Podcasts about litigation

Join hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace as we talk the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's newly released Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk from PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids.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.

MSHA's Conferencing and Litigation Program has undergone significant changes over the last couple of months. In this episode, Arthur and Chris discuss these changes and how operators can adjust their approach to dealing with CLRs when conferencing or contesting citations. They also provide an important update regarding the litigation process as the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has undergone staffing and structural reorganizations.

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.

Hi, Welcome to ValuationPodcast.com. I'm Melissa Gragg, a financial mediator and business valuation expert, and today I'm joined by Kelly Lise Murray, a lawyer, professor, legal scholar, and serial entrepreneur who brings a fascinating perspective to the intersection of litigation, business, and valuation.In this episode, Kelly and I dive into a remarkable federal case involving a president, a business opportunity, lost profits, and millions of dollars in litigation costs. The case, Zip By v. Parzich, gives us a front-row look at what can happen when a corporate executive pursues an opportunity that belonged to the company he was leading—and how the financial consequences can extend far beyond the original dispute.We explore how lost profits were calculated, why the valuation date matters, how COVID-19 affected the analysis, and why business projections must be tested against reality before they become the foundation of an expert opinion. We also discuss the importance of expert witnesses, what happens when one side fails to present its own damages expert, and how an apparently shaky expert opinion can become much more powerful when there is no competing number for the judge or jury to consider.Key Takeaways:Lost profits require a defensible foundation. Financial projections used to calculate lost profits should be tested against historical performance, available financial records, market conditions, and the assumptions underlying the forecast.The valuation date can dramatically change the analysis. In a damages case, experts generally must distinguish between information that was known or reasonably knowable at the relevant date and information that became available afterward. COVID-19 illustrates why timing can be critical.A defense expert can establish a critical alternative position. Even when the defense believes damages should be zero, failing to present an expert can leave the opposing expert's number as the only financial anchor available to the jury.Fee-shifting provisions can completely change litigation economics. Legal and expert fees can turn an apparently manageable dispute into a multimillion-dollar exposure. Contractual fee-shifting provisions should therefore be considered when evaluating litigation and settlement strategy.Litigation strategy should account for the cost of winning or losing. A judgment does not necessarily equal a financial victory. Parties should compare potential damages, attorney fees, expert costs, enforceability, and settlement alternatives before committing substantial resources to litigation.Q&As from episode:Q1: How are lost profits calculated in a business litigation case? A: Lost profits are generally calculated by estimating the profits a business or opportunity would reasonably have generated but for the wrongful conduct, while accounting for appropriate expenses, assumptions, causation, and available evidence. In complex cases, a business valuation or damages expert may be needed to establish and defend the calculation.Q2: Why is the valuation date important when calculating lost profits? A: The valuation date is important because a damages analysis typically focuses on what was known or reasonably knowable at the relevant time. Later events may provide useful evidence for testing a projection, but they should not automatically be treated as information that was available when the business decision or alleged loss occurred.Q3: Should a defendant hire a business valuation expert in a lost profits case? A: A defendant should carefully consider hiring a business valuation or damages expert, particularly when the plaintiff presents its own lost-profit calculation. A defense expert can challenge the assumptions, methodology, projections, causation, and damages amount while also establishing an alternative damages position or reasonable range.Q4: What is a fee-shifting provision in a business contract? A: A fee-shifting provision is a contractual term that can require one party to pay some or all of the other party's attorney fees and litigation expenses under specified circumstances. In business disputes, fee shifting can significantly change the financial risk and should be considered when evaluating litigation, settlement, and damages exposure.Q5: Why should businesses evaluate litigation costs before going to trial? A: Businesses should compare the potential damages, attorney fees, expert costs, contractual fee shifting, collection risks, and settlement alternatives before committing to a lengthy trial. A favorable judgment may still produce little or no net financial benefit if the cost of obtaining it approaches or exceeds the amount recovered.Kelly Lise Murrayhttps://divorcethishouse.com/https://vettingthehouse.com/faculty/https://www.linkedin.com/in/kellylisemurray/Melissa Gragghttps://www.valuationmediation.com/https://www.youtube.com/@BusinessValuationStLSupport the show

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.

