Podcasts about lawyers

Kayla Williams-Campbell is Deputy Director of Community Legal Services of Prince George's County, where she oversees attorneys, manages grants, and supports eviction prevention programs. In this episode, Kayla shares how networking opened doors throughout her career, why public service became her passion, and how young lawyers can build careers around work they genuinely care about. Lawyer Side HustlesKayla's career story expands the idea of what lawyers can build beyond traditional client representation. Although she isn't pursuing a conventional side hustle, her role requires her to use skills that reach far beyond litigation. Grant writing, program management, data reporting, staff supervision, training development, and organizational leadership have all become important parts of her work. Those skills have allowed her to create impact without spending every day in the courtroom. “I just want to highlight the importance of taking advantage of different areas of law that your office provides,” Kayla Williams-Campbell expresses in Episode 260 of You Are a Lawyer.That approach has allowed Kayla to explore expungements, domestic violence matters, wills, and other areas beyond eviction prevention. Rather than allowing a job title to define the limits of her experience, she intentionally looks for opportunities to learn. For young lawyers, that mindset can turn a single position into a much broader professional education and create options for future career moves, leadership opportunities, or entirely new directions. This episode is produced by Skip the Boring Stuff, a podcast strategy company for business owners and creatives.

You fix other people's problems for a living. So when the problem is yours, why does asking for help feel like admitting defeat?As many as one in four lawyers are quietly struggling with anxiety, depression, addiction, or burnout. In the first decade of practice, it's one in three. And most are doing exactly what the profession trained them to do: perform, produce, and suffer in silence. In this episode, Gary sits down with Nicki Ellington of the North Carolina Lawyer Assistance Program to demystify one of the most powerful and least understood resources available to attorneys today. If you've ever wondered what happens when a lawyer picks up the phone and calls a LAP, this conversation is for you.KEY TAKEAWAYSUnderstand what LAP actually is, who it serves, and the full range of issues it addresses beyond substance use.Learn how confidentiality protects you and why calling LAP does not put your license at risk.Recognize the early warning signs of trouble long before a crisis hits.Hear why the biggest resistance is not the phone call itself, but the belief that you should be able to fix yourself.Discover why lawyer-to-lawyer peer support does what clinical care alone cannot.Understand why LAP works with you for as long as you need, without a time limit or a checkbox to close.Reframe mental health care the way you would treat any medical condition: ongoing, not one-and-done.If this episode moved you, share it with a colleague who needs to hear it. Subscribe to The Free Lawyer wherever you listen. And if something in you is whispering that it's time, reach out. To your state's LAP, to a therapist, to a friend, or to Gary directly at gary@garymiles.net. The first message is the hardest. It's also the one that changes everything.[00:00] — Why lawyers suffer in silence[03:15] — Nicki's path to serving lawyers[07:30] — What NCLAP actually does[12:45] — Confidentiality explained in plain English[17:20] — The full scope of what LAP treats[22:10] — Peer support and volunteer network[24:30] — Why lawyers wait too long to call[28:00] — What change looks like over time[32:00] — Building a life worth living[35:50] — The first call and next stepNicki Ellington serves as the LAP Counselor for the Eastern Region of the North Carolina Lawyer Assistance Program, where she provides mental health and substance use support to attorneys, judges, and law students. She helps high-functioning legal professionals access confidential care before struggles become crises, and walks alongside them as they build sustainable, fulfilling careers. A Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor and Licensed Clinical Addictions Specialist with a master's degree from Marymount University, Nicki trained intensively at Duke University in Dialectical Behavioral Therapy. Two decades into her clinical career, she remains driven by a simple conviction: every lawyer deserves to build a life worth living.Would you like to learn what it looks like to become a truly Free Lawyer? You can schedule a complimentary call here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-callYou can find The Free Lawyer Assessment here- https://www.garymiles.net/the-free-lawyer-assessmentWould you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-freeAccess this free tool to identify your productivity time drains and move to purposeful strategy- https://upbeat-trailblazer-9238.kit.com/7c3c667ff1Check out the Elite Lawyer's Productivity System  https://www.garymiles.net/productivity

Megyn Kelly discusses the woman arrested for allegedly filming jurors outside of the Lindsay Clancy trial, the very serious charge of jury intimidation, how Brooke Shields' postpartum struggles described in her book 20 years ago is relevant today, the debate that ensued with Tom Cruise at the time, the nuanced positions on over-medication as well as mental health in America today, the deranged woman who stabbed two individuals in New York City before trying to attack the police, the new mother and banking executive who was one of the victims of the random stabbing, the tragic story of the young girl permanently injured by an illegal immigrant, her furious father unloading on Democrats in Congress over their policies, Tyler Robinson's lawyer daring to call Charlie Kirk "hateful" in his closing argument during the hearing, the reality about how Charlie Kirk talked lovingly of all people, and more. Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold SimpliSafe: Visit https://simplisafe.com/MEGYN to claim 50% off any new system! Lean: Discover why LEAN is becoming the choice for real weight‑loss results—shop now at https://TAKELEAN.com use code MK. Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com & Use code MEGYN for up to 20% off Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jason Whitlock sits down with attorneys Edward Paltzik and Tyler Cox, counsel for the families of the three boys Al Sharpton and Ben Crump smeared in the Nolan Wells case. Both lawyers volunteered to appear on Sharpton's show and bring the three boys with them. Sharpton has not answered. Paltzik and Cox say they will sue, citing three defaming comments Sharpton made against the teenagers. This is the first on-camera account of the offer, the silence, and the lawsuit threat. ➢ Show Outline 0:00 - The Nolan Wells Case and the Racial Hoax Allegations 2:25 - Meet the Attorneys Tyler Cox and Edward Paulson 6:07 - How the Lawyers Got Involved 8:19 - Impact on the Accused Teens 13:35 - Defending Ocean Springs, Mississippi 19:16 - Why the Investigation Is Taking So Long 24:09 - Plans to Sue Al Sharpton for Defamation 31:27 - Debunking the Castaway Hoax 41:15 - How to Support and What's Next ➢ Follow Our GUESTS https://x.com/EdPaltzik  ➢ Subscribe to Jason's other channel https://www.youtube.com/JasonWhitlock?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockHarmony?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockBYOG?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockClips?sub_confirmation=1 ➢ Connect with Jason on Social Media:  https://x.com/JasonWhitlock  https://www.instagram.com/realjasonwhitlock/ https://www.facebook.com/jasonwhitlock ➢ Send Jason an Email FearlessBlazeShow@gmail.com ➢ Support The Blaze Visit https://TheBlaze.com. Explore the all-new ad-free experience and see for yourself how we're standing up against suppression and prioritizing independent journalism. Support Conservative Voices! Subscribe to BlazeTV at https://www.fearlessmission.com and get $20 off your yearly subscription. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

September 2, 2026; 6pm; MS NOW's Ari Melber reports on signs that President Trump is rattled by the upcoming midterm elections and is joined by Brett Meiselas, co-founder of the MeidasTouch News Network. Plus, Melber delivers a special report on Roy Cohn, the notorious lawyer widely considered to be Trump's “fixer” when he was a budding real estate developer. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

During his second term, president Donald Trump has done very little that can be considered even remotely bi-partisan. But one thing stands out - The Laken Riley Act. We explore the impacts of this immigration legislation a year after Trump signed it into law. Reporter: Gustavo Solis, KPBS A bill that could give the public more access to information about emergencies inside private immigrant detention centers is on its way to becoming a law. It just needs Governor Newsom's signature. Reporter: Anthony Victoria, KVCR Students without legal status aren't allowed to work for California's public colleges or universities. A bill that could change that is now on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk. Reporter: Mikhail Zinshteyn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode with Matt Cox, Michael McAlister reveals how a massive federal grow-op hunt—including Blackhawk helicopters, ATF raids, and RICO charges—upended his life. He survived a near-fatal off-road crash, federal prison, and the betrayal of his own lawyer. Through survival tactics and mental resilience, he turned his sentence into a turning point—writing a true-crime book (“Catch 420”) and redefining his purpose behind bars.⁣ ⁣ Catch 420 ⁣ https://a.co/d/5APWlbH⁣ https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/catch-420-mikal-mkali/1146500122⁣ ⁣ Get 50% sitewide for a limited time. Just visit https://GhostBed.com/cox and use code COX at checkout.⁣ ⁣ Do you want to be a guest? Fill out the form https://forms.gle/5H7FnhvMHKtUnq7k7⁣ ⁣ Send me an email here: insidetruecrime@gmail.com⁣ ⁣ Do you extra clips and behind the scenes content?⁣ Subscribe to my Patreon: https://patreon.com/InsideTrueCrime ⁣ ⁣ ⁣ Follow me on all socials!⁣ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insidetruecrime/⁣ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@matthewcoxtruecrime⁣ ⁣ ⁣ Do you want a custom painting done by me? Check out my Etsy Store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/coxpopart⁣ ⁣ Listen to my True Crime Podcasts anywhere: https://anchor.fm/mattcox ⁣ ⁣ Check out my true crime books! ⁣ Shark in the Housing Pool: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0851KBYCF⁣ Bent: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV4GC7TM⁣ It's Insanity: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08KFYXKK8⁣ Devil Exposed: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08TH1WT5G⁣ Devil Exposed (The Abridgment): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1070682438⁣ The Program: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0858W4G3K⁣ Bailout: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bailout-matthew-cox/1142275402⁣ Dude, Where's My Hand-Grenade?: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXNFHBDF/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1678623676&sr=1-1⁣ ⁣ Checkout my disturbingly twisted satiric novel!⁣ Stranger Danger: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BSWQP3WX⁣ ⁣ If you would like to support me directly, I accept donations here:⁣ Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/MattCox69⁣ Cashapp: $coxcon69 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bryan Kohberger's newest attorney, Jason Goldman, says the immediate focus of the defense is whether Kohberger's 2025 guilty plea was constitutionally valid and truly entered knowingly and voluntarily. Kohberger pleaded guilty to murdering Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, but he is now seeking post-conviction relief and attempting to withdraw that plea. In a handwritten petition filed in July, Kohberger claimed his former attorneys provided ineffective assistance and that his plea was induced by promises that were not kept and threats allegedly made by members of his own defense team. Goldman says an amended petition and possible evidentiary hearing could finally expose what happened during the critical days leading up to the plea, including circumstances that have not yet been made public. Judge Steven Hippler has given Kohberger's attorneys until November 13 to file the more detailed amended petition, while prosecutors are pushing to have the challenge dismissed.The new defense team is also attacking the structure of the proceedings themselves. Idaho attorney Greg Rauch, who was appointed to represent Kohberger, has asked that Hippler be removed from the case and that the proceedings be transferred back to Moscow, arguing that questions surrounding the judge's impartiality must be resolved before Kohberger's constitutional claims are heard. The motion points to Hippler's earlier refusal to give Kohberger's trial attorneys additional preparation time and to unusually harsh comments the judge made about Kohberger at sentencing. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have requested the transcript of Kohberger's July 2025 plea hearing, apparently preparing to use Kohberger's own sworn statements in court to undermine his new assertion that the plea was involuntary. What had appeared to be a closed case after Kohberger admitted responsibility and received four consecutive life sentences has therefore reopened into a significant post-conviction battle, with his new attorneys signaling that the circumstances surrounding the plea, his former defense team and potentially previously undisclosed information could become central issues in court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger's new lawyer targets guilty plea constitutionality | Fox News

Matt Covington, Senior Vice President of Product at BlackCloak, says the feature exists because CISOs kept asking the same question. Can you help us manage this influx of deepfake media, whether it arrives by email, video, or voicemail. The requests that follow are familiar. Change the billing information on a vendor. Wire me $5,000 to bail me out of jail. Rather than sitting in line with every communication to judge whether a piece of video or audio is fake, BlackCloak gives people a way to establish the authenticity of the message and the sender. Matt Covington walks through it on camera. A suspicious guest joins a Zoom call under a familiar name, camera off. He opens the app, creates a request, selects the medium, adds context, and submits. Biometrics confirm the device owner. The response comes back with identity confirmed and location attached, and the app keeps an audit trail. The news this week is who can be in the circle. A BlackCloak member can invite as many people as they want to connect as part of their trusted network. Personal lawyer, private banker, childcare, dog walker. Matt Covington describes a message arriving on vacation, claiming to be the dog walker and asking for $5,000 for an emergency vet bill, and confirms that scenario is a real thing that has happened. Tracey Moon, Chief Marketing Officer at BlackCloak, joins for the demo. This is a Brand Spotlight. A Brand Spotlight is a ~15 minute conversation designed to explore the guest, their company, and what makes their approach unique. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#spotlight GUESTS Matt Covington, Senior Vice President of Product, BlackCloak On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mecovington/ Tracey Moon, Chief Marketing Officer, BlackCloak On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/traceymoon/ RESOURCES BlackCloak: https://blackcloak.io/ BlackCloak Extends Deepfake Protection to the Executive's Entire Trusted Circle: https://blackcloak.io/news-media/blackcloak-extends-deepfake-protection-to-the-executives-entire-trusted-circle/ BlackCloak Product Overview: https://blackcloak.io/product/ Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight KEYWORDS matt covington, tracey moon, blackcloak, sean martin, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, brand spotlight, black hat usa 2026, impersonation protection, circle of trust, deepfake, digital executive protection, identity verification, social engineering, executive protection, wire fraud

It’s just about that time! On the latest LGM podcast Erik, Scott, and myself run through our annual AFC preview. As the image above indicates, we pay the Cleveland Browns all of the attention that they deserve. Take a listen. Transcript is here, laundered through Co Pilot. Please check the audio file for the accuracy of any quotes and speakers. Apple Podcasts Android Youtube Podchaser Podcast Index Subscribe by E-mail Audible Spotify Amazon Music The post LGM Podcast: 2026 AFC Preview appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

This time it's not just a walk in the park! Surely nothing can go wrong by turning an island full of dinosaurs into the setting for the hottest new reality show...right? Featured Music: "If You Don't Know" by Wine Lips and "Ouroboros" by Self-Cut Bangs Dungeon Punks is recorded and produced by Kirk Hamilton. Surviving Dinosaur Island was played using Escape from Dino Island by Sam Tung and Sam Roberts. Surviving Dinosaur Island Cast:     •    Stu Popp as The Dino Master aka Everyone's Podcast DadTM     •    Cheyenne Manning as Lincoln "Link" Mercy, The Spiritualist     •    Joanna Gaskell as Frankie, The Smuggler     •    Kirk Hamilton as Theodore "T-Law" Sterling, The Lawyer     •    Hannah McGregor as Karter (with a K), The Hunter

It’s just about that time! On the latest LGM podcast Erik, Scott, and myself run through our annual AFC preview. As the image above indicates, we pay the Cleveland Browns all of the attention that they deserve. Take a listen. Transcript is here, laundered through Co Pilot. Please check the audio file for the accuracy […] The post LGM Podcast: 2026 AFC Preview appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports jurors deliberating the fate of Lindsay Clancy are questioned over an incident involving a woman who was filming and later arrested.

