Podcasts about law schools

Dive into The Other Side of Midnight with Lionel, where the host strips away the "casino" lights of modern news to reveal the gritty legal and constitutional realities facing the nation. Lionel breaks down why bombing boats in sovereign waters is an act of war under international law, navigates the fine line between religious freedom and administrative regulations regarding IDs and noise ordinances, and offers a searing critique of political appointments based on aesthetics over competence.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stepping away from the "Jurassic Park" of local news and the "casino" lights of cable, Lionel dismantles the "Left/Right Paradox"—the trap where the left controls your speech and the right controls your thoughts. From the gritty legal realities of "Uncle Lenny's Law School" to the "existential threats" of AI and globalist agendas, Lionel challenges listeners to become autodidacts and stop relying on political complacency. Whether deconstructing the "tone-deafness" of modern politics or arguing for the legalization of drugs to destroy cartel profits, Lionel cuts through the "petty talk" to find the authentic truth in the modern "Wild West". Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dive into The Other Side of Midnight with Lionel, where the host strips away the "casino" lights of modern news to reveal the gritty legal and constitutional realities facing the nation. Lionel breaks down why bombing boats in sovereign waters is an act of war under international law, navigates the fine line between religious freedom and administrative regulations regarding IDs and noise ordinances, and offers a searing critique of political appointments based on aesthetics over competence.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Annaka Harris is the New York Times bestselling author of CONSCIOUS: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind and writer and producer of the audio documentary series, LIGHTS ON. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Nautilus Magazine, the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and IAI Magazine. She is also an editor and consultant for science writers, specializing in neuroscience and physics. In this episode, Robinson and Annaka discuss panpsychism and the case that consciousness is fundamental. More particularly, they talk about complexity and emergence, the relationship between consciousness and physics, and artificial intelligence.Lights On: https://a.co/d/cy8YTpdConscious: https://a.co/d/3uFZ2JqAnnaka's Website: https://annakaharris.comOUTLINE00:00 Introduction00:52 Annaka's Obsession with Consciousness06:09 How Should We Define Consciousness?13:06 Why the Complexity Might Not Explain Consciousness25:30 Is Consciousness Emergent or Fundamental?29:45 Are Fundamentalia Conscious?45:18 How Can Consciousness Solve Deep Problems of Physics?52:14 Consciousness and Quantum Entanglement01:00:11 Consciousness and the Many Worlds Theory of Quantum Mechanics01:10:50 What Does an Electron Feel?01:13:41 AI and Consciousness01:22:42 Science and the Fundamentality of ConsciousnessRobinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.comRobinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University, where he is also a JD candidate in the Law School.

It's become common now for firms to recruit elite law students even before the end of their first semester of their first year of law school, something that would have been unheard of before the pandemic. That's a far cry from the days when firms waited until the summer before the 2L year to start recruiting students through on campus interviews. It's a trend that hurts everyone involved, according to the guests on today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits: columnist David Lat and Nikia Gray, the head of the National Association for Law Placement. Law schools have lost the control over this process they once had; law firms now have to make recruiting decision with far less information about the candidates; and, worst of all, law students now must make important career decisions in some cases just months after they arrive on campus. "I have not heard from a single student yet that thinks this is a good process," Gray said, "nor a single school that feels that way." "I've talked to the firms," Lat added. "They say 'Look, we don't like this process either. But our rivals are recruiting this early and so we can't sit on the sidelines.'" Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Wisconsin has about 400 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. But a dispute in Shorewood has ignited a debate about who has access to that shoreline. The public can get to the water at Atwater Beach in Shorewood. But residents with homes to the north and south of that beach own everything down to the water's edge. A Shorewood resident challenged that policy in municipal court earlier this month, and a judge will announce a ruling early next year. This debate has been going on for decades and has been settled in other states, according to David Strifling. He's an associate professor at Marquette University's Law School. He joins WUWM environmental reporter Susan Bence to explain the Public Trust Doctrine. 

