Podcasts about Legal ethics

What if the key to better legal work isn't just smarter tools but more inclusive ones? Susan Tanner, Associate Professor at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, joins Zack Glaser to explore how AI and universal design can improve legal education and law firm operations. Susan shares how tools like generative AI can support neurodiverse thinkers, enhance client communication, and reduce anxiety for students and professionals alike. They also discuss the importance of inclusive design in legal tech and how law firms can better support their teams by embracing different ways of thinking to build a more accessible, future-ready practice. The conversation emphasizes the need for educators and legal professionals to adapt to the evolving landscape of AI, ensuring that they leverage its capabilities to better serve their clients and students.   Links from the episode:   NetDocuments NetDocuments Demo Request Listen to our other episodes about diversifying learning strategies and the AI revolution: #405: The Diverse Way People Think, with Temple Grandin: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Lawyerist #551: Becoming the AI Driven Leader, with Geoff Woods: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Lawyerist #550: Beyond Content: How AI is Changing Law Firm Marketing, with Gyi Tsakalaki and Conrad Saam: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Lawyerist Have thoughts about today's episode? Join the conversation on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and X! If today's podcast resonates with you and you haven't read The Small Firm Roadmap Revisited yet, get the first chapter right now for free! Looking for help beyond the book? See if our coaching community is right for you.   Access more resources from Lawyerist at lawyerist.com. Chapters:  00:00 – Intro and Lawyerist's New Programs  03:50 – NetDocuments with Patric Thomas  10:49 – Meet Dr. Susan Tanner  12:30 – AI and Legal Ethics  13:30 – What is Universal Design for Learning?  20:59 – Applying Universal Design in Legal Practice  24:45 – Using AI to Support Diverse Thinkers  29:33 – AI as a Communication Partner  34:01 – Law Students and AI Adoption  38:04 – AI for Lawyer Productivity and Mental Health  44:00 – Enhancing Critical Thinking with AI  46:00 – Wrap-Up and Final Thoughts 

In this episode, Jeff analyzes President Trump's handling of negotiations with Iran and its terror proxies, as well as America's jihadist universities, and demonstrates that the desire for the bestest of deals doesn't always end with good results for America and its allies. America needs a strong ideologue in place during these difficult times and not a used car salesman.The new four episode Max docuseries about the Sinaloa Cartel is out and you've got a review from the one person who actually knows the truth — Jeff — and he points out the obviously fabrications contained therein. If you real true crime stories you don't want to miss this podcast.

Nora Freeman Engstrom is a professor of law who says that in three-quarters of cases one or more of the parties lacks legal representation. Worse yet, often the litigants are involved in high-consequence civil cases where there is no right to a lawyer and costs are prohibitive. Some states are looking at alternatives including non-lawyer representation, curated legal help for low-income citizens, and even AI, as Engstrom tells host Russ Altman on this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcast.Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu.Episode Reference Links:Stanford Profile: Nora Freeman EngstromConnect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / FacebookChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionRuss Altman introduces guest Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor of law at Stanford University.(00:03:11) Path to Justice WorkNora's journey into legal ethics and justice reform.(00:04:46) Misconceptions About Civil CourtHow civil cases often involve one represented and one unrepresented party.(00:08:40) Limits of Judicial HelpWhy the U.S. adversarial system limits judicial involvement.(00:10:40) Problems with Self-HelpThe lack of reliable resources for people trying to represent themselves.(00:13:41) The Cost of Legal HelpThe high cost of representation and how legal aid is overwhelmed.(00:15:20) A Missing MiddleHow law lacks mid-level professionals to offer affordable legal help.(00:17:41) Expanding Legal AccessWhy law lacks mid-level roles and bans non-lawyer advice.(00:22:22) New Models for Legal SupportThe ways some states are testing trained non-lawyers to expand access.(00:27:22) Legal Help in the PastThe history of legal access, including lawyers in banks and auto clubs.(00:30:29) Legal ProtectionismHow depression-era protectionism led to today's lawyer-only model(00:32:48) The Role of AI in Legal AccessThe potential of AI for creating smarter legal tools for courts.(00:35:52) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook

*** Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code OPENING at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/opening *** OA1143 - In the past month, Donald Trump has issued a series of truly fascist orders targeting some of the country's best-known law firms for crimes ranging from hiring people Trump doesn't like personally to doing some favors for special counsel Jack Smith to flagrantly hiring non-white non-men. What is actually in these orders, and how bad is it that one of leading litigation firms in the country gave in to Trump's demands without  a fight? And what will it mean for the already-overloaded immigration court system when they start going after immigration lawyers as they have also promised? Former NYC Biglaw associate (and current NYC public defender) Liz Skeen joins to help us to understand this uniquely un-American moment in American legal history. (UPDATE: This episode was recorded shortly before news broke about the Trump administration taking action against major US law firms Wilmer Hale and Skadden Arps.) Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block (3/25/25) Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss (3/25/25) Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court (3/22/25) Addressing Risks From Paul, Weiss (3/14/25) Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLC (3/6/25) Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts (Covington & Burling LLP)(2/25/25) “Complicity in the Perversion of Justice: The Role of Lawyers in Eroding the Rule of Law in the Third Reich,” Cythnia Fountaine, St. Mary's Journal of Legal Ethics (2020)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In this episode, Jeff finds a fresh low for Hamas: celebrations around the coffins of babies they kidnaped and massacred. When will the world stand up? When will President Trump open the gates of hell he promised? Jeff provides a quick plan to fix the terrorist threat from Gaza. Also, federal prosecutors in NYC rightly quit in protest of the Department of Justice's political decision to dismiss the indictment against NYC Mayor Adams — but don't think for a second they're above politics in their own actions: exhibit A is the phony 3.5 year investigation of James O'Keefe.

Send us a textToday's guest, Jennifer Lahl, is the founder of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network. Lahl couples her 25 years of experience as a pediatric critical care nurse, a hospital administrator, and a senior-level nursing manager with a deep passion to speak up for those who have no voice.Women are often sold on surrogacy, IVF, and sperm donation as either a beautiful way to help a family in need or the best solution to their fertility issues. The problems with the solutions Big Fertility pushes extend beyond a lack of informed consent; there are not only significant medical risks for moms and their future children (which are often downplayed or not mentioned at all) as well as bioethical concerns which many have never even considered until well after consenting to one of these reproduction methods.If we continue on this transhumanist trajectory, we can expect so see the normalization and encouragement of artificial eggs and wombs.On the bright side, the tides are turning. Countries are waking up to the harms of some of these practices and setting firm boundaries to protect women and children. Some countries, like America, unfortunately still operate like the Wild West and put the wellbeing of mothers and children last at the expense of the desires of intended parents. Thanks to spreading awareness, women are realizing they have other, more biologically-supportive and ethical options when it comes to starting a family.Jennifer's Books + Films: The Detransitioner DiariesEggsploitationBig Fertility Related Whose Body Is It Masterclasses:The Medical and Legal Ethics of IVF, Surrogacy, and Other Commonly Used Assisted Reproductive TechnologyThe Great Reset of Motherhood: Gender Identity, Transhumanist Tech & the Theft of Birth Come hang with us and other likeminded parents and soon-to-be-parents within our private membership rebelliUS, where you will gain access to the most sought-after vaccine and holistic health resources, exclusive expert-led vaccine webinars, and a thriving community of uncensored and comprehensive conversations amongst in-demand taboo topics.Support the showJOIN OUR NEW, PRIVATE COMMUNITY! DONATE (Thank you!!

