benefits of both. Her story reminds us that clarity comes not from picking a side, but from curiosity, intentionality and an openness to holding complexity with care. If you're thinking about how to navigate difficult family conversations about wealth, values or expectations, an Aspiriant advisor can help you frame the discussion, build shared understanding and create a plan that honors both relationships and resources. Follow Money Tales on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or YouTube Music for more real stories that help us make smarter, more intentional decisions with our money.
When a partner like Punit Shah keeps sending the same weekly email claiming the MSB license is progressing while wallets remain the blocker, it's not an update—it's a deliberate way to keep investors calm, prevent them from coordinating, and buy another week of silence before the courts force real answers.I've been watching this unfold since September 2025. Investors poured hundreds of millions into Goliath Ventures Inc., lured by promises of guaranteed principal and 8.5% monthly returns from cryptocurrency liquidity pools. The sales pitch was flawless—blockchain excellence, pooled assets on exchanges like Uniswap, steady fees from trading volume, no risk to your capital. But the money stopped flowing in late 2025. Excuses shifted from audits to banking issues to pending MSB approval. Now, five months later, Punit Shah's emails are the last thread holding people in place.The latest one, dated 11 February 2026Good Day,We are still in a holding pattern with both issues (Wallet Restriction and MSB Approval). I do not have a timeline.I will email EVERYONE AT THE SAME TIME once I hear something concrete. Thank you for your patience.Sincerely,Punit ShahDirector of Partner Servicespunit@goliathventuresinc.comHe attaches his photo, social links, and a confidentiality warning forbidding sharing. The promise of a mass update “once something concrete” is repeated like a mantra. But concrete never comes. No MSB filing proof. No wallet audit. No regulator statement. Just patience—again.Punit positions himself as one of the victims—“owed money too,” “pushing for payouts”—yet he openly admits he has no timeline and no authority to fix it. These emails aren't information. They're sedation. A way to keep the farm calm while the real storm builds.THE THREE LAWSUITS THAT CHANGE EVERYTHINGThree separate complaints have landed in Florida's Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County—all in the same courthouse, all under Florida law, all venue-locked to Broward by the JVAs themselves. Law360 reported on 11 February 2026 that the combined claimed exposure is nearly $55 million. These are not market-loss complaints. They are contract enforcement actions demanding Goliath honor its written guarantee: principal returned “fully… without diminution or impairment… absolute and binding” (§3.6), no exceptions.- TwentyWon Ventures LLC v. Goliath Ventures Inc. (CACE-26-001290, Division 02, filed 23 January 2026)TwentyWon, a Florida LLC, invested substantial funds into liquidity pools. The JVA promised 5–7 business day withdrawals (§8.1), ownership retention (§6.5), and absolute principal return (§3.6). Goliath refused. Damages exceed $50,000.- Gregory Garrett Wilson v. Goliath Ventures Inc. (CACE-26-002371, Division 12, filed 10 February 2026)Wilson contributed at least $5,815,000 from June 2025. He requested $3 million partial withdrawal on 13 October 2025—COO confirmed valid, no payment. Full demand on 24 December 2025—confirmed valid, no payment. Goliath emailed 5 January 2026 confirming at least $6.8 million owed (actual higher). Filing states over $8,743,763.65 due. Damages exceed $50,000.- John D. Euliano (Trustee) and Brevard Nursing Academy, LLC v. Goliath Ventures Inc. (CACE-26-002331, Division 18, filed 10 February 2026)Two JVAs plus Exit Agreements. Distributions stopped September–October 2025 due to “mismanagement” by Christopher Delgado. Exit paperwork submitted; Goliath confirmed balances ($656,231.38 Trust, $235,202.50 BNA) and promised 7–10 day payouts. Nothing delivered. Damages exceed $50,000 per plaintiff.Buy Me a Coffee I'm on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.Support the show
In this episode of the Great Trials Podcast, hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey are joined by renowned trial and jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn. They discuss a variety of topics ranging from Hirschhorn's journey into the field, insights into high-profile cases, and practical tips for selecting juries in complex trials. Robert shares stories from notable cases, including a landmark verdict in Cox vs. the State of Washington and strategies that led to a $440 million verdict in Grantham vs. Stewart Petroleum Testers. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between liability and damages juries and introduces Verdict Hub, a new AI-driven tool for trial preparation. GUEST BIO: Robert Hirschhorn of Cathy E. Bennett & Associates, Inc., is an attorney and a nationally recognized expert in jury and trial consultation. A jury consultant since 1985, Robert has selected juries that have returned tens of billions of dollars in verdicts. Jury verdicts since 2018 include: 1. $2.065 Billion awarded by a Georgia state court jury in a RoundUp case. (2025) 2. $109.5 Million for severe burns due to a house explosion. (2025) 3. $60 Million Verdict against Mead Johnson in the first Enfamil Baby Formula case. (2024) 4. $2.25 Billion awarded by a Philadelphia state court jury in a RoundUp case. (2024) 5. $175 Million awarded by a Philadelphia state court jury in a RoundUp case. (2023) Robert has also authored four books and several articles for Law360, Texas Lawyer, and AAJ. He has appeared on Good Morning America, MSNBC, Court TV, CNN, HLN, Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, Nightline, and many national radio programs. He lectures nationwide to lawyers and judges on the art of jury selection. TAP HERE TO READ MORE CONNECT WITH OUR GUEST: Cathy E. Bennett & Associates, Inc. VerdictHub LISTEN TO PREVIOUS EPISODES & MEET THE TEAM: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2
How can we hold together idealism and authenticity even when the world is homophobic?Today we meet Lucas F. Schleusener and we're talking about the queer book that saved his life: Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin by John D'Emilio.Lucas is a writer, educator, and national security strategist shaping the future of equity across the national security enterprise. As Co-Founder and CEO of Out in National Security he leads a global community that advances LGBTQIA+ inclusion and drives policy change across defense and foreign policy. Luke is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and previously served as Chairman of the Board of No One Left Behind. His writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, Defense One, The Hill, and Law360.John D'Emilio, PhD is professor emeritus of history and gender and women's studies at University of Illinois at Chicago. A Guggenheim Fellow and a pioneer in the field of gay and lesbian studies, he is the author, coauthor, or editor of numerous books, including Sexual Communities and Intimate Matters, which was cited in Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case overturning US anti-sodomy laws. John is the founding director of the Policy Institute of the National LGBTQ Task Force, he has also served as President of the Gerber/Hart Library and Archives, a community-based library and historical archives in Chicago.Connect with Luke and JohnLuke's website: outinnationalsecurity.orglinkedin: linkedin.com/in/lucas-f-schleusener-9a470415/John's website: americanlgbtqmuseum.org/profile/john-demilio/facebook: facebook.com/john.demilio.7/Our BookshopVisit our Bookshop for new releases, current bestsellers, banned books, critically acclaimed LGBTQ books, or peruse the books featured on our podcasts: bookshop.org/shop/thisqueerbookBuy your copy of Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin here: https://bookshop.org/a/82376/9780226142692Become an Associate Producer!Become an Associate Producer of our podcast through a $20/month sponsorship on Patreon! A professionally recognized credit, you can gain access to Associate Producer meetings to help guide our podcast into the future! Get started today: patreon.com/thisqueerbookCreditsHost/Founder: John ParkerExecutive Producer: Jim PoundsAssociate Producers: Archie Arnold, K Jason Bryan and David Rephan, Bob Bush, Natalie Cruz, Troy Ford, Jonathan Fried, Joe Perazzo, Bill Shay, Sean Smith, and Karsten VagnerPatreon Subscribers: Stephen D., Terry D., Stephen Flamm, Ida Göteburg, Thomas Michna, Sofia Nerman, and Gary Nygaard.Creative and Accounting support provided by: Gordy EricksonQuatrefoil LibraryQuatrefoil has created a curated lending library made up of the books featured on our podcast! If you can't buy these books, then borrow them! Link: https://libbyapp.com/library/quatrefoil/curated-1404336/page-1Support the show
My guest today, Vera Cherepanova, shares the importance of being ethical at work and how we can leverage our values to create safer work environments.In my discussion with Vera, we chatted about:Why ethics is so important to Vera, and how she got into her line of work.The definition of ethical leadership.How ethics and compliance support the growth of an organization.How we can hold true to our values as working women when working in male-dominated industries.How we can advance from leadership to a seat on a company's board.And more. Here's more about Vera:Vera is the Executive Director of a non-profit, Boards of the Future™, a Chartered Accountant, and an award-winning Ethics and Compliance expert who writes and speaks about business ethics, governance, risk, and workplace culture.She is the author of Corporate Compliance Program, the first-ever book on compliance in the Russian language, and a co-author of The Transnationalization of Anti-Corruption Law, as well as hundreds of articles on all aspects of ethics, risk, compliance, and governance. Her insights have been featured in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Law360, CityAM, and Thomson Reuters. Vera serves as a corporate director and ethics advisor for market-leading corporations and international not-for-profits. Before we begin, if the Brave Women at Work Podcast has helped you personally or professionally, please share it with a friend, colleague, or family member. And your ratings and reviews help the show continue to gain traction and grow. Thank you again!
Sam Bankman-Fried BioSnap a weekly updated Biography.Sam Bankman-Fried, the fallen crypto kingpin serving a 25-year sentence at Brooklyns notorious Metropolitan Detention Center, made headlines this week as high-profile chatter swirls around his harsh fate. On Thursday, Anthony Scaramucci, the fiery former White House comms chief who lost big in FTXs collapse, told CNBC that Samb 25 years feels a bit too much, even as he slammed the fraud that victimized him and thousands more. Scaramucci, who penned a pardon letter for Binance ex-boss Changpeng Zhao—recently freed by Trump—hinted Samb lack of Trump ties seals his doom, adding as a Christian, the sentence seems onerous given the chaos aftermath. No pardon call though; he insists Sam deserved jail time.Prison buzz heated up too, with Business Insider and AOL reporting accused UnitedHealthcare slayer Luigi Mangione, fresh from solitary, poised to join Sam and Sean Diddy Combs in the jails 15-man protective custody unit by Monday—high-profile troublemakers bunking amid maggot meals and barbaric conditions that have dogged the Sunset Park hellhole. Sam, 32, stays mum there post his March fraud conviction for looting over eight billion in customer cash.Do Kwons Thursday sentencing to 15 years for his 40 billion TerraLuna scam—10 years lighter than Sams—stirred comparisons galore. BeInCrypto and Finance Magnates noted Kwons guilty plea, victim apologies, and looming Korean charges softened his US blow, unlike Sams evasive trial lies, perjury findings, and zero remorse that Judge Lewis Kaplan scorched. Law360 meanwhile flagged FTX customers pushing a 10 million Silvergate settlement for final approval on December 9, a trickle of justice years after the implosion.Book chatter lingers too, as The American Prospect reviewed David Z. Morriss Stealing the Future this week, painting Sam as a chameleon con artist who played media like a harp from Hell, chasing power via effective altruism hype. Amid crypto CEOs dropping like flies—Kwons lighter hit now a benchmark—no fresh Sam sightings, pleas, or posts surfaced, just echoes of his enduring infamy. Word count: 378Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
As generative AI becomes a defining issue in litigation, trial teams must be ready to explain the “black box” of large language models (LLMs) for juries shaping landmark cases across the US. In this episode of the IMS Insights Podcast, Senior Client Success Advisor Adam Bloomberg talks with Jury Consultant Liz Babbitt and LLM Training Expert Devon Madon, PhD, about how to make complex AI concepts clear, relatable, and persuasive in the courtroom. Together, they explore the evolving legal landscape surrounding AI copyright and fair use, practical strategies for simplifying technical ideas, and ways to address common AI misconceptions that can influence juror understanding. Gain insights on bridging the gap between advanced technology and everyday comprehension—so you can build credible, compelling narratives in your next AI-related case. Find the original LinkedIn Live recording here. For additional insights, read Liz and Devon's article, “Demystifying Generative AI for the Modern Juror,” published by Law360. Explore IMS's jury consulting and expert sourcing solutions at imslegal.com/services. IMS has delivered strategic litigation consulting and expert witness services to leading global law firms and Fortune 500 companies for more than 30 years, in more than 65,000 cases. IMS consultants become an extension of your legal team from pre-suit investigation services to discovery and then on to arbitration and trial. Learn more at imslegal.com.
