Podcasts about litigation

It's Thursday, September 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Iranian Muslim leaders killed 33 Christian ministers recently Iranian authorities have killed at least 33 Christian ministers in the past few months. The pastors were serving with Iran Alive Ministries, a Texas-based organization that supports house churches in the country. Authorities also arrested 131 Christians associated with the organization. Some of them are now on death row.  Despite this persecution, the ministry reports 5,849 Muslims have converted to Christianity this year. Iran Alive founder Hormoz Shariat  told the Baptist Press, “Christian prisoners consider prison as their place of ministry and they are leading many people to Christ.” The Apostle Paul was also a witness in prison. Acts 16:25 says, “But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.” Iran-American War reaches sixth month The war between Iran and the United States continued into its six month last week. The United States carried out strikes on Iran's southern coast on Tuesday. Iran fired on U.S. bases in the region. It's the biggest exchange between the two countries since July, according to Reuters.  Despite ongoing conflict, oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz have rebounded to about two-thirds of pre-war levels.  Christian convert from Iran received asylum in Canada A Christian convert from Iran recently received asylum in Canada after being deported from the U.S. Twenty-seven-year old Artemis Ghasemzadeh entered America in 2024. If returned to Iran, she would face extreme persecution. International Christian Concern noted, “Refugees fleeing religious persecution have traditionally been granted asylum on American soil, but they faced more stringent border and refugee laws under the Trump administration. Ghasemzadeh pursued asylum in Canada after lawyers advised her that the United States was unlikely to allow her to return.”  Litigation over the Abortion Kill Pill delated until after midterms Litigation in the U.S. over the abortion kill pill is being delayed until after the midterm elections in November.  The case began last December. Florida and Texas challenged the original approval of the abortion drug mifepristone in 2000 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  However, a federal judge paused the lawsuit on Sunday until at least December 1. If successful, the lawsuit would make the abortion drug unavailable in all states. Florida removing all Flock cameras Florida is removing all Flock cameras from state roads. Flock cameras automatically read license plates and capture vehicle data for law enforcement, neighborhoods, and businesses. The Florida Department of Transportation recently revoked permits for license plate readers, including Flock cameras along highways. The cameras are the subject of privacy concerns across the nation, especially alleged misuse of the cameras by police officers.  Listen to comments from Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. DESANTIS: “I'm all about having law enforcement have tools to be able to hold criminals accountable. I think that's important that we do that. No one's been stronger on law enforcement than me. But I don't want to have this become a surveillance state.” American church attendance up Churches are seeing more people attend worship services in recent years. A new survey from Lifeway Research found 54 percent of U.S. Protestant pastors report a growing church. Thirty-percent report a plateaued church. And 16 percent report a declining church.  Scott McConnell, executive director of Lifeway Research, noted, “Given the trajectory of many churches before COVID, we expected to see more pastors reporting declines in attendance. However, we continue to see a majority of pastors saying their attendance is higher than two years ago.” Archeological proof that Christ's tomb in garden And finally, recent archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem support biblical accounts. Francesca Stasolla is an archaeology professor at the Sapienza University of Rome. Last year, she led an excavation focused on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The site is believed to be the location of Jesus' crucifixion and the empty tomb. The area was used as a stone quarry before Roman occupation. Later it was used for agriculture and tombs. The archeological effort discovered ancient seeds and pollen there. Stasolla told Fox News Digital that the pollen and seeds date to “between the use of the quarry and the Roman age, when the area had a funerary use”, meaning it was used for burying the dead. This aligns with the New Testament. John 19:41 says, “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, September 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

AI is changing litigation - but is the defense bar keeping pace? On Episode 282 of The Lawyer Stories Podcast, Benny Gold sits down with Rob Martorana, Head of Partnerships at Theo Ai, for a fascinating conversation about artificial intelligence, litigation intelligence, case strategy, and the future of legal technology. Rob brings a unique perspective to the conversation. His career has taken him from serving as an Assistant District Attorney and practicing law to years in litigation finance and now the rapidly evolving world of legal AI. We discuss the technology and investment gap between the plaintiff and defense bars, why defense litigation has historically been difficult to standardize, and how AI can help legal teams better understand massive amounts of litigation data. Rob also shares his perspective on case valuation, settlement benchmarking, litigation finance, risk and exposure analysis, and how technology may change the way lawyers evaluate and manage cases.

In this episode of the National Crawford Roundtable podcast the guys talk about the SCOTUS ruling 5-4 that Trump's Ballroom/military complex can proceed during litigation. They also discuss Trump's oil deal with Venezuela, securing U.S. control over 65-billion barrels of oil at cost, and also helping to rebuild Venezuela, without taxpayer dollars. The guys look into Trump's deal with 9 more pharmaceutical companies this week, bringing the total number of these companies offering "Most Favored Nation" reduced prices for drugs sold to the U.S. And they pose the question, "Does AI have a liberal bias, and what effect might that have on elections?

For more information about the bankruptcy cases see https://cases.stretto.com/SVM/(Bankruptcy Case Numbers and Bankruptcy Debtor Names):26-10966Searles Valley Minerals Inc.26-10967Trona Railway Company LLC26-10968Searles Domestic Water Company LLC

