Podcasts about litigation

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.

In this episode we cover: Hasbro shareholder lawsuit, gamer audience retention, High Guard failed release, YouTube not monetizing AI channels, and NBA 2K update.   Please remember to rate the show and leave a comment! DeQuan - @powrdragn Brian - @brianpsionic Color of Magic Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ColorofMagic Website: https://www.colorofmtg.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ColorofMTG Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colorofmtg

In this episode of the Translation Company Talk, we speak with Carmen Hiers, Founder of TransForma Translation Services, about the often-overlooked role translation plays in cross-border litigation. Drawing on nearly two decades of experience working with law firms, Carmen explains where translation becomes legally critical, why courts require certificates of accuracy rather than “certified translators,” and how misunderstandings around translation can create serious legal risk. We also explore how law firms can better plan for multilingual litigation, manage high-volume document workflows under tight deadlines, and evaluate whether a language service provider is equipped to handle complex, regulated cases. The conversation examines the real impact of AI in legal translation, where automation helps, and where human accountability remains non-negotiable, offering practical guidance for litigators who want to turn translation from a last-minute headache into a strategic advantage. language service provider is equipped to handle complex, regulated cases. The conversation examines the real impact of AI in legal translation, where automation helps, and where human accountability remains non-negotiable, offering practical guidance for litigators who want to turn translation from a last-minute headache into a strategic advantage.

Nathania Reyes litigates commercial disputes on behalf of financial services organizations like banks. Nathania recounts her journey from uncertain law student to finding her place in civil litigation. She describes her diverse experiences, including immigration and in-house internships, a judicial clerkship, and her transition to private practice. She emphasizes the importance of work-life balance at her current firm, how the Hispanic Bar Association has shaped her career to date, and how she's expanding her expertise in various commercial litigation areas. Nathania touches on networking and business development, highlighting the value of persistence in the face of rejection. Nathania is a 2017 graduate of Rutgers University School of Law.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Colorado Law SchoolLearn more about Colorado LawLoyola Law SchoolLearn more about Loyola Law SchoolAccess LawHub today!

Conner is a Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center graduate and currently works as a Litigation and Enforcement Associate at Ropes & Gray. Conner's journey to Law School and the Law is a story of a desire to help others, make a bit more money, and get the experience to work in the greatest city in the world. In this episode, Conner and I discussed his reasons to go to Law School, growing up on Long Island (fellow Long Islanders), his unique experience as part of the part-time evening program, and his 1L experience. As well, Conner spoke about his day-to-day life as a Litigation associate in BigLaw, dispelling some BigLaw myths, and his exceptional experience thus far. All in all, Conner preaches the importance of having a schedule, staying organized, and executing at every step of the way! Conner's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/conner-purcell-790193150Be sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - Empowers your teaching and training with AI that strengthens learning, protects integrity, and proves authentic understanding, for students and professionals alike, with CICERO. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 22-year-old superstar, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110, you get the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10, you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

Recent federal prosecutions have renewed attention on the administration and future of the federal death penalty. This panel brings together experienced capital litigators to examine the evolving legal, institutional, and practical landscape facing federal practitioners.Panelists will address issues including the use of commutations and clemency, charging and authorization protocols in capital cases, litigation strategies unique to federal death-eligible prosecutions, and the interaction between federal and state capital regimes. The discussion will situate current high-profile cases within broader doctrinal and policy trends, assessing how differing approaches across recent administrations have shaped prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, and judicial oversight in capital litigation.The panel will also provide forward-looking perspectives on where federal death penalty practice may be headed, including implications for future administrations and for capital litigation nationwide.Featuring:Prof. David I. Bruck, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Washington and Lee University School of LawSteve Mellin, Retired Assistant United States AttorneyJohnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft(Moderator) James M. Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

In Barrett v. United States, the Court was asked to consider the relationship between two provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act and whether a single act that violated both provisions could yield two convictions. The Court held the answer was "no", with a majority of the Court holding that Congress did not "clearly authorize" two convictions stemming from a single act.Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring: William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received within two weeks of the election.Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom

Titanic Tuesday with Bruce Ash today! Captain Robert Wells talking the 2026 US Defense Strategy. Goldwater's Jon Riches VP of Litigation updates on some of their top cases PLUS AZ Police Association condemns Kris Mayes, Cost of Living in CA, and the elected who lie about it. Only on the Live The Dream Media Network.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Episode 253 :     Intro:       Welcome to the newest episode of Pi Perspectives. On today's episode, Matt welcomes Judie Saunders from Ask, LLP. Judie has made a career out of representing individuals that have been a victim of sex crimes. There is some real synergy between an investigator and a sexual assault attorney. This conversation brings attention to sex traffic and assault awareness month. Please welcome Judie Saunders and your host, NY Private eye, Matt Spaier  Links:      Matt's email: MatthewS@Satellitepi.com   Linkedin: Matthew Spaier       www.investigators-toolbox.com   Judie on Linkedin: Judie Suanders https://askllp.com/attorneys/judie-a-saunders/
 PI-Perspectives Youtube link:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYB3MaUg8k5w3k7UuvT6s0g Sponsors:     https://piinstitute.com/ https://researchfpr.com/ https://orep.org/ PI Survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YDCSVWS FBI Tip Line https://tips.fbi.gov/home https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/about - (212) 384-1000

Can you copyright a horoscope, enhance a century-old tarot deck and claim protection, or assign your stage name and lose it in court? We open the year by charting the legal sky where creativity, belief, and branding intersect—and sometimes collide. From a syndicated astrologer's claim that near-identical forecasts kept running without a license, to a software company's short-lived effort to assert control over historical time zone data, we unpack the crucial line between ideas and expression, facts and creativity, public domain and protectable derivative work.We also step into the studio with the icons. The Walter Mercado saga reveals how a personal brand can be transformed into a trademark owned by someone else, with lasting consequences for the artist behind it. Along the way, we explore what separates simple restoration from original creativity in tarot publishing, why databases of raw facts remain free for all, and how small wording choices in daily horoscopes can carry real legal weight. The thread tying it all together: the cosmos is shared; the way we package it is not.Expect practical takeaways for creators, publishers, and entrepreneurs: register original writing, document design decisions, start from public-domain sources rather than competitors' upgrades, and read every clause before assigning names, logos, or likenesses. If you're building an astrology app, launching a zodiac product line, or reviving classic esoteric art, this deep dive will help you navigate trademarks, copyrights, and contracts without dimming your creative light.Enjoy the episode? Follow the show, share it with a friend who loves law or the stars, and leave a quick review to help others find us. What boundary do you think should exist between shared culture and private ownership? Tell us—your take might shape a future episode.Send us a textCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

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.

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.

I stumbled on this old interview and it brought me to tears. It was a 2020 spontaneous interview of me by Peirce Redmond Porkins Policy Radio. You can hear behind the scenes info about Steven Hoffenbergs plan to use legal Judo to get US Virgin Islands to go after Epsteins Estate. This was BEFORE USVI went after the Trust over the tax fraud and started all the litigation. It confirms what I've always hinted that it was Steven Hoffenberg that initiated all that litigation. You can also hear and feel my personal excitement because Hoffenberg was retaining me to help with the VI and I had hopes we could get a piece of the $600 million. Everything you hear in this interview was before the news reports, before Virgin Islands started suing Epstein before the settlements, before the tax settlement. We were discussing the fact that the DNA research stuff was a scam and a fraud while people today still think it's real. So first I made a commentary then I play the Redmond interview from 2020.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

In a bid for government transparency, the Goldwater Institute is now asking the federal court judge to allow Maricopa taxpayers to see how their money is being spent. We talked to the VP of their litigation team about the case. 

In this episode, host Gary interviews Ariana Tadler, a renowned lawyer and leader, about finding fulfillment and balance in the legal profession. Ariana shares insights from her 33-year career, discussing leadership, the impact of technology, and the importance of rituals for well-being. She emphasizes compassion, candor, and adaptability, especially for younger lawyers navigating blurred work-life boundaries. The conversation highlights practical strategies for managing stress, setting boundaries, and leading with empathy. Ariana and Gary encourage legal professionals to align their careers with personal values, prioritize presence, and pursue joy and purpose both in and out of the office.Ariana is the founding partner of Tadler Law LLP, a WBENC-certified, women-owned boutique law firm and Of Counsel to Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. With 33 years' experience advocating for consumers, employees, investors, and businesses through negotiation, arbitration, and litigation, Ariana is one of our nation's leading women lawyers. Ranked by Chambers and Partners, Ariana is also a global ”STAR” in e-Discovery (the use of data for litigation) – she is the first woman to receive this distinction and one of only three people ever to have achieved this distinction.Beyond the courtroom, Ariana is the founder of Ariana Speaks LLC, a thought leadership platform where she shares her voice as an author, entrepreneur, emcee, and keynote speaker. Drawing from decades of real-world experience, she speaks powerfully on leadership, resilience, innovation, and what it takes to thrive in today's fast-moving world.Her message resonates deeply with Millennials, Gen Z, and women of all ages—those seeking to confidently and joyfully design a life that is both highly effective and deeply fulfilling. A proud member of National Speakers Association's New York City Chapter, Ariana speaks nationwide about resilience and grit; and work-life integration, built on her curated formula for living a happy, highly effective life. Her mission? To empower and mentor the next generation of leaders—giving them tools not just to succeed, but to lead boldly and live fully.Optimizing Life & Career Choices (00:02:12)Launching a Boutique Firm: Lessons in Leadership (00:05:13) E-Discovery and Star Distinction Explained (00:07:37) The Human Edge in a Tech-Driven Legal World (00:09:29) Listening as a Core Legal Skill (00:11:43) Risk, Litigation, and Core Values (00:13:54) Leading with Candor & Difficult Conversations (00:15:09) Learning from Junior Team Members (00:17:40) Flex and Pivot: Adapting to Change in Law (00:19:16) Gen Z, Millennials, and Evolving Legal Culture (00:21:57) Boundaries, Joy, and Work-Life Balance (00:23:49) Rituals for Happiness and Success (00:24:49) Presence and Avoiding Burnout (00:26:55) Personal Story: The Cost of Not Being Present (00:27:35) Non-Negotiable Rituals for Wellbeing (00:29:39) Transition Rituals and Sleep (00:34:00) Ariana Speaks: Mentoring and Impact (00:35:35) The Power of Coaching and Mentorship (00:38:22) Empowering the Next Generation (00:41:44)You can find The Free Lawyer Assessment here- https://www.garymiles.net/the-free-lawyer-assessmentWould you like to learn what it looks like to become a truly Free Lawyer? You can schedule a complimentary call here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-callWould you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free

