Podcasts about litigation

This week Mariann tears through the industry press so you don’t have to: an Animal Ag Alliance exec frets about “brand-busting” without ever explaining what it means, Oregon’s IP 28 gets branded an extremist plot for daring to remove cruelty-law loopholes, a horse vet insists carriage horses basically drive themselves, and ranchers wax poetic about breeding cattle too docile to complain.…

»

The CIT has provided a path for refunds of liquidated IEEPA entries – you just need to be in court for your turn.

»

Jump into a grab bag of legal issues, a “law salad” of ideas that have lately been on the minds of hosts Jim Reeder and Mic Rogson. Law may teach you to think like a lawyer, but does it also teach the practice of law? Hear what Mic and Jim walked away with on graduation day and how it applied to their careers and decades of experience. Practicing law after law school sometimes produces surprises, like learning to mix linear thinking with creativity. You can prepare all you want, but sometimes you need to be “as flexible as Gumby,” Mic says. In the real world,  Jim says, practicing lawyers learn to be comfortable. Comfortable with creativity, comfortable with reacting to surprises, and comfortable admitting to the judge, and themselves, that they don't know everything and may need time to review unfamiliar case law when it crops up in the courtroom. Intimidation and anxiety are the enemy, and young lawyers must learn to relax and react. Then, forget “real life” as Mic and Jim share their favorite courtroom dramas and comedies. What's your guilty pleasure, and which productions capture how you feel about the law? Everything from the gravity of “Judgment at Nuremberg” to the lighthearted “Legally Blonde” to the surprisingly accurate portrayal in “My Cousin Vinny.” What's your favorite? Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com or JAReederJr@gmail.com. Resources Mentioned: “Top 10 Movies Every Law Student Must See - Best Legal Drama Movies,” YouTube “Top 10 Most Accurate Law Movies,” YouTube American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section Subscribe to Litigation Radio: https://play.megaphone.fm/rhyxdryztyy2v3itq6sdlq Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 3: PFAs regimes: chemicals & hazardous substances - corporates and financial sector In this podcast, Satindar Dogra, Elizabeth Raultson, Anke Krouse and Sarah Martin discuss what the PFAs litigation landscape in the US, EU and UK looks like at the moment and how it could develop.

The Hamline Midway neighborhood in St. Paul will soon have a new library after 3 years without one. The 92-year-old building was decommissioned in 2023. And construction began in 2025. The library is the first to be completed, out of three that are slated for renovations in St. Paul. This Saturday, the new building will have a grand opening. Maureen Hartman, director of Saint Paul Public Library and Beth Burns, executive director of The Friends of the Saint Paul Public Library joined Minnesota Now host Nina Moini to talk about the new library and the plans to continue to grow St. Paul's library system.

What can plan sponsors (and advisors) learn from litigation?  As it turns out, a lot – even if you aren't responsible for a billion-dollar plan.There are, of course, things to be learned from litigation.  We've learned that the plaintiffs' bar doesn't (always) knowhow to calculate fees (they rely on Form 5500), doesn't know how to calculate performance, and doesn't appreciate important distinctions in target-date fund glidepaths.  Though some do, of course. But the lessons drawn from litigation can serve as a reminder that fiduciaries should never assume, and never take anything for granted.  Particularly not only what the law allows, but what the plandocument permits.In a special edition of the Nevin & Fred podcast (or, if you prefer, a special edition of Prime Capital's The Reish Brief), Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) cover a wide range of topics with plenty of lessons to learn.  We're talking about things like:1. Annual Beneficiary Checkups: Treat beneficiary designations like milk in the fridge—check them at least annually (and after marriage/divorce), because tiny “paperwork sins” like using 33⅓% instead of whole numbers can void the change and send everyone to court.2. Zombie Beneficiary Cleanup: Don't let auto-enrollment create “beneficiary-less zombies” in your plan; track thepercentage of participants missing designations and run a recurring campaign to get them completed before a claim turns into a family feud.3. Documented Prudence Wins: Win lawsuits the boring way: hold regular (often quarterly) committee meetings, usean IPS that guides without handcuffing you, hire qualified advisors, keep written reports, and document why you kept or replaced investments—because ERISA wants prudence, not psychic powers.4. Defensible Glidepath Choices: Target-date funds can be sued for being too conservative when markets soar and too aggressive when markets tank, so pick a glidepath based onworkforce demographics/industry realities and communicate the “why” to participants like Intel did.5. Forfeiture Compliance Trap: Forfeitures are the new litigation piñata: confirm your plan is using forfeitures exactlyas the document says today, and prepare for upcoming restatements that may force you to hardwire a specific forfeiture-use method instead of “we'll decide later.”That's right – all that – and more!Episode Resources:Court Says Call Center Communication Didn't Change Beneficiary Designation.Appellate Court Backs Beneficiary DesignationBeneficiary Disclosures Trigger Fiduciary Breach Suit, AppealSeason 4 Episode 2 "Glidepaths and 'Guide' Paths” | Nevin & Fred % %Season 5 Episode 7: Nevin & Fred – Has the Forfeiture Tide Turned? | Nevin & Fred % %  

Summary Kelly Grigsby Jones and Laurie Avery, litigation partners at Perez Morris, sit down with Kathryn Rubino to talk about building a career in trial work. They trace their paths into law, the gap between courtroom TV and courtroom reality, and how they've made an unpredictable schedule sustainable over decades of practice. The conversation turns practical: how young lawyers can get their first real trial experience, what mentors actually look for in an associate, and how to handle a case when the best exhibit goes missing mid-trial. Both partners share candid advice for women navigating litigation, plus the one habit they say matters more than talent: preparation. Key Takeaways Early trial experience often comes from smaller markets or litigation-heavy firms willing to hand associates low-stakes cases to learn on. Being proactive, not waiting to be asked, is what separates associates who get pulled into bigger opportunities from those who don't. Preparation is the one thing a lawyer can fully control, even when the outcome, a missing exhibit or a directed verdict, isn't. Good mentors highlight a mentee's strengths and give honest, respectful redirection when trial work isn't the right fit. A sustainable trial career means accepting an uneven schedule: early some days, late into the night on others. Links and Resources Above the Law: https://abovethelaw.com/ The Jabot Podcast: https://abovethelaw.com/tag/the-jabot-podcast/ Perez Morris: https://www.perezmorris.com/ Email the Jabot: tips@abovethelaw.com Keywords women in litigation, trial lawyers, legal career advice, Perez Morris, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, women in law, litigation partners, trial experience, first chair, second chair, mentorship in law, law firm associates, courtroom preparation, women trial attorneys, legal industry podcast, career in law, litigation career path, women partners law firm, trial advocacy Episode Highlights [00:01:00-00:02:00] Laurie explains how a dismissive comment from a colleague, "you don't need to know that," pushed her toward law school. [00:07:00-00:09:00] Kelly describes jumping into plea deals and bond hearings early because her rural county had few attorneys to go around. [00:10:00-00:12:00] Kelly recounts winging cross-examination after showing up to trial without her one key exhibit. [00:12:00-00:13:00] Laurie tells the story of winning a directed verdict in seconds after weeks of preparation. [00:16:00-00:17:00] Kelly explains why she calls junior lawyers "colleagues," not associates, in front of clients. [00:19:00-00:20:00] Laurie draws the line between lawyers built for first chair and those who thrive in second chair. [00:22:00-00:23:00] Kelly and Laurie each give their one piece of advice for lawyers starting out in trial work.  