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

John is joined by producer Alexis Hyde for a special mailbag episode of Law Disrupted.  John responds to questions submitted by listeners rather than conducting a traditional interview.  Topics include how to become a great litigator, what distinguishes Quinn Emanuel's approach to litigation, and how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal landscape. Great litigators develop through experience and observation: working alongside accomplished lawyers, watching strategies develop, executing those strategies, and eventually teaching others.  The progression resembles the medical maxim “watch one, do one, and teach one.” Quinn Emanuel's litigation philosophy centers on achieving the best possible results, delivering value at a fair cost, and building long term relationships.   The firm's reputation as the “most feared” litigation firm is based on an annual survey of 350+ corporate general counsel conducted by independent consulting firm BTI.  For each of the last five years, those surveys have identified Quinn Emanuel as the firm the general counsel would least want to face in litigation.  Aggression is not always the best litigation strategy.  Depending on the case, restraint may be more effective.  No matter which strategy applies, lawyers should seize the initiative, identify the issues that will ultimately decide the case before the opposition does, and focus discovery and strategy on those issues rather than wasting resources on matters that will not affect the outcome. Artificial intelligence is fastest-growing source of new litigation.  Agentic AI raises questions about computer access, e-commerce, intellectual property, patentability, product liability, autonomous systems, mental-health harms, and responsibility for unpredictable machine-learning decisions.  Data centers present a wide range of potential disputes involving financing, permitting, construction delays, and changing local restrictions.  Recent litigation involving Perplexity and Amazon, a case in which Quinn Emanuel represented Perplexity, illustrates how existing computer-fraud statutes are being tested by new AI technologies. AI is not only transforming how law is practiced but in identifying claims.  New services identify potential lawsuits by comparing regulatory requirements with public information and detecting possible violations.  AI may also accelerate dispute resolution by giving parties earlier and more complete insights into evidence, risks, and case strengths, potentially encouraging earlier settlements. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. QuinnProducer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jay Vaughn is a Board Certified Truck Accident Law Advocate at Hendy Johnson Vaughn, P.S.C., whose practice focuses on trucking litigation, traumatic brain injuries, wrongful death, and other serious personal injury matters. In this episode, Mirena Umizaj Dumas and Jay discuss what separates a true trucking litigation specialist from a generalist firm, the insurance coverage details attorneys often overlook, and why referral fee sharing can become one of the most expensive ways to grow a practice. They also explore how artificial intelligence is changing client behavior after a recent client found Jay's firm by searching ChatGPT and Claude before Google. Jay shares the human side of the work as well, including the moment he recognized the effects of a client's brain injury before she did, how he manages the emotional weight of serious cases, and why trucking lawyers ultimately hope their work makes preventable crashes far less common. Learn more about Jay Vaughn: https://justicestartshere.com/about-us/team/jay-r-vaughn/ The Heart of Law is hosted by Mirena Umizaj Dumas, Founder and CEO of Mirena and Company. Podcast production by Bebo Hajec of EMH Group. Strategic Marketing. Without the Agency Overhead. https://www.emhgroup.co

Take control of your retirement strategy. BOOK A FREE CALL with Directed IRA and learn how to put your IRA to work beyond Wall Street!Download the slide deck here!In this episode of the Directed IRA Podcast, host Mat Sorensen sits down with Kris Kjolberg, Managing Director & Head of Capital Strategy at Pravati Capital, to break down litigation finance—a growing alternative asset class that many investors may not be familiar with.Mat and Kris discuss how litigation finance works, why law firms need access to capital, and how private lenders can step into a space where traditional banks often can't. Kris explains the difference between financing individual litigation cases and providing portfolio financing to law firms, along with the potential returns, underwriting process, risks, and what investors should understand before considering this type of investment.In This Episode, They Cover:What litigation finance is and how this emerging asset class worksThe difference between single-case litigation finance and law firm portfolio financeWhy traditional banks often cannot lend against law firm receivables and casesThe potential 16–24% industry yield range discussed for law firm portfolio financingHow litigation finance can provide non-correlated exposure within an alternative investment portfolioHow Pravati Capital evaluates law firms and investment opportunitiesThe importance of underwriting, diversification, case duration, and concentration riskPravati Capital's experience across 8,000+ transactions and 250+ law firmsThe risks investors should consider, including extension risk, regulatory risk, and repayment riskHow litigation finance can potentially fit into a self-directed IRAWhat the investment process looks like, including the investor data room and due diligenceAccredited investor and qualified purchaser requirementsFund structure, investment minimums, and the track record discussed during the episodeTo learn more about Pravati Capital go to pravaticapital.comConnect With Kris KjolbergEmail: kris@pravaticapital.comPhone: (623) 521-7343DisclaimerThis podcast and its content are provided for educational and informational purposes only and are not intended to provide investment advice. Nothing discussed in this episode should be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or endorsement to invest in any particular investment, fund, or asset.Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. Viewers and listeners should conduct their own due diligence and consult with qualified financial, legal, and tax professionals before making any investment decisions. Directed IRA does not provide investment advice or recommend specific investments.For questions or to learn more about this episode's topic, book a call with an IRA specialist here: https://directedira.com/appointment/Interested in learning more about alternative investments? Join us this year at the Alternative Asset Summit October 22 & 23, where you'll hear from industry experts and connect with like-minded investors exploring new ways to build wealth: https://altassetsummit.com/Other:Mat Sorensen: https://matsorensen.comMark J. Kohler: https://markjkohler.com/ KKOS: https://kkoslawyers.comMain Street Business https://mainstreetbusiness.com

Day Break | Doomsday, Deception & the Government Power Grab --- 00:00 - Monologue 19:14 – Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist discusses the economic implications of tariffs on Canada and argues that President Trump has an opportunity to address what he calls the “inflation tax” on capital gains. He examines how inflation affects taxable investment gains and what potential reforms could mean for investors and the broader economy. 28:11 – Col. Josh McConkey, Air Force Colonel, combat physician, and candidate for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina. McConkey discusses the Lindsay Clancy murder trial and the women gathering outside the courthouse in support of Clancy. He examines the circumstances surrounding the case, the arguments being made by supporters, and the broader questions the trial has raised. 38:13 - Monologue Featuring Ivey Gruber 47:17 – Don Brown, North Carolina Republican U.S. Senate candidate, former Navy JAG officer, and former federal prosecutor. Brown discusses the mounting legal questions surrounding Anthony Fauci following his congressional testimony. He examines the scope of President Biden's pardon and whether there are potential legal issues or conduct that may fall outside its protections. 57:32 – Jonathan Dever, former Ohio State Representative, retired attorney, former CEO of Commercium Financial, COO of Proximity, Inc., and author of the forthcoming Grift trilogy. Dever discusses government spending and accountability, focusing on cases where taxpayers may be funding positions, programs, or contracts without receiving the work or results they were promised. 1:16:42 - Monologue 1:25:37 – Katie Heid, News Director for Michigan News Source. Heid delivers the Michigan Rundown, examining questions surrounding missing money and the firing of an executive director at an Arab American business organization. She also discusses the latest dispute surrounding Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and access to the state's voter rolls. 1:35:27 – Tyler Martinez, Director of Litigation at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation's Taxpayer Defense Center. Martinez discusses a legal challenge involving home distilling and asks whether the federal government's restrictions can legitimately be justified through Congress's taxing power. He examines the constitutional arguments and why the dispute could warrant Supreme Court consideration. 1:44:13 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network and co-host of Day Break. Gruber discusses the Trump administration's efforts to revoke thousands of visas from individuals accused of violating U.S. laws or visa requirements. She and Steve also return to the Lindsay Clancy trial, discussing the case and the controversy surrounding the public reaction to it. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... Episode 24 is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/UrGZQdE62jA

