Podcasts about litigation

Traditionally, litigators seeking to understand an individual's or organization's devices - specifically, how they store, access, manage, and delete information - have either asked a deponent to testify from memory or arranged for a costly forensic inspection instead. In this episode, Jim spotlights a fantastic middle ground: requiring a deponent (individual or 30(b)(6) rep) to bring their devices to the deposition and demonstrate their functions and programs or apps during a videotaped examination. This technique was just approved by a federal judge in a pending class action against the ride-sharing company Uber. It's one all litigators should be using. As Jim says in the episode, devices are where information now lives. Lawyers should be more aggressive in their pursuit of discovery related to devices an individual or entity owns and how they access, store, manage, and delete data.SHOW NOTESIN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION, No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025); See Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking device demonstration is Document 2957; Order Resolving Discovery Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions is Document 2995.Section 9.43, Physical Demonstrations By Deponents, p. 357-359, in the book 10,000 Depositions Later - The Premier Litigation Guide For Superior Deposition Practice: A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics and Strategies for Civil, Administrative and Arbitrative Litigation, 4th Edition, 615 pp., by Jim Garrity, Esq., available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice.  Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others.  He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements).  They discuss the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements.  Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk's favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk's tweet about taking Tesla private.  He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory.  Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Imagine if the tiny tracking code behind personalized ads and website recommendations were suddenly considered unlawful.   That's exactly what's happening in the growing legal battle over cookies and tracking pixels across the country with new fronts opening.   In this episode of The Data Chronicles, we examine plaintiffs' efforts to expand the web tracking litigation battleground by claiming that unconsented use of web trackers constitutes a data breach under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which entitles comes with statutory damages and a private right of action.   Scott Loughlin is joined by Hogan Lovells litigators Aidan Coleman and Jay Ettinger to break down the legal implications of new case law on this issue and discuss what's at stake for the internet as we know it.

De-escalating High-Conflict Divorce: A Rabbi's Perspective on Finding PeaceRabbi Avi Kahan joins Seth Nelson and Pete Wright to explore how de-escalation techniques and cultural sensitivity can help families reach sustainable resolutions during divorce. As a mediator handling complex religious and cultural divorce cases, Rabbi Kahan brings unique insights into managing high-conflict situations and helping couples transition from being spouses to successful co-parents.The conversation delves deep into how fear and conflict often mask deeper emotional struggles during divorce. Seth and Pete explore with Rabbi Kahan how the legal system's focus on "fairness" can sometimes escalate tensions, while religious and cultural perspectives might offer alternative paths to resolution. They discuss how divorce doesn't actually separate parents—it unifies them in a new way as co-parents, requiring them to articulate a new future together for their children's sake.Questions we answer in this episode:How can you de-escalate high-conflict divorce situations?What role does "fairness" really play in divorce proceedings?How can religious perspectives help in understanding divorce as transformation rather than failure?Key Takeaways:Focus on living your life, not your divorce—don't let temporary legal proceedings define your actionsDe-escalation often requires helping both parties want the divorce, not just need itCourt litigation can force parents to suppress their authentic selves, potentially harming childrenThe episode offers valuable insights for anyone navigating a contentious divorce, especially those dealing with cultural or religious complexities. Rabbi Kahan's perspective on viewing divorce as a unifying rather than separating force provides a fresh framework for approaching this challenging life transition. Links & NotesVisit Rabbi Avi Kahan on the web, Instagram, LinkedIn, or YouTubeSchedule a consult with SethGot a question you want to ask on the show? Click here! (00:00) - Welcome to How to Split a Toaster (00:26) - Meet Rabbi Avi Kahan (01:15) - De-Escalation and Rabbi's Background (03:29) - In the Interpersonal Space (06:21) - Getting Them on the Same Page (09:51) - To Make Life Better Post-Divorce (10:42) - Decompressing the Proxy Battle (14:56) - Fairness (22:20) - Husband v. Wife, Father v. Mother (24:53) - Lack of Agency (27:46) - Escalation as Coping Mechanism (29:28) - Affecting the Children (33:12) - Preparing for Mediation and Litigation (36:59) - Wrap Up