If you haven't heard, there's a new GenAI tool on the block, and the other neighborhood kids aren't too happy about it. The newbie, DeepSeek, is stirring up a major rivalry with OpenAI over some alleged and oh-so ironic data “theft”—ha. So, what does Jared think? Well, he's here for the drama, AND for the AI ethics admonitions all you lawyers need to hear.  Later, even more ethics! Jared welcomes April McMurrey to hear about the problematic things lawyers do to get themselves into ethical trouble. From iffy (or nonexistent) fee agreements to tech incompetence to communication breakdowns, and more, April dishes on common reasons attorneys are reported for ethics violations. And, don't worry, she also offers sage advice on how to keep your clients happy and your practice on the up and up. Finally, April sticks around for some Rump Roast trivia dedicated to Colorful Colorado. Just wait til you hear about Blucifer—yikes.  ----- Think your life might be better if you lived in Colorado? Listen to this episode's playlist to set the scene. ----- April M. McMurrey is Deputy Regulation Counsel for the intake division of the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. Mentioned in this episode: ABA 50th National Conference on Professional Responsibility

If you haven't heard, there's a new GenAI tool on the block, and the other neighborhood kids aren't too happy about it. The newbie, DeepSeek, is stirring up a major rivalry with OpenAI over some alleged and oh-so ironic data “theft”—ha. So, what does Jared think? Well, he's here for the drama, AND for the AI ethics admonitions all you lawyers need to hear.  Later, even more ethics! Jared welcomes April McMurrey to hear about the problematic things lawyers do to get themselves into ethical trouble. From iffy (or nonexistent) fee agreements to tech incompetence to communication breakdowns, and more, April dishes on common reasons attorneys are reported for ethics violations. And, don't worry, she also offers sage advice on how to keep your clients happy and your practice on the up and up. Finally, April sticks around for some Rump Roast trivia dedicated to Colorful Colorado. Just wait til you hear about Blucifer—yikes.  ----- Think your life might be better if you lived in Colorado? Listen to this episode's playlist to set the scene. ----- April M. McMurrey is Deputy Regulation Counsel for the intake division of the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. Mentioned in this episode: ABA 50th National Conference on Professional Responsibility Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's speaker is Matt Martens, trial lawyer and Professor of Legal Ethics at Duke Law School. Mr. Martens looks at the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, and states that we must love those neighbors with whom our lives intersect.

Today's speaker is Matt Martens, trial lawyer and Professor of Legal Ethics at Duke Law School. Mr. Martens implores us, as Christians, to heed the command God chose Abraham to give, which is to do God's justice by presuming innocence, investigating thoroughly, and being committed to accuracy. His text is Genesis 18:16-33.