Ben and Nate walk a listener through how to respond to an email from a law school that wants to know how likely she is to attend if admitted.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!

This Day in Legal History: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court's approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State's minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court's posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court's conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt's controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it's a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida's unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC's position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump's legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled streaming service—and possibly distributed in North America through licensing deals with Canadian firm Blue Ant Media.Legal experts say Trump faces a high bar in U.S. courts under First Amendment standards. He must prove not only that the edited content was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The BBC may argue that the content was substantially accurate and did not materially harm Trump's reputation. Other networks, including CBS and ABC, previously settled defamation claims with Trump after his 2024 election victory.Trump seeks up to $10 billion in damages from BBC over editing of January 6 speech | ReutersU.S. law school enrollment surged 8% in 2025, reaching a 13-year high with 42,817 first-year students, according to new data from the American Bar Association. The increase follows an 18% rise in law school applicants and continues a multi-year upward trend, fueled by a mix of economic uncertainty, political intensity, and a growing interest in legal careers. The sluggish job market for college graduates, coupled with the centrality of legal issues during Donald Trump's second presidential term, has contributed to renewed interest in law degrees.A significant number of prospective students also cited personal and social motivations. A survey of 15,000 LSAT takers found rising interest in using law degrees to “help others” and “advocate for social justice,” with both reasons seeing double-digit percentage increases over last year. The pool of LSAT test-takers has grown as well, signaling likely continued enrollment growth in 2026.Some elite law schools, including Harvard, enrolled their largest first-year classes in over a decade. However, the long-term outlook remains uncertain. Legal employment has been strong in recent years, with the class of 2024 posting record job placement, but experts warn that advances in artificial intelligence could reduce demand for new associates—particularly at large firms offering high salaries. Smaller sectors like government and public interest law may struggle to absorb excess graduates if hiring slows.US job market, politics fuel 8% surge in law school enrollment | ReutersDonald Trump's controversial plan to build a $300 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds is facing its first legal challenge in federal court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and several federal agencies, alleging that the demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom violated multiple preservation laws and bypassed required reviews. The group is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt ongoing construction, citing irreversible damage to the historic structure.Since returning to office in January, Trump has made high-profile aesthetic changes to the White House, including installing gold accents in the Oval Office and converting the Rose Garden lawn into a patio modeled after Mar-a-Lago. But the scale and visibility of the ballroom project has drawn particularly intense criticism, especially as heavy machinery was seen dismantling the 120-year-old East Wing.The lawsuit argues that no president, including Trump, has the unilateral authority to alter protected parts of the White House without following procedures involving public input and reviews by agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.The administration defended the project as lawful, citing historical precedent and presidential authority to modify the executive residence. It emphasized that above-ground construction was not scheduled to begin until April, rendering emergency relief unnecessary. Still, the National Trust contends that public consultation and proper approvals are not optional and must be upheld regardless of the project's timeline or presidential status.Trump's $300 million White House ballroom makeover faces day in court | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must extend the deadline for states to implement new immigration-related restrictions on food aid benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in Oregon, came in response to a lawsuit brought by 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The states argued they were not given adequate time or clarity to comply with the new rules, which were tied to President Donald Trump's domestic policy legislation passed in July.The USDA had initially set a November 1 deadline for states to comply with the restrictions, which limit SNAP benefits to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. However, the guidance issued on October 31 created confusion by implying that some lawful residents—such as those who entered the U.S. as asylees or refugees—were ineligible, contrary to what the law allowed. The USDA later revised the guidance, but still maintained the November 1 deadline.Judge Kasubhai extended the grace period for compliance until April 9, finding the original deadline arbitrary and harmful to state budgets. He noted that the USDA's sudden guidance rollout undermined states' ability to respond and eroded trust in federal-state cooperation. The ruling blocks the USDA from penalizing states that don't meet the earlier deadline while the lawsuit proceeds.USDA must give states more time to implement new food aid restrictions, judge rules | 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

Nate and Ben tell a non-traditional applicant with a self-proclaimed "atrocious" GPA that, with the right LSAT, he could be admitted with a scholarship as a splitter.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!