CSI Litigation Consultant Erin Daugherty, Ph.D., BCBA joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about video evidence in litigation. Erin and Bill discuss how cases with video as evidence play out, whether police body cam, surveillance video, dash cam, security cam footage, etc., and how video evidence influences and affects juror perceptions about the facts of the case. They talk about what jurors expect from video footage and how their perceptions about what occurred is often influenced by what the video shows, doesn't show, what angles are available or not available, the inclusion of audio, number of cameras, etc. Erin and Bill explain the challenge, and importance, of showing mock jurors video of catastrophic injuries or fatalities, the emotional toll these types of videos can take on jurors, and why testing the reactions and emotional responses to these videos is vital. Lastly, Bill and Erin describe why the test/retest focus group model is crucial to detecting juror comprehension issues and increase the validity and reliability of the research results. Watch the video of this episode here: https://youtu.be/estaY4YlOhQ

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

Ashley Upkins is the president of the National Bar Association (NBA), a network of over 65,000 attorneys and judges. She is the Head of Litigation, Investigations, and Alternative Dispute Resolution at Silicon Ranch, the largest independent solar power producer in the U.S. We cover the legal ramifications around AI, voicecloning and deepfake technology, social media issues, environmental concerns around data centers, NIL deals, and more. Don't forget to subscribe to Bryan's free E-newsletter-- "Weakly Wealthy Wisdom" at www.bryankuderna.com.

Justin Kavalir is Louisiana Tech University's associate VP and general counsel, a guiding and protective hand when it comes to institutional litigation. In this episode, he discusses his beginnings in the realm of accounting before deciding to take on law school, his easy choice to make a professional return to Tech, and the complex nature of his day-to-day. He highlights some of the standout cases he's seen in his role and stresses the importance of balancing First Amendment rights with campus safety. Website: 1894.latech.edu/beyond/ Email: 1894@latech.edu

The decision of who conducts an investigation carries important legal implications and shapes how the process unfolds. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Trevin Sims and Kara Walton to explore how public agencies approach selecting internal, outside, and attorney investigators and how those choices can affect confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The discussion covers disclosure decisions around how investigative findings are shared or released, and how those choices can affect whether information remains protected or subject to waiver. Join us as we examine practical considerations for managing investigations while balancing transparency, privilege, and related legal obligations. Show Notes & References 1:39 – Selecting an investigator 3:55 – The process of retaining an attorney investigator 6:56 – Outside investigators and attorney-client privilege 8:05 – Who holds attorney-client privilege 10:05 – The pros and cons of intentional, partial waivers of attorney-client privilege and inadvertent disclosures which risk waiver of the privilege 13:28 – “Clawing back” disclosures (Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1 and Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court (Brazil) (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 33) 14:15 – Releasing a Summary of Findings verses full disclosure of investigation report 17:06 – Complaints and litigation possibilities post-disclosures 17:33 – Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) and appeals to the California Department of Education (CDE) 18:10 – CDE requests for full disclosure of investigation reports 20:30 – Discrimination and harassment investigations (BP/AR 4030s) and appeals to California’s Civil Rights Division (CRD) 21:03 – Litigation and discovery requests for attorney-client privileged reports 23:26 – Investigations into employee misconduct and union requests for information (RFI) 26:23 – Requests for reports under the California Public Records Act (CPRA)   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

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.…

This week, we are sitting at 2BD HQ for the final time as a neighbor to Stewart's Shops. We unpack the unexpected announcement that our beloved next-door convenience store is leaving and brainstorm what the next chapter of this building could look like with us as the solo tenants (for now). We also discuss our peaks and pits, from Jack's full-circle experience at SPAC to an all-time embarrassing moment I had at the track. EPISODE NOTES: Jack ghosted me over the weekend (0:30) This is what happens when you raw dog The Odyssey (4:20) Nobody Asked Me, But... (13:55) The million dollar merch idea I turned down (16:40) Stewart's has left the building (29:09) Brainstorming our next business to place in the vacant space (38:42) Peaks and Pits presented by WellNow Urgent Care (58:08) Reminiscing on BTS weather and core school memories (59:07) Chuck Schumer's little toot (1:31:11) This episode is brought to you by Tully Rinckey PLLC, a full-service law firm serving individuals and businesses in the Capital Region for over 20 years. Their attorneys are ready to protect your rights and guide you through legal matters related to Family & Matrimonial Law, Employment Law, Criminal Law, Litigation, Education Law, Business Law and Trusts & Estates. For experienced legal support from a firm that proudly gives back to its community, learn more at tullylegal.com or follow on social media @tullylegal.

»

The CIT has provided a path for refunds of liquidated IEEPA entries – you just need to be in court for your turn.