Hilary Gerzhoy is a partner at HWG LLP, where she represents lawyers, law firms, legal tech companies, and in-house counsel navigating the full range of legal ethics matters. She serves as outside general counsel to law firms nationwide, advising on risk management, conflicts and disqualification, and firm formations and dissolutions. Hilary is the Chair of the D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee, a member of the ABA's Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, and was appointed by the judges of the D.C. Circuit to serve on the D.C. Circuit's Advisory Committee on Admissions and Grievances. She also teaches legal ethics as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Hilary has published more than forty articles on developments in legal ethics and her work has been featured in the Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg Law, The National Law Journal, Law.com, Law360, the Washington Lawyer, and LexisNexis. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT ETHICS TROUBLE FOR LAWYERS Most lawyers work hard to serve their clients well, and part of that commitment means staying alert to ethical challenges. Questions around conflicts, supervision, or new technology don't have to turn into problems – if you know how to spot and address them early. As a lawyer who advises firms across the country on professional responsibility, Hilary Gerzhoy helps attorneys do exactly that. She guides clients through bar complaints and malpractice claims, but more importantly, she shows them how to avoid those situations in the first place. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge Podcast, Elise Holtzman talks with Hilary about the most common ethics missteps, how disciplinary actions differ from malpractice suits, and the practical steps you can take to safeguard your reputation. 1:25 — Hilary's background and role in legal ethics 2:19 — The two types of risk lawyers face: disciplinary vs malpractice 2:46 — How bar complaints get filed and investigated 4:28 — Range of sanctions, from private admonishments to disbarment 5:50 — Key differences between malpractice suits and bar complaints 8:20 — Why “the cover-up is worse than the crime” 9:28 — Why malpractice suits often turn into bar complaints 12:40 — Common triggers for bar complaints (including money issues) 18:05 — When conflicts of interest create ethics problems 25:12 — How firms can reduce risk with better supervision and systems 30:44 — The role of technology, including AI, in malpractice and ethics risk 36:17 — Steps lawyers can take to mitigate mistakes in real time 44:44 — Why hiding errors can have career-ending consequences 45:20 — Building a firm culture where people can admit mistakes Mentioned In Good Lawyers, Bad Outcomes: How Lawyers Can Avoid Ethics Trouble HWG LLP Hilary Gerzhoy on LinkedIn Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession. If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.
Abigail Rubenstein has over a decade of experience writing and editing. She got her start at Law360, a news service for business lawyers. Abby also helped run the newsroom at two digital media startups focused on business and academic research. In this interview, we talk about Morning Brew's identity and content, their editorial process, the challenges around the news industry, and much more. Want more? Steal my first book, INK BY THE BARREL - SECRETS FROM PROLIFIC WRITERS, right now for free. Simply head over to www.brockswinson.com to get your free digital download and audiobook. If you find value in the book, please share it with a friend as we're giving away 100,000 copies this year. It's based on over 400 interviews here at Creative Principles. Enjoy! If you enjoy the podcast, would you please consider leaving a short review on Apple Podcasts? It only takes about 60 seconds, and it really helps convince some of the hard-to-get guests to sit down and have a chat (simply scroll to the bottom of your iTunes Podcast app and click “Write Review"). Enjoy the show!
Ralph welcomes constitutional scholar, John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of the group “Free Speech for People,” which has launched the non-partisan campaign “Impeach Trump. Again.” Plus, Ralph, Steve, and David discuss Donld Trump's servile corporatist agenda and his attempt to rig the midterms by ordering Texas to gerrymander him five more districts.John Bonifaz is a constitutional attorney and the co-founder and president of Free Speech For People. Mr. Bonifaz previously served as the executive director and general counsel of the National Voting Rights Institute, and as the legal director of Voter Action. In 2004, Mr. Bonifaz wrote the book Warrior-King: The Case For Impeaching George W. Bush.We either have a constitution,or we don't. We either have an impeachment clause, or we don't. If we're not going to invoke the impeachment power at this critical moment in our nation's history, then we might as well say we're giving up on the Constitution. We refuse to give up on the Constitution.John BonifazI think the biggest thing that we have to deal with are the naysayers. Those who somehow claim that we're not going to invoke the impeachment power because either it's not the right time, or he's already been impeached twice and what's the point or we just need to move on.John BonifazThese are high crimes against the state. These are not policy disputes. These are political high crimes against the state, for which you must be held accountable via the impeachment process.John BonifazI think it's disgraceful for any member who claims that they're out there defending the Constitution and defending our democracy, and yet they won't even want to mention the "I- word”. As much as I respect them on other fronts and what they do, if they're not invoking the impeachment clause at this critical hour, frankly, they're part of the problem.John BonifazNews 8/29/25* In an interview on “Hamakor” or “The Source” on Israel's Channel 13, former Biden State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller said that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu told former Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he planned to continue fighting in Gaza for decades, per the Middle East Eye. Other revelations in this interview include behind the scenes accounts of ceasefire negotiations, such as a story about Netanyahu blowing up a proposed six-week ceasefire with his declaration that Israel would invade Rafah “whether there was a ceasefire or not,” according to the Times of Israel. It is disgraceful that Miller and the Biden administration kept this information from the public at the time, but better late than never.* A new report in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that, “Hundreds of pages of previously unseen documents reveal that [Pennsylvania Governor Josh] Shapiro's office was intimately involved in managing the controversy [over the pro-Palestine demonstrations and encampments at the University of Pennsylvania], seizing an unprecedented level of influence over the university in the process.” Through a proxy, a lawyer named Robb Fox, Shapiro “pushed the university to ban Penn Students Against the Occupation of Palestine (PAO), its main pro-Palestinian student group,” and “worked closely with the Penn Israel Public Affairs Committee — a significant pro-Israel group on campus — to a great enough extent that PIPAC effusively thanked Shapiro and Fox for their ‘partnership.'” Shapiro putting his thumb on the scales against pro-Palestine student activism is sure to come back to haunt him if he seeks the presidential nomination in 2028, as many speculate he will.* In more foreign policy related news, investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein reports “The Trump administration has directed the military to prepare for lethal strikes against cartel targets inside Mexico…which are to be ready by mid-September.” This is the latest escalation in Trump's campaign against transnational criminal organizations, or TCOs, but critically, “sources say that military action could be unilateral — that is, without the involvement or approval of the Mexican government.” If so, this would constitute an extremely aggressive act within the sovereign territory of another country. It is unlikely that Mexico would respond with any kind of military action, but diplomatic and economic sanctions would be on the table.* In domestic political news, the Democratic National Committee held a much-anticipated meeting in Minneapolis on Tuesday, featuring dueling resolutions to lay out the party's position on Gaza – one of which called for a “military arms embargo and suspension of military aid to Israel.” As POLITICO reports, “The committee initially voted to reject that measure while advancing…one backed by [DNC Chair Ken] Martin, which called for ‘unrestricted' aid to Gaza and a two-state solution. But soon after the arms embargo vote failed, Martin announced he was withdrawing his successful resolution.” Martin stated “There's a divide in our party on this issue,” and urged Democrats to “keep working through” what their position should be. Allison Minnerly, the progressive Florida delegate who sponsored the more strident resolution, expressed that while she was glad Martin didn't ram through his preferred position, she considered the result “disappointing” when “it's clear what voters want.” According to Gallup, just 8% of Democrats approve of Israel's actions in Gaza.* More Democratic Party division surfaced in Minnesota this week, with Axios reporting that, based on a technicality, the state Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party's rules committee vacated the local DFL's endorsement of democratic socialist mayoral candidate Omar Fateh. Fateh, who has been hailed as the “Mamdani of Minneapolis” won the local party's endorsement in July, which gave him – rather than incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey – exclusive access to the party's voter database. According to this report however, a third candidate was wrongfully eliminated from the endorsement vote process, rendering the endorsement null and void. Fateh's campaign is understandably incensed by this decision and views it as an attempt by the state party to intervene on behalf of Frey. Moreover, Ryan Faircloth of the Star-Tribune reports “the state DFL committee [also] barred the Minneapolis DFL from holding another endorsing convention this year…placed the Minneapolis DFL on probation for two years and said it must be supervised by [the] state DFL executive committee.” Fateh co-campaign manager Graham Faulkner is quoted saying “Our campaign sees this for what it is: disenfranchisement of thousands of Minneapolis caucus-goers and the delegates who represented all of us on convention day…The establishment is threatened by our message…They are scared of a politics that really stands up to corporate interests and with our working class neighbors." Congresswoman Ilhan Omar called the move a “stain on our party.”* In more local politics news, the administration of New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been rocked by yet new corruption indictments. On August 21st, the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, “announced the indictment of INGRID LEWIS-MARTIN for accepting more than $75,000 in bribes…in a wide-ranging series of bribery conspiracies …while serving as Chief Advisor to the Mayor of the City of New York.” Lewis-Martin was previously charged in an alleged bribery conspiracy totaling more than $100,000 in December 2024. This new indictment is related to Lewis-Martin accepting bribes in exchange for favorable treatment by city agencies, including “help[ing] fast-track permit approvals for a karaoke bar in Queens,” and “hav[ing] the New York City Department of Transportation…withdraw its approval for a street redesign of McGuinness Boulevard in Brooklyn, which would have included new, protected bike lanes.” For the latter, Lewis-Martin allegedly received a speaking role on the television show Godfather of Harlem. This indictment further cements the comically corrupt reputation of the Eric Adams administration.* In more news of possible corruption, Unusual Whales, which tracks congressional stock trading, reported on August 19th that Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott just disclosed trades worth $26,000,000 more than a year late, noting that Scott “traded millions on companies he legislated.” Scott, one of Trump's closest allies in the Senate, previously served as CEO of Columbia/HCA, the largest for-profit healthcare company in the nation in the 1990s. He was forced to resign in 1997, when the Department of Justice won 14 felony convictions against the company and imposed a $1.7 billion fine, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history up to that point.* Moving on to consumer news, the Federal Trade Commission has filed a lawsuit against “LA Fitness and other gyms over allegations they make it exceedingly difficult for consumers to cancel their gym memberships.” The agency is “seeking a court order prohibiting the allegedly unfair conduct and money back for consumers harmed by the difficulty in cancelling memberships.” This lawsuit is related to the FTC's “click to subscribe/call to cancel” rule, but these gyms go far beyond requiring customers to merely call to cancel their memberships. As the FTC explains, “LA Fitness has required consumers who want to cancel their membership to either go to the gym itself or send a cancellation notice by mail,” and they make both processes as difficult as possible. For instance, “consumers who tried to cancel in person…could only cancel with one specific employee, even though LA Fitness authorized several employees to sign consumers up for memberships. This restricted cancellation hours to times when consumers are typically at work, despite most locations operating up to 19 hours per day, seven days per week.” These kinds of mundane degradations are far too common throughout the economy and the only thing that will force companies to treat their customers with the respect they are due is regulatory action.