Podcasts about litigation

Ben and Tom discuss Black Friday sales, central bank rate cuts, and slowing auto sales.Song: December - Collective SoulFor information on how to join the Zoom calls live each morning at 8:30 EST, visit:https://www.narwhal.com/blog/daily-market-briefingsPlease see disclosures:https://www.narwhal.com/disclosure

As new tools using generative AI promise to change the way we litigate and conduct discovery, what are the implications for day-to-day litigation workflows? On today's episode of LawNext, we feature a conversation with three guests about how law firms are navigating the urgency around gen AI adoption while staying grounded in practical realities. LawNext host Bob Ambrogi recorded this conversation at e-discovery company Everlaw's annual Summit in San Francisco, where gen AI was very much the talk of the  conference — from new product announcements to candid discussions about how law firms are actually putting these tools to work. His guests are:  Adam Borgman, senior associate in the labor and employment group at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.  Julie Brown, director of practice technology at Vorys.  Joshua Schnoll, Everlaw's chief marketing officer. They talk about how Vorys has taken a disciplined approach to mapping lawyers' workflows before plugging in AI, why understanding how your professionals currently work is the essential first step before adopting new technology, and how tools like Everlaw's newly released Deep Dive are helping attorneys find insights across millions of documents that they might never have discovered on their own – including, as you will hear, a rather unexpected story involving Tums. They also discuss the cost considerations around AI, the trust factor that still gives many lawyers pause, and what advice these experts have for firms that have not yet started experimenting with gen AI.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Eve, taking care of the tasks that slow you down so you can operate at your highest potential   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Title IX experts Sarah Fama and Sinead McDonough for a comprehensive discussion regarding the status of the law as it pertains to gender identity, students, and schools.  Topics covered include the current status of California and federal law and policy on point, as well as the wide-ranging scope of pending litigation poised to impact this area of school law. Show Notes & References 1:54 – Foundational cases impacting Title IX policy (Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731) (Client News Brief 50 - June 2020) 2:55 – Grabowski v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir. 2023) 69 F.4th 1110 5:51 – Parents for Privacy vs. Barr (9th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 1210 (Client News Brief 40 - May 2020) 10:48 – Roe vs. Critchfield (9th Cir. 2025) 137 F.4th 912 (Client News Brief 14 - April 2025) 12:49 – Jones, et al. v. Critchfield, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-5413 13:44 – Regino vs. Blake (formerly Staley) (9th Cir. 2025) (Client News Brief 17 - April 2025) 14:57 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1266 20:00 – United States v. Skrmetti (2025) 605 U.S. 495 22:24 – The law in California 23:25 – CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) Rule 300D and Guidelines for Gender Identity Participation 24:36 – Interactions with federal law 25:56 – Executive Order (EO) 14168 (Client News Brief 12 - February 2025) 27:01 – Tennessee v. Cardona decision 28:29 – Dear Colleague letter - February 4, 2025 30:32 – Federal government's approach and reaction to CIF and AB 1266 (USDOE Press Releases: February 12, 2025; March 27, 2025; June 25, 2025) 34:00 – Related Supreme Court cases (Little v. Hecox, Case No. No. 24-38; West Virginia v. B.P.J., Case No. 24-43) 35:09 – T.S. et al. v. Riverside Unified School District et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-02480-SSS-SP, and order on motion to dismiss, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) 2025 WL 2884416 36:25 – Protections for student privacy and their interactions with parental rights 39:22 – Mirabelli vs. Olson et al.¸U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET 40:00 – The SAFETY Act (AB 1955) 44:13 – The dynamic between the federal government and California post-AB 1955 enactment (United States of America v. California Interscholastic Federation et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 8:25-cv-01485-CV-JDE) 50:26 – Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, Case No. 25-77 52:19 – Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Listen to Episode 97 Mahmoud v. Taylor) (Client News Brief 28 - July 2025) 53:31 – Access to facilities 55:15 – Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir. 2020) 972 F.3d 586 56:06 – Million Dollar Question: Does Title IX protect individuals based on gender identity or not?   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

In Episode 444 of the Immigration Lawyer's Toolbox Podcast, Ruby Powers returns with a powerhouse conversation on the future of immigration practice, legal tech, and law firm leadership. Fresh from high-level legal tech conferences, Ruby breaks down the trends shaping the profession—from AI tools and automation to alternative business structures, MSOs, and the rapid shift toward value-based billing. Together, we dive into office management, hiring challenges, practice innovation, workflow redesign, and how to future-proof your firm as tech evolves faster than ever. This episode is packed with real lessons, honest reflections, and actionable takeaways for any immigration lawyer looking to sharpen their operations and stay competitive in 2025 and beyond. Spotify | iTunes | YouTube Music | YouTube Timestamps: 00:00 – Opening 00:33 – Intro 01:52 – Catching Up With Ruby 02:08 – Inside the Legal Tech Fund Summit 07:57 – Flat Fees vs. Hourly Billing: Lessons From Experimenting 11:36 – Arizona's Legal Sandbox & Alternative Business Models 15:16 – Streamlining Your Firm for 2025: Tech + Ops Upgrades 23:30 – Mid-Episode Break 24:17 – Reading the Data: Who's Hiring Us? + Pulling Back on Video Content 27:42 – Practicing Immigration Law Under the Trump Administration 28:42 – Why Systems Matter: Evolving Your Immigration Practice 31:08 – Using Social Media Bots for Client Responses 33:46 – The Authenticity Problem: How AI Shapes Audience Perception 39:21 – The New Wave of Lawyering: Tech-Driven Legal Practice 41:46 – E-Books vs. Hardcovers: How Lawyers Learn Best 43:41 – Using NotebookLM for Training, Study, and Course Design 47:00 – Clearbrief: AI Tools for Litigation and Drafting 48:59 – Using AI as Your Advanced Legal Assistant 51:06 – Power Up Your Practice: Final Takeaways 51:38 – Closing Remarks Live Consular Processing training for lawyers Dec 18, 10:00–11:45 a.m. PT - NVC packets & DS-260 - Interview prep & follow-up - Timelines, fees, and real-world workflows Register here! Follow eimmigration by Cerenade: Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Start your Business Immigration Practice! (US LAWYERS ONLY - SCREENING REQUIRED): E-2 Course EB-1A Course Get the Toolbox Magazine!  Join our community (Lawyers Only) Get Started in Immigration Law! The Marriage/Family-Based Green Card course is for you Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox  

11-20-2025 Michael Marino Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/good-to-the-last-drop-using-coffee-proactively-to-minimize-litigation/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit stayorgo.substack.comIn today's episode, I sit down with “Olivia,” a woman I worked with one-on-one during the early days of her unraveling a 21-year marriage marked by deep narcissistic abuse. What unfolds in this conversation is one of the most raw, courageous, and unflinching portraits we've ever had on the podcast of what it means to wake up inside a marriage and realize: this isn't love. Not the kind that sees you. Not the kind that holds you.Together, we trace Olivia's journey from the exhaustion and confusion of her lowest point—when the gaslighting and emotional manipulation were so constant, she barely recognized herself anymore—to the firestorm of her divorce and, ultimately, to the quiet, grounded peace she's found on the other side.She shares what it cost her to stay: the subtle erasure of her identity, her joy, her voice. She shares the moment she realized she was no longer standing up for her kids. And perhaps most importantly, she shares how she clawed her way back—learning to borrow hope, hold boundaries, and honor the wild, beautiful pulse of her own truth.This episode is an offering for any woman who has doubted what she feels. For those who know something isn't right but can't yet name it. For those who are starting to see the cost of staying too long. If you've ever whispered to yourself, “I can't do this anymore,” let Olivia's story be a companion in the dark and a reminder: your freedom is real, and it is possible.Show Notes:Subscribe to Stay or Go on SubstackAwake - Jen HatmakerThe Let Them Theory - Mel RobbinsText 90MIN to 33777 to book a 90-Minute Session with me. ✨Text STAYORGOCOMMUNITY to 33777 to join the community. ⚡️Text EMAILME to 33777 for the free tarot guide using ChatGPT.

The Goldwater Institute is fighting for government transparency at the Arizona Supreme Court level, what happened in court? We talked to VP of Litigation at Goldwater, Jon Riches all about the case. 

The Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE) is challenging long-held assumptions about what it means to go public in the U.S. Jeff Karcher joins The Pre-Read to share how the TXSE is rethinking the public company experience—reducing friction, lowering reporting and legal costs, and creating an environment where management can focus on running the business, not navigating lawsuits. In this episode, we explore: • How Texas' corporate growth sparked the idea for a new national exchange • Why the TXSE focuses on helping companies become better public companies—not louder ones • Legislative wins in Texas that curb excessive litigation and the weaponization of governance • Why decentralization has made the physical location of an exchange less relevant • The roadmap for building investor confidence through ETF/ETP listings and a physical exchange launch • Why this is about practical rules that impact a company's bottom line, not loosening governance Timestamps: 01:00 | Why Texas? Corporate growth and diversification 03:50 | The TXSE philosophy and vision 08:30 | Litigation, governance, and reporting costs 10:15 | Business judgment rule and D&O insurance benefits 14:30 | The exchange's national and global ambitions 18:00 | Decentralization and the future of trading 20:15 | Building investor confidence 23:45 | Advice for private companies preparing for an IPO Subscribe for more conversations at the intersection of finance, sustainability, governance, and strategy.

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

In this episode, Patrick Corteau shares his journey from serving as a judge advocate in the Air Force to securing a position with Greenberg Traurig, in its Minneapolis, MN, office.

Recently, in the state of North Carolina, a judge ordered a Tik Tok influencer to pay 1.75 million for destroying her manager's marriage citing a common law tort called  alienation of affection. Alienation of affection lawsuits are still legal in a few states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Professor Jill Hasday from the University of Minnesota Law School, as they spotlight the tort of alienation of affection.  Craig & Jill discuss litigation, states that recognize alienation of affection, and the law's treatment of intimate deception.

In this episode, Bryan Derman, Russ Jones, and Chris Uriarte share their first-take analysis of last week's proposed settlement of the long-running antitrust litigation between Visa/Mastercard and a group of merchants regarding Payment Card Interchange and Merchant Discounts. The discussion covers the basic parameters of the settlement proposal and then investigates some of the possible reactions by merchants, issuers, and networks were the settlement to be approved the by judge.

As a landlord, sometimes you don't know what you don't know.  And what you don't know could get you into legal trouble.....  On today's show, a long-time real estate attorney helps us navigate screening for the right contractor and using tools you may not realize you have, all to avoid litigation.  Corinne Rockoff joins me to discuss all things dirt-related.

Recently, in the state of North Carolina, a judge ordered a Tik Tok influencer to pay 1.75 million for destroying her manager's marriage citing a common law tort called  alienation of affection. Alienation of affection lawsuits are still legal in a few states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Professor Jill Hasday from the University of Minnesota Law School, as they spotlight the tort of alienation of affection.  Craig & Jill discuss litigation, states that recognize alienation of affection, and the law's treatment of intimate deception. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Don't Take No For an Answer, partner Jeremy M. King and Sandra Halbing cover how employer transparency statutes are impacting the employment risk landscape. The statutes require employers to disclose pay ranges and benefits in job postings, putting employers at risk of substantial legal damages if they fail to comply.   King and Halbing discuss how employment practices liability insurance policies may provide coverage for such risks, noting that policyholders should ensure full comprehension of the policy coverage. They advise policyholders to establish a response playbook and provide notice of potential pay transparency actions as soon as possible to avoid navigating a lawsuit blindly. Speakers: Jeremy M. King, Partner, Insurance RecoverySandra Halbing, Associate, Litigation

In October 2025, the Ministry of Law and Justice inaugurated the “Live Cases” dashboard under the Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS) to effectively manage and reduce government litigation. Earlier this year, the Ministry also notified the “Directive for the Efficient and Effective Management of Litigation by Government of India” to curb contractual disputes involving the State. Pavithra Manivannan, researcher at XKDR Forum & The Professeer, explains what needs to be done to reduce government litigation.----more----Read full article here: https://theprint.in/opinion/counting-on-law/we-blame-the-government-for-being-too-litigious-data-tells-a-very-different-story/2785829/

KMOX Legal Analyst Brad Young a partner at Harris, Young, and Kayser, joins Megan Lynch every Wednesday morning. This week they discuss a recent legal loss by Stan Kroenke & the Los Angeles Rams; why the Federal Trade Commission wanted to force Meta to restructure or sell Instagram and WhatsApp; and a New York state law that prohibits mmigration officials from arresting individuals at, or near, state courthouses.

Amanda Hayes-Kibreab, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, and DeAngelo Norris, Senior Associate General Counsel, Grady Health System, discuss best practices for litigating health care disputes. They cover in-house and outside counsel collaboration, handling the pre-dispute process, using contracts to manage disputes, going to trial/arbitration, identifying and working with expert witnesses, and engaging in mediation. Amanda and DeAngelo spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2025 In-House Counsel Program in San Diego, CA.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt2nft_h3C4Learn more about the AHLA 2025 In-House Counsel Program that took place in San Diego, CA: https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/inhousecounsel Learn more about AHLA's 2025 In-House Counsel eProgram: https://educate.americanhealthlaw.org/local/catalog/view/product.php?productid=1471 Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium 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 Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

‍ ‍Drs. Akshay Thomas and Sarwar Zahid join for a journal club episode discussion of three recent publications:‍ ‍ ‍ ‍Fellow Eye PVD (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/24741264251379842)‍ ‍Syfovre versus Izervay (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/24741264251379842)‍ ‍Litigation Involving Intravitreal Injections (https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530(25)00439-7/abstract)‍ ‍ ‍ ‍Disclosures: Dr. Sridhar has consulted for Apellis and Astellas in the past 3 years. ‍ ‍

In this episode, Jason Gottlieb, Chair of Morrison Cohen's Digital Assets Department and White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement Practice Group, breaks down the litigation trends shaping crypto today.Timestamps:➡️ 0:44 — Why litigation is shifting from regulators to private disputes➡️ 3:37 — Statute of limitations: the five-year vs. ten-year reality➡️ 8:14 — Inside the revamped Morrison Cohen Crypto Litigation Tracker➡️ 12:41 — How judges are learning (and misunderstanding) crypto➡️ 18:03 — The importance of amicus briefs in crypto cases➡️ 20:52 — Stablecoin-freezing disputes and why issuers keep getting dragged in➡️ 26:41 — Jurisdiction battles: extraterritoriality, comity & serving by NFTSponsor: Day One Law, a boutique corporate law firm founded by Nick Pullman. Nick and his team at Day One provide strategic legal counsel to startups, crypto projects, and Web3 innovators. ⁠You can get in contact with them via this link⁠: https://www.dayonelaw.xyz/#contactResources: Morrison Cohen Crypto Litigation Tracker: cryptotracker.morrisoncohen.comDisclaimer: Jacob Robinson and his guests are not your lawyer. Nothing herein or mentioned on the Law of Code podcast should be construed as legal advice. The material published is intended for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. Please seek the advice of counsel, and do not apply any of the generalized material to your individual facts or circumstances without speaking to an attorney.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Linda Khzam, M.A. break down the topic of hindsight bias and its impact on juror decision-making. They explain how learning an outcome makes jurors believe it was predictable all along, leading to exaggerated foreseeability and unrealistic expectations of what defendants “should have known.” Steve and Linda discuss how hindsight bias appears across different case types from trucking and transportation to incidents involving police officers to decades-old sexual assault and molestation cases where jurors often apply modern norms and knowledge to past events. They also highlight how technology, especially video evidence, further expands hindsight bias by giving jurors clarity and insight that defendants never had in real time. Steve and Linda also cover counterfactual thinking (i.e., “If only they had done X”) and how plaintiffs use it to oversimplify causation. Lastly, they outline how defense counsel can confront hindsight bias during voir dire by using relatable examples and consistently reframing what was knowable in the moment rather than after the fact.

Scott's Website: https://crookedwhitpain.com/Josh Monday Christian and Conspiracy Podcast Ep. 320How to Support the ministry: $5.99 a monthpatreon.com/JoshMondayChristianandConspiracyPodcastJoin the Patreon here: Linktree: https://linktr.ee/Joshmonday_podcastIf you want to donate to the Ministry CashAPP:https://cash.app/$JoshmondaymusicNew affiliate: https://wsteif.com/ Paul and Crystals links: https://thetinfoilhatfactory.com/Flat Earth Books by Sakal Publishing Affiliate Link: https://booksonline.club/booksonlinecYoutube: ⁠@joshmondaymusicandpodcast ⁠ Tips for the show to Support our Ministry: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/joshmondayCoffee Mug Is Available email me your mailing address Joshmonday⁠@rocketmail.com ⁠ Please subscribe to our Spotify and You Tube Channel Joshmondaymusic and Podcast and help us grow so we can keep on spreading the good news. To all of our current and future subscribers thank you for your time, we appreciate you. Please do us a favor subscribe to our You Tube Channel, hit that bell, share, like and comment below on our You tube. Please leave us a 5-Star review on Apple and Spotify.Check out my new show Sunday Service and Wednesday Brought to you by Cult of Conspiracy Podcast. On Cult of Conspiracy Spotify, Patreon and Apple Podcast Channel.Join the study as I go deep into the Bible. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Romans 10:17.Cases include: – Black Veteran Donte Perez Jones – Death unsolved and uninvestigated – Home invasion Black family – suspects uncharged or questioned -, Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit of mixed-race couple, – Documented abuse of a handicapped child and his father – Litigation to restrict Black individuals from the township, – Discrimination Lawsuit – Jamil Van former Black Whitpain Police officer. These incidents suggest a troubling pattern that demands accountability. Whitpain Township is located in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, a northern suburb of Philadelphia in Montgomery County.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/josh-monday-christian-and-conspiracy-podcast--6611118/support.

On this week's podcast, Samara Hocihara of the Telegraph joins John Still and Rachel Smith to discuss AI litigation, Reddit's big moment and the new Browser Wars. *Check out the winners from The Wires Awards 2025*

Are we being molded into servants for something we don't understand? God doesn't ask for silence, he asks for courage. Whispered in the routine was the forfeiting of our consent. Darkness wins thru exhaustion. Locke and Hobbs were on it. Rebelling against despair. The invisible agreement between power and the people. Obedience as virtue. We choose the chains we wear. Freedom requires maintenance. Do we owe those who no longer keep their promises? Democracy is staring at the corpse of it's promise. Who will speak the truth when it costs something? Evil always pushes back. Free the small voice buried beneath your fear. Who gets to define the truth? Demanding obedience without legitimacy. All three branches of our gov't have been corrupt. Awaken or withdrawal. BBC tactics and J6 evidence come together. Working for the people is a good model. Is it a collapse or correction? New evidence is incoming. The Judge is going to release Tina Peters. Standing for the truth when you are alone. Kash and his girlfriend get complicated. We face digital integration without consent. Love is the physics of the soul. Where are the ops called Antifa and the Proud Boys? What they are doing behind the scenes is very scary. Stay centered and be ready.

What happens when your personal data is misused or stolen — can you really take a company to court?

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Jason Manning, Angelo Stio, and Rob Jenkin to unpack the surge of litigations arising from the use of tracking technologies (e.g., cookies, pixels, and session tools) on websites. This episode explains how plaintiff firms are repurposing federal and state wiretap and “trap-and-trace” laws, as well as the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), to assert claims associated with a business's use of tracking technologies without consent.The Troutman attorneys tackle the state law statutes and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that plaintiffs typically rely on, the statutory damages that may be available, and the defenses and mitigation options to prevent and combat the claims being pursued, including the use of consent banners, transparent disclosures, the supervision of vendors, and regular audits of the tracking technologies being deployed and the information being shared. Tune in for a concise, actionable guide to reducing litigation risk while maintaining marketing and analytics capabilities. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us a textIn Episode 101 of the Serve First, Sell Later Marketing podcast, Sylvia Garibaldi breaks down why your name — not your firm's — is your most valuable asset.  Sylvia makes a compelling case for why personal branding is more important than ever, discussing why clients hire individuals rather than firms and how a strong personal brand can provide career insurance in an ever-changing industry. She breaks down the steps to building your personal brand intentionally, offering practical tips and actionable strategies that can be implemented immediately. Tune in to learn why personal branding is career insurance, how it supports your firm instead of competing with it, and the simple steps to build a reputation that travels with you — whether you're staying in law, moving into alternative dispute resolution, or building your own practice. In this episode, you'll learn: 01:34 The Importance of Personal Branding03:10 Building Your Personal Brand03:30 Common Misconceptions About Personal Branding05:59 The Power of Online Visibility09:04 Personal Branding as Career Insurance15:00 Practical Steps to Build Your Personal Brand Resources:Feeling stuck about how to grow your practice, book a free strategy call here.#86 Rebranding from Litigation to Out-of-Court—What Actually Works#95 What Thousands of Professionals Taught Me About Marketing That Works#57 Rebranding Made Simple Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts"Love listening and learning from the Serve First, Sell Later Marketing Podcast” If that sounds like you, please consider rating and reviewing my show! This helps me support more people -- just like you. Click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Want more insights like this? Sign up for our newsletter. Sign up for our free LinkedIn newsletter on marketing your professional practice Connect with me on linkedin Join our online community Subscribe to my youtube channel

As companies rush to implement AI and automated decision-making tools, they may be walking into a legal minefield. On this episode of Today in Tech, host Keith Shaw speaks with attorney Rob Taylor from Carstens, Allen & Gourley about the growing legal risks tied to agentic AI, automated hiring, and the rise of ADM (automated decision-making) regulations. Rob breaks down: * Why AI tools used in hiring and insurance may trigger liability * How companies are getting ADM compliance wrong * What laws already apply even without new AI regulations * Real-world examples like credit scoring, job screening, and sentiment analysis * Why disclosure, explainability, and data retention are essential * Who's liable: the company or the AI developer? Chapters 00:00 Legal risks in AI and ADM 01:00 Common mistakes companies make 06:00 High-risk use cases: hiring, credit, insurance 10:00 Disclosure and consent pitfalls 15:00 Explainability and record-keeping laws 20:00 Unintentional bias in hiring algorithms 28:00 Who is liable: developer or deployer? 34:00 What future lawsuits might target 37:00 Fixing flawed AI governance 41:00 Litigation as the great teacher

Let's explore insurance litigation's new terrain. This week, Brandon Schuh leads a sharp conversation with Matt Monson of The Monson Law Firm and Todd Kozikowski, CEO and Co-Founder at 4WARN. Delving into topics like mass torts, nuclear verdicts, and litigation harvesting, the episode unpacks aggressive trends driving major changes in claims and coverage, highlighting how private capital, marketing tech, and regulatory gaps are remaking the insurance landscape.The discussion details how litigation harvesting has become a well-oiled pipeline, fueled by third-party investments and digital lead generation mechanisms. Matt Monson elaborates on law firms' multimillion-dollar deals with hedge funds while Todd Kozikowski exposes 4WARN's data-driven risk analysis and the ways claims are mass-produced through AI-powered advertising and direct outreach. Social inflation and nuclear verdicts are dissected as top factors raising premiums and challenging the survival of insurance carriers.Monson and Kozikowski call for smarter oversight and risk management, stressing the urgency for insurers to adapt tactics and regulatory bodies to rein in unscrupulous lead generation. The episode also highlights innovations like parametric-triggered cat bonds after disasters, underscoring the growing complexity of risk mitigation facing carriers today as digital and financial disruptions reshape both litigation and underwriting norms.Takeaways:Litigation harvesting is driving record claim volumes across insurance sectors.Third-party funding and hedge funds are key engines of mass torts.Digital ads, AI, and direct messaging redefine claims acquisition.Nuclear verdicts and social inflation sharply raise costs for insurers.Lead generation companies are bypassing traditional legal ads.Parametric cat bonds are key for catastrophic risk transfer.New regulatory oversight is needed to stabilize litigation risk.Data analytics solutions like 4WARN inform risk management for carriers.Chapters:00:00 Introduction01:00 Fast publishing & market turbulence update03:00 Litigation harvesting mechanics: investment & marketing07:30 Introducing guests: Matt Monson and Todd Kozikowski09:00 The effect of nuclear verdicts on premiums13:00 Third-party funding in mass torts16:30 Catastrophic events and insurance innovations20:00 Digital targeting and AI-powered claims lead generation22:30 4WARN's analytics: Risk assessment for carriers26:00 Policy, regulation, and future outlookConnect with RiskCellar:Website: https://www.riskcellar.com/Matt MonsonFounder and Manager, The Monson Law FirmWebsite: monsonfirm.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewdmonson/ Todd KozikowskiCEO & Co-Founder, 4WARNWebsite: 4warn.com  LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/toddkozikowski 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/ 

This Day in Legal History: Social Security AmendmentsOn November 10, 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at addressing a looming fiscal crisis in the Social Security system. At the time, the program was projected to run out of funds within months, threatening benefits for millions of retirees. The bipartisan effort, led by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, produced a package of reforms that fundamentally altered the structure of Social Security and continue to shape its operation today. One of the most significant changes was the gradual increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67, a shift that reflected growing life expectancies and was designed to reduce long-term benefit payouts.Another major provision subjected Social Security benefits to federal income tax for higher-income recipients, marking a departure from the program's previously tax-exempt status. These changes helped restore solvency to the system and underscored the evolving view of Social Security not merely as a safety net, but as part of a broader fiscal policy framework. The amendments also mandated that federal employees begin paying into Social Security and included temporary payroll tax increases.The 1983 reforms were notable for their rare bipartisan consensus, forged between a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled House. The political compromise demonstrated that major structural entitlement reform was possible when both parties shared a sense of urgency and responsibility. The law's legacy is complex—it shored up the system for decades but left future generations facing similar solvency questions. Legal scholars and policymakers still reference the 1983 amendments as a model of negotiated reform, even as the political climate has become more polarized. The taxation of benefits and the higher retirement age remain central to debates about equity and sustainability within the program.The Social Security Amendments of 1983 exemplify how statutory changes can recalibrate entitlement programs to respond to demographic and economic pressures, while raising ongoing questions about intergenerational fairness and fiscal responsibility.A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to rely solely on $4.65 billion in contingency funds, which would have resulted in reduced aid, but the court found this inadequate. The Rhode Island judge had ordered the USDA to tap into a separate $23.35 billion fund intended for child nutrition programs to cover the $4 billion shortfall and avoid widespread harm to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.While the 1st Circuit declined to stay the lower court's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order, creating ongoing uncertainty about benefit distribution. The USDA has since directed states to reverse any moves to issue full benefits made before the pause, warning of potential financial penalties. The administration argued that it couldn't be forced to reallocate funds during a shutdown, blaming Congress for the funding crisis. However, the appeals court emphasized the urgent need to prevent food insecurity during the winter. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by cities, nonprofits, a union, and a food retailer seeking full benefit payments.Trump administration cannot withhold full funding for food aid, US appeals court rules | ReutersLarge and midsized U.S. law firms experienced a strong increase in client demand during the third quarter of 2025, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Demand rose 3.9% year-over-year—marking one of the largest quarterly gains in two decades and the highest outside the 2021 post-pandemic rebound. Transactional practices drove much of this growth, particularly among midsized firms, with M&A work rising 6.7%, corporate work up 4.4%, and real estate and tax also showing solid gains.Litigation demand increased 4.9%, while labor and employment rose 4%. Bankruptcy, however, dipped slightly by 0.4%. Demand for countercyclical practices—those that tend to rise in downturns—was more modest, with larger firms seeing smaller gains compared to firms ranked 101–200. Midsized firms also saw a 3.9% rise in these areas. Analysts attribute part of the shift to corporate clients seeking cost control by reallocating work to more affordable firms.Billing rates were also up 7.4%, contributing to greater profitability despite a 7.5% increase in overhead expenses driven by tech investments. While current trends point to a strong 2025, the report warned of continued global economic and geopolitical instability that could reverse gains quickly.US law firms saw demand surge in third quarter - report | ReutersDemocrats ended a record-long government shutdown without securing their primary goal: the extension of health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Despite initial unity, eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans to advance a bill reopening the government on its 40th day, omitting the sought-after healthcare provisions. In return, they received only a vague promise of a future vote on the subsidies, a concession many in the party, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and leaders in the House, criticized as a strategic failure.The decision has sparked internal party conflict, especially after Democrats had recently seen electoral gains tied to their affordability messaging. Some Democrats believed holding out longer might have forced Republican concessions, but others, like Senator Jeanne Shaheen, argued prolonging the shutdown would only harm the public. The failed push is reminiscent of past shutdowns, including Trump's 2018-19 border wall standoff, where policy goals were ultimately abandoned after prolonged disruption.Air travel chaos and delayed food aid added pressure to end the shutdown, with more than 10,000 flights affected and warnings of a near-complete travel halt ahead of Thanksgiving. While public opinion largely blamed Republicans for the impasse, Democrats now hope to leverage the upcoming healthcare vote in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms. The fate of the tax credits—and potentially rising premiums for 24 million Americans—will likely become a defining campaign issue. The shutdown technically continues as the Senate and House still need to finalize and pass the bill before President Trump can sign it.Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in HandPresident Donald Trump has issued pardons to at least 77 individuals connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and other close allies. The pardons, outlined in a proclamation dated Friday, were framed by Trump as an attempt to end a “grave national injustice” and promote “national reconciliation.” These actions come amid ongoing investigations into the fake elector scheme that aimed to keep Trump in power after his 2020 loss to Joe Biden—a plan Trump and his allies continued to promote until his 2024 re-election.While Trump himself had been federally indicted in connection with the elector plot, that case was dismissed after his re-election, citing the Justice Department's policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The pardons only apply to federal charges and do not shield recipients from state-level prosecutions, which remain active in some jurisdictions. The White House has not publicly commented on the latest round of pardons, many of which were not formally announced.Included in the list of recipients are legal and political figures such as John Eastman, Christina Bobb, and Boris Epshteyn, all of whom played public roles in contesting the 2020 results. The full number of individuals pardoned could be even higher, as the list may include unnamed individuals.Trump pardons Giuliani and dozens of others accused of seeking to overturn his 2020 defeat | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses a recurring problem in wrongful death cases: jurors' tendency to mistakenly believe their job is to assign a monetary value to a life. Bill explains how this cognitive shortcut often leads to inflated damage awards because jurors default to emotional reasoning rather than following the legal instructions. To prevent this, Bill emphasizes that the issue must be addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses. Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror's task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court's instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations. Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense's position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.

What if the litigation model we've relied on for decades… is actually broken? Today on the Legally Speaking Podcast™ Live, sponsored by Clio, our host Rob Hanna, sat down with Collin Williams, Founder & Chairman of New Era ADR, to explore how technology is reshaping the future of dispute resolution.Collin's journey from Big Law to legal tech founder is a masterclass in courage, creativity, and conviction.Here's what we uncovered:- The moment he realised traditional litigation was no longer fit for purpose- Why fear, not technology, is often the biggest barrier to innovation How - New Era ADR is making arbitration faster, fairer, and more accessible - What law firms must do now to stay ahead of the next wave of legal tech- Why diversity of thought is non-negotiable when building the future of law “Litigation shouldn't take years or millions to deliver justice; technology can make it faster, fairer, and more human.” “The legal profession doesn't need to be disrupted; it needs to evolve with purpose.”Collin's passion for access to justice and innovation is contagious and a timely reminder that the legal world can, and should, work better for everyone.

This Day in Legal History: 2000 Presidential ElectionOn November 7, 2000, the United States held a presidential election that would evolve into one of the most significant legal showdowns in American history. The race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida, where just hundreds of votes separated the two candidates. Under state law, the closeness of the vote triggered an automatic machine recount. What followed was a legal and political firestorm involving punch-card ballots, partially detached chads, and controversial ballot designs like the “butterfly ballot,” which some argued led to voter confusion.Litigation quickly erupted in Florida state courts, with both campaigns fighting over recount procedures and ballot validity. Central to the legal debate was whether Florida counties could use different standards in determining voter intent during manual recounts. The legal issues raised tested interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the boundaries of state versus federal authority in managing elections. Amid national uncertainty and media frenzy, the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.On December 12, 2000, the Court issued a 5–4 decision halting the Florida recount, citing equal protection concerns due to inconsistent recount standards across counties. The ruling effectively secured Florida's 25 electoral votes for Bush, granting him the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. The decision was criticized by many for its perceived partisanship and for explicitly stating it should not be viewed as precedent. It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern history.The legal battles following the November 7 election exposed deep vulnerabilities in U.S. election infrastructure and prompted calls for reform, including updating voting technology and clarifying recount laws. The case continues to shape discussions around judicial involvement in elections, federalism, and democratic legitimacy.A federal judge is expected to rule on whether President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon to suppress protests. The case, brought by Oregon's attorney general and the City of Portland, challenges the legality of Trump's domestic military deployment under emergency powers, with broader implications for similar plans in other Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who already issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, will now decide if that block should become permanent. The central legal question is whether the Portland protests legally constituted a rebellion, which is one of the few conditions under which federal troops may be used domestically.The Justice Department argued the deployment was justified, citing violence at a federal immigration facility and describing Portland as “war-ravaged.” Defense attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that most protests were peaceful and that any violence was limited and contained by local authorities.A Reuters review revealed 32 federal charges tied to the protests, mostly for assaulting federal officers. Only a few resulted in serious charges or potential prison time.This case marks a significant test of civil-military boundaries and the limits of presidential emergency powers, and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.Judge to rule on Trump's Portland troop deployment | ReutersSean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was acquitted of misdemeanor assault by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., after a high-profile trial over an incident in which he threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a 2025 protest. The case, which gained viral attention, stemmed from an August 10 altercation during President Trump's law enforcement surge in the capital. Video footage showed Dunn yelling at officers and then throwing the sandwich, which reportedly splattered mustard and left onion on the officer's equipment.The jury deliberated for about seven hours over two days before finding Dunn not guilty under a statute that criminalizes assaulting or interfering with federal officers. Prosecutors argued the sandwich throw interfered with official duties, while Dunn's defense contended it caused no injury and was symbolic, intended to divert law enforcement from what Dunn feared was an impending immigration raid at a nearby LGBTQ+ nightclub. The CBP officer testified the sandwich left minor messes but no harm, and later received humorous gifts from coworkers related to the incident, which the defense used to downplay its seriousness.The verdict is another setback for the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, which has struggled to secure convictions in protest-related cases stemming from Trump enforcement policies. Dunn, who had been fired from the DOJ shortly after the incident, expressed relief and said he believed his actions defended immigrant rights. The presiding judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case mid-trial but ultimately left the decision to the jury, which rejected the prosecution's claim that the act met the legal threshold for assault.Sandwich Hurler Acquitted of Assault Charge in Viral DC Case (2)U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits (food aid) for 42 million low-income Americans by Friday, rejecting the administration's plan to issue reduced payments during the ongoing government shutdown. McConnell sharply criticized the administration for what he described as using food aid as a political weapon, and warned of irreparable harm if full benefits were not provided, including hunger and overwhelmed food pantries.The USDA had initially planned to suspend benefits entirely in November due to a lack of congressional funding. It later proposed covering only 65% of benefits using limited contingency funds—an option McConnell said was inadequate and failed to address administrative challenges, such as outdated state computer systems unable to process reduced payments. Some states estimated it would take days to weeks to reconfigure their systems for partial payouts.McConnell said the administration should instead use a $23.35 billion tariff fund—previously used for child nutrition—to fully fund November benefits. His ruling followed a related case in Boston, where another judge also found that the government was legally obligated to use available emergency funds to keep food aid flowing.The Trump administration appealed the ruling and blamed Senate Democrats for blocking a funding bill that would end the shutdown. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the court's decision as “absurd,” framing it as interference in a political stalemate.Trump administration must fully fund food aid benefits by Friday, US judge rules | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week marks the anniversary of the death of Tchaikovsky, who passed away on November 6, 1893 according to the Gregorian calendar—November 7 on the Julian calendar still used in Russia at the time. His death, just days after the premiere of his Sixth Symphony (Pathétique), remains a subject of speculation and sorrow in classical music history. In honor of that date, we're closing the week with one of his earlier and more intimate works: the String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11.Composed in 1871, the quartet was Tchaikovsky's first major chamber piece and reflects his growing confidence outside the orchestral realm. Though best known for sweeping ballets and symphonies, here Tchaikovsky demonstrates a delicate sense of form and emotional restraint. The second movement, “Andante cantabile,” became especially beloved—Leo Tolstoy reportedly wept when he heard it performed.Unlike his dramatic orchestral works, this quartet offers a quiet depth, full of folk-inspired melodies and lyrical interplay between the instruments. It balances elegance with melancholy, a quality that would come to define much of his later music. Tchaikovsky himself cherished the piece, often arranging and revisiting it throughout his career. The “Andante cantabile” was even played at his own memorial.As we mark November 7, it's fitting to reflect on the more introspective side of a composer whose life and death still stir emotion more than a century later. Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 doesn't shout—it speaks gently, as if in conversation, and in that quiet voice, it endures.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this conversation, Chris, founder of Mutant Metals, discusses the challenges and dynamics within the home gym equipment industry, particularly focusing on the implications of litigation against reviewers. He emphasizes the importance of open communication between manufacturers and reviewers, the need for manufacturers to produce quality products, and the potential negative impact of litigation on the growth of the industry. The discussion also highlights the role of trust and honesty in reviews, and the necessity for collaboration to foster innovation and community growth in the home gym space.

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into two significant legal topics that are currently shaping the landscape of litigation in the United States. Danessa opens with an update on Drake's defamation and harassment lawsuit against his record label, UMG, for its promotion of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" diss track. Danessa explores how the line between free speech and defamation has come into question in arguments on both sides and shares where the lawsuit stands since our analysis in Episode 61. Next, Jack explores the scope of the U.S. president's domestic military authority, diving into the history of domestic troop deployment from George Washington to Donald Trump's recent efforts in U.S. cities including Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. Jack discusses how these events and the resulting state litigation are impacting the balance between executive and state power. Join us as we discuss the complexities of critical topics and we encourage our listeners to stay informed about how these issues may affect their rights and responsibilities in litigation. Don't forget to subscribe to Litigation Nation for more updates on legal news and analysis!

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Tom Wyer. You can find links to our blog posts on the case covered in this podcast below: • Court of Appeal finds PSP liable for deceitful representations made by agent acting with apparent/ostensible authority https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/court-of-appeal-finds-psp-liable-for-deceitful-representations-made-by-agent-acting-with-apparent-ostensible-authority • High Court finds investment bank entitled to success fee under mandate executed by company's agent acting with apparent authority https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/high-court-finds-investment-bank-entitled-to-success-fee-under-mandate-executed-by-companys-agent-acting-with-apparent-authority • High Court holds that exercise of rights under charge document is not subject to Braganza duty https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/high-court-holds-that-exercise-of-rights-under-charge-document-is-not-subject-to-braganza-duty • High Court finds "retrieval duty" arguable against sending bank in an APP fraud context https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/high-court-finds-retrieval-duty-arguable-against-sending-bank-in-an-app-fraud-context • Court of Appeal finds binding contract concluded by exchange of emails despite referring to preparation of formal agreement https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-09/court-of-appeal-finds-binding-contract-concluded-by-exchange-of-emails-despite-referring-to-preparation-of-formal-agreement • FSR Brief EP9: Motor Finance redress proposal - beginning of the end? https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=51fabee4-935b-4b4f-b72c-3f6f72d8e56e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2025-10-17&utm_term= • Solicitors Regulation Authority reviews high-volume consumer claims sector https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/solicitors-regulation-authority-reviews-high-volume-consumer-claims-sector • Biannual Banking Litigation Update (Autumn 2025) https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/bi-annual-banking-litigation-update-autumn-2025 Don't forget to subscribe to the banking litigation blog https://hsfnotes.com/bankinglitigation/subscribe/

We recently hosted an insightful session on data privacy, cybersecurity compliance, and AI risks.Our expert panel — Maureen A., Prateek Tiwari, and Arianna Gonzalez, MBA — discussed evolving global privacy laws like the GDPR, CCPA, and India's DPDP Act, cross-border data transfers, and the challenges of AI-driven data processing.They also shared key takeaways on cybersecurity risk management, litigation trends, and proactive compliance strategies to help organizations strengthen their data protection programs in today's complex digital landscape.Listen In!

Send us a textIn this episode of the Modern Arizona Podcast, attorney and advocate Lori Basinger joins host Billie Tarascio to discuss coercive control, abusive litigation, and how new laws are redefining justice for survivors of domestic abuse. Lori shares her personal journey from regulatory law to family law advocacy and offers insights into how survivors can reclaim power both in and beyond the courtroom.Valuable topics discussed:- What coercive control means under Massachusetts law- How abusers misuse the legal system to maintain control- Strategies for survivors facing prolonged family court battles- Legislative efforts to stop abusive litigation- Finding healing and autonomy beyond the courtroomConnect with Lori Basinger:Website: loribassinger.comInstagram: @MovedToRiseFacebook: @MovedToRise

Former Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas and Chair of the ABA Section of Litigation, Barbara Lynn, sits down to share insights from her storied career as a trial lawyer and federal judge. Recently retired as a federal judge and now a partner at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, Lynn discusses the importance of mentors, the role we can all play in training the next generation, her path to the bench, advocacy tips, and her new role as mediator and trial strategist.

As a business owner, you may trust your team, but that trust can blind you to the quiet financial risks inside your business.  In this episode of The Creative Agency Success Show, we talk with Clay Kniepmann, manager in Forensic and Litigation at Anders, to share practical tips on balancing trust and control and how you can use simple steps to strengthen your internal processes.Key Takeaways:Watch for Red Flags: Delayed reports and lifestyle mismatches are warning signs.Balance Trust and Controls: Small businesses need clear internal controls.Simple Steps Matter: You don't need complex systems.  Technology Has Limits: Prevention still relies on human judgment.Owner Involvement is Key: Owners must stay engaged.Take practical steps to strengthen your business for lasting success. Tune into the episode of ▶️ Why Every Business Owner Should Think Like a Forensic Accountant with Clay Kniepmann.Find more podcast episodes on our website: anderscpa.com/learn/podcasts/    Episode resources:●       Anders Virtual CFO by Anders website: anderscpa.com  ●       Love our content? Sign up for our newsletter:  https://anderscpa.com/learn/  ●        Check out the Virtual CFO Playbook Course:  anderscpa.com/virtual-cfo-services/vcfo-playbook/  QuotesClay Kniepmann - "Forensic accounting is like piecing a puzzle together. Each case is unique and requires careful analysis and adaptability."Jamie Nau: "Understanding your operational processes helps identify potential fraud risks more effectively than generic controls."Clay Kniepmann is a manager in Forensic and Litigation at Anders, specializing in forensic accounting, fraud investigation, and litigation services. He's known for making intricate financial issues easy to understand, giving leaders the clarity they need to make smarter decisions.   Website: https://anderscpa.com/  FB: https://www.facebook.com/AndersCPA  LI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/claykniepmann/  https://www.linkedin.com/company/anders-cpa/IG: https://www.instagram.com/anderscpa/ The Creative Agency Success Show helps service-based business owners master the financial side of growth. Hosted by Jamie Nau, Director of Virtual CFO Services/ Virtual CFO, and Jody Grunden, Partner and Virtual CFO Practice Leader at Anders CPAs + Advisors, the podcast dives into essential financial strategies for scaling creative agencies.  Website: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2458889    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vcfobyanders   Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/vcfobyanders/  Instagram:

Robert Troy, Minister for Financial Services, responds to new report from Central Bank showing average motor insurance premiums rose by 9% last year.

In this episode of "The Free Lawyer" podcast, host Gary interviews guest Ana Juneja, an IP lawyer and entrepreneur. They discuss Ana's journey from law firm associate to media company owner. Ana shares how she sold her media business to focus on law and explains how AI has revolutionized her firm's transactional work, enabling a small team to serve clients efficiently. She offers insights on trademark protection, debunks common IP myths, and highlights the importance of early trademark registration. The episode highlights the importance of innovation, transparency, and leveraging AI and social media to empower lawyers and improve client service.As an award-winning intellectual property attorney and the founder of Ana Law®, Ana Juneja is redefining how attorneys leverage AI to create impactful social media content.She empowers celebrities, athletes, influencers, start-ups, entrepreneurs, and corporations to not only protect their brands and ideas but also amplify them across digital platforms using cutting-edge AI-driven strategies.Ana Law® is the first and only law firm offering flat-fee, 100% guaranteed patent, trademark, and copyright services, with Ana maintaining a 100% success rate.Beyond traditional legal work, she speaks widely on the intersection of AI, law, and social media, helping professionals understand how emerging technologies can safeguard and scale their influence.AI's Impact on Legal Practice (00:03:04)Scope of IP and Transactional Work (00:04:20)Scaling with AI (00:05:47)Lawyers' Resistance to AI (00:06:42)AI in Transactional vs. Litigation Work (00:07:37)Best Uses of AI in Litigation (00:09:23)Lawyer Hesitancy and AI Psychosis (00:10:26)Big Law Firms and AI Adoption (00:11:41)Prompt Engineering and Lawyer Skillsets (00:14:10)Ana's Background at USPTO (00:16:02)IP Protection for Businesses (00:17:09)]Basic IP Protections for Businesses (00:19:06)Automating Client Communication with AI (00:21:39)Common IP Misconceptions (00:23:25)Client Types and Fee Structure (00:24:11)Service Guarantees in Legal Practice (00:26:02)Advice for Lawyers New to AI (00:26:54)Personal Freedom and Business Systems (00:27:49)Would you like to learn what it looks like to become a truly Free Lawyer? You can schedule a courtesy call here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-callWould you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free

Today, my guest is Chris Zona. Chris Zona is a partner at Mandelbaum Barrett PC in New York, and a trial attorney specializing in Complex Commercial Litigation, and in just a minute, we're going to speak with Chris Zona about Turning Conflict into Capital Litigation as a Real Estate Investment Tool.    https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-zona/ https://mblawfirm.com/professionals/christopher-t-zona  

States have become more and more active in using their consumer protection statutes to initiate investigations and lawsuits against Chinese companies. These investigations and efforts have centered on concerns about so-called white labeling of consumer products to hide the country of origin and concerns about data privacy and security. This webinar will feature the Attorneys General of Nebraska and Alaska—two AGs who have taken a leading interest in this emerging area. They will discuss the growing role of state consumer protection laws in addressing foreign-backed corporate misconduct and what the future may hold for this important area of enforcement. Featuring: Hon. Mike Hilgers, Attorney General, Nebraska Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska (Moderator) O.H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers

In 2018, Tesla’s board of directors proposed, and its stockholders approved by a wide margin, a significant executive compensation plan for CEO Elon Musk. Under the plan, Musk stood to earn tens of billions of dollars if he achieved a series of highly ambitious performance milestones that would increase Tesla’s market value by hundreds of billions. Over time, Tesla’s value rose dramatically—by more than 1,000%—with shareholders retaining the vast majority of the created value and Musk receiving substantial compensation.A Tesla stockholder subsequently filed suit, alleging that the compensation plan was unfair to the company and that the board’s approval process was compromised by a lack of independence. The Delaware Court of Chancery agreed, finding that the board was not sufficiently independent of Musk, that the stockholder approval was ineffective, and that the plan was substantively unfair to Tesla. The court rescinded the plan and later awarded the plaintiff’s attorneys $345 million in fees.Tesla’s response included reapproving the plan through another stockholder vote, though the Court of Chancery deemed that ratification ineffective as well. The litigation has sparked broader discussion about Delaware corporate law, shareholder rights, and potential legislative reforms, and it has coincided with Tesla’s decision to reincorporate in Texas.Following oral arguments before the Delaware Supreme Court on October 15, 2025, former Chief Justice Myron T. Steele (of counsel, Potter Anderson) and Robert T. Miller, the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School, will discuss the case and its implications for corporate governance and executive compensation.Featuring:Hon. Myron T. Steele, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court; Of Counsel, Potter Anderson(Moderator) Robert T. Miller, Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Tyler Chou spent nearly two decades as an entertainment attorney in Hollywood, with senior roles at Disney, Skydance, BuzzFeed, before starting her own YouTube channel, which brought her into this world of creators. And today, she helps clients like Sam & Colby, Andy Morris, and Jenny Hoyos stay on the right side of the law. Unfortunately, that's getting harder (and scarier) all the time. But that doesn't mean you can't protect yourself. And Tyler is going to show us how you can start doing so – today. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Full transcript and show notes⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Tyler's Website / Instagram / LinkedIn / TikTok / YouTube *** TIMESTAMPS (00:00) Meet the Lawyer Saving YouTube Channels (04:35) Music Publishers and Copyright Strikes (09:54) Getting Strikes Removed (13:08) YouTube Strikes and Litigation Process (15:37) How we use 1of10 (20:28) Resolving Copyright Strikes Creatively (21:46) How Creators Misunderstand Fair Use (27:11) Essential Steps for Creator Protection (30:18) Protecting Partnerships from Future Risks (33:15) Protecting YouTube Channel Ownership (37:37) Photo Licensing and Fair Use (41:05) The Upside of Litigation (42:01) Why This Shouldn't Scare You *** RECOMMENDED NEXT EPISODE → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#263: Colin & Samir on the future of their channel and the creator economy *** ASK CREATOR SCIENCE → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Submit your question here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** WHEN YOU'RE READY

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana's redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR's Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what's at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana's case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn't just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HEREAre you a law firm owner looking to find ways to improve your marketing? In this episode of the Maximum Lawyer Podcast, Tyson interviews Kelli, a former litigator who left toxic law firm environments to launch her own trademark law practice. Kelli shares how she built a supportive, flexible firm culture and leveraged her marketing skills—especially on social media platforms like Threads and Instagram—to attract clients. Kelli provides some insight about working in toxic law firms and her approach to creating a better work environment for herself and her staff. Kelli worked in a space where she needed to prioritize work to the point where there was no acknowledgement of good work or a reasonable work-life balance. For Kelli, this created an unhealthy relationship to her work and having feelings of overwhelm and burnout. For her staff, she ensures everyone is excited about what they do and love coming to work each day.Now in a healthier environment, Kelli shares how she brands and markets her firm to get clients. She leans on a casual approach to branding, which is the opposite of law firms in general. Kelli uses creativity and uniqueness to brand her firm by creating a fun and fresh website to showcase what she is selling. Also, leveraging social media platforms, like Threads has been helpful in engaging with clients.Listen in to learn more!1:02 Identifying Toxic Law Firm Culture6:03 Transitioning from Litigation to Transactional Practice10:05 Advice for Lawyers Switching Practice Areas15:29 Non-Traditional Law Firm Branding and Marketing18:06 Website and Marketing Differentiation20:07 Social Media Strategy and Client Conversion23:54 Threads as a Key Engagement Platform30:59 Using AI and ChatGPT for Marketing41:35 Platform Choice: Why Threads Wins52:07 Mixing Personal and Professional ContentTune in to today's episode and checkout the full show notes here. Connect with Kelli:WebsiteInstagramTikTokLinkedin

On this episode of the Scouting For Growth podcast, Sabine VdL talks to Yo Kwon, CEO at Voltaire.Claims. Together, we pull back the curtain on how enterprise operations (and in particular finance and insurance operations) are being reinvented – not tomorrow, but right now. KEY TAKEAWAYS           ·       I was working with my co-founder on Ai technology trying to work out what would be applicable for wider businesses. While we were testing ideas someone was using one of our products to write claims letters. ·       Adjustors don't enjoy writing claims letter, especially denials, they lean heavily on templates and cheat sheets to figure out the clauses to cite, so small mistakes and big ones can slip though. Voltaire generates each letter from scratch, it doesn't take shortcuts which removes the room for error.  ·       Litigation alone adds an average of $10,718 per claim in loss adjustment expense, we projects Voltaire can reduce litigated claims by 10% or more through more defensible correspondence. Even a conservative 5% improvement in leakage through clearer letters translates to $320,00 in recovered value.  ·       We include critical guardrails. If an adjustor requests a denial letter but there's no valid policy exclusion that exists to support the denial, the system returns ‘no relevant policy language was found'. This prevents a wrongful denial or compliance violation before it happens. BEST MOMENTS  ‘Before I started this company I did not think this would be a problem in 2025, and this is a problem because of the complexities of claims.'  ‘Whenever productivity is measured, people will choose speed over compliance, I'd go far as to say most adjustors never actually learn the correct way to write a claims letter.' ‘Claims managers and adjustors have told us the AI is teaching them things about policies that they've never known before.' ‘Our approach treats compliance as a product feature, not an afterthought.' ABOUT THE GUESTS Yo Kwon is the Co-Founder and CEO of Voltaire.Claims, where he leads the development of cutting-edge AI solutions that transform insurance correspondence. With deep expertise in artificial intelligence, decentralized systems, and cybersecurity, Yo brings a rigorous technical perspective to one of the industry's most overlooked but high-impact challenges: claims letter automation. Under his leadership, Voltaire has built a lightweight, API-driven platform that integrates seamlessly with core systems like Guidewire to deliver accurate, regulator-compliant claim letters in seconds. LinkedIn ABOUT THE HOST Sabine is a corporate strategist turned entrepreneur. She is the CEO and Managing Partner of Alchemy Crew a venture lab that accelerates the curation, validation, & commercialization of new tech business models. Sabine is renowned within the insurance sector for building some of the most renowned tech startup accelerators around the world working with over 30 corporate insurers, accelerated over 100 startup ventures. Sabine is the co-editor of the bestseller The INSURTECH Book, a top 50 Women in Tech, a FinTech and InsurTech Influencer, an investor & multi-award winner.   Twitter LinkedIn Instagram Facebook  TikTok Email Website This Podcast has been brought to you by Disruptive Media. https://disruptivemedia.co.uk/