Rancho Mesa President and CEO Dave Garcia sits down with Todd Lewis, Vice President of Claims at Republic Indemnity, to discuss the growing challenges facing California's workers' compensation system, including rising litigation and cumulative trauma (CT) claims. They explore how AI is helping claims organizations investigate and manage claims more effectively, along with practical strategies employers can use to reduce claim disputes, support employees, and foster a stronger workplace culture.Show Notes: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to Rancho Mesa's Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠, Republic IndemnityHost: ⁠⁠⁠⁠David GarciaGuest: Todd LewisEditor: Jadyn BrandtMusic: "Home" by JHS Pedals, “Breaking News Intro” by nem0production© Copyright 2026. Rancho Mesa Insurance Services, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein will hear the state's appeal against a High Court ruling on the R370 Social Relief of Distress grant. The High Court previously found parts of the application process were unconstitutional and unfairly excluded vulnerable people. Government is challenging that decision. Civil society groups say barriers are still leaving some of South Africa's poorest without vital support. We spoke to Nkosinathi Sithole, Head of Litigation at Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI).

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway joins the program to outline major enforcement actions. Attorney General Hanaway breaks down state settlements suspending sales of 7-OH kratom derivatives—commonly marketed as synthetic opioids in gas stations—and discusses federal efforts placing the compound on controlled substance schedules. The discussion covers federal law enforcement surging into St. Louis to target violent crime, along with consumer protection litigation against Dollar General over shelf-to-register price discrepancies. Hashtags:#CatherineHanaway #MissouriAG #Kratom #7OH #DollarGeneral #StLouisCrime #ConsumerProtection #MoPol #TalkRadioGuest List:Catherine Hanaway, Missouri Attorney General, discussed legal agreements suspending 7-OH kratom distribution, federal law enforcement partnerships in St. Louis, and price transparency enforcement.

Shakespeare and law school might not be as far apart as you thought. Guest Len Niehoff is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the author of the recent book Meeting Shakespeare at the Bar: Reading the Bard Through the Lens of the Law, a book written for both lawyers and non-lawyers offering practical insights into how Shakespeare's works illuminate the questions of law, ethics, and advocacy. As an innovative professor and a lifelong fan of the Bard, Niehoff began studying, and encouraging students to study, Shakespeare's interest in the rule of law, what puts the rule of law at risk, personal responsibility, and how law can be twisted into the unlawful. “It was kind of a natural transition to turn to Shakespeare,” he says. Indeed, Measure for Measure and The Merchant of Venice have trials at their heart. But Niehoff and his students look at how the law works it into other plays, such as Julius Caesar, MacBeth and Hamlet. Now imagine a group of lawyers meeting up with Shakespeare one evening at a local bar, sharing war stories, funny moments, and issues of ethics, and morality and the law. That's the book. Niehoff's fascinating examination of Shakespeare's work and the law may have you thinking about the human condition differently. Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com or JAReederJr@gmail.com. Resources Mentioned:  “Meeting Shakespeare at the Bar: Reading the Bard Through the Lens of the Law,” by Leonard M Niehoff “Tanner v. United States”, Justia  “Cattle: Related Cases,” AnimalLaw.info Twombly and Iqbal, “Twiqbal,” Wikipedia “The Crucible,” by Arthur Miller “Shakespeare Unlimited Podcast,” Folger Shakespeare Library “Macbeth,” Shakespeare, full play “Titus Andronicus,” Shakespeare, full play “Henry VI, Part 2,” Shakespeare, full play “Othello,” Shakespeare, full play “Hamlet,” Kenneth Branagh, full movie, free, YouTube American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section Subscribe to Litigation Radio: https://play.megaphone.fm/rhyxdryztyy2v3itq6sdlq

Send me a DM here (it doesn't let me respond), OR email me: imagineabetterworld2020@gmail.comToday I'm honored to have back on the show, LDS abuse whistleblower, survivor, investigative researcher, journalist and reporter, creator of LDS Abuse, excommunicated lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, loving father, nature lover, and a man on a mission to help members of the spiritual body known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints know what to expect from their church if they become victims of abuse: Justin Riggs aka LDS AbuseIn our last two episodes, Justin took us on a deep dive into the heart of institutional failure and the hidden structures that protect it. We first examined the case of Gordon Bowen - a world-famous advertising executive whose alleged patterns of abuse, financial misconduct, and decades-long ties to top LDS church leaders revealed a system prioritizing brand protection over victims. Through court documents, journals, and public records, we traced how an abuser remained connected to apostles and prophets even after excommunication, while survivors were left without recourse. We then expanded that conversation into the deeper roots: the quasi-religious secret societies, fraternities like Sigma Chi and Pi Kappa Alpha, Skull and Bones chapters, and patronage networks that have infiltrated Utah's elite and church leadership for over a century. From humiliation rituals and death oaths to the Black Supper and the pipeline of power, influence, and gain, we explored how these systems condition compromise, enable cover-ups, and make justice for survivors so elusive. These themes - ritual abuse allegations, historical infiltration, and the prioritization of secrecy over the vulnerable - have been the foundation of Justin's recent work. Today, we build on that conversation even more, continuing to connect the dots with the same relentless, evidence-based courage that has defined this journey. At the center of it all stands Justin, also known online as ‘LDS Abuse'  - a singular voice for truth whose life story is both a profound personal odyssey and a beacon of hope for every survivor still searching for light in the darkness. Justin's path began in the quiet corridors of personal curiosity. A lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he once sought simply to understand how good people could fail victims of abuse. That curiosity quickly evolved into a rigorous, evidence-based mission and his research extends far beyond individual cases. Justin built a public archive of evidence that empowers others to see the patterns for themselves. This relentless pursuit came at great personal cost: his work led to his excommunication from the church he had known his entire life. Yet he continues, driven by the unshakable conviction that sunlight is the best disinfectant and that secrets only allow abuse to metastasize. Justin's work has connected the dots between ritual abuse allegations, historical infiltration efforts, and the LDS corporation's prioritization of brand protection. He has revealed a system where victims are funneled into therapy modalities that undermine legal recourse, and where even prophets and apostles have been implicated in shielding perpetrators. Through painstaking documentation, he has transformed private pain into public knowledge, given voice to the voiceless, and offered a roadmap for accountability. What makes Justin truly awe-inspiring is not only the depth of his research or the courage to expose even his own family's pain - it is the profound humanity that burns beneath the fire. He speaks of chain-breakers and he believes in a God of both justice and mercy. He weeps with survivors, fights alongside them, and extends grace even when it costs him personally. Justin stands as a model of intellectual courage and moral clarity. A survivor who refused to stay silent. A researcher who turned personal cost into collective light. A warrior whose unwavering stand continues to remind us that one dedicated soul, armed with evidence and fierce love for the vulnerable, can help break the chains for generations yet to come. His courage continues to shift what is possible. His humanity continues to heal. And his story continues to inspire every one of us to stand a little taller, speak a little louder, and refuse to look away.