»

Jump into a grab bag of legal issues, a “law salad” of ideas that have lately been on the minds of hosts Jim Reeder and Mic Rogson. Law may teach you to think like a lawyer, but does it also teach the practice of law? Hear what Mic and Jim walked away with on graduation day and how it applied to their careers and decades of experience. Practicing law after law school sometimes produces surprises, like learning to mix linear thinking with creativity. You can prepare all you want, but sometimes you need to be “as flexible as Gumby,” Mic says. In the real world,  Jim says, practicing lawyers learn to be comfortable. Comfortable with creativity, comfortable with reacting to surprises, and comfortable admitting to the judge, and themselves, that they don't know everything and may need time to review unfamiliar case law when it crops up in the courtroom. Intimidation and anxiety are the enemy, and young lawyers must learn to relax and react. Then, forget “real life” as Mic and Jim share their favorite courtroom dramas and comedies. What's your guilty pleasure, and which productions capture how you feel about the law? Everything from the gravity of “Judgment at Nuremberg” to the lighthearted “Legally Blonde” to the surprisingly accurate portrayal in “My Cousin Vinny.” What's your favorite? Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com or JAReederJr@gmail.com. Resources Mentioned: “Top 10 Movies Every Law Student Must See - Best Legal Drama Movies,” YouTube “Top 10 Most Accurate Law Movies,” YouTube American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section Subscribe to Litigation Radio: https://play.megaphone.fm/rhyxdryztyy2v3itq6sdlq Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Hamline Midway neighborhood in St. Paul will soon have a new library after 3 years without one. The 92-year-old building was decommissioned in 2023. And construction began in 2025. The library is the first to be completed, out of three that are slated for renovations in St. Paul. This Saturday, the new building will have a grand opening. Maureen Hartman, director of Saint Paul Public Library and Beth Burns, executive director of The Friends of the Saint Paul Public Library joined Minnesota Now host Nina Moini to talk about the new library and the plans to continue to grow St. Paul's library system.

What can plan sponsors (and advisors) learn from litigation?  As it turns out, a lot – even if you aren't responsible for a billion-dollar plan.There are, of course, things to be learned from litigation.  We've learned that the plaintiffs' bar doesn't (always) knowhow to calculate fees (they rely on Form 5500), doesn't know how to calculate performance, and doesn't appreciate important distinctions in target-date fund glidepaths.  Though some do, of course. But the lessons drawn from litigation can serve as a reminder that fiduciaries should never assume, and never take anything for granted.  Particularly not only what the law allows, but what the plandocument permits.In a special edition of the Nevin & Fred podcast (or, if you prefer, a special edition of Prime Capital's The Reish Brief), Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) cover a wide range of topics with plenty of lessons to learn.  We're talking about things like:1. Annual Beneficiary Checkups: Treat beneficiary designations like milk in the fridge—check them at least annually (and after marriage/divorce), because tiny “paperwork sins” like using 33⅓% instead of whole numbers can void the change and send everyone to court.2. Zombie Beneficiary Cleanup: Don't let auto-enrollment create “beneficiary-less zombies” in your plan; track thepercentage of participants missing designations and run a recurring campaign to get them completed before a claim turns into a family feud.3. Documented Prudence Wins: Win lawsuits the boring way: hold regular (often quarterly) committee meetings, usean IPS that guides without handcuffing you, hire qualified advisors, keep written reports, and document why you kept or replaced investments—because ERISA wants prudence, not psychic powers.4. Defensible Glidepath Choices: Target-date funds can be sued for being too conservative when markets soar and too aggressive when markets tank, so pick a glidepath based onworkforce demographics/industry realities and communicate the “why” to participants like Intel did.5. Forfeiture Compliance Trap: Forfeitures are the new litigation piñata: confirm your plan is using forfeitures exactlyas the document says today, and prepare for upcoming restatements that may force you to hardwire a specific forfeiture-use method instead of “we'll decide later.”That's right – all that – and more!Episode Resources:Court Says Call Center Communication Didn't Change Beneficiary Designation.Appellate Court Backs Beneficiary DesignationBeneficiary Disclosures Trigger Fiduciary Breach Suit, AppealSeason 4 Episode 2 "Glidepaths and 'Guide' Paths” | Nevin & Fred % %Season 5 Episode 7: Nevin & Fred – Has the Forfeiture Tide Turned? | Nevin & Fred % %  

