Podcasts about litigation

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/

John is joined by Rachel Geman, partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Justin A. Nelson, and Rohit Nath, both partners at Susman Godfrey.  They discuss the groundbreaking $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement Rachel, Justin, and Rohit reached with AI company Anthropic on behalf of the authors of copyrighted materials —the largest copyright recovery in history.   The case involved Anthropic's use of over 450,000 copyrighted works—mostly books—sourced from pirated sites like Library Genesis and Z Library.  These works were used to train large language models (LLMs).  The case centered on infringing conduct stemming from the download and use of pirated copies of copyrighted works.  Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case, found that Anthropic's downloading of pirated works was “irredeemably wrong” and constituted infringement.  He also ruled that using legitimately obtained books to train AI was transformative and, therefore, fair use—a finding the plaintiffs disagreed with.  A trial was scheduled but avoided when the parties reached a $1.5 billion settlement shortly after fact discovery closed. The settlement compensates authors and publishers at an average rate of approximately $3,000 per work.  The settlement also reflects contractual author-publisher splits and employs a structured claims process overseen by a special master.  Under the agreement, Anthropic must also destroy the infringing copies and certify they were not used to train its commercial models.  This resolution, the largest known copyright recovery to date, was approved after detailed scrutiny of its fairness and administrationPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Amelia Poulin, Assistant Director of Emerging Infectious Disease at ASTHO, discusses how she was recently recognized as an honoree of de Beaumont Foundation's 40 under 40 in Public Health award; Christina Severin, Director of Public Health Law at ASTHO, breaks down her recent Health Policy Update, which covers key case decisions from the Supreme Court's last term; ASTHO and the Public Health Foundation will host a webinar on academic health department partnerships on Monday, October 27th; and ASTHO is looking for health agency leaders and program staff that have strengthened their capacity to prevent mental health-related harms to apply to participate in discussions that will shape future strategies and drive impact.  de Beaumont Foundation: 40 Under 40 in Public Health  ASTHO Health Policy Update: Public Health Litigation Round-Up ASTHO + PHF Webinar: Strengthening Academic Health Department Partnerships for Student Success in Vermont ASTHO Web Page: Success Stories: Advancing Health Agency Capacity to Address ACEs, Suicide, Overdose, and Mental Health-Related Harms Request for Information  

After 24 years as a landman, host Brent Broussard finally faced his first deposition—and it opened his eyes to how unprepared most landmen are for litigation. Oil and gas attorneys Lee Carr and Brian Wittpenn share street-smart strategies for avoiding lawsuits, handling depositions, and protecting yourself when litigation becomes inevitable.What You'll LearnWhy avoiding litigation entirely is impossible (and the only foolproof method)Essential documentation practices that can save or sink your caseHow to handle agency disclosure requirements without killing dealsWhat to do immediately when served with a lawsuit or subpoenaCommunication strategies that protect you in adversarial situationsTime Stamps00:57 - Episode & Guest Intro01:37 - Landmen and Lawsuits02:58 - Avoiding Litigation as a Landman05:07 - Contract Disputes and Settlements07:35 - Deposition Costs and Realities09:54 - Ethics and Best Practices11:54 - Agency and Disclosure18:51 - Documentation and Process23:26 - Offers and Counter Offers26:12 - Importance of Termination Dates in Offers28:01 - Handling Legal Trouble: Initial Steps35:09 - Understanding Subpoenas and Document Retention40:41 - Best Practices for Professional Communication42:46 - File Retention47:48 - Episode Takeaways49:38 - Episode OutroSnippets from the Episode"Really, the only foolproof way to not get sued as a landman is to not be a landman. Outside of that, anybody can sue anybody for anything."— Lee Carr"Just a simple deposition—you're clicking off at probably an eight to ten thousand dollar bill leaving there, and then the transcript's going to be $800 to $1,000."— Lee Carr"Dance as if nobody's watching, but text and email as if it'll be read aloud in court one day."— Lee Carr"The best thing is don't ignore it. Litigation's not like a cold that just goes away if you try to ride it out."— Lee CarrKey TakeawaysLitigation avoidance is impossible—focus on risk mitigationClear agency disclosure protects against liability exposureDocument everything but qualify your work product limitationsProfessional communication standards prevent costly mistakesImmediate legal counsel engagement when litigation hitsSubpoena compliance requires understanding jurisdictional limitsFile retention policies must be documented and consistently appliedHelp us improve our podcast! Share your thoughts in our quick survey.⁠ResourcesNeed Help With A Project? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Meet With Dudley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Need Help with Staffing? Connect with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dudley Staffing ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Streamline Your Title Process with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dudley Select Title⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch On ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow Dudley Land Co. On⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Have Questions? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email us⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠More From Our GuestsLee Carr on LinkedInBrian Wittpenn on LinkedInKearney, McWilliams & Davis, PLLC websiteMore from Our HostsConnect with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Brent⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on LinkedInConnect with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Khalil ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠on LinkedInConnect With UsReady to protect your land projects with integrated legal and title support? Our Dudley Select Title division works seamlessly with experienced oil and gas counsel to keep your deals on track and defensible. Contact us to learn how our complete energy partnership approach includes the legal expertise that matters when stakes are high.