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question? Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation. Featuring:Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersGene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal FoundationPhil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP[Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC

At the heart of this practice there is a simple belief: when a family is harmed by negligence, they deserve an advocate who will fight for them as if they were their own. What sets this attorney apart is a unique insider perspective gained from years working within the insurance industry—as both an adjuster and claims counsel. This firsthand experience revealed the strategies insurance companies use to minimize or deny legitimate claims, even those from their own policyholders.Choosing to stand up for injured victims rather than defend these practices, this attorney now leverages that knowledge to hold insurance companies accountable. Frequently involved in high-stakes litigation—including catastrophic injury cases, wrongful death claims, and complex insurance disputes—this advocate has already recovered over $50 million for clients, despite being early in their legal career. Every case is approached personally, with the understanding that behind each claim is a family whose life has been upended and who deserves justice and financial security for the future. https://rosesanderslaw.com/sanders-charles/http://www.yourlotandparcel.orgSupport the show

Email threads, shared drives, and spreadsheets can feel “fine” until you're coordinating 30 firms, thousands of plaintiffs, and a calendar full of court deadlines that can't slip. We sit down with Keao Caindec, CEO and co-founder of Clarra (https://clarra.com), to unpack what complex litigation case management really requires and why the biggest pain is often coordination, not just documents.Keao explains how Clarra grew out of real-world needs from a complex litigation law firm handling antitrust, mass tort, class action, and bankruptcy matters. We compare purpose-built litigation workflows with more intake-oriented or small-firm platforms, then get specific about what breaks at scale: multi-party responsibility tracking, bulk docketing, complex calendaring, discovery flow, and the constant question of who owns the next action.We also go deep on collaboration. Clarra's permissioned workspaces are designed to let co-counsel, local counsel, and clients work from a shared repository without exposing everything a firm keeps private. Add in integrations with tools like NetDocuments, iManage, Google Drive, and OneDrive, and you start to see a realistic path away from the spreadsheet monster.Then we talk AI for lawyers in practical terms: voice-driven time entries, agentic help for docketing and field population, document summarization, and analytics. Subscribe for more legal tech startup stories, share this with a litigator or legal ops leader who lives in spreadsheets, and leave a review with the biggest workflow bottleneck you want software to fix.

Deb gets an update and takes your calls. A legal ruling comes in on random drug testing of TTC workers. GUESTS: Steve Ryan - CP24 Crime Reporter Gavin Tighe - a senior partner with Gardiner Roberts LLP and chair of the firm's Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group Marvin Alfred - President of ATU Local 113

William Penn returned from Ireland in August 1670, and soon found himself arrested, along with fellow Quaker William Mead, for preaching to a crowd in public in violation of “the common law,” an ambiguity that would play out during their momentous trial. The trial would end in their acquittal, notwithstanding egregious intimidation of the jury by the judge, the Lord Mayor Sir Samuel Starling. Among other exciting moments, Starling threw the principled foreman of the jury, Edward Bushel, in jail. Bushel’s suit for a writ of habeas corpus would lead to a verdict that established an inviolate principle in Anglo-American law, that judges may not intimidate juries. Penn and Mead were acquitted under the glare of remarkable publicity for the day, and the case would establish Penn as a nationally famous advocate for Dissenting religion. After his acquittal, Penn finally made it home to visit his dying father, Sir William Penn, with whom he reconciled in a poignant father-son moment. Subscribe to my Substack! X – @TheHistoryOfTh2 – https://x.com/TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfTheAmericans #212 William Penn Before Pennsylvania 1 #208 What You Need to Know About English Politics in the 1680s 1: The Exclusion Crisis Primary references for this episode (Commission earned for Amazon purchases through the episode notes on our website) Andrew R. Murphy, William Penn: A Life Julius J. Marke, “The Trial of William Penn,” Litigation, Fall 1979. Robert and Marilyn Aitken, “Bushell’s Case,” Litigation, Winter 2010.

In this podcast, recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Professor Gao Xiqing, the former Vice Chairman, President, and Chief Investment Officer of the China Investment Corporation, China's largest sovereign wealth fund.They discuss Professor Gao's extraordinary career, from his early days building a railroad in rural China during the Cultural Revolution to earning his JD at Duke University and becoming one of the first Chinese lawyers to pass the New York Bar and work at a major Wall Street law firm.Professor Gao's work on Wall Street led to him explaining, as a third-year associate, the causes of the Black Friday stock market crash to Chinese business and government leaders. He was later called back to China to help design the country's first stock exchange and its securities regulator, the Chinese equivalent of the SEC.They also discuss Professor Gao's role in leading the China Investment Corporation (CIC), one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds. CIC invests exclusively in businesses outside China, typically acquiring stakes of less than 10%, and allocates its investments roughly equally between publicly listed companies and private equity.Finally, they discuss Professor Gao's perspective on Sino-American relations. He believes that, when viewed in historical context, the two countries have grown significantly closer since the Cold War and that shared cultural values, such as a strong work ethic and a drive to achieve, will help strengthen relations in the future.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode,Jakob Emerson, Associate News Director, Becker's Healthcare, examines the growing litigation over Medicare Advantage star ratings and the billions of dollars tied to quality bonuses. He also explores how AI is intensifying the coding and claims battle between health systems and insurers, creating new operational and financial challenges across the industry.