Today Jim Garrity revisits the headaches caused by examining lawyers who frequently interrupt your deponents' answers. To combat this problem, Garrity offers you a six-pronged strategy for stopping this practice and/or creating a strong record that will allow your deponents to later add materially to their interrupted testimony, whether by errata sheet, affidavit, or live testimony. Courts are far more likely to allow that where you've used Garrity's strategies. (By the way, if you have a moment, would you send our production team a small "thank you" by leaving us a five-star rating wherever you listen to our podcast? It takes just 30 seconds - we timed it! - and it's deeply appreciated. Our crew devotes a great deal of time to research and production, and the podcast is not only free, but also uncluttered by pesky advertising. Thank you so much.)SHOW NOTESIn re Injectafer Prod. Liab. Litig. ALL CASES, No. CV 19-276, 2022 WL 4280491  (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2022) (“Defendants propose. . . changing “It would be one of the—yes” to “It would be one of the sources of information. Yes.” This change is not necessarily inconsistent with the original testimony because it appears that the deponent was cut off or otherwise stopped speaking in the middle of the sentence and is justified as making the answer more complete. See id. While finishing a thought is not necessarily a proper justification for an errata modification, here it appears to be justified and within the flexible scope of the Third Circuit's approach to Rule 30(e)")Grey v.  Amex Assurance Company, 2002 WL 31242195, No. B152467 (Ct. App. Calif. Oct. 7, 2002) (reversing summary judgment in part because trial court abused discretion in failing to consider errata sheet containing “changes. . . made because the witness was interrupted before completing her answers;” further noting that the defendant “. . .took the risk that [the plaintiff's] corrections would bring some of its undisputed facts into controversy”)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 512 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (denying, without prejudice, motion to strike errata sheet, as motion failed to specifically discuss many of the 67 changes defendant wanted stricken; noting that “The reason given for the vast majority of the 67 changes was that [Plaintiff] “did not finish” her answer during the deposition, though the transcript does not reflect that she was interrupted and prevented from doing so,” and outlining how various courts and commentators deal with the extent to which changes to testimony can be made on errata sheets)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, F.R.D. 504, 512, fn. 5 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (noting that, if one looks back at the early origins of the rule on errata sheets, quoted in this opinion, it may be argued that the intent of the drafters was indeed to limit changes to clerical-level mistakes, not to allow substantive changes): "One commentator who examined the history of the rule dating back to the original Equity Rule 67, and the twin Equity Rules 50 and 51 that succeeded it, concluded that Rule 30 was never intended to allow for more than the correction of transcription errors: "Appeals to the plain language of Rule 30(e) are incomplete and misleading without reference to the Rule's transcriptive focus. Read in historical context, the Rule appears to be distinctly clerical, ill-equipped—and never intended—to embrace substantive changes. Although its wording has changed over time, Rule 30(e) has retained one modest but steady focus: the who, how, and what of accurate transcription. The Rule is meant to secure an accurate representation of what was said, leaving to another day (and frequently to the mechanisms of Rule 56) the question of the meaning and implication of the deposition content for purposes of material factual disputes. The common understanding of Rule 30(e) has moved far afield from that mild ambition, giving us the confusion and circuit split we know today. Read in light of its history, the Rule clearly embraces a transcriptive focus. Ruehlmann, Jr., supra, at 915. Rule 30(e)'s counterpart in Illinois state court, Supreme Court Rule 207(a), was amended to limit corrections to transcription errors because the “potential for testimonial abuse” had “become increasingly evident as witnesses submit[ted] lengthy errata sheets in which their testimony [was] drastically altered....” Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 207(a), Rules Committee Comment to Paragraph (a) (1995)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Deposition Dilemmas: Vexatious Scheduling and Errata Sheets, 12 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 60 (1998), for its author's argument that Rule 30(e) permits “opposing counsel, at her choosing, to introduce both versions to the jury”)Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir.2000) (observing, as to changes in errata sheet, that what the witness “tried to do, whether or not honestly, was to change his deposition from what he said to what he meant;” quoting the common refrain that “a deposition is not a take home examination,” the court remarked that while this was a “questionable basis for altering a deposition.” the court would allow the change under Rule 30(e) since the rule expressly “authorizes ‘changes in form or substance'.”Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-895, 2018 WL 1472527 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2018) (refusing, based on Sixth Circuit's strict interpretation of errata sheet changes, to allow “. . .impermissible substantive alterations to Tchankpa's testimony. . .”, including explanations stating “Incomplete; I was cut off,” allegedly because “defense counsel interrupted him;” “In this circuit, a deponent cannot make substantive changes to his deposition testimony under Rule 30(e) based on defense counsel's interruptions. . .”)Hirsch v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) When a party makes changes to his deposition pursuant to Rule 30(e), the original answers remain part of the record. See Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he rule requires that the original transcript be retained (it is implicit in the provision of that rule that any changes made by the deponent are to be appended to the transcript) so that the trier of fact can evaluate the honesty of the alteration.”); Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Subject to the rules of evidence, the jury is permitted to hear the original answer, the change, and the reasons for the change and decide – in the context of all the other evidence – whether to credit either answer and what weight to assign it.”); Coleman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 997 F. Supp. 1197, 1205 (D. Ariz. 1998) (accepting the argument that “a change in a deposition statement does not eradicate the deponent's original answers”); Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641-42 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (“Nothing in the language of Rule 30(e) requires or implies that the original answers are to be stricken when changes are made.”). The reason for this is obvious: “[t]he Rule is less likely to be abused if the deponent knows that ... the original answers[,] as well as the changes and the reasons will be subject to examination by the trier of fact")Hirsh v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) (court-ordered second deposition of plaintiff did not extend deadline for submitting errata sheet following delivery of transcript from first deposition; counsel claimed he “believed that the first deposition did not ‘count,' because it was ordered [to] be redone, and therefore corrections were reserved”; errata sheet rejected as untimely)Neutrion Dev. Corp. v. Sonosite, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 529, 550 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (allowing and considering – without apparent challenge or concern – expert's substantive changes to errata sheet, necessitated “. . . [because he] began to explain the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess, but was interrupted by Neutrino's counsel”)Trout v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 339 F. App'x 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting argument made by defendant that plaintiff “. . . is not entitled to benefit from her corrected deposition testimony because her counsel did not rehabilitate her statements during the deposition,” meaning plaintiff's counsel could and should have asked followup questions while the deposition was in progress)Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-4483-SCJ-AJB, 2014 WL 11517837, at fn. 2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2014) (Although Plaintiff's brief in response to Defendant's objections discusses a long day and interruptions by Defendant's counsel during the deposition, those reasons were not provided in the errata sheet. The Court also notes that if Defendant's counsel interrupted Plaintiff such that he could not elaborate much as he wished, Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity afterwards to examine her client on those points and did not do so.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(B) (federal rule of civil procedure on errata sheets, which expressly contemplates possible changes in form or substance)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (requiring objections not just to evidentiary issues but to a party's conduct, to the manner of taking the deposition, and to any other aspect of the deposition)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(i) (requiring objections to errors or irregularities at an oral examination if they relate to the manner of taking the deposition, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time)

In this new episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeff unwinds all things Luigi: from the arrest to the initial state charges, to the upgraded First Degree Murder charge, to the shocking federal charges. Included is Jeff's insight on why everything seemed to change in the prosecution — the impact of the massive pro-Luigi public groundswell is the culprit. In other news, Jeff describes a trip to Florida for a plea on a multi-million dollar fraud case which incredibly ended with no conviction for his young client, and why a generous act a few days prior may have caused this result. Lastly, NYC Mayor Adams' big mouthed top aide gets indicted and she still can't stop talking to the press. An update to an earlier podcast lays all the stupidity out. In short, Jeff called this one early.

Is the NAR settlement really a win for consumers? Law professor Tanya Monestier joins us to expose the flaws in the settlement, the legal loopholes, and the eye-popping payouts for lawyers.   We discuss the confusing forms, the workarounds that undermine the settlement's intent, and Tanya's bold appeal to challenge the system. Get ready for a deep dive into the legal battles shaping the real estate industry and discover what it means for buyers, sellers, and agents.   Connect with Tanya on - LinkedIn.    Check out Tanya's book, Sh*t No One Tells You About Law School.  Follow Real Estate Insiders Unfiltered Podcast on Instagram - YouTube - Facebook - TikTok. Visit us online at realestateinsidersunfiltered.com. https://realestateinsidersunfiltered.com/   Link to Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/RealEstateInsidersUnfiltered Link to Instagram Page: https://www.instagram.com/realestateinsiderspod/ Link to YouTube Page: https://www.youtube.com/@RealEstateInsidersUnfiltered Link to TikTok Page: https://www.tiktok.com/@realestateinsiderspod   This podcast is produced by Two Brothers Creative 2024.   

In this episode, Jeff dives into the trial of Daniel Penny, the former Marine charged in the death of Jordan Neely on a New York subway. With jurors grappling over manslaughter charges, Jeff explores the legal, cultural, and moral dimensions of the case. Was Penny a reckless vigilante or the hero every New Yorker prays for when chaos erupts underground? And how does Alvin Bragg, Manhattan's controversial DA, fit into this mess?Then, a dramatic shift in the Middle East: the Assad regime crumbled this past weekend with shocking speed, leaving Syria in rebel hands and Iran's terror network shattered. Jeff unpacks why this is more than just the fall of a dictator — it's the collapse of a decades-long “axis of resistance.” From Iran's humiliation to Hezbollah's downfall, find out how Israel pulled off what seemed impossible in just 14 months.