It's fall, it's October and the US Supreme Court is back in session. On today's episode, we have a special guest from the AFJ Justice team. We are joined by our colleague Jamal Lockings. With Jamall we will cover the big cases to be heard by the court. Then we will talk about how nonprofits can get involved with supreme court advocacy, nominees, and more while staying nonpartisan and being mindful of lobbying limits.    Attorneys for this Episode  Brittany Hacker  Susan Finkle Sourlis  Jamaal Lockings     Intro to Justice Program  Our justice team works on both federal and state judicial appointments and elections and runs numerous invaluable resources including our judicial vacancy tracker and helps keep us and the public informed about nominees. This includes the decisions they make after they've been confirmed, and how cases in federal courts – especially the supreme court – are impacting our civil rights and democracy.     Today, we are thrilled to be joined on the pod by our friend and colleague Jamaal Lockings. Jamaal is a fellow attorney who serves as a Dorot Fellow on the Federal Courts team.   Today we want to talk about the upcoming cases in this supreme court term, what we should be keeping an eye on, the potential impacts for our c3 partners, and what nonprofits can do during this term and future terms to advocate.     Cases to watch out for this term  Voting Rights and Money In Politics  Louisiana v. Callais  Issue: Whether a states efforts to comply with the VRA is, in itself, a form of racial discrimination   (1) Rehearing from last term (2) The Court is playing politics (3) the VRA is on the chopping block   Consequences: A final blow to the VRA, and increased difficulty for minority voters to participate in free and fair elections   National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC  Issue: Whether to maintain the federal limits on political party coordination w/ candidates in campaign advertising.   (1) Could render campaign contribution limits meaningless, increasing the already outsized influence of money in politics (2) These cases on elections and voting rights can't be observed in a vacuum     LGBTQ+   Chiles v. Salazar   Issue: Whether Colorado's ban on “conversion therapy” for minors violates First Amendment protections of free speech and religious exercise   (1) Religious litigants have been notoriously successful in this court (2) free speech and religious exercise have been used not to ensure equity or equality but to prop up Christian nationalist ideology.   West Virginia v. B.P.J.   Issue: Title IX and barring Trans athletes   (1) This court continues to wade into culture wars (2) It's ruling in Skrmetti and Justice Barrett's assertion that Trans isn't a protected states (3) Embolden lawmakers to continue to write oppressive laws against trans individuals    Executive Power & Civil Liberties   Trump v. Slaughter   Issue: whether statutory removal protections for members of the FTC – and agencies like it – “violate” the separation of powers.    (1) The Court's emergency orders this summer (2) growing belief in the unitary executive theory (3) Likely to overrule Humphrey's executor  Consequences: Collapse of independent agencies and with it, governing stability.     What c3s can do:  Supreme court advocacy is nonpartisan—you are free to stand for or against cases before any court or get involved in the cases.   Litigation at the supreme court: c3s are often the best voice and represent groups who otherwise would not be heard or could not bring such large scale cases  Amicus briefs   Educating the public about cases and impacts of opinions  As you know c3 public charities may engage in lobbying and there are ways through lobbying that can affect the courts at the federal or maybe the state level  Nominee advocacy—Advocate for or against nominees to supreme court (lobbying)  Remember the lower district courts and circuit courts as well  Remember the lobbying rules if you are a c3: must track and report your lobbying the IRS and stay within your lobbying limits. Great place for c4s to get involved because they can lobbying in an unlimited amount.  Ethics advocacy—ask congress for more oversight or ethics rules (Lobbying if it will require a legislative vote).   Resources  Alliance for Justice, Being a Player  Alliance for Justice, Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices  Alliance for Justice, Judicial Nominee Tracker  Alliance for Justice, Supreme Court Reform 

Rachel Frank is a senior associate at Quinn Emanuel who focuses on appellate litigation. She discusses the journey from summer associate to working on cases before the Supreme Court. Rachel explains what appellate practice actually involves, from preparing partners for oral arguments through intensive moot courts to crafting persuasive appellate briefs. She discusses how she uses AI as a thinking partner, the value of her federal appellate clerkship, and how her work has evolved over time. Rachel reflects on some of her firm's cultural quirks and why they matter to her. She also candidly discusses managing work-life balance. Rachel is a graduate of Yale Law School.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Colorado LawLearn more about Colorado LawAccess LawHub today!

Send us a textArtificial intelligence is rewriting the rules of both medicine and law — and in this episode, we look into what that might really mean.  Senior lawyer Jan Marin of Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers joins Chris Rokosh to explore how AI is reshaping malpractice litigation: from “AI-specific errors” and automation bias to digital audit trails, product liability, and the rise of new expert witnesses.  We'll also look at how hospitals may face institutional liability for the AI tools they choose and deploy.  If you've ever wondered who might bear the responsibility when healthcare decisions are influenced by algorithms, this is a conversation you won't want to miss

Zakiya Watson-Caffe, principal attorney at Watson Law LLC, and Rancheros Fortune, Founder and CEO of Good Fortune Group, discussed the lawsuit "Grassroots Association Incorporated versus the state of Georgia." This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Georgia Hemp Farming Act (SB 494) due to federal preemption, burdensome licensing requirements, and significant revenue losses experienced by businesses.The Georgia Hemp Farming Act (SB 494) is a law that significantly tightens regulations on the hemp industry in Georgia. The amended 2019 bill, which went into effect on October 1, 2024, introduces strict new requirements for businesses, including mandatory licensing for growers, processors, manufacturers, and retailers. It also bans the sale of certain products, such as smokable hemp flower and various THC-infused foods, and restricts sales to individuals 21 and older. Furthermore, the law mandates new labeling, packaging, and testing standards for all hemp products sold in the state.The lawsuit, Grassroots Association, Inc., et al. v. State of Georgia, argues that SB 494 is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill. A key point of contention is the state's new licensing and product testing requirements, which many business owners claim are overly burdensome and have significantly hurt their revenue. The law also bans the sale of certain products, such as smokable hemp flower and various THC-infused foods, and restricts sales to individuals over 21.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode, Jeff points out the ridiculousness of the belief that President Trump has brought peace to the Middle East with the ceasefire agreement he got Israel and Hamas to sign. There is a mountain of evidence which makes clear that this ceasefire is simply a lull until the next war. In the meantime, the leftists/terrorists are making massive inroads into America and our failure to cut off the head of the terror snake will be our country's greatest failure in the not so distant future.In other news, Bruce Cutler has passed, at one point the most famous lawyer in the world. Bruce also was the lawyer who had a large part in getting Jeff to drop Pre-med in college and go to law school. In this podcast, Jeff recounts some very funny Bruce stories from years past. RIP Bruce.