This week on Science Faction, we've got sick hosts, recovering rats, California fires, extremely low-tuned guitars, and more Star Trek than you can shake a tricorder at. Devon also somehow turns movie night into legal analysis before discovering that his children have absolutely no interest in Harry Potter—forcing him to take matters into his own hands. Real Life Devon kicks things off with the DigiTech Drop pedal, a piece of guitar gear that lets you digitally drop your tuning without having to completely retune or swap guitars. That leads us down the increasingly low-pitched rabbit hole of modern metalcore bands, how they're tuning their guitars, and just how low a guitar can go before it stops being a guitar and becomes heavy machinery. Steven, meanwhile, has been dealing with the sickness that wouldn't leave. Sometimes you get sick, recover, and move on with your life. Other times your immune system apparently signs up for a limited series. Ben has an update on the rat tumor saga following surgery, complete with tiny socks, medication, and all the complications that come with providing postoperative care to an animal that has absolutely no idea why you're doing any of this. And because apparently we needed another reminder that we live in California: the state is on fire again. Ben talks about keeping tabs on everything with Watch Duty, which provides real-time wildfire maps, alerts, evacuation information, fire perimeters, and other emergency information. Movies, Lawyers, and Questionable Taste Devon has also been watching movies, starting with Bugonia on Netflix. The sci-fi black comedy from director Yorgos Lanthimos stars Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons and involves two conspiracy-obsessed men who become convinced that a powerful CEO is actually an alien. Then there's Coyote vs. Acme. Devon enjoyed it, but being a lawyer means he naturally has some thoughts about what happens when you apply even the slightest amount of legal scrutiny to a movie about Wile E. Coyote. He also watched Anatomy of a Fall, a French courtroom drama with a distinctly 1970s feel. It's serious, methodical, and very much outside our normal science-fiction wheelhouse. So why is Devon talking about it? We're wondering the same thing. Strange New Worlds and Old-School Trek Ben brings us back where we belong with the latest episode of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, "Off-Hour", including the return of Phil Boyce, a character whose roots stretch all the way back to the original Star Trek pilot era. That naturally sends us into Trek history, potential future casting for McCoy and Sulu, and a discussion of Brian Markinson. From there, we get into the famous professional competition between William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy as Star Trek became a phenomenon. It's exactly the kind of conversation where one episode of modern Trek somehow requires discussing television made roughly 60 years ago. Lanterns and Dungeon Crawler Carl Steven is three episodes into Lanterns, and the verdict remains the same: this show is really good. The series continues to work as an adult police procedural that happens to exist inside a comic-book universe rather than simply being another conventional superhero show. He's also gone back into the world of Dungeon Crawler Carl with the release of the Dungeon Crawler Carl RPG PDFs. Steven is relistening to the first audiobook while digging into the game, and so far the designers seem to have nailed the ridiculous, violent, funny tone that makes the books work. Larry Johnson and the Sorcerer's Stone Finally, Devon decided it was time to introduce his kids to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. They refused. Rather than accept defeat, Devon did what any reasonable parent would do: he started reading them Larry Johnson and the Sorcerer's Stone instead. Apparently, changing the name was enough. So far, they love it. Parenting is mostly marketing.

Investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ welcome Nory Boulton — the Texas mom, public education advocate, and "accidental influencer" behind @CivicSage and who built over 350k+ followers from scratch — whose viral videos calling out billionaire Greg Parker reached Mandy at one of the loneliest moments of her legal battle.... all that and so much more. Nory shares how she went from PTA president to political powerhouse (fun fact: the video that got her pushed out of the PTA now has 4 million views), why she trusts her gut over a content calendar, and how she connects the dots legacy media won't.  Together, the trio digs into the manufactured war between journalists and creators, the double standard women face for daring to monetize their work, and why the patriarchy fears nothing more than a woman who refuses to stay pleasant. Follow and support Nory Boulton on your favorite platform: Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube

Twelve million dollars went through d4vd's accounts between 2022 and 2025 — management fees, recording costs, legal expenses, brand partnerships, and a twenty-thousand-dollar monthly rental in the Hollywood Hills. His mother Colleen made the financial decisions. His label terminated him in December 2025, four months before his arrest. By August 31, 2026, a Los Angeles court determined the singer qualifies as indigent. Blair Berk, the Hollywood crisis attorney who built her career representing Harvey Weinstein and Mel Gibson, withdrew from the case at the same hearing where Burke pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder with special circumstances. Her co-counsel Marilyn Bednarski told Rolling Stone it was Burke's decision and there's "no conflict" — then declined to explain how he qualifies for a public defender. The LA County Public Defender's Office took over. Deputy Public Defenders Walid Kandeel and Lisa Anne Roth are now responsible for a case where the DA says death remains on the table. This episode traces the money, examines what Blair Berk was actually built for, and asks whether the public defender's office might be the better bet when the state is deciding whether to end your life.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#D4vd #CelesteRivasHernandez #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BlairBerk #PublicDefender #MurderTrial #DavidBurke #Interscope #Justice

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HEREIn this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux catches up with Brett Trembly, founder of Get Staffed Up and author of 24 Months to Freedom, to talk about hiring, delegation, offshore teams, AI, and what it really takes to build a law firm that doesn't depend on the owner for everything.Brett shares the moments that made him realize working harder wasn't going to solve the problems in his firm, including trying to manage the business while his daughter was in surgery and working from the beach instead of being present with his family. Tyson and Brett discuss the hiring decisions that helped Brett finally break through that ceiling, why he still believes an executive assistant should be one of a law firm owner's first hires, and the mistakes owners make when they hire someone but fail to properly train them.They also get into the economics of offshore hiring, Get Staffed Up's expansion into paralegal roles, how to measure whether a team member is actually working out, and what AI could mean for intake, legal assistants, and law firm staffing over the next five years. Brett explains why he believes AI will reduce some staffing needs while making the right people significantly more productive.Listen in for a practical conversation about hiring better people, delegating the right work, using AI strategically, and building a law firm that gives you more freedom instead of creating another job.What You'll LearnWhy working harder eventually stops working as a law firm grows.Why Brett believes an executive assistant should be one of your first hires.How offshore hiring can change the economics of growing a legal team.Why hiring someone without properly training them sets both sides up to fail.How KPIs and even your own energy can help determine whether a hire is working.Where Brett believes AI will replace roles and where humans will still matter.Why law firms may need intake managers instead of traditional intake teams in the future.How better systems can help a firm grow without everything depending on the owner.Timestamps00:00 — When your law firm starts taking over your life05:07 — The moment Brett realized he needed to start hiring09:33 — Building a hiring system and finding A-players13:55 — Offshore hiring, costs, and the new paralegal model19:19 — The first hire Brett recommends for law firm owners21:33 — The training mistake law firm owners keep making24:34 — How to know if a team member is actually working out27:27 — The three roles law firms need most28:00 — AI vs. humans and the future of legal staffing32:13 — Maintaining quality while scaling a staffing company36:07 — What law firm teams could look like five years from now38:05 — Tyson's custom case management system40:02 — Get Staffed Up and MaxLawCon 2026Connect with BrettLinkedInBook

Tiffany Smith, Partner and the Co-Chair of the Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Working Group at WilmerHale, joined me to discuss the SEC's new Reg Crypto guidance and what it means for the crypto industry and market.Topics:- SEC Regulation Crypto Asset- SEC Tokenization Guidance- SEC Crypt Custody- Clarity Act 

Attorneys representing media organizations are pushing back against Tyler Robinson's renewed effort to keep cameras out of the courtroom for the final day of his preliminary hearing on September 1. They argue that Judge Tony Graf has already rejected the defense's broader objections to electronic media coverage and that Robinson has not shown the kind of specific prejudice necessary to overcome the presumption favoring public access. The media response takes particular aim at the defense's concern that hearsay evidence discussed during closing arguments could taint a future jury pool, pointing out that the evidentiary portion of the preliminary hearing was already open to the public and livestreamed in July. Their position is that shutting cameras out now would do little to contain information that is already public and could instead fuel more speculation and distrust about what is happening in the case.The media attorneys are also opposing Robinson's attempt to keep portions of his camera-ban motion private. They argue that court filings are presumptively public and that Robinson cannot take information already circulating publicly, place it in a court filing and then transform it into confidential material. Their blunt formulation was that “what is public is public,” and they characterized the defense's predictions about the consequences of continued public access as generalized and unsupported. At the same time, Graf has imposed separate courtroom controls for the September 1 proceeding, banning cellphones and other electronic devices for most attendees while allowing attorneys and certain legal staff to use them. The dispute therefore sets up a clear confrontation between Robinson's argument that continued broadcasting risks prejudicing his eventual trial and the media's position that transparency, especially after so much of the proceeding has already been public, is itself an important safeguard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'What is public is public': Media attorneys argue in Tyler Robinson hearing | KSL.com

Devin Stone, the lawyer better known as LegalEagle on YouTube, has been breaking down legal cases - and assessing the accuracy of legal procedurals in film and television -- for years. He talks to Katie about the challenges of keeping up with scandals arising from the Trump Administration. This is a summer re-air! Join WIRED's best and brightest on Uncanny Valley as they dissect the collision of tech, politics, finance, and business, from Alexis Ohanian's newest tech venture to the effects of inaccurate information from artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots on social protests. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Watch Journalist, Lawyer, Substacker, Podcast Host, and Friend, Tony Traina was gracious to host me on his podcast recently. I thought it would only help exposure to also post it through my channels in the event you may have missed it and/or don't already subscribe to Tony/Unpolished. This conversation is a 50/50 chat about fashion & watches. We get into the weeds of product for both subjects, which was a ton of fun. Several people have reached out letting me know they enjoyed the chat when Tony posted it, so I”m excited to share it with you all here! This is an audio-only podcast. Thanks for listening! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit standardh.substack.com/subscribe