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP--To register, click the link above.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) is now set to be argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Gina Rubel and Jennifer Simpson Carr explore one of the most sensitive challenges law firms face: managing public and media communications during litigation. From defending global brands to navigating precedent-setting cases, they discuss why early engagement with communications professionals is essential, how to strike the right balance between legal accuracy and public clarity, and why “no comment” is never the right response.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. joins host Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about how to help witnesses navigate deposition situations where they may be thrown off by plaintiff's counsel disorganized approach or confusing questions, whether intentionally confusing or not. Bill and Steve describe what witnesses should do and be encouraged by defense counsel to do when plaintiff's counsel asks bad or poorly worded questions. What must be avoided is your witness trying to fix opposing counsel's poorly phrased question and providing a response to that since, regardless of how the question is worded, if the witness provides any answer to what they think the question is, they are stuck with their answer. It is critical to practice asking your witnesses bad questions and help them understand how to respond when they are asked poorly worded questions. Get a scouting report on opposing counsel to know what their style is for questioning and practice asking questions of your witness with that approach so the witness is able to experience it in the prep and be prepared when it happens at the deposition. 

Most automobile subrogation cases are the result of negligence, but when the tortfeasor's driving was reckless or intentional, we sometimes call it Road Rage.  Though a road rage incident may seem like an easy case, it often  proves to be quite complex, calling into question whether the opposing  insurance carrier can deny coverage, potential assumption of risk, or even if an employer could be held responsible for an employee's rageful driving. In this week's episode, Rebecca and Steve explore what really happens when road rage turns into a legal battle and break down real legal concepts with insight into how the law handles anger on the asphalt.

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel's Wilmington, Delaware office.  They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions.  Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.”  Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare.  In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework.  The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders.  Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners.Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc.  In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair. Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty (e.g., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation.  “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend.  To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions.  The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed.  It also reforms the state's books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands.  The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world's demand for greater legal certainty.  Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter explore eDiscovery processes and procedures with Alison Grounds, founder and managing partner of eMerge. Learn about the importance of eDiscovery in litigation, the shift from paper to digital discovery, and the complexities of managing electronic data. Alison offers practical tips on preserving evidence, leveraging AI, and navigating the challenges of use of personal devices for business purposes. Tune in to learn about managing electronic data and avoiding common mistakes in the eDiscovery process.

Jon Riches, Goldwater Institute's Vice President of Litigation, joins the show to discuss his view on why the tax expanding fire services in Phoenix is unconstitutional. Riches says that it is this tax on services that is against the state constitution. 

Larry Hall, Partner at Chartwell Law, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. to break down the process and positive outcome of a recent trial. Larry shares an overview of the case, how mediation went, and what the demands were from the plaintiff attorney. The group discusses the jury research that was conducted for this case, how the research was set up, what the legal team wanted to learn from the research, and what some of the findings were in the research, including surprises. Bill, Steve, and Larry also talk about identifying pro-plaintiff and pro-defense jurors based on the jury research and how they used the research findings to develop juror profiles, voir dire questions, and their opening statement plan. Larry then describes the process for jury selection, how they approached their strikes, and how the jury research informed both his opening statement and his closing. Lastly, Larry talks about the curveballs they experienced during trial, how his team handled them, and his client's reaction to the final verdict. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/k0J

Get the Toolbox Magazine! https://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/magazine Join our Marriage/Family Based Green Card course and community (includes adjustment and consular processing): https://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/courses   Guest: Kevin A. Gregg, Esq.   Audio Podcast Link: https://sites.libsyn.com/69112/378-federal-court-update-w-kevin-a-gregg-april-2025 Itunes Link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/378-federal-court-update-w-kevin-a-gregg-april-2025/id1111797806?i=1000706796382 Share the video: https://youtu.be/BIoNJlNwLGo   Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com   Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox

Ryan P. Mulvaney, Lawyer, Litigation, Sports NIL joins 365 Sports to discuss his thoughts on the changes around college athletics and NCAA v House Settlement, are the NCAA and Power Conferences playing with fire, his thoughts on the impact roster limits will have in college athletics and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

The Law of Rebuilding LA Episode 28: Hawaii's unique approach to wildfire litigation settlements by

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Joseph DeFazio and Jason Manning, along with Alison Grounds, founder and managing partner of Troutman Pepper Locke's award-winning eDiscovery subsidiary, eMerge to discuss the evolving capabilities and advantages of eDiscovery. This episode highlights the significance of efficient processes in streamlining document review to enhance legal strategies, including setting clear policies for electronically stored information (ESI) and analyzing vast volumes of digital data with accuracy. As the use of AI becomes more prevalent across the consumer financial services industry, the speakers underscore the impact of leaning into eDiscovery and innovation to help uncover critical evidence early in litigation and response plans, as well as during regulatory investigations.