Send us a textIn this episode of Deconstructing Comp, Yvonne and Rafael welcome Gina Jacobs, a defense attorney with Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel LLP, to share what it's like navigating workers' compensation from the defense side. Joining from Orlando, Gina brings a candid look at how defense counsel approaches claims, collaborates with employers and carriers, and works toward fair resolutions within Florida's workers' compensation system.Gina's journey into law is one of purpose and passion. After spending more than 10 years as a claims professional, working with Crawford & Company, Zenith Insurance, and Gallagher Bassett, she made the leap to law school to deepen her understanding of the industry she already loved. Today, that background shapes her work as a defense attorney, giving her rare empathy for claims adjusters and a deep appreciation for how every stakeholder impacts the outcome of claims.Throughout the conversation, Gina shares how she balances advocacy with understanding, why communication remains at the heart of every successful case, her commitment to partnerships, and how she's using her experience to mentor and educate the next generation of professionals in workers' compensation.This engaging episode offers a thoughtful and balanced look at what it means to defend claims while staying true to the people and purpose behind the process.¡Muchas Gracias! Thank you for listening. We would appreciate you sharing our podcast with your friends on social media. Find Yvonne and Rafael on Linked In or follow us on Twitter @deconstructcomp

Send us a textMatt Brown speaks with David Perla, Vice Chair of Burford Capital, about how AI is transforming the world of litigation finance. They explore how Burford values legal risk, the potential of AI to enhance underwriting accuracy, and how AI is used responsibly inside a global, publicly listed financial firm. From automating workflows to predicting outcomes, David explains how AI is quietly revolutionizing one of the world's most conservative industries.Support the show

As a probationary employee with the Navy Office of General Counsel in 2025, Joe was informed he would likely be laid off as part of the Trump Administration's efforts to curb the size of the Federal Government. When offered deferred resignation, Joe saw it as an opportunity to join private practice to enable him to return to doing the things he enjoyed doing as a Marine Corps JAG, including Legal Assistance and Litigation. In this episode, Joe takes us through his journey, including waving into the Virginia bar. Joe mentions a few of Slack-type groups that he finds helpful, including:​ LawyerSmack (sidebar.net), a private community for attorneys interested in discussing practice-related issues with their peers in real time. ($199/year);​ Best Era (https://bestera.com/)($365/year). ​ InnerCircle (inner circle.ernietheattorney.net/feed), which deals with legal tech issues.

Climate change has been described as a “super wicked” policy problem. Policymakers face profound difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the risks, the costs of potential solutions, and the challenges of collective action. Because climate change is global in scope, the source of emissions is often seen as less important than their overall volume. Yet despite extensive efforts by many countries, including the United States at various times, worldwide carbon emissions continue to rise.Frustration with this state of affairs has led some state and local authorities to pursue climate litigation in addition to legislative or regulatory action. These lawsuits allege that energy producers are responsible for substantial monetary harms; and taken together, they seek many billions or even trillions of dollars in damages. Many recent cases focus on claims that companies misrepresented the effects of fossil fuels on the environment in violation of state consumer protection laws.On October 8, 2025, join us for a panel discussion examining the legal and policy issues raised by these cases, including: • Preemption under the Clean Air Act and federal common law; • Challenges in demonstrating causation and attribution; • Possible implications for First Amendment protections; • Allocation of damages among dozens of energy companies, including state-owned firms that may be shielded by sovereign immunity. • The contributing role of both plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of fossil fuels; and • Whether litigation is likely to help advance efforts to address climate change.Featuring:David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity ProjectProfessor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law SchoolProfessor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityAdam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC

Halloween movie month continues in fine style when the guys discuss the finer points of "Humanoids from the Deep" by the legendary Roger Corman. Oh sure, there are other topics at hand, but when there's a perfect blend of full-frontal nudity, Native American mysticism, and sexually assertive salmon, that owns the conversation.  -- #comedypodcast #RIcomedy #podernfamily #rogercorman #1980shorror #tubi #humanoidsfromthedeep www.needlesstosaypodcast.com www.ntspodcastgear.com

When Congress amended the Civil Rights Act in 1976, it directed federal courts to use judicial discretion to award “reasonable attorney’s fees” to a prevailing party. Yet when state actors are found in violation of the nation’s civil rights laws, what is “reasonable” often means that civil rights attorneys take a reduced fee award. Because of this, states are emboldened to enact and enforce more unconstitutional laws and the pattern repeats.Mere days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the New York Assembly enacted new legislation allowing secular businesses to permit customers to carry concealed weapons on their property, but refusing to afford sensitive locations, like churches, the same choice. His Tabernacle Church in Elmira, New York filed suit under the Civil Rights Act claiming the new law violated its First and Second Amendment rights. It prevailed both in district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.When the matter returned to the district court, the State of New York claimed the church’s attorneys were entitled to just 16% of the fees requested in their application. Judge John R. Sinatra, Jr. of the Western District of New York rejected New York’s arguments, awarding 100% of the requested fees, concluding that the Civil Rights Act “encourages lawyers taking meritorious cases like this one” but to engage in “[p]erennial ‘haircuts’” in fee awards would “discourage well qualified counsel.”Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the importance of courts awarding appropriate attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation.Featuring:Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC(Moderator) Jeremy G. Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Jack Sanker and Danessa Watkins dive into two legal topics currently impacting the U.S. litigation landscape. A private equity firm recently expressed interest in ownership stakes of several law firms, raising questions about the ethics of non-attorney involvement in the legal process.  A prohibited practice to-date, non-attorney equity in law firms gives third parties the ability to take financial stakes in the outcome of lawsuits. Jack analyzes the ethical and administrative implications this introduces for both litigation and company operations.  A Texas district court bill proposing the required display of the ten commandments in public school classrooms has resumed a long-standing debate and potentially prompted new law regarding the separation of church and state. Danessa examines the bill and the resulting national conversation about First Amendment rights and religious freedom in public schools. 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!

