Podcasts about litigation

7. Guest Kevin Frazier addresses state-level AI regulation, warning against shortsighted laws that limit human agency. He advocates for transparencyand consumer choice over "regulatory capture" that mirrors historical over-litigation in other industries. (7)1968 ISAAC ASSIMOV,AUTHOR I, ROBOT

Skye and I start at 27 mins and Nyyera and I start at 1:00 Join us in Vegas for Podjam 3! Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Skye L. Perryman is a lawyer and the President and CEO of Democracy Forward, a non-partisan, national legal organization that promotes democracy and progress through litigation, regulatory engagement, policy education, and research. Over the course of Ms. Perryman's legal career, which has spanned nearly two decades, she has served in litigation roles at two global law firms, as a general counsel and chief legal officer, and in non-profit organizations. Ms. Perryman has represented clients across a broad range of industries, including in the healthcare, financial services, technology, education, consumer products, and non-profit sectors. Ms. Perryman's work has been recognized widely for its positive impact on people and communities. She has received numerous awards and recognitions for her commitment to public service and her professional work, including being named a Harry S. Truman Scholar (2002), a Baylor Line Foundation Outstanding Young Alumni (2018), a four-time Rising Star in Litigation in Washington, DC, one of the Most Influential People Shaping Policy in Washington, among other recognitions. Ms. Perryman is a frequent guest lecturer and keynote speaker on matters at the intersection of law and policy. Her legal briefs have been cited by the US Supreme Court as well as state supreme courts and her work is frequently covered in outlets such as The New York Times, National Public Radio, NBC News, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Teen Vogue, MSNBC, and CNN. As a founding member of the litigation team at Democracy Forward, Ms. Perryman developed and filed cases challenging unlawful activities pursued by the forty-fifth Presidential administration. All told, Democracy Forward brought more than 100 legal actions against the prior administration for abuses of power, stopping harmful policies and improving the lives of millions. Following the events of January 6, 2021, Democracy Forward expanded the scope and reach of its work to address anti-democratic activity across the nation, including countering the work of far-right legal organizations who are seeking to reverse our nation's progress. It has taken more than 700+ actions and works alongside more than 400+ clients and partners, filing cases across a range of issues, including those that advance reproductive health care, protect the freedom to read, defend civil rights, and preserve crucial checks and balances in our system of government. Under Ms. Perryman's leadership, Democracy Forward has emerged as a leader in unmasking Project 2025 - an effort backed by more than 100 far-right organizations to enable a future anti-democratic presidential administration to take swift action to roll back our rights and freedoms, and hurt the American people. Ms. Perryman grew up in Waco, Texas and is a proud product of K-12 public education. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Philosophy magna cum laude from Baylor University where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and a Juris Doctor with honors from the Georgetown University Law Center where she served as an Editor for the American Criminal Law Review and was an Editor in Chief for the ACLR's Annual Survey on White Collar Crime. Perryman serves on the board of the Interfaith Alliance, the Baylor Line Foundation, and the Atlas Performing Arts Center, among other non-profit charitable organizations. Nayyera Haq is a highly respected communications expert, trusted by global leaders and organizations to elevate their public presence. With a career spanning government, media, and the corporate world, Nayyera has prepared executives, policymakers, and thought leaders for speeches at the United Nations, global leadership conferences, and boardrooms of Fortune 500 companies. Her unique experience as a former White House Senior Director and current global affairs analyst for CNN and MSNBC enables her to offer unparalleled insights into leadership, messaging, and media strategy. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

How is this impacting your wallet? Reaction after synagogues were shot at over the weekend GUESTS: Noah Shack - CEO - Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs Barry Choi - personal finance and travel expert Gavin Tighe - senior partner with Gardiner Roberts LLP and chair of the firm's Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group Nate Erskine-Smith - MP for Beaches-East York

Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are rapidly expanding—with over $63 billion in 2025 volume—and are increasingly likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) by 2026–2027. A legal battle is brewing between platforms arguing they are federally regulated "event contracts" (via CFTC) and state regulators labeling them illegal gambling.Guest: Ryan VanGrack, VP of Legal and Global Head of Litigation at Coinbase00:00 intro00:09 Private Market Exposure00:44 Investing in Polymarket vs Kalshi01:49 USDC Yields & No Fees02:50 A.I. Agents Will Look For Lowest Fees03:50 Chris Christie vs Prediction Markets04:29 Quacks Like Gary Gensler06:09 Sportsbook vs Derivatives07:40 Federal vs State Regulators08:39 Kalshi Contract Outrage12:18 War Markets?13:46 Social Utility16:20 Insider Trading & Manipulation16:57 It's Already Being Policed18:15 New Tax on Losses if States Win20:03 LIGHTNING ROUND#Crypto #Polymarket #Kalshi~Will Prediction Markets Be Banned?

Contested MSHA citations that do not settle proceed to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC). What does a hearing look like? In this episode, Arthur and Chris walk through the hearing process and give insights into how mine operators can best position themselves in case the need for a hearing arises.

Today's podcast begins with our pious host, Mike Slater, urging the audience to "trust God's plan" when listening to commentary about President Donald J. Trump's actions with the U.S. military as they continue their campaigns against the nation of Iran. Following that, Slater speaks to Peter Breen, Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation for Thomas More Society, about recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court related to parental rights as they relate to transgender madness within our schools. Don't miss it! MAGA! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of The International Risk Podcast, Dominic Bowen speaks with Dr Rupert Stuart-Smith about the rapid expansion of climate litigation and what it means for corporate strategy, financial stability, and international risk. The discussion explores how climate lawsuits have evolved from targeted environmental challenges into a structural feature of the climate transition, reshaping legal duties, redistributing financial exposure, and creating new forms of liability for governments, corporations, and financial institutions.The conversation highlights how climate litigation is not confined to fossil fuel producers alone. While major emitters remain central targets, claims are increasingly extending to banks, investors, and companies across the economy whose strategies are misaligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. He explains how advances in attribution science are allowing courts to trace emissions through to specific climate harms, strengthening causal arguments and narrowing the space for uncertainty-based defences. Even where claims are unsuccessful, companies face material consequences through legal costs, reputational damage, investor scrutiny, and heightened disclosure obligations.Find out more about how courts are beginning to accept, in principle, that corporations may bear proportional responsibility for climate impacts, and how this possibility is reshaping risk assessments. The episode examines the implications of cases against companies such as RWE and Shell, as well as emerging litigation targeting financial institutions for the emissions they indirectly finance. It considers whether investors are "flying blind" in the face of evolving liability standards and how fragmented jurisdictional approaches complicate global risk modelling.Dr Rupert Stuart-Smith is Deputy Director of Climate Science and the Law and Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Sustainable Law Programme at the University of Oxford. His research sits at the intersection of climate science, legal accountability, and financial risk. In addition to his academic research, Rupert has advised international legal bodies, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on the role of climate science in judicial decision-making.The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Conducttr offers crisis exercising software for corporates, consultants, humanitarian, and defence & security clients. Visit Conducttr to learn more.Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe's leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe's leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, caTell us what you liked!