At LSAT Demon, we want to help you win the law school game. In this episode, Nate and Josh dissect a Reddit post from a user that doesn't.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!

All in all, it's shown that the legal industry, traditionally known as a staid, conservative and risk-averse profession, is undergoing a period of rapid change and transformation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All in all, it's shown that the legal industry, traditionally known as a staid, conservative and risk-averse profession, is undergoing a period of rapid change and transformation.

All in all, it's shown that the legal industry, traditionally known as a staid, conservative and risk-averse profession, is undergoing a period of rapid change and transformation.

Convenors: Professor Louise Gullifer (University of Cambridge) and Associate Professor Dora Neo (National University of Singapore)Speakers:Junayed Ahmed CHOWDHURY, Vertex Chambers, BangladeshMegumi HARA, Chuo University, JapanParawee KASITINON, Thammasat University, ThailandDebanshu MUKHERJEE, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, IndiaHuyen PHAM, International Finance Corporation, VietnamGriselda (Gay) G. SANTOS, Financial Inclusion Advocate, PhilippinesAria SUYUDI, Indonesia Jentera School of Law, IndonesiaLebing WANG, Law School of University of International Business and Economics, ChinaThe edited volume of essays Secured Transactions Law in Asia: Principles, Perspectives and Reform (Hart Publishing, 2021) provided an in-depth exploration of secured transactions law in thirteen civil law and common law jurisdictions in Asia. A varied picture emerged. While the law in some jurisdictions had already been reformed to conform largely with the principles reflected in modern personal property security statutes and international codifications such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions, there were jurisdictions that were in the process of undergoing secured transactions law reform, as well as those in which no particular attention was being paid to reforming the law. In this webinar, the editors of the volume, Professor Louise Gullifer and Associate Professor Dora Neo, bring together some of its contributors for an update of significant developments in secured transactions law that have taken place since its publication. Jurisdictions that are discussed include China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

I am delighted to share this new imperfectly perfect conversation with ⁠Professor Foluke Ifejola Adebisi⁠, who works at the Law School, University of Bristol. Her scholarship focuses on decolonial thought in legal education and its intersection with a history of changing ideas of the 'human.'In this episode, we explore:Foluke's academic journeyFoluke's book-writing journey and the initial challengesDecolonialisation in Higher EducationDecolonialisation in legal education and practiceThe complexities of historical memoryChallenging change and privilegeFoluke's latest work - Science Fiction and Law: the colonial ever-presentAnd so much more.Foluke's work has been a crucial part of my PhD journey and has significantly influenced my thinking and approach to research. It was a joy and a privilege to interview her. If you, too, are interested in decolonial thought in education, then I have no doubt that you will love this episode as much as I did. Foluke's blog she mentions in the conversation, can be found ⁠here⁠The book Can Higher Education be decolonised can be accessed ⁠here

Jacob Barandes is Senior Preceptor in Physics at Harvard University, where he works widely across the philosophy of physics, with focuses on the foundations of quantum mechanics, the philosophy of spacetime, and the metaphysics of laws. In this episode, Robinson and Jacob focus on the foundations of quantum mechanics. They discuss the importance of history and philosophy in the same, its connections to mathematics, many of the biggest puzzles in quantum physics, and Jacob's new approach to the foundations, which he refers to as the “Indivisibility” approach.Jacob's Website: https://www.jacobbarandes.comOUTLINE00:00 Mathematics, Nature, and Physics07:55 The Deep Link Between Math and Physics CLIP15:21 Scrutinizing the History and Philosophy of Physics28:11 A Digression on Achille Varzi36:53 The Etymology of “Matrix”41:17 Learning from the History of Physics52:38 Why Does Quantum Mechanics Need New Foundations?59:04 Does Quantum Gravity Need New Quantum Foundations?01;08:26 What Is a Constructive Physical Theory?01:32:31 Markov Laws and Determinism01:45:30 The Wave Function02:06:53 Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics02:12:20 What Is Quantum Decoherence?02:23:10 The Biggest Problems in Quantum Foundations?02:33:49 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics02:38:57 Quantum Mechanics, Many Worlds, and the Problem of Induction02:50:05 The Indivisibility Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics03:04:42 What Are the Fundamentalia of the Universe?Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.comRobinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University, where he is also a JD candidate in the Law School.