Jeffrey Lichtman dives into the art of trial summation, sharing how a line from a 1977 Robbie Benson film unexpectedly found its way into the John Gotti, Jr. summation. Bottom line: the more that's in your brain, the more that can come out — and help you —  at unexpected times.Next, Jeff unpacks the bail denial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, highlighting the challenges of defending a high-profile client when the media circus and public perception play a heavier role than the facts of the case. From alleged jailhouse rule-breaking to a judge unwilling to take the risk, Jeff explains why this outcome isn't surprising — and how defense lawyers need to be careful not to help the judge hurt their client.Finally, a blistering critique of Joe Biden: the President was spotted with a book by an anti-Israel provocateur while Americans remain hostages in Gaza. Jeff connects Biden's public nod to Palestinian propaganda with the surge of anti-Semitism in North America and abroad, calling out the administration's complicity in enabling global Jew-hate.

Welcome to Connect, a podcast featuring one-on-one interviews with some of the top movers and shakers in the mortgage industry. This week we welcome 2024 Legal Issues and Compliance Conference Co-chairs Melissa Koupal, | SVP, Servicing Risk & Compliance, CMG Financial and Maria Moskver, CEO, CloudVirga Episode discussion timestamps: 1:44 - Thank you for Co-Chairing our upcoming 2024 Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference next week. You've both attended this conference several times, what sessions are you most interested in this year? 3:53 - From a lender's perspective, what is your top compliance concern right now? 5:25 - From a solution providers perspective, what is the most prevalent issue you're seeing from your clients relative to compliance? 6:17 - Sheila Oliver, Deputy Commissioner of the Mortgage Division of the DFPI is attending and speaking. What topics are you hoping she covers during her presentation? 8:29 - Can you each give our listeners a little preview of what we'll be covering during the conference? 10:57 - Listeners should also know that we've applied for MCLE credits from the California State Bar for those attorneys licensed here, including an hour of Legal Ethics! 12:21 - Register for California MBA's 2024 Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference: https://lirc24.events.cmba.com/ **Use LEGAL-50 at checkout to receive $50 off your conference registration, just for listening to our podcast today!** To learn more about the California MBA, visit cmba.com

In this episode, Jeffrey Lichtman dives into the aftermath of the 2024 election — Kamala Harris's resounding defeat and the unexpected national shift that defied nearly every major poll. Jeff openly admits he underestimated the American electorate, having repeatedly predicted that Trump could never win. But last week, Trump did just that, sweeping the popular vote, dominating in swing states, and leaving pundits scrambling to explain why they got it so wrong. Jeff reflects on the issues that broke in Trump's favor: from crime and immigration to economic and foreign policies that Americans across demographics were ready to change.Jeff also dissects the hypocrisy of the left's elite, who preached social justice and open borders while ignoring Americans' real needs. He explores the hard truths that Harris  and the Democrats refused to face, from soaring crime rates to economic strain and unchecked immigration. America had enough, and Jeff sees this election as a signal that the tide has turned. With the House and Senate now in his favor, Trump has a narrow window to make real changes, but as Jeff warns, he can't waste time this time around.

With Election Day looming, Jeff dives into the political desperation driving the Democrats' strategy—and why, for the first time, he's decided to vote for Trump. As smear campaigns and absurd accusations pile up, Jeff examines the stark reality of what's at stake and contrasts the Democrats' fearmongering with the mess they've actually created: open borders, sky-high consumer prices, and the normalization of anti-Semitic hate crimes. If the stakes weren't so high, he might sit this one out, but at this point, voting has become a defense mechanism for what remains of the country's sanity.Shifting gears, Jeff discusses how ineffective assistance of counsel claims made by imprisoned clients shouldn't ruffle a defense lawyer's feathers — the clients are in jail after all.  Using his own experience with high-profile clients, including El Chapo, he sheds light on the personal, ethical, and sometimes laughable aspects of these claims—and the mess the press often makes when covering them.Finally, Jeff pays a long-overdue tribute to the band Social Distortion, a band that's resonated with him for decades. More than just rockabilly punk, the band's music speaks to struggle, redemption, and raw honesty. From “When the Angels Sing” to “I Was Wrong,” Jeff shares why these tracks mean so much to him, urging listeners to give the band a chance beyond his podcast snippets.

Nicole O'Byrne talks to Adam Dodek about his book, Heenan Blaikie: The Making and Unmaking of a Great Canadian Law Firm. In 1973, three young lawyers founded Heenan Blaikie in Montreal, which grew to be a prominent Canadian law firm with notable members, including former political leaders. Despite its close-knit atmosphere, the firm faced significant internal issues, leading to its collapse in 2014. Adam Dodek, an impartial observer, examines the firm's rise and fall, highlighting its unique culture alongside underlying problems like workplace bullying, challenges for women and minorities, and sexual harassment. The narrative is contextualized within broader societal changes, including economic shifts and crises. Dodek's thorough investigation serves as an essential read for legal professionals and those interested in the dynamics of corporate failure. Adam Dodek is a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. Among his numerous publications are In Search of the Ethical Lawyer; The Canadian Constitution, Third Edition, named by the Hill Times as one of the top 100 books on Canadian public policy; and Solicitor-Client Privilege, which won the Walter Owen Book Prize. He is a recipient of the Canadian Association of Law Teachers Prize for Academic Excellence, the Mundell Medal for excellence in legal writing, and the Law Society of Ontario's Law Society Medal. He is also a director of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics and the Canadian Legal Information Institute, and a past governor of the Law Commission of Ontario. Image Credit: UBC Press If you like our work, please consider supporting it: bit.ly/support_WTY. Your support contributes to the Champlain Society's mission of opening new windows to directly explore and experience Canada's past.