Health Affairs Publishing's Jeff Byers welcomes Erica Socker of Georgetown University to the pod to discuss her recent Forefront article that explores how the Medicare Advantage quality bonus program is working in the wake of a Clover Health-CMS lawsuit over star ratings. They discuss the court's ruling, CMS's policy response, and why the case could become a catalyst for broader reforms to a program that now distributes billions of dollars annually. Related Links:Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Program: Court Decisions Spotlight Flaws (Health Affairs Forefront)Sign up for Health Affairs' free newsletter to catch up on our new articles, podcasts, and events.

Joe Wolfe, Attorney, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman PC, speaks with Robert S. Salcido, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, about the current landscape of the False Claims Act (FCA) in the health care industry. They discuss the “falsity” element and the interaction between the FCA and the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, the constitutionality of the FCA's qui tam provisions and possible Supreme Court intervention, the uptick in FCA investigations and other enforcement developments, the legacy of the SuperValu case and the impact on how FCA actions are litigated, and potential emerging government enforcement priorities. Robert is the author of AHLA's False Claims Act & The Health Care Industry: Counseling & Litigation, Sixth Edition. From AHLA's Fraud and Abuse and Hospitals and Health Systems Practice Groups.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_YfcwE9PJkLearn more about AHLA's False Claims Act & The Health Care Industry: Counseling & Litigation, Sixth Edition: https://store.lexisnexis.com/ahla/products/ahla-false-claims-act-the-health-care-industry-counseling-litigation-ahla-members-grpussku69720.html Learn more about AHLA's Fraud and Abuse Practice Group: https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/practice-groups/practice-groups/fraud-and-abuse Learn more about AHLA's Hospitals and Health Systems Practice Group: https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/practice-groups/practice-groups/hospitals-and-health-systems Essential Legal Updates, Now in AudioAHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal EducationLearn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/. 

There's a lot going on across the tech, media and legal landscape, from the potential $111 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, to landmark social media addiction rulings and a series of even bigger upcoming trials.  Eriq Gardner is a founding partner and national correspondent at Puck who mostly writes about legal affairs. He joins Kara to unpack some of the biggest stories on his beat, including the latest on California Attorney General Rob Bonta's 12-state antitrust lawsuit against Paramount, the politics behind the deal and whether a settlement is imminent.  Kara and Eriq also discuss what, if anything, could put the brakes on President Trump's many defamation cases against media companies. Plus, they look at why publishers pursue litigation against some AI companies even while they're making content-licensing agreements with others.  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Come see Kara for a live taping of On at the Odoo Experience conference in San Francisco on September 2. Register for the conference on Odoo's website. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Winning a referral is one thing. Earning the next one is where firms separate themselves. Joe Vito is the founding partner of Vito & Dollenmaier Law, a Chicago personal injury firm that has recovered more than $100 million in under four years. With five attorneys, a litigation-heavy practice, and a perfect 5.0-star rating, his firm has become a trusted litigation partner for firms looking to maximize difficult cases. In this episode, Joe shares how his team built a referral-based business without competing on advertising, why every client works directly with an attorney instead of a case manager, and how aggressive litigation combined with exceptional communication keeps referral partners coming back. You'll learn: Why litigation creates stronger referrals than simply settling cases quickly. How a 24-hour communication standard protects referral partner relationships. What turns denied liability claims into valuable settlements. Why assigning attorneys to every file improves both client experience and case outcomes. How referral-focused firms compete against national advertisers without matching their marketing budgets. If you're ready to build a digital presence that commands authority and attracts high-value cases, head over to Rankings.io. Like what you hear? Hit Subscribe! We do this every week. If you want to keep learning from the best voices in PI, join us at PIMCON 2026. Buy your tickets now! Subscribe to our newsletter and get the freshest news every Monday: newsletter.rankings.io Get Social! Personal Injury Mastermind w/ Chris Dreyer powered by Rankings.io is on Instagram | YouTube | TikTok

Send us Fan MailThe hardest part of getting help in public safety is not finding resources, it's knowing who you can trust when the stakes are your career, your reputation, and your sanity. We pick up part two with employment attorney Bridget Truxillo to talk candidly about where union support shines, where conflicts of interest can quietly derail you, and why an outside employment law perspective can be the difference between getting steamrolled and getting a fair process. We dig into the nuts and bolts that too many first responders never get taught: reading your policies, protecting your rights in internal affairs investigations, and understanding how body worn camera policy can shape what you're allowed to review before an interview. Bridget also shares how real change can happen long before a lawsuit, including putting agencies on notice and forcing policy updates that protect an entire department, not just one person. If you work for a government employer, we also talk about why suing the government is different and why strategy matters. From there, we connect the legal side directly to first responder mental health. We unpack why confidentiality is the lifeblood of therapy and employee assistance programs, what questions to ask a therapist about privacy, and how stigma still shows up in hiring decisions and leadership culture. The thread running through everything is simple: asking for help is not weakness, it's how you stay in the fight without losing yourself. You can find Bridget at https://ladylawshield.com/about-usIf you got something from this conversation, subscribe, share it with a coworker, and leave a review so more first responders can find it when they need it.Support the showYouTube Channel For The Podcast

What separates a good trial lawyer from a great one? The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 280 features Steven Gursten of Michigan Auto Law, nationally recognized trial attorney, author, speaker, and leader in auto accident, trucking, traumatic brain injury, and No-Fault insurance litigation. Steve has recovered some of the largest reported auto and truck accident settlements and verdicts in Michigan and has been recognized as a Lawyer of the Year and consistently among the state's top attorneys. In this episode, we discuss Steve's journey as a trial lawyer, what it takes to successfully litigate serious injury and trucking cases, trial preparation and advocacy, and the responsibility plaintiff lawyers have to their clients. We also talk about his work helping make the trucking industry and our roads safer, his leadership within AAJ, the growing role of AI in the legal profession and what it could mean for lawyers and their practices, and what Steve has learned teaching trial lawyers across the country. Steve also recently received the Gary Pillersdorf Courage Award from the Belli Society, adding another chapter to an incredible career advocating for injured people.