In this episode of the Legal Nurse Podcast, we delve into the specialized world of speech and language pathology with expert witness Elizabeth McKinney, who brings 17 years of experience in geriatric care and a wealth of advanced certifications in her field. Elizabeth McKinney sheds light on the extensive educational requirements and ongoing certifications necessary for speech-language pathologists, highlighting their critical role not just in communication but also in swallowing safety, cognitive assessments, and patient advocacy across all care settings. Listeners will gain an insider's perspective on how speech-language pathologists contribute to both pediatric and adult care, often working behind the scenes with vulnerable populations in skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, schools, and even home health. The episode also tackles the legal and ethical responsibilities of these professionals, especially in complex cases involving aspiration pneumonia, diet management, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Through compelling case examples including wrongful death due to preventable choking, Elizabeth McKinney illustrates the real-world stakes of clinical decisions and the vital interplay between nurses, dietitians, and speech pathologists. With her unique view as an expert witness, Elizabeth McKinney discusses both the high standards set by the profession's code of ethics and the impact of proper documentation, team education, and timely intervention on patient outcomes and litigation. Whether you're a healthcare provider, legal professional, or simply curious about the hidden dimensions of post-acute care, this episode will deepen your understanding of how speech and language pathology can shape and safeguard patient lives. What You'll Learn in This Episode on The Overlooked Impact of SLPs in Elder Care and Litigation Here are 5 discussion questions answered in the podcast: What are the implications when recommended swallowing safety precautions are not followed in skilled nursing facilities? How can impulsive or improper diet recommendations by speech-language pathologists contribute to adverse patient outcomes and potential litigation? What mechanisms exist for nurses, dietitians, and speech-language pathologists to communicate and collaborate regarding dietary changes and patient safety? How does the ASHA Code of Ethics guide the practice and decision-making of speech-language pathologists, especially when unethical practices are observed? In what circumstances are speech-language pathologists likely to be named as defendants in malpractice litigation, and how common is this compared to other healthcare providers? Get the free transcripts and also learn about other ways to subscribe. Go to Legal Nurse Podcasts subscribe options by using this short link: http://LNC.tips/subscribepodcast. https://youtu.be/tEBuol12ahY Your Presenter for The Overlooked Impact of SLPs in Elder Care and Litigation Pat Iyer Pat Iyer is a seasoned legal nurse consultant and business coach, renowned for her expertise in guiding new legal nurse consultants to successfully break into the field. As the host of the Legal Nurse Podcast, Pat addresses critical challenges that legal nurse consultants face, such as difficulty in landing clients and a lack of response from attorneys. Through her insightful episodes, she emphasizes the importance of effectively communicating one's value to potential clients. With a wealth of experience, Pat has empowered countless consultants to overcome these hurdles and thrive in their careers. Connect with Pat Iyer by email at patiyer@legalnusebusiness.com Elizabeth McKinney Speech-Language Pathologist, Expert Witness, Advocate Elizabeth has been practicing as a speech-language pathologist for 17 years. She graduated from the University of Florida with her bachelor's degree in communication sciences and disorders with a minor in gerontology and her master's degree in speech-language pathology. She has devoted her career to the care of geriatrics in skilled nursing facilities across Florida. Elizabeth has been an expert witness since 2023 and has served on nearly 20 cases nationwide. When she is not on this podcast, she is enjoying the Florida lifestyle with her husband and two kids. She enjoys reading, volunteering, and running in her spare time. Connect with Elizabeth McKinney by email at emckinneyslp@gmail.com

In the 248th BlockTalks we speak with Matt Green, NED and Head of Disputes and Strategy at M2 Recovery, to learn how crypto litigation works.Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-green-88730a95https://m2recovery.com/https://www.lawrencestephens.com/people/matt-green/https://regintel-content.thomsonreuters.com/document/IC5D87630EA5611F0AE0BFC616E25AB1C/How-1.5-million-USDC-was-recovered-in-under-two-weeks:-legal-strategies,-'nuclear'-options-and-the-power-of-peer-to-peer-settlement-08-01-2026 All of BlockTalks:https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2kC88UznBpwM03SKCGQeSgSocials and comms.. Website ⁠https://blockdropspodcast.xyz/⁠.. Substack ⁠https://blockdrops.substack.com⁠ .. Twitter ⁠Twitter.com/blockdropspod⁠.. Instagram ⁠Instagram.com/blockdropspodcast⁠.. Lens https://blockdrops.lens/ .. Warpcase ⁠https://warpcast.com/mauriciomagaldi⁠.. YouTube ⁠youtube.com/@BlockDropsPodcast⁠.. Twitter ⁠twitter.com/0xmauricio⁠.. LinkedIn ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7056680685142454272⁠ .. Email info@blockdropspodcast.xyz

Mary and Andrew start with a deeper dive into the Supreme Court's decision to allow the removal of Temporary Protected Status designations from over 330,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria — a consequential ruling that affects TPS holders well beyond those who brought the case, leaving over a million people vulnerable to removal. As Andrew notes, this case was based on two claims: one being a statutory challenge that DHS didn't follow the procedures set out by Congress, and the other a constitutional equal protection claim that this TPS status removal was “motivated in part by race” — both of which were struck down 6-3. Then, a look at Trump's latest retribution efforts including the heavy sentences doled out over a protest that ended in a shooting outside the ICE Prairieland Detention Center inTexas one year ago; a felony indictment of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly tearing part of the liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; and former CIA Director John Brennan going on offense to challenge the DOJ's investigation into him. Plus, Mary and Andrew analyze the DOJ's response to a “show cause” order to unredact some of the Epstein files in a lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