On this edition, we open up the docket and get an update on the variety of court cases that impact tax-exempt organizations and their ability to advocate on the issues they care about. And to help with that, we're joined once again by friend of the pod Emma Olson Sharkey from Elias Law Group to help demystify what's happening in the courts and how it might impact you and your work. Attorneys for this episode Brittany Hacker Leonard Tim Mooney Emma Olson Sharkey – Elias Law Group Shownotes 501(c)(4) political activity Freedom Path, Inc. v. IRS  (D.D.C.) Memorial Hermann Accountable Care Organization v. CIR (5th Cir) Administrative law Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) Johnson Amendment and 501(c)(3) partisan activity National Religious Broadcasters v. Long (EDTX) https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/pressreleases/federal-court-decide-legal-settlement-impacting-70-year-old-federal-law-protecting-0   Ballot measure process cases Montana - Kendrick v. Knudsen - https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/proposed-ballot-measure-would-limit-montana-legislature-burdening-direct Arkansas - https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/11/19/judge-issues-injunction-against-arkansas-direct-democracy-laws/ Montana - Ellingson v. State: https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2023-2024/State-Administration-and-Veterans-Affairs/Meetings/Sept.5.24/Tab-11-Admin-Rule-Review-Litigation-Update/September-2024-Litigation-Update.pdf Florida[GU2]  - https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/02/20/federal-ruling-in-florida-ballot-initiative-restriction-challenge-could-have-national-implications/ Oklahoma - McVay et al. v. Cockroft and Drummond: https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/mcvay-v-cockroft Missouri - Missouri et al v. Von Glahn et al: https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/missouri-congressional-redistricting-referendum-challenge/

In this episode of our Litigation Lens podcast series, Shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Sarah Zucco (New York) analyze Dudnauth v. A.B.C. Carpet & Home Inc., a case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving disability discrimination and wage and hour claims under New York state law. Michael and Sarah discuss how the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's discrimination and overtime claims based largely on his own deposition testimony admitting he could not work and did not exceed 40 hours per week, while denying summary judgment on the pay frequency claim due to a genuine dispute over whether he qualified as a “manual worker” entitled to weekly pay. In this episode, the speakers highlight key takeaways for employers on the importance of maintaining payroll records, understanding state-specific wage requirements, and the fact-intensive nature of disability accommodation and exemption analyses.

In this Legend Series episode of The Practice Podcast, Aaron Podhurst shares the defining moments behind a 60+ year career at the highest levels of trial practice.From the Catskills to the CourtroomThe first in his family to attend college, Aaron earned a basketball scholarship to the University of Michigan and later attended Columbia Law School. He chose law because he loved advocacy, persuasion, and the human side of problem-solving. That instinct became the foundation of a nationally respected trial career.The Case That Meant the MostDespite decades of landmark aviation and complex litigation, the most gratifying case of his career was pro bono — helping adoptive parents keep their child after a multi-year legal battle.His takeaway:The cases that stay with you are the ones where you truly change someone's life.Building a National Aviation PracticeA turning point came after the 1972 Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crash in the Everglades. As a young lawyer, Aaron asked for a leadership role in the multidistrict litigation. He was appointed chair — a moment that launched a premier aviation practice.Preparation met opportunity.On Litigation and StressAaron is candid: trial work is not easy.Jurors decide.Judges rule.Outcomes are public.Clients' futures are on the line.If you are not feeling stress, you may not care enough. Litigation demands resilience, but for those wired for it, the rewards are unmatched.Why Pro Bono MattersHe believes pro bono work:Makes you a complete lawyerStrengthens your reputationEarns judicial respectGives young lawyers real courtroom experienceAnd most importantly, it feels right.The Secret to Firm LongevityPodhurst Orsek's success rests on three pillars:Stay independent.Be excellent at a defined specialty.Protect your reputation.Skill matters. So does character.Final WordAaron's message to young lawyers:Do work you believe in.Take calculated risks.Choose your partners wisely, at work and at home.Build a reputation that lasts longer than any single case.This episode is a reminder that longevity in the law is not accidental. It is earned.Streaming on  YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln's Second InauguralOn March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation's constitutional framework.In one of the address's most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation's long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong.Lincoln's remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln's speech emphasized that the war's conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States.The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black.The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors.The committee's inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government's handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019.Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied.Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein's former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein's network and the government's response to his crimes.Goldman's Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UKThe Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders.The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms' security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates.Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power.The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny.BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump's battle with law firmsA trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications.The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow's milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts.Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself.Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed.The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC.Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | ReutersIn this week's column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven.The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California's approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap.In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn't benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those taxpayers, changing the label on a vehicle tax doesn't meaningfully change their federal tax bill. Even for many itemizers, the savings would likely be small.The proposal mainly helps a narrow band of higher-earning taxpayers—people with substantial state and property taxes who are still just below the federal SALT cap. For them, a vehicle purchase could generate a deductible amount that meaningfully lowers their federal tax liability. But that advantage grows with the price of the car and the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which means the largest benefits flow to relatively affluent households.If the goal is truly middle-class relief, a more direct approach would likely work better. For example, a refundable state tax credit tied to vehicle purchases could help working families without depending on federal deduction rules or itemization. Another long-term option would be shifting some of California's tax burden from individuals to businesses, since certain business-level taxes remain deductible federally.California's proposal shows the creativity that the SALT deduction cap has sparked among state policymakers. The real question, however, is whether clever tax reclassification is the right tool—or whether more straightforward policies aimed directly at middle-income taxpayers would produce fairer and more predictable results.California SALT Deduction Proposal Is More Clever Than Helpful This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Trending Now: An IP Podcast, Courtney Reigel and Amy Pruett explore the evolving intersection of art and artificial intelligence (AI), examining the latest litigation and settlement trends affecting artists and creators. From AI-generated artwork to questions about copyright, intellectual property, and creator rights, we break down the legal challenges and opportunities shaping the future of the arts. Whether you're an artist, creative professional, tech company, or legal advisor, this episode provides practical insights into how AI is transforming art, ownership, and the courts. Key topics include: •    Recent AI and art lawsuits and their implications •    How settlements are shaping creator rights in the AI era •    Intellectual property considerations for artists and businesses using AI tools •    Strategies for navigating AI-driven legal disputes Tune in to understand what AI-generated art means for artists, platforms, and businesses, and stay ahead of the trends in this fast-changing space.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is taking the world by storm, promising to enhance efficiency and revolutionize business. Corporations are embracing the technology, with AI market size expected to reach $1 trillion by 2030. But companies that deploy AI for their operations are confronting risks involving litigation, privacy, and ethics. And regulators are struggling to keep pace with its rapid deployment, leading some to fear AI is out of control — that it could spawn a surveillance state and render portions of the workforce obsolete.  How can businesses best employ AI efficiently? What are its superpowers — and potential perils? And what's in store for the future of AI technology?Join The Sidley Podcast host and Sidley partner, Sam Gandhi, as he speaks with one of the firm's thought leaders on these issues — Dave Gordon, a member of the firm's Executive Committee, the co-leader of the firm's Commercial Litigation and Disputes practice, the head of the Litigation group in the firm's Chicago office, and the co-chair of the firm's Artificial Intelligence Council. Together, they discuss who is using AI and why, the risks and best practices to deployment, and what to expect in the ever-changing legal and regulatory landscape. 