The Washington Stand's Casey Harper provides an update on the Meta trial over social media harm to kids, primary elections, and developments in Iran. Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, shares details

The financial sector was deeply entangled with Jeffrey Epstein's operation because major banks and financial institutions continued doing business with him despite years of red flags surrounding his wealth, his movements of money and his criminal history. Epstein relied on banks to move enormous sums, pay associates, fund properties, maintain aircraft and facilitate the financial infrastructure that allowed his trafficking network to function across multiple jurisdictions. Lawsuits and regulatory actions later alleged that institutions including JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank had access to information that should have triggered far greater scrutiny, including suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals and payments connected to women in Epstein's orbit. Rather than cutting him off decisively, those institutions continued to provide services that gave Epstein access to the legitimate financial system. That access mattered because an enterprise of Epstein's scale could not operate efficiently without banking relationships, credit, wire transfers, account management and the ability to move money quietly and quickly. The financial system did not create Epstein's crimes, but its willingness to continue serving him helped provide the machinery that made his operation easier to sustain.The banks also benefited financially from those relationships. Epstein was an extremely wealthy client who generated fees, deposits, investment business and access to other wealthy people, making him valuable from a commercial standpoint even as his reputation became increasingly toxic. Litigation against JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank later focused heavily on the argument that profit and client relationships were allowed to outweigh compliance concerns, and both institutions ultimately paid substantial settlements connected to claims arising from their relationships with Epstein. The larger issue was not simply that Epstein had bank accounts; it was that financial institutions were positioned to see patterns of transactions that ordinary people could not see and nevertheless continued to profit from servicing him. That created a powerful argument that the financial sector was not merely a passive backdrop to Epstein's trafficking enterprise, but one of the systems that enabled him to preserve his wealth, maintain his network and operate for years with a level of financial legitimacy that helped shield him from meaningful scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Europe has entered the collective redress era. The full implementation of the EU Representative Actions Directive, coupled with a surge in litigation funding, has transformed the ability of claimant groups to coordinate across jurisdictions. Companies now face the prospect of parallel consumer, data privacy, and competition actions that are global in scope — which means the challenge for defendants is not just winning individual cases, but managing consistency of arguments, data strategies, and settlement approaches across multiple fronts. In this episode of Connected With Latham, London partners Oliver Middleton and Nell Perks and Hamburg partner Christoph Baus discuss how the EU Representative Actions Directive affects mass actions, the UK's response to the Directive, and what clients can do to navigate potential challenges.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Jim has some thoughts about event etiquette. Who is the winner in the bike lane battle? GUESTS: Monte McGregor - criminal defence lawyer Gavin Tighe - senior partner with Gardiner Roberts LLP and chair of the firm's Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group

Attorney Amanda Brahm with McLane Middleton joins UE's Hillary Pettegrew to discuss the status of disparate impact analysis in discrimination litigation.

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications. Featuring:Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law SchoolBeatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications. Featuring:Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law SchoolBeatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

A New York state judge is preparing to hear a trial between Black Diamond Capital Management and Bank of America, the result of which could provide a better understanding of how lender DQ lists are enforced. In this episode of Cloud 9fin, Jane Komsky unpacks the case and the potential impacts on the broader market with Polsinelli restructuring chair David Karp and 9fin reporter Tom Quinn.The discussion examines the three questions now facing the court: whether Bank of America should have settled a trade with an affiliate to a disqualified lender, whether it satisfied a requirement to provide an economic equivalent when the trade failed, and whether it acted as soon as practicable to find a solution.Karp argues that any ruling is likely to focus on Bank of America's post-trade conduct rather than overturn the core loan-market principle that a trade is a trade. The case also highlights the value of lender-of-record status, opaque DQ lists, voting rights and the risk to desks that leave trades unsettled.You can read our original story on the litigation here.Have any feedback for us? Send us a note at podcast@9fin.com. Thanks for listening!

A poop-themed dog toy took on one of America's most iconic whiskey brands and after 12 years in federal court, it helped reshape trademark law. In this episode of The Valley Current®, Jack Russo unpacks the extraordinary legal battle between Jack Daniel's and VIP Products, tracing the case from the trial court to the Supreme Court and back to the Ninth Circuit. Along the way, he explains how parody, source identifiers, and brand dilution collided in a dispute that became far bigger than a squeaky toy. More importantly, Jack explores what the case reveals about the true cost of intellectual property litigation, where persistence can be as valuable as legal strategy, and why the party that changes the law is often the one that simply refuses to quit. Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

How the heck did this happen? Who has the oldest working A/C unit? GUESTS: Jon Woodward - Video Journalist with CTV News Toronto Gavin Tighe - senior partner with Gardiner Roberts LLP and chair of the firm's Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group

Michelle T. Pawlowski, Litigation Associate Attorney at Vogelzang Law, joins Jon Hansen on Let’s Get Legal to discuss the current state of asbestos litigation, why cases are moving so quickly through the courts, and what makes Illinois so unique for asbestos cases.