* Our last two stories concern lawsuits against Amazon. First, Law360 reports a federal judge has ordered Amazon to disclose information “regarding the company's alleged ties to antitrust researchers.” In a series of antitrust cases, Amazon's “expert economists” have cited “various academic authors,” about whom the plaintiffs “have presented records suggest[ing Amazon] ‘has communicated with or funded.'” This includes “antitrust research by economists, scholars and think tanks that [were] ‘funded, solicited or edited' by the company.” This decision could prove to be momentous if it turns out that Amazon funding of antitrust research has been as deep and widespread as some believe. As the Lever's Luke Goldstein puts it, “Grifters are on notice. Clock is ticking.”* Finally, the Hollywood Reporter is out with a story on a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, filed in Washington Friday, over a “‘bait and switch' in which the company allegedly misleads consumers into believing they've purchased content when they're only getting a license to watch, which can be revoked at any time.” Essentially, this lawsuit revolves around the fact that despite marketing “purchases” of movies on their platform, these “purchases” can actually be revoked at any time if Amazon loses the rights to the film. This is also a case of a “fine print” contract; as this story notes, “On its website and platform, the company tells consumers they can ‘buy' a movie. But hidden in a footnote on the confirmation page is fine print that says, ‘You receive a license to the video and you agree to our terms.'” This issue has previously arisen with regard to video games, spawning the so-called “Stop Killing Games” movement which seeks to prevent companies from “destroying titles consumers had already bought.” California has responded to that movement by passing a law “barring the advertisement of a transaction as a ‘purchase' unless it offers unrestricted ownership of the product.” Amazon will surely deploy an army of lawyers to fight this case, but for the time being at least, the momentum is on the side of the consumers for once. We can only hope for their victory.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe
Join us for this episode as Professor Robert Luther anticipates judicial nomination selection in Trump's second term. Professor Luther asks two types of questions: formally, "How will the Senate composition impact Judicial Nominations?" "How many seats will be open to fill? Will blue slips still apply for district courts?" "Will any circuit seats be moved to different states?" and substantively, "What types of judges will President Trump nominate and how will this differ from his last term?"Robert Luther, III was appointed Associate Professor of Law in 2025 at Antonin Scalia Law. He teaches and writes on the federal courts, legal and judicial ethics, political law, Congress, and professional sports. He has served at high levels in all three branches of the federal government and recently founded Constitutional Solutions PLLC—a law firm that navigates judicial candidates, judges, elected officials, professional athletes, and executives through high-stakes hearings, investigations, and reputational attacks.Immediately before joining the Scalia Law faculty, Professor Luther spent over five years in the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day, where his practice focused on strategic counseling, crisis management, and litigation. Prior to joining Jones Day, he served as Associate Counsel to the President of the United States in the White House Counsel's Office. In the White House, he co-managed the judicial selection process and supervised the preparation of over 150 federal judicial nominees for their successful U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. The New York Times Magazine referred to his work on judicial selection during this period as “unique in White House history.” Before joining the White House, Professor Luther served as Counsel to then–U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where he served as a core member of the team that prepared the Senator for confirmation as United States Attorney General. Professor Luther was also a law clerk to Judge Daniel A. Manion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Earlier in his career, Professor Luther practiced civil and appellate litigation at a boutique firm in Williamsburg, Va. and taught at William & Mary Law School.Professor Luther frequently speaks on the legal profession, political law, and federal judicial selection. His public work has been covered by or appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Fox News, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, National Law Journal, Law360, The Washington Reporter, and elsewhere, while his scholarship is published in the law journals of nearly twenty universities including Harvard, Georgetown, Texas, William & Mary, UC-Davis, UC Law San Francisco, Howard University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Richmond, and Marquette University. He holds active law licenses in Virginia, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court, and half of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Professor Luther serves on the Advisory Board of the Wilson Center for Leadership at Hampden-Sydney College. Since 2019, over 150 of his former students have secured clerkships with federal judges.
KEY TAKEAWAYS: - You need both digital and traditional marketing. Don't go 100% one or the other.- Every practice area is different. Your strategy should match your urgency level, location, and audience.- Each platform and tactic needs its own strategy — you can't copy-paste the same thing everywhere.- You're either spending time or money. There is no magical free version.DIGITAL MARKETING OPTIONS (Pick 3–4 max):- Influencer or affiliate shoutouts (great for PI with public clients)- SEO + Blogs (get found on Google with keyword-packed posts)- Ebooks/Checklists (guides like “10 things to know before your consult”)- Social Media (every platform needs its own strategy — don't post the same stuff everywhere) - LinkedIn = professional network - Instagram = visual storytelling - TikTok = casual, real-life law - YouTube = longform explainer content - Pinterest = great if you sell templates, contracts, or courses- Webinars (great for estate planning or info-heavy topics)- Google Ads (aka pay-per-click; expensive but fast leads)- Podcast (only if you're really interesting)- Guest on Podcasts (better option — share stories, not statutes)- Google/Yelp Reviews (ask for them + use keywords!)- Press Releases (only if you have big news to share)- Write for online legal sites (Above the Law, Law360, etc.)TRADITIONAL MARKETING OPTIONS (Layer these in):- Cold calling referral sources (real estate agents, chiropractors, etc.)- Flyers + brochures (leave them in local spots)- Speaking engagements (CLE panels, bar events — build authority)- Direct mailers (expensive, but people *do* keep them)- Print ads in local magazines (great for estate or biz lawyers)- 1:1 Lunches (Nermin's fave — ditch the networking groups)- Bar/professional associations (one intro could lead to big biz)- TV + radio ads (super expensive; only works with a real strategy)- Referral + networking groups (BNI, Lawyers 500, etc.)- Past client check-ins (call your old clients. Seriously.)- Promo products (pens, mugs — layered in, not random)- Billboards (yes, they still work — include your phone number!)- Firm-branded magazine (expensive, but unforgettable)FINAL REMINDERS:- You can't just "do marketing." You need to pick a few things and do them well.- Each channel needs its own plan — don't treat them all the same.- Feeling overwhelmed? That's normal. Marketing is a full-time job.- If you're not spending money, you'll need to spend time. - If you're doing neither — you're not marketing.
In today's MadTech Daily, we discuss how YouTube may be billing advertisers against violent and pirated content , Google's hidden search terms costing advertisers millions, and Law360 staff pushing back on mandatory AI bias tools.
In this inaugural “Legal Tuesday” edition of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love introduces a new series focused specifically on legal professionals, offering expert insight for lawyers navigating complex transitions. Scott speaks with Hilary Gerzhoy, a seasoned ethics lawyer and thought leader on professional responsibility, who shares valuable guidance on avoiding ethical pitfalls during lateral partner moves. She outlines real-world examples of landmines, such as premature client contact, improper solicitation of team members, and breach of fiduciary duty—each of which can derail a move or trigger legal retaliation. The conversation covers essential considerations for departing lawyers, including how to handle sensitive communications, what firms can legally withhold, and how to protect client relationships ethically. The episode is especially timely for law firm partners considering a move, and serves as a cautionary guide to avoid becoming tomorrow's legal headline. This Tuesday edition of the podcast delivers focused legal guidance, while Thursday episodes will continue serving broader professional services audiences. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/LAtWIzixoeY ----------------------------------------
In this episode, Steve Fretzin and Shireen Hilal discuss:Navigating modern law firm strategy in a rapidly evolving legal marketImproving internal operations and team culture to boost law firm performanceEnhancing client engagement and retention amid budget constraintsLeveraging cross-selling and business development tactics within law firms Key Takeaways:Law firms that prioritize understanding and responding to their clients' future needs instead of mirroring competitors can unlock unique opportunities for differentiation and growth.Clear and value-based billing practices—paired with proactive scope, time, and budget alignment—are essential to reinforcing client trust and maintaining healthy payment cycles.Structured programs like internal expert briefings and strategic client lunches can make cross-selling more natural and effective by focusing on solving client problems rather than pitching services.Communicating pricing changes with context and care rather than through generic finance memos helps strengthen client relationships and reinforces long-term loyalty. "The problem with obsessing about your competition instead of your clients is that, if you do, you are almost, by definition, falling in the middle. So the better way to get ahead, I think, is to be client-obsessed." — Shireen Hilal Unlock the secrets of the industry's top rainmakers with Be That Lawyer: 101 Top Rainmakers' Secrets to Growing a Successful Law Practice. Grab your ultimate guide to building a thriving law firm now on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F78HXJHT Thank you to our Sponsors!Rankings.io: https://rankings.io/ Ready to grow your law practice without selling or chasing? Book your free 30-minute strategy session now—let's make this your breakout year: https://fretzin.com/ About Shireen Hilal: Shireen is the CEO of Maior, a boutique consultancy that helps law firms with their pain points and plateaus with strategic and operational support, ranging from go-to-market solutions and profitability programs to process improvement and enhancing employee engagement.Before starting Maior, Shireen spent a decade practicing at AmLaw100 firms and then had the privilege of serving in several executive roles: COO of a national law firm (where she increased revenue by 20%, profits per partner by 30%, and achieved "best place to work" accolades), pivoting strategy and operations for enterprise firms (KPMG and BDO), and building out the growth division of a communications consulting firm.Through Maior, she now helps growing firms skyrocket, early-stage firms maintain their "special sauce" as they scale, and mature firms with a fresh perspective.Shireen also serves on the advisory board of a Top 100 accounting and advisory firm and writes a quarterly column for Law360 answering law firm leaders' questions. Connect with Shireen Hilal: Website: https://www.maiorconsultants.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shireenhilal/ & https://www.linkedin.com/company/maior-consultants/Connect with Steve Fretzin:LinkedIn: Steve FretzinTwitter: @stevefretzinInstagram: @fretzinsteveFacebook: Fretzin, Inc.Website: Fretzin.comEmail: Steve@Fretzin.comBook: Legal Business Development Isn't Rocket Science and more!YouTube: Steve FretzinCall Steve directly at 847-602-6911 Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.
In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter explore the classic movie 9 to 5 and its critique of workplace inequities. Joined by wage and hour reporter Daniela Porat from Law360, they share insights on the evolution of wage and hour laws, pay transparency, salary history bans, and the ongoing fight for gender equality in the workplace. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on workplace equality and practical tips to help employers comply and keep up with the ever-changing legal landscape in this area.