Rebecca Adelman, a trailblazer at the crossroads of law, leadership, and legacy, joins Matt Reiners for an in-depth conversation about the human side of risk management in senior living. Drawing on 30+ years in litigation and personal caregiving experiences, Rebecca shares how misaligned expectations—not just adverse events—often drive litigation. She introduces Guide Path, her certification program redefining how communities engage with families, reduce risk, and enhance care.If you're a senior living leader navigating complex challenges, this episode delivers a new lens—and a roadmap.Rebecca Adelman, Esq. is a nationally recognized attorney, risk strategist, and founder of the Adelman Firm and Guide Path, a certification program focused on expectation alignment in senior living. With over 30 years in healthcare litigation, she's also a caregiver, educator, and passionate advocate for intergenerational care. Her philosophy of “Work-Life-Being” shapes her mission to drive human-centered change across the care ecosystem. Timestamps:01:00 — Introduction to Rebecca Adelman: attorney, risk strategist, and founder of Guide Path03:41 — Rebecca's entry into senior living through healthcare litigation06:52 — The personal turning point: caregiving for her father09:50 — What drives lawsuits in senior living (it's not what you think)12:56 — Designing Guide Path: expectations management as risk mitigation14:27 — What proactive alignment looks like in practice18:28 — Resident and Family Insights Survey: where risk really lives21:41 — How unmet expectations fuel litigation23:27 — What sets Guide Path apart from other certifications27:40 — Rebecca's life philosophy: Work-Life-Being33:33 — Real-world impact: from personal relationships to global reach38:23 — Aligning training with compliance and federal regs41:29 — Rebecca's lens on leadership in male-dominated spacesLinks:Adelman Law FirmGuide PathParasol Alliance

A Tea with Stuart Grant of Bench Walk Advisors and Erika Levin of Fox Rothschild, where we learn about recent developments affecting the Litigation Finance Industry and what the latest efforts have been to successfully keep open pathways for companies and individuals to access justice. In this episode, we discuss recent efforts by the U.S. Government (both state and federal) and interested parties to quash the industry, what we should be bracing for next, whether some form of regulation might be advisable, and what are some of the false and most harmful myths about third party funding that critics continue to perpetuate. We also discuss in this episode the threat to the rule of law generally.Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.To learn more about or join the D.C. Bar International Law Community, ⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE.⁠⁠⁠

Valerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training that required participants to affirm statements Kloosterman believed conflicted with her religious convictions and medical judgment. After she requested a religious accommodation, hospital officials denied her request, criticized her beliefs, and ultimately terminated her employment.Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.Featuring:Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Chris Zona is a litigation partner at Mandelbaum Barrett, practicing primarily out of New York City. With nearly 100 trials under his belt, Chris helps investors and businesses turn legal conflict into capital. By leveraging litigation, non-performing loans, and distressed assets, he shows multifamily and commercial real estate investors how to uncover hidden opportunities and generate outsized returns.     Make sure to download our free guide, 7 Questions Every Passive Investor Should Ask, here.     Key Takeaways Litigation doesn't have to be a cost center—it can be a source of investment opportunities. Non-performing loans (NPLs) often sell at steep discounts, creating entry points below market value. Attorneys can help investors navigate complex foreclosure timelines and risks. Judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosure states dramatically change the investment timeline. Building strong banking and attorney relationships is essential to sourcing and executing distressed note deals.     Topics Turning Conflict into Capital How Chris reframes litigation as a tool to unlock hidden opportunities. Why distressed debt and litigation finance are increasingly relevant in today's market. Understanding Non-Performing Loans NPLs often sell at 60–80% of face value, providing opportunities for investors. Secondary markets create deal flow as banks offload risky assets to redeploy capital. The Role of Litigation Attorneys Advising investors on jurisdictional risks, foreclosure timelines, and strategy. Using the threat of litigation to negotiate favorable outcomes without always going to trial. Judicial vs. Non-Judicial States Judicial foreclosures require lawsuits, trials, and long timelines. Non-judicial foreclosures are statutory, faster, and less litigious. Investors must factor timelines into their portfolio strategies. Market Conditions for Distressed Assets Rising interest rates and tighter bank policies have increased the number of NPLs. Why the next 3–5 years may provide significant opportunity for note investors.    