(0:00) About the Boardroom Governance Summit (Aug 26-27, 2026)  (0:55) Intro (2:44) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel. (3:30) Start of interview.  (4:16) Origin story Marie Bafus (5:30) Origin story Wendy Grasso (7:34) Diving into their article AI in the Boardroom: What Directors Need to Know Now (4:14) Why AI Needs Board Oversight (12:00) Caremark and Oversight Duties (15:12) Mission-Critical Risk Cases. Reference to Marchand case (2019) and Boeing case (2021) (19:18) Where AI Belongs in Governance (board level and board committees) (21:28) Defining Mission-Critical AI (24:45) Strategy, Capital Allocation, and Judgment (29:50) Board Minutes as Litigation Evidence (33:52) Private Companies, Same Duties (38:35) AI Washing and Disclosure Risks (43:10) How Boards (and Board Members) Can Use AI (47:08) Hallucinations, Confidentiality, and Privilege. Reference to U.S. v Heppner case (2026) (52:03) Building an AI Usage Policy (53:36) Recording Boards with AI (note taking apps) (57:05) Workforce Trust and Environmental Risk (1:00:00) AI for Oversight Itself (1:02:02) AI's Impact on Legal Practice Marie Bafus is a partner in Fenwick's Securities Litigation Practice and Wendy Grasso is counsel in Fenwick's Corporate Practice. 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

In der 375. Episode von Irgendwas mit Recht spricht Marc mit Dr. Katharina Pehle. Sie arbeitet als Partnerin bei Bird & Bird in München. Katharina berichtet von ihrem Studium in Passau, Genf und Münster sowie ihrer mühsamen Promotion nach dem zweiten Examen. Als Patent Litigator erklärt sie die Besonderheiten von Patentstreitigkeiten und die Auslegung von Schutzansprüchen am Beispiel von LEDs. Zudem beleuchtet das Gespräch den Unified Patent Court, Opt-out-Verfahren und ihren Weg in die Partnerschaft. Wie läuft eine Promotion nach dem zweiten Examen ab? Warum wählen Patentinhaber oft das Opt-out-Verfahren? Wie vereinfacht man komplexe Technik für Richter? Welche Rolle spielen persönliche Sympathien im Bewerbungsprozess? Antworten auf diese und viele weitere Fragen erhaltet Ihr in dieser Folge von IMR. Viel Spaß!

Friday July 3, 2026 Supreme Court Sides with Bayer Over Roundup Litigation

The Mystery of Third-Party Litigation Finance and its Taxation. Guest: Michael Toth. Toth explains the emergence of third-party litigation finance, where external financial institutions fund tort cases against American companies. He notes this practice is uniquely American and creates a new market for legal conflict. Toth recommends that the Treasurytax these business gains at ordinary income rates rather than treating them as capital gains. 141868

This is the 38th episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts. In this episode we discuss privilege, including a recent case on privilege and litigation funding, disclosure, court organisation, and the question of when a third party's fraud will break the chain of causation. This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a knowledge counsel in our commercial litigation team, who is joined by Angela Liu and David Shepherd, two senior associates in our disputes team. Below you can find links to our blog posts on the developments and cases covered in this podcast. • High Court finds legal advice privilege is not limited to lawyer/client communications but extends to "intra-client" communications https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-04/high-court-finds-legal-advice-privilege-is-not-limited-to-lawyer-client-communications-but-extends-to-intra-client-communications • Disclosure Review Working Group considering simplification of PD 57AD disclosure regime following survey https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-05/disclosure-review-working-group-considering-simplification-of-pd-57ad-disclosure-regime-following-survey • Creation of new Business and Property Division of the High Court announced https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-06/creation-of-new-business-and-property-division-of-the-high-court-announced • Court of Appeal holds fraudsters' intervention broke chain of causation https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/cf/2026-posts/court-of-appeal-holds-fraudsters-intervention-broke-chain-of-causation • Litigation funding and privilege: High Court finds litigation privilege does not apply to communications prepared to enable funders to assess whether to support a claim https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-06/litigation-funding-and-privilege-high-court-finds-litigation-privilege-does-not-apply-to-communications-prepared-to-enable-funders-to-assess-whether-to-support-a-claim See podcast episode transcript here: https://marketing.hsfkramer.com/20/36058/landing-pages/commercial-litigation-podcast-ep38-transcript.pdf

Expert witness selection is among the most consequential decisions in complex litigation. While attorneys may assume the process is about finding the most credentialed professional in a given field, the reality is far more strategic. In this IMS Insights Podcast episode, Vice President of Client Experience Marie-Petra Adams welcomes Senior Director of Expert Services Erica Evans to examine the strategy behind expert sourcing, vetting, and selection. They explore how the process unfolds, from early case specification through final alignment, and share what two real-world case studies reveal about how nuanced and unpredictable these expert searches can become. Listen now for insights on: How effective expert witness strategies start before the search process begins Why qualifications, communication, credibility, and relatability all factor into selection How conflict analysis and testimony history inform final vetting decisions Ideal for attorneys, claims professionals, and litigation managers, this episode offers a behind-the-scenes look at what it takes to find the right expert witness who can not only address the issues but also explain them clearly and credibly to a judge, juror, or arbitrator. Watch the original LinkedIn Live recording here. Explore IMS expert witness services today: https://imslegal.com/services/expert-witnessIMS has delivered strategic litigation consulting and expert witness services to leading global law firms and Fortune 500 companies for more than 30 years, in more than 65,000 cases. IMS consultants become an extension of your legal team from pre-suit investigation services to discovery and then on to arbitration and trial. Learn more at imslegal.com.