In this podcast, Jeff discusses the attack on the Iranian terror regime by the U.S. and Israel — and the impact on the Middle East and the world. Will loud MAGA voices continue to do all they can to stop the fall of the mullahs of Iran? Or will they put aside their anti-semitism for the sake of America and the free world?

In this episode, Karishma interviews Tim, a patent litigator at Mintz, discussing his journey from a potential medical career to law, the skills gained in law school, and the intersection of biotechnology and law. Tim shares insights on his current role, the importance of scientific knowledge in patent law, and the challenges of explaining complex scientific concepts in legal contexts. He also offers advice for aspiring lawyers and reflects on the future of biotech and patent law in the LA ecosystem. Follow our Instagram @insidebiotech for updates about episodes and upcoming guests!To learn more about BCLA's events and consulting visit our website.Follow BCLA on LinkedIn

Mike Bassett, Trial Lawyer and Managing Partner at The Bassett Firm, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to commemorate the 300th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast and discuss a wide range of topics about managing litigation and how things have evolved over the years. Mike shares the benefits he and his firm realize from conducting early jury research and how these early focus groups guide discovery and influence mediation. Steve, Bill, and Mike talk about the importance of validity in how jury research is conducted, the impact of confirmation bias on the legal team, and how clients need to view jury research as an investment, not simply an expense. The group also talk about attorney recruitment, attorney retention and the benefits of using Culture Index for hiring and team management. Lastly, they discuss the use of AI in legal and the criticality of briefer and tighter opening statements in today's world of short attention spans.

Part 1 explores how geopolitical divergence and shifting regulatory approaches are reshaping ESG risk in 2026. It highlights a more complex litigation landscape, growing use of novel arguments including attribution science and increasing claims linked to climate impacts, supply chains, human rights and allegations of greenwashing. Recorded as at 30 January.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for March 2, 2026Meeting of 2020 Trump Election Operatives Considers 2026 Litigation Strategies and Declaring a National Emergency to Interfere with the MidtermsOperatives active in the effort to overturn the 2020 election reportedly gathered at a recent summit convened by former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.  Among the topics discussed:  Legal strategies to contest the 2026 midterm election, and a presidential declaration of a national emergency to seize control of federal elections.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:ProPublica - Trump Officials Attended a Summit of Election Deniers Who Want the President to Take Over the Midterms   Washington Post - Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergencyCBS News 'The Takeout' - Can Trump use emergency powers to influence federal elections?The Hill - Trump says he's not considering declaring a national emergency ahead of midterms Washington Watch with Tony Perkins - Cleta Mitchell on Concerns Raised Surrounding President Trump's Executive Order on Voter ID Executive Functions by Bob Bauer - Trump's Coming Confrontation with the Courts Over the Elections  Related ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - Affidavit Used to Obtain the Search Warrant for Fulton County FBI Raid Originated with Trump 2020 Campaign LawyerAmerican Democracy Minute - (2024) Trump ‘Election Integrity' Lawyer Cleta Mitchell Calls for the Firing of All DOJ Voting & Civil Rights Lawyers American Democracy Minute - (2024) Claims of Widespread Voting by Noncitizens Might Be Red Meat for the Base, But It's Complete Nonsense.Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #CletaMitchell #KurtOlsen #ElectionDeniers #TrumpExecutiveOrders