Professor Kim Scheppele has spent much of her career watching democracies rise and fall. She went to Hungary in the early 1990s expecting to study democratic optimism after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Instead, decades later, she found herself documenting how constitutional democracy can be dismantled from the inside out.That experience frames a wide-ranging conversation on the latest episode of Stanford Legal, where host Professor Pam Karlan speaks with Scheppele, the Lawrence S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton and a visiting professor at Stanford Law School, about how democracies crumble, and why the United States is not exempt.Drawing on years of on-the-ground research in Hungary, Russia, and other countries, Scheppele explains a central shift in democratic collapse: it no longer arrives through overt rupture, but through elections followed by legal and constitutional maneuvering. Leaders campaign as democrats, win office, and then use technical changes to the law, including court rules, budgetary controls, and civil-service structures, to weaken checks and rig the system in their favor.The discussion turns to the United States, examining how party polarization, shifting institutional loyalties, and expanding claims of executive power have made familiar safeguards less reliable than many assumed.Links:Kim Scheppele >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00)  Learning in Wartime: A scholar's antidote to the “cataract of nonsense”(00:08:17) Patterns abroad and at home—are U.S. checks in danger?(00:15:04) Naming the playbook(00:32:07) More litigation—access, risk, and the pace of change(00:32:39) Restoring democracy through law Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

November 2026 is closer than it may seem, with candidates already campaigning for the midterms. But are enough Americans paying attention to current action in the courts that could affect the process – and the result? You need a lawyer to sort out all-important voting rights battles. Elisabeth Frost, the Litigation chair of the Elias Law Group, is in the middle of many of these battles. With Marc Elias as chair, the firm's stated mission is to help Democrats win, citizens vote, and progressives make change. On Equal Time, Frost answers the question: How is that going? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian, has been criminally prosecuted for expressing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality in a 2019 tweet. Following multiple police interrogations, in April 2021, she was charged with “hate speech” under the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity section of the Finnish Criminal Code, alongside Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola. Despite two unanimous acquittals, Räsänen now faces the seventh year of legal proceedings. The landmark case was heard at the Finnish Supreme Court on 30 October 2025, following the State prosecutor’s appeal. The prosecution is seeking tens of thousands of euros in fines and is demanding that Räsänen publications be censored.Featuring:Lorcán Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International (Counsel for Päivi Räsänen)(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

November 2026 is closer than it may seem, with candidates already campaigning for the midterms. But are enough Americans paying attention to current action in the courts that could affect the process – and the result? You need a lawyer to sort out all-important voting rights battles. Elisabeth Frost, the Litigation chair of the Elias Law Group, is in the middle of many of these battles. With Marc Elias as chair, the firm's stated mission is to help Democrats win, citizens vote, and progressives make change. On Equal Time, Frost answers the question: How is that going?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Stephen Seckler speaks with Oran Kaufman, a mediator with an extensive background in family law. They discuss Oran's journey from litigation to mediation, the skills required to be a mediator, and how mediation has changed over the last 30 years. Oran shares insights on the differences between mediation and litigation, the importance of listening, and the challenges of building a mediation practice. The conversation also touches on collaborative law, alternative legal careers, and the impact of technology on mediation. Takeaways Mediation requires a different skill set than litigation. Listening is a crucial skill for both mediators and lawyers. Transitioning from litigation to mediation can lower work related stress. Collaborative law offers an alternative to traditional litigation. Silence can be a powerful tool in mediation. There are several challenges in building a mediation practice that differ from building a law practice. Technology has expanded the reach of mediation services. Timeline 00:00 Introduction and Background 03:17 Oran Kaufman's Journey into Family Mediation 05:45 Transitioning from Litigation to Mediation 08:47 The Nature of Family Mediation 11:38 Skills and Challenges of Mediation 13:58 Building a Mediation Practice 16:21 Collaborative Law and Mediation 18:50 Qualities of a Good Mediator 21:44 Exploring Alternative Legal Careers 24:29 The Evolution of Mediation