Corporations are recognized as legal entities and separate from their shareholders, officers and directors. Does that mean that a corporate owner can never be held liable for the company's wrongdoing?  Of course not!  “Piercing the corporate veil,” refers to the exception to this principle, where courts disregard this separateness and hold an owner responsible for the corporation's actions as if it were their own. On this week's podcast, join Rebecca and Steve as they explore the circumstances in which you can ask the court to ignore the corporate entity, and reach the assets of the owners.  The standards are very high, but if there is enough proof, and your facts are egregious, you may be able to get through a corporate fraud and recovery from the owners' assets.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

Professor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court, and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual FedSoc Forum in his honor to discuss pressing issues and trends in legal culture.Join us for the 2025 installment in that series, where the Honorable G. Barry Anderson will, in a discussion moderated by Professor Michael McGinniss, offer his insights about judicial independence and the rule of law, and the role of lawyers in supporting the rule of law. He will discuss how such support can be well demonstrated to clients when litigation does not turn out as they had hoped. He will also address systems of judicial selection and their impacts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.Featuring:Hon. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law

This week on RHOSLC, Lisa does her big one to deny, deny, deny her lawsuits and it's met with the best reactions ever. Enjoy!Follow me on social media, find links to merch, Patreon and more here! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode Abby and Vanessa recap the latest RHOSLC episode. They discuss… -Lisa's makeup -Angie K and her dad -Bronwyn and Todd -Bronwyn and Muzzy -Litigation by Lisa  -Whitney vs. Lisa When you're done listening, please don't forget to check out our ad sponsors.  So if you are looking for that perfect gift, or want to impress your friends and family with an epic meal the next time you host, go to GOLDBELLY.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code REALMOMS To explore coverage, visit ASPCApetinsurance.com/REALMOMS  Go to Quince.com/realmoms for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. You can try Prebiotic Collagen Protein and Hormone Harmony risk-free and get 15%off your entire first order with code REALMOMS at checkout. That's happymammoth.com and use code REALMOMS for 15% off today.Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com/go/REALMOMS! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's up Bros? This show rocks. This episode is exactly why RHOSLC stands alone at the top. Lisa plans a lunch for Group D as she calls them, and its an ambush in an attempt to explain her lawsuits away. Angie and her dad have a wonderful scene together and we are fully on board with her leaning further into the Greek stuff. Bronwyn has a much different convo with both Todd and her mom. Granted, her mother is going through a LOT right now, but it still wasn't our favorite scene. At Blue Sky Lodge, group A goes skeet shooting. Group D arrives for lunch and a whole lot of Kinko's poster boards... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Salt Lake City, New York, and London Offices, Head of the firm's Sovereign Litigation practice, and Co-Head of the firm's Global Asset Recovery Practice. They discuss various kinds of litigation, arbitration, and collection actions against sovereign states. They discuss collection cases against sovereign states resulting from those states' default on debt instruments, the challenges faced by creditors who hold out after most creditors agree to a debt restructuring arrangement with the sovereign, recent proposed legislation, and any other government actions favoring sovereigns, the current sovereign debt crisis, and concerns about opportunistic funds that seek profit by collecting on devalued sovereign debt. They also discuss investor-state arbitration generally, for example, after a company has invested in a project in a country and the country fundamentally changes the terms under which the investment was made, such as radically raising taxes as Spain did with respect to renewable energy projects after 2008. They discuss the position taken by the EU that EU courts cannot enforce arbitration awards against EU nations even when the nation entered voluntarily into an arbitration treaty, and recent indications that the United States government supports the position of the EU. Finally, they discuss litigation against sovereigns unrelated to sovereign debt, such as litigation against state sponsors of terrorism, including the lawsuit Quinn Emanuel recently filed against Iran on behalf of victims of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Are PFAS still something to worry about? Are companies like 3M actually being held responsible for their use of forever chemicals? In this episode of Cut to the Chase: Podcast, Gregg welcomes environmental attorneys Coral Odiot-Rivera and Nick Mindicino from Napoli Shkolnik to unpack the litigation against “forever chemicals” (PFAS), as well as the updates on the regulatory front. They break down the health risks of PFAS, the billion-dollar PFAS settlements with 3M and DuPont, the latest EPA regulations, and what it all means for firefighters, communities, and clean water across the U.S. If you've heard about firefighting foam lawsuits, PFAS in drinking water, or the dangers of “forever chemicals” but aren't sure what's really going on—this episode cuts through the noise with science-based facts and legal insights you can trust.   What to expect in this episode: What PFAS chemicals are and why they're called “forever chemicals” The serious health risks linked to PFAS exposure, including cancer and thyroid disease Billion-dollar settlements from 3M, DuPont, and others—and what they mean for water providers and affected communities Updates on personal injury lawsuits for firefighters and residents exposed to firefighting foam (AFFF) The EPA's latest drinking water regulations and compliance challenges for municipalities Why cleaning PFAS out of water is possible—but extremely costly How PFAS contamination is a global issue, not just a U.S. problem What individuals, firefighters, and communities can do if they suspect PFAS exposure The PFAS saga is far from over and touches nearly every community, globally. Stay informed, advocate for change, and share this episode with someone you care about.   Stay tuned for more updates, and don't miss our next deep dive on Cut to the Chase: Podcast with Gregg Goldfarb!   Subscribe, rate, review, and share this episode of the Cut to the Chase: Podcast!   Resources: Napoli Shkolnik PLLC: https://www.napolilaw.com/en  PFAS Facts (EPA): https://www.epa.gov/pfas  Connect with Coral Odiot-Rivera on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/coral-odiot-rivera-26a2a786 Connect with Nick Mindicino on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-mindicino-b9274943  Watch “How to Poison a Planet”: https://www.howtopoisonaplanet.com This episode was produced and brought to you by Reignite Media.