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Equal Protection: A Roadmap for Law StudentsThis conversation delves into the complexities of the Equal Protection Clause, exploring its historical context, the three tiers of scrutiny, and the nuances of applying these standards in legal analysis. The discussion emphasizes the importance of categorization, the rigorous demands of strict scrutiny, and the implications of remedial racial classifications. It also addresses the challenges posed by facially neutral laws and the frameworks used to prove discriminatory intent, providing a comprehensive roadmap for law students preparing for exams.Navigating the complexities of constitutional law can be daunting, especially when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause. This blog post aims to demystify the intricate frameworks and standards that govern equal protection analysis, providing law students with a structured approach to mastering this critical area of law.The Three-Tiered Framework: At the heart of equal protection analysis is the three-tiered framework of judicial review. This framework helps determine the level of scrutiny a court will apply to a law that classifies individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age. Understanding these tiers—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review—is essential for any law student.Strict Scrutiny: The most rigorous standard, strict scrutiny, applies to laws that classify individuals based on race or national origin. Under this standard, the government must prove that the classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This level of scrutiny is often described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact," as laws rarely survive this analysis.Intermediate Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny is applied to classifications based on gender and legitimacy. The government must demonstrate that the classification serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. This standard is less demanding than strict scrutiny but more rigorous than rational basis review.Rational Basis Review: The default standard, rational basis review, applies to all other classifications. Under this standard, the government only needs to show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Laws are almost universally upheld under this deferential standard, except in cases where animus is the sole motivation.Mastering the equal protection framework is crucial for law students preparing for exams or the bar. By understanding the nuances of each tier and applying them to hypothetical scenarios, students can confidently tackle any equal protection question. As the legal landscape evolves, particularly with the rise of algorithmic decision-making, staying informed and adaptable is key to success.Subscribe Now: Stay updated with the latest insights and analysis on constitutional law by subscribing.TakeawaysThe Equal Protection Clause demands structural precision.Identifying classification is the first step in analysis.Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard applied to suspect classes.Intermediate scrutiny applies to gender and illegitimacy classifications.Rational basis review is the default standard for most classifications.Remedial racial classifications must show specific past discrimination.Rational basis with bite addresses laws motivated by animus.Facially neutral laws require proof of discriminatory intent to challenge.The Arlington Heights framework helps prove intent through circumstantial evidence.The McDonnell Douglas framework is used for individual discrimination claims.Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Scrutiny Standards, Discrimination, Law School, Constitutional Law, Affirmative Action, Judicial Review, Legal Framework, Civil Rights

Daria Levina is a lawyer, academic, and business owner whose path spans Russia, the United States, Italy, and now Berlin. With two law degrees, a PhD in law, and a thriving admissions-advising business, Daria brings a global perspective to legal education and career design. In this episode, she shares what makes a PhD different from a JD, how stand-up comedy transformed her thinking, and why she believes education should be accessible to everyone.Lawyer Side HustlesOne of the most distinctive parts of Daria's career is her entrepreneurial project, Harvard State of Mind, an admissions-advising business she built from years of helping friends apply to graduate and professional programs. What began as casual essay review turned into a robust library of courses, guides, and one-on-one services. Motivated by her own experience with education as a tool for social mobility, Daria is committed to making elite institutions feel accessible rather than exclusive.“Education has been not just a means of social mobility but pretty much the only means of upward mobility that was available… and I wanted to make that accessible,” Daria Levina expresses in Episode 221 of You Are a Lawyer.In addition to running her business, Daria performs stand-up comedy in Berlin. It has been a creative outlet that she describes as both therapeutic and unexpectedly practical. Comedy helps her process difficult experiences, develop new perspectives, and appreciate the collaborative nature of creative work. It's proof that lawyers can be analytical and artistic at the same time.This episode is produced by Skip the Boring Stuff, a podcast strategy company for business owners and creatives.