PFAS rules from the EPA have been getting a lot of attention, as the Trump administration looks to make controversial adjustments. One recent rule change effected drinking water, but crucially, only impacted publicly owned municipal drinking water systems.  HRP's Bryan Massa, LSP, Regional Office manager for HRP Massachusetts, and PFAS expert, has worked closely with exactly the type of drinking water utilities that will have to be incompliance with these agency rules.  For today's episode of the PFAS Pulse Podcast, Bryan will walk us through the rules as they've stood and explain the nuances and complexities that come with utilities remaining in compliance.  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

For much of the time that I've been writing about the legal profession, the line between plaintiff- and defense-side litigation was clear, stable, and widely respected. Small, scrappy firms took plaintiffs' work on contingency; large, prestigious firms defended corporations for hourly rates. That division has been eroding—slowly at first, then with increasing speed. Today, defense-oriented Biglaw firms are actively seeking plaintiff-side engagements for their corporate clients, competing with the plaintiffs' bar for cases that they wouldn't have looked at even a decade ago.On Wednesday, May 6, I had the pleasure of moderating an excellent panel discussion dedicated to exploring these developments. It featured three great experts: Eva Cole, co-chair of the antitrust and competition practice at Winston Taylor; Evan Meyerson, managing director at Burford Capital; and Avi Weitzman, co-chair of the complex litigation and arbitration practice at Paul Hastings.I'm now pleased to share our conversation with you as a special episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. Thanks to the panelists for the time and insight, and thanks to Burford Capital for organizing this great event.Show Notes:* Defense-Focused Biglaw Moves Into Plaintiff-Side Work, by David Lat for Original Jurisdiction* Turning In-House Legal Departments Into Revenue Generators, by David Lat for Original Jurisdiction* Survey of in-house counsel on commercial opt-out claims, by Burford Capital* Litigation economics: CFOs and GCs weigh in on best practices in optimizing legal department value, by Burford CapitalSponsored by:Burford Capital helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a portfolio of over $7 billion and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost or risk or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

One of the most worrisome challenges to human health to emerge in recent decades has been the growing environmental omnipresence of a class of chemicals known as PFAS. Often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they don't break down naturally and can remain in soil and water indefinitely, PFAS are used in countless consumer products. One of the best known is a chemical known as GenX. It gained widespread notoriety a few years back when it came to light that a factory run by the chemical company Chemours had been spewing large quantities of GenX into air and water from its factory in southeastern North Carolina. One of the journalists who's been on the GenX beat from the beginning is Inside Climate News reporter Lisa Sorg and recently NC Newsline caught up with Lisa for an extended chat in which examined two recent and important legal and regulatory developments on the subject of GenX and PFAS and why both have left a lot of people frustrated and dissatisfied. In Part One of our extended conversation, we discussed the environmental problems posed by so-called forever chemicals or PFAS. We also discussed a pair important new developments in the legal and regulatory spheres on the subject – the settlement of a large lawsuit brought by more than 2,500 property owners impacted by PFAS pollution in southeastern North Carolina and a move by the Trump administration to settle a regulatory proceeding targeting the source of that pollution – a company called Chemours. In Part Two of our chat, we dug deeper into these subjects and why both settlements have left a lot of people very dissatisfied. And we also learned a little about another important subject Sorg is covering – the bankruptcy filing of a Durham-based company that purported to be helping to clean up the environment but has been accused of perpetrating a ripoff of utility ratepayers. Click here to listen to the full interview with Inside Climate News reporter Lisa Sorg.

Have you ever wondered why some of your concussion clients suddenly hit a total plateau in their recovery, or why bringing up an insurance claim or lawsuit creates an immediate wall of tension in the room? Navigating concussion care is complex enough, but when you add insurance disputes, personal injury claims, and legal battles into the mix, the healing process often grinds to a halt. As clinicians, it is far too easy to fall into the trap of assuming a patient in litigation is "malingering," or to get caught in a chart-note tug-of-war that disrupts your care. On the flip side, clients are left feeling constantly judged, hypervigilant, and stuck in a system that forces them to fight for their limitations instead of celebrating their wins. This unspoken friction keeps the nervous system locked in fight-or-flight, leaving clinicians second-guessing their documentation and patients terrified that showing signs of healing will ruin their legal claim. But you don't have to choose between legal realities and clinical progress. By understanding how legal stress actively amplifies physical symptoms and creates a massive nocebo effect, you can protect the therapeutic alliance, chart with objective confidence, and help your clients heal—even while their case is ongoing. BY THE TIME YOU FINISH LISTENING, YOU'LL DISCOVER: The crucial difference between rare malingering (1–5%) and symptom magnification—and why baseline stress, not deception, is usually what drives amplified pain and dizziness. How the legal system's demand to "prove your disability" creates a nocebo effect that directly counteracts a brain-healing mindset. Practical documentation strategies for clinicians to stay accurate, keep your professional boundaries clear, and avoid getting caught in the legal crosshairs. How to guide clients through the profound nervous system reset and identity shift that happens once the heavy weight of a legal claim is finally lifted. Hit play to discover how to navigate the complex overlap of legal battles and concussion recovery so you can confidently guide your clients toward deep, lasting healing. Let's connect!   Instagram:  @natasha.wilch https://www.instagram.com/natasha.wilch/ Email: hello@natashawilch.com Website: https://www.natasha-wilch.com   Join the Clinician's Edge to have Your Weekly Taste of Neuro Wisdom  here: https://www.natashawilch.com/clinicians-edge   Join the Concussion Mini School and Membership! Get the support and resources you need for concussion recovery: https://www.natashawilch.com/concussionminischool

Join hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace as we talk the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's newly released Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk from PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids. We begin by explaining what biosolids are, why they can contain PFOA and PFOS—the two most historically used and commonly detected PFAS chemicals in the United States—and why these contaminants have become a growing concern. While the EPA's new guidance offers recommendations for testing, monitoring, and reducing risk, it's important to note that the guidance is entirely voluntary. We also explore how states are taking their own approaches to regulating PFAS in biosolids. Finally, we examine the practical challenges facing wastewater treatment plants if biosolids can no longer be land applied Join us as we unpack the latest EPA guidance, the growing patchwork of state regulations, and what comes next for biosolids management in the evolving world of PFAS. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Jerry Avorn is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the codirector of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. J. Avorn. Products That Pose Health Risks — Can Litigation Protect Us When Government Fails? N Engl J Med 2026;395:421-423.