Vera Cherepanova is the Executive Director of Boards of the Future, a global non-profit advocating for increased representation of ethics and compliance professionals on corporate boards. She is also the founding partner of Studio Etica, a boutique consultancy advising companies worldwide on corporate ethics and compliance programs. Vera serves on the Advisory Council at Ground Truth Intelligence, a global due diligence platform, and the Steering Committee of ComplianceNet, an interdisciplinary network focused on compliance research. She is the author of Corporate Compliance Program, the first book on compliance in Russian, widely used as a textbook in Russian-speaking countries, as well as a contributor to The Transnationalization of Anti-Corruption Law and other guides on business ethics, compliance, and risk management. A prolific writer and speaker, Vera is a columnist at Corporate Compliance Insights and has been featured in publications like the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and Law360. She has delivered keynotes, panels, and workshops at leading organizations and events, including The World Bank, OECD, and the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. Her work has earned her recognition as a thought leader in the fields of ethics, compliance, and corporate governance.Executive Director: Boards of the FutureContact Vera: vera.cherepanova@newboards.orgSponsors: Master Your Podcast Course: MasterYourSwagFree Coaching Session: Master Leadership 360 CoachingSupport Our Show: Click HereLily's Story: My Trust ManifestoSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/masterleadership. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Our podcast show being released today is part 2 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24 featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show begins with Tom Burke, a Ballard Spahr consumer financial services litigator, describing in general terms the status of the 38 CFPB enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Rohit Chopra was terminated. The cases fall into four categories: (a) those which have already been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the CFPB; (b) those which the CFPB has notified the courts that it intends to continue to prosecute; (c) those in which the CFPB has sought a stay for a period of time in order for it to evaluate whether or not to continue to prosecute them where the stay has been granted by the courts; and (d) those in which the CFPB's motion for a stay has been denied by the courts or not yet acted upon. Alan Kaplinsky then gave a short report describing a number of bills introduced this term related to the CFPB. Alan remarked that the only legislative effort which might bear fruit for the Republicans is to attempt to add to the budget reconciliation bill a provision subjecting the CFPB to funding through Congressional appropriations. Such an effort would need to be approved by the Senate Parliamentarian. Finally, Alan expressed surprise that the Republicans, in seeking to shut down the CFPB, have not relied on the argument that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Federal Reserve Board since September 2022 because there has been no “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” beginning then through the present. (Dodd-Frank stipulates that the CFPB may be funded only out of such “combined earnings”). For more information about that funding issue, listen to Alan's recent interview of Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School who has written prolifically about it. On Monday of this week, Professor Scott published his third op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he concluded: “Since the bureau is operating illegally, the president can halt its work immediately by executive order. The order should declare that all work at the CFPB will stop, that all rules enacted since funding became illegal in September 2022 are void, and that no new rules will be enforced.” Joseph Schuster then briefly described what has been happening at other federal agencies with respect to consumer financial services matters. Joseph and Alan reported on the fact that President Trump recently fired without cause the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission leaving only two Republican members on the Commission. He took that action despite an old Supreme Court case holding that the language in the FTC Act stating that the President may remove an FTC member only for cause does not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. The two Democratic commissioners have sued the Administration for violating the FTC Act provision, stating that the President may only remove an FTC commissioner for cause. The President had previously fired Democratic members at the Merit Systems Selection Board and National Labor Relations Board. President Trump based his firings on the belief that the Supreme Court will overrule the old Supreme Court case on the basis that the “termination for cause” language in the relevant statutes is unconstitutional. After the recording of this webinar, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stayed, by a 2-1 vote, a District Court order holding that Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the NLRB and Merit Systems Selection Board was unlawful. That order was subsequently overturned by the court of appeals acting en banc. Subsequently, Chief Justice Roberts stayed that order. In light of these developments, it seems unlikely that the two FTC commissioners will be reinstated, if at all, until the Supreme Court decides the case. Also, after the recording of this webinar, the Senate confirmed a third Republican to be an FTC commissioner. For those of you who want a deeper dive into post-election developments at federal agencies other than the CFPB, please register for our webinar titled “What Is Happening at the Federal Agencies (Other Than the CFPB) That is Relevant to the Consumer Financial Services Industry?” which will occur on May 13, 2025. Joseph then discussed developments at the FDIC where the FDIC withdrew the very controversial brokered deposits proposal, the 2023 corporate governance proposal, the Change-in-Bank- Control Act proposal and the incentive-based compensation proposal. He also reported that the FDIC rescinded its 2024 Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions and delayed the compliance date for certain provisions in the sign and advertising rule. Joseph then discussed developments at the OCC where it (and the FDIC) announced that it would no longer use “reputation risk” as a basis for evaluating the safety and soundness of state-chartered banks that it supervises. The OCC, also, conditionally approved a charter for a Fintech business model to be a national bank and withdrew statements relating to crypto currency risk. Finally, Joseph discussed how state AGs and departments of banking have significantly ramped up their enforcement activities in response to what is happening at the CFPB. The podcast ended with each participant expressing his view on what the CFPB will look like when the dust settles. The broad consensus is that the CFPB will continue to operate with a greatly reduced staff and will only perform duties that are statutorily required. It is anticipated that there will be very little rulemaking except for rules that the CFPB is required to issue - namely, the small business data collection rule under 1071 of Dodd-Frank and the open banking rule under 1033 of Dodd-Frank. The panel also felt that the number of enforcement lawsuits and investigations will measurably decline with the focus being on companies engaged in blatant fraud or violations of the Military Lending Act. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years and now senior counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group. If you missed part 1 of our repurposed webinar produced on March 24, click here for a blog describing its content and a link to the podcast itself. In short, part 1 featured Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg, who chronicle the initiatives of CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent and Russell Vought and DOGE to dismantle the CFPB and the status of the two lawsuits brought to enjoin those initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Rich Andreano give a status report on the effort of Acting Director Vought to nullify most of the final and proposed rules and other written guidance issued by Rohit Chopra. The podcast concludes with John and Rich describing the fact that supervision and examinations of banks and non-banks is non-existent.
Our podcast show being released today is Part 1 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24, featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show began with Jon and Evan chronicling the initiatives beginning on February 3 by CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent, Russell Vought and DOGE to shut down or at least minimize the CFPB. These initiatives were met with two federal district court lawsuits (one in DC brought by the labor unions who represents CFPB employees who were terminated and the other brought in Baltimore, MD by the CFPB and others) challenging one or more of these initiatives. Jon and Evan described the lawsuits in detail. While the Baltimore lawsuit was dismissed on the basis of lack of ripeness under the Administrative Procedure Act, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a TRO freezing the CFPB from terminating more CFPB employees through the end of March while she decides whether to enter a further injunction with respect to the CFPB's initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners, Rich Andreano and John Culhane, then gave an up-to-date status report on CFPB (a) final rules being challenged in litigation and/or eligible to be challenged under the Congressional Review Act; (b) final rules not being challenged in litigation which may be repealed or amended or whose effective or compliance dates may be extended under the Administrative Procedure Act; (c) proposed rules; and (d) non-rule written guidance. Rich and John paid particular attention to the following final rules: 1. The Small Business Loan Data Collection and Reporting Rule under Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank 2. The Non-bank enforcement order Registry Rule 3. The Fair Credit Reporting Act “Data Broker” Rule 4. The Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Rule 5. The Residential Mortgage Servicing Proposed Rule 6. Credit Card Penalty fees under Reg Z (Late Fee Rule) 7. Personal Financial Data Rights (Open Banking) Rule under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank 8. Overdraft Lending Rule Applicable to very large financial institutions 9. Prohibition on creditors and consumer reporting agencies reporting medical debt under Reg V Part 1 of our podcast concludes with Rich and John describing the fact that supervision and examination of banks and non-banks is apparently on hold. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel.
Ralph welcomes Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, whose group has filed eight lawsuits that have significantly slowed the Trump/Musk cabal's attempt to dismantle the government. Then, our resident Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein reports on Public Interest Law Day at Harvard Law School and how important it is for law schools in general to step up to meet this constitutional crisis. Plus, Ralph answers listener questions!Robert Weissman is a staunch public interest advocate and activist, as well as an expert on a wide variety of issues ranging from corporate accountability and government transparency, to trade and globalization, to economic and regulatory policy. As the President of Public Citizen, he has spearheaded the effort to loosen the chokehold corporations and the wealthy have over our democracy.The efforts in the courts are really vital to stem the illegal, unconstitutional actions of the administration, but also to show that there's a way to fight back. In these early days and months of the administration, there's been a sense that Trump is inevitable and unstoppable. And the actions in the courts, I think, have been really critical to illustrating that that's not true.Robert WeissmanIt's open season for the polluters. And of course, they're also promoting in a variety of ways a rush towards climate catastrophe by undoing the positive measures that have come recently from the Biden administration to deal with the climate crisis.Robert WeissmanIf you pull back all the enforcement rules, and you say we're not going to enforce the rules that are left over, corporations get the message. And they're going to bemore reckless, and it's a near certainty that we're going to have many more serious industrial disasters as a direct result of what they're doing at EPA and other agencies.Robert WeissmanBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.If we don't inform the public (with the law students as well as others in the lead), we're not going to have rule of law and Harvard Law School will become an irrelevancy. It will be a museum piece.Bruce FeinI think the country and the law students are going to pay a price. They're being very narrow and myopic with regard to their immediate preoccupation with their trade school, where they're going to work the next day, and very little given to the fact that if we don't have a country anymore, they aren't going to have a legal career.Bruce FeinIt's a more cowardly, timid type of law school whose explanations are still ready to be discovered. It's a real puzzle…because they have tenure, they have status, they have wealth, and they have the ability to defend themselves because they're skilled lawyers.Ralph NaderNews 4/2/251. Our top stories this week are on the topic of corporate crime. First, the American Prospect reports that the Trump administration is seeking to reverse a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case against Townstone, a mortgage brokerage firm that blatantly discouraged potential Black borrowers. According to the Prospect, Townstone's owners Barry Sturner and David Hochberg vigorously promoted their firm though “personal-finance call-in infomercials,” on Chicago's WGN radio station. During these infomercials, which generated 90 percent of Townstone's business, Sturner and Hochberg “characterized the South Side of Chicago as a ‘war zone,' downtown Chicago as a ‘jungle' that turned on Friday and Saturday into ‘hoodlum weekend,'” and so on. As the Prospect notes, if Sturner and Hochberg were simply airing these views that would be perfectly legal, however unsavory. Instead, this program is “an informercial, which generates 90 percent of the brokerage's leads, which the brokerage pays WGN to air, presumably punctuated at regular intervals by some phrase along the lines of ‘an equal housing lender.'” Therefore, this rhetoric was determined