As Andrew puts it, Chief Justice John Roberts is “cherry-picking.” He's flying solo in this short edition of Main Justice (more to come with Mary in the next episode). Andrew gives a quick briefing on several of the Supreme Court's most consequential end-of-term rulings, starting with the decision not to hear an appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case. Andrew also touches on the Court's decision to uphold a Mississippi law to allow mail-in ballots that are sent by Election Day to be counted but saves his deepest analysis for two similar cases with opposing decisions: the firings of Lisa Cook and Rebecca Slaughter. While the Court ruled that the Trump administration must have cause to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, it allowed the government to fire Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, a decision which Andrew calls deeply flawed showing the conservative majority's support for a “unitary executive.”  And finally, Andrew breaks down the Court's narrow decision to uphold birthright citizenship, and why the tight 5-4 split is the story. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stephen Serda is back with the latest NFL news, and Brendan Sorsby backs off. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hosts Brandon Schuh and Nick Hartmann return for another episode of RiskCellar, and the headline story is North Carolina litigation financing. North Carolina has become the first state in the country to pass an outright ban on third-party litigation financing, with Governor Josh Stein signing House Bill 315 into law in June 2026. Find out what the law prohibits, why insurance trade groups are celebrating it, and what it could mean for other states.Beyond the North Carolina litigation financing news, Brandon and Nick cover a data breach at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, CFC's move to add affirmative AI coverage across seven product lines, the deadly earthquakes that struck Venezuela and the Caribbean, and how Chubb-led marine war risk facilities are easing capacity strain in the Strait of Hormuz. The episode wraps with a Fourth of July round of Three Truths and a Lie.This episode blends sharp insurance analysis with the hosts' casual banter, making topics like North Carolina litigation financing approachable for brokers and underwriters. Listeners get a fast-moving tour of the week's biggest insurance and legal stories.North Carolina is the first state to enact an outright ban on third-party litigation financing.House Bill 315 makes it unlawful to engage in or furnish litigation investment in a North Carolina civil proceeding.The law took effect July 1, 2026, applying to lawsuits arising on or after that date.The Attorney General can enforce the law with penalties up to $50,000 per violation.At least 11 other states already have some restrictions on litigation funding.NAIC confirmed a breach exposing 3.1 terabytes of data via an Oracle PeopleSoft vulnerability.CFC is embedding affirmative AI coverage across seven core product lines.Chubb-led marine facilities offer up to $400 million in Strait of Hormuz shipping capacity.00:00 Introduction to Claims Auditing and AI Solutions01:22 Celebrating Achievements in Brokerage04:38 Wine Tasting and Personal Updates05:39 Fourth of July Plans and Celebrations06:39 Political Commentary on National Events09:11 Litigation Funding Legislation in North Carolina11:47 Data Breach at NAIC and Its Implications15:47 Insurance Industry Responses to AI Risks19:06 Natural Disasters and Their Impact on Insurance21:29 Geopolitical Commentary on U.S.-Iran Relations24:39 Insurance Developments in Maritime Risk28:07 Trivia and Closing ThoughtsConnect with RiskCellar:Website: https://www.riskcellar.com/Brandon Schuh:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552710523314LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-stephen-schuh/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/schuhpapa/Nick Hartmann:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickjhartmann/

Late notice to an excess carrier is one of those “small” steps that can explode into a coverage dispute at the worst possible time, like right before mediation or on the eve of trial. We talk through why excess claims notification is getting tougher in today's market and how retail agents can protect their clients and themselves when a claim starts creeping toward the tower.We're joined by CRC Group's claims pros who live this every day: Dave Gilfillian, Chief Claims Officer and leader of Claims Advocacy, Ari Shapiro, Claims Advocacy Director, and Cammie Powell, Senior Claims Coordinator. Together, we unpack what's driving bigger claims, how plaintiff expectations and litigation funding can change the exposure curve, and why excess carriers are more likely to take a hard line on late notice. We also explain the concept of “prejudice,” how state law affects the analysis, and what a reservation of rights letter can signal when notice comes in too late.We also challenge a dangerous assumption: “follow form” does not automatically mean “same rules.” Excess policies often include pages of exceptions, unique notice provisions, and surprises around defense costs and endorsements, especially in complex towers with multiple carriers. Our practical takeaway is straightforward: when the thought pops into your head that excess might be involved, send notice, document it clearly, and keep communication moving so no layer is blindsided. Visit REDYIndex.com for critical pricing analysis and a snapshot of the marketplace.Do you want to take your career to the next level? Join #TeamCRC to get access to best-in-class tools, data, exclusive programs, and more! Send your resume to resumes@crcgroup.com today!

Auckland Council will no longer be stumping up for flood damaged homes. It comes after a $2.57 billion bill for its 2023 weather response, which included 1,200 home buyouts and infrastructure upgrades. Mayor Wayne Brown says councils can't be the insurers of last resort, and they're calling on central government and the insurance sector to take greater responsibility for disaster recovery funding. Litigation and Insurance Lawyer with MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Andy Horne told Mike Hosking this was always going to happen – it was only a matter of time before the money started to run out. He says ratepayers and taxpayers can't be expected to continue funding those who buy properties that are subject to natural disaster risks. However, there are still some circumstances in which the council will be liable, Horne says, and the changing approach means they'll have to start identifying what they are and aren't liable for. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Gregory Mostyn. Gregory is the Co-Founder and CEO of Wexler. Wexler offers advanced AI-driven solutions for eDiscovery, document review and litigation services. With clients including Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Burges Salmon, Wexler is ‘on a mission to solve the most complex cases.So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and Gregory discussing:- Marketing Yourself In Every Possible Situation- Facts First, Chronology Mattering Most- Specialised AI Beats Generalist Tools- Verification Improving Accuracy and Expertise- Hustle with Purpose, Fail Fast, One Team.Connect with Gregory Mostyn here - ⁠https://uk.linkedin.com/in/gregory-mostyn-9b3a89b8⁠

Trial Attorney Tad Eckenrode of Eckenrode-Bauman joins Bill Kanasky, Jr, Ph.D. to talk about the current state of medical malpractice litigation. Bill and Tad discuss the reasons for a lack of trust in the healthcare system. They talk about questioning strategies in voir dire to identify more specifically where juror frustrations with the healthcare system stems from and the challenge with not being able to discuss insurance with jurors. Tad and Bill also discuss the challenges with medical malpractice cases in the correctional facilities space and their perspectives on the use of AI in healthcare and the risks of using AI in both the patient/provider relationship and in the legal process. Last, Bill and Tad talk about witness pivoting, the problems that occur when a witness pivots, and the problem with attorneys who encourage their witnesses to ramble and be evasive in order to keep opposing counsel from getting a clean transcript.