Tobacco surcharges have long been a common cost containment wellness tool for self-funded plans, but recent lawsuits are putting them under the microscope. In this episode, attorneys Kelly Dempsey and Naga Vivekanandan break down how tobacco surcharges work, why they are treated differently under federal law, and what recent court decisions mean for employers navigating wellness program risk.

Quebec's commercial real estate market has changed fast, and the old "local only" playbook does not hold up anymore. Louis Bergeron, partner at HPDG, joins Axel Monsaingeon to unpack what appraisers are seeing before the headlines: how developers now chase opportunities across the province, why 2024 felt frozen, and what shifted in 2025 to bring buyers and sellers closer together. Louis also shares the real story behind PDG's roots coming out of Desjardins, how the firm grew through acquisitions and mergers, and why a merger has to be "1 + 1 = 3" or it is not worth doing. They dig into PDG's full-service model from valuation and property management to tax appeals, litigation support, and expropriation tied to major projects like the REM and the Blue Line extension. Louis closes with what PDG is building for 2026, including a refreshed brand and a bigger push to share market insights, plus why comparing cap rates is often harder than people think.   Topics & Timestamps

On this Ropes & Gray podcast, partners Bil Davison and Adam Dobson are joined by counsel Kevin White to discuss recent high-profile litigation involving Energy & Minerals Group's (EMG's) single asset continuation vehicle transaction. The conversation explores how this litigation highlights the complexities and conflicts of interest inherent in GP-led continuation vehicle deals, focusing on the importance of transparency, parity of information, and robust LPAC involvement. The team analyzes the implications of this litigation for fund managers, buyers, and investors, highlighting best practices for communication and process integrity. Listeners will gain valuable insights into navigating the evolving landscape of continuation vehicles and the lessons learned from the EMG case.

Top 8 Alternative Investments for 2026 with Patrick Grimes - #260 In this episode of the Real Estate Reserve Podcast, hosts Jason Balin (Hard Money Bankers) and Ian Horowitz (Equity Warehouse) sit down with Patrick Grimes, founder of Passive Investing Mastery, to break down the Top 8 Alternative Investments for 2026 and how investors can build true financial security through diversification. Patrick shares his journey from a high-paid engineering career into alternative investing, including lessons learned from market cycles, leverage, and early real estate mistakes. The conversation dives deep into non-correlated asset classes and why building a "family office" mindset matters more than ever heading into 2026. Topics covered include: What alternative investments really are (beyond stocks & traditional real estate) The difference between financial independence vs. financial security Why diversification across uncorrelated asset classes matters Passive vs. active investing—and when to take chips off the table Litigation funding explained (mass torts vs. class actions) Medical receivables & recession-resistant industries Oil & gas investing risks, rewards, and long-term outlook AI disruption and which industries may (or may not) survive it Common investor traps: guru programs, DIY investing, and over-concentration How to evaluate operators, partners, and deal flow in alternative assets Patrick also shares resources for investors looking to explore alternative investments responsibly, including litigation finance, medical funding, energy, and more.

In this episode of Jane's LME Addiction, our head of LME coverage Jane Komsky brings in Josh Brody and Kenneth Reinker from Cleary Gottlieb to discuss the Optimum Communications fka Altice USA antitrust litigation related to cooperation agreements. They provide an overview of the litigation and discuss the likelihood of success, the pitfalls of certain arguments, and whether this litigation is likely to impact how co-ops are formed.Find all our coverage on co-ops and LMEs at 9fin.com.Have any feedback on the podcast? Send us a note at podcast@9fin.com — thanks for listening!

In this episode, Chase Cannon and Suzanne Spradley discuss a recent wave of litigation centered on ERISA's fiduciary obligations for health and welfare plan sponsors. Suzanne begins with an explanation of the lawsuits and how the voluntary benefit plan exception from ERISA is core to the lawsuit allegations. Suzanne and Chase continue with a close look at the exception and the criteria employers should consider to meet the exception. The two close with a discussion on employer takeaways for ERISA fiduciary and voluntary plan exception purposes.