Summary Kelly Grigsby Jones and Laurie Avery, litigation partners at Perez Morris, sit down with Kathryn Rubino to talk about building a career in trial work. They trace their paths into law, the gap between courtroom TV and courtroom reality, and how they've made an unpredictable schedule sustainable over decades of practice. The conversation turns practical: how young lawyers can get their first real trial experience, what mentors actually look for in an associate, and how to handle a case when the best exhibit goes missing mid-trial. Both partners share candid advice for women navigating litigation, plus the one habit they say matters more than talent: preparation. Key Takeaways Early trial experience often comes from smaller markets or litigation-heavy firms willing to hand associates low-stakes cases to learn on. Being proactive, not waiting to be asked, is what separates associates who get pulled into bigger opportunities from those who don't. Preparation is the one thing a lawyer can fully control, even when the outcome, a missing exhibit or a directed verdict, isn't. Good mentors highlight a mentee's strengths and give honest, respectful redirection when trial work isn't the right fit. A sustainable trial career means accepting an uneven schedule: early some days, late into the night on others. Links and Resources Above the Law: https://abovethelaw.com/ The Jabot Podcast: https://abovethelaw.com/tag/the-jabot-podcast/ Perez Morris: https://www.perezmorris.com/ Email the Jabot: tips@abovethelaw.com Keywords women in litigation, trial lawyers, legal career advice, Perez Morris, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, women in law, litigation partners, trial experience, first chair, second chair, mentorship in law, law firm associates, courtroom preparation, women trial attorneys, legal industry podcast, career in law, litigation career path, women partners law firm, trial advocacy Episode Highlights [00:01:00-00:02:00] Laurie explains how a dismissive comment from a colleague, "you don't need to know that," pushed her toward law school. [00:07:00-00:09:00] Kelly describes jumping into plea deals and bond hearings early because her rural county had few attorneys to go around. [00:10:00-00:12:00] Kelly recounts winging cross-examination after showing up to trial without her one key exhibit. [00:12:00-00:13:00] Laurie tells the story of winning a directed verdict in seconds after weeks of preparation. [00:16:00-00:17:00] Kelly explains why she calls junior lawyers "colleagues," not associates, in front of clients. [00:19:00-00:20:00] Laurie draws the line between lawyers built for first chair and those who thrive in second chair. [00:22:00-00:23:00] Kelly and Laurie each give their one piece of advice for lawyers starting out in trial work.  

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question? Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation. Featuring:Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersGene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal FoundationPhil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP[Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC

At the heart of this practice there is a simple belief: when a family is harmed by negligence, they deserve an advocate who will fight for them as if they were their own. What sets this attorney apart is a unique insider perspective gained from years working within the insurance industry—as both an adjuster and claims counsel. This firsthand experience revealed the strategies insurance companies use to minimize or deny legitimate claims, even those from their own policyholders.Choosing to stand up for injured victims rather than defend these practices, this attorney now leverages that knowledge to hold insurance companies accountable. Frequently involved in high-stakes litigation—including catastrophic injury cases, wrongful death claims, and complex insurance disputes—this advocate has already recovered over $50 million for clients, despite being early in their legal career. Every case is approached personally, with the understanding that behind each claim is a family whose life has been upended and who deserves justice and financial security for the future. https://rosesanderslaw.com/sanders-charles/http://www.yourlotandparcel.orgSupport the show

Email threads, shared drives, and spreadsheets can feel “fine” until you're coordinating 30 firms, thousands of plaintiffs, and a calendar full of court deadlines that can't slip. We sit down with Keao Caindec, CEO and co-founder of Clarra (https://clarra.com), to unpack what complex litigation case management really requires and why the biggest pain is often coordination, not just documents.Keao explains how Clarra grew out of real-world needs from a complex litigation law firm handling antitrust, mass tort, class action, and bankruptcy matters. We compare purpose-built litigation workflows with more intake-oriented or small-firm platforms, then get specific about what breaks at scale: multi-party responsibility tracking, bulk docketing, complex calendaring, discovery flow, and the constant question of who owns the next action.We also go deep on collaboration. Clarra's permissioned workspaces are designed to let co-counsel, local counsel, and clients work from a shared repository without exposing everything a firm keeps private. Add in integrations with tools like NetDocuments, iManage, Google Drive, and OneDrive, and you start to see a realistic path away from the spreadsheet monster.Then we talk AI for lawyers in practical terms: voice-driven time entries, agentic help for docketing and field population, document summarization, and analytics. Subscribe for more legal tech startup stories, share this with a litigator or legal ops leader who lives in spreadsheets, and leave a review with the biggest workflow bottleneck you want software to fix.

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.