In late September, prosecutors say, Sheriff Mickey Stines drew his gun on Judge Kevin Mullins, his longtime co-worker and friend. Video from inside the judge's chambers appear to show Stines repeatedly firing on Mullins, who tries to shield himself behind his desk. Guest Bio and Links: Joshua Schiffer is an attorney providing legal services covering Criminal Defense, Personal Injury. Listeners can learn more about Joshua Sschiffer at his website: https://chancoschiffer.com/  In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, talks with Joshua Schiffer about a series of tragic incidents in courthouse settings and their far-reaching impacts on communities. They reflect on a 2005 courthouse shooting in Fulton County, the recent violent event involving a sheriff and a judge in Kentucky, and the resulting generational and emotional toll. Sheryl and Joshua discuss the spread of misinformation, institutional knowledge, and the importance of experienced public servants in local governance and law enforcement. Additionally, the episode touches upon legal and ethical considerations in judicial cases, the complexities of personal relationships within public offices, and the implications of youthful misjudgments in the justice system. Show Notes: (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum   (0:10) The courthouse shooting incident (3:00) Remembering the victims (6:00) Impact on the community (8:30) Gun violence in America and its repercussions (10:30) Speculation on the sheriff's daughter and judge interaction (15:00) Analysis of premeditation in courtroom violence (20:30) Community's deep loss and institutional impact (24:00) Legal ramifications (28:45) Potential corruption and exposure (32:00) Finding a jury (37:00) “The whole county is just devastated by this. we've lost not only our sheriff and a district judge, I've lost two personal friends that I worked with every day.” -M.W Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review!  --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases.   Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeffrey Lichtman returns with a no-holds-barred breakdown of the upcoming election, offering his scathing analysis of the Harris/Biden administration's four years. He questions why Harris, after four disastrous years in office, refuses to say what she would do differently than Biden — when she could honestly answer that the last four years was Biden's fault. Harris' inability to answer even the simplest questions becomes a centerpiece of this episode, along with her jaw-dropping agreement with pro-Palestinian protesters that Israel has committed genocide. Lichtman highlights the terrifying implications of a continued administration that coddles terrorists while simultaneously lying to the American people about crime stats and the economy.In lighter news, Jeff shares his strong, hilarious warnings against going on a cruise—unless Legionnaire's disease and Baked Alaska are your idea of a good time. He then offers his thoughts on what it takes to win in the courtroom on big media cases, reflecting on his own experiences in high-profile trials. From Kamala's dangerous incompetence to the absurdities of cruises, Jeff covers it all in this blistering episode.

In this episode, Jeff analyzes the evidence against Mayor Eric Adams and finds him to be a low-level grifter with a penchant for obstruction of justice. But why did the federal prosecutors not request a dollar of bail for him when they successfully sought to detain Sean Combs pretrial? Adams sold out NYC to a Muslim terror state and Combs had sex parties. The uneven application of the law is startling.And Jeff recaps Israel's incredible week of decapitating Hezbollah in the most humiliating fashion. Why Kamala Harris wants Iran's strongest terror proxy to survive via ceasefire is shocking. How can peace in the Middle East be achieved when Iran is permitted to occupy and terrorize country after country? Israel had enough of this and acted alone, with historical success.

Jared Jaskot of Jaskot Law in Baltimore discusses how to ethically and effectively use artificial intelligence (AI) in an immigration firm, excerpted from MCLE's 6/6/2024 live webcast: Practical Uses for AI in Trial Preparation & Legal Practice. The full program is available as an on-demand webcast or an MP3 here.  Get 24/7 instant access to hundreds of related eLectures like this one—and more—with a subscription to the MCLE OnlinePass. Learn more at www.mcle.org/onlinepass and start your free trial today! Connect with us on socials!Instagram: mcle.newenglandX (Formerly Twitter): MCLENewEnglandLinkedIn: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE│New England)Facebook: MCLE New EngalndThreads: mcle.newnengland

Dear lawyers, software integrations exist to help you make life easier, make work faster, and much more. So, get on board as Jared takes us on a magical journey of understanding, helping lawyers everywhere grasp the versatile, customizable integration possibilities in legal practice. Jared explains the differences between direct, indirect, and DIY integrations, and gives real-life, legal-centric examples of how to amp up the usefulness of your software in almost innumerable ways.  Next, there are definitely some issues with our current legal ethics rules, but is there really any way to clear up the confusion? Jared welcomes legal ethics expert Jayne Reardon to talk about some of the inconsistencies at play, antiquated rules, inconsistent enforcement, and all sorts of other ethics questions worth examining in view of the current climate of the profession and needs of consumers. While Jared wants to burn it all down, Jayne offers constructive criticism vital to the future of legal ethics. And, finally, the Rump Roast, of course! Jared and Jayne play a round of trivia called “Questionable Ethics”. Which philosopher had a penchant for being swaddled like a baby? Yikes. Jayne R. Reardon is a Partner and Deputy General Counsel at FisherBroyles LLP, a distributed global law firm. ----- This week, Jared shares the playlist he turns to for help making the "right" choice. Proceed with caution. ------ Our opening song is Two Cigarettes by Major Label Interest. Our closing song is Something Else by Nu Alkemis$t.

Dear lawyers, software integrations exist to help you make life easier, make work faster, and much more. So, get on board as Jared takes us on a magical journey of understanding, helping lawyers everywhere grasp the versatile, customizable integration possibilities in legal practice. Jared explains the differences between direct, indirect, and DIY integrations, and gives real-life, legal-centric examples of how to amp up the usefulness of your software in almost innumerable ways.  Next, there are definitely some issues with our current legal ethics rules, but is there really any way to clear up the confusion? Jared welcomes legal ethics expert Jayne Reardon to talk about some of the inconsistencies at play, antiquated rules, inconsistent enforcement, and all sorts of other ethics questions worth examining in view of the current climate of the profession and needs of consumers. While Jared wants to burn it all down, Jayne offers constructive criticism vital to the future of legal ethics. And, finally, the Rump Roast, of course! Jared and Jayne play a round of trivia called “Questionable Ethics”. Which philosopher had a penchant for being swaddled like a baby? Yikes. Jayne R. Reardon is a Partner and Deputy General Counsel at FisherBroyles LLP, a distributed global law firm. ----- This week, Jared shares the playlist he turns to for help making the "right" choice. Proceed with caution. ------ Our opening song is Two Cigarettes by Major Label Interest. Our closing song is Something Else by Nu Alkemis$t.

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists. This week's topics: 00:00 - Introductions 03:01 - Special guests from vLex: Ed Walters, chief strategy officer, and Robin Chesterman, global head of product, will join to discuss to discuss the major updates to Vincent AI 29:38 - Filevine Conference recap, and Filevine's Depo CoPilot 39:00 - Nonlawyer entities could provide legal services in Washington in proposed pilot program (Selected by Victor Li) 43:30 - Legal Ethics in the AI Era: The NYC Bar Weighs In (Selected by Niki Black) 45:00 - Florida calls out Gen Ai specifically in competency, confidentiality and supervisory rule. Is it a good thing (Selected by Stephen Embry)

Dean Andrew Perlman of Suffolk Law School joins host Cat Moon for a discussion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and legal ethics on Talk Justice. Perlman authored an article in February of this year, “The Legal Ethics of Generative AI,” which describes how lawyers can use generative AI while satisfying their ethical obligations.

Dean Andrew Perlman of Suffolk Law School joins host Cat Moon for a discussion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and legal ethics on Talk Justice. Perlman authored an article in February of this year, “The Legal Ethics of Generative AI,” which describes how lawyers can use generative AI while satisfying their ethical obligations.