Diagnosed with autism at a young age, Lia discusses her passion for promoting neurodivergence awareness and the need for sensory-friendly spaces. She created 20 fidget bins, filled with calming tools like calming strips, water timers, and Pop-Its, which she distributed to libraries, schools, and after-school programs. Lia highlights her vision of helping others understand the experiences of neurodivergent individuals and the importance of creating inclusive environments. Tune in to learn about her impactful work and the significance of supporting neurodivergent communities. More about Lia: Lia created Sensory Friendly Futures for her Gold Award project to promote neurodivergence awareness, inclusion, and acceptance within her community. She designed and created fidget bins for neurodivergent individuals and placed them in her local libraries, schools and after school programs to create welcoming and calming spaces for self-regulation. In addition, Lia developed educational materials to teach the community about sensory needs, stimming, and the importance of creating supportive environments for all. Her goal was to make public spaces more inclusive and to inspire others to embrace neurodiversity with understanding and compassion. Through Sensory Friendly Futures, Lia hopes to create a world where everyone feels safe, seen, and valued for who they are. Her project can also be found on her Instagram: @sensoryfriendlyfutures and website. After High School, Lia plans to get a B.S in Legal Studies & go to Law School! sites.google.com/view/sensoryfriendlyfutures instagram.com/sensoryfriendlyfutures/

Steve Palmer and law student Troy Henricksen talk about a timely and thought-provoking topic—the delicate balance between following military orders and questioning their legality and morality. With recent political debates swirling around Congress members urging military personnel not to obey unlawful executive orders, the conversation delves into both personal experience and historical context.Drawing from Troy Henricksen's background in the military, the discussion explores how soldiers are trained to respond to commands, when it's acceptable to challenge orders, and the tricky ethical territory that comes with it. Together, Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen look at famous examples from history and pop culture—from the Nuremberg trials to Hollywood films like “Crimson Tide”—to illuminate the very real dilemmas facing those in uniform today.Whether you're interested in the intersection of law, politics, or ethics, this episode promises a nuanced look at what really happens when the chain of command is put to the test. Key Points:Soldiers Are Taught to Follow Orders—With Limits. Troy Henricksen shares firsthand insight: soldiers must obey commands, but there are clear exceptions for unlawful or unethical orders. The “Nuremberg defense” (“just following orders”) is not absolute.Human Discretion Is Baked Into U.S. Military Law. Unlike some historical regimes, the American system expects soldiers to use judgment about the morality and legality of orders—balancing strict discipline with individual responsibility.The Political Debate Is Complicated and Ongoing. Both Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen highlight how politicians can weaponize legal nuances, creating dilemmas not just for policy but for individuals tasked with carrying out those orders.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Planning to apply to law school? Host Tasha (formerly at Boston University and USC) chats with IvyWise law school admissions expert Jeb (formerly at Columbia Law School) to reveal what you should be doing in each year of undergrad to maximize your chances of getting into your top-choice law schools.

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco has a conversation with two of Spivey's newest consultants—Sam Parker, former Harvard Law Associate Director of Admissions, and Julia Truemper, former Vanderbilt Law Associate Director of Admissions—all about the law school admissions advice that admissions officers won't give you, discussing insider secrets and debunking myths and common applicant misconceptions. Over this hour-and-twenty-minute-long episode, three former law school admissions officers talk about the inner workings of law schools' application review processes (31:50), the true nature of “admissions committees” (33:50), cutoff LSAT scores (23:03, 46:13), what is really meant (and what isn't) by terms such as “holistic review” (42:50) and “rolling admissions” (32:10), tips for interviews (1:03:16), waitlist advice (1:15:28), what (not) to read into schools' marketing emails (10:04), which instructions to follow if you get different guidance from a law school's website vs. an admissions officer vs. on their application instructions on LSAC (14:29), things not to post on Reddit (1:12:07), and much more.Two other episodes are mentioned in this podcast:Making Your Law School List: Advice & Resources for Deciding Where to Apply“Safety Schools” and Making a Law School Backup PlanYou can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode here.