Plus: Oil prices fall on hopes for an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And Coca-Cola stock climbs following a strong second-quarter earnings report. Imani Moise hosts. Sign up for WSJ's free What's News newsletter. An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this episode by creating summaries that were based on Wall Street Journal reporting and reviewed and adapted by an editor. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case which overturned Roe v. Wade was decided, there's been an abortion access crisis, an assault on legal precedent for abortion protections, and an opportunity to create a stronger and even more inclusive plan to reproductive autonomy than Roe ever provided. Amy Myrick, Senior Council at the Center for Reproductive Rights, sits down to talk with us about legal trends in federal and state courts in the past four years. Currently, legal cases have been aimed towards medication abortion and telehealth (a lifeline after Dobbs). It is important to remember that legal attacks on abortion have broader implications, including for transgender health and rights (particularly for young people). Increasingly, anti-abortion actors have had to pivot to tactics that are often blatantly anti-democratic. In several states, ballot amendments have been taken to court.For more information, check out That Aged Well: https://pod.link/1446333312Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.socialBuy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Step into the crucial world of neonatal care with this episode of Legal Nurse Podcast, hosted by Pat Iyer and featuring neonatal nurse practitioner and expert witness Yana Felix. As medical knowledge and parental expectations continue to evolve, the first moments of a newborn's life are both medically and legally complex. Yana Felix, who practices at Johns Hopkins, shares clinical insights and legal pearls drawn from hands-on experience in newborn resuscitation, delivery room challenges, and the nuanced standards of care shaping today's neonatal outcomes. Together, discuss the foundational steps in newborn care, the critical reasoning behind interventions like vitamin K administration, and the intricacies of Apgar scoring. The conversation navigates real-world dilemmas such as parental refusal of standard treatments and the shifting recommendations of the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP), offering valuable guidance for clinicians, legal nurse consultants, and attorneys who may one day analyze these cases. Whether you are a healthcare professional, legal expert, or a parent interested in understanding what happens in those vital first minutes of life, this episode will provide you with practical knowledge and a deeper appreciation for both the science and the stakes of neonatal care. What You'll Learn in This Episode on Vitamin K Refusals, Documentation Gaps, and Litigation Risks in Neonatal Care Here are 5 discussion questions answered in the podcast: Why is vitamin K administration at birth controversial among some parents, and what are the medical implications of refusing it? How are Apgar scores used to assess a newborn's health, and what red flags should be noted in medical records during legal reviews? What are the key updates from the 9th Edition of the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP), and how do they impact clinical practice? How does delayed cord clamping benefit newborns, and what are the potential risks if not properly balanced with timely interventions? In what ways might documentation or lack thereof influence the legal outcomes of neonatal resuscitation cases? Get the free transcripts and also learn about other ways to subscribe. Go to Legal Nurse Podcasts subscribe options by using this short link: http://LNC.tips/subscribepodcast. https://youtu.be/GVsR5EOrJVU Your Presenter for Vitamin K Refusals, Documentation Gaps, and Litigation Risks in Neonatal Care Pat Iyer Pat Iyer is a seasoned legal nurse consultant and business coach, renowned for her expertise in guiding new legal nurse consultants to successfully break into the field. As the host of the Legal Nurse Podcast, Pat addresses critical challenges that legal nurse consultants face, such as difficulty in landing clients and a lack of response from attorneys. Through her insightful episodes, she emphasizes the importance of effectively communicating one's value to potential clients. With a wealth of experience, Pat has empowered countless consultants to overcome these hurdles and thrive in their careers. Connect with Pat Iyer by email at patiyer@legalnusebusiness.com Yana Felix Yana is a Neonatal Nurse Practitioner at Johns Hopkins Hospital, where she provides expert clinical care for critically ill newborns. She also serves as a Neonatal Nurse Practitioner legal consultant, sharing clinical knowledge for medicolegal review and education. When she is not on this podcast, Yana is enjoying art history, traveling, and exploring the world with her canine companion. Connect with Yana Felix by email at yfelix1@jh.edu

In this episode of IP+ with Knobbe Martens, Jeremiah Helm, Co-Chair of Knobbe Martens' Appellate Litigation practice, and Carol Pitzel Cruz, Co-Chair of the firm's Hatch-Waxman Litigation practice, discuss one of the most consequential IP cases so far this year: the recent SCOTUS ruling in Hikma v. Amarin. In their discussion, Jeremiah and Carol break down the main issues at play in the ANDA litigation case, including generic drug manufacturers' use of skinny labels, the nuances of induced infringement, and why the decision may reverberate beyond the pharmaceutical industry. A full transcript of the episode can be found here.

Send us Fan MailA high conflict divorce can stretch on for years, drain your savings, and leave your children caught in the middle. Glee Nahon spent six and a half years in litigation, worked with four different attorneys, and fought a spouse who hid business assets and refused to settle. She joins family law attorney Billie Tarascio to break down what she wishes she had known before filing.Glee Nahon spent 26 years in a marriage before filing for divorce with five children at home. What followed was six and a half years of litigation, four attorneys, a spouse who emptied their joint accounts and filed for reconciliation as a delay tactic, and a court that found no fraud despite fabricated financial documents. She is not a lawyer or a coach. She is someone who lived it and is willing to say exactly what went wrong.Glee wants listeners to know two things she did not get to say fully on the recording. First, she filed in large part to show her daughters what a strong woman looks like and to teach all five of her children that marriage and family life should not be toxic. Second, she maintains a caring, loving relationship with all five of her children today. The divorce brought them closer, not further apart.What you will learn in this episode:- Recognize when emotional abuse escalates after filing for divorce- Identify the red flags that mean it is time to change attorneys- Interview divorce lawyers properly instead of just telling your story- Build a divorce strategy before you file, not after- Understand why delay tactics and false reconciliation drain your case- Gather financial records before filing, since joint account access disappears fast- Understand how moving out of the marital home affects settlement leverage- Value a spouse's business when they control all the financial records- Decide when to stop chasing hidden assets and negotiate instead- Weigh the real cost of fighting for a fair split versus settling- Protect your children when temporary orders are not in place- Push for court-ordered therapy when co-parents disagree- Understand the limits of child interviews in Arizona family court- Know that court-ordered fee shifting is not always enforced- Build financial and emotional support before litigation startsChapters:00:00 Introduction and Glee's background01:30 Reasons for the divorce and initial challenges02:24 Escalation of conflict during divorce03:36 Living apart and emotional toll04:00 Duration of the divorce and reasons for delay05:20 Outcome and lessons learned from the lengthy process06:10 Litigation tactics and court challenges07:21 Changing lawyers and communication issues08:45 Advice on lawyer selection and red flags10:46 Final strategy and successful lawyer selection12:01 Settlement process and asset discovery13:24 Dealing with dismissive lawyers14:12 Nuancing settlement terms15:07 Impact on children and therapy17:03 Children's relationships post-divorce18:17 Handling hidden assets and financial uncertainty19:50 Acceptance and moving forward20:58 Mediation considerations22:48 Surprises and insights from the process23:41 System flaws and potential improvements24:17 Proposed system changes and child voice25:03 Lessons learned and advice for others27:11 Managing costs and emotional support28:15 Celebrating resilience and family supportIf you are facing a high conflict divorce in Arizona, Modern Law can help you build a strategy before you file. Call 480-649-2905 or visit mymodernlaw.com.