1. Supreme Court Tariff Decision A predicted 5–4 ruling upholding presidential tariff authority was incorrect; the Court ruled 6–3 against the administration’s use of one specific tariff statute (AIPA). Majority held that the statute allowed banning imports but not charging tariffs—a conclusion strongly criticized in the dissents (Kavanaugh, Thomas). Despite the ruling, the impact is expected to be limited, as the President has multiple other statutes still available to impose tariffs. A new 10–15% tariff was quickly announced using alternate legal authority. The administration still retains broad power using: Section 338 (1930 Tariff Act) – allows tariffs up to 50% for discriminatory treatment. Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974) – 15% tariffs for 150 days (renewable). Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974) – addresses unfair foreign trade practices. Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) – tariffs for national‑security threats. Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974) – safeguard tariffs for import surges. Litigation may unfold for years, potentially costing billions over refunded or contested tariffs. China and Democrats were portrayed as celebrating the ruling, implying political dimension rather than policy substance. Administration aims to use tariffs as leverage for better trade deals, not as permanent protectionism. 2. State of the Union (SOTU) Speech Impact Speech viewed as effective, more disciplined, and likely helpful for midterm momentum. Highlighted major administration achievements: Border control and sharp decline in illegal crossings. Crime reductions (e.g., murder and overdose rates reportedly down by ~20%). Economic relief themes like no tax on tips and overtime. Strong emotional moments involving veterans, Olympians, and American heroes created bipartisan resonance. Speaker Johnson and congressional Republicans portrayed as unusually unified. Coordination with the President seen as stronger than in previous cycles. 3. The Olympic Contrast: Alysa Liu vs. Eileen Gu Alysa Liu Daughter of a Chinese refugee who fled Tiananmen Square. Target of CCP intimidation and espionage on U.S. soil. Required 24/7 FBI protection before the Beijing Olympics. Despite pressure, competed for Team USA and won gold. Story framed as patriotic, resilient, and emotionally powerful. Eileen Gu Also U.S.-born with Chinese heritage. Chose to compete for China after being offered substantial financial incentives. Criticism focused on choosing a communist regime over the U.S., though the speakers avoided personal attacks. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join us as we breakdown the disqualifications of several winter Olympians at the 2026 games, due to PFAS. We'll talk about where the PFAS came from, the rules around it, and the testing conducted to determine its source. You can find links to the articles discussed on HRP's PFAS Pulse. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Unpacking the regulatory path forward for prediction markets with Coinbase Litigation Head Ryan VanGrack. Coinbase's VP of Legal and Global Head of Litigation, Ryan VanGrack, joins Jennifer Sanasie and Renato Mariotti to discuss why the company is challenging state regulators to ensure a unified federal framework for prediction markets. He also shares why he believes bipartisan market structure legislation is still on the table despite recent setbacks. - Timestamps: 01:10 - The CFTC's Response to Kalshi's Insider Trading Accusations02:38 - Why Coinbase is Suing the States03:41 - Prediction Markets vs. Sports Betting08:14 - The States Are "Gaslighting" the Public on Prediction Markets11:31 - Is Market Structure Still Possible?15:58 - Addressing Concerns About Coinbase's Role in Stalled Market Structure Legislation - This episode was hosted by Jennifer Sanasie and Renato Mariotti .

In this episode of Privacy Perspectives, Alex Schneider is joined by Whitney Smith, a partner in Kelley Drye's Litigation practice group. Together, they discuss a wave of new privacy litigation related to wiretapping claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA. The speakers cover key takeaways from the cases that have been brought under CIPA, trends in the health privacy litigation space, and the potential effects of pending legislation.

Regulators are no longer asking about AI principles — they want proof. Legal teams must show how their controls work, withstand scrutiny, and protect privilege.In this episode, I speak with Adria Perez about the evolving landscape of AI policy and what it means for corporate compliance. Our conversation focuses on the U.S. Department of Justice's AI Litigation Task Force and the growing expectation that organizations demonstrate real oversight, documented controls, and responsible use of AI. Adria shares practical insight into the challenges and opportunities AI presents for legal departments, as well as how governance frameworks can help companies adopt these tools with confidence.Adria Perez is a partner in Reed Smith's Global Regulatory Enforcement Group and a former member of the Volkswagen AG Independent Compliance Monitor and Auditor team. With deep experience at the intersection of enforcement, compliance, and monitorship expectations, she brings a perspective that in-house counsel and compliance leaders increasingly need as AI oversight rises to the board level.During our discussion, we cover:Artificial intelligence as both a strategic asset and a compliance challengeThe DOJ's AI Litigation Task Force and what it signals for corporate oversightBest practices for responsible AI use, governance, and internal controlsAI's growing role in whistleblower complaints and internal investigationsWorkflow efficiencies and operational advantages AI can deliverProtocols and employee training essential for safe, effective adoptionCommunicating AI initiatives, safeguards, and successes to corporate boardsIf you're responsible for compliance, investigations, or AI governance, this episode offers a clear look at how legal teams can adapt and lead in a rapidly changing environment.Special thanks to Adria Perez for sharing her insights and making the time to join us.Tom HagyHost | The Emerging Litigation Podcast______________________________________ Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Reed Smith partner Anthony Diana sits down with Dera Nevin of FTI Consulting to explore how AI-enabled e-discovery is transforming litigation-and why the best time to adopt these tools is now. From accelerating early case assessment to revolutionizing privilege review workflows, Anthony and Dera break down where generative AI is already delivering real results-not just theoretical possibilities. They discuss how forward-thinking legal teams are training large language models to surface key documents, generate case timelines, and dramatically reduce time-to-knowledge on complex matters.

In the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development and signals the emergence of a new frontier in medical malpractice litigation. At its core are difficult and consequential questions about standards of care, informed consent, particularly for minors undergoing irreversible medical interventions, and the extent to which existing malpractice frameworks are equipped to address these medical practices.This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems.Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation? Featuring: Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending FreedomMark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty(Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire

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.Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.Featuring: Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye InstituteJeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s OfficeMary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationJordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