to have violated the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act. The remarkable thing about this case is that it was brought by the Trump administration's CFPB between 2017 and 2020. Townstone eventually settled the case for a little over $100,000. Yet, just last week, the Trump administration 2.0 returned the money to Townstone posting “a long press release about how ‘abusive' and ‘unjust' the whole case had been.” This episode highlights just how much more extreme the new Trump administration is, even compared to the old one.2. Another outrageous case of corporate criminal leniency comes to us from Rick Claypool, a corporate crime expert at Public Citizen. For background, CNBC reports that Trump has “pardoned three co-founders of the BitMEX global cryptocurrency exchange, as well as…a former high-ranking employee.” As this piece explains, the co-founders received criminal sentences of probation…and were ordered to pay civil fines totaling $30 million,” after “Prosecutors accused the men of effectively operating BitMEX as a ‘money laundering platform' …[and] ‘a sham.'” But Trump went beyond pardoning the corporate criminals involved. As Claypool noted, “the crypto corporation pled guilty and was sentenced in January to two years' probation,” leading Claypool to wonder whether Trump would pardon the corporation itself. His question was answered on March 29th when Law360 reported that yes, Trump pardoned the business entity. This is the logical endpoint of regarding corporations as people. Not only will individual crooks be let off the hook, the whole crooked enterprise will come out unscathed.3. New evidence confirms the redistribution of wealth from working people to the capitalist class. A February 2025 RAND Corporation study titled “Measuring the Income Gap from 1975 to 2023” finds that, “the bottom 90 percent of workers would have earned $3.9 trillion more with..more even growth rates [since 1975],” resulting in a “cumulative amount of $79 trillion.” This study extends prior estimates by factoring in “inflation, growth in inequality, and a longer time frame.” And even more recently, an April 2025 article in the Journal of Political Economy, titled “How the Wealth Was Won: Factor Shares as Market Fundamentals,” finds that “40% of [the increase in real per capita value of corporate equity, which grew at an annual rate of 7.2% between 1989 and 2017]…was attributable to a reallocation of rewards to shareholders in a decelerating economy, primarily at the expense of labor compensation.” This study estimates “Economic growth accounted for just 25% of the increase,” and compares this period to the preceding era, “1952–88, [which] experienced only one-third as much growth in market equity, but economic growth accounted for more than 100% of it.” Taken together, these studies starkly illustrate an American economic machine built to make the rich even richer and the poor ever poorer.4. On the other end of the criminal penalty spectrum, the Department of Justice announced on Tuesday that they will seek the death penalty for alleged UnitedHealthcare assassin Luigi Mangione, the BBC reports. The first Trump administration saw the resumption of the federal death penalty after a 16-year hiatus; the Biden administration then issued a new moratorium and commuted the sentences of most federal death row prisoners. Since returning to power, Trump has aggressively pursued federal executions once again.5. In more positive legal news, NBC reports French far-right leader Marine Le Pen was found guilty Monday of embezzling over €3 million of European Union funds. The National Rally party leader was sentenced to four years in prison (with two on house arrest and two suspended), a €100,000 fine, and a ban on holding political office for five years – making her ineligible for the 2027 French presidential election, which polls showed her leading. Her party will, for the time being, be led by her protégé 29-year-old Jordan Bardella. It is unclear if he will enjoy the same popularity Ms. Le Pen held. She announced that she plans to appeal the verdict, but will remain ineligible for public office unless and until she wins that case.6. In more international news, British police last week executed a shocking raid on a congregation of the Quakers. The Guardian reports, “More than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with Tasers, forced their way into the Westminster meeting house…[and] seized attenders' phones and laptops.” In a statement, Paul Parker, the recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said “No one has been arrested in a Quaker meeting house in living memory… This aggressive violation of our place of worship and the forceful removal of young people holding a protest group meeting clearly shows what happens when a society criminalises protest.” The stated charge is the absurd “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.” A report on the incident in Church Times adds a statement from Oliver Robertson, head of witness and worship for Quakers in Britain, who said “This raid is not an isolated incident. It reflects a growing trend of excessive policing under new laws brought in by the previous government, which are now being enforced by the current administration.” Even former Tory minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, criticized the raid, stating “There has long been a tradition in this country…that religious spaces should not be invaded by the forces of law and order unless absolutely necessary.”7. Of course, the outrageous use of lawfare on Israel's behalf continues in the halls of Congress as well. In a letter, Congressmen Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast – famous for his role as an American volunteer for the IDF – have announced their intention to investigate activist groups critical of the Israeli government – within Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, these NGOs are being investigated to, “ascertain whether funding they allegedly received from the Biden administration was utilized for the judicial reform protests in 2023.” These groups include the Movement for Quality Government in Israel and Blue and White Future, among others.8. The government's use of brute force to muzzle criticism of Israel continues to rock academia. At Harvard, the Crimson reports 82 of Harvard Law School's 118 active professors have signed a letter which “accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump…described Trump's threats as a danger to the rule of law…[and] condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over ‘lawful speech and political activism.'” The letter reads, in part, “we share a conviction that our Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can properly function amidst such fear.” This letter stands in stark contrast to the recent statement by Harvard President Alan Garber, in which he pledged to “engage” with the federal government's demands in order to protect the university's $9 billion in federal funding.9. Last week, we reported on the “lynching” of Hamdan Ballal, the Palestinian co-director of the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land – and how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences dithered before ultimately releasing a milquetoast statement decrying violence against “artists for their work or their viewpoints,” with no mention of Palestine or even Ballal's name. This caused so much uproar among Academy members that nearly 900 of them signed a letter “denouncing the Academy's silence,” per Variety. The letter and full list of signatories can be found here. Shamed, the Academy leadership was forced to issue a follow-up statement expressing their “regret that we failed to directly acknowledge Mr. Ballal and the film by name.” This statement continues “We sincerely apologize to Mr. Ballal…We abhor the suppression of free speech under any circumstances.”10. Finally, speaking of shame, the Hill reports that the shame of Congressional Republicans is giving Democrats a golden opportunity. According to this piece, “House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP's advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year's midterms.” One Democrat, Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign co-chair Ro Khanna, has held three town halls in Republican-held districts, whose main takeaway was “People are mad.” Republicans who have bucked the GOP leadership and held town halls anyway, such as Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman and Indiana congresswoman Victoria Spartz have found themselves looking down the barrel of constituents furious at the conduct of the administration in general and DOGE in particular. This, combined with the upset Democratic victories in recent special elections, has the GOP on a defensive backfoot for the first time in months. Could we be looking at the beginning of a Democratic tea party? Only time will tell.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe
Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen to the Daily Compliance News—all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional. Top stories include: End of SEC FCPA bribery unit. (Reuters) Ex-Shell boss tasked with cleaning up Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC). (BBC) The judge dismisses Adams's case with prejudice. (NYT) DOJ moves to dismiss FCPA trial of former Cognizant execs. (Law360) sub req'd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week we sit down with Sean West—co-founder of Hence Technologies and author of Unruly: Fighting Back When Politics and Law Upend the Rules of Business. Together, they explore the shifting fault lines where law, technology, and geopolitics collide. From the growing reliance on generative AI in legal work to the erosion of rule of law and the emerging threats (and opportunities) facing knowledge workers, Sean offers a strikingly global—and at times unsettling—view of the legal profession's next frontier.The conversation kicks off with a discussion on the Law360 survey showing that 62% of lawyers are using ChatGPT in some aspect of their work. Sean explains the popularity of general-purpose AI tools over legal-specific ones as a matter of price, accessibility, and perceived innovation. While lawyers trust themselves to edit AI outputs, Sean warns that this passive use of AI could slowly and invisibly displace traditional legal roles, without firms consciously realizing what's been lost.The discussion deepens as Sean introduces the idea of passive job displacement—where tasks once assigned to junior lawyers, interns, or external vendors are quietly absorbed by AI tools. He likens it to carrying "a quarter of a human brain in your pocket" for $20 a month. What starts as convenience becomes infrastructure, and over time, demand for human input declines. He also questions the long-term viability of legal tech products that can't clearly outperform generalist AIs like ChatGPT or Claude.Sean then draws on his geopolitical expertise to underscore the urgent need for situational awareness in law firms and businesses alike. He explains how political volatility—from China and Taiwan to Europe's regulatory tactics—can suddenly reshape the legal landscape. Rather than relying on traditional prediction models or complex advisory plans that get shelved, Sean emphasizes proactive legal scenario planning. His new product, Hence Global, offers a “geo-legal” lens on global news, customized for specific legal practice areas to help firms act instead of react.We push further into the implications of “front-stabbing” politics, where once-hidden power plays are now openly transactional. Sean describes a world where AI-driven lobbying, mass arbitration spam, and “robot lawyers” can reshape public policy or flood companies with legal claims at scale. He argues that when the rules are ambiguous, large players will push boundaries—and smaller players may get squeezed out. In a world without a clear referee, the game favors those who can afford better tools and faster moves.Finally, Sean challenges legal and corporate leaders to stop avoiding the hard conversations. Whether embracing AI to boost productivity or choosing to protect jobs, organizations must be transparent. “Let's front-stab about it,” he says. Make your commitments public—whether you're retraining your workforce or doubling down on AI-driven efficiency. Because in a world where legal, political, and technological lines blur, silence isn't just unhelpful—it's a risk.Links and Mentions:Learn more about Unruly and Sean's work at https://hence.aiSubscribe to Sean's newsletter: https://geolegal.substack.comTry Hence Global with a discount: global.hence.ai – use promo code GEEK for one-third offListen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Blue Sky: @geeklawblog.com @marlgebEmail: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: Jerry David DeCicca Transcript
Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen to the Daily Compliance News—all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional. Top stories include: Cognizant counsel fired after Trump's order. (Law360) sub req'd Is self-disclosure now a gamble? (Law360) sub req'd Unilever fires activist CEO of Ben & Jerry's. (BBC) Is an all-white military coming? (Air Force Times) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Jack Sanker and Danessa Watkins dive into two significant legal topics currently making headlines.First, Danessa discusses the First Amendment implications of President Trump's announcement regarding federal funding for schools and universities that permit illegal protests. Trump's controversial post on Truth Social threatens to cut off federal funding for educational institutions that allow such protests, raising concerns about free speech rights and the potential chilling effect on student activism. The discussion highlights the complexities of defining what constitutes an illegal protest and the responsibilities of educational institutions under the First Amendment. They explore the potential legal ramifications of Trump's statements, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's assertion that the president cannot compel institutions to expel students.Next, Jack shifts the conversation to the ongoing issue of tariffs and their impact on the construction industry. He shares insights from a recent Law360 survey of real estate and construction attorneys, emphasizing the practical effects of new tariffs on materials like steel and aluminum. The hosts discuss how fluctuating tariffs create uncertainty in pricing and contracting, making it essential for businesses to include protective clauses in their contracts. They also touch on the challenges of navigating existing contracts in light of new tariffs and the potential for litigation as businesses seek relief from increased costs.Join us as we take a comprehensive look at the intersection of free speech, government action, and economic implications in the current legal landscape.