Bryan Kohberger's newest attorney, Jason Goldman, says the immediate focus of the defense is whether Kohberger's 2025 guilty plea was constitutionally valid and truly entered knowingly and voluntarily. Kohberger pleaded guilty to murdering Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, but he is now seeking post-conviction relief and attempting to withdraw that plea. In a handwritten petition filed in July, Kohberger claimed his former attorneys provided ineffective assistance and that his plea was induced by promises that were not kept and threats allegedly made by members of his own defense team. Goldman says an amended petition and possible evidentiary hearing could finally expose what happened during the critical days leading up to the plea, including circumstances that have not yet been made public. Judge Steven Hippler has given Kohberger's attorneys until November 13 to file the more detailed amended petition, while prosecutors are pushing to have the challenge dismissed.The new defense team is also attacking the structure of the proceedings themselves. Idaho attorney Greg Rauch, who was appointed to represent Kohberger, has asked that Hippler be removed from the case and that the proceedings be transferred back to Moscow, arguing that questions surrounding the judge's impartiality must be resolved before Kohberger's constitutional claims are heard. The motion points to Hippler's earlier refusal to give Kohberger's trial attorneys additional preparation time and to unusually harsh comments the judge made about Kohberger at sentencing. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have requested the transcript of Kohberger's July 2025 plea hearing, apparently preparing to use Kohberger's own sworn statements in court to undermine his new assertion that the plea was involuntary. What had appeared to be a closed case after Kohberger admitted responsibility and received four consecutive life sentences has therefore reopened into a significant post-conviction battle, with his new attorneys signaling that the circumstances surrounding the plea, his former defense team and potentially previously undisclosed information could become central issues in court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger's new lawyer targets guilty plea constitutionality | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Shannon Lombardo is the Director of Business Development at Saul Ewing LLP, a national law firm with more than 400 attorneys. She leads strategic growth initiatives focused on attorney business development coaching, client relationship development, and revenue generation. With extensive experience in legal marketing and business development, Shannon partners with attorneys and law firms to build stronger relationships, identify growth opportunities, and achieve their business objectives. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOLLOW-THROUGH Lawyers may understand that business development matters and genuinely intend to make it a priority, but that intention often gets pushed aside by client work, billable-hour demands, and the discomfort of doing something that does not feel as familiar as practicing law. Even lawyers who want to build business can struggle with where to start, how to stay consistent, and how to keep going when the results take time. That means firms have to look beyond simply teaching lawyers what to do. More training will not solve a problem rooted in discomfort, lack of confidence, competing priorities, or a lawyer who is not ready to engage. The real opportunity is understanding what is actually getting in the way, then creating the right level of support and accountability to help lawyers take action in a way that fits them. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman talks with Shannon Lombardo of Saul Ewing LLP about why lawyers struggle to follow through on business development, what makes business development training more effective, how accountability supports consistency, and where responsibility lies between the firm and the individual lawyer. 2:12 - Why lawyers struggle to prioritize business development 5:34 - How unrealistic rainmaker examples can discourage lawyers 8:35 - How to assess whether a lawyer is ready for business development support 11:01 - Building a business development plan around the individual lawyer 14:58 - Why Saul Ewing moved away from one-off training programs 18:14 - Why one-time business development training rarely changes behavior 22:21 - Matching business development support to the individual lawyer 24:51 - The psychology behind business development resistance 27:28 - What internal business development teams can and cannot own 29:32 - Using accountability to help lawyers stay consistent 31:48 - Why small, consistent business development actions matter 32:56 - What disengagement from coaching may actually signal Mentioned In The Gap Between Wanting to Do Business Development and Actually Doing It Saul Ewing LLP | LinkedIn Shannon Lombardo on LinkedIn Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE This episode is brought to you by the coaching team at The Lawyer's Edge, a training and coaching firm that has been focused exclusively on lawyers and law firms since 2008. Each member of the team is a trained, certified, and experienced professional coach—and either a former practicing attorney or a former law firm marketing and business development professional. Whatever your professional objectives, our coaches can help you achieve your goals more quickly, more easily, and with significantly less stress. To get connected with your coach, fill out our contact form.

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.Featuring:William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationErin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One CLEThis event has been approved for1.00 Total CLE HoursApproved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.State Approval Status In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit. CLE Materials Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

Why are lawyers so good at spotting problems and sometimes so bad at letting them go? For more than two decades, I've followed the research of Dr. Larry Richard, widely recognized as the leading expert on the psychology of lawyer behavior. His work has had a profound impact on my own career and provides a foundation for much of the coaching work I do with lawyers. His research has helped me understand not only my clients, but also my own tenancies and why so many of us who went to law school think and react the way we do. In this episode of Counsel to Counsel, Larry joins me to discuss his new book, Thin-Skinned: Why Lawyers Are So Low in Resilience, and the New Science That Can Help, that he co-authored with his wife Dr. D'Arcy Lyness (published by the American Bar Association.) Larry's research shows that lawyers differ significantly from the general population on a number of personality traits. Most strikingly, 90% of lawyers score below the 50th percentile for psychological resilience compared to the general public. The same skepticism and problem-spotting abilities that help us practice law effectively can make us more prone to negative thinking, defensiveness, and difficulty dealing with uncertainty, criticism, and change. The encouraging news is that resilience is highly learnable. Larry explains the practical ways that lawyers can strengthen their resilience by reducing negative thinking, increasing positive emotions, developing stronger social connections, and taking better care of themselves. We also discuss how these ideas apply to career development, business development, leadership, feedback, and the everyday challenges lawyers face. I've practiced and recommended many of these techniques for years including mindfulness, gratitude, exercise, cultivating relationships, and challenging negative thinking. Thin-Skinned gave me a much deeper understanding of why they work and offers many new ideas that I can use both personally and with my coaching clients. Key Takeaways Lawyers really are psychologically different. Larry's decades of research identify seven traits on which lawyers tend to be outliers: skepticism, autonomy, abstract reasoning, urgency, sociability, cognitive empathy, and resilience. The traits that make us effective lawyers can work against us elsewhere. Skepticism and looking for what could go wrong are enormously valuable when practicing law, but carrying that mindset into our personal and professional relationships can undermine resilience. Being "thin-skinned" doesn't mean being weak. A lawyer may confidently handle an aggressive opposing counsel yet become defensive when a colleague questions their behavior. Ambiguous interpersonal situations are often where low resilience shows up. Resilience can be learned. Unlike many personality traits, resilience is heavily influenced by learning and experience, which means there are concrete things we can do to improve it. Thoughts, feelings, and actions reinforce one another. Changing any one of the three can influence the others. For lawyers who struggle with rejection in business development or career advancement, simply taking action repeatedly can reduce the sense of threat over time. Positive emotions aren't just "feel-good" exercises. Music, gratitude, nature, exercise, and other positive experiences have measurable effects that can help counteract the physiological impact of stress and negative emotions. Relationships are a powerful source of resilience. Strong, authentic social connections help us absorb stress and cope with change. That is particularly important for lawyers, who tend to score lower on sociability. Law firm leaders need to understand lawyer resilience. Leaders who default to fixing deficiencies and react defensively to suggestions can undermine trust. Strengths-based leadership and an understanding of how low-resilience lawyers respond to feedback can produce better results. Timestamps 00:04 – Why Dr. Larry Richard's work has influenced my career and coaching 05:44 – The seven personality traits that make lawyers different 09:44 – Why 90% of lawyers are "thin-skinned" 16:36 – The good news: resilience can be learned 21:01 – The science and importance of positive emotions 28:03 – Taking action despite fear, uncertainty, and rejection 37:20 – Where to start if building resilience feels overwhelming 44:40 – What law firm leaders can do to build more resilient workplaces About Dr. Larry Richard Dr. Larry Richard began his career as a lawyer before earning a Ph.D. in psychology and devoting his career to studying lawyers and lawyer behavior. His research has helped law firms and lawyers better understand leadership, management, well-being, personality, and change. His new book, Thin-Skinned: Why Lawyers Are So Low in Resilience, and the New Science That Can Help, co-authored with Dr. D'Arcy Lyness, is available from the American Bar Association. Larry describes it not simply as an explanation of why lawyers struggle with resilience, but as a practical collection of evidence-based strategies for doing something about it. Learn more about Dr. Richard, his work, and the book at https://www.lawyerbrain.com/.

We did not trick these titans into coming on! They volunteered for another round in the um luke warm seat. Ladies and Gents, theys and thems, we welcome back to the show the sharp as a tack editorial cartoonist, Kevin Kallaugher, of The Economist, and recently ousted from The Baltimore Sun and attorney, Barry Lynn, formerly Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and author of Piety & Politics: The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom and (titled by me) Paid to Piss People Off: Peace, Porn, and Prayer.And, boy, do we get into it: Kal's 50th anniversary at The Economist, scandals, discovering Barry has a book of Kal's, how to engage with the checked out, mid-terms, the military, Sigh...The Democrats, Freedom of Expression Under Siege, fighting government overreach, the lame stream media, organizing on substack, Jerry Fucking Falwell, satire, humor, cartoonists and comedians and their similarities, Lewis Black, money, defining charisma, USA Bicentennial, BIG RIP to "Flimsy Lindsay" Graham, Mamdani, a box of flaming excrement, and, actually, maybe a few more boxes of burning shit.

Pema Sherpa is a mindfulness researcher and keynote speaker who helps organizations boost employee well-being and performance. Born and raised in Nepal, she studied the mind-body relationship at Harvard University and teaches mindfulness in a way that's both philosophically grounded and useful for people in demanding careers. She co-authored The Daily Buddhist with her husband, pairing short, daily teachings with practical, modern application. Presented by the City Bar's Mindfulness & Well-Being in Law Committee, Pema talks with committee members Katiuska Moure and Nancy Batterman about her upbringing, her path into mindfulness research, and some practical keys lawyers and law students can use to build healthier daily habits even before they're ready to meditate. Selected Links from the Episode: The Daily Buddhist (book): https://thedailybuddhist.net/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/daily.buddhist/ 00:00 Introduction 02:02 Pema's Journey 06:28 Harvard and Career Pivot 08:54 Immigrant Law Student Challenges 12:38 Tools for Students 16:44 Bringing Resilience into Legal Practice 20:09 Body Basics and the Nervous System 24:30 "Work With What You Have" 30:21 Meditation Isn't the Entry Point 33:28 Daily Buddhist Resources 39:44 Closing Thoughts and Committee Resources

Lauren Carbajal is a civil rights lawyer. She currently works as an assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), primarily on education, criminal justice, and voting rights cases. LDF was founded by the first Black Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, in the 1940s to address widespread racial inequalities and discrimination, and to defend the rights of Black Americans and other minorities.Lauren discusses her career, some cases she's working on, college, her love of music, and more!Visit IndyKids.org and find out how you can get involved!

Ty Cobb, who represented the Trump White House during the Mueller investigation, questions whether democracy will survive the midterms and accuses Trump of 'unprecedented' corruption. SUBSCRIBE TO ZETEO TO SUPPORT INDEPENDENT AND UNFILTERED JOURNALISM: https://zeteo.com/subscribe   WATCH 'MEHDI UNFILTERED' ON SUBSTACK: https://zeteo.com/s/mehdi-unfiltered   FIND ZETEO: Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeteo_news Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zeteonews TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@zeteonews   FIND MEHDI: Substack: https://substack.com/@mehdirhasan Twitter: https://twitter.com/@mehdirhasan Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/@mehdirhasan TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mehdirhasan   To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/Zeteo  

Brian Burke got into corrections in his early twenties, spent four years working inside the New York state prison system, and then spent twenty-nine years as a New York court officer — experiencing the full spectrum of what the American justice system looks like from the person responsible for maintaining order in the room where it all happens. In this episode of Locked In with Ian Bick, he shares what four years in the New York state prison system taught him, what twenty-nine years as a court officer — the juries, the defendants, the prosecutors, the judges, and the heartbreaking and strangest moments the job produced — really looked like from the inside, and what his most significant professional experience actually involved: personally escorting Rex Heuermann — the Gilgo Beach serial killer — throughout his arrest, conviction, and sentencing, and what that specific proximity to one of the most disturbing criminal cases in recent New York history actually revealed about the person at the center of it. _____________________________________________ #officer #truecrimestories #court #newyork _____________________________________________ Thank you to CASH APP for sponsoring this episode: Download Cash App Today: https://click.cash.app/ui6m/6pao71et #CashAppPod Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App's bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. Cash App Visa® Debit Flex Cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC, and The Bancorp Bank, N.A., pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. See terms and conditions for the Sutton prepaid card, Sutton debit flex card, and Bancorp debit flex card. Cash App Green features, Savings, Direct deposit, Round ups, Overdraft coverage and Discounts provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosures. _____________________________________________ Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ _____________________________________________ Timestamps: 00:00 Arraignment Shock 00:19 Growing Up in the Bronx 01:28 Childhood and Early Career 02:53 Choosing Law Enforcement 04:48 Starting in Corrections 06:39 First Prison Assignment 09:14 First Prison Experience 10:27 Transfer to Fishkill 11:34 Life at Fishkill 13:05 Working the Shoe 15:50 Shoe Conditions 16:42 Protective Custody 17:45 Perspective from Solitary 18:49 Corrections Experience Helps 20:40 Respect from Other Officers 21:37 Career Plans in Corrections 23:56 Types of Crimes at Fishkill 25:00 Advice from Veteran Officers 25:43 Prison Food and Cooking 28:00 Sponsor: Cash App Green 30:12 Becoming a Court Officer 31:51 Pay and Academy Differences 32:58 Court Officer Academy 33:58 Swearing in Witnesses 34:33 First Court Assignment 35:25 Family Court Cases 37:45 Emotional Family Court 38:50 Typical Family Court Day 39:31 Family Court Volatility 41:11 Celebrities in Family Court 41:54 Opinions on Lawyers 42:49 Divorce Case Stories 43:34 Promotion to the Bronx 44:24 The Amadou Diallo Case 45:45 Bronx Court Duties 46:44 Handling Prisoners in the Bronx 47:24 Building Rapport with Defendants 48:54 A Mob Enforcer Trial 51:13 Jury System and Sequestration 52:24 Juror Conversations 53:51 Predicting Verdicts 55:21 Juries and Social Media 56:34 Officer Conversations and Bets 57:09 Transfer to Suffolk County 58:35 The Tankoff Case 01:01:39 Verdict Reactions 01:02:27 Taking Convicted Felons into Custody 01:03:17 The Samurai Sword Case 01:07:00 Release and Redemption 01:08:31 Weighing Justice 01:09:16 Showing Grace to Vicious Criminals 01:10:08 Vigilante Thoughts 01:10:48 Drunk Driving Cases 01:12:36 The Schwalli Case 01:13:20 Judges Off the Bench 01:14:11 Judges' Sentencing Decisions 01:15:29 Prison Tours with Judges 01:16:21 Prison Tours and Shows 01:17:22 Court Officers vs. Cops 01:18:03 Courtroom Violence 01:19:47 Prosecutors and Their Styles 01:21:03 Defendant Representing Himself 01:22:25 Strange Defendant Behavior 01:23:28 Shocking Case Outcomes 01:24:56 Disturbing Cases 01:25:15 Closed Hearings and Undercover Testimony 01:26:08 Faking Mental Illness 01:27:55 Grand Jury Testimony 01:28:42 Weapons and Contraband in Court 01:29:16 Inmate Fights in Pens 01:30:58 Refusing to Go to Court 01:31:57 Feeding Inmates 01:33:14 Court Day Logistics 01:34:00 System Designed to Plead Out? 01:35:28 Hypothetical: Sharing Information 01:36:01 Fair Judges 01:37:00 The Rex Case Begins 01:39:52 Rex's Initial Arraignment 01:40:26 Rex's Court Appearances 01:43:20 Rex's Personality and Humor 01:45:36 Rex's Family and Background 01:47:49 Rex's Guilty Plea 01:48:56 Fear of Rex 01:49:27 After Sentencing 01:50:20 Rex's Future in Prison 01:52:41 Family and Friends' Reactions 01:54:00 Why Rex Didn't Go to Trial 01:56:06 Retirement After 29 Years 01:57:07 Watching Court Shows 01:57:39 Jury System Critique 01:59:21 Jury Understanding 02:00:04 Fair Trial for Serial Killers 02:00:20 The Valvet Case 02:02:22 Most Important Lesson 02:02:56 Final Thoughts and Thanks _____________________________________________ To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/LockedInWithIanBicka

Lawyer Up - We Need Your Car!