(0:00) Intro (1:29) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel. (2:15) Start of interview. *Reference to prior episode with Leo Strine (E100) (3:09) The Call of Conscience and The Current Moment (reference to his speech at the Weinberg Center in Oct of 2025) (5:18) Skepticism about Credibility of the Elite Among the Youth (7:02) The Ethical Muscle (8:20) Acknowledging Discrimination (8:56) The Climate Crisis (12:37) Shifts in Delaware Law (13:45) Return to Traditions. "What Delaware has done is return to its traditions that existed the entire time I was a judge." (14:28) The Controlled Company Debate and the MFW standard. (25:00) On the recent pushback against incorporating in Delaware: "I don't minimize the moment" (32:00) Section 220 Books and Records under SB21 (34:20) The statute was amended to provide more predictability. It actually looks like the Model Business Corporation Act. "I think both elements of this statute balance fairness and efficiency in a really good way." (39:54) Activist Judges and Delaware. "This was a nonpartisan initiative to restore confidence in Delaware's corporate law. I have the utmost respect for our judiciary, I'm proud to have been part of it, and I believe they will follow the law." (42:26) Delaware's Competitive Edge (48:25) The Rise of AI Companies (52:16) Energy Demand from AI. From guardrails to "trust us" (58:39) The Urgency of Leadership (1:01:59) Davos looks like a portrait of leadership failure "either eliminate it or make it real." Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Prior to joining WLRK, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.   You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Eric Dyson, Executive Director of 90 North Consulting and one of the retirement industry's more active ERISA expert witnesses, joins the 401(k) Specialist Podcast for a practical conversation on how plan sponsors and advisors can reduce fiduciary risk—and be better prepared if the Department of Labor comes calling.Drawing on his experience testifying in more than a dozen ERISA cases, Dyson shares the most common mistakes he sees in litigation and investigations, why a DOL audit may be a bigger risk than a lawsuit for most plans, and what courts actually expect from fiduciaries. He tackles pressing questions around paying advisors and TPAs with plan assets, properly documenting QDIA selections to secure safe harbor protection, conducting RFPs and benchmarking at “reasonable intervals,” and crafting committee meeting minutes that protect rather than expose.Dyson also provides clear, actionable steps sponsors can take before their next committee meeting to strengthen governance, document prudence, and stay off the litigation radar, and reduce fiduciary risk.EDITOR'S NOTE: This podcast episode is part of our new “Deep Dive” special content package for Q1 2026 titled, “How Not to Get Sued.” You can find additional coverage in the links below, and more focused content will be available in the coming days.SEE ALSO:How Not to Get Sued in 2026: Part 1How Not to Get Sued 2026: Part 2

Last week's Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs didn't declare tariffs unconstitutional.They didn't say the President lacks trade authority.They didn't say Congress delegated too much power.Instead…They said they were “uncomfortable.”And in doing so, they may have quietly replaced constitutional separation of powers with something far more dangerous:

After years of hearing the same opioid presentation from Andrew Kolodny, something changed — kratom suddenly became the “next crisis.”That wasn't random.In this video, I break down:• How mass-tort litigation narratives are built• How experts, media, and parent groups align• How settlement money shapes policy messaging• Why kratom is being framed like opioids were• And who gets harmed when the machine movesWe've seen this before.First tobacco.Then prescription opioids.Then JUUL.Now cannabis and kratom.When lawsuits start shaping medicine, patients become collateral damage.Pain patients were erased the first time.Will it happen again?At The Doctor Patient Forum, we document the harm — because when history asks who knew, there will be a record.

Michelle Belkot reminded fellow Clark County Council members that she is in active litigation as they discussed potential changes to the county's Rules of Procedure, including authority to remove members from boards and direct votes, alongside the reading of an immigration enforcement resolution. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/belkot-reminds-other-clark-county-councilors-that-there-is-active-litigation/ #ClarkCountyCouncil #VancouverWA #MichelleBelkot #CTRAN #InterstateBridge #LightRail #ClarkCountyPolitics

Send a textThis week's topic is about AI and mental health. We'll talk about AI-induced psychosis, recent tragedies, AI-hallucinations and the search for Biscuits continues. Also, trigger warning, we will talk about suicide.One of many iconic quotes from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest that captures this moment in time with AI perfectly:"I been silent so long now it's gonna roar out of me like floodwaters and you think the guy telling this is ranting and raving my God; you think this is too horrible to have really happened, this is too awful to be the truth! But, please. It's still hard for me to have a clear mind thinking on it. But it's the truth even if it didn't happen."                                                                                                                                                                  - Chief BromdenKaren Hao, journalist for More Perfect Union gets dozens of emails a week on people claiming to have broken AI free of its guardrails - that they have proof of sentience. She tracked down one man, a musician and video producer in California, that describes his journey into AI-induced psychosis... What to Read, Watch, or Listen to NEXTForever links to keep on every episode:80,000 HoursCenter for Humane TechnologiesThe producer behind the intro music FerdinichtfernandoShow Specific Resources:The producer behind the intro music FerdinichtfernandoThe Emerging Problem of "AI Psychosis," Marlynn Wei M.D., J.D., Psychology TodayAI Psychosis - with reporter, Karen Hao, YouTubeA Prominent OpenAI Investor Appears to Be Suffering a ChatGPT-Related Mental Health Crisis, His Peers Say, Joe Wilkens, FuturismOne Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey, Famous Quotes Explained, sparknotes Anxious about AI? Take two minutes to contact your local politician and ask them to tap the brakes on this technology. Still worried? Contact one of the orgs below and get involved. But for today, hug your kid, cook food and really breathe in deep as it simmers, walk in nature, brush a cat, donate to the food bank, brew a cup of tea, or draw a five-minute portrait of your dog. Hero Organizations: 80,000 Hours Center for Humane Technologies Curious Cat Crew on Socials:Curious Cat on Twitter (X)Curious Cat on InstagramCurious Cat on TikTok

Patent attorney and former chemist Josh Goldberg joins me to unpack how intellectual property strategy determines whether innovation gets funded—or quietly dies.Most startup conversations focus on product, growth, and pitch decks. This episode focuses on what founders often ignore until it's too late: protection. Josh shares why he left drug formulation chemistry to go to law school, and how he now helps innovators—particularly in green tech and scientific industries—turn inventions into defensible assets.We walk through the uncomfortable reality that patents don't let you do anything. They let you stop others. That negative right, however, is often the very thing investors care about most.From first-to-file rules and accidental public disclosures to the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights, this episode breaks down how smart founders think about timing, leverage, and risk before litigation ever enters the picture.This isn't a conversation about legal theory.It's about strategic sequencing.Because innovation without protection doesn't attract capital. It attracts competition.TL;DR* In green tech and scientific startups, patents often are the product* Investors evaluate risk before they evaluate brilliance* Publishing before filing can permanently destroy international patent rights* The U.S. has a one-year grace period; most other countries do not* Patents protect inventions; trademarks protect brands; copyrights protect creative works* Litigation is expensive—early strategy prevents most of it* Founders need business planning as much as scientific expertise* IP strategy should be integrated into the business plan from day oneMemorable Lines* “Having a patent doesn't let you do something—it lets you stop someone else.”* “It's a race to the patent office.”* “If you don't know where you're going, wherever you wind up is going to be fine.”* “Innovation without protection makes funding harder, not easier.”* “The earlier I get involved, the fewer mistakes we have to untangle.”GuestJosh Goldberg — Patent attorney and former chemistIntellectual property strategist focused on green technology, scientific innovation, and helping startups build defensible patent portfolios before going to market.