In this episode of the PFAS Pulse Podcast, Host Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are joined by HRP's Sam Muller, to discuss a recent study, which demonstrated that PFAS are far more acidic than previously thought. What does that mean? We'll break it down! Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

On 26 September 2025 Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) hosted the Right Honourable Lady Arden of Heswall DBE as she chaired a compelling discussion with four exceptional legal minds shaping the future of human rights law, Nicola Greaney KC, Irena Sabic KC, Katherine Apps KC and Dr Kirsty Hughes, Associate Professor of Human Rights Law. The event took place as part of the Cambridge Alumni Festival, and was generously hosted by Murray Edwards College, Cambridge.CWIL is an exciting social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors.In this session, you'll hear personal reflections on how each panellist carved out a path in human rights practice, and gain insights into:The current intersection of human rights, legislation and common law in the UK's Constitutional frameworkNew frontiers for Human Rights litigation including private law and international human rights in a post Brexit UKHuman Rights and GeopoliticsFor more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/alumni-developmentalumni-events/cambridge-women-law-cwil

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. breaks down two critical mistakes attorneys make in opening statements: dilution of their message and their communication frequency. Frequency refers to the attorney's delivery dynamics - energy level, confidence, rhythm, and emotional tone - that either engages jurors or turns them off. Common problems with communication frequency include defensiveness, nervousness, over-talking, and coming across as if trying to sell something to the jury rather than telling them a compelling story. Dilution occurs when attorneys talk too long, over-explain, or defend unnecessarily, which weakens the message and causes jurors to tune out. Bill explains why less is more and that potency comes from repetition, silence, and reframing the narrative right from the start. He urges attorneys to avoid “dead zones” in the middle of openings, stay high-level (“in the clouds, not the weeds”), and let witnesses handle details later. Finally, Bill highlights the value and importance of testing openings with focus groups to gather feedback from mock jurors to help guide and fine-tune delivery, frequency, and clarity before trial.

In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Regulatory Oversight, Chris Willis is joined by Joseph DeFazio, Bill Foley, and Michael Yaghi to discuss the implications of New York's FAIR Act, a significant amendment to the state's UDAAP statute. The FAIR Act aims to broaden consumer protection by lowering the threshold for legal action against unfair and abusive business practices. With expanded enforcement powers for the state, this legislation could dramatically increase litigation risks for financial services companies operating in New York if the governor signs the bill. Tune in to understand how this legislative shift might affect the industry and what steps businesses can take to prepare. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From timekeeping technologies to dash cams, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is now being used to challenge a number and variety of time-saving programs and tools.   On this episode of We get privacy for work, we discuss the factors leading to the rise in BIPA cases.   Today's hosts are co-leaders of the Privacy, AI and Cybersecurity Group.   Damon Silver and Joe Lazzarotti, principals, respectively, in the New York City and Tampa offices of Jackson Lewis. They are joined by Jody Mason and Jason Selvey, principals in the Chicago office.    Damon, Joe, Jody, and Jason, the question on everyone's mind today is: What BIPA compliance risks should you consider before adopting new technologies, and how will that impact my organization?     

Litigation is on the rise… and so are the demands on the teams who manage it. In this episode of The Legal Report from Robert Half, host Jamy Sullivan and her guest Aaron Bath, vice president of litigation support and legal operations at Balfour Beatty US, explore how litigation teams are being reshaped by technology, shifting workflows and a competitive talent market. As AI and legal tech change how litigation is managed, traditional roles are evolving and new skill sets are in high demand. They discuss the growing need for litigation professionals who blend legal expertise with tech fluency, and why attracting and retaining this talent is a major challenge. Whether through redefining team roles, offering flexibility or supporting career growth, legal employers must adapt or risk falling behind. Tune in for an insightful look at what it takes to build and support high-performing litigation teams in a fast-changing legal landscape Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joining Dr. Scott Steele today on Behind the Knife is Steve Crandall, a former medical negligence DEFENSE lawyer who, for reasons we will discuss, switched sides and now represents the patient who is suing care providers.  He is a founding partner of Crandall & Pera Law and also has been ranked as both one of the Top 5 Lawyers in Cleveland and Top 10 best Lawyers in Ohio for over 15 years. Crandall, a seasoned plaintiff attorney specializing in medical malpractice, joins the hosts to illuminate the key factors behind common lawsuits in surgery, the pivotal role of informed consent, standout cases with crucial learning points, expert witness strategies, and practical advice for surgeons to stay out of legal trouble. Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://behindtheknife.org/listen Behind the Knife Premium: General Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/general-surgery-oral-board-review Trauma Surgery Video Atlas: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/trauma-surgery-video-atlas Dominate Surgery: A High-Yield Guide to Your Surgery Clerkship: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/dominate-surgery-a-high-yield-guide-to-your-surgery-clerkship Dominate Surgery for APPs: A High-Yield Guide to Your Surgery Rotation: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/dominate-surgery-for-apps-a-high-yield-guide-to-your-surgery-rotation Vascular Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/vascular-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Colorectal Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/colorectal-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Surgical Oncology Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/surgical-oncology-oral-board-audio-review Cardiothoracic Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/cardiothoracic-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Download our App: Apple App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/behind-the-knife/id1672420049 Android/Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.btk.app&hl=en_US

In this second episode of Ogletree Deakins' new podcast series Litigation Lens, Michael Nail (Greenville) is joined by Fiona Ong (Baltimore) and Sarah Zucco (New York) to discuss a recent Second Circuit decision that clarifies employers' obligations to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—even when an employee can technically perform essential job functions without them. The speakers unpack the facts of a case involving a New York teacher's request for accommodations due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), explain the court's rejection of a “necessity-only” standard, and offer practical tips for navigating the fact-intensive, multi-jurisdictional landscape of disability accommodation law.

In this episode of the Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about common missteps in litigation and explains why defense teams must “stop losing before they can start winning.” He argues that many losses stem not from case facts but from preventable mistakes, as the plaintiff's bar continues to be proactive while the defense often remains reactive. Bill highlights three key areas for improvement: early and accurate case assessment via frequent jury research, early witness evaluation to address psychological and emotional issues, and early deposition preparation using neurocognitive remapping and systematic desensitization to ensure witnesses are protected from cognitive autopilot issues and plaintiff attacks. By eliminating these common errors, defense teams can significantly reduce the risk in their cases and position themselves for more consistent wins.