The Lindsay Clancy jury is now in its third day of deliberations with still no verdict in the Massachusetts murder trial. Jurors are weighing weeks of testimony and hundreds of exhibits as they decide whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children. Meanwhile, defense attorney Kevin Reddington is speaking out as the tension outside the courthouse continues to grow. We break down the latest developments, what the jury has asked to review, and what could happen next. #LindsayClancy, #LindsayClancyTrial, #VerdictWatch, #TrueCrime, #CourtNews, #CrimeTalk

Jeff is back after a long absence, and he explains why: the bipartisan insanity in America left him too disgusted to record, even for the nation's 250th birthday. He remembers the 1976 bicentennial, when kids collected special quarters, flags flew everywhere, and Americans actually liked their country. Compare that to now. What changed? Muslim terror supporters are winning elections coast to coast: Mamdani's New York, where tax dollars fund Israel-bashing puppet shows for four-year-olds, and Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed will cruise into the Senate after answering a synagogue terror attack with "hurt people, hurt people." Jew hate is now the one issue uniting the far left and the Nazi right — and it wins. And Jeff is officially done defending Trump. Iran "unconditionally surrendered"? They're still firing missiles, rebuilding nuclear sites, and executing protesters while Trump begs for a deal and dangles F-35s in front of Turkey's fanatical dictator Erdogan. Compromised by Qatari billions or just a moron — either way, America's last chance is gone. Next week: Jeff finally takes on the Lindsay Clancy case.

AI isn't coming for your job—but it is coming for your workflows. In this episode, you'll learn how to cut through AI hype, protect client confidentiality, and use practical tools to automate the repetitive work that's clogging your day. In this episode, Steve Fretzin and Colin Levy discuss: Uneven adoption of AI and legal tech across the profession Evolution of legal technology from e‑discovery to modern AI Practical, low‑risk AI use cases for everyday legal work Data privacy, confidentiality, and paid vs. free AI tools Building real technology competence through experimentation and better prompts Key Takeaways: Technology will not slow down to let professionals catch up, so it's essential to actively close your own AI knowledge and usage gap. The most valuable AI applications today often center on document-related tasks—summarizing, comparing, and drafting from existing materials. Using free, open AI tools with client data can violate confidentiality obligations; controlled, paid environments are critical for sensitive work. Before buying any new platform, clearly define the problem you're trying to solve so the tool doesn't become expensive shelfware. True tech competence is built by experimenting, refining prompts, and learning from how different inputs change AI's outputs—not by passively consuming AI headlines. "The power of AI right now is in using existing knowledge and taking that to create something new or build something new." — Colin Levy 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. Join the Be That Lawyer Community and connect with ambitious lawyers who are serious about growing their book of business, strengthening their brand, and becoming confident, consistent rainmakers. 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! LEX Reception: https://www.lexreception.com/partners/bethatlawyer 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 Colin Levy: Colin S. Levy is a leading authority on legal technology, AI in law, and contract lifecycle management (CLM), currently serving as General Counsel at Malbek and an Adjunct Professor at Albany Law School. Widely recognized as one of the most influential figures in legal tech, he guides legal professionals through digital transformation, modern AI integration, and workflow innovation. Colin is the author of The Legal Tech Ecosystem—a definitive guide to legal technology and AI—and frequently speaks and writes on how technological advances continue to redefine the future of legal practice worldwide. Connect with Colin Levy: Website: https://www.colinslevy.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/colinslevy/ 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.

Attorneys representing media organizations are pushing back against Tyler Robinson's renewed effort to keep cameras out of the courtroom for the final day of his preliminary hearing on September 1. They argue that Judge Tony Graf has already rejected the defense's broader objections to electronic media coverage and that Robinson has not shown the kind of specific prejudice necessary to overcome the presumption favoring public access. The media response takes particular aim at the defense's concern that hearsay evidence discussed during closing arguments could taint a future jury pool, pointing out that the evidentiary portion of the preliminary hearing was already open to the public and livestreamed in July. Their position is that shutting cameras out now would do little to contain information that is already public and could instead fuel more speculation and distrust about what is happening in the case.The media attorneys are also opposing Robinson's attempt to keep portions of his camera-ban motion private. They argue that court filings are presumptively public and that Robinson cannot take information already circulating publicly, place it in a court filing and then transform it into confidential material. Their blunt formulation was that “what is public is public,” and they characterized the defense's predictions about the consequences of continued public access as generalized and unsupported. At the same time, Graf has imposed separate courtroom controls for the September 1 proceeding, banning cellphones and other electronic devices for most attendees while allowing attorneys and certain legal staff to use them. The dispute therefore sets up a clear confrontation between Robinson's argument that continued broadcasting risks prejudicing his eventual trial and the media's position that transparency, especially after so much of the proceeding has already been public, is itself an important safeguard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'What is public is public': Media attorneys argue in Tyler Robinson hearing | KSL.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Microsoft's co-founder called AI one of the biggest threats to jobs and human life. Plus, his daughter Phoebe is under fire. Allegedly ran a scheme through her startup that earned an extra $70,000 a day. Lawyers say it could count as federal wire fraud. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

National is just "kicking a can down the road" with its promised changes to student loan debt, according to a tax lawyer. David Ananth says reducing the compulsory repayment rate from 12 cents to 10 cents on every dollars earned above $24,000 isn't enough of a reward to stop newly qualified students leaving the country without paying their debt off. Tax lawyer, David Ananth spoke to Melissa Chan-Green.

Lawyer Up - We Need Your Car!

D4vd's private attorneys withdrew from his murder case, and a public defender has taken over after he qualified for appointed counsel; prosecutors say the death penalty remains possible. Lionel Richie was hospitalized in an ICU after his St. Louis concert for tests related to possible dehydration, while witnesses say he struggled during the show. Hosts: Branson Quirke, Eric Wilson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ben and Nathan urge a Demon Daily listener to delay studying for the LSAT and focus on her other commitments.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!More LSAT Demon Resources.

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HEREIn this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson Mutrux catches up with Christopher Nicolaysen of Springs Law Group to talk about scaling, marketing, hiring, and what changes as a law firm grows.Chris shares how his firm cut roughly $40,000 per month in advertising while continuing to increase new clients, why they are bringing SEO in-house, and how better intake training has improved conversion. Tyson and Chris also discuss the challenge of hiring higher-level people as a firm grows, lessons from the Hormozi event, deposition strategy, active listening, and the value of knowing when you already have the information you need.They also get into Springs Law Group's upcoming rebrand, website rebuild, office expansion, and the importance of creating systems that allow the firm to keep moving without everything depending on the owner.Listen in for a practical conversation about building a stronger team, spending smarter on marketing, and scaling a law firm with more intention.What You'll LearnWhy Chris decided to bring SEO in-house.How Springs Law Group reduced ad spend while increasing new clients.Why the $3M to $10M growth stage often becomes a people problem.How better intake training can improve conversion.Why active listening matters in depositions, trials, and leadership.How Chris is approaching the firm's rebrand, website, and expansion.Timestamps00:00 — Scaling Springs Law Group and bringing SEO in-house04:48 — The people problem that comes with firm growth07:10 — Lessons from the Hormozi event and MaxLawCon13:47 — Trial training, depositions, and active listening21:29 — Marketing, intake, rebranding, and expansion27:15 — Creating downtime and building consistency

Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 sought to join the long-running Crime Victims' Rights Act case brought by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 against the federal government over the secret non-prosecution agreement given to Jeffrey Epstein. Their January 2015 motion argued that they had suffered essentially the same violation: Epstein had sexually abused them while they were minors, federal authorities either knew or should have known they were victims, and yet prosecutors negotiated an agreement that protected Epstein and potential co-conspirators without consulting them or even telling them what was happening. Jane Doe #3 alleged that Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her when she was 15 in 1999 and that Epstein and Maxwell subsequently sexually abused and trafficked her for years in Florida, New York, New Mexico, the Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Jane Doe #4 alleged that she was 16 when she was recruited in 2002 with the promise of $300 for giving Epstein a massage and that Epstein then sexually abused her repeatedly. Her lawyers argued that although federal investigators had identified dozens of underage victims, they made no serious effort to locate her before entering into the NPA.The motion went considerably further than simply asking to add two names to the lawsuit. Lawyers for the women argued that their testimony would strengthen the claim that the government systematically kept Epstein's victims in the dark while negotiating the deal and would help challenge the government's defenses about how prosecutors had treated the victims. Jane Doe #3's allegations also described Epstein as trafficking her to powerful men and claimed that he sought information that could potentially be used for blackmail, allegations that brought figures including Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and Jean-Luc Brunel into the filing. The motion argued that her knowledge of Epstein's powerful connections could also be relevant to discovery concerning whether those relationships helped him secure extraordinarily favorable treatment. Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 promised not to relitigate issues already decided, sought no significant additional discovery, and argued that allowing them to join under Rule 21 would be far more efficient than forcing them to file separate CVRA lawsuits. At its core, the filing was another direct challenge to the secrecy surrounding Epstein's deal: two more alleged victims were asking the court to recognize that prosecutors had negotiated away federal charges affecting them without giving them the voice, notice or opportunity to confer that they believed federal law guaranteed.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Breaking up is hard to do. We'll make it a lil easier (and a lot funnier).Find a divorce pro who gets it at:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://WTFdivorce.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠___Brought to you by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠OurFamilyWizard⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - Join more than 1 million parents & family law professionals who trust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠OurFamilyWizard⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.***Featuring Guest, Hannah Hembree BellContact Divorce Lawyer: Hannah Hembree Bell

Reddington showed the jury a small box Lindsay and Patrick Clancy bought on their honeymoon. Over the years they'd filled it with folded slips of paper — wishes for healthy and successful children. Clancy wiped away tears at the defense table as Reddington read them aloud.Reddington also accused prosecutors of calling Clancy's suicide attempt fake. He held up a book titled "Good Moms Have Scary Thoughts" that a provider gave Clancy, and said law enforcement missed pill bottles at the scene that he and Patrick found themselves. He called her a nurse, a wife, and "a darn good mother" who did nothing wrong until the medical system failed her.ADA Sprague's closing took the opposite approach. She conceded Clancy was mentally ill, then argued the killings were "a choice she made." Her strongest point: in December 2022, Clancy told her family about thoughts of harming her children but lied to every doctor who asked. Sprague said that concealment proves she knew those thoughts were wrong. The jury began deliberating August 27 with four verdict options, including manslaughter.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #PostpartumPsychosis #ClosingArguments #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #InsanityDefense #MaternalMentalHealth #TrueCrimeToday

Reddington held up a list of Lindsay Clancy's prescriptions and started reading. Lorazepam. Sertraline. Hydroxyzine. Lorazepam again. Buspirone. More lorazepam. Trazodone. "It goes on and on and on and on and on." She took them as she was told, Reddington said. The system gave her medication after medication and still couldn't catch what was happening.He called her a "darn good mother," held up a honeymoon wish jar filled with hopes for healthy children, and showed photos of Clancy smiling with her son Dawson. "They would have you think she killed him first, cruelly because she didn't like him," Reddington told the jury. "That is repulsive."The prosecution answered with a closing that conceded mental illness and reframed the case around a single question: did Clancy know right from wrong? ADA Sprague pointed to thoughts Clancy hid from every medical provider in December 2022 while disclosing them to her family — and called that concealment proof of rational thinking. The jury is now deliberating. Four options on the verdict slip.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #PostpartumPsychosis #ClosingArguments #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #InsanityDefense #MaternalMentalHealth #TrueCrimeToday