John is joined by Avi Perry, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C., office, and Brett Raffish, an associate in the same office. They discuss how the Quinn Emanuel team, led by Bill Burck and Avi Perry, achieved a rare federal white collar criminal defense victory on behalf of technology executive Charlie Kim.The prosecution alleged that Mr. Kim and his co-CEO bribed four-star Admiral Robert Burke by offering him a lucrative post-retirement job at their company in exchange for using his position to help secure a multimillion-dollar Navy contract. They argued that the employment discussions and contract negotiations constituted an unlawful quid pro quo rather than legitimate, independent business conversations.Avi and Brett explain the history of the case, from the initial whistleblower complaint through the indictment, pretrial strategy, two lengthy jury trials, and Mr. Kim's ultimate acquittal. From the beginning, one of their central themes was that the parallel discussions about the Navy contract and the admiral's post-retirement employment were conducted openly, not secretly. Mr. Kim repeatedly disclosed the conversations to investors, colleagues, family members, and others, demonstrating that he had no criminal intent, one of the essential elements of the charges. The trial team also showed that the job offer and the contract were not linked. Although the proposed multimillion-dollar contract never materialized, Mr. Kim still hired the admiral at Next Jump because the job offer was never contingent on the admiral securing the contract.Before trial, the team moved to sever Mr. Kim's trial from the admiral's case because evidence against the admiral, including incriminating statements and unrelated misconduct, threatened to unfairly prejudice Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim also intended to, and ultimately did, present a defense that the admiral had lied to him during their relationship. After obtaining the rare severance, the admiral was tried, convicted, and sentenced to six years in prison. Mr. Kim's first trial ended with a hung jury.Using insights from juror interviews, the team refined its defense for the retrial, focusing on the absence of any true quid pro quo, Mr. Kim's reliance on the admiral's assurances that the discussions were ethically appropriate, and evidence showing that the admiral was hired despite the failure to secure the anticipated contract. The team also used the record from the first trial to sharpen its cross-examinations of the government's witnesses.Seven months later, the case was retried. At the second trial, the government repeatedly emphasized a statement in a text message that the deal was “no contract, no job.” However, the quote was taken out of context. During Avi's cross-examination of the government's case agent, he elicited an admission that the deal ultimately became “no contract, yes job.”After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for just one day before returning a verdict acquitting Mr. Kim on all charges.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The US Supreme Court handed down four rulings this morning. Two were about immigration policies. Another about guns. And the final one about whether the maker of Roundup can be sued.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerAll the links to Pete's Prep are free!Get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com  

In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Washington law that delays notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests gender-affirming treatment. The lower courts found that a group of parents (including one with a child who had run away before) lacked standing to challenge this law. The parents' petition to the Supreme Court will go before the Justices at an upcoming conference. Join us for a litigation update about this case and its broader implications for standing doctrine particularly in the context of parental rights and gender transition. Featuring: --R. Shawn Gunnarson, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie --Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School --(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

There's a lot on the docket today. To pull apart the Iran “deal” framework, Mary and Andrew are joined by Tess Bridgeman, an international law expert who served as a legal advisor in the Obama administration through the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Tess lays out how President Trump's 14-point memorandum of understanding differs from what was brokered in 2015, and what to watch for as negotiations continue. Before she joins, the co-hosts begin by analyzing several examples of what Mary calls the Trump Justice Department's "consistent effort” to avoid judicial review: their refusal to put into a sworn declaration that they won't move forward with the “Anti-Weaponization” fund and a motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act violation lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI data center in Mississippi. They also tackle a few instances where, contrastingly, the government has positioned itself “on the offense” this week, including an indictment of 15 protesters on a conspiracy charge against ICE and the DHS' intent to build a border wall through a holy landmark atop Mount Cristo Rey in New Mexico. Further reading: Here is the New York Times piece, Mary referred to about the Las Cruces case: A Diocese Tries to Protect Its 29-Foot Jesus From Trump's Border Wall Here is the Just Security tracker that Mary and Andrew mentioned: Immigration Habeas Tracker: Government Obstruction, Judicial Trust, and Accountability Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, we spend the episode discussing a traumatic event I witnessed outside my home last week. We unpack the experience, the horrific series of events that unfolded, and the reaction to the story in the local news. Trigger Warning: This episode contains descriptions and discussions of a fatal motor vehicle accident. This episode is brought to you by Tully Rinckey PLLC, a full-service law firm serving individuals and businesses in the Capital Region for over 20 years. Their attorneys are ready to protect your rights and guide you through legal matters related to Family & Matrimonial Law, Employment Law, Criminal Law, Litigation, Education Law, Business Law and Trusts & Estates. For experienced legal support from a firm that proudly gives back to its community, learn more at tullylegal.com or follow on social media @tullylegal.

Melissa Soliz, Partner, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, speaks with Brendan Keeler, Interoperability Practice Lead, HTD Health, and Amy Bagge-Smith, General Counsel and Head of Regulatory Affairs, Arcadia, about the cases that are currently shaping interoperability law and how the health care industry is responding. They discuss which legal theories are gaining traction and which ones are appearing more fragile, impacts on national frameworks and CMS' Aligned Networks initiative, and how tech innovators and health care providers can navigate this complex environment. Melissa, Brendan, and Amy spoke about this topic on a recent AHLA webinar. From AHLA's Health Information and Technology Practice Group.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtCQbMudXmULearn more about the AHLA webinar that Melissa, Brendan, and Amy spoke on: https://educate.americanhealthlaw.org/local/catalog/view/product.php?productid=1772 Learn more about AHLA's Health Information and Technology Practice Group: https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/practice-groups/practice-groups/health-information-and-technology Essential Legal Updates, Now in AudioAHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal EducationLearn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/. 

We are excited to share this very special bonus episode featuring our trip to Tijuana and the border wall with the non-profit group Al Otro Lado. If you'd rather watch the full video version of this episode, tap here. Al Otro Lado is a bi-national organization that provides free legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants, deportees, and separated families. Thanks to the leadership of Jesse Thorn and his wife,  Theresa Thorn, and especially to all of our listeners, we were able to raise over $400,000 to support Al Otro Lado's humanitarian and legal efforts. Join us as we travel to their headquarters in Tijuana to see their good work in action, meet the staff who make it possible, and meet some of the people who have benefited from Al Otro Lado's work. We recorded this episode at Friendship Park, which is located on the water in Tijuana next to the border wall. We hope you listen to our powerful conversation with Nicole Ramos, Director of the Border Rights Project at Al Otro Lado, and Cassandra Lopez, Director of Litigation at Al Otro Lado, who work in San Diego and Tijuana to advance the rights of all immigrants, refugees, and deportees, on both sides of the border. We know this is a departure from our usual content, but we believe in this powerful work and wanted to share it with you, our listeners. Learn More about Al Otro Lado and donate to support their work at: AlOtroLado.org Follow Al Otro Lado on Instagram here Support Baraka's GoFundMe here Support Baraka's Music and Merch at linktr.ee/frankiejaxnomad ---Judge John Hodgman is member-supported! Become a member to unlock special bonus episodes and more. Memberships start at just $5 a month. Just tap here!