Episode InfoAdam Masarek is a lawyer, epidemiologist (MPH), and the Legal Marketing Manager for Lex Machina®, the LexisNexis® Legal Analytics® platform. He is dedicated to empowering legal and insurance professionals with data-informed strategies to enhance business development, litigation outcomes, and the rule of law. Episode Overview: In this episode, we sit down with Adam Masarek, leader of content marketing and thought leadership at Lex Machina, to delve into the evolving landscape of litigation within the insurance industry. Masarek, whose background in epidemiology and extensive experience with legal data analysis provides a unique perspective, discusses how Lex Machina leverages data to understand litigation trends and inform decision-making. Lex Machina's Role in Litigation Analysis: Masarek explains his role at Lex Machina, emphasizing their unique approach of combining legal data with deep analysis of recent trends. This includes their popular litigation report series, which explores trends in areas like insurance coverage and sports litigation. Epidemiology and Legal Data: The conversation draws an intriguing parallel between epidemiology and legal data analysis. Masarek highlights how understanding patterns and trends in litigation is akin to understanding disease outbreaks, requiring a data-driven approach to identify causes and potential solutions. The Impact of Legal Data on Practice: The discussion explores how legal analytics are transforming legal practice. While predicting specific outcomes remains challenging due to variables like jury composition and human elements, data-driven insights allow for more precise and confident decision-making. This includes strategic choices about filing locations, potential case values, and overall legal strategy. "Social Inflation" and Its Drivers: A significant portion of the conversation focuses on "social inflation," the phenomenon of awards and settlements outpacing general economic inflation. Masarek and the interviewer discuss potential culprits, including increased attorney advertising, the rise of litigation funding, and a more adversarial stance by insurers leading to more trial-bound cases. Historical Context of Litigation Concerns: The episode touches upon the long-standing nature of concerns about a "lawsuit crisis," noting that such discussions have occurred for centuries. However, recent data from platforms like Lex Machina are providing empirical evidence for some of these trends, particularly concerning jury verdicts. Specific Litigation Trends: "Reptile Theory": The discussion touches on the "reptile theory," a plaintiff tactic emphasizing jurors as community protectors who should punish defendants. Practice Area Variations: It's noted that surges in litigation costs and complexity vary by practice area. Patent litigation and trade secret disputes have seen significant increases, while environmental claims and commercial contracts have not shown the same growth. Increased Filings: There's a noted increase in filings for tort claims, slip-and-falls, and automobile collisions in both federal and state courts. Insurance Coverage Lawsuits: A sharp rise in coverage disputes related to commercial liability policies is highlighted, with record numbers of lawsuits filed in recent years. This trend is also observed in homeowners' coverage cases, particularly those related to hurricanes. Workers' Compensation: The increasing representation in workers' compensation claims is discussed, with a significant portion of claims now coming in with an attorney already attached, making early, non-adversarial resolution more challenging. The Role of Attorney Advertising and Litigation Funding: The pervasive nature of attorney advertising across various platforms (billboards, social media) is examined, with the observation that it's a uniquely American phenomenon. Litigation funding is also identified as a growing factor influencing the legal landscape. The Future of Litigation: Masarek expresses that the current trajectory suggests that increased litigation filings are likely here to stay, indicating a "new normal." Factors like shifting labor markets, economic inflationary pressures, ubiquitous attorney advertising, and the continued growth of litigation funding contribute to this outlook. While acknowledging the potential for policy responses, the current data points towards a sustained trend. Lex Machina's Goal: The ultimate aim of Lex Machina is to empower lawyers, adjusters, and other legal professionals with data for informed decision-making, leveling the playing field for smaller entities against larger corporations. They aim to reduce the "waste of resources" often associated with trials by facilitating more efficient and data-informed negotiations. Emerging Challenges: New complexities, such as the use of artificial intelligence by insureds and cybersecurity risks, are presenting novel situations with limited precedent, potentially leading to increased litigation. This episode is brought to you by The Future of Insurance book series (future-of-insurance.com) from Bryan Falchuk. Follow the podcast at future-of-insurance.com/podcast for more details and other episodes. Music courtesy of Hyperbeat Music, available to stream or download on Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music and more.