The City Bar's Presidential Task Force on AI and Digital Technologies hosts today's podcast on President Trump's:  Winning the Race, America's AI Action Plan. Task Force co-chair Jerome Walker is joined by task force members Matthew Bacal (Davis Polk), Azish Filabi (American College of Financial Services), Robert Mahari (Stanford Codex), and Evan Abrams (Steptoe), to review the plan's three pillars and key action steps. Pillar One (“Accelerate AI Innovation”) is described as largely deregulatory, including agency review of rules and certain FTC/FCC actions, with targeted concerns such as ideological bias and synthetic media in the legal system, plus investments in open-source/open-weight models, data, interpretability, evaluations, and government/DoD adoption. Pillar Two (“Build American AI Infrastructure”) focuses on the physical side of AI—permitting for data centers and fabs, energy and grid expansion, semiconductors, water for cooling, workforce training, cybersecurity, and “security by design,” while anticipating trade-offs and litigation. Pillar Three (“Lead in International AI Diplomacy and Security”) balances support for exporting US “full stack” AI with tighter national security controls, including stronger export-control enforcement and participation in international bodies primarily to counter China. The conversation closes with suggestions for improving the plan by strengthening trust, safety/rights considerations, and maintaining flexibility as AI capabilities evolve. If you are interested in learning more about emerging AI developments and policy, join us for the 2026 Artificial Intelligence Conference on June 18 to hear from industry experts and connect with leading legal professionals across the field. 00:00 Trump's 2025 AI Action Plan: Big Goals, Short Document, 3 Pillars 03:23 Pillar One Preview: 15 Action Steps to ‘Accelerate AI Innovation' 09:16 Meet the Panel + Setting Up the Pillar One Deep Dive 11:21 Pillar One Explained: Deregulation, Free Speech, Data Sharing, Evaluations, and Trust 18:33 Key Takeaways for Stakeholders: Business, Finance, Civil Society, and Tech 23:57 Which Pillar One Steps Matter Most? Sequencing, Competitiveness, and Data Access 27:52 Pillar Two: The Physical Side of AI—Energy, Chips, Data Centers 36:32 Critical Infrastructure Security: Physical Risks, Cyber Threats & ‘Security by Design' 37:14 Data Poisoning Explained: How Training Data Can Be Manipulated at Scale 38:00 Workforce Training at Scale: From Trades to Semiconductor Talent Pipelines 38:52 Wrapping Pillar Two: China Competition, Speeding Projects, and Ranking Priorities 40:34 What Lawyers & Judges Need to Know About Pillar Two (Red Tape, Legal Tech, Litigation) 45:30 Pillar Three Overview: Balancing Global AI Leadership with National Security Controls 50:05 Pillar Three Priorities by Industry: Export Controls, Frontier Evaluations & Data Center Risk 58:56 Why Engage International AI Bodies? Countering China and Filling the Leadership Vacuum 01:03:20 Trump vs. Biden Narratives: Competition vs. Safety—What Should Change in the Plan? 01:07:38 Panel Advice to Improve the Action Plan: Rights Framework, Nimble Policy, Safety & Research Funding

Join us for a webinar examining the Third Circuit’s ongoing review of a decision holding that publishing ASTM standards—which are funded by licenses to use the standards—is a noninfringing fair use under US copyright law. This session will present arguments from both sides, analyzing the tension between a private entity’s right to protect its investments in developing copyrighted technical standards, and the public’s right to access the laws which incorporate those standards. With the Third Circuit poised to issue a decision in ASTM v. UpCodes soon, this webinar aims to provide informative insight on the regulatory and intellectual property policies that will soon be implicated. Featuring: Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Doug Marcello, Shareholder with Saxton & Stump and an expert in trucking litigation, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to give a state of the union on litigation in the transportation and trucking space. Doug shares what he sees as the primary issues in trucking litigation today and Bill and Doug discuss suggestions on what insurance companies and defense attorneys should do differently in managing their litigation. Doug shoots down common objections the defense side often bring up related to being proactive. He describes the benefits of conducting early jury research and talks about situations where it makes sense to proactively sue the plaintiff for an accident before they can file suit against the defendant. Bill and Doug also discuss the driver shortage challenge, managing immigrant drivers, technology, AI, and more.

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Jonah Oliver. Speakers: John Corrie (Partner), Ceri Morgan (Knowledge Counsel), Jonah Oliver (Associate). You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links: High Court rejects attempt by Noteholders to remove and replace Trustee against wishes of Issuer https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/high-court-rejects-attempt-by-noteholders-to-remove-and-replace-trustee-against-wishes-of-issuer High Court finds UK broker did not breach contract by refusing to return funds to client subject to US sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/high-court-finds-uk-broker-did-not-breach-contract-by-refusing-to-return-funds-to-client-subject-to-us-sanctions High Court strikes out illegality defence premised on alleged breaches of US sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/high-court-strikes-out-illegality-defence-premised-on-alleged-breaches-of-us-sanctions High Court applies "scope of duty" principle to limit damages claimed for breach of so-called Quincecare duty https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/high-court-applies-scope-of-duty-principle-to-limit-damages-claimed Court of Appeal recognises "onerous clause doctrine" where terms are incorporated by reference https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/court-of-appeal-recognises-onerous-clause-doctrine-where-terms-are-incorporated-by-reference Supreme Court reshapes UK competition class actions landscape https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/supreme-court-reshapes-uk-competition-class-actions-landscape Government to legislate for enforceability of litigation funding agreements based on a share of damages https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/government-to-legislate-for-enforceability-of-litigation-funding-agreements-based-on-a-share-of-damages Banking Litigation Yearbook and broader Disputes Yearbook for 2025 https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/banking-litigation-yearbook-and-broader-disputes-yearbook-for-2025 2026 Global FSR Outlook: The Human Element | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | Global law firm https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/2026-global-fsr-outlook-the-human-element