Tush Push Litigation, Mac Jones + Kyle Shanahan's Effectiveness, Will Brock Purdy Play?https://www.heyguy.co - to BUY HATS or send me an email NEW Prizepicks BONUS: https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/HABERMAN Follow Guy on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guyhaberman/Follow Guy on X: https://twitter.com/GuyHaberman LISTEN on APPLE PODCASTShttps://tinyurl.com/Guy-on-Apple-Podcasts LISTEN on SPOTIFYhttps://tinyurl.com/Guy-on-Spotify Enter the Guy's mailbag by leaving a question for in an Apple Podcasts review OR NOW YOU CAN EMAIL guy@heyguy.co Watch Guy's show on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUJPrxeyo3vQvDYS2IzvKMAOur Sponsors:* Check out Hims: https://hims.com/GUY* Check out PrizePicks and use my code HABERMAN for a great deal: https://www.prizepicks.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Send us a textIn this episode of Deconstructing Comp, Yvonne Guibert and Rafael Gonzalez welcome Scynthia Syfrett, Workers' Compensation Program Manager at SHARP Healthcare in San Diego. Scynthia offers her perspective on managing a large deductible program, with a $1 million per-claim deductible, and the lessons in risk that come with operating at this scale.Our conversation examines how large deductible programs shift a significant portion of the claims exposure back to the employer, presenting both opportunities and challenges. Scynthia explains why careful oversight, proactive claims management, trusted vendor partners, and tailored processes are essential to ensure every claim is handled with both financial accountability and employee care.She also highlights why healthcare systems, with thousands of employees, must maintain clear strategies for managing risk, controlling litigation, and supporting injured employees within such a high-stakes framework.You'll also learn that Scynthia is passionate about education, just like Yvonne and Rafael! Key terms and concepts mentioned in this episode to help guide your listening:Large Deductible Program – SHARP's program features a $1 million per-claim deductible, shifting a significant portion of the financial responsibility back to the employer.Risk Management – In workers' compensation, risk management means recognizing and addressing financial, legal, strategic, and safety risks that can affect both employees and the organization.Litigation Review – The process of evaluating claims before escalating to legal action; Scynthia discusses SHARP's unique approach.Return to Work (RTW) – Supporting employees in safely resuming their roles, often with modified duties.Safety – Preventive measures and tracking of safety incidents within an employer's environment.Employee Education – SHARP's investment in training employees to understand workers' compensation processes and responsibilities.Trusted Vendor Partners – External claims, legal, and medical partners who work closely with an employer to manage claims effectively.¡Muchas Gracias! Thank you for listening. We would appreciate you sharing our podcast with your friends on social media. Find Yvonne and Rafael on Linked In or follow us on Twitter @deconstructcomp

Litigation against aggressive liability management exercises in Europe is on the rise as creditors fight back against sponsor's tactics to prime minority creditors.Back in November a group of primed creditors in Dutch lingerie maker Hunkemoller filed a lawsuit in New York against US hedge fund Redwood after it uptiered its portion of the debt.Redwood implemented the same tactic in another uptier transaction with UK carpet maker Victoria PLC's notes, which primed minority holders.More recently, in August a minority creditor in Swiss vending machine provider Selecta filed an appeal against its restructuring in a Dutch court.In this episode of Distressed Diaries, 9fin's senior distressed reporter Bianca Boorer sat down with Duane Loft, partner at Pallas Partners, who is representing the primed holders in Hunkemoller, and 9fin senior distressed credit analyst Denitsa Stoyanova CFA.We discuss the Hunkemoller case, provide updates on the litigation process, and examine potential outcomes if Victoria's transaction faces legal challenges.We also delve into what creditors should consider when deciding whether to litigate, how litigation can help with negotiations, and compare litigation practices in the US versus Europe. And for more background see here our three-part series on the Americanisation of European LMEs.

Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, speaks to Senior Editor Roger Parloff about the cases he has led challenging the validity of Pres. Trump's Alien Enemies Act Proclamation.They discuss the ACLU's recent victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the status of the group's original case, in Washington, D.C., including its attempt to inquire into whether Executive Branch officials defied court orders. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.org v. FEC.The Dinner Table Action District Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed. Featuring: Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

In this podcast, Jeff discusses the assassination of Charlie Kirk by yet another deranged leftist shooter. As disturbing as the shooting was, the celebrations from the left — which included professionals, teacher and health care providers — were even more troubling. Jeff discusses what needs to come next if we are to avoid sliding into the abyss as a country.

All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain.Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.Featuring:Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Welcome to a fascinating exploration of the hidden legal battles shaping tomorrow's technology. Predictive algorithms have become the crystal balls of modern business, forecasting everything from home prices to healthcare costs, but they're also becoming the center of high-stakes courtroom dramas worth hundreds of millions of dollars.Across the globe, from Texas courtrooms to China's Supreme People's Court, judges and juries are answering a profound question: who owns the right to predict the future? The House Canary v. Amrock case resulted in a staggering $600 million verdict over real estate valuation algorithms, while Alibaba secured a 30 million RMB judgment against a company that allegedly scraped its predictive marketing tools. Even industrial applications aren't immune, with companies like Shen Group successfully protecting predictive design software for machinery components.What makes these cases particularly compelling is how they're redefining intellectual property law. Courts are now recognizing that AI model weights, the mathematical parameters tuned during training, qualify as protectable trade secrets. Data pipelines, prediction engines, and algorithmic structures have all received similar protection. The real drama often unfolds when employees change companies, raising thorny questions about what constitutes general expertise versus proprietary knowledge that belongs to the former employer.Healthcare prediction presents especially valuable territory, with ongoing battles between companies like Qruis and Epic Systems, or Milliman and Gradient AI, demonstrating how patient data forecasting creates immensely valuable intellectual property. Whether it's forecasting home values on Zillow or optimizing Medicare billing, these predictive tools aren't just convenient features, they're corporate crown jewels worth protecting at almost any cost.Ready to dive deeper into the invisible rules governing innovation? Subscribe now and join us as we continue to decode the legal frameworks shaping our technological future. The algorithms may predict tomorrow, but who gets to own those predictions? That's what we're exploring on Intangiblia.Get the book!Send us a textSupport the show