In this episode, Jeff provides updates on several high-profile cases. First, he breaks down the latest news surrounding his client, Joaquin Guzman Lopez, son of El Chapo, who arrived in the U.S. from Mexico with the world's biggest drug dealer in tow. An absurd international saga followed.Next, Jeff shares a positive outcome for his elderly client, former doctor Stephen Miller, who received probation instead of a prison sentence after assisting a terminally ill woman's suicide. With this disposition, Miller avoids spending his final years behind bars.Jeff then revisits his lawsuit against Columbia University, where pro-Hamas students overreacted to a harmless prank by two Israeli students involving a novelty fart spray. Despite clear evidence, Columbia's administration chose to punish the Israeli students while giving the terror-supporting students a pass. In the new school year, Columbia's administration shows it has learned nothing.Finally, Jeff reflects on Kamala Harris's dangerous appeasement of Hamas supporters, a troubling stance that raises serious concerns about her leadership as the world faces increasing instability.

In this episode, Jeff delves into the recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where Kamala Harris swore she is the only one who can fix America's current problems while conveniently ignoring her role in creating the mess over the past four years. The real show, though, was outside, where pro-Palestinian rioters attempted to turn the convention into a war zone. Yet Democrats suddenly discovered the utility of walls—just not for our borders. Jeff breaks down the hypocrisy and the disturbing poll numbers showing that Democrats increasingly support Hamas over Israel. PS: Someone check Tim Walz's Google searches. Next, Jeff shares an update on his client, Joaquin Guzman Lopez, son of El Chapo. Despite claims that he captured the world's most notorious fugitive drug lord, Mayo Zambada, Joaquin now faces kidnapping charges from the Mexican government, which for some odd reason seems angry that the biggest criminal in their country is in custody.

In this podcast, Jeff describes his hectic week which started with the startling news of the arrest of a 50 year fugitive, “El Mayo” Zambada and the murky circumstances around his capture. Jeff ended up in court in Chicago to represent Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of “El Chapo” and the second person on the plane with El Mayo when they touched down in Texas from Mexico.Jeff also discusses the anointment of Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, after it became crystal clear that Biden was set up in that debate, only to be forced out.  Harris is incredibly unlikable and incompetent, which is why she was trounced in the 2020 primaries; only if she could be installed at the last minute, without winning a single primary or vote, could the liberal press – which lampooned her for 3 ½ years – turn on a dime and push her cackling carcass across the finish line, all the while hiding her flaws.  To Jeff, what hurts the most is Harris' horrible treatment of Blacks in California when she was the San Francisco DA and the state's Attorney General: Blacks make up 6% of the population in California and Harris ensured that the prison population was 29% Black, including mothers whose children were truant from school and non-violent marijuana defendants.  That Blacks can forgive her for this treatment is both stupefying and sad. Finally, Jeff discusses the imminent war between Iran and Israel and notes that this is finally the time for the West to rid the world of the global cancer that is the Iranian regime and its terror proxies. Iran has only grown to become more of a threat globally and now may have nuclear weapons: if not now, when can the mullahs be destroyed, as they promise to kill civilians inside Israel, after directing the Hamas October 7 terror attack which killed citizens from all over the world?

In this episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeff dissects the monumental news of Joe Biden dropping out of the presidential race. It's not because he recognized his incompetence, but because his disastrous debate performance left him without support. Jeff describes Biden's fall as a humiliation he richly deserved, detailing how his party, advisors, and even his family abandoned him, using and abusing him until there was nothing left.Moreover, Biden's parting shot—endorsing Kamala Harris—shows his true priorities: pushing a DEI agenda over competent leadership. Jeff pulls no punches in describing Harris as wholly unfit to handle global adversaries like Putin and China.Jeff then turns his attention to the troubling assassination attempt on Donald Trump. With the Secret Service seemingly asleep at the wheel, Jeff questions how a 20-year-old managed to come so close to changing history. From the roof left unguarded to the improbable sharpshooting skills of a previously inept gunman, Jeff explores the plot's glaring inconsistencies and leaves listeners pondering the deeper implications of such a security failure.Tune in for a scathing critique of political incompetence and a chilling look at how dangerously close we came to a national tragedy.

Karen Conti is one of Chicago's most prominent lawyers and legal analysts. For 37 years she has actively litigated cases across the country, tried jury trials, and handled appeals in a variety of different practice areas.  She has handled numerous high-profile and noteworthy cases across the country including a First Amendment appeal before the U. S. Supreme Court. She is a dynamic speaker, writer, and media personality with over 30 years of experience in national and local radio and television.  For 30 years, she has hosted award-winning radio shows in Chicago, and is the host of a popular weekly broadcast, “The Karen Conti Show”. Listeners can learn more about Karen Conti at her website, and on X @Kcontilaw In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, is joined by renowned attorney Karen Conti to discuss her career and her controversial defense of notorious serial killer, John Wayne Gacy. Karen shares her journey to becoming a lawyer, the reasons she wanted to fight for Gacy, the legal challenges she faced, along with the public's reaction. Without a doubt, Karen gives perspectives on what is necessary for the legal system to properly function. Show Notes: (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum   (0:30) Sheryl introduces guest, Karen Conti to the listeners (2:30) Karen's initial thoughts on Gacy's case (3:30) Who was John Wayne Gacy (7:00) The legal challenges in defending Gacy (8:30) The role of a defense attorney in the eyes of the system (11:55) Killing Time with John Wayne Gacy: Defending America's Most Evil Serial Killer on Death Row (16:00) Karen's reflects on what Gacy was like (18:40) The legal challenges in defending Gacy (20:00) Karen's personal and professional impact from the case (22:00) “As a lawyer, you get identified with your client, whether you like it or not.” (26:20) The possibility of other victims  (31:20) Karen speaks on her varied career  (35:20) Final thoughts on the justice system and advocacy (38:35) “He was basically your guy next door. He was very well-liked and respected.  People think of John Gacy as this big, evil, mean person that had this scary persona.  But it wasn't like that at all.” -M.A Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review!  --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases.   Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcast  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the legal landscape, the adoption of new technologies offers remarkable benefits. Tools like AI-driven document drafting systems empower attorneys to efficiently create complex legal documents without needing advanced technical skills. Embracing these kinds of technologies will save time and allow legal professionals to focus on higher-value tasks. Troy Doucet is a top-rated litigation attorney, legal tech innovator, and the founder of AI.Law, a legal document drafting system. Having studied economics in college and built a prestigious practice as a litigation lawyer, he has a unique viewpoint on the revolutionary possibilities of artificial intelligence. His knowledge of the litigation process is currently being directed toward creating artificial intelligence to increase accessibility to the legal system. Troy frequently lectures about the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal sector and how it will fundamentally change the way lawyers provide services. Troy has taught multiple programs on consumer law, real estate law, and AI.  Troy and I discuss the following three questions and more! What are the top three things AI.Law can do either faster or better than an attorney who does not use AI.Law? What are three ways AI dot law prevents hallucinations, and what are the top three things attorneys should do when using AI to help draft their documents, prevent you to prevent hallucinations?   What inspired you to create AI.Law?  In our conversation, we cover: [01.29] Tech setup – Troy's current tech setup. [02.44] AI.Law – Troy explains how AI.Law works on mobile devices. [05.00] Learning obstacles – Troy shares how he shifted from Android to Apple. [08.41] The benefits – The advantages of using AI.Law. [11.44] Computer proficiency – Troy explains why lawyers don't need advanced technical skills to use AI.Law. [13.52] Efficiency – Troy explains how AI.Law can save time and allows legal professionals to focus on higher-value tasks. [18.25] Hallucinations – A guide to minimize hallucinations. [21.09] Other AIs – Troy talks about the AI products he uses other than AI.Law. [22.17] The inspiration – Troy explains what inspired him to create AI.Law. [26.00] Terms of Services – The terms of services people should look out for when using AI. [29.48] The usage of AI – The importance of choosing the AI that will work best for you. [33.40] Do It Yourself – Troy explains his take on lawyers using AI as a DIY service. [38.29] Emotional component – How AI can help people in unexpected situations in life.  Resources: Connect with Troy LinkedIn – linkedin.com/in/tdoucet/ Website – ai.law/ SPECIAL DISCOUNT CODE FOR NEW USERS AT AI.LAW:  "Tech Savvy" Equipment Mentioned in the Podcast HyperX Vision S Webcam – hyperx.com/products/hyperx-vision-s-webcam?variant=43855670411421 Infinite RS desktop - us.msi.com/Desktop/Infinite-RS-14th iPhone 15 - apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-15 LG TV - lg.com/uk/tvs-soundbars/smart-tvs/oled48c36la/ Software & Services Mentioned in the Podcast AI.law - ai.law/ MacRumors - macrumors.com/  