In this podcast, recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Professor Gao Xiqing, the former Vice Chairman, President, and Chief Investment Officer of the China Investment Corporation, China's largest sovereign wealth fund.They discuss Professor Gao's extraordinary career, from his early days building a railroad in rural China during the Cultural Revolution to earning his JD at Duke University and becoming one of the first Chinese lawyers to pass the New York Bar and work at a major Wall Street law firm.Professor Gao's work on Wall Street led to him explaining, as a third-year associate, the causes of the Black Friday stock market crash to Chinese business and government leaders. He was later called back to China to help design the country's first stock exchange and its securities regulator, the Chinese equivalent of the SEC.They also discuss Professor Gao's role in leading the China Investment Corporation (CIC), one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds. CIC invests exclusively in businesses outside China, typically acquiring stakes of less than 10%, and allocates its investments roughly equally between publicly listed companies and private equity.Finally, they discuss Professor Gao's perspective on Sino-American relations. He believes that, when viewed in historical context, the two countries have grown significantly closer since the Cold War and that shared cultural values, such as a strong work ethic and a drive to achieve, will help strengthen relations in the future.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode,Jakob Emerson, Associate News Director, Becker's Healthcare, examines the growing litigation over Medicare Advantage star ratings and the billions of dollars tied to quality bonuses. He also explores how AI is intensifying the coding and claims battle between health systems and insurers, creating new operational and financial challenges across the industry.

In this episode of the Legal Nurse Podcast, we delve into the specialized world of speech and language pathology with expert witness Elizabeth McKinney, who brings 17 years of experience in geriatric care and a wealth of advanced certifications in her field. Elizabeth McKinney sheds light on the extensive educational requirements and ongoing certifications necessary for speech-language pathologists, highlighting their critical role not just in communication but also in swallowing safety, cognitive assessments, and patient advocacy across all care settings. Listeners will gain an insider's perspective on how speech-language pathologists contribute to both pediatric and adult care, often working behind the scenes with vulnerable populations in skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, schools, and even home health. The episode also tackles the legal and ethical responsibilities of these professionals, especially in complex cases involving aspiration pneumonia, diet management, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Through compelling case examples including wrongful death due to preventable choking, Elizabeth McKinney illustrates the real-world stakes of clinical decisions and the vital interplay between nurses, dietitians, and speech pathologists. With her unique view as an expert witness, Elizabeth McKinney discusses both the high standards set by the profession's code of ethics and the impact of proper documentation, team education, and timely intervention on patient outcomes and litigation. Whether you're a healthcare provider, legal professional, or simply curious about the hidden dimensions of post-acute care, this episode will deepen your understanding of how speech and language pathology can shape and safeguard patient lives. What You'll Learn in This Episode on The Overlooked Impact of SLPs in Elder Care and Litigation Here are 5 discussion questions answered in the podcast: What are the implications when recommended swallowing safety precautions are not followed in skilled nursing facilities? How can impulsive or improper diet recommendations by speech-language pathologists contribute to adverse patient outcomes and potential litigation? What mechanisms exist for nurses, dietitians, and speech-language pathologists to communicate and collaborate regarding dietary changes and patient safety? How does the ASHA Code of Ethics guide the practice and decision-making of speech-language pathologists, especially when unethical practices are observed? In what circumstances are speech-language pathologists likely to be named as defendants in malpractice litigation, and how common is this compared to other healthcare providers? 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/tEBuol12ahY Your Presenter for The Overlooked Impact of SLPs in Elder Care and Litigation 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 Elizabeth McKinney Speech-Language Pathologist, Expert Witness, Advocate Elizabeth has been practicing as a speech-language pathologist for 17 years. She graduated from the University of Florida with her bachelor's degree in communication sciences and disorders with a minor in gerontology and her master's degree in speech-language pathology. She has devoted her career to the care of geriatrics in skilled nursing facilities across Florida. Elizabeth has been an expert witness since 2023 and has served on nearly 20 cases nationwide. When she is not on this podcast, she is enjoying the Florida lifestyle with her husband and two kids. She enjoys reading, volunteering, and running in her spare time. Connect with Elizabeth McKinney by email at emckinneyslp@gmail.com

In the 248th BlockTalks we speak with Matt Green, NED and Head of Disputes and Strategy at M2 Recovery, to learn how crypto litigation works.Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-green-88730a95https://m2recovery.com/https://www.lawrencestephens.com/people/matt-green/https://regintel-content.thomsonreuters.com/document/IC5D87630EA5611F0AE0BFC616E25AB1C/How-1.5-million-USDC-was-recovered-in-under-two-weeks:-legal-strategies,-'nuclear'-options-and-the-power-of-peer-to-peer-settlement-08-01-2026 All of BlockTalks:https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2kC88UznBpwM03SKCGQeSgSocials and comms.. Website ⁠https://blockdropspodcast.xyz/⁠.. Substack ⁠https://blockdrops.substack.com⁠ .. Twitter ⁠Twitter.com/blockdropspod⁠.. Instagram ⁠Instagram.com/blockdropspodcast⁠.. Lens https://blockdrops.lens/ .. Warpcase ⁠https://warpcast.com/mauriciomagaldi⁠.. YouTube ⁠youtube.com/@BlockDropsPodcast⁠.. Twitter ⁠twitter.com/0xmauricio⁠.. LinkedIn ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7056680685142454272⁠ .. Email info@blockdropspodcast.xyz

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.