John is joined by Shawn Fagan, the Chief Legal Officer of Citadel LLC and a key legal figure at Citadel Securities. Citadel is the most profitable hedge fund globally, while Citadel Securities is a leading market maker, processing nearly one-third of U.S. equities and options trades. They discuss Shawn's insights into the unique legal challenges of these rapidly growing organizations.Shawn has essentially four clients: Citadel, Citadel Securities, founder Ken Griffin, and Griffin's family office. His responsibilities extend beyond legal oversight to include regulatory affairs and compliance, reflecting the complexities of modern finance.Shawn's journey to Citadel was unconventional. He started as a litigator at Bartlit Beck, a boutique trial firm, where he spent nearly half his time in trial. He participated in high-profile cases, including Bush v. Gore, but ultimately realized that trial work was not his passion. A chance meeting with Ken Griffin led to an in-house opportunity at Citadel, where he has now been for 20 years.During that time, Citadel has grown from 1,000 employees and $12 billion in assets under management to 4,900 employees and $65 billion in assets under management. The focus of Shawn's role at Citadel is building the right teams to meet the demands of rapidly growing markets around the world, developing technology to ensure regulatory compliance across billions of transactions every day, and maintaining consistent standards in an organization that continues to grow at an extraordinary pace.Citadel has engaged in several high-profile legal battles, including lawsuits against the SEC and IRS, reflecting the firm's willingness to challenge regulations it views as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. When retaining outside counsel, Shawn looks for lawyers with strategic vision who can articulate a clear path to winning cases.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of NASCIO Voices, hosts Amy Glasscock and Alex Whitaker sit down with NASCIO policy analyst Kalea Young-Gibson to discuss her article Digital Accessibility Compliance Thoughts From a Public Sector Attorney, which is based on a conversation with Max Heinz, supervising attorney with New York State Information Technology Services. The conversation covers the recently extended DOJ Title II final rule compliance deadline, explaining that while states now have more time, the urgency has not diminished — digital accessibility lawsuits have surpassed 5,000 per year and are now considered mainstream civil rights enforcement. Kalea breaks down what "reasonable effort" really means for state agencies (hint: it's context-driven, not a checklist), how states should structure vendor contracts using WCAG-tied language as a model, and why documentation is the single hardest — and most critical — thing states must get right to defend themselves in litigation. The episode closes with a lightning round featuring emoji habits, lessons from new cat ownership, and a passionate endorsement of Cook Out, North Carolina's beloved fast food chain.

After a week of decisions coming in from all corners, Mary and Andrew begin with a court order issued to remove President Trump's name off the Kennedy Center after a failed, last-minute attempt by the administration to stop it from happening. Mary refers to this as “good news in the fight against revisionist history,” which she ties into their second beat: a preliminary injunction issued to restore changes to National Parks that were made after Trump issued an executive order calling for modifications to monuments, parks and memorials to rewrite and censor American history and science. Then, onto a federal judge in Virginia officially blocking the $1.776 Billion slush fund after mixed messaging from the administration about whether it would be set up, plus a decision by Judge Mehta in DC to overturn the Department of Energy's cancellation of $82.1 Million in clean energy grants to “Blue” states across the country. Mary and Andrew also touch on a Massachusetts District Court decision blocking Ken Paxton's lawsuit against the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue. And last up, they read and summarize the eyebrow-raising grand jury transcripts of the “Broadview Six” case out of Chicago, so you don't have to.  Further reading: Here is Judge Mehta's order reinstating the clean energy grants: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.296214/gov.uscourts.mad.296214.41.0.pdf   Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. 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 our Litigation Lens podcast series, Michael Nail (shareholder, Greenville) is joined by Sarah Zucco (shareholder, New York) and Olivia Orlando-Donovan (associate, New York/Stamford) to break down Judge Lyman's April 2026 opinion in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios—a 152-page decision arising from the production of It Ends With Us. The speakers examine the court's independent contractor ruling, the enforceability of unsigned agreements, and the FEHA retaliation claim that survived dispositive motions. Tune in for practical takeaways on worker classification, contract execution, and the fine line between defending your reputation and retaliating against a complainant.

Drawing on 20 years observing attorney behavior, Hon. Stuart M. Rice (ret.) now at JAMS, speaks freely. This episode is a rare candid debrief from the other side of the bench.Key topics:What incivility actually costs you in court: Judge Rice served on the statewide civility task force and watched uncivil conduct for two decades. His diagnosis: it's not the screamer at deposition—it's the subtler patterns that quietly erode a lawyer's credibility with the bench.The task force secured a new oath provision requiring lawyers admitted since 2014 to attest to treating others with "dignity, respect, and courtesy"—but how much does an oath really change behavior?Show up in person—especially when you can lose: Remote appearances transformed California courtrooms post-COVID, and not for the better. Judge Rice's rule from the bench: if you can win or lose at a hearing, you will do better work in the room.And that's true in mediation, too.Complex mediation is a strategy problem, not just a settlement problem: As the judge who presided over all of the 2025 Palisades Fire consolidated cases and California's Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer litigation, Judge Rice brings a systems view to large multi-plaintiff matters. He recently wrote in the Daily Journal on what it takes to succeed in complex mediations—and his JAMS practice is built around exactly these cases.Pupillage groups and the civility dividend: As president of the Benjamin Aranda III Inn of Court, Judge Rice restructured pupillage groups to require two new members per group who were law students or lawyers within five years of practice—successfully shifting the Inn's demographics and, he argues, its culture.The Adam Z. Rice Memorial Scholarship: Judge Rice is in his fourth consecutive year as president of the California Judges Foundation, which funds needs-based scholarships for law students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The scholarship is named for his late son. This year's award included an offer of free mentoring until the recipient's first legal job. Find it by searching "Adam Rice Memorial Scholarship" or visiting caljudges.org.Your next status conference is closer than you think. Hit play before it gets here—this episode will change how you read the room.