In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler
Trump is losing his mind at the prospect of being sentenced Friday for his 34 felony business accounts. Now he's demanding that the case be stayed based on president-elect immunity, something his lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove made up yesterday. And, as always, Rudy Giuliani is wilding out in court. Links: Please Keep Shit Talking Judges https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/please-keep-shit-talking-judges 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdf US v. Boeing docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29089563/united-states-v-the-boeing-company/ Rudy demands courtroom sketch artist draw him “nice” https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-weigh-holding-giuliani-contempt-georgia-election-workers-case-2025-01-03/ Alex Jones - Trustee Motion for Approve PQPR settlement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.1005.0.pdf Roberts EOY 2024 Report https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdf Trump NY Docs via Law360 https://www.law360.com/newyork-vs-trump-tracker New York Article 78 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-78/7803/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod
On January 4 of this year, we released a podcast show entitled; “A look at a new approach to consumer contracts”. Our special guest at that time was Professor Andrea Boyack, a Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. That podcast was based on a then recent law review article published by Professor Boyack entitled “The Shape of Consumer Contracts, 101 Denv L. Rev. 1 (2023). Today, we are joined again by Professor Boyack who has written a follow-up article entitled: “Abuse of Contract: Boilerplate Erasure of Consumer Counterparty Rights,” University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-03, which is the subject of our new show. The abstract of her article accurately describes the points that Professor Boyack made during the podcast show: Contract law and the new Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts generally treats the entirety of the company's boilerplate as presumptively binding. Entrusting the content of consumer contracts to companies creates a fertile legal habitat for abuse through boilerplate design. There is no consensus on how widespread or severe abuse of contract is. Some consumer law scholars have warned of dangers inherent in granting companies unrestrained power to sneak waivers into their online terms, but others contend that market forces adequately constrain potential abuse. On the other hand, in the absence of adequate consumer knowledge and power, market competition might instead fuel the spread of abusive boilerplate provisions as companies compete to insulate themselves from costs. The new Restatement and several prominent scholars claim that existing protective judicial doctrines siphon off the worst abuses among adhesive contracts. They are willing to accept those abuses that slip through the cracks as the unavoidable cost of a functioning, modern economy. The raging debate over how to best constrain contractual abuse relies mainly on speculation regarding the proliferation and extent of sneak-in waivers. This article provides some necessary missing data by examining the author's study of 100 companies' online terms and conditions (the T&C Study). The T&C Study tracked the extent to which the surveyed companies' boilerplate purported to erase consumer default rights within four different categories, thereby helping to assess the effectiveness of existing market and judicial constraints on company overreach. Evidence from the T&C Study shows that the overwhelming majority of consumer contracts contain multiple categories of abusive terms. The existing uniformity of boilerplate waivers undermines the theory that competition and reputation currently act as effective bulwarks against abuse. After explaining and discussing the T&C Study and its results, this article suggests how such data can assist scholars and advocates in more effectively protecting and empowering consumers. We also discuss two separate CFPB initiatives pertaining to consumer contracts. On June 4 of this year, the CFPB issued Circular 2024-03 (“Circular”) warning that the use of unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in contracts for consumer financial products or services may violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act. We previously drafted a blog post and Law360 article about this circular. The CFPB has also issued a proposed rule to establish a system for the registration of nonbanks subject to CFPB supervision that use “certain terms or conditions that seek to waive consumer rights or other legal protections or limit the ability of consumers to enforce their rights.” Arbitration provisions are among the terms that would trigger registration. The CFPB has not yet finalized this proposed rule and it seems likely that it will never be finalized in light of its very controversial nature and the fact that Director Chopra will be replaced on January 20 with a new Acting Director. Alan Kaplinsky, the former Chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years and now Senior Counsel, hosts this episode.
From a young age, Robert Glassman worked hard to perfect his abilities as a public speaker. When he was in high school, his parents enrolled him in a Dale Carnegie program to develop confidence speaking in front of strangers. From high school to law school, Robert was a perennial class president and accustomed to giving planned speeches before large audiences. Join Rahul and Ben as they discuss with Robert the advantages and challenges of transitioning his public speaking skills to success in the courtroom. Robert talks about how he developed expertise in handling high-profile cases involving injuries to children while in the care of the public schools, and lessons learned from his first experience examining witnesses at trial to recently obtaining an eight-figure jury verdict the day after his forty-first birthday. About Robert Glassmanhttps://www.panish.law/glassman.htmlRobert Glassman is a partner at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP where he represents plaintiffs in large and complex personal injury cases and is a recognized leader in the Los Angeles legal community.Recognized by the Daily Journal as among the 2023 Top 40 Lawyers Under 40 in California, Mr. Glassman has also been named a “Rising Star” in Personal Injury litigation by Law360 and recognized as a “Rising Star” by the Super Lawyers publication since 2013 where he has been consistently selected as one of the “Up-and-Coming 100 Southern California Rising Stars”, the list of lawyers who rank at the top of the Super Lawyers' Rising Stars list.His work on three high-profile school injury cases – Lee v. Pupil Transportation Cooperative, Pierce v. Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District – led to significant reforms at the school districts where the tragedies occurred and helped to establish new child safety laws in California.Mr. Glassman also represents victims and survivors of sexual abuse, including ‘Jane' who filed suit against her abusers in the high-profile case against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.A three-time Consumer Attorneys of California Consumer Attorney of the Year finalist for his work on Lee v. Pupil Transportation Cooperative, Pierce v. Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District, Mr. Glassman has also been recognized as a 2023 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year for his work on Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Unified School District.Mr. Glassman currently serves as the Co-Chair of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers Los Angeles Young Lawyers division and is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) Los Angeles Chapter.SOME OF MR. GLASSMAN'S MOST NOTABLE TRIAL VERDICTS INCLUDE:Diao v. Southern California Gas Company (Los Angeles jury awarded a $19,786,818 to injured plaintiff following a gas explosion at home in San Gabriel, CA). The judgment was recently upheld on appeal.Dillon v. City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles jury awarded $11,045,000 for a motorcyclist who suffered serious injuries following a collision with a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) vehicle.)Crenshaw v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.(Kings County jury awarded $6.45 million to Corcoran State Prison correctional officer after motorcycle crash in Hanford, CA). For the work Mr. Glassman and firm partner Brian Panish did on the Crenshaw case, it was recognized by The Daily Journal as a Top Ten Verdict of 2010.Gil v. Anderson (Los Angeles County jury awarded $2,000,969 to a man who was injured when his vehicle was struck from behind by a large commercial plumbing van)Ortega v. Lim (San Diego County jury awarded $1,957,500 for a man who suffered a back injury after his pick-up truck was struck by another vehicle whose driver was distracted and ran a red light at an intersection.)Kluthe v. Charles Doherty Concrete(Vista, California jury awarded a $1,552,917.56 verdict for a young man who suffered a back injury after his vehicle was struck by a cement dump truck that ran a red light at an intersection)SOME OF MR. GLASSMAN'S NOTABLE SETTLEMENTS INCLUDE:Lee v. Pupil Transportation Cooperative($23,500,000 for the parents of Hun Joon “Paul” Lee, a 19-year-old non-verbal autistic student who tragically died aboard a Whittier school bus after the driver left him behind to engage in a sexual tryst with a co-worker)Sepulveda v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Unified School District ($15,750,000 for the mother of 13-year-old Adilene Carrasco who suffered an asthma attack at school and died as a result of the district's failure to follow its own safety protocols)Pierce v. Murietta Valley Unified School District($11,000,000 for the family of a middle school student who drowned during a school-sponsored swim party)Palmstrom v. City of Pasadena ($7,150,000 for a toddler who suffered severe injuries after she was trapped beneath a 20-foot eucalyptus tree branch that had fallen onto her while playing on a preschool playground)Agu v. UC Regents ($4,750,000 for the parents of a Cal Berkeley football player with sickle cell trait who died during an off-season conditioning drill)Mr. Glassman has also secured eight-figure settlements in a wide range of cases including $32.6 million in a products liability design defect case, $16 million in a premises liability case, $12.45 million in a motor vehicle collision case, and $10 million in a dangerous condition of public property case involving a fallen tree.He is a member of the executive committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC) which responds to the governor's requests to evaluate individuals under consideration for appointment to the Superior Court bench.Prior to working at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP, Mr. Glassman clerked at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in the Major Crimes Division where he worked on high profile murder prosecutions and in the Preliminary Hearing Unit where he conducted dozens of preliminary felony hearings. Mr. Glassman also previously worked on Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer's Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.In 2020, Mr. Glassman also led the collaboration between Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP and The Children's Rights Clinic at Southwestern Law School (CRC) to provide legal representation to low-income children in the areas of school discipline, special education, and personal injury. Under his direction, clients will be represented by the firm in the area of personal injury while Southwestern law students participating in the Children's Rights Clinic will represent clients in the areas of special education and school discipline under the supervision of Southwestern Law School Professors.An alumnus of the Whitfield School in St. Louis, Missouri, Mr. Glassman also provided an invaluable opportunity in 2021 for the current and future students at his alma mater with the creation of the Glassman Leaders Program. During the program, two selected students — one junior and one senior — develop their public speaking and leadership skills through on-and off-campus coursework and mentorship. Participants also attend an eight-week Dale Carnegie course, which focuses on building communication skills for business people and students alike.Mr. Glassman attended Bucknell University in Lewisburg, PA where he obtained his B.A. degree in English. Following college, Mr. Glassman obtained his law degree from Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles where he served as president of the student body, and was a member of the Trial Advocacy Honors Program. GLASSMAN'S PREVIOUS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS INCLUDE:President, Los Angeles County Bar Association BarristersNickel Club President (Southwestern Law School's Young Alumni Association)Political Chair, New Lawyers Division, Consumer Attorneys of CaliforniaStudent Body President, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, CAClass President, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA.Senior Class President, Whitfield School, St. Louis, MO.Mr. Glassman is admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, California, and United States District Courts throughout California.
