Podcasts about Legal ethics

This week Jeff opens with the long-awaited Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, a dazzling military operation years in the making. But instead of support for Israel, Jeff is stunned by the response: hatred not only from the far left but now pouring out of MAGA's biggest names. Yes, the Trump-right has joined Hamas and the progressive left in their obsessive Jew hatred, and Jeff is seething.Trump, meanwhile, couldn't resist taking credit for the Israeli success after the fact, even though he reportedly tried to block the strike for months. And if he actually helped, why didn't he greenlight American B-52s to finish the job on the underground nuke sites? Why is he trying to make a huge deal when the world's biggest sponsor of terror is on its knees?Also this week: a tale of how a young lawyer buying his first suits comes full circle 30 years later, this time as a man paying cash with 44 tailored suits under his belt. Plus, Jeff faces a federal judge he went to college with and admits, despite all of his own accomplishments, the judge is the better man.As always, Jeff pulls no punches. Not for MAGA. Not for Trump. Not for the far left. And certainly not for anyone siding with the world's worst terror regime.

Monday, June 2nd, 2025Today, Ukraine destroyed more than 40 military aircraft in a drone attack deep inside Russia; the new Office of Personnel Management hiring plan includes loyalty essays; ICE raids a restaurant on a Friday night in San Diego and uses flashbang grenades to disperse the protesting crowd; Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to assassinate Trump but that appears to have been a set up; Donald Trump shared a conspiracy theory on Truth Social saying Biden was executed in 2020 and the man that was President until 2025 is a robot clone; top officials overseeing deportations at ICE are leaving their positions; a Women is suing Kansas over a law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy; Dan Bongino and Kash Patel say video shows that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide; Elon Musk denies a report that he took so much ketamine he doesn't pee right; the CDC keeps recommending Covid vaccines for children in defiance of RFK Jr; a Reagan appointed judge orders the Trump administration to fund Radio Free Europe; PBS has filed suit against the Trump regime for first amendment violations; the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reject's Trump's bid to move forward with massive federal government reductions in force; California opens an inquiry into Paramount and Trump; the government has ended a critical HIV vaccine effort; elderly and disabled Californians with more than $2,000 could lose Medi-Cal; a Jeffrey Epstein survivor is suing the FBI for failing to address her claims; Taylor Swift gets her music back; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, DeletMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Thank You, PiqueGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeans Sat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovementMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Paul KieselSpeak Up for Justice  - Speak Up for Justice seeks to bring the country together to voice support for the judiciary at a time when it is under unprecedented attack. It grows out of a shared recognition that the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are the hallmarks of our democracy. Next Webinars - June 26, July 31Stories:Outrage and solidarity after ICE raid shakes South Park restaurant | Fox 5 San DiegoAppeals panel leaves layoff injunction in place as Trump's RIF plans likely head to Supreme Court | Government ExecutivePBS sues Trump over executive order targeting federal funding, following NPR | The Washington PostWomen sue Kansas over law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy | The Washington PostCalifornia opens inquiry into Paramount and Trump | SemaforUkraine destroys 40 aircraft deep inside Russia ahead of peace talks in Istanbul | AP NewsOPM ‘merit' hiring plan includes bipartisan reforms, politicized new test | Government ExecutiveTop Officials Overseeing Deportations Leave Their Roles at ICE | The New York TimesExclusive: Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to kill Trump. Investigators think he was set up | CNN PoliticsFBI leaders say jail video shows Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide | NBC NewsContradicting RFK Jr., CDC keeps recommending covid vaccine for kids | The Washington PostTrump Administration Ends Program Critical to Search for an H.I.V. Vaccine | The New York TimesElderly, disabled with $2,000 in assets could lose Medi-Cal | CalMattersElon Musk Denies Report He Took So Much Ketamine He Doesn't Pee Right | RollingStoneTaylor Swift buys back her master recordings | BBCGood Trouble: Contact ICE and let them know if you've been harmed by an alien.https://www.ice.gov/voice Or call - 855-48VOICEProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and CelebrationSchedule F comments deadline extended to June 7th Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Share your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsThe Resistance Lab - Pramila for Congress1776 - 'Is Anybody There', from the 1972 American musical drama film - YouTubeVisiting | Animals in DistressPostcardsToVoters.orgReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

John Maytham speaks with Associate Professor Helen Kruuse from Rhodes University’s Faculty of Law about the principle of habeas corpus, a legal safeguard that allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention, and why it is under threat in the United States under former President Donald Trump’s immigration-related legal strategies. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A heated discussion unfolds over claims of a "botched" firing squad execution in South Carolina, raising questions about media bias, the ethics of capital punishment, and the legal precedent of inmate-chosen methods. With critics decrying cruelty and hosts defending the justice system's integrity, the debate exposes deeper political and moral divides on crime and punishment in America.

The rule of law is essential to the flourishing of liberal democracy and capitalism. Yet, it is now under pressure in the United States, and corporate law firms are in the eye of the storm. Over the last few weeks, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders against several prominent law firms that represented his political adversaries and promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Some of these law firms have caved into the administration's demands to end such practices and provide pro bono services to the government, whereas others are fighting back.To discuss the financial reasons why some firms have capitulated while others have held out, and what the consequences are for the survival of the rule of law, Bethany and Luigi speak to John Morley, Augustus E. Lines Professor of Law at Yale University and an expert on the economics of law. Are Trump's orders unconstitutional, and if so, why have so many law firms reached a deal with him? How have changes to law firms' business models left them particularly vulnerable to a moment like this? Why are some firms more vulnerable to political attacks than others? Together, the three discuss the firms' reciprocal agreements with the administration, the possibilities for a collective-action response, and how this moment may profoundly reshape the future of law, democracy, and capitalism in America.Show Notes:Watch a recording of the panel “Antitrust and the 1st Amendment” from the 2025 Stigler Center Antitrust and Competition Conference, featuring Greg Day, Eleanor Fox, and Matt Stoller, and moderated by Maciej Bernatt. The panel highlights how antitrust may stand in the way of collective action, competitive markets, and free speech.