Corporate crime cases in Latin America - why are they leading the field? If it's interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

Growth may be booming across Georgia, yet getting new housing approved often feels like running an obstacle course designed by politics, not policy. Simon Bloom, founding partner of Bloom Parham LLP, joins Host Carol Morgan on the Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio podcast to pull back the curtain on the zoning battles shaping what gets built, where and at what cost. During this episode on “Unbridled Politics,” he will discuss the political and procedural challenges shaping zoning and land use in Georgia. Drawing on decades of experience representing builders and developers, he explains why projects often get caught in red tape, why build-to-rent (BTR) housing is targeted and how Georgia's fragmented local government contributes to inefficiency and higher housing costs. How Politics and Public Input Affect Development Bloom emphasized that zoning decisions in Georgia are driven less by technical merit than by politics: “If a politician or public official wants your project, it’s going to go forward,” said Bloom. “And if he or she doesn’t, it isn’t. The merits sometimes get lost in just a matter of pure politics.” Developers face a range of hurdles, from rezoning denials to conditional-use permits and administrative slowdowns. Routine actions, such as delaying final plats or withholding building permits, can derail projects entirely. Litigation is sometimes necessary, not as a first resort, but to ensure local governments follow proper procedures. Public opposition adds another layer of complexity. Organized neighborhood groups and homeowners now have unprecedented access to local meetings through streaming platforms and social media. While this transparency increases accountability, it can also make officials more cautious, further complicating development efforts. Why Build-to-Rent Projects Face Extra Hurdles Build-to-rent (BTR) projects face particular scrutiny, even as the demand for affordable rental housing continues to grow. “The cities and counties that say they need affordable housing are doing everything in their power to make it unaffordable and causing gentrification,” said Bloom. “They are driving the folks that they want to be living in their communities out into ‘the sticks.'” Part of the paradox lies in administrative inefficiencies and local mandates that increase cost and complexity. For example, some counties require side-entry garages in high-density developments—a design choice that increases lot sizes and, in turn, raises prices for buyers and renters. Add to that the need for detailed engineering studies, repeated public hearings and permit fees, and BTR builders and developers face substantial “chase costs” long before construction begins. Legislative solutions to streamline zoning and clarify local requirements have progressed slowly. Efforts to limit local control over architectural standards or to prevent bans on BTR have made modest gains. State lawmakers often consider input from local governments, which influences the pace and scope of reforms. Meanwhile, impact fees—sometimes adding thousands of dollars to individual projects—remain a factor that can increase costs and create differences across communities. On a larger scale, Bloom identifies Georgia's large number of local governments as a source of inefficiency. The state has 159 counties and 500 cities, each with separate planning departments, zoning boards and codes. This patchwork of rules forces engineers, lawyers and developers to navigate vastly different requirements across municipalities, slowing housing production and driving up costs. Navigating the Zoning Landscape Bloom encourages builders and developers to engage early with district commissioners or council members and maintain transparent communication with neighbors and planning staff. Understanding how “district-friendly” voting works, where council members often follow the lead of their district commissioner, can help projects move forward more efficiently. Bloom said, “Without your district commissioner championing your rezoning, your chances of success are much lower.” Tune in to the full episode to hear Simon Bloom discuss how politics and local regulations shape Georgia housing zoning and to learn what builders and developers can do to navigate these challenges. Learn more about Bloom Parham LLP at https://BloomParham.com. About Bloom Parham LLP Bloom Parham provides business owners with the litigation and counsel needed to succeed in real estate and related business disputes, including property development, leasing and commercial transactions. Founded in 2007, the firm delivers high-quality legal support with the full range of services clients expect from a large firm, but in the accessible, personalized environment of a boutique practice. Clients build long-term relationships with trusted advisors who understand both their real estate ventures and unique legal challenges. With a commitment to exceptional results and a supportive workplace, Bloom Parham empowers clients while maintaining a strong presence in the community. Podcast Thanks Thank you to Denim Marketing for sponsoring Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio. Known as a trendsetter, Denim Marketing has been blogging since 2006 and podcasting since 2011. Contact them when you need quality, original content for social media, public relations, blogging, email marketing and promotions. A comfortable fit for companies of all shapes and sizes, Denim Marketing understands marketing strategies are not one-size-fits-all. The agency works with your company to create a perfectly tailored marketing strategy that will suit your needs and niche. Try Denim Marketing on for size by calling 770-383-3360 or by visiting www.DenimMarketing.com. About Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio, presented by Denim Marketing, highlights the movers and shakers in the Atlanta real estate industry – the home builders, developers, Realtors and suppliers working to provide the American dream for Atlantans. For more information on how you can be featured as a guest, contact Denim Marketing at 770-383-3360 or fill out the Atlanta Real Estate Forum contact form. Subscribe to the Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio podcast on iTunes, and if you like this week's show, be sure to rate it. Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio was recently honored on FeedSpot's Top 100 Atlanta Podcasts, ranking 16th overall and number one out of all ranked real estate podcasts. The post Simon Bloom: Unpacking Georgia Zoning Politics appeared first on Atlanta Real Estate Forum.