(0:00) About the Boardroom Governance Summit (Aug 26-27, 2026)  (0:55) Intro (2:44) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel. (3:30) Start of interview.  (4:16) Origin story Marie Bafus (5:30) Origin story Wendy Grasso (7:34) Diving into their article AI in the Boardroom: What Directors Need to Know Now (4:14) Why AI Needs Board Oversight (12:00) Caremark and Oversight Duties (15:12) Mission-Critical Risk Cases. Reference to Marchand case (2019) and Boeing case (2021) (19:18) Where AI Belongs in Governance (board level and board committees) (21:28) Defining Mission-Critical AI (24:45) Strategy, Capital Allocation, and Judgment (29:50) Board Minutes as Litigation Evidence (33:52) Private Companies, Same Duties (38:35) AI Washing and Disclosure Risks (43:10) How Boards (and Board Members) Can Use AI (47:08) Hallucinations, Confidentiality, and Privilege. Reference to U.S. v Heppner case (2026) (52:03) Building an AI Usage Policy (53:36) Recording Boards with AI (note taking apps) (57:05) Workforce Trust and Environmental Risk (1:00:00) AI for Oversight Itself (1:02:02) AI's Impact on Legal Practice Marie Bafus is a partner in Fenwick's Securities Litigation Practice and Wendy Grasso is counsel in Fenwick's Corporate Practice. You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Friday July 3, 2026 Supreme Court Sides with Bayer Over Roundup Litigation

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

On this episode of the Empowering Plans podcast series, Attorneys Kelly Dempsey and Naga Vivekanandan discuss recent 340B litigation filed by three major hospital systems. They explain how the 340B program works and summarize the allegations in the lawsuit, as well as explore what these cases could mean for contract pharmacy arrangements and self-funded plans. 

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.

Stephen Serda is back with the latest NFL news, and Brendan Sorsby backs off. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New analysis from the London School of Economics finds an increase in lawsuits around the world targeting data centers. The World's Host Marco Werman speaks with the report's researcher, Eoin Jackson, to learn more. The post Global climate litigation is increasingly targeting data centers appeared first on The World from PRX.

Hosts Brandon Schuh and Nick Hartmann return for another episode of RiskCellar, and the headline story is North Carolina litigation financing. North Carolina has become the first state in the country to pass an outright ban on third-party litigation financing, with Governor Josh Stein signing House Bill 315 into law in June 2026. Find out what the law prohibits, why insurance trade groups are celebrating it, and what it could mean for other states.Beyond the North Carolina litigation financing news, Brandon and Nick cover a data breach at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, CFC's move to add affirmative AI coverage across seven product lines, the deadly earthquakes that struck Venezuela and the Caribbean, and how Chubb-led marine war risk facilities are easing capacity strain in the Strait of Hormuz. The episode wraps with a Fourth of July round of Three Truths and a Lie.This episode blends sharp insurance analysis with the hosts' casual banter, making topics like North Carolina litigation financing approachable for brokers and underwriters. Listeners get a fast-moving tour of the week's biggest insurance and legal stories.North Carolina is the first state to enact an outright ban on third-party litigation financing.House Bill 315 makes it unlawful to engage in or furnish litigation investment in a North Carolina civil proceeding.The law took effect July 1, 2026, applying to lawsuits arising on or after that date.The Attorney General can enforce the law with penalties up to $50,000 per violation.At least 11 other states already have some restrictions on litigation funding.NAIC confirmed a breach exposing 3.1 terabytes of data via an Oracle PeopleSoft vulnerability.CFC is embedding affirmative AI coverage across seven core product lines.Chubb-led marine facilities offer up to $400 million in Strait of Hormuz shipping capacity.00:00 Introduction to Claims Auditing and AI Solutions01:22 Celebrating Achievements in Brokerage04:38 Wine Tasting and Personal Updates05:39 Fourth of July Plans and Celebrations06:39 Political Commentary on National Events09:11 Litigation Funding Legislation in North Carolina11:47 Data Breach at NAIC and Its Implications15:47 Insurance Industry Responses to AI Risks19:06 Natural Disasters and Their Impact on Insurance21:29 Geopolitical Commentary on U.S.-Iran Relations24:39 Insurance Developments in Maritime Risk28:07 Trivia and Closing ThoughtsConnect with RiskCellar:Website: https://www.riskcellar.com/Brandon Schuh:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552710523314LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-stephen-schuh/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/schuhpapa/Nick Hartmann:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickjhartmann/