Use code EmilyBakerClass at https://www.GreenChef.com/EmilyBakerClass to get 50% off, plus 50 free ClassPass credits!Justin Timberlake pleaded guilty to a traffic infraction driving while ability impaired to resolve his DWI case in the Hamptons. The public safety announcement in front of the Sag Harbor Police Department was part of the plea deal that knocked down the misdemeanor charge he was facing to a non-criminal traffic violation.Karen Read filed an appeal to motion to dismiss counts one and three to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The defense argues that the jury acquitted Karen of charges one and three even though they didn't mark it on the jury forms. They relitigate that retrying her for counts one and three violates double jeopardy. They are asking for oral arguments.On Thursday, September 12th, 2024, Harvey Weinstein was indicted again in New York. According to Law360 reporting, the indictment will remain sealed until Weinstein is arraigned, which has yet to happen due to his deteriorating health. According to Weinstein's representative he was rushed to the hospital on Sunday, September 8th, 2024, for emergency open heart surgery.In his status conference in Illinois, Girardi wasn't present and prosecutors asked to continue to the pre-trial conferences until December 18th, 2024. They indicated that they may drop the charges against Girardi after his sentencing on December 6th, 2024 in Los Angeles.The Bryan Kohberger trial moves to Ada County's Fourth District located in Boise and gets appointed a new judge, Judge Steven Hippler. This means that trial dates and other deadlines are now subject to change.In the infamous viral clip, Redden is accused of leaping over the bench and attacking a Las Vegas Judge Holthus. He was charged with Attempted Murder of a victim 60 years of age or older. On the second day, after hearing the testimony of Judge Holthus and her law clerk, Redden pleaded Guilty but Mentally Ill. He has a sentencing Hearing on November 7th.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy
Send us a textWhen it comes to watching any sort of legal drama, be it television or film, most - if not all - of the scenes that take place inside the courtroom focus on either the lawyers, the judge, or the witness. But when it comes to the jury, we tend to only see them during opening or closing remarks, and even then they almost always act more as a set-piece than a character. Now occasionally you get the shot of a jury reacting to the most sensational part of a case, but for the most part they tend to fade into the background - both literally and figuratively. But as my guest today is wise to point out, when it comes to actually trying a case the jury is perhaps the most scrutinized corner of any courtroom, which is why the best lawyers learn to build a relationship with them. Similar to how a stage actor builds a rapport with their audience, as attorneys we too have to recognize that even when we're not speaking we can still be the center of someone's attention. Anne Redcross Beehler is a litigation attorney who represents corporate and individual clients in a wide range of matters across California and New York.With both civil and criminal experience under her belt, over the past decade Anne's practice has increasingly focused on the real estate industry where she has represented tenants, landlords, and everyone in betweenAnne is also a regular contributor to LAW360 and the Orange County Lawyer, and she has worked for the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and clerked for the NY State Court of Appeals.This week she sits down to talk about bullying in the law, why sometimes being underestimated can be your best asset, and why My Cousin Vinny is the top legal film of all time. __________________SHOWNOTESInformation on ALIGHT
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.Defamation law and copyright law: I have a keen interest in both, which shouldn't be surprising given what I do for a living. So two litigations I've been following closely are (1) the various defamation lawsuits brought by Dominion Voting Systems—including its case against Fox News, which settled for a whopping $787.5 million—and (2) the copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft.Besides being fascinating cases with the potential to reshape the modern American media landscape, what do these matters share in common? The plaintiffs have the same lawyer: Susman Godfrey partner Davida Brook. Although she's only 40, she has already been recognized as one of the nation's top trial attorneys by Forbes, The American Lawyer, Law360, Lawdragon, and many other publications.Davida and I first met years ago, when I spoke at Stanford Law School and she was a student (yes, I'm that old). So I thought it would be fun to catch up by having her on the podcast—and it was.We discussed her impressive career path; the Dominion and Times cases, including their possible societal implications; and what it was like to work with and learn from the late Steve Susman, founder of Susman Godfrey and an all-time great courtroom advocate. You can tune into our conversation, covering these and many other subjects, in this new episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Davida Brook bio, Susman Godfrey* Meet America's Top 200 Lawyers (2024), by Liane Jackson for Forbes* Lawyer Limelight: Davida Brook, by Katrina Dewey for LawdragonPrefer 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 week on the podcast we interview Chris Hamilton of Hamilton Wingo (https://hamiltonwingo.com/). Rate and review GTP on iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review. View/Download Trial Documents Guest Bio: Chris Hamilton Chris Hamilton is one of the country's leading high-stakes trial lawyers. He has won record-setting verdicts and settlements in catastrophic personal injury cases, wrongful death lawsuits, and complex business disputes. Chris chooses to work on cases where he knows he can make a game-changing difference by relying on his methodical preparation and truly extraordinary trial skills. He takes great pride when lawyers and clients trust him to handle the most important cases of their careers or lives. In 2022, Chris won a historic $7.37 billion jury verdict in Dallas, Texas, which was the year's largest verdict nationwide and 4th largest personal injury award in U.S. history against a corporation. His nearly two decades of experience taking on negligence, fraud, and abuse by big businesses includes Chris' work alongside the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office in a ground-breaking federal False Claims Act case. The $25 million settlement in 2021 directly against a private equity firm and a group of healthcare industry executives is the largest of its kind. Chris has been featured in Courtroom View Network's (CVN) list of the Most Impressive Trials of 2019, and his multibillion-dollar victory in 2022 topped CVN's list of the Most Impressive Plaintiffs Verdicts of 2022. The Dallas Business Journal recognized Chris for winning Texas' largest personal injury verdict in 2014, ranked as the nation's 17th largest. In addition, he was recognized by Top Verdict in 2016 for Texas' 9th largest personal injury verdict. Verdict Search noted him in 2011 for one of the state's Top 10 and Top 100 verdicts in the U.S. Chris has been repeatedly recognized for his expertise in personal injury trials by other attorneys in the annual list of The Best Lawyers in Dallas by D Magazine, The Best Lawyers in America, Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America, Texas Super Lawyers, and National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Attorneys, and is a member of the prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and the Leader's Forum for the American Association for Justice. Chris' cases have been featured in numerous media outlets, including Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, Texas Lawyer, Dallas Business Journal, Law360, The Dallas Morning News, Texas Lawbook, The Houston Chronicle, and The Austin-American Statesman, and numerous local television reports and print news stories nationwide. Chris earned the Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year honor in 2017 from the American Association for Justice for representing hundreds of people unlawfully detained at DFW Airport during the travel ban. Chris, a fluent Spanish speaker, is a current member of the Board of Directors for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. 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
Join Ben and Rahul for their interview of famed Los Angeles trial lawyer, Arash Homampour. Arash has perfected the ability to trial difficult liability and damages cases to outlier high verdicts. Arash explains how he channels his innate connection with his clients and abilities as a trial lawyer to achieve these results. Arash discusses his upbringing as the child of first-generation Iranian immigrants and how he went from failing the bar examination to being one of the most accomplished and successful trial lawyers in California and the United States. You don't want to miss this episode! About Arash Homampourhttps://www.homampour.com/ Arash Homampour Has Obtained Over $1 Billion Dollars in Settlements, Verdicts and Judgments for His Clients.He is a trial attorney who in the last five years alone has obtained many successful trial results (ranging from $2.5 million to $60 million) against Sunbeam Products, the State of California, Costco Stores, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Allstate Insurance, and Louisville Ladder in a wide array of cases involving dangerous roads, dangerous ladders, dangerous premises, and unlawful employment practices.In 2023, he has been named one of Daily Journal's Top Plaintiff Lawyers In California.In 2023, he has been named one of Daily Journal's Top 100 Lawyers In California.In 2023, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers, 3 consecutive years.In 2023, he has been named the Best Lawyers® 2023 Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs “Lawyer of the Year” in Los Angeles.In 2023, he has been recognized by the Los Angeles Times as a legal visionary.In 2022, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of Top Verdict's Top 10 Verdicts in California.In 2002, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of Top Verdict's Top 20 Verdicts in California.In 2022, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of CVN's Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of the year.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $60 million.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $34 million.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $36 million (wrongful death)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $23 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $15.92 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $10 million (dangerous condition of public property) In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $8 million (dangerous condition of public property) In 2022, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.In 2022, he has been named one of Law360°'s Titans Of The Plaintiffs Bar.In 2021, he recovered settlements of $24 million (dangerous condition of public property) and $8 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2021, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.In 2021, he has become an Entrepreneur Leadership Network Contributor.In 2020, he recovered verdicts of $32 million (single plaintiff settlement premise and product liability case), $5.3 million (confidential settlement) and $5 million (disputed policy limits settlement).In 2019, he recovered a verdict of $30 million (wrongful death of driver that hit improperly parked truck), $12 million (wrongful death) and $5 million (liability and damages settlement)In 2018, he received the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA's) Ted Horn Memorial Award presented to the lawyer who has provided outstanding service to the Association and the legal community.In 2018, he received the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun/Trial Lawyer of the Year award in Products Liability.In 2018, he recovered verdicts of $12.25 million (wrongful death of man at swap meet) and $10 million (fatal vehicle versus motorcycle) and was named in the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers for the 7th year in a row.In 2017, he recovered settlements & verdicts of $14.5 million (insurance bad faith), $14.25 million (wrongful death of a motorcyclist) $4.5 million (auto vs. truck).In 2016, 2018 and 2019, he has been named one of the Top 30 Plaintiff's attorneys in the State by the Daily Journal.In 2016, he was awarded the Ventura County Trial Lawyers Association Trial Attorney of the Year award.In 2015, he recovered verdicts of $16.2 million (motorcycle rider suffered a head injury), $5.6 million (wrongful death of 83 year old), $60 million (wrongful death of mother in fire started by a defective space heater), $14.2 million (dangerous condition wrongful death case for lack of warning signs against Caltrans) and $14 million (bad faith claim against Allstate Insurance Co.). In 2010, he was named by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) as its Trial Attorney of the Year. CAALA is the largest plaintiff attorney group in the country.In 2007, he was named one of the Top 20 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 in the State of California by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Every year since 2004, he has received nominations for Trial Attorney of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California and/or CAALA.Since 2005, he has been designated a Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine and Law & Politics.Since 2010, he has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers which is based on the lawyers who received the highest point totals in the Southern California nomination, research and blue ribbon review process.He has also successfully briefed and argued many appeals, including a recent California Supreme Court victory in Cortez v. Abich (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 285.Arash frequently lectures throughout the state on all matters related to trial practice and has published many articles. You can find copies of those articles or videos of his presentations at www.caala.org or www.caoc.org Areas of PracticeLitigationInsurance Bad FaithPersonal InjuryEmploymentBusiness Litigation Percentage100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation Bar AdmissionsCalifornia, 1993U.S. District Court Central District of California, 1993 EducationSouthwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CaliforniaB.S., Bachelor of Science – June, 1989Major: Economics/Finance
Today's live episode features Michael Angell talking about the new FMC rules on detention and demurrage billing, issues with current billing practices, challenges faced by shippers, and the importance of reviewing compliance with the latest regulations and monitoring billing discrepancies. Reference Link: https://www.joc.com/article/us-court-orders-fmc-review-evergreen-demurrage-ruling_20240705.html About Michael Angell Michael Angell is an associate editor for the Journal of Commerce, responsible for coverage of Northeast and Gulf Coast ports. He has covered transportation and logistics since 2015, as a US correspondent for TradeWinds and as an editor for FreightWaves. He broke the story about 18 seafarers being stranded on a ship in Baltimore Harbor, which was later picked up by The Washington Post among other media, the subsequent bankruptcy of the ship's owner, and the seizure of its fleet by the owner's lenders. His other reporting experience includes Law360, Oil Price Information Service, FactSet and Investor's Business Daily. He has an undergraduate degree in American literature and studies from the University of California, Los Angeles, and has completed a graduate-level business studies program at Columbia University Connect with Michael Website: https://www.joc.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-angell-bizwriter/