Controversy has swirled for years over litigation in which a plaintiff sues a friendly government defendant, and the case concludes with a favorable settlement. Critics argue that this practice creates a non-adversarial process that allows aligned litigants and agencies to shape policy and reward political allies outside the normal rulemaking and appropriations procedures. Defenders respond that these settlements generally resolve legitimate claims while conserving judicial resources and taxpayer dollars. The debate intensified during the Obama administration as the practice proliferated, particularly in environmental consent decrees.The controversy received renewed attention after the district court’s July 13 ruling in Trump v. IRS, concerning the settlement of President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The court concluded that the parties were never genuinely adverse and that there was therefore no Article III case or controversy. Its order went further, however. Reasoning that the suit was brought for an improper purpose, the court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs and their counsel and directed that the order be transmitted to the bar authorities of senior DOJ officials.Join us for a discussion of Trump v. IRS, and the broader legal and policy concerns surrounding sue-and-settle litigation.Featuring:Anne Austin, Senior Advisor, Burke Law GroupZhonette M. Brown, General Counsel, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceAbhishek Kambli, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s 2023 Digital Discrimination Order, finding the commission exceeded its statutory authority.The dispute centered on the FCC’s implementation of Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which directs the commission to prevent “digital discrimination of access” in broadband deployment and service. In carrying out this statutory mandate, the FCC adopted a disparate-impact framework, under which broadband providers and other entities that impact broadband could face liability for policies or practices that disproportionately affect certain communities without regard to discriminatory intent. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Section 60506 does not authorize the FCC’s disparate-impact regime or regulation of entities other than broadband providers.Join us for a litigation update on the decision and its implications for broadband deployment, digital equity initiatives, FCC authority, and future efforts to address alleged discrimination in access to broadband service.Featuring:Dr. Christopher Ali, Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State UniversityJennifer B. Dickey, Vice President and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Daniel H. Kahn, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP[Moderator] Matthew Furlow, Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce

This week Mariann tears through the industry press so you don’t have to: an Animal Ag Alliance exec frets about “brand-busting” without ever explaining what it means, Oregon’s IP 28 gets branded an extremist plot for daring to remove cruelty-law loopholes, a horse vet insists carriage horses basically drive themselves, and ranchers wax poetic about breeding cattle too docile to complain.…

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. Some people are just free. J.D. Witherspoon is here and every fabric of this show bothers him. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

William Penn returned from Ireland in August 1670, and soon found himself arrested, along with fellow Quaker William Mead, for preaching to a crowd in public in violation of “the common law,” an ambiguity that would play out during their momentous trial. The trial would end in their acquittal, notwithstanding egregious intimidation of the jury by the judge, the Lord Mayor Sir Samuel Starling. Among other exciting moments, Starling threw the principled foreman of the jury, Edward Bushel, in jail. Bushel’s suit for a writ of habeas corpus would lead to a verdict that established an inviolate principle in Anglo-American law, that judges may not intimidate juries. Penn and Mead were acquitted under the glare of remarkable publicity for the day, and the case would establish Penn as a nationally famous advocate for Dissenting religion. After his acquittal, Penn finally made it home to visit his dying father, Sir William Penn, with whom he reconciled in a poignant father-son moment. Subscribe to my Substack! X – @TheHistoryOfTh2 – https://x.com/TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfTheAmericans #212 William Penn Before Pennsylvania 1 #208 What You Need to Know About English Politics in the 1680s 1: The Exclusion Crisis Primary references for this episode (Commission earned for Amazon purchases through the episode notes on our website) Andrew R. Murphy, William Penn: A Life Julius J. Marke, “The Trial of William Penn,” Litigation, Fall 1979. Robert and Marilyn Aitken, “Bushell’s Case,” Litigation, Winter 2010.

Mary and Andrew start with a deeper dive into the Supreme Court's decision to allow the removal of Temporary Protected Status designations from over 330,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria — a consequential ruling that affects TPS holders well beyond those who brought the case, leaving over a million people vulnerable to removal. As Andrew notes, this case was based on two claims: one being a statutory challenge that DHS didn't follow the procedures set out by Congress, and the other a constitutional equal protection claim that this TPS status removal was “motivated in part by race” — both of which were struck down 6-3. Then, a look at Trump's latest retribution efforts including the heavy sentences doled out over a protest that ended in a shooting outside the ICE Prairieland Detention Center inTexas one year ago; a felony indictment of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly tearing part of the liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; and former CIA Director John Brennan going on offense to challenge the DOJ's investigation into him. Plus, Mary and Andrew analyze the DOJ's response to a “show cause” order to unredact some of the Epstein files in a lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Mystery of Third-Party Litigation Finance and its Taxation. Guest: Michael Toth. Toth explains the emergence of third-party litigation finance, where external financial institutions fund tort cases against American companies. He notes this practice is uniquely American and creates a new market for legal conflict. Toth recommends that the Treasurytax these business gains at ordinary income rates rather than treating them as capital gains. 141868

As Andrew puts it, Chief Justice John Roberts is “cherry-picking.” He's flying solo in this short edition of Main Justice (more to come with Mary in the next episode). Andrew gives a quick briefing on several of the Supreme Court's most consequential end-of-term rulings, starting with the decision not to hear an appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case. Andrew also touches on the Court's decision to uphold a Mississippi law to allow mail-in ballots that are sent by Election Day to be counted but saves his deepest analysis for two similar cases with opposing decisions: the firings of Lisa Cook and Rebecca Slaughter. While the Court ruled that the Trump administration must have cause to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, it allowed the government to fire Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, a decision which Andrew calls deeply flawed showing the conservative majority's support for a “unitary executive.”  And finally, Andrew breaks down the Court's narrow decision to uphold birthright citizenship, and why the tight 5-4 split is the story. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.