Late notice to an excess carrier is one of those “small” steps that can explode into a coverage dispute at the worst possible time, like right before mediation or on the eve of trial. We talk through why excess claims notification is getting tougher in today's market and how retail agents can protect their clients and themselves when a claim starts creeping toward the tower.We're joined by CRC Group's claims pros who live this every day: Dave Gilfillian, Chief Claims Officer and leader of Claims Advocacy, Ari Shapiro, Claims Advocacy Director, and Cammie Powell, Senior Claims Coordinator. Together, we unpack what's driving bigger claims, how plaintiff expectations and litigation funding can change the exposure curve, and why excess carriers are more likely to take a hard line on late notice. We also explain the concept of “prejudice,” how state law affects the analysis, and what a reservation of rights letter can signal when notice comes in too late.We also challenge a dangerous assumption: “follow form” does not automatically mean “same rules.” Excess policies often include pages of exceptions, unique notice provisions, and surprises around defense costs and endorsements, especially in complex towers with multiple carriers. Our practical takeaway is straightforward: when the thought pops into your head that excess might be involved, send notice, document it clearly, and keep communication moving so no layer is blindsided. Visit REDYIndex.com for critical pricing analysis and a snapshot of the marketplace.Do you want to take your career to the next level? Join #TeamCRC to get access to best-in-class tools, data, exclusive programs, and more! Send your resume to resumes@crcgroup.com today!

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Gregory Mostyn. Gregory is the Co-Founder and CEO of Wexler. Wexler offers advanced AI-driven solutions for eDiscovery, document review and litigation services. With clients including Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Burges Salmon, Wexler is ‘on a mission to solve the most complex cases.So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and Gregory discussing:- Marketing Yourself In Every Possible Situation- Facts First, Chronology Mattering Most- Specialised AI Beats Generalist Tools- Verification Improving Accuracy and Expertise- Hustle with Purpose, Fail Fast, One Team.Connect with Gregory Mostyn here - ⁠https://uk.linkedin.com/in/gregory-mostyn-9b3a89b8⁠

John is joined by Avi Perry, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C., office, and Brett Raffish, an associate in the same office. They discuss how the Quinn Emanuel team, led by Bill Burck and Avi Perry, achieved a rare federal white collar criminal defense victory on behalf of technology executive Charlie Kim.The prosecution alleged that Mr. Kim and his co-CEO bribed four-star Admiral Robert Burke by offering him a lucrative post-retirement job at their company in exchange for using his position to help secure a multimillion-dollar Navy contract. They argued that the employment discussions and contract negotiations constituted an unlawful quid pro quo rather than legitimate, independent business conversations.Avi and Brett explain the history of the case, from the initial whistleblower complaint through the indictment, pretrial strategy, two lengthy jury trials, and Mr. Kim's ultimate acquittal. From the beginning, one of their central themes was that the parallel discussions about the Navy contract and the admiral's post-retirement employment were conducted openly, not secretly. Mr. Kim repeatedly disclosed the conversations to investors, colleagues, family members, and others, demonstrating that he had no criminal intent, one of the essential elements of the charges. The trial team also showed that the job offer and the contract were not linked. Although the proposed multimillion-dollar contract never materialized, Mr. Kim still hired the admiral at Next Jump because the job offer was never contingent on the admiral securing the contract.Before trial, the team moved to sever Mr. Kim's trial from the admiral's case because evidence against the admiral, including incriminating statements and unrelated misconduct, threatened to unfairly prejudice Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim also intended to, and ultimately did, present a defense that the admiral had lied to him during their relationship. After obtaining the rare severance, the admiral was tried, convicted, and sentenced to six years in prison. Mr. Kim's first trial ended with a hung jury.Using insights from juror interviews, the team refined its defense for the retrial, focusing on the absence of any true quid pro quo, Mr. Kim's reliance on the admiral's assurances that the discussions were ethically appropriate, and evidence showing that the admiral was hired despite the failure to secure the anticipated contract. The team also used the record from the first trial to sharpen its cross-examinations of the government's witnesses.Seven months later, the case was retried. At the second trial, the government repeatedly emphasized a statement in a text message that the deal was “no contract, no job.” However, the quote was taken out of context. During Avi's cross-examination of the government's case agent, he elicited an admission that the deal ultimately became “no contract, yes job.”After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for just one day before returning a verdict acquitting Mr. Kim on all charges.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The US Supreme Court handed down four rulings this morning. Two were about immigration policies. Another about guns. And the final one about whether the maker of Roundup can be sued.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerAll the links to Pete's Prep are free!Get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com  