America's banks play a critical role in our economy, and the industry is one of the most heavily regulated, with rules that affect nearly every consumer, borrower, and saver. In this episode, enjoy a deep dive into the web of regulations banks navigate daily and the role that litigators play. Guests Aaron Krauss and Brett Watson participated in the development of the ABA's new book, Banking on It: The Ten Most Common Claims Involving Banks. Banking on It is a practical guide to navigating banking litigation. Aaron and Brett are experienced in litigating fraud, credit issues, and lending cases involving banks and financial institutions. Banking litigation usually involves institutions such as credit unions, commercial and retail banks, and even nationally and state-chartered banks. It's an area full of opportunities for litigators interested in banking regulatory law and the constantly shifting landscape. For example, when was the last time you wrote a check to pay for something? It's a jungle out there. Anything can happen in the world of banking regulation and litigation. Scams are common, and banks are frequent targets. Tune in to this episode and learn more! RESOURCES: Cozen O'Connor “Banking on It: The Ten Most Common Claims Involving Banks” “How Banks Should Respond To Calif. AG's Overdraft Warning,” Law360, by Brett Watson Law360 articles by Aaron Krauss American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section
Hello Well Women! On the show today, I Interview Professor Marcy Karin, law professor, scholar, and Director of the Legislation and Civil Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia. Through the Clinic, she supervises students' systemic reform work at the intersection of gender, disability and racial justice for community-based organizations. Her scholarship advances social justice for current and former menstruators, breastfeeding workers, domestic violence survivors, people with disabilities, and the military community. As the 2023 Fulbright-Scotland Distinguished Scholar at the University of Edinburgh, she explored “Menstrual Justice at Work and School: Public Policy Lessons from Scotland's Period Products Law and the UK's Equality Act.” She has a LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center, a JD from Stanford Law School and a BA from American University. Professor Karin also self-identifies as a disabled advocate, legislative lawyer, storyteller, mentor, mentee, carer, neighbor, niece, aunt, cousin, friend and explorer. She has been featured in the Washington Post, USA Today, The Ferret, Arizona Republic, Law360, and Ms. On the show we discuss: Professor Marcy Karen's career trajectory from law to advocacy around menstruation, menopause, and reproductive justice. Scotland's period products law and how it changed cultural attitudes, emphasizing the need for multi-level government involvement in these issues. Making menstruation and menopause more visible through policies like eliminating the "tampon tax", providing accommodations in workplaces and schools, and expanding menstrual health education. The importance of inclusivity, connecting people, and embracing opportunities rather than a linear career path. And much more Also, The Well Woman Show is a proud media partner of the Work and Family Researchers Network conference happening on June 19-22, 2024 at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec Canada. You can hear our interview with conference chair Ellen Gallinsky at episode 325 and of course Prof. Marcy Karin is on the show today, a long time contributor to the Work and Family Researchers Network who'll be presenting there this year as well. The 2024 conference theme is Big Questions in Work-Family, which will be part of a two-year agenda. These are the cutting-edge global questions that are not yet fully answered or recognized, including: CHANGES IN WORK – What are the meanings of work at different life stages, for different groups, and in different kinds of jobs? How is work organized? What is the future of work and for whom? CHANGES IN FAMILY LIFE – How are families and family experiences changing around the globe and what changes might we expect? For example, fertility rates are declining in high-income countries and there are reports of an epidemic of loneliness. What other changes are evident and what are the implications? CHANGES IN WORK-LIFE INTERFACE: What theories, concepts, and measures best explain new and emerging intersections between work and family? THE LIFE COURSE – How do changes in work and family impact children and their capacities to enter adult roles, for adults to successfully navigate transitions, and for older populations to age well? SOLUTIONS AND PROMISING PRACTICES – What are the most promising solutions in policy and practice in the global north and south? What are the challenges and best opportunities for advancing equity and social justice? The conference's objective is to chart an agenda for the future of work-family research, policy and practice. And there will be numerous events to connect a global community of scholars with thought leaders in media, philanthropy, practice, policy, and social change. Find more information at
Our long awaited Bankers vs. Lawyers podcast episode! Wondering about the differences and similarities between traditionally "good" jobs like doctor, banker, and lawyer? Or maybe how to transition from a career in law to one in high finance? We are going to pull back the curtain and explore the business, lifestyle, and culture of "big law", while debunking the myths and misconceptions you may have from watching popular shows like "Suits", "Law and Order", and "The Good Wife". Today's episode specifically covers Corporate Law and its intersection with high finance. Our incredible guests are two of NYC's most prominent attorneys: Jake Kling of Wachtell Lipton, who specializes in Mergers & Acquisitions law, and Roshni Cariello of Davis Polk, who specializes in Capital Markets law.We get into the path to becoming an attorney, the process of applying to law school, how important "prestige" of your law school is to landing a job, compensation, hours, culture, and much much more. Bios:Jake Kling is a partner in Wachtell Lipton's Corporate Department. Jake's practice primarily focuses on mergers, acquisitions and dispositions, securities law matters, and advising companies and boards of directors on takeover defense, shareholder activism and general corporate governance matters. He has advised a broad range of public and private clients across multiple industries, including banking, financial services, healthcare and pharmaceutical, life sciences, technology, media and telecom, sports, industrial, retail, private equity and real estate.Jake received an A.B. magna cum laude in mathematical economics from Brown University, and a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he served as Projects Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Jake also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Dennis Jacobs, then Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In 2024, Jake was named to the Forbes inaugural list of America's Top 200 Lawyers across all practice areas nationwide, one of seven M&A lawyers included on the list. In 2023, The American Lawyer named Jake the “Young Lawyer of the Year—Corporate”, selecting him as the top corporate lawyer in the country under the age of 40. Jake was also named a “Dealmaker of the Year” by the New York Law Journal, was one of five M&A lawyers chosen as a Law360 MVP, was one of four M&A lawyers selected for Bloomberg Law's “They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40” awards, and was named one of the 500 Leading Dealmakers in America by Lawdragon. BTI Consulting Group selected Jake as a BTI Client Service All-Star for his commitment to exceptional client service. Roshni Banker Cariello is a partner at Davis Polk advising corporate and financial institution clients on capital markets transactions, including initial public offerings and other equity offerings, investment-grade, high-yield and convertible debt financings, private placements and liability management. Clients also turn to her for advice on general corporate, governance and securities law matters. Roshni's experience spans industries including consumer, retail, technology, renewables and industrials.In 2023, Law360 named Roshni a “Rising Star” in capital markets, and she is recognized by Chambers USA for her work with SPACs. Roshni graduated cum laude with a B.A. in Government from Dartmouth College and a JD from Columbia Law School where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a Notes Editor for Columbia Business Law Review.Follow us on Instagram and Tik Tok at @thewallstreetskinnyhttps://www.instagram.com/thewallstreetskinny/
Rick Howard, N2K's CSO and The CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, presents the argument for why the SEC was misguided when it charged the SolarWinds CISO, Tim Brown, with fraud the after the Russian SVR compromised the SolarWinds flagship product, Orion. Our guests are, Steve Winterfeld, Akamai's Advisory CISO, and Ted Wagner, SAP National Security Services CISO. References: Andrew Goldstein, Josef Ansorge, Matt Nguyen, Robert Deniston, 2024. Fatal Flaws in SEC's Amended Complaint Against SolarWinds [Analysis]. Crime & Corruption. Anna-Louise Jackson, 2023. Earnings Reports: What Do Quarterly Earnings Tell You? [Explainer]. Forbes. Brian Koppelman, David Levien, Andrew Ross Sorkin, 2016 - 2023. Billions [TV Show]. IMDb. Dan Goodin, 2024. Financial institutions have 30 days to disclose breaches under new rules [News]. Ars Technica. David Katz, 021. Corporate Governance Update: “Materiality” in America and Abroad [Essay]. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. Jessica Corso, 2024. SEC Zeroes In On SolarWinds Exec In Revised Complaint [Analysis]. Law360. Johnathan Rudy, 2024. SEC files Amended complaint against SolarWinds and CISO [Civil Action]. LinkedIn. Joseph Menn, 2023. Former Uber security chief Sullivan avoids prison in data breach case [WWW DocumentNews]. The Washington Post. Kim Zetter, 2014. Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon [Book]. Goodreads. Kim Zetter, 2023. SEC Targets SolarWinds' CISO for Rare Legal Action Over Russian Hack [WWW Document]. ZERO DAY. Kim Zetter, 2023. SolarWinds: The Untold Story of the Boldest Supply-Chain Hack [Essay]. WIRED. Rick Howard, 2022. Cyber sand table series: OPM [Podcast]. The CyberWire - CSO Perspectives Podcast. Rick Howard, 2023. Cybersecurity First Principles: A Reboot of Strategy and Tactics [Book]. Goodreads. Pam Baker, 2021. The SolarWinds hack timeline: Who knew what, and when? [Timeline]. CSO Online. Staff, 2009. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Topic 105) [Standard]. PWC. Staff. 30 October 2023. SEC Charges SolarWinds and Chief Information Security Officer with Fraud, Internal Control Failures [Website]. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision. Staff, 31 October 2023. Securities and Exchange Commission v. SolarWinds Corporation and Timothy G. Brown, No. 23-civ-9518 (SDNY) [Case]. The Securities and Exchange Commission. Staff, 29 March 2024. Cooley, Cybersecurity Leaders File Brief Opposing SEC's SolarWinds Cyberattack Case [Press Release]. Cooley. Stephanie Pell, Jennifer Lee , Shoba Pillay, Jen Patja Howell, 2024. The SEC SolarWinds Enforcement Action [Podcast]. The Lawfare Podcast.
Samuel J. Cundari, a 30-year-old former assistant state's attorney from DuPage County, Illinois, has been charged with transmitting threats of violence over social media, according to a May 24 press release from the U.S. attorney's office for the Central District of Illinois. Cundari is accused of posting threats on X, formerly known as Twitter, in March and May. These threats included graphic and violent language directed at state representatives involved in gun-control legislation and an implied bomb threat in response to an advertisement for Springfield's PrideFest. One of Cundari's posts, dated March, tagged two Illinois state representatives, the Illinois attorney general, three gun-control groups, and a volunteer with one of the groups. The post read, “Our patience grows short with you. The day we put your kids feet first into a woodchipper so we can enjoy their last few screams is coming.” Democratic Illinois State Rep. Bob Morgan, a sponsor of the assault weapons ban, confirmed to the Chicago Sun-Times that he was among the targeted lawmakers. The threats were serious enough to prompt a federal investigation. In May, Cundari made another alarming post, which appeared to be a response to an advertisement for Springfield's PrideFest. It read, “I sure hope NOBODY leaves a pressure cooker filled with ball bearings, glass and nails, filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer, with the over pressure safety valve disabled, near a natural gas line. That would be VERY sad and VERY unfortunate.” According to an affidavit by an FBI agent, Cundari admitted to making these posts, claiming they were jokes intended to “get the goat” of another user. Despite his intent, the nature of the threats led to significant legal consequences. A spokesperson for the DuPage County state's attorney's office told Law360 that Cundari was fired upon the discovery of the allegations. He had been working in the office's misdemeanor division for 16 months. “These types of threats are taken very seriously, and we will not tolerate this kind of behavior from anyone, especially those in positions of public trust,” said a spokesperson from the DuPage County state's attorney's office. The case has garnered significant attention from local media, including the Chicago Sun-Times and Law360, highlighting the gravity of the charges and the broader implications for public safety and trust in public officials. Cundari now faces a federal charge of transmitting a threat to injure another person in interstate commerce. If convicted, he could face severe penalties under federal law. #SamuelJCundari #DuPageCounty #GunControl #SocialMediaThreats #FederalCharges #BobMorgan #SpringfieldPrideFest Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Samuel J. Cundari, a 30-year-old former assistant state's attorney from DuPage County, Illinois, has been charged with transmitting threats of violence over social media, according to a May 24 press release from the U.S. attorney's office for the Central District of Illinois. Cundari is accused of posting threats on X, formerly known as Twitter, in March and May. These threats included graphic and violent language directed at state representatives involved in gun-control legislation and an implied bomb threat in response to an advertisement for Springfield's PrideFest. One of Cundari's posts, dated March, tagged two Illinois state representatives, the Illinois attorney general, three gun-control groups, and a volunteer with one of the groups. The post read, “Our patience grows short with you. The day we put your kids feet first into a woodchipper so we can enjoy their last few screams is coming.” Democratic Illinois State Rep. Bob Morgan, a sponsor of the assault weapons ban, confirmed to the Chicago Sun-Times that he was among the targeted lawmakers. The threats were serious enough to prompt a federal investigation. In May, Cundari made another alarming post, which appeared to be a response to an advertisement for Springfield's PrideFest. It read, “I sure hope NOBODY leaves a pressure cooker filled with ball bearings, glass and nails, filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer, with the over pressure safety valve disabled, near a natural gas line. That would be VERY sad and VERY unfortunate.” According to an affidavit by an FBI agent, Cundari admitted to making these posts, claiming they were jokes intended to “get the goat” of another user. Despite his intent, the nature of the threats led to significant legal consequences. A spokesperson for the DuPage County state's attorney's office told Law360 that Cundari was fired upon the discovery of the allegations. He had been working in the office's misdemeanor division for 16 months. “These types of threats are taken very seriously, and we will not tolerate this kind of behavior from anyone, especially those in positions of public trust,” said a spokesperson from the DuPage County state's attorney's office. The case has garnered significant attention from local media, including the Chicago Sun-Times and Law360, highlighting the gravity of the charges and the broader implications for public safety and trust in public officials. Cundari now faces a federal charge of transmitting a threat to injure another person in interstate commerce. If convicted, he could face severe penalties under federal law. #SamuelJCundari #DuPageCounty #GunControl #SocialMediaThreats #FederalCharges #BobMorgan #SpringfieldPrideFest Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