In this episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeffrey Lichtman takes a trip down memory lane, recounting his teenage years during the Iran hostage crisis and his bold fashion choices at Spencer Gifts. Reflecting on his long-standing frustration with the stagnant state of world affairs, Jeff vents about the repetitive and disheartening news cycle that seems to never improve since his days on New York City talk radio.Shifting gears, Jeff dives into a compelling murder case he's currently handling in Queens, NY. A woman falls to her death from a sixth-floor apartment, and her boyfriend stands accused of murder. Jeff outlines the case's core question: was it suicide or foul play? A trial awaits.The episode also tackles the recent Trump-Biden debate. Despite his aversion to Trump, Jeff expresses his desperation, suggesting he'd crawl over glass to vote for Trump, as Biden is barely alive. Jeff lambasts the current administration which is doing all that it can the obvious fact that Biden is not fit for office. And a vote for Biden is essentially a vote for his far-left advisors, who are clearly the ones in charge and who have gotten us into this global mess. 

In today's episode, Jeff opens up about his deepening sense of hopelessness regarding the current state of America and its far-reaching implications for the world. He tackles the alarming rise of radical Islam combined with extreme liberalism and the surprising alliances formed with fringe far-right groups, all united by a shared hatred.Jeff doesn't mince words as he describes shocking incidents in New York City, including threats against Jewish individuals by Hezbollah supporters on the subway. He provides detailed accounts of these disturbing events, highlighting the lack of pushback and the growing acceptance of extremist ideologies. With a critical eye on how we've allowed such radical elements to proliferate, Jeff calls for urgent action and awareness, warning that our complacency could lead to disastrous consequences.This isn't a feel-good podcast, but a crucial wake-up call about the realities we face. If you're looking for light entertainment, this isn't the episode for you. But if you care about the future of America, listen on.Get episodes sent directly to you via email by subscribing at https://beyondthelegallimit.com/subscribe.