There's a lot on the docket today. To pull apart the Iran “deal” framework, Mary and Andrew are joined by Tess Bridgeman, an international law expert who served as a legal advisor in the Obama administration through the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Tess lays out how President Trump's 14-point memorandum of understanding differs from what was brokered in 2015, and what to watch for as negotiations continue. Before she joins, the co-hosts begin by analyzing several examples of what Mary calls the Trump Justice Department's "consistent effort” to avoid judicial review: their refusal to put into a sworn declaration that they won't move forward with the “Anti-Weaponization” fund and a motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act violation lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI data center in Mississippi. They also tackle a few instances where, contrastingly, the government has positioned itself “on the offense” this week, including an indictment of 15 protesters on a conspiracy charge against ICE and the DHS' intent to build a border wall through a holy landmark atop Mount Cristo Rey in New Mexico. Further reading: Here is the New York Times piece, Mary referred to about the Las Cruces case: A Diocese Tries to Protect Its 29-Foot Jesus From Trump's Border Wall Here is the Just Security tracker that Mary and Andrew mentioned: Immigration Habeas Tracker: Government Obstruction, Judicial Trust, and Accountability 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.

We are excited to share this very special bonus episode featuring our trip to Tijuana and the border wall with the non-profit group Al Otro Lado. If you'd rather watch the full video version of this episode, tap here. Al Otro Lado is a bi-national organization that provides free legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants, deportees, and separated families. Thanks to the leadership of Jesse Thorn and his wife,  Theresa Thorn, and especially to all of our listeners, we were able to raise over $400,000 to support Al Otro Lado's humanitarian and legal efforts. Join us as we travel to their headquarters in Tijuana to see their good work in action, meet the staff who make it possible, and meet some of the people who have benefited from Al Otro Lado's work. We recorded this episode at Friendship Park, which is located on the water in Tijuana next to the border wall. We hope you listen to our powerful conversation with Nicole Ramos, Director of the Border Rights Project at Al Otro Lado, and Cassandra Lopez, Director of Litigation at Al Otro Lado, who work in San Diego and Tijuana to advance the rights of all immigrants, refugees, and deportees, on both sides of the border. We know this is a departure from our usual content, but we believe in this powerful work and wanted to share it with you, our listeners. Learn More about Al Otro Lado and donate to support their work at: AlOtroLado.org Follow Al Otro Lado on Instagram here Support Baraka's GoFundMe here Support Baraka's Music and Merch at linktr.ee/frankiejaxnomad ---Judge John Hodgman is member-supported! Become a member to unlock special bonus episodes and more. Memberships start at just $5 a month. Just tap here!

After a week of decisions coming in from all corners, Mary and Andrew begin with a court order issued to remove President Trump's name off the Kennedy Center after a failed, last-minute attempt by the administration to stop it from happening. Mary refers to this as “good news in the fight against revisionist history,” which she ties into their second beat: a preliminary injunction issued to restore changes to National Parks that were made after Trump issued an executive order calling for modifications to monuments, parks and memorials to rewrite and censor American history and science. Then, onto a federal judge in Virginia officially blocking the $1.776 Billion slush fund after mixed messaging from the administration about whether it would be set up, plus a decision by Judge Mehta in DC to overturn the Department of Energy's cancellation of $82.1 Million in clean energy grants to “Blue” states across the country. Mary and Andrew also touch on a Massachusetts District Court decision blocking Ken Paxton's lawsuit against the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue. And last up, they read and summarize the eyebrow-raising grand jury transcripts of the “Broadview Six” case out of Chicago, so you don't have to.  Further reading: Here is Judge Mehta's order reinstating the clean energy grants: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.296214/gov.uscourts.mad.296214.41.0.pdf   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.

Decisions are happening fast — and the consequences are showing. Last week, Trump announced he would nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to the top post at the Justice Department, after Blanche nixed the $1.776 “Anti-Weaponization” fund while keeping the controversial release that shields Trump and his family from any liability. Mary and Andrew highlight the myriad of issues Blanche will need to answer for when a confirmation hearing comes, before moving to the Supreme Court ruling that allows Alabama to adopt a Republican-drawn congressional map eliminating one of only two majority-Black districts in the state. This nullifies a lower court's decision that the map was, in fact, intentionally discriminatory. Next up, the co-hosts review a Rhode Island judge's ruling that invalidated several of Trump's immigration policies, including one that placed a hold on asylum claims globally, causing chaos and uncertainty for many legally trying to obtain asylum claims and green card status.And lastly, a beat on a new executive order stripping job protections from thousands of federal workers, plus continuing litigation over Trump's ballroom. 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.