California's climate reporting is coming, but many questions remain. In this episode, we cover Assembly Bill (AB) 1305, Senate Bill (SB) 253, and SB 261—what's required now, what's still evolving, and how companies can prepare as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) works to finalize draft regulations.In this episode, we discuss:3:05 – Overview of AB 1305, SB 253, and SB 261, including scope and revenue thresholds6:46 – Litigation updates and why deadlines still apply despite challenges10:29 – Defining “doing business in California” and revenue thresholds under CARB proposals18:39 – CARB's role in enforcement, rulemaking, and timeline for draft regulationsFor more information, check out our In depth on California's climate laws and Chapter 22 of PwC's Sustainability reporting guide, Jurisdictional sustainability reporting – California.Be sure to follow this podcast on your favorite podcast app and subscribe to our weekly newsletter to stay in the loop for the latest thought leadership on sustainability standards.About our guestsLogan Redlin is a director in PwC's National Office who is focused on thought leadership strategy and content development related to accounting and financial reporting, sustainability reporting, and standard setting. Prior to this role, Logan spent 15 years in the audit practice, serving both public and private companies with a primary focus on asset management and real estate.Valerie Wieman is a PwC National Office partner with over 30 years of experience. She is one of the firm's technical experts on sustainability reporting and helps lead the creation, development, and publication of our brand-defining thought leadership, with a focus on domestic and international sustainability requirements.About our guest hostGuest host Diana Stoltzfus is a partner in the National Office who helps to shape PwC's perspectives on regulatory matters, responses to rulemakings and policy development, and implementation related to significant new rules and regulations. Prior to rejoining PwC, Diana was the Deputy Chief Accountant in the Office of the Chief Accountant (OCA) at the SEC where she led the activities of the OCA's Professional Practices Group.Transcripts available upon request for individuals who may need a disability-related accommodation. Please send requests to us_podcast@pwc.com Did you enjoy this episode? Text us your thoughts and be sure to include the episode name.

In this episode, hosts Brad and Michael welcome guest Brian Lauten, a triple board-certified business and commercial trial attorney and founding partner of Brian Lauten P.C., to unpack the realities of commercial litigation. Brian shares the often-overlooked consequences of filing a lawsuit, from hidden costs to litigation fatigue and unexpected counterclaims. Tune in to learn why the best litigation strategy may be never needing one, and the proactive legal steps you can take to avoid the courtroom.Watch full episodes of our podcast on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@byrdadattoStay connected for the latest business and health care legal updates:WebsiteFacebookInstagramLinkedIn

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike Spivey hosts Trey Cox, co-chair of Gibson Dunn's global litigation practice group, on his legal career (4:18, 31:27), law school selection (9:20), hiring philosophies (16:42), and advice for aspiring law students and lawyers.Trey and Mike both recommend the book Brain Rules by John Medina, which you can learn more about here.You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode (with timestamps) here.

If you've listened to this show for any length of time, and most likely even if you haven't, you know the US legal system all too often fails domestic abuse survivors, especially women, children, and adolescents. My guest, Professor Dale Margolin Cecka, knows it all too well. Professor Cecka is an advocate for women, children, and teens who have survived domestic abuse. Not only that, but she's also a law professor, former Superior Court senior staff attorney, former Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, and the Director of Albany Law School's Family Violence Litigation Clinic.For this episode, I talked with Professor Cecka about her experience and expertise, and many related topics. I think you'll enjoy this fascinating conversation as much as I did!Links related to this episode:Professor Cecka's recent article in The Imprint: https://imprintnews.org/opinion/new-york-gov-kathy-hochul-can-fix-anonymous-reporting-problem/264606“Inequity in Child Custody Legislation”: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol20/iss1/8/ “Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned”: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications/1425/ USA Today op-ed on the Diddy case: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/06/02/diddy-trial-cassie-macron-slapped-wife-domestic-violence/83924410007/ Cover photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash.Photos related to today's episode can be viewed on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpod You can also follow the podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpodTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@STLCpodMy Linktree is available here: https://linktr.ee/stlcpod Visit the podcast's web page at https://www.sufferthelittlechildrenpod.com. By supporting me on Patreon, you'll also access rewards, including a shout-out by name on the podcast and exclusive rewards. Visit www.patreon.com/STLCpod. You can also support the podcast on www.Ko-Fi.com/STLCpod. **New! Become a member of my YouTube channel for perks, ranging from a shout-out, members-only chat emoji, and loyalty badges to other rewards. Click here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCogRWoIzWMy7TX5PuX18smQ/join Join my Spreaker Supporters' Club: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-children--4232884/support This podcast is researched, written, hosted, edited, and produced by Laine.Music for this episode is licensed from https://audiojungle.net. Subscribe to Suffer the Little Children:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/id1499010711Google Podcasts: https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&apn=com.google.android.music&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/I5mx3lacxpdkhssmk2n22csf32u?t%3DSuffer_the_Little_Children%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/suffer-the-little-children Pandora: https://www.pandora.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/PC:61848?part=PC:61848&corr=podcast_organic_external_site&TID=Brand:POC:PC61848:podcast_organic_external_siteSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0w98Tpd3710BZ0u036T1KEiHeartRadio: https://iheart.com/podcast/77891101/ ...or on your favorite podcast listening platform.If you see something, say something. https://childhelp.org