Episode 96 On December 31, 1986, just hours before Puerto Rico would ring in the New Year, flames tore through the luxurious Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino in San Juan. What began as a labor dispute escalated into one of the deadliest hotel fires in U.S. history, killing 97 people and injuring more than 140. In the aftermath, investigators would uncover arson, negligence, ignored safety recommendations, a chaotic evacuation, and a legal battle that reshaped fire codes across the hospitality industry. In this episode, we examine: The labor tensions and strike that set the stage for disaster The timeline of the fire and how it spread so rapidly How smoke and toxic gases became the primary killers Failures in life safety systems, egress, and emergency planning The investigation that quickly identified arson Criminal charges against arsonists Massive civil litigation and code reforms that followed Lessons learned in the context of other hotel/casino fires of the era The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Inner Sanctum Acknowledgments: Eternal gratitude to our Inner Sanctum patrons, Melanie Curtis, Jenny Mercer and Laura Pisciotta, for helping us bring light to the stories others would rather leave in the ashes. Listener discretion is advised. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources:  Video & Documentary Sources Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson Investigation. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, April 13, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JyUjUoX_so Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson of 1986. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, October 21, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJsFLgxuDJ8 Government / Technical / Legal Reports Nelson, Harold E. “An Engineering Analysis of the Early Stages of Fire Development — The Fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino — December 31, 1986.” NBSIR 87-3560, National Bureau of Standards, Center for Fire Research, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1987. Levy, Harold M. “The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation: A Case Study in Cooperative Defense.” Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Vol. 7, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 215–233. José Francisco Rivera-Lopez, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 4 F.3d 982, September 15, 1993. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/4/982/525384/ (Note: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 — Unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.) News & Contemporary Coverage (1987) “Teamsters Dispute with Dupont Plaza Dates Back Four Months.” UPI Archives, January 13, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/13/Teamsters-dispute-with-Dupont-Plaza-dates-back-four-months/7070215305413/ Brossy, Julie. “A Dupont Plaza Bar Boy Was Charged Today With…” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/A-Dupont-Plaza-bar-boy-was-charged-today-with/8362537598800/ Hernandez, Moises. “Suspect in Hotel Fire Was Honored for Saving ‘Many Lives.'” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/Suspect-in-hotel-fire-was-honored-for-saving-many-lives/2708537598800/ Gaulin, Edward J. “Defendants Plead Guilty in Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” UPI Archives, April 24, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/24/Defendants-plead-guilty-in-Dupont-Plaza-Hotel-fire/8801546235200/ Wilentz, Amy. “A New Year We'll Never Forget.” TIME, January 12, 1987. https://time.com/archive/6708028/a-new-year-well-never-forget/ Features, Retrospectives & Later Reporting Tepfer, Daniel. “A Vacation in Paradise Turns into Fiery Hell.” CTPost, Updated December 30, 2011. https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/a-vacation-in-paradise-turns-into-fiery-hell-2432149.php Reference / Encyclopedia & Summary Sources Dewey, Joseph. “Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” EBSCO Knowledge Advantage Research Starters, 2022. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/dupont-plaza-hotel-fire “Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson.” Grokipedia. https://grokipedia.com/page/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_arson

Practicing somatic awareness can help you manage your day, work, and  life differently. In this podcast, the speakers dove into what somatic awareness is, provided practices to deepen your overall somatic awareness, and practiced several brief exercises.    Moderator: Helen Stocklin-Enright, Legal Project Manager, Perkins Coie Speaker: Ruth Hauswirth, Special Counsel and Head of Litigation and eDiscovery Services, Cooley 

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from using pronouns that match a person's biological sex if that individual identified with different pronouns. Defending Education challenged the policies, contending they both impermissibly prohibited speech, by not allowing students who believed sex is immutable & therefore personal pronouns cannot be chosen to express that belief as they wished, and compelled speech by forcing students to use pronouns for others that express a perspective with which the students did not agree. The case was filed in the southern district of Ohio, which ruled in favor of the school district, and the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed that decision. The case was then reheard en banc by a 17-judge panel, and on November 6, 2025, the court reversed the judgment 10-7, holding that the policies did violate the First Amendment rights of the affected students. Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC

Jen is a family law attorney, mediator and intuitive spiritual guide who has spent nearly two decades helping people awaken through one of life's most intense initiations... divorce. As founder of Solace Divorce Mediation, it is her mission to transform the outdated matrix of litigation, a system rooted in fear, separation and control, into a sacred space for 5D healing and ascension. In our show, we get into detail about our uggg legal system, mediation versus litigation, how to have a conscious and mindful divorce, the programming or concept of marriage and what happens to the children of a 3D divorce. This podcast is relevant to everyone as she is changing one of the biggest systems... "justice" and law. And as we know, all of our corrupt systems from medicine to banking, are changing, and Jen is on the forefront. As well as the fact that everyone is impacted in some way by divorce.She leads the "Just Be Practice" with a wonderful breathwork exercise.References:Jacques Theron's Website: https://jacquestheron.comJen's Links:Solace Divorce Mediation Website: https://solacedivorce.comSolace University: https://solaceuniversity.com*Host Eden Koz is a soul realignment specialist utilizing psychological empathy, intuition, psychic ability, mediumship, meditation, mindset shift, Reiki, dimensional and galactic healing, to name a few. She also performs spiritual Co#id Vac+ Healing as well as remote & face-to-face sessions with individuals and groups. **Additionally, in spreading the word... If you are questioning your Gold IRA because of potential scams (see EP188) or want to invest in a precious metals company with integrity...email: info@milesfranklin.com and put "Eden" in the subject line (they know me personally, so the best of attention and heart will come your way.)Miles Franklin website: https://milesfranklin.com Contact info for Eden Koz / Just Be®, LLC:Website: EdenJustBe.com Socials: TikTok, FB, FB (Just Be), X, Insta, LinkedInJust Be~Spiritual BOOM Podcast - Video Directories: BitChute, Rumble, ...

Employers shouldn't overly rely on reports that the EEOC is no longer interested in disparate impact: private lawsuits and other entities bringing such claims, both in the traditional discrimination and the emerging "illegal DEI" contexts, still pose legal risks. In this episode, our attorneys discuss disparate impact versus treatment, "job-relatedness" defenses, the role of statistics and the value of privileged disparate impact analyses, and the need for ongoing employer vigilance given the potential financial and reputational harms associated with disparate impact claims.  

In 2025, a record $60 billion was invested in building AI data centers around the world, many of them in the US and Canada. Proposals for data centers are popping up across Wisconsin, in Mount Pleasant, Menominee, Beaver Dam, Dane County and beyond. These “hyperscale” complexes use anywhere between 5-50 megawatts of power and take up hundreds of acres of land. To talk about the growing opposition to AI data centers across the nation, host Douglas Haynes is joined by three guests: Michael Greif of Midwest Environmental Advocates, Mitch Jones of Food & Water Watch, and Ed Morganroth, Jr. of the group, No Data Center DeForest. People are increasingly concerned about data centers’ energy and water consumption, land use, noise pollution, and e-waste as well as the societal impacts of AI products like deep fakes. To educate legislators about the growing opposition, Food & Water Watch organized a letter to Congress calling for the halt of construction of data centers. Jones says that the fight is happening in every state and their letter creates a national umbrella for these groups to unify their message. So far over 250 organizations have signed on.  Many are concerned that the financial benefits of these data centers are flowing to Silicon Valley and out of local communities. And the public is largely being kept in the dark about how much electricity and water these data centers would eat up. This fall, Midwest Environmental Advocates took legal action to get the city of Racine to respond to Milwaukee Riverkeepers’s record recquest for the projected water consumption of a Mount Pleasant data center.  They were at first told that water use is a “trade secret.” To date, the public doesn't know how much electricity will be used at the data center that Alliant Energy and Meta are building in Beaver Dam. Morganroth says that at a time when Wisconsin is losing agricultural land, his group would rather see new housing and job-creating business in his community rather than a data center. Our guests also talk about the active role that electric companies are playing in the construction of data centers, the tax breaks that these companies are getting from the state of Wisconsin, and the AI bubble.  Michael Greif is a Legal Fellow at Midwest Environmental Advocates, where his work has focused on legal pathways to safeguard Wisconsin's air, water, and climate, including advocating for public disclosure of the water and energy use of hyperscale data centers. Michael is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and lives in Madison. Mitch Jones is the Managing Director of Policy and Litigation at Food & Water Watch. He has worked on federal policy for over 20 years. He leads the organization's work on federal and state policy as well as their sibling organization’s political program. Ed Morganroth, Jr. is a resident of DeForest, WI and member of the No Data Center DeForest group. Featured image: aerial view of the Google Data Center in Council Bluffs, IA via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0). Did you enjoy this story? Your funding makes great, local journalism like this possible. Donate hereThe post Who Bears the True Cost of So-Called Artificial Intelligence? appeared first on WORT-FM 89.9.

In Episode 84, Andrew talks with Amanda Mason, founder of the Solagree, about the innovative new approach to divorce that replaces courtroom battles with cooperation, predictability, and peace of mind. Amanda—an experienced family law attorney and creator of this groundbreaking process—shares how Solagree blends mediation, arbitration, and flat-fee transparency to help couples resolve their differences without ever stepping foot in court. Thanks for listening! We'd be very grateful if you'd subscribe to the podcast and give us 5 stars! Please visit Transcend Retirement or Wiser Divorce Solutions. Follow Andrew on LinkedIn too!