The SEC's “Gag Rule” long conditioned settlement of enforcement actions on the defendant's agreeing never to publicly deny the agency's allegations, even where the defendant admitted no wrongdoing. In Powell v. SEC, now before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, Petitioners argue that this condition violates the First Amendment; the Ninth Circuit had upheld the rule as a permissible voluntary waiver. The case has already produced major developments. Last month, the SEC rescinded the Gag Rule, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has now rescinded its own comparable no-deny settlement policy. The SEC now contends that its rescission of the rule renders Powell moot. Join us for a litigation update on Powell and a broader discussion of what these reversals mean for agency enforcement, settlement negotiations, mootness, and government efforts to control the public narrative. Featuring: --Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance --Hon. Gregory G. Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP --(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

John is joined by Jeffrey N. Boozell and Christopher Tayback, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss wildfire litigation as a specialized and rapidly growing area of law, driven by increasingly destructive fires in California and other western states. What began as a relatively limited practice in the 1990s evolved into a major practice area after large California wildfires generated thousands of property loss claims and billions of dollars in damages. Jeff and Chris explain how these cases are structured, the legal theories involved, and the challenges of compensating victims.Wildfire cases are generally mass torts rather than class actions. Because each homeowner suffers different losses and faces unique causation issues, claims are coordinated before a single judge but remain individual lawsuits.These cases are typically brought against utilities, governments, and private entities that plaintiffs allege bear some responsibility for the disaster. One of the most important legal doctrines in California is inverse condemnation, which imposes liability on public utilities when infrastructure serving the public causes property damage. Under this doctrine, utilities may be responsible for property losses even without proof of negligence, distinguishing California wildfire litigation from cases in many other states.Utilities are also frequently defendants because fires are often linked to power lines, equipment failures, vegetation management issues, or other infrastructure-related problems. Various ignition scenarios may occur, including power lines striking each other in high winds, trees coming into contact with power lines, and improperly maintained equipment. For example, in the Eaton Fire, evidence shows that an old, unused power line was not properly grounded, leading to sparks that ignited the fire. In the Palisades Fire, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power emptied the Santa Ynez Reservoir to carry out repairs and left it empty for an extended period. As a result, firefighting helicopters were unable to collect and drop water from the reservoir, and eventually, fire hydrants in the area ran dry. Utilities understand these risks but often fail to implement adequate preventive measures.Despite involving enormous losses and thousands of claimants, major California wildfire cases rarely reach trial. Instead, courts establish coordinated proceedings, identify bellwether cases, and encourage settlement through mediation programs or compensation funds. Insurance payments often cover only part of a homeowner's losses, leaving substantial uninsured damages and emotional distress claims to be pursued through litigation.The scale of the 2025 Los Angeles-area fires is unprecedented. Estimated damages exceed $200 billion, underscoring why wildfire litigation is likely to remain a significant area of legal practice for years to come.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Decisions are happening fast — and the consequences are showing. Last week, Trump announced he would nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to the top post at the Justice Department, after Blanche nixed the $1.776 “Anti-Weaponization” fund while keeping the controversial release that shields Trump and his family from any liability. Mary and Andrew highlight the myriad of issues Blanche will need to answer for when a confirmation hearing comes, before moving to the Supreme Court ruling that allows Alabama to adopt a Republican-drawn congressional map eliminating one of only two majority-Black districts in the state. This nullifies a lower court's decision that the map was, in fact, intentionally discriminatory. Next up, the co-hosts review a Rhode Island judge's ruling that invalidated several of Trump's immigration policies, including one that placed a hold on asylum claims globally, causing chaos and uncertainty for many legally trying to obtain asylum claims and green card status.And lastly, a beat on a new executive order stripping job protections from thousands of federal workers, plus continuing litigation over Trump's ballroom. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Why do some high-conflict people refuse to settle, even when it hurts them financially and emotionally? In this episode, Rebecca Zung explains the dopamine loop of litigation and reveals how anticipation, conflict, and emotional reactions can keep narcissists and other high-conflict personalities trapped in endless legal battles. Learn the four stages of the cycle and the key strategy for breaking the loop, protecting your peace, and moving toward resolution. #RebeccaZung #Narcissist #HighConflictPersonality #Litigation #ConflictResolution Chapters: 00:00 Why They Keep Moving the Goalposts 00:54 The Real Reason High-Conflict People Won't Settle 02:45 Stage 1: Anticipation and the Dopamine Rush 04:23 Stage 2: The Discharge Phase 06:42 Stage 3: The Trough and Withdrawal 08:10 Stage 4: Re-Engagement and Provocation 09:34 Why Emotional Reactions Fuel the Loop 10:32 How Cases Actually Move Toward Resolution 11:50 Becoming Unavailable as the Reward 12:16 The Neuroscience Behind High-Conflict Behavior 12:37 Final Takeaways and Next Steps

 Holly Fretwell explains how NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act create "red tape" and litigation that stall restoration projects. She highlights that the Clean Air Act paradoxically limits prescribed burns, which would prevent far more damaging, high-emission wildfires. Some litigious groups cling to unrealistic, romanticized visions of unmanaged forests. (2)180E  HARLEM HEIGHT00

With the Voting Rights Act in tatters, will corporate America reaffirm their commitment to our right to vote? The Congressional Black Caucus thinks they might… Our second guest, Congressman Jonathan Jackson of Illinois’ 1st district, is calling on Costco, Microsoft, John Deere, Apple, Ford, McDonalds, and others to do more. Our first guest is Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, Senior Director of Litigation for Common Cause, and one of the lead attorneys challenging Trump’s $1.7 billion slush fund. Trump is setting up a $1.7 billion fund to compensate “victims” of President Biden’s so-called “lawfare,” including folks convicted of crimes related to January 6th. Some Republicans have spoken out against the fund, which faces legal challenges. LINKS: The CBC’s Open Letter to Business: https://cbc.house.gov/uploadedfiles/congressional_black_caucus__corporate_america_voting_rights_accountability_letter.pdf Learn more about Common Cause: https://www.commoncause.org/about-us/ More on Trump’s Slush Fund: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/01/g-s1-125268/justice-department-trump-anti-weaponization-fund-pause Read the 2021 “Business for Voting Rights” Letter to Congress: https://www.businessforvotingrights.com/letter-to-congress Want to ask Angela a question? Subscribe to our YouTube channel to participate in the chat. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media. Thank you to the Native Land Pod team: Angela Rye as host, executive producer, and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Andrew Gillum as host and producer, Bakari Sellers as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; LoLo Smith is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media. Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.