In episode 503 of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb conclude their deep dive into Luke 10:25–37 — the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Far from a simple morality tale about helping strangers, this episode unpacks the parable's confrontational legal context, its reversal of expectation, and its profound Christological undertones. Tony and Jesse examine why the lawyer's question about self-justification was always destined to be unanswerable on his own terms, how the priest and Levite serve as a damning mirror for religious professionals, and why the Samaritan's lavish, costly mercy points beyond mere ethics to the gospel itself. The episode also explores the Mary and Martha account that immediately follows, arguing it cannot be read in isolation. Closing with Matthew Henry, the hosts land the discussion squarely on gratitude for Christ, the supreme Good Neighbor. Key Takeaways The parable is fundamentally about self-justification, not mercy ministry. The lawyer's question — "Who is my neighbor?" — is a legal maneuver, and Jesus' answer exposes the impossibility of fulfilling the law through self-effort rather than merely defining the scope of neighborly obligation. Jesus reverses the expected identification of "the neighbor." The listener naturally assumes the beaten man is the neighbor to be loved, but the punchline identifies the Samaritan — the one who showed mercy — as the neighbor, redirecting the question from who must I love to what does love actually look like. The Samaritan's mercy is deliberately, impossibly lavish. His actions — binding wounds, providing transport, paying an open-ended debt for a stranger and likely an enemy — exceed anything a reasonable person would do, pointing to a mercy that transcends mere human virtue. The priest and Levite indict religious professionalism. Their failure is not incidental; it demonstrates that meticulous law observance and ceremonial religiosity can actually obstruct the very love the law commands, hollowing out its spirit while preserving its form. The parable functions under all three uses of the law. For the unregenerate, it terrifies and condemns. For the regenerate, it is a third-use call to Spirit-empowered, grateful obedience. As civil law, it commends a society of compassion over indifference. Christ is the typological Good Neighbor. The Samaritan's actions — pouring oil and wine, bearing the cost, promising to return and settle all debts — carry genuine Christological resonance without requiring a full allegorical reading of every detail. The immediately following Mary and Martha account is thematically inseparable. Luke's editorial placement of that narrative directly after the parable creates a deliberate counterpoint: the one thing necessary is not anxious service but sitting at the feet of Jesus. Key Concepts The Lawyer's Question Was Never Going to Work The lawyer who approaches Jesus in Luke 10 is not a neutral inquirer — he is, as Luke tells us, seeking to justify himself. Tony and Jesse explore what this means with precision: the desire to be justified is not inherently wrong, but the mechanism the lawyer employs — the law — is catastrophically insufficient for the task. When Jesus responds with the parable, he does not sidestep the legal framework; he weaponizes it. The Samaritan's mercy is so extravagant, so far beyond ordinary moral expectation, that it functions not as an achievable standard but as a devastating exposure of how far short every human attempt at law-keeping falls. The command "go and do likewise" is not an encouraging send-off — it is, for the self-justifying lawyer, a door slamming shut. The Samaritan's Mercy Is Intentionally Beyond Reach One of the most important contributions this episode makes is resisting the domestication of the Samaritan's actions into a feel-good story about helping those in need. Tony reframes the scenario in contemporary terms: finding a gravely injured stranger from a hostile ethnic group, providing emergency first aid, transporting them to care, and writing a blank check for all future medical expenses — with no personal obligation to do so. No reasonable person would do this, and that is exactly the point. The mercy described is not aspirationally difficult; it is humanly inconceivable at scale. This is what Christ-like love looks like, and it is precisely what the law demands. The gap between the demand and human capacity is the gospel's entry point. The Mary and Martha Account Cannot Be Separated from the Parable Tony raises a hermeneutical observation that deserves more attention than it typically receives: Luke chose to place the Mary and Martha account immediately after the Good Samaritan parable, and that editorial decision is not accidental. Martha — busy with hospitality and service — looks, on the surface, like the practical application of everything the Samaritan modeled. Yet she is gently rebuked, and Mary, who sits at Jesus' feet, is commended for choosing "the one thing necessary." This creates a stunning theological counterweight: the parable exposes the impossibility of self-justifying law-keeping, and the very next story shows that even well-intentioned merciful activity, when it crowds out receiving from Christ, misses the point. The one thing necessary is always Christ himself. Memorable Quotes If you think you're the good Samaritan, if you think you're the one that's gonna come and rescue people — you're much more likely to see this as a sort of law beat-down. Where those of us who are regenerated and in Christ, this is third-use law. This is us seeing what it means to be holy, and going and doing likewise, trying in our power, recognizing that we can't, and trusting the Lord to accept our feeble attempts. - Tony Arsenal This text is not really to be preached or applied as some kind of bare moral exhortation. It's not 'try harder to be like the Samaritan.' That's totally disconnected from the gospel. It should be preached in a manner that exposes the impossibility of self-justification... and then of course it does point us to Christ as the one whose perfect, costly, self-giving mercy alone satisfies the law's demand on our behalf. - Jesse Schwamb If this parable and our conversation about it does nothing except stirring you to gratitude for the fact that our supreme good neighbor threw us on his donkey and carried us to the public house, and bound up our wounds, and paid for our debt — if it does nothing but drive you to gratitude and thankfulness and wonder, then we've succeeded in our task and we've left you with the Gospel. - Tony Arsenal Full Transcript Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 503 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. Well, at this point, there's one thing that we know for certain, and that is if you're gonna come at the law giver, the one who's composed and written the law, with a legal question to try to entrap the one who has given you the law, you better not miss. And it turns out, in Luke 10 where we've been hanging out, the lawyer who poses Jesus with the question of, "Who is my neighbor?" is a big swing and a miss. Yeah. And we're finally gonna get to all the characters that are part of this amazing parable in this conversation. But of course, there's something we gotta do first. Affirmations And Denials Jesse Schwamb: It, it's everybody's, what I'm led to believe everybody's favorite segment of this entire show. I mean, the crowds out there say, "Why even have a full podcast? Just do affirmations and denials for the entire time." And we, we hear you, because we're borrowing from that beautiful confessional format of the dead reformers to settle all the much not confessional [00:02:00] disputes. So in the great tradition of the Westminster Divines, who of course cannot just simply say, "We like grace," without also clarifying 17 things that grace is not- ... we're now again going to bring you our own binding, authoritative, and entirely unneeded but very official statement of affirmations and denials. It's affirming the things we love and denying things we don't. So Tony, as is our own custom, are you affirming with something or are you denying against something on this episode?  Tony Arsenal: Um, I'm denying something. Uh, it's a sort of a weird situation that has cropped up, uh, online. And I, I try not to use this segment too often to sort of wade into, um, I don't know, the, like, latest social controversy in the Reformed world. But every once in a while I come across something that I feel like you just need to sort of talk about. And, um, many of our listeners are probably already [00:03:00] aware of the situation that I'm gonna talk about, and it's very well-publicized and, and very public. Um, but I'm denying the sort of weirdness that has happened with the G3 Conference. Um, I'm not sure how familiar with G3 you are, Jesse, but for the, the listener who may not be, G3 is a conference, um, primarily run by Baptists, and is, in my understanding, is primarily attended by sort of Reformed-ish Baptists. And I don't, I don't say Reformed-ish to be pejorative necessarily. Um, but it, it's sort of like predominantly, um Non-confessional but not anti-confessional Calvinistic Baptists, sort of think more like covenant framework MacArthur-style Baptists maybe is, is a way to look at it. Um, and a few years ago, one of their main figures, I don't remember exactly what position he held, but it was a relatively high position in, in [00:04:00] the conference. Uh, his name was Josh Boyce. He, uh, w- was caught/confessed to maintaining, like, multiple anonymous or pseudonymous, uh, Twitter accounts and publishing several s- like pseudonym-based Substacks, um, that he used to basically attack the character of not only anyone online that seemed to cross him, but, like, people that he shared an office with. Like, anyone and everyone was targeted by him. And at the time it was a big hullabaloo. He, uh, he resigned. As far as I can tell, he's faded into obscurity and has not sought to come back, although that's always, you know, yet to be seen. But at the time there was very firm statements by the r- remaining sort of board members, leadership of G3, at how inappropriate this was, and how acting anonymously requi- you know, sort of evacuates accountability and, [00:05:00]and all these different things. And it's come out recently, um, just over the last week, that four of the members of the G3 board, um, who are all elders at the same church, had assembled a sort of anonymous dossier of accusations against, um, a- another pastor, uh, that he had been sort of serially plagiarizing sermons. Um, and when nothing really happened when they sent their anonymous dossier, they started distributing this to other, other, like, platforms and other church and m- parachurch ministries, kind of encouraging people to do their own investigation. Um, one such, uh, outlet was ... It's a, it's a, I don't know, sort of a news discernment blogger kind of a thing, um, has done some pretty decent reporting work I think in, in the recent past, although it has sort of a s- storied beginning, um, called Protestia They did just [00:06:00] that. They did an investigation, and in the course of their investigation, they identified who these anonymous, uh, the anonymous reporters were, and it was the same, the very same people who a few years ago, uh, pontificated, uh, at, at length about the importance of accountability and how anonymity has, uh, taken that away. Uh, people that accepted Josh Boyce's resi- resignation for acting anonymously have now done the same thing. They have since, uh, resigned from their church eldership, um, which is gonna be awkward because they haven't resigned from the board of G3, which, uh, the offices of G3 are in the same building as the church that they've now resigned at. Uh, and I guess where, where my denial comes in and the reason that I feel like it, it might be worthwhile for us just to Even reflect on it a little bit is there is an element in the Reformed world that seeks a platform and seeks an audience and seeks notoriety, and I, I was musing [00:07:00] today a little bit on my own Twitter that th- there was a time in my life where that was very much what I wanted. I wanted to be a, a very public, well-known theological voice, and, um, a- and I just have sort of like drifted away from that. And the, the reason I think it's worth mentioning on our show is that we do have an audience. We have a, a modest audience. It's not huge. It's not nothing. Um, but th- there is a real temptation to seek fame and notoriety that is absolutely destructive and really antithetical to, uh, to Christian principles of what it means to serve those around you, to serve with humility, to r- you know, redound any glory that might come to you for your actions to, to the fact that it is Christ who empowers all things and brings all good blessings. So I don't know that I have much more commentary on it. It's just a weird... It's a very weird situation, but it, it seems like it very much has come from a [00:08:00] place of feeling as though minor slights by people you associate with warrant sort of a, a nuclear option like this because, uh... and I don't wanna read too much into motives, but, but it seems like because your reputation and your notoriety is so great that any offense to it needs to be responded to in kind, and that's just not, that's just not the Christian way. So again, I don't know that I have any more commentary or thoughts on it. It just was a weird situation that I'm, I'm like, "Why do we gotta do this to each other, folks?" Like, why are we, why are we biting at each other all the time? Why are we doing these things except from a place of sinful pride? So I'm denying that. I'm denying sinful pride. I'm denying my own tendencies to seek glory in a spotlight. Um, I'm very thankful that God did not, uh, see fit to grant me that desire 'cause it probably would've been even more destructive for me than it has been for these guys. So I'm very happy to live in obscurity, [00:09:00] to serve the local church, to share our voices in this very modest, tiny platform that we have, and perhaps the Lord will see fit to change that one direction or the other, and I'll, I'll be happy to serve at His, uh, at His will. But I'm glad for now that, uh, the, the temptation of international fame has not been something that I even have the opportunity to lay hold of. Um, I'm very thankful for that, that, uh, grace from the Lord.  Jesse Schwamb: I had that light, sarcastic, some might say somewhat humorous opening and affirmations and denials, and you, you just brought the heaviness, which is okay. Sometimes that's, sometimes that's what happens.  Lament Devotional Spotlight Jesse Schwamb: And- Yeah ... I- fortunately, I have an affirmation, but it's, uh, of, like, a weird, heavy kind now that I think about it. So, um, I'm trying to, I'm trying to get everybody on the cusp of good books that I think are coming out. And so here's another one where it's not even gonna be released until September 30th, and so you have plenty of time to go out and find this thing. So P&R Publishing, many may be [00:10:00] familiar, does this whole series, topical series, which are called 31-Day Devotionals for Life, and there's a new one being released by Christine Chappell. It's called Lament: Crying Out in Faith. So I'm affirming with this piece because I've had the joy of been working through some of this stuff, and I think this is some of the best treatment I've ever read, been able to practice, been coached into for lamenting. We've talked before at length about how Christians, especially in the West, often because we just have great lives, we aren't familiar with lament. We don't practice it well. We hardly sing any songs of lament. We're unfamiliar with it. It's like a foreign land to us. And then sometimes when we're, we get convicted we should lament, we kind of interpret that as, "Well, yeah, I, I know I can blow up at God. I can get angry with him and, and that's okay." David does it too, and it's okay to express all your feelings with God. What I like about this work is it cultivates more of a prayer language. It gives voice to pain and grief so that there can be a real healing. It's not just a complaining. It's not just [00:11:00] throwing your voice out into the ether to, you know, wildly pontificate or self-aggrandize about how hurt or upset you are. It enables us to cry out to God in such a way that it promotes emotional authenticity, but at the same time maintains reverence. I think that is, uh, at least what I need. The beauty of this book is somebody you know or yourself need to lament something. Actually, I think we all have something to lament, even as it's getting older or things changing in our lives. So I highly, highly, highly affirm with this book. It's Lament: Crying Out in Faith. P&R does a lot of great publishing in this way. It's just the year of the devotionals, Tony. I don't know why. Yeah. I mean, I even hate to use devotional. It's the year of good resources for daily praise and worship- Yeah ... and lament should be part of our praise and worship. Yeah. So, but doing it in the right way is something I'm learning. I had mixed understanding of it. So this will clarify, encourage, edify in all the ways that I think we need.  Tony Arsenal: That sounds great. I, I do agree with you. I think, um- [00:12:00] Although I think it may be a little bit less so in, in the sort of confessional Reformed tradition just because the Psalms in general play such a prominent role in Reformed worship. Um, I do agree with you that broadly, like, we, we in the Western evangelical w- world don't, we don't know how to do laments. Um, I'm not one of those people that would say im- imprecatory prayers are inappropriate. I know there are some even within the Reformed world that would say im- imprecatory prayers are not appropriate for God's people in, in the new covenant. Um, I don't know that I agree with that, but, but that's another example of, like, that's in the prayer and hymnbook of our people- Right ... and we don't really know how to do it. Yes. So, and, and imprecation and lament are very closely related to each other. They're, they're very similar, um, ways of thinking and they're, they're both kind of modes of prayer that, uh, we don't, we don't really engage in. And so when we do have- when the occasion arises, we're, like, out of practice. So that's a great, uh, a great [00:13:00]affirmation and yeah, a little, a little weirdly heavy. Maybe this is gonna be a, a weirdly heavy episode. Who knows?  Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it very well could be.  Good Samaritan Deep Dive Jesse Schwamb: I mean, listen, it was no doubt heavy for the lawyer who stood up- True who was  Tony Arsenal: like- Nicely done ...  Jesse Schwamb: I'd like to justify myself, so Jesus, let me ask you, we took our question, "Who is my neighbor?" I do all these things. I'm down with the law. Yeah. I know all this stuff. And I think we had some really great conversation last time. I'm biased, but I think we had some really fantastic unpacking of the first part of this, and if you haven't heard that yet, you should go back and listen to episode 502. But in this episode, we're really getting into all of these wonderful and somewhat colorful characters. So I'm gonna pick us back up in Luke chapter 10, starting in verse 25. So I'm going back a little bit just to set that proper context for this amazing parable that Jesus tells us. So he says, "And behold, a scholar of the law stood up and was putting him," that is Jesus, "to the test, saying, 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' And he said to him, 'What is written in the law? How do you [00:14:00] read it?' And he answered and said, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, 'You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.' But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?' And Jesus replied and said, 'A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. And a priest happened to be going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise, a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him, and when he saw him, he felt compassion.'" And he came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them, and he put them on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And on the [00:15:00] next day, he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, "Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay you." Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands? And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."  Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, this is one of those parables we, we mentioned, uh, I guess we've invented a new classification of parables called the Big Daddy parables. That's right. Um, uh, this is one of those parables that is so ubiquitous and well-known, uh, that word there, choice there was a little hat tip to my Lutheran friends. Um, so ubiquitous and well-known that I think we actually can, can rush into a common understanding and not, not be right at all about it. And I think the, the way this, uh, uh, the way I've seen this commonly done in, in circles I've run in in the past is this [00:16:00] becomes a parable about mercy ministry. Um, and, and the primary point is about how we serve our neighbors. And I think there certainly is, um, there certainly is an element of that that we can glean from this, that Christ is making a commentary on the fact that, um, the, the, the right way to not only serve your neighbor but to even identify your neighbor, uh, and it's funny because I think this is, this is where I think people go wrong. The, the Samar- or the, um, the, the lawyer is asking, "Who is my neighbor?" Right. And I think we commonly read this, and we read it to say, well, the Samaritan, uh, or the, the guy who got beat up is the neighbor. Right. And so we have to serve our neighbor like the Samaritan did. But the, the, the punchline, whatever, of the story is that the Samaritan is the g- is the neighbor, right? We, we call this the Parable of the Good Samaritan, but we might wanna call it the [00:17:00] Parable of the Good Neighbor. And so it says more about what it means to be a good neighbor than it does to, um, to say about who, who our neighbor necessarily is, right? The, the s- uh, the lawyer was asking, "Who's my neighbor?" And the answer was the one who shows mercy. And there's kind of a weird, there's kind of a weird paradox there, and this is something Jesus commonly does, where, like, He doesn't really answer the question. Um, the, the lawyer is like, "Well, who is it that I have to love," right? "The, I have to love my neighbor as myself, and who is it that I have to love?" And Jesus' answer basically is like, "Well, the good neighbor is the one who showed mercy." Well, that doesn't answer- Right ... His question. So I think we have to be careful when we, uh, we work through this not to just sort of default and jump to what might be called, like, the lowest common denominator interpretation, right? These are things that, yes, um, there is something to say about, uh, mercy ministry and how important it is to serve the, [00:18:00] serve those around us who are in need, right? That's, that's the command that comes out of this or the outcome that comes out of this is Christ is commanding this, um, this lawyer to go and be merciful to others. Um- But if we, if we move too quickly to that, we miss a lot of what this has to say about the nature of justification- Right ... the nature of Christ as, as the capital T good neighbor, right? The, the good neighbor who, who takes care of our sin and pays the debt for us to be restored, right? I don't, like I said last week, I don't think that that is too on the nose. Um, I think we miss the fact that the question, uh, the question is coming from a place, and we talked about this a little bit last week, but and maybe we'll get into it a little more. The question is coming from a place, um, whether you view this negatively, like I think most do, and there's warrant for that, or whether you view it a, a little bit more neutrally or maybe even positively, which is where I land, the desire to justify or to be [00:19:00] justified is not a bad desire. And the, the text doesn't seem to offer a lot of commentary on the fact that the, the, um, lawyer is desiring to justify himself, other than the implied commentary o- of what the parable says about salvation in that someone else needs to save you, so you can't do it yourself in the first place. So I'm excited to get through this. Um, I, I think we're probably gonna be here, we're gonna camp out here for at least another week after this, 'cause there's just so much to this parable. Who knows? Maybe we'll fly through it and it'll be a quick conversation, but I, I don't... That's not really our jam. Um- That's not really what we do But yeah, it, it's, it's a big daddy parable. There's a lot here to unpack.  Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. You're right about that. Interestingly, as always, Jesus flips the law, but here the law flipping, like, ends up smacking you in the face because it does start with this inquiry about just identify for me who my neighbors are. If you give me these discrete instructions like the law has given me to do all these things, which by the way, I mean, even that when we have this lawyer saying, [00:20:00] "I've done all these things. I've identified just for instance that the law includes loving the Lord God with everything, every part of who I am." He says like, "Yeah, I've done all these things." This is, I've already accomplished that. So now let me get, become self-justified in confirming I've done all these things. If you just tell me who the neighbors are, I'll be able to say to you, "Yep, I've already done that." Instead, what happens is Christ says, "Here's what neighborly love looks like. And what it's gonna look like is so dramatic and so shocking that you ought to take pity and have concern and show compassion for those not just who are unlike you, but are, like, abhorrent, those who you would even never identify with in the parable of the story I'm about to tell you." So I think there's all of that, like you said, to move away from just kind of categorizing this as a nice homily about how we ought to behave. However, there might be, like, some kind of moralistic theme in this that directs us toward actions of love and generosity, which by the way, could just be common grace. Those exist outside of strict belief and adherence to the gospel, and certainly can be far afield from actually loving Christ. [00:21:00] The other thing that I think sometimes happens with this, and I'm gonna be unpopular on this one, I'm afraid, but is that I think there is often a lot of allegorical excess. And certainly there are people more intelligent than I who really embrace that. So I'm looking at you, Patristic Fathers. Like, you know, if you wanna read some interesting stuff, everybody can go look up Origen or Augustine on this. Yeah. And they allegorize this parable in New England what we would call wicked fine detail. I mean, down, down to everything. So the oil and the- Yeah ... wine, the soil, each of the persons here representing something that in itself, like, everything. And I think that that is okay. What I struggle with on that is, and this is where I'm unpopular, I think, is that- There are a lot of other exegetes, I don't think I'm alone, that would look at this and say, "Yes, there is something about this that draws us into, like, just general typological resonance. I'm not gonna reject that." There are these, like, broader canonical themes of, like, helpless [00:22:00] humanity, like you said, and undeserved mercy. Those all legitimately, I think, echo the gospel truths. But I'm kind of resisting, or I'm prone to resist, treating every narrative detail in this as some kind of, like, independent cipher. Yeah. And so I think I want to come a little bit in criticizing, like, the allegorical method here, that instead what happens when we do that is we're, we're... I think we're obscuring a little bit Christ's actual didactic purpose, which is fundamentally ethical and legal, 'cause that's the question he's answering. He's trying to answer this question, "Who's my neighbor?" And he's gonna do it- Right ... with this definition-shattering example. And so I think, like, the most responsible hermeneutic here affirms that, like we said before, a parable should have a single main point, and it's determined in this context by that punchline, like you said. Um, at the same time, I think we can legitimately, like, permit some restrained theological reflection on, like, that broader resonance with the gospel. I'm not denying that. But without multiplying, like, allegorical [00:23:00] correspondences like the text itself doesn't even make. Even, even coming down to, like, who we see as Christ in the story, while that can be useful and helpful, it's not the same identification that we've seen in other parables. Yeah. So that's what makes this, like you're right, Tony, like, really unique and very interesting because we can draw lots and lots of parallels, and perhaps we should. But at the same time, it's always good to remember what is it that Jesus is on about here? What is it that the hearers were really being prone to understand and mull over and meditate on? And that's, like, this first principle of neighborly love, like you already called out.  Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and I, I agree with you, too, is I, I think, um- We can sort of fall into a trap or a pit of assuming that all of the parables are meant to explain the same thing. Sure. And I think, like, within Matthew maybe that's a little bit more, uh, accurate because m- I think all, if not [00:24:00] most of, of the Matthean parables, you know, the Kingdom of God is like, the Kingdom of God is like. So th- like, that repeated f- refrain of, like, the Kingdom of God is... In, in Matthew, Christ is using parables to teach about the mysterious hidden reality of the kingdom in a way that people can understand. Um, this is different, right? This is not a Kingdom of God is like. There is no, um, clear this is like that, uh, introduction to this parable. Right. I, I've actually even read some commentaries that would question the assignment of the title parable to this, because they want to restrict what a parable is to those sort of kingdom, like, explicit simile- Good point ... things. Yeah. So- Right ... but I, I do think, um, w- we, we have to be careful not to run down that road, because this parable is not really... Again, like, it's not explaining what the Kingdom of God is like. This is trying to, um, not trying to, Christ is [00:25:00]articulating a reality that is baked into the law, um, and he's flipping the question on its head, and this is what I think is so, um, so wrong about the allegorical approach, right? Is that the allegorical approach seeks to find symbolism in every discrete character or element of the, of the parable, or of the, the allegory if you wanna, we wanna distinguish it. This really is, is trying to just get at that one point. And what- Mm-hmm ... I think is so, what must have been really just infuriating for this lawyer, um, regardless of what happened after this, right? We don't, we don't get commentary like we do with the rich, young ruler, and the stories are in many ways are very much the same. Like, it's the same basic setup. But we don't get commentary that, like, he went away sad, like we do with the rich, young ruler. We don't know what happened with this guy. We don't know what his reaction... But I, I'm sitting there putting myself in his place, and I'm, I'm thinking through this, and this is one of those things that it's actually hard even to mentally get yourself there. The, [00:26:00] the, each character that is introduced here, um, is a candidate for the neighbor. Right. But the most obvious candidate based on, um, the way we commonly interpret this, is that the dude who gets beat up and left stripped naked is, is the neighbor that we're supposed to love Right? So the lawyer, as he's hearing this parable, as it's being told, and the, the people who are there listening, right, the, the other people that are around, there's this character introduced, "Who is my neighbor? Well, a man was going down to Jerusalem. He fell among roggers, Roger, robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead." Like, the obvious answer is that Christ is introducing this poor, destitute, beat-up, naked dude, uh, as the neighbor that needs to be loved. And so he goes through the whole parable, and you're like, oh, well, like, the, you know, the, the priest and the Levite, they didn't love this guy. Uh, the Samaritan, you know, I think an audience of Jews probably would've been thinking like, "Well, the Samaritan can't be..." You know, the Samaritan [00:27:00] is just a dude. Like, none of these people are loving the, the, the beat-up dude like a neighbor should. Right. And then all of a sudden, Christ flips the script, and the neighbor is not the dude who's laying there naked, half dead, who's been rescued and, and, you know, restored and is being healed. It's actually the Samaritan. And so there's this... We have to... Part of the reason, I think, I mean, I, I, I guess I don't know for sure, but part of the reason I think s- that parables have this, like, reversal of expectation baked into many of them is that it is there to challenge our assumptions, and th- that sort of whiplash effect when you get to the end of it, you're like, "Whoa, that was like he was talking about totally, something totally different than what it seemed like he was talking about." I think that's actually a teaching tool here as well. Right. That the, the whole time you're thinking like, "Oh, this dude is the neighbor, and I've gotta figure out how to love him best," and that's what plays into these mercy ministry interpretations, is thinking that the, the point of the parable is to show us how to take [00:28:00] care of the, the people who need help, when really the point of the parable is the good neighbor. And, uh, we might butt heads a little bit on this, 'cause I think I take probably more of a Christological, uh, topological, typological interpretation than you do. I, I think that the point of the parable is that you can't justify yourself, and the only one who can justify you is the one who's kept the law perfectly. And what does it mean to keep the law perfectly? Well, love the Lord your God, but also love your neighbor as yourself. Well, who's the only person in the story who's loved the neighbor as himself? The one who s- rescues and heals and pays for this poor man who's been, you know, waylaid by robbers. He's the good neighbor who fulfills the law. He's the one who's justified himself. Now, yes, "Go do likewise," there's some echoes there of, of the go and sin no more language that we see in other places, too. So I, I think this parable is more, is more about- A, and this is where it shares some affinity with the rich young ruler, [00:29:00] right? The rich young ruler is told to go and to, to sell everything he has and donate it to the poor and to come and follow Christ. And he says, you know, he, he can't do that. He walks away sad. In this instance, it's the same kind of situation. It's an, a question about how do I fulfill the law? What do I need to do to be saved, to inherit eternal life, to obtain eternal life, whatever the phrasing is. And the answer is, "Obey the law perfectly." And the guy goes, "Well, hey, I did that." And he said, "Well, let me show you how much you didn't do that." And the reality is the only one who did that is Christ, the good teacher, right? I mean, there, there's so many parallels between these two accounts. It, it's almost the same, it's almost the same story. This one just in sort of parable answer form versus a more direct form, which we see with the rich young ruler. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, what I find really fascinating about these is that whereas, like you said, the, some of the other parables, they come under the volitional teaching of Christ. That is, He is presenting forward the topic at hand. So usually it's in the context of conversation, but He essentially makes [00:30:00] the segue. He presents and opens up this new kind of vista to explore. In this case, or in both those cases you talked about, the confrontation really comes from the outside. Of course, God, through Christ, predestined all of these things to pass, so I'm not saying that Christ was caught off guard, of course, by this line of questioning. And presumably He understands that when the lawyer asks this question, He knows that it's from a position of self-justification. So I don't disagree that that might be there, some of that at play, and that really the ultimate end of this would bring, to bring one's self to the realization that you can't do this. At the same time, though, I think almost, especially in this one, I think, uh, it's not that Jesus withholds that, but I read that do, go and do likewise is this is what you said you wanted. You asked me for an answer, and I gave you the answer. You asked for the law- Yeah ... I will give you the law. So I actually don't know how this ended. It doesn't strike me that it ended well, and I think, I don't know if there was some kind of massive realization there, but it's almost as if there is some [00:31:00] obscuring of this. This is like typical parable, parable language where I think if you're there and you're listening, and you're trying to just track with the question and track how that compounds and corresponds with the law, that you would leave more destitute, more confused, and perhaps more angry than before, and certainly not in a position of understanding, "Well, th- this one before me is the Christ." But that's exactly what parables do. So again, I, I think to me- Right ... I see this more as certainly, again, there are these wonderful themes These kind of overtures of the gospel within, but they are dark and very obscured because the man asks a question about the law, and Jesus comes with a message about the law. And like you said, that law is- Yeah ... like, there's almost no grace in his tone as I read it because, not that he is not graceful or full of grace and gracious, but this guy asks for justification under the law. And so it ends with saying, it ends with this really phenomenal phrase, of course, of the lawyer realizing he's got himself [00:32:00] caught in having to respond truthfully in answering the question of who is the neighbor, but of course doesn't identify the neighbor except to say, "Oh, the one who has compassion," as if like he himself couldn't bring himself- Right to say these words. And then for Jesus to say, "Yeah, go do it," is, is kind of like the ultimate nail in the coffin.  Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and to tell a first century Jew to go and do, to be- Yes ... like a Samaritan is- Yes ... you know, e- even, even though that's not, like, highlighted in the text, you're right. Like, the, the lawyer probably couldn't bring himself to say the Samaritan was, right? And I, I think, um, you know, whether you take, uh, and maybe I'm novel on this. I guess I haven't really read, read a lot of people that take a, a more optimistic approach of this. But whether you take a more optimistic outcome approach or a more pessimistic or neutral, whatever, the, the actual outcome is the same, right? The, the lawyer is asking about self-justification under the law, like you said. Right. And Christ gives him [00:33:00] that. He tells him exactly what that means and what that looks like. And I think the, the impossibility of being the good neighbor as is described in the parable is exactly the sort of beat down of the law that, that, you know, we've talked about in the past is it's not as though, um, the, the, the actions of the Samaritan are not, uh, outwardly impossible, right? We- Right ... it's not unreasonable to think that someone could rescue someone from the side of the road and bring them to ... And like, the scenario itself is not that crazy. But the, the overall complex of the scenario, right? The fact that this man, um, was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, right? The, the ... All of this points to sort of like an impossible circumstance, an impossible situation. And, and the idea that even [00:34:00] within that impossible situation you're still expected to take care of the person who is your enemy, right? The Samaritan seeing a Jewish man beaten by the side of the road- That's right ... and although the parable doesn't specifically call out that he's Jewish, if he's going from Jerusalem to Jericho, there's an implication that he may actually also have been a priest. Um, we, we don't need to get into all the details on that, but there's, there's some good, uh, some good research out there that would point to the fact that the road from Jerusalem to Jericho is, uh, was actually a very common pathway traveled by either priests or Levites. And further evidence is that a priest and a Levite are also on this same road. And so the idea that the Samaritan would, um, would- Sacrifice of himself to take care of someone who very likely considers him to be an enemy, and sacrifices in a pretty significant way. Um, I, I'll, I'll pause and now as you're [00:35:00]talking I'll do all the, the background scrambling to make it look like I know exactly how much- a denari is supposed to, to be, and I know we've talked about it before, it's just not there.  