In this episode of The Valley Current®, host Jack Russo chats with attorney Maxwell McGhee to unpack this provocative question: Who are the “Medicaid Millionaires”? They dive into how wealthy individuals legally shield assets to qualify for government benefits meant for the needy—using savvy trusts, real estate loopholes, and strategic planning. Jack and Maxwell challenge the morality and legality of these tactics, exploring how the system gets gamed and what reforms could level the playing field. It's a sharp, eye-opening conversation about law, ethics, and the surprising ways wealth and welfare can intersect.   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

On March 6, President Trump issued the executive order “Addressing Risk from Perkins Coie LLP,” essentially preventing the firm from doing business with the federal government, stripping its staff of security clearances. It was the first of several presidential orders aimed at law firms that represented clients and/or employed attorneys at odds with Trump.At the same time, Trump and members of his administration have voiced loud opposition to judges who rule against him and, in what many see as a weaponization of justice, have fired members of the Department of Justice without cause. Even the new Attorney General Pam Bondi is breaking with long held protocol by openly defending the administration, taking a partisan position when defending her decision not to investigate the Signal scandal of top national security officers sharing war plans via the public ap, saying: “If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton's home. Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.”Are the norms and practices that have maintained the rule of law in the United States straining under the pressure of the Trump administration?Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky, a criminal law expert, joins Pam Karlan for a look at the first 100 days of the Trump administration—and the unprecedented number of executive orders targeting rule of law norms. Sklansky, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center who teaches and writes about policing, prosecution, criminal law, and the law of evidence, is the author, most recently of Criminal Justice in Divided America: Police, Punishment, and the Future of Our Democracy, was published earlier this year by Harvard University Press. Earlier he practiced labor law in Washington D.C. and served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.Links:David Sklansky  >>> Stanford Law pageCriminal Justice in Divided America >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Rule of Law and Executive Orders(00:15:01) Legal Profession's Response to Political Pressure(00:27:01) Impact on Universities and Academic Freedom(00:37:01) Redefining Pro Bono Work(00:44:42) The Importance of the Rule of Law

In February, President Donald Trump started signing a series of executive orders and presidential memorandums against individual “Big Law” firms, accusing them of engaging in “conduct detrimental to critical American interests” and directing federal agency heads to review and scrutinize security clearances and any government contracts, as well as barring attorneys from government buildings.These targeted executive orders — and the looming threat of more to come —  ultimately triggered several major American firms to quickly agree to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono legal work aligned with the administration's priorities.In our fifth episode this season, we look at what this means for Big Law, the $340 million of pledged pro bono legal work on Trump's behalf and which firms are fighting back in the courts.Special guests:Scott Cummings, law professor at UCLA School of LawClaire Finkelstein, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolThis episode was produced by Kirk McDaniel. Intro music by The Dead Pens. Editorial staff is Ryan Abbott, Sean Duffy and Jamie Ross.

Defending Free Speech, Judicial Overreach, and Constitutional Integrity — with Alan DershowitzIn this compelling episode of The Andrew Parker Show, constitutional law scholar and author Alan Dershowitz returns for an unflinching discussion on today's most volatile legal and political debates — from the weaponization of the legal system to the future of free speech in America.Professor Dershowitz and Andrew Parker explore the erosion of First Amendment protections on college campuses, the dangers of selective speech enforcement, and the hypocrisy embedded in today's cries of "judicial activism." Dershowitz doesn't shy away from controversial ground — including Roe v. Wade, immigration enforcement, the administrative state, and the modern-day assault on lawyers for the clients they represent.Together, they dissect:Why both sides of the political aisle embrace judicial activism when convenientHow Roe v. Wade may have been a strategic misstep for the pro-choice movementThe constitutional boundaries of executive authority in immigration and deportationHistorical precedents that shape today's decisions in times of national crisisThe alarming rise of “lawfare” and efforts to silence dissent through bar complaints and legal threatsHow the legal profession and elite law schools are failing the next generation of lawyersFrom the founding fathers to modern-day lawfare, this conversation is a sweeping, insightful journey through the heart of American legal and political tensions. Whether you're left, right, or somewhere in between, this episode is a must-listen.Smart Plain Talk and a dose of principle, history, and unflinching legal clarity.Support the showThe Andrew Parker Show - Politics, Israel & The Law. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X. Subscribe to our email list at www.theandrewparkershow.com Copyright © 2025 The Andrew Parker Show - All Rights Reserved.

Prompted by the reintroduction of federal Litigation Transparency Act legislation, this panel will address a variety of issues raised by litigation funding with a special focus on patent litigation. Panelists will provide an overview of the Act and consider likely reactions from various constituencies, giving possible policy arguments for and against litigation funding disclosure. The panel will also consider constitutional and practical dimensions of funding disclosure, and the possible ethical issues raised by litigation funding. Featuring: Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig -- To register, click the link above.

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 

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  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 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. 

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 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