This episode explores Atom Egoyan's 1997 film, The Sweet Hereafter, which describes the impact of a tragic school bus accident that caused the death of 14 children on a small Canadian town. The film is based on Russell Banks' 1991 novel of the same name (which in turn was based on a real-life bus crash in Texas). The film centers on personal injury lawyer Mitchell Stephens (Ian Holm), who travels to the town after the accident in an attempt to persuade the parents of the children to bring a negligence lawsuit. The controversy generated by the lawsuit ripples through the community and is explored through several characters in the town, including Nicole (Sarah Polley), a teenage girl who is left paralyzed from the waist down by the accident; Dolores Driscoll (Gabrielle Rose), the bus driver on the fateful, day; and various parents who have sharply conflicting views on the lawsuit. The Sweet Hereafter, however, is much more than a story about tort litigation; it explores larger philosophical questions around justice, community norms, and the role of law in addressing life's most painful tragedies. I am joined by Seán Patrick Donlan, a Professor of Law at Thompson Rivers University in British Columbia, Canada.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:18     Recruiting plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit9:58     Judith Shklar's distinction between misfortune and injustice14:20   Law and defense of community21:45   The loss of children28:52   The deposition that unravels the case39:13   Assigning blame and scapegoating47:02   More on Atom Egoyan           49:13   The role of the Pied PiperFurther reading:Banks, Russell, The Sweet Hereafter (1991)Fried, Margaret J. & Frolik, Lawrence A. “The Limits of Law: Litigation, Lawyers, and the Search for Justice in Russell Banks' ‘The Sweet Hereafter,'” 7 Cardozo Stud. Law & Lit. 1 (1995)Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, “Can They Do That? Legal Ethics in Popular Culture: Of Characters and Acts,” 48 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1305 (2001)O'Neill, Timothy P., “There Will Be Blame: Misfortune and Injustice in ‘The Sweet Hereafter,'” 5 U. Denv. Sports & Ent. L.J. 19 (2008)Sarat, Austin, “Exploring the Hidden Domains of Civil Justice: ‘Naming, Blaming, and Claiming' in Popular Culture,” 50 DePaul L. Rev. 425 (2000)Scherr, Alexander & Farber, Hillary, “Popular Culture as a Lens on Legal Professionalism,” 55 S.C. L. Rev. (2003)Shklar, Judith, The Facts of Justice (1990)Weisberg, Richard H., “‘The Verdict' Is In: The Civic Implications of Civil Trials,” 50 DePaul L. Rev. 525 (2000) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Is legal representation in the U.S. only for the rich and corporations? That's a question that we'll explore in this episode of Stanford Legal with guests David and Nora Freeman Engstrom, two leading authorities on access to justice and the legal profession. They'll explain the roots of the challenge, how unauthorized practice of law rules contribute to the problem, and how to address them. The Engstroms co-direct Stanford Law School's Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, an academic center working to shape the future of legal services and access to the legal system. This episode delves into some alarming statistics, including the fact that in three-quarters of civil cases in state courts, at least one party is without a lawyer. This alone often leads to unjust outcomes in cases involving debt collection, evictions, family law, and other areas. And that is just part of the problem, as the Engstroms explain.   Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Nora Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School PageDavid Freeman Engstrom >>> Stanford Law School PageChapter 1: The Access to Justice Crisis in the U.S.(00:00:00) Pam Karlan introduces the episode, discussing the work of David and Nora Freeman Engstrom at Stanford Law School's Deborah Rhode Center on the Legal Profession. This section provides an overview of the access to justice crisis, highlighting the high percentage of cases where individuals lack legal representation and a look at the types of cases predominantly at issue, including debt collection, evictions, mortgage foreclosures, and family law cases.Chapter 2: Understanding the Consequences and Causes of Legal Inaccessibility(00:7:06)  David and Nora Freeman Engstrom explore the broader implications of the lack of legal representation, including the cascade of related legal and financial issues that arise from initial problems like wage garnishment and eviction. They also touch on the hidden legal issues that never make it to court due to individuals' inability to seek legal help.Chapter 3: Exploring Solutions and Technological Impacts on Access to Justice(00:10:07) David and Nora Freeman Engstrom  delve into potential solutions to the access to justice crisis, including the role of technology in both exacerbating and potentially alleviating the problem. They discuss the efficiency of technological tools used by the debt collection industry and the implications for legal access.Chapter 4: The Technology Asymmetry in Debt Collection(00:14:19 )  Pam Karlan and David Freeman Engstrom discuss how debt collectors use automation to exploit legal processes against unrepresented individuals. They highlight the stark disparity between technological access for debt collectors and individual defendants. Engstrom points out the restrictive rules that limit software-driven legal services, exacerbating the access to justice crisis.Chapter 5: The Historical Context and Current Restrictions on Legal Services(00:15:55)  Nora Freeman Engstrom delves into the history of legal service restrictions in the U.S., contrasting it with medical professions. She introduces her research on auto clubs and their provision of legal services in the early 20th century, showing how organized bar associations shut down these alternatives to preserve their monopoly.Chapter 6: Modern Innovations and Future Prospects in Legal Services(00:24:13)  The host and guests discuss recent efforts to relax unauthorized practice of law rules in states like Utah and Arizona. They explore innovative legal service models emerging from these reforms, including tiered services and AI-driven solutions, and their potential to democratize access to legal assistance. The discussion highlights how entities like LegalZoom are now able to hire lawyers and provide more comprehensive services. They also touch on the potential of generative AI to bridge the gap between legal jargon and plain language, making legal assistance more accessible to the public. The chapter concludes with reflections on the promise and challenges of these technological advancements.

In this podcast, Jeff takes to task Donald Trump's defense attorneys who expressed their belief they never had a chance at trial. Does any high profile defendant have a decent chance in a criminal trial in NYC? Of course not — but that doesn't mean the lawyers should give a lackluster, whiny effort. Clear, avoidable mistakes were made and yet again, Trump's choice of lawyers results in an L. In other news, the Biden administration and the Democrats are doing all they can to keep Hamas in power and to destroy Israel. Not surprisingly, we now have Muslim terrorists and their supporters running wild on the streets of America. As America goes, so goes the world and the global anti-semtiism is at a level not seen since the Nazis. It is becoming increasingly rare to find good people to do the right thing when it comes to standing up to Muslim terror and for America: Jeff examines this phenomenon and asks you to harken back to his Oct 8, 2023 podcast where he predicted this sorry result.

NVIDIA's Head of AI & Legal Ethics, Nikki Pope, talks about why how we talk about artificial intelligence matters and why making the tech representative of more people is important. She and Niki break down some of the myths surrounding the tech and re-examine what regulators should be focused on when they think of “existential threat” and AI. Spoiler alert - it's not what Hollywood thinks! “...democratization of AI means making sure that we don't leave cultures and languages and communities behind as we all go running breakneck into the future.” -Nikki PopeFollow Nikki Pope on LinkedInRead more about Te Hiku MediaLearn more about NVIDIA's Trustworthy AI initiative Learn More at www.techedup.com Follow us on Instagram Check out video on YouTube Follow Niki on LinkedIn

A brain-dead serial killer, Robert 'Willie' Pickton, is at the center of a controversial debate: should he be revived to face justice or remain in his vegetative state? Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

In this episode of the ADCG Privacy & Cybersecurity Podcast, host Jody Westby is joined by former Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges, a legal thought leader in the areas of electronic discovery and artificial intelligence and the law. Jody and Ron discuss how AI is driving legislative and regulatory action, including action within the judiciary and ethics rules and guidance from bar associations. In addition to discussing issues with admissibility and discovery of evidence, Ron discusses how the work of three bar associations regarding the use of AI in the legal profession could be a model for professionals in other industry sectors. Ron is a member of the New York and New Jersey state bar associations' AI Task Forces, and is Chair of the Court Technology Committee of the ABA Judicial Division. He is principal at Ronald J. Hedges LLC.

In the quiet suburb of Cherry Hill, a respected rabbi orchestrates the brutal murder of his wife to pursue an affair with a radio host, unraveling a community's trust and exposing a tangled web of deceit and betrayal. Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

In the quiet suburb of Cherry Hill, a respected rabbi orchestrates the brutal murder of his wife to pursue an affair with a radio host, unraveling a community's trust and exposing a tangled web of deceit and betrayal. Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

In this explosive episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeffrey Lichtman delves into the disturbing rise of extremist activities on college campuses, focusing on a recent incident at Columbia University where Jewish students were targeted by pro-Hamas radicals. Imagine sending your child to a prestigious university, only to find they're subjected to hate-filled tirades from supporters of terrorism, right in the heart of their college campus—a place they should feel safe.Lichtman doesn't just narrate the events; he paints a vivid picture of the parental nightmare and the ideological battleground that many top-tier universities have become. With tuition fees sky-high, parents and students alike are left questioning the value of an education marred by unchecked radicalism and administrative apathy.As Jeffrey peels back the layers on this issue, he exposes the network of funding and support that sustains such extremist activities, suggesting the need for a deeper investigation, perhaps even at the congressional level. This episode is a call to action: for parents, students, and policymakers to reclaim the sanctity of education from the clutches of radicalism. Tune in as Lichtman brings his trademark fiery analysis to this urgent issue, demanding accountability.Subscribe to BTLL Direct to get episodes delivered to your inbox each week: https://BeyondTheLegalLimit.com/subscribe