Lavish Impossible Mercy Tony Arsenal: But, but it's not a- Yeah ... it's not a trivial amount of money. That's right. We're not talking about checking this guy into, like, a Motel 6 and, and dropping a couple hundred dollars. We're, we're talking about a substantial amount of money and, and we're talking about a commitment to pay whatever is required. Okay. An unknown amount of money for this man who has been left for dead. We're not talking about a minor injury. The, the robbers beat him up, they took his clothes, and they expected him to die in the desert. He needed to be carried on a donkey. He needed to have immediate first aid attention. We're talking about a, a relatively long-term recovery. So the scenario would be more like, we think of it like, "Oh yeah, I dropped him off at the local hotel for him to sleep it off." The scenario would be more like, "I found a guy on the side of the road. I didn't know who he was. He's, he's of a group of people that would consider me to be their enemy, and he's been shot 100 times, and I'm gonna patch up his [00:36:00] wounds. I'm gonna take him to the hospital. I'm gonna not only pay and say, 'Here, I, I've already used some supplies. Let me pay for that,' but I'm gonna pay for all of his medical bills until he's healed." Like, that's the scenario we're talking about. So it's not, it's not just, like, a good deed that has been done that is maybe, like, a really, really good deed, like it's a really nice thing to do. It's a, it's an outlandishly almost impossible to conceive of doing good deed. N- I don't know anyone, um, who would... And, and I know a lot of really great people. This is not a slam. I don't know anyone who would find a stranger on the road and who is, who's gravely injured and commit to pay for all of their medical care until they're healed. I just don't know anybody who would do that. Right. Um, some might say there's actually some wisdom in that, and, uh, we've talked about how sometimes the parables present a situation where maybe, like, this isn't actually the best practical knowledge. It's there to prove a point. Right. But I don't know anybody who, I don't know anybody who would do that, who, who would even think about doing that. Um, so the, the scenario here is one [00:37:00] of impossible lavish goodness being extended to those who you have no reason to be good to, and probably have reason to not be good to. That's what we're talking about. And so the, when the, the lawyer is told to go and do likewise, he's being told to do something that is impossible to fulfill, or even to conceive of fulfilling. And so there is this element of, like, "You think you can obey the law? Well, let me tell you how much you can't  Jesse Schwamb: obey  Tony Arsenal: the law."  Jesse Schwamb: Right. By the way, this episode is brought to you by State Farm. Like a good Samaritan, State Farm is there. Every time we've been saying good neighbor, I've been just been trying to avoid thinking about- Yeah Jake from State Farm. That's what I've been doing most of this time.  Tony Arsenal: Jake from State Farm?  Jesse Schwamb: Um, I totally agree, of course.  Priest Levite And The Law Jesse Schwamb: Like, what strikes me here is that it's, like you said, there is all this emphasis on what it means to show neighborly love, but the setup is also in those who basically should be showing it but aren't, and that's where we get, can get into this lovely... It's, [00:38:00] it's okay to kinda think through some of these characters. You know, for this priest and the Levite here, and what we know about them is that they, at first it sounds like there, there's almost this sense in the language like the priest falls ab- upon this, this, you know, bloodied man by chance, and that kinda heightens the drama, I think. The priest's confrontation is a little bit unplanned, but it's immediate and unavoidable, and he chooses to cross on the other side of the road, which is of course a deliberate act of avoidance. It's not mere obliviousness. And then the Levi almost goes further, or he came to the place, he saw him closer inspection, you know, greater culpability, and yet he still passes by. I really do wish I could hear this, like, in real time, like be among, because I have to- Yeah ... wonder that there'd be this kind of sense of building in the story. And the people might be kind of getting the sense that the characters that they know and love or should love as the heroes are not gonna be performing that way. And so I think even they're curious. They might be hoping against hope that it's gonna turn out well, but knowing the question and maybe something about Jesus, [00:39:00] they might anticipate that he's gonna go in a different direction. And so again, I think we have to stick with the text here. Like, Jesus doesn't explicitly state the motives of these gentlemen, but it's truthful. What's true- Right ... is that, like, these boys should have known better. You know, a lot of people have speculated that it was for ritual purity concerns or the, another ambush or social distance or just callousness. And I think that ambiguity might be deliberate because, again, what cuts against the lawyer here is whatever the specific excuse, the point is that these, like this kind of professional religiosity and even, like, meticulous law observance are of course not identical with, and probably can even distract or obstruct the love of neighbor that the law itself commands, which is wild, right? Because we talked about how, again, this just shows the law doesn't empower you to do the thing, and in fact, here- Right ... you could essentially abuse the law so that you suck the spirit right out of it and therefore do not do the very thing that it was intended to accomplish. So even this by itself, you just stop the parable here, it's kind of condemning because it's really this [00:40:00] potent warning against some kind of merely external ceremonial, professionalized religiosity that fails to produce, I guess, what Matthew calls, like, the weightier matters of law, like justice and mercy and faithfulness. And, you know, we should understand this because I think those that are from tradition have a certain affinity for the third use of the law as a guide for the grateful Christian living, and that's, you know, kind of what we're talking about here. But it insists that true law keeping is never merely ritual or notional, but it must issue in love, like costly love. Love outside of being inconvenienced is not genuine. I, I guess we'll get there. But, you know, I don't wanna harp on the characters as some are prone to do, but that is, I think, why the characters are here. It's both to set up and show, like, you're about to see that you really do not wanna identify by your own persuasion, by your own presuppositions with the one who's gonna be the hero, that is the, the one that shows neighborly love. At the same time, I'm gonna show you by way of condemnation that those who should exercise the greater love, [00:41:00] that do know better, that should know better, that should emblem- be emblematic of the spirit of the law, have done the exact same thing. Which I can only, uh, hope but believe is what this lawyer heard as well was that he was hearing that he was being stuck into this place before he was even given the question, well, who was the neighbor here? Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and I, I think, um- There is a real sense in some of the parables that are sort of spoken against people. Um, this one doesn't specifically use that language, but it, it is a targeted, kind of a targeted response. There is a sense that throughout the course of the parable being told, they start to recognize midway through that they're like- Right you are the man. Like, this is one- Right, right ... of those Nathan and David kind of parables where, like, at some point the realization must have dawned on this guy that, like, "I've gotta be somebody in this parable." And I think that's where, where the, the challenging part is, is it's not clear, um, [00:42:00] it's not really clear even at the end of the parable who Christ is intending this guy to be, right? Right. Is he the lawyer or is he the, uh, is he the, the dead man on the side of the road, right? Is he... Or the dying man. Is, is he the l- the priest and Levite who pass by? Is he supposed to be the Samaritan, which would just be wildly offensive. Um, he's not necessarily, like, supposed to be anyone except for the fact that now at th- the punchline of the, the encounter here, Christ says, "Go and be like the Samaritan." And it's kind of like y- you know, if you were really following God's law, you would be the Samaritan in this one- Yeah, that's right ... but you're not. That's right. You're not and you can't be. Um, and so go, go ahead and do likewise.  Christ As True Neighbor Tony Arsenal: Um, I, I do think, too, there is some elements here where, um, I- Again, I, I think I take a little bit more of a typological, Christological-centered approach on this, but I, I don't think they're incompatible. But I do think there's an element here where Christ is also [00:43:00] unveiling, uh, sort of what he would do, like what, what his own plan of salvation is as the good, as the capital G, capital N good neighbor. Um, he is the one who does pour oil and wine on our wounds, right? A- and I don't wanna ... I don't think we need to fly off the allegorical deep end of reading oil and wine to be a reference to the Holy Spirit and t- Right but sometimes those things are evocative, indirect things that should, we should call our mind to those things. Like, I think, um, you know, when Melchizedek comes to bless Abraham and he, he presents him with bread and wine, right? I, I think, like, it's okay for us to go, "Wow, the Holy Spirit really made a point there that's subtle." And I think those little things within this parable drive me to look at this a little bit more along the lines of not only is there this sort of, like, law beat down, you [00:44:00] know, John Bunyan or not, um, Bunyan style, like the, "Moses just beat the crap out of me," kind of a- Right ... kind of a thing from Pilgrim's Progress. There's that, and I think it's really there. But it's also, uh, it's also sort of like this, uh, you know, "Blessed is the one who has ears to hear" side of it of, like, for those who are regenerated and can see the parable, can see the figures in the parable, it is now this beautiful picture of what it is that Christ does for those who cannot do it for themselves, right? And it's almost like the parable becomes a litmus test. If you look at the parable, and as you're reading through it, you sit there and you go, "Yeah, man, I'm like that guy who got beat up and left for dead. That, that really describes me," um, you're gonna get to the end of this and you're gonna be sort of, like, sitting in awe of, like, "Man, I have such a great savior who threw me on his donkey and, and promised to take care of all of my, all of my wounds, and promised to pay whatever it, whatever it cost." Um, y- you know, and all of these elements of, [00:45:00] like, oil and wine and, and all of these things be- kind of become alive to you in a way that someone who sees themselves as the, the good Samaritan, who thinks they're the one who's gonna come and rescue people, or I think increasingly in our day, and it's, it's weird to even say this, I think there are people who would look at this and resonate with the priest and lawyer and actually say, like, "Yeah, they shoulda, they shoulda crossed to the other side of the room." Mm-hmm. I've heard defenses of that in trying to argue that- The priest and the Levite, if they had, if this person was dead, they had touched the dead body, then, you know, they would've been ceremonially unclean. Uh, all of that is, I think, worth speculating about. But the reality is, um, who you see yourself in the parable actually says a lot, I think, about how you see Christ in light of either our ability to fulfill the law or our inability to fulfill the law, and therefore have our need for Christ. If you think you're the good Samaritan, if you think you're the one that's gonna come and [00:46:00] rescue people, that you're gonna be, you're gonna be the good neighbor, you're much more likely to see, uh, to, to be needing this as a sort of a law beat-down. Where those of us who, maybe this is the way you wanna parse it out, right? There's those of us who are, uh, regenerated and in Christ, and this is third-use law, right? This is, this is us- Right ... seeing what it means to be holy, and going and doing likewise, trying in our power, in our, our best to go and do likewise, empowered by the Holy Spirit, recognizing that we can't, and trusting the Lord to accept our feeble attempts- Right and be pleased by them. Right. Um, or maybe if you're not regenerated, this is f- this is first use, right? Right. And, and, and this is actually there to terrify you and to show you your condemnation and to serve as your condemnation. And, and there's even, and I didn't really intend to go all the way with this, but there's, there is also an element in here, and this is where, like, the mercy ministry interpretation comes in, where this is civil, this is civil law, where this is the, the, the, um, you know, the civil use of the law [00:47:00] to restrain evil, to show society what it is to be good, to, to restrain sin. Right. Yes, we want to be, uh, we, I would rather live in a society where people stop and help someone who's stranded or injured on the side of the road than, than a society where people pass by. Um, so I, I think all of those elements are in play here, and we do have to be careful not to take the full-on, like, never go full allegory approach to this, 'cause y- you can really... That's just a good general wisdom for all of, all of the Bible, but especially the parables and other figurative stuff. You can really just go totally far afield of what actually the point of the parable is- Right ... if you're not grounding it in the purpose that Christ is teaching it for, and, and the stated outcome of the parable, right? No one in the Bible makes c- I don't know that anyone in the Bible makes specific commentary on this within scripture, but the, the idea that, like, there's all these hidden meanings, well, if those are the hidden meanings, then why doesn't Christ talk about it? Why doesn't he come back- Right ... and [00:48:00] interpret those symbols later on like he does, like the Parable of the Sower or the Parable of the Seeds or Soils. Um, that one is much more directly allegorical in that the different seeds, the different soils represent specific people with specific s- scenarios. Christ comes and, and does that allegorical interpretation later on in the passage. There's nothing like that here. So I think we have to be really careful not to slip down that road. Jesse Schwamb: I think that it could be all those things. I, I totally agree with you on that. I think it could be all the use cases of the law. I think what makes this so wonderfully complex and a little bit tricky is that when I read this, I actually don't necessarily find myself gravitating toward putting myself in one place or the other. It almost depends on where I am or what's going on in my life. So for example, I think any time that any one of us, and we've all done this as Christians, have quenched the spirit, especially with respect to helping, serving, or loving others as my, our neighbor, then we're firmly in this parable in the place [00:49:00] of the priest and the Levite. Sometimes I think we are the one on the side of the road. We look to the church, to our brothers and sisters to help us, and what do they help us with? Like you were saying, Tony, they help us with that blood and oil. They help us with this, the power of the Holy Spirit, which is given to each one to help and to serve, to identify, to comfort with the comfort we ourselves have been received. And then I do think, and this might be unpopular, that, that sometimes by the grace of God, He empowers us to be the Samaritan, but only through His empowerment. Not, of course, because we're trying to just self-justify or because we're overtly generous in our own merit, but in fact, this is the way we ought to live, and that we ought to commend that kind of behavior to, again, acknowledge it as God-given and to promulgate it, especially among the body of believers. So I do think all three forms of the law are present there, but I do think I tend to, for whatever reason, right or wrong, I tend to tilt a little bit toward that third use here, just to see this as it's not wrong to, of course, to, I think, uh, lay over all of this, all these delightful variables and [00:50:00] details. Again, this idea of blood and oil, n- normative things, normal things, standard things that are being used to address- Yeah ... wounds. They're, they're... Of course, that would've been the practical way which you would've provided some kind of medicinal care to somebody in both that extreme circumstance, but also generally, because nobody's, like, keeping gauze or popping Advil to help this, this poor guy. And so it is- Right ... like this beautiful complexion of, I think, everything that we just talked about, that there is the law present, and depending on where you are, both in terms of your ingrafting into eternity, into the Kingdom of God, and then where you are in life, you- we should read ourselves probably, or l- let me say it this way, not so it's like eisegesis, but, like, that we should see ourselves often at different pli- times maybe playing or being tempted to play the parts of these different characters. And in that we find, I think, ultimately, of course, as you're saying, that Christ is over all, and that He is the one that, of course, perfectly emphasizes all of what it means to be the Savior, the [00:51:00] true loving neighbor who cares and binds and heals completely full stop. And yet there is something instructive here, I think, as well about going and bringing that compassion. I was just thinking, like, as we were talking, that there's such a difference, isn't there, like, in our world between these days, like, pity and compassion? Like, pity often is like, "Yeah, I feel sorry for you," but it strikes me as kind of like the James, is it James 1 or James 2, where it's kind of like, "Oh, you're... I, I'm so sorry that, like, you're, you're hungry and cold. You know what? Go, be warm, and be well-fed." You know, that's like pity. Like, "Yeah, I just- Yeah ... I feel a little bad. I identified with your emotions." Sending  Tony Arsenal: good vibes.  Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. I've got- Yeah. Yeah. That's right, right? Sending good thoughts and good vibes your way. I wanna say, like, keep those to yourself 'cause they're probably not all that- Yeah ... good. Um- I  Tony Arsenal: don't want your vibes.  Jesse Schwamb: I don't want your vibes. Get your vibes out of here. What I need is that power of God himself, uh, to bring compassion, and compassion is always wrapped in action. It identifies- Right ... and then goes. It, it's, it [00:52:00] is not self-promoting, it's self-sacrificing. And so that rule of law, which is like the good rule of law, the good teaching, the kind that brings life because it's the Decalogue wrapped in skin perfectly performed by the power of the Holy Spirit through the one who is perfect again in his passive obedience and active obedience. Yes, yes, we need, we need all of that. It's modeled here, I think, to a certain extent, but I think the go and do likewise is actually for all of us, but it's not the kind like we would say, "Well, like, good luck." It's more the- Yeah ... you know the one from whose side the blood flowed. You know the one who is pressed in the garden as if olives under the press leaking oil. You know who that one was, and that one is His spirit resides in you. So now go and do these acts- Yeah ... of mercy. Again, not s- for some kind of meritorious reward, but because you were made for good works, which were set apart for you to do, and part of those good works are [00:53:00] just always being a good neighbor. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and, and maybe to, to close out, I, I, I think maybe we actually did it. I don't know that we're gonna have to do another episode on this. I guess we'll see after we do- Who would've guessed? ... our postmortem here.  Mary Martha And Final Charge Tony Arsenal: But I, I think part, part of, um, part of what we need to at least acknowledge is that what, what follows this parable, right? This, this goes from a parable of a lawyer seeking to justify himself to now the account of Mary and Martha, and the fact that, uh, that, um, M- Martha, you know, is busy with much work, and Mary is sitting and listening to, to Jesus and is said to have chosen the better part. And I think, like- Mm ... this is something that I think because of the way, like, Bibles are formatted, the way that certain things are sort of, like, extracted out as discrete teaching units, this parable is pulled out and separated from this next part. And I, I think we can [00:54:00] really run into problems when we do that because- You know, even if we, even if we were to sort of treat the scripture as, like, a purely human book, right? Luke chose to put this account of Mary and Martha after this, right? And, and- Right ... probably not just because, like, it happened chronologically. There's no real, um, there's no real necessity that this account of Mary and Martha in this particular story had to happen immediately afterwards. Like, there's no organic link in, in the chronology of the story to drive that, right? And the two aren't related in terms of, like, historical cause and effect or, uh, proximity. There's none of those things. So the only answer as to why this was selected to follow the parable of the Good Samaritan is that there's some thematic connection that drove Luke as an author to put this, put this right following that. And so I think even that should drive us to thinking about, all [00:55:00] right, we've got this statement of go and do likewise, show mercy. Now there's almost this foil that the, the, the person in, in the account in the, the narrative here, and a, a true narrative, right? We're not in parable land anymore, but the person in the narrative that seems to be showing mercy, seems to be taking care of people the most, is actually the one who's chastised a little bit for, for being- Right overly zealous about m- mercy ministry, hospitality ministry- Right ... is what you might call it. She's the one who's like, "Tell my sister to help me with this." And she said, like, "You know, you're always gonna have time to do this, but, like, I'