Send a textIf you're trying to grow your practice but still marketing yourself as “I do everything,” this episode is for you.  Sylvia Garibaldi sits down with veteran family lawyer Steve Benmor to discuss how he successfully shifted his practice from litigation to mediation. You'll hear how niche positioning builds authority, why generalists often get overlooked, and how reputation, visibility, and specialization work together to drive referrals. Steve also shares how shifting from litigation to mediation reshaped not just his practice model—but his brand—and why becoming known for something specific is what ultimately gets you the call! He also discusses founding the Divorce Coaches Association of Ontario and how collaborating with divorce coaches strengthens outcomes for families — and referrals for professionals.What you'll learn:03:48 Steve's Journey from Litigation to Mediation07:42 The Adversarial vs. Mediation Model11:18 Marketing Mediation and Arbitration20:04 Building a Reputation and Expertise25:28 Identifying Your Ideal Client32:13 Referral Partnerships and Marketing Strategies37:47 The Role of Divorce Coaches40:39 Creating the Divorce Coaches Association of OntarioResources:Feeling stuck about how to grow your practice, book a free strategy call here.Learn more about Steve Benmor at Benmor Family Law Group:https://benmor.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/benmorfamilylawgroup/Resources Library: https://benmor.com/our-library/ Learn more about Divorce Coaches of Ontario (DCAO):https://dcao.ca/Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts"Love listening and learning from the Serve First, Sell Later Marketing Podcast” If that sounds like you, please consider rating and reviewing my show! This helps me support more people -- just like you. Click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Want more insights like this? Sign up for our newsletter. Sign up for our free LinkedIn newsletter on marketing your professional practice Connect with me on linkedin Join our online community Subscribe to my youtube channel

In this episode, Sam Ashoo, MD interviews Jeff Willis, MD on the topic of pre-litigation review, being a medical expert, and common pitfalls leading to medical malpractice cases. 0:15 Introduction0:51 Guest Introduction1:20 Jeff's Background2:00 Current Work3:37 How He Got Started6:57 Pre-Litigation vs. Expert Witness8:01 Four Components of Malpractice Cases13:55 Case Review Statistics17:11 When Cases Get Filed18:58 Common Patterns in Cases19:55 Documentation Best Practices22:06 Shift Handoff Problems25:56 Bounce Backs27:25 Medical Record Volume30:00 Audit Trails32:53 Communication with Consultants41:35 Conflicting Documentation43:46 Getting Started in This Work47:37 ClosingEmergency Medicine Residents, get your free subscription by writing resident@ebmedicine.net

Pesticide Laws and Litigation 2025 Kansas Wildfire Awareness Week Leaky Gut in Cattle   00:01:05 – Pesticide Laws and Litigation: Roger McEowen, K-State and Washburn law professor, starts off the show as he explains pesticide shield laws and what decision we will get in 2026. Pesticide "Shield" Laws Roger on AgManager.info   00:12:05 – 2025 Kansas Wildfire Awareness Week: Continuing the show is Kansas Forest Service's fire prevention specialist, Shawna Hartman, as she discusses Kansas Wildfire Awareness Week and how people can help reduce wildfire risks. KansasForests.org   00:23:05 – Leaky Gut in Cattle: Part of a Beef Cattle Institute Cattle Chat podcast ends the show as Brad White, Bob Larson, Phillip Lancaster, Scott Fritz and Liliana Rivas chat about leaky gut and what causes it  BCI Cattle Chat Podcast Bovine Science with BCI Podcast Email BCI at bci@ksu.edu     Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan. For more information, visit www.ksre.ksu.edu. K-State Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

A federal jury in Phoenix ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to passenger Jaylen Dean after she was raped by an Uber driver in November 2023. This landmark verdict represents the first time Uber has been found liable in a sexual assault case, potentially affecting over 3,000 pending lawsuits against the rideshare company. The jury rejected Uber's longstanding defense that drivers are independent contractors rather than employees, establishing crucial legal precedent for future cases.Court records reveal that between 2017 and 2022, Uber received reports of sexual assault or misconduct approximately every 8 minutes in the United States. That amounts to at least seven reports per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These numbers are widely believed to be dramatically underreported due to shame, fear, and victims' belief that nothing will be done.Evidence presented during the trial showed that Uber's internal systems flagged Jaylen Dean's ride as high risk for a serious safety incident moments before pickup, yet the company chose not to warn her, with executives testifying it would have been "impractical" to do so. This revelation undermines Uber's public claims about prioritizing rider safety above all else.The case highlights systemic failures in rideshare safety protocols and raises questions about liability when companies classify workers as independent contractors while simultaneously monitoring risk levels. Uber spokesperson Matt Colin stated the verdict "affirms that Uber acted responsibly" while simultaneously announcing plans to appeal. The plaintiff's attorneys had requested $144 million in damages. Uber maintains that 99.9% of rides occur without incident, though critics argue this statistic minimizes thousands of annual assault victims. The legal battle continues as rideshare companies face increasing scrutiny over sexual violence during rides. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Meal Culpa welcomes to the show Michael's old friend and former lawyer, Danya Perry. Danya is a founding partner at Perry Guha LLP. She is a nationally recognized white-collar criminal defense attorney and commercial litigator. Danya is equally gifted at litigating high-profile matters in court and in the press as she is at navigating backchannels to obtain quiet victories for her clients. Danya has represented corporations and individuals from every walk of life. And her criminal defense practice includes representing clients in cases involving everything from fraud to sexual assault of both men and women. Prior to founding Perry Guha with Samidh Guha in 2019, Danya spent five years as the Chief of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel at MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated. From 2002 to 2013, Danya served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Today she is a regular media commentator, on MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. She's also written a number of op-eds ...

This week on the Justice Team Podcast, Brandon Simon & Sevy Fisher are here to lay out best practices for litigation! Join them to hear about the impact of developing a relationship with opposing counsel, how to pick your battles in trial - and most importantly, why you NEED to hit the golf course every once in a while! If you enjoy this video, like, subscribe, and share with a friend! Justice HQ community subscriptions are open to all starting at $20 a month. Go to www.justicehq.com or download the mobile app today! Attorney Share lets you track your co-counsel cases with automations, and turn cases you can't take into revenue for your firm with the public marketplace. You can sign up now for a free account at www.attorneyshare.com. Have a legal need or question? Call our law firm, the Justice Team at 844-THE-TEAM, or visit justiceteam.com!

In this episode of our Litigation Lens podcast series, shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Heather Ptasznik (Detroit (Metro)) discuss a recent Sixth Circuit decision affirming a jury verdict for an employee on ADA disability discrimination and retaliation claims based on night blindness. The speakers review how this ruling reinforces that night blindness can qualify as an ADA-protected disability, with practical takeaways for employers on timing, documentation, and recognizing accommodation requests.

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.