Nate and Ben discuss a text message Demon team member Jacob received from a #thirstylawschool.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!

A listener writes in after a disappointing first round of scholarship offers. Ben and Nathan explain that initial offers are rarely a school's best, they're just the starting point. They reassure the listener that more and better offers are still on the way.Also in this episode:- Whether taking the January LSAT is too late to apply this cycle- Questions about Harvard's Junior Deferral Program- A deeper look at one of the newest members of the T14: WashULinks Mentioned:Derek T. Muller ArticleStudy with our Free Plan⁠⁠Download our iOS app⁠Watch Episode 534 on YouTubeCheck out all of our “What's the Deal With” segmentsGet caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠⁠ library0:00 - Is the January LSAT Too Late?23:45 - Receiving Bad Scholarships 35:24 - When Do I Know When I'm Ready?43:05 - Follow–Up on Cheating45:18 - Harvard's Junior Deferral Program1:07:45 - Demon Team Tracker1:09:19 - What's the Deal with… WashU1:36:54 - Word of the Week — Propinquity

Lee Cronin is Regius Chair of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow. Among his many pursuits are the digitization of chemistry, the discovery of alien life, and the creation of artificial life. In this episode, Robinson and Lee focus on astrobiology, the chemistry of life as we know it, and the controversies surrounding artificial intelligence.Lee's Website: https://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/Lee's Twitter: https://x.com/leecroninOUTLINE00:00 Introduction00:55 Lee's Interests in the Origin of Life10:29 Is Life Unique to Earth?18:16 What Is the Self?24:05 Is the Selfish Gene Hypothesis Wrong?30:46  How Does Sand Turn into Cells?44:02 What Is Chemputation?45:41 What Is Assembly Theory?01:11:33 Why Won't We Find a Mine of Coffee Mugs on an Asteroid?01:25:09 Has AI Become a Cult?01:32:16 Will AI Use Biological Weapons to Wipe Out Humanity?01:55:24 Why AI Can't Be AgentsRobinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.comRobinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University, where he is also a JD candidate in the Law School.

Ben and Nate break down why you shouldn't be thinking "It's law school or bust."Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!Don't be like this Reddit poster.

Regulating AI and Protecting Children. Kevin Frazier (Law School Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin) addresses the growing concern over AI chatbots following tragedies, noting that while only 1.9% of ChatGPT conversations relate to "relationships," this fraction still warrants significant attention. He criticizes early state legislative responses, such as Illinois banning AI therapy tools, arguing that such actions risk denying mental health support to children who cannot access human therapists. Frazier advocates against imposing restrictive statutory law on the rapidly evolving technology. Instead, he recommends implementing a voluntary, standardized rating system, similar to the MPA film rating system. This framework would provide consumers with digestible information via labels—like "child safe" or "mental health appropriate"—to make informed decisions and incentivize industry stakeholders to develop safer applications. 1919

Regulating AI and Protecting Children. Kevin Frazier (Law School Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin) addresses the growing concern over AI chatbots following tragedies, noting that while only 1.9% of ChatGPT conversations relate to "relationships," this fraction still warrants significant attention. He criticizes early state legislative responses, such as Illinois banning AI therapy tools, arguing that such actions risk denying mental health support to children who cannot access human therapists. Frazier advocates against imposing restrictive statutory law on the rapidly evolving technology. Instead, he recommends implementing a voluntary, standardized rating system, similar to the MPA film rating system. This framework would provide consumers with digestible information via labels—like "child safe" or "mental health appropriate"—to make informed decisions and incentivize industry stakeholders to develop safer applications. 1941