Hour 1 for 8/28/26 Drew prays the Chaplet of Divine Mercy with Maribeth (6:45). He's then joined by Mike Pacer from 5 Stones to share his conversion story (31:30). Topics include Mike quitting his job as a lawyer (37:01), starting in Catholic ministry (42:31), advice for those who want to leave their job like he did (46:24) and what's 5 Stones (49:05) Resources: https://www.weare5stones.com/

A battle erupts between RFK Jr. and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro over two “measles-associated” deaths, vaccine misinformation, and the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines in MMR production.Jefferey Jaxen investigates Merck's claim that fulfilling President Trump's order to split the MMR vaccine could take up to a decade. Plus, Fauci launches a legal defense fund as scrutiny of the COVID lab-leak cover-up intensifies.As closing arguments conclude in the Lindsay Clancy trial, Del sits down with board-certified clinical psychologist Dr. Roger McFillin to examine Clancy's psychiatric-drug history and ask whether the pharmaceutical industry belongs on trial, too.Then, Del checks in with MAPS President Dr. James Neuenschwander about a MAPS physician's appointment to the NIH and the upcoming MAPS conference.Guests: Aaron Siri, Esq., James Neuenschwander, M.D., Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D., ABPPAirdate: August 27, 2026Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Meta agrees to dole out over 17 billion dollars in a landmark settlement, Dolly Parton is honored across the world — even by the UK royal family, and a shocking reveal about the Tate brothers public persona was revealed by their own attorneys. Get the facts first with Evening Wire. - - - Ep. 3059 - - - Today's Sponsor: Cardiff - Check out https://Cardiff.co/dailywire  for up to $500,000 in same day funding. Real growth. Fast funding. Cardiff – Borrow better.  - - - Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3   - - - Privacy Policy: ⁠https://www.dailywire.com/privacy⁠ morning wire,morning wire podcast,the morning wire podcast,Georgia Howe,John Bickley,daily wire podcast,podcast,news podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Andrew Tate's lawyers told a Miami judge the $50 million yacht was a paid promo, and the supercars were rented. They called the flex theatrical. They said they were playing a role. In 2023, Jason Whitlock said everything out of Tate's mouth was a lie. In 2025, he said the money would be taken. The August 25, 2026, filing is the receipt. "Harmony": culture, faith, sports, and comedy. Subscribe for Thursday "Harmony." ➢ Show Outline 00:00 - Andrew Tate Lawyers Reveal the Truth 02:27 - Conservative Media Wanted a Martyr 05:05 - The Race Post and Pure Wickedness 08:36 - Shemeka Michelle Joins 11:56 - How a Goofball Built an Empire 15:17 - Pearl Stephen A and the Fraud Detector 18:03 - MLK Joseph Jackson and the Funhouse Mirror 20:57 - Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick ➢ Follow Our GUESTS https://www.youtube.com/@TheShemekaMichelle  ➢ Subscribe to Jason's other channel https://www.youtube.com/JasonWhitlock?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockHarmony?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockBYOG?sub_confirmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/@JasonWhitlockClips?sub_confirmation=1 ➢ Connect with Jason on Social Media:  https://x.com/JasonWhitlock  https://www.instagram.com/realjasonwhitlock/ https://www.facebook.com/jasonwhitlock ➢ Send Jason an Email FearlessBlazeShow@gmail.com ➢ Support The Blaze Visit https://TheBlaze.com. Explore the all-new ad-free experience and see for yourself how we're standing up against suppression and prioritizing independent journalism. Support Conservative Voices! Subscribe to BlazeTV at https://www.fearlessmission.com and get $20 off your yearly subscription. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices