Podcasts about litigation

In the civil lawsuit between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Epstein estate, the presiding judge ordered a 90-day pause in proceedings to allow for settlement discussions and procedural recalibration amid rapidly evolving circumstances. The stay temporarily halted discovery, motions, and court deadlines at a moment when the case was intensifying, with the USVI seeking expansive records and the estate pushing back on scope and burden. The pause was framed as a practical cooling-off period, giving both sides space to negotiate while the court assessed how overlapping lawsuits, asset distribution, and jurisdictional issues might affect the trajectory of the case.The effect of the pause, however, was controversial. Critics argued that the delay disproportionately benefited the estate by slowing momentum, limiting immediate access to documents, and allowing assets to continue flowing out through legal fees and administrative costs. For the USVI, which had positioned its lawsuit as a vehicle for uncovering how Epstein's operation functioned on the islands, the stay curtailed pressure at a critical juncture. While officially neutral, the 90-day pause became another flashpoint in the broader fight over whether the Epstein estate would be compelled toward transparency or permitted to manage the clock as effectively in death as Epstein had in life.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On April 1, 2025, the Texas Association of Money Services Businesses filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) order that lowered the cash-transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money-services businesses in certain Texas border ZIP codes, arguing the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections.Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.Featuring:Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

-On Thursday evening, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for a single, nationwide regulatory framework governing artificial intelligence at the expense of the ability of different states to regulate the nascent technology. -Disney and OpenAI announced a three-year licensing agreement: Starting in 2026, ChatGPT and Sora can generate images and videos incorporating Disney IP, including more than 200 characters from the company's stable of Star Wars, Pixar and Marvel brands. -Amazon's plan to offer AI-generated recaps of Prime Video shows isn't off to a great start. The company's recap of the first season of Fallout features multiple errors, including basic facts about the plot of the show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John is joined by David Proman, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Atlas Grove Partners and long-time Quinn Emanuel client.  They discuss David's extensive experience working with elite law firms, including Quinn Emanuel, on high stakes matters involving structured finance, digital assets, and complex bankruptcies.  At Atlas Grove and its subsidiary, GXD Labs, David has built an investment platform that identifies legal claims as investment opportunities.   One example of such an opportunity was David's early and aggressive pursuit of RMBS claims.  In 2010, David was at fund called Furry Partners that was the most activist fund manager in the RMBS space.  They pursued cases against the world's largest banks for breaches of warranties, which led to recovering almost $4 billion for Furry Partners' investors.  David worked with Quinn Emanuel partner Sasha Rand on many of these cases adding “we have great thanks and gratitude to Quinn Emanuel for working on this with us for over a decade against some of the world's most significant counterparties.” Another example was the Celsius bankruptcy.  Celsius was a crypto lending platform with 600,000 customers.  At its peak, it had almost $20 billion in liabilities.  Celsius's customers stored their Bitcoin, their Ethereum, or their digital tokens using deposits, similar to bank deposits.  When Bitcoin dropped dramatically in 2022, the company became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy proceedings revealed numerous legal issues, including fraud. David's Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC) won the role of litigation administrator and crafted a plan focused on returning value to defrauded customers.  Working closely with Quinn Emanuel partner Ben Finestone, BRIC's strategy involved bringing claims against counterparties across the world who had harmed Celsius before it went bankrupt.  One of BRIC's biggest recoveries resulted from a $300 million settlement with Tether.  David credits Ben with bringing strong legal claims and strategies to defeat “issues that I don't think have ever been litigated before in crypto.” When working with law firms, success depends on aligning the incentives of the firm and the client, maintaining open communication, and active client involvement in developing legal strategies, especially in complex or novel sectors like cryptocurrencies.  Counsel should be both strategically creative and brutally honest about risks.  As David said, “that's part of the reason why I love you guys: because you always give me honest feedback.”  David also believes that fee structures should prioritize results over billable hours.  After the case, all parties should reflect on both wins and losses to continuously improve decision-making.   Finally, David and John discuss the evolving legal risk in AI infrastructure, where opaque contracts and fast-changing technology may spark future waves of litigation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Day in Legal History: Madoff ArrestedOn December 11, 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested by federal agents and charged with securities fraud, marking the start of one of the most consequential white-collar crime cases in American legal history. Madoff, a former NASDAQ chairman and respected figure in the investment world, confessed to running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors—individuals, charities, and institutional clients—out of an estimated $65 billion. The legal scheme unraveled when Madoff admitted to his sons that the business was “one big lie,” prompting them to alert authorities. Prosecutors swiftly brought charges under multiple statutes, including securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, perjury, and false statements.The Department of Justice pursued criminal charges while the SEC, heavily criticized for prior inaction, launched civil enforcement actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Madoff waived indictment and pleaded guilty on March 12, 2009, to 11 felony counts without a plea deal. He was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison—the statutory maximum—and ordered to forfeit $170.8 billion, reflecting the full scope of the fraud. The case catalyzed intense scrutiny of the SEC's oversight failures and led to internal reforms within the agency, including new whistleblower protections and enhanced enforcement procedures.In the bankruptcy proceedings under SIPA (Securities Investor Protection Act), trustee Irving Picard was appointed to recover funds for victims, using clawback lawsuits under fraudulent transfer laws to retrieve ill-gotten gains from those who had profited—wittingly or not. The legal theories underpinning those suits, including the application of actual and constructive fraud standards, sparked complex litigation that continues to shape bankruptcy and securities jurisprudence. Madoff's arrest also prompted Congress to review gaps in financial regulation, laying groundwork for reforms later codified in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.Jury selection began in the federal trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping a Mexican migrant avoid arrest by U.S. immigration agents. The case, brought by the Trump administration's Justice Department, charges Dugan with concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings, alleging she deliberately diverted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and allowed the migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to exit through a non-public courthouse door following a domestic violence hearing.Federal prosecutors argue that Dugan acted corruptly, citing her visible anger upon learning that ICE agents were present and her claim that a judicial warrant was required for the arrest—an assertion prosecutors say was false. Flores-Ruiz was ultimately arrested outside the courthouse after a brief chase.Dugan's defense contends that she was navigating unclear rules around courthouse immigration enforcement and had sought guidance from court leadership days earlier. Her legal team maintains she was not trying to obstruct justice but rather to understand what rules applied.The case illustrates the broader tension between local judicial discretion and federal immigration enforcement under Trump's expanded deportation policies, which have included more aggressive operations in local courthouses. Critics argue such tactics deter immigrants from accessing courts and undermine public confidence in the legal system.Dugan, a judge since 2016 and formerly head of Catholic Charities in Milwaukee, has been suspended from the bench pending the outcome of the trial. Her prosecution echoes an earlier Trump-era case against a Massachusetts judge accused of similar conduct—charges that were later dropped during the Biden administration.Wisconsin judge on trial as Trump administration targets immigration enforcement resistance | ReutersThe Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department to block its decision to feature President Donald Trump's image on the 2026 America the Beautiful national parks annual pass. The group argues the move violates the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act of 2004, which requires the pass to display the winning photograph from a public contest depicting natural scenery or wildlife in a national park or forest.This year's winning photo—a landscape of Glacier National Park—was allegedly discarded in favor of a close-up image of Trump, posed beside George Washington, without any new contest or congressional approval. The lawsuit calls the switch an unlawful act of self-promotion and criticizes it as an attempt to turn a public symbol into a personal branding tool.Adding to the controversy, the lawsuit claims that the Glacier photo was demoted to a new $250 pass for foreign visitors, part of Trump's newly introduced “America-first” admissions system. The updated pricing structure and design were part of a broader Interior Department announcement touting “modernization” of park access.The lawsuit also highlights changes to the free admission calendar, noting that Trump's birthday (June 14) was added as a holiday, while existing free days honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and Juneteenth were eliminated. These shifts coincide with Trump's efforts to slash the national parks budget and workforce while raising fees for international visitors.Lawsuit seeks to keep Trump's face off of national parks annual pass | ReutersIn a piece for Forbes this week I unpacked the misleading claim that Social Security is no longer taxed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Despite bold headlines and political messaging to the contrary, Social Security remains taxable, just as it has been since 1983. What the bill actually includes is an expanded senior-specific deduction—$6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples—that may reduce taxable income, but doesn't isolate or exempt Social Security from taxation in any way.The structure of Social Security taxation—where up to 85% of benefits can be taxed for higher-income seniors—remains untouched. What changed is that some seniors, depending on income and deductions, might now end up paying less tax, including on Social Security, not because the income is tax-exempt, but because the overall taxable income has been reduced. This is a fungible deduction, applicable to any income source, not a targeted policy shift.The White House's messaging reframes a broad-based, temporary deduction as a specific, permanent tax relief for seniors, creating confusion. While some retirees may see a tax reduction, the underlying rules that govern when and how Social Security is taxed have not changed, and inflation-adjusted thresholds that pull more seniors into taxability remain. The deduction itself expires in 2028, unlike other OBBBA provisions that benefit wealthier taxpayers and corporations.The element worth highlighting is the difference between a deduction and an exemption, and how political messaging often blurs this. Deductions reduce taxable income; exemptions remove specific income from taxation entirely. In this case, branding a general deduction as a Social Security exemption is both legally inaccurate and politically strategic—obscuring the truth behind a familiar and emotionally charged issue.The Truth About ‘No Tax On Social Security'The estate of an 83-year-old woman filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their chatbot, ChatGPT, played a central role in a tragic murder-suicide in Connecticut. The suit claims that Stein-Erik Soelberg, a 56-year-old man experiencing delusions, had been interacting for months with GPT-4o, which allegedly validated and intensified his paranoid beliefs, ultimately leading him to kill his mother, Suzanne Adams, before taking his own life.The complaint, filed in California Superior Court, accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of product liability, negligence, and wrongful death, arguing that the chatbot systematically encouraged Soelberg's psychosis—affirming fantasies about divine missions, assassination attempts, and even identifying his mother as an operative. The plaintiffs argue that Microsoft shares liability because it benefited directly from the deployment of GPT-4o and played a role in bringing the model to market.This is the first known lawsuit to link ChatGPT to a homicide, though it follows a growing number of legal actions that claim the AI system has fostered delusions and contributed to suicides. OpenAI denies wrongdoing, emphasizing efforts to improve mental health safeguards and noting that newer models have significantly reduced inappropriate responses in emotionally sensitive conversations.The suit also names OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as a defendant and cites Soelberg's social media posts as evidence of his deteriorating mental state and dependence on the chatbot. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a court order to compel OpenAI to implement stronger safety measures. The law firm behind the case, Edelson PC, is also representing a similar lawsuit involving a California teenager's suicide allegedly linked to ChatGPT.OpenAI, Microsoft Sued Over Murder-Suicide Blamed on ChatGPT 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

We've never lied to you on Drilled and we're not going to start now. It's bleak out there. But some efforts to fight back against obstruction are working and litigation is one of them. In this episode we talk to London School of Economics' Joana Setzer about how courts around the world are getting involved and what that means for companies that keep reminding us they're global. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on the show: Alvaro M. Huerta, Director of Litigation and Advocacy, for the Immigrant Defenders Law Center joins us, he has been named in Out magazines, 2025s most impactful and influential LGBTQ+ people. We hear from a Poet Laureate, Jose Cordon, a poem for what may ail us. We get updates about Bay area activism around protecting the communities from ICE. And A KISS IN at the border, Celebrating Queer Migrants and the Sexuality and Visibility of Queer People Living with HIV, we hear from a Senior Director at M*PACT The post Updates On Bay Area Activism Around Protecting Communities From ICE appeared first on KPFA.

Join HRP's Tom Simmons and Mattew Wallace as we walk through submitting a public comment on regulations.gov. The public comment period accompanies any new rule or proposed change in rule. It's an opportunity for the general public to speak on these rules and have their voices entered into the record. Check our YouTube channel to see what we're talking about!  Our YouTube VideoRegulations.gov - This is the main site to submit to.Commenting on EPA Dockets | US EPA - This site lists how to properly write a comment.About EPA Dockets | US EPAWhere to Send Comments for EPA Dockets | US EPA - This lists how to send physical letters as comments Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

How did our climate come to be protected by human rights? What is the role of courts in a field so riddled with political disagreement and popular discontent? Is climate litigation an undemocratic judicialization of politics? Or simply judicial review as usual? One thing seems clear: It is certainly not oil on water... Robert Spano, former president of the European Court of Human Rights, now partner at Gibson Dunn, and Adele Matheson Mestad, former director of the Norwegian Institution of Human Rights (NIM), now partner at BAHR answer these, and a number of other legal questions Anine finds mind-bogglingly difficult. Praise the Law! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There's an assurance RMA changes won't clog the courts. The Government's confirmed it's replacing current Resource Management Act laws with two new pieces of legislation, one for the environment and one for planning. It's expected to save about $13 billion in consenting costs. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop told Heather du Plessis-Allan there's too much Environmental Court litigation at the moment. He says it's inevitable there will be cases, but the aim is to reduce the amount of litigation and debate about things like the definition of “sustainable management”, which has been a topic of debate for around 30 years. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm a paralegal professional with over 20 years of civil litigation experience that advocates for people's legal rights under the law as a consultant at Ms. Camay International. I'm a motivational speaker who presents webinars on financial estate literacy, body positivity and addressing bullying in the workplace.I'm the President of the National Workplace Bullying Coalition and the Vice-Chair of the Paralegal Division at the Nevada State Bar and have dedicated my life's work to my community as “The People's Advocate” passionate about making and difference and impacting the world.I founded my non-profit organization, Local Vegas Legal Support, Inc., to champion the legal support professional and bridge the gap between local Las Vegas youth and their access to a career in the legal field.Fun Facts About Me:✅ Crowned Miss Plus World Intercontinental Royal Ambassador✅ Presented with the Volunteer Service Award by President Barak Obama✅ Founding “Boss Lady” on “The Boss Ladies Breakroom” on YouTube✅ Rock fashion runways with my King around the country✅ Nick-named “class cheerleader” in Les Mills Body Pump✅ Raised in Italy and Greecehttps://www.mscamayinternational.com/attorneyshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/camaymcclure/ ***********Susanne Mueller / www.susannemueller.biz TEDX Talk, May 2022: Running and Life: 5KM Formula for YOUR Successhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT_5Er1cLvY 700+ weekly blogs / 500+ podcasts / 1 Ironman Triathlon / 5 half ironman races / 26 marathon races / 4 books / 1 Mt. Kilimanjaro / 1 TEDx Talk

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down why the single most powerful testimony tool in depositions and trial is the disciplined use of “No” or “I disagree”, followed by silence. Bill explains how witnesses get into trouble when they add explanations after a comma (“No, because…”), which leads to defensive or evasive answers and creates damaging credibility issues. Instead, he emphasizes a strategy rooted in cognitive science: reject the premise cleanly, elevate tone and composure, and force opposing counsel into an open-ended follow-up like “Why?”, which gives the witness more time to think and respond from the logical (not emotional) part of the brain. Bill also clarifies common misconceptions about witnesses who answer with "No" appearing evasive, why jurors dislike pivoting or arguing witnesses, and how “reject and elevate” protects credibility while maintaining emotional control. He explains how witnesses can later provide explanations, during defense follow-up at deposition or rehabilitation at trial, without exposing themselves to attack when they're under pressure.

In this FESTIVE SPECIAL 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 guests Sarah Penfold, Charlotte Benton, Alexander Gridasov, Tom Wyer, Nic Patmore, Scott Warin and Tim Kyriakou. You can find links to our blog posts on the case covered in this podcast below: • High Court finds default interest clause in loan agreement is not an unenforceable penalty https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/high-court-finds-default-interest-clause-in-loan-agreement-is-not-an-unenforceable-penalty • County Court rejects discrimination claim on procedural grounds but finds refusal of financial services because a company is Russian owned would amount to direct discrimination https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/county-court-rejects-discrimination-claim-on-procedural-grounds • Privy Council holds that there is no legal requirement in the tort of deceit to show that a claimant was consciously aware of the representation made https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/privy-council-holds-that-there-is-no-legal-requirement-in-the-tort-of-deceit-to-show-that-a-claimant-was-consciously-aware-of-the-representation-made • High Court dismisses judicial review challenge of FCA's Naming Announcement https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/high-court-dismisses-judical-review-challenge-of-fcas-naming-announcement • High Court confirms that non-authorised fee earners cannot conduct litigation https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-10/what-can-a-non-admitted-fee-earner-do-when-working-on-litigated-matters • Commercial Court pilot will mean many more court documents publicly available by default from 1 January 2026 https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/commercial-court-pilot-will-mean-many-more-court-documents-publicly-available-by-default-from-1-january-2026 • 2025 Global Bank Review - Innovating amid turbulence https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/2025-global-bank-review-innovating-amid-turbulence Don't forget to subscribe to the banking litigation blog https://hsfnotes.com/bankinglitigation/subscribe/

The state of Maine has been a leader on the PFAS issue, but it's also one beset by unique challenges. On this episode, hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace talk about the big problem Maine is facing, biosolid sludge. Wastewater treatment facilities produce a biosolid byproduct. For decades, this sludge was repurposed as fertilizer, but since treatment facilities still cannot deal with PFAS, the sludge moved the PFAS from the fertilizer, into the soil, the groundwater, the crops and animals, and ultimately, the people of Maine. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

In this FESTIVE SPECIAL 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 guests Sarah Penfold, Charlotte Benton, Alexander Gridasov, Tom Wyer, Nic Patmore, Scott Warin and Tim Kyriakou.  You can find links to our blog posts on the case covered in this podcast below:High Court finds default interest clause in loan agreement is not an unenforceable penaltyCounty Court rejects discrimination claim on procedural grounds but finds refusal of financial services because a company is Russian owned would amount to direct discriminationPrivy Council holds that there is no legal requirement in the tort of deceit to show that a claimant was consciously aware of the representation madeHigh Court dismisses judicial review challenge of FCA's Naming AnnouncementHigh Court confirms that non-authorised fee earners cannot conduct litigationCommercial Court pilot will mean many more court documents publicly available by default from 1 January 20262025 Global Bank Review - Innovating amid turbulenceDon't forget to subscribe to the banking litigation blog.

John is joined by Richard East and Karabeth Ovenden, partners in Quinn Emanuel's London Office. They discuss the unprecedented bankruptcy and restructuring of NMC, the largest healthcare provider in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Initially listed on the London Stock Exchange and heavily favored by the market, NMC collapsed precipitated by a report by short-seller Muddy Waters raising significant questions about the audited accounts of the company. Ultimately it was revealed that NMC had approximately $6.5 billion in debt, rather than the $2.5 billion that had been disclosed to the market. Over 100 creditors rushed to seize NMC's assets across the UAE. The absence of a comprehensive UAE bankruptcy framework posed an existential threat to the company, especially because the crisis occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when NMC facilities were treating a significant portion of the country's COVID hospitalizations.To address this crisis, a team of QE insolvency litigators initiated administration proceedings first in the UK for NMC's parent company. However, this did not protect NMC's UAE-based operating entities. To protect those assets and preserve continuity of care, the QE team adopted the novel strategy of moving 36 NMC operating companies into the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), a common-law “free zone” jurisdiction within the UAE. This required a sovereign executive order to release existing asset attachments and allow for insolvency proceedings in the ADGM—an unprecedented step in UAE restructuring history.The move faced significant jurisdictional and legal resistance across the various Emirates. Recognition of the ADGM orders in onshore courts was difficult, requiring extensive legal argumentation and government coordination. Once inside the ADGM, the companies could proceed with a complex reorganization plan, culminating in a successful arrangement which obtained support from over 90% of the creditors. The team also navigated criminal investigations, litigated against dissenting creditors, and pursued claims against parties potentially complicit in the fraud. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Something New!  For HR teams who discuss this podcast in their team meetings, we've created a discussion starter PDF to help guide your conversation. Download it here https://goodmorninghr.com/EP229  In episode 229, Coffey talks with Frank Davis and John Surma about navigating OSHA inspections and preventing costly workplace safety violations.  They discuss how employers misunderstand OSHA obligations; when OSHA reporting and injury-logging rules apply; the most-cited OSHA violations; triggers that prompt an OSHA inspection; why it is illegal to for OSHA to schedule an inspection with an employer; the importance of carefully limiting the scope of the inspection; OSHA's interviews managers and employees—and the impact of each on the inspection's outcome; documentation requests and timelines; citation outcomes and settlement options; and proactive strategies to prepare for inspections and avoid penalties.  Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com.   If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for one hour of recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com.   About our Guest:  Frank Davis is Board Certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. His clients know he is ready to use his knowledge to manage a crisis on a moment's notice. In fact, in the last year, he managed labor relations matters and workplace safety inspections and fatalities in over 35 different states.   Frank's experience managing crisis events makes him especially suited to counsel clients on strategies to avoid catastrophic litigation and other cost-savings efforts: - Evaluation of exposure to workplace health and safety hazards. - Preparation of workplace safety compliance strategies and policies. - Managing employee relations to avoid litigation and resist organizing drives by unions; and - Management of relations with unions to avoid frivolous grievances and exposure to contract liability.  Because of Frank's specialized skillset, his clients frequently retain him to handle a variety of sensitive matters: - Fatalities and other reportable injuries in the workplace; - Collective bargaining of labor contracts; - Labor arbitrations; - Union campaigns; - Contract litigation; and - Litigation before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Review Commission.  He also represents clients in whistleblower matters under a broad range of statutes, including the OSH Act, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and the Clean Air Act. Frank handles all phases of these complaints, from initial investigation to final litigation before administrative law judges and appeals to federal court.  John Surma is a lawyer with 30 plus years of experience dealing with OSHA, workplace health and safety issues, and counseling employers on those issues. He deals with a variety of state and federal agencies, has responded to over 400 fatalities and 2,000 OSHA inspections.  Frank Davis and John Surma can be reached at https://ogletree.com/people/frank-d-davis/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-surma-75980214  About Mike Coffey:  Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher. In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business. Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies. Imperative's Top Ten Red Flag Candidates, November 2025 Every month, Imperative reports hundreds of records to our clients.  While Imperative always encourages clients to review candidates' criminal history as but one factor in evaluating their fit for a role, these candidates' histories caught our attention this month. 1. Household Staff/Nanny Client Candidate: Prostitution Petit larceny 2. Nonprofit Client Candidate: Misuse of client funds by a lawyer (four counts) 3. Hospitality Client Candidate: Willful child cruelty (causing great bodily injury under the age of five years, victim was particularly vulnerable, or taking advantage of a position of trust to commit offense) Driving under the influence, 2 cases Reckless driving on a highway See the rest of the list here: https://www.imperativeinfo.com/blog/2025/12/03/top-ten-red-flag-candidates-november-2025/ Learning Objectives:  Identify when OSHA reporting and recording rules apply and what events trigger each requirement. Evaluate common OSHA violations to prioritize hazard prevention strategies. Prepare supervisors and frontline employees for OSHA interviews and onsite inspection protocols. Navigate the inspection, citation, and settlement processes to reduce organizational risk.  

Recorded at Law-Di-Gras, this episode features Jeremy Alters, founder of ClaimAngel, the first litigation funding marketplace in the country. Jeremy explains how his ethics journey inspired a transparent platform that protects both lawyers and clients by offering fair, low-rate funding options. He also discusses rapid adoption by major PI firms and how ClaimAngel is reshaping funding as a strategic tool for maximizing case value, Chapters (00:00:00) - Disbarred Lawyer on Claim Angel(00:00:58) - Developing Your Managing Partners Podcast(00:01:24) - ClaimAngel: The e-bay of Litigation Funding(00:03:08) - Disbarred Lawyer on Claim Angel(00:05:06) - Claim Angel

PREVIEW — Jessica Melugin (Civitas Outlook) — The Flawed Logic of the FTC's Meta Lawsuit. Melugin argues that the Federal Trade Commission's failed antitrust litigation against Meta Platforms fundamentally abandoned the traditional "consumer welfare standard" governing antitrust jurisprudence, instead prioritizing protection of corporate competitors over demonstrable consumer harm. Melugin emphasizes that because Meta provides innovative digital platforms offering zero-cost access to billions of users, the FTC could not satisfy the burden of proving consumer detriment required to successfully prosecute monopoly charges under established antitrust legal doctrine. Melugincontends that the FTC's regulatory overreach reflects ideological hostility toward successful technology companies rather than coherent consumer protection theory, establishing precedent for prosecuting businesses solely for competitive dominance absent documented consumer injury. 1923 SCOTUS

This week on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Mark Debono discuss Mayer v. Rubin, 2017 ONSC 3498 where the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation, which is district from the conventional statutory authority relied upon to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation.

In this episode, host Michael Clear is joined by Matt Brown, a Litigation Partner at Wiggin and Dana, to explore the human side of probate litigation. Their conversation sheds light on the emotional challenges that often accompany major life events, such as the loss of a loved one. They emphasize the value of thorough preparation and maintaining composure in the courtroom, underscoring how honesty and clear communication can strengthen credibility. The discussion also examines the increasing role of mediation in resolving disputes outside of court and highlights the importance of proactive planning to reduce potential conflicts, while acknowledging that some disputes may be inevitable.

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

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. expands on the “disruptive voir dire” approach, focusing on how to neutralize juror confirmation bias, which is one of the most dangerous psychological forces in the courtroom, and in life. Bill explains why all humans are hardwired to make rapid, belief-driven judgments and how those cognitive shortcuts can lock jurors into the plaintiff's narrative before the defense even begins its case. He outlines a structured voir dire method that exposes confirmation bias directly. Bill emphasizes the importance of normalizing confirmation bias through the sharing of personal examples and guiding jurors to reflect on times when they changed their minds after learning more. By forcing jurors to engage cognitively rather than reactively, attorneys can dramatically reduce the likelihood of premature, biased conclusions. Bill closes with specific question structures and strategic sequencing that reprogram juror thinking and prevent snap judgments during trial.

Courtney Writer Esq is a Vice President, Litigation Trial Counsel at Fidelity National Financial, a company specializing in Monetary Authorities-Central Bank. Connect with her on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/writercourtney

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  

Here, the reigning Litigation Partner of the Year reflects on what makes her a successful litigator, including staying true to herself, appreciating what makes her tick, and placing importance on emotional intelligence. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy welcomes back Bowes Legal managing partner Jane Bowes to discuss her firm's recent expansion from northern Queensland into Brisbane and potential further expansion plans, how it felt to win the litigation category at the 2025 Partner of the Year Awards, how the win validated the approach she has taken in her career, and having the courage to stay true to one's convictions. Bowes also delves into how feeling underestimated has fuelled her growth and success as a litigator, why being underestimated is the "biggest fire" in her belly, EQ versus IQ, better managing one's burnout, what has helped her succeed, and her advice for other litigators out there. If you like this episode, show your support by rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, X and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au

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, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. explains why most defense teams misuse jury research by relying solely on a single mock trial and skipping the exploratory phase required by the scientific method for validity and reliability. Bill breaks down how early focus groups are critical in revealing juror confusion, hidden vulnerabilities in your case, and dangerous misconceptions that mock trials are unable to uncover. He also emphasizes that early exploratory research can shape discovery, expert strategy, themes, and voir dire long before mediation or trial. Bill warns that when defense teams skip this exploratory step, they enter mediation and trial preparation with major blind spots and lacking data while the plaintiff's side often has extensive exploratory data and ammunition, which is particularly impactful with mediators. Bill closes by urging defense counsel to adopt a disciplined, phased research process that begins early with exploratory focus groups to reduce risk and improve litigation outcomes.

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.

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?