In a bold legal challenge that could redefine animal protection law, PETA is taking on the Maine Lobster Festival for steaming 16,000 lobsters alive on public parkland. The case hinges on Maine’s unique animal cruelty statute that protects “every living sentient creature” – a definition that evolves with scientific understanding. PETA’s Director of Litigation, Asher Smith, explains their creative approach using…

In a bold legal challenge that could redefine animal protection law, PETA is taking on the Maine Lobster Festival for steaming 16,000 lobsters alive on public parkland. The case hinges on Maine’s unique animal cruelty statute that protects “every living sentient creature” – a definition that evolves with scientific understanding. PETA’s Director of Litigation, Asher Smith, explains their creative approach using…

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into two significant legal topics currently shaping the landscape of litigation in the U.S. Jack discusses the Trump administration's reversal of affirmative action programs, diving into the history of affirmative action and DEI programs in the U.S and breaking down the legal implications of their prohibition for the public and private sectors.  Next, Danessa revisits Florida's ban on social media for children under 14 years of age (previously discussed in Episode 46).  Social media industry groups have challenged the law, claiming it is in violation of the First Amendment. Danessa explores this lawsuit and the national conversation surrounding the legal, psychological, and data-privacy implications of social media age-verification laws.  Join us as we discuss the complexities of critical topics and 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!

(0:00) Intro(1:31) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel.(2:18) Start of interview. *Reference to prior episodes with David (E24 from Nov 2020 and E159 from Dec 2024)(3:22) 2025 highlights from the American College of Governance Counsel(4:55) The Rome Conference on AI, Ethics, and the Future of Corporate Governance(6:52) The Dual-Class Share Debate (reference to his paper Performance Leads Governance)(12:06) Emerging Governance Structures in AI companies, including Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs) "mission driven"(23:02) The AI Bubble Debate ("from a technology standpoint, I don't think we're in a bubble. From a valuation standpoint, we may be very well in a bubble.") Reference to my article on AI Washing Goes Criminal.(27:00) Big Tech vs. Little Tech Dynamics "We're going to have, at some point, a shakeout. It's impossible for all of these companies to be successful."(29:55) The Shift to Private Markets(34:15) Delaware's Governance Challenges (*reference to E194 on Silicon Valley 150 Report) "Since TripAdvisor, about 50 companies have left Delaware."(39:45) AI and Cybersecurity in the Boardroom(40:42) On Mandatory Arbitration(42:03) Biggest winner in business in 2025: Tech broadly, Silicon Valley particular.(43:40) Biggest loser in business in 2025: Delaware(45:15) Biggest business surprise in 2025(47:19) Best corporate governance trend from 2025: Renewed and strong focus on ethics.(50:00) Worst corporate governance trend from 2025: Partisanship(50:58) What's the biggest corporate governance trend to watch out for in 2026: the role of politics in the boardroom(51:35) One piece of advice for directors heading into 2026: the role of AI in the boardroom and in the companyDavid Berger is a partner at Wilson Sonsini and the President of the American College of Governance Counsel. 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

A leader who built his career on high-stakes investigations shares how those experiences now shape the culture, standards, and direction of a top litigation firm. Matthew L. Schwartz, Chair of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, joins Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg to talk about what it takes to lead a litigation-first firm without losing the sharpness that defines its work. He reflects on a decade in the Southern District of New York, where cases tied to General Motors, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the fallout from Bernie Madoff shaped his views on judgment, clarity, and what clients actually want from their lawyers. Matthew explains why the firm gives young lawyers real responsibility early on and why senior lawyers thrive with the autonomy to build their practices without heavy bureaucracy. He also digs into the decisions that matter most right now: where to grow, how to align with client needs, and what pressures like AI, rising litigation costs, and outside capital mean for a disputes-only practice. The conversation circles back to a central question for any leader in high-stakes litigation: how do you build a firm where people think boldly, act with integrity, and stay committed to excellence when the pressure is highest? Matthew makes the case that culture, mentorship, and trust still carry the most weight.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Matthew L. Schwartz's Path From Federal Prosecutor to Firm Chair 06:05 Lessons From High-Profile Cases and Complex Investigations 12:02 How Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Develops and Retains Top Legal Talent 15:01 AI, Technology, and the Future of Litigation 18:03 Private Equity and the Changing Law Firm Model 24:04 Mentorship and Developing the Next Generation of Trial Lawyers 29:45 Personal Insights and Matthew's Outlook on the Future of Law Connect with Matthew L. Schwartz: Connect with Matt on LinkedIn Matt's Web Bio    Connect with Howard Rosenberg: Connect with Howard on LinkedIn Howard's Company Web Profile   Connect with Chris Batz: Connect with Chris on LinkedIn  Follow Columbus Street on LinkedIn Columbus Street Website  Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm

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

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

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

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

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