Litigation has become the go-to weapon to fight unconstitutional laws, lack of service delivery, abuse of power. In this interview with BizNews, constitutional law expert Professor Koos Malan says: “…we have such large scale malfunctioning of the executive, such large scale malfunctioning of the administration, covering each and every aspect of South African society and also having an effect on each and every possible right, specifically constitutional rights, that one can conceive of, that people are actually forced to go to the courts in order to try to seek help.” However, he warns that a court order amounts to “something like a wish” because “the moment you deal with this systemic problem, the courts are actually not in position to give any remedies, to give any real help, any real proper interference that could steer the executive, steer the relevant organ of state, whatever, in a positive direction simply because of the fact that the state has to such an extent crumbled, to use that strong word, that eventually the court's order won't mean anything.” Instead, Professor Malan hails the private sector for “superbly standing in for the failure of the State - also within the justice system”. Professor Malan further describes how the judiciary is “always somehow in step with the dominant elite” - and says: “…let's say for a moment, the African National Congress becomes weaker and the Democratic Alliance becomes stronger. Then the political landscape changes and the changed landscape implies that the Constitutional Court has more leeway, more liberty, not to take into account those risks that might be involved…”

Samm Tillotson is a commercial litigator at an elite law firm, where she spends a lot of time defending class action lawsuits for insurance clients. While she doesn't go to trial often, she spends a lot of time in court, preparing for court, and negotiating. Despite the firm's size, Samm's cases are leanly staffed, which means she works a case from beginning to end. She talks a bit about her love of discovery, work-life balance, and partnership. Samm is a graduate of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.This episode is hosted by Katya Valasek.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Rutgers LawLearn more about Rutgers LawAccess LawHub today!Learn more about Vermont Law

Much has been made of the hallucinatory qualities of OpenAI's ChatGPT product. But as the Wall Street Journal's resident authority on OpenAI, Keach Hagey notes, perhaps the most hallucinatory feature the $300 billion start-up co-founded by the deadly duo of Sam Altman and Elon Musk is its attempt to be simultaneously a for-profit and non-profit company. As Hagey notes, the double life of this double company reached a surreal climax this week when Altman announced that OpenAI was abandoning its promised for-profit conversion. So what, I asked Hagey, are the implications of this corporate volte-face for investors who have poured billions of real dollars into the non-profit in order to make a profit? Will they be Waiting For Godot to get their returns?As Hagey - whose excellent biography of Altman, The Optimist, is out in a couple of weeks - explains, this might be the story of the hubristic 2020's. She speaks of Altman's astonishingly (even for Silicon Valley) hubris in believing that he can get away with the alchemic conceit of inventing a multi trillion dollar for-profit non-profit company. Yes, you can be half-pregnant, Sam is promising us. But, as she warns, at some point this will be exposed as fantasy. The consequences might not exactly be another Enron or FTX, but it will have ramifications way beyond beyond Silicon Valley. What will happen, for example, if future investors aren't convinced by Altman's fantasy and OpenAI runs out of cash? Hagey suggests that the OpenAI story may ultimately become a political drama in which a MAGA President will be forced to bail out America's leading AI company. It's TikTok in reverse (imagine if Chinese investors try to acquire OpenAI). Rather than the conveniently devilish Elon Musk, my sense is that Sam Altman is auditioning to become the real Jay Gatsby of our roaring twenties. Last month, Keach Hagey told me that Altman's superpower is as a salesman. He can sell anything to anyone, she says. But selling a non-profit to for-profit venture capitalists might even be a bridge too far for Silicon Valley's most hallucinatory optimist. Five Key Takeaways * OpenAI has abandoned plans to convert from a nonprofit to a for-profit structure, with pressure coming from multiple sources including attorneys general of California and Delaware, and possibly influenced by Elon Musk's opposition.* This decision will likely make it more difficult for OpenAI to raise money, as investors typically want control over their investments. Despite this, Sam Altman claims SoftBank will still provide the second $30 billion chunk of funding that was previously contingent on the for-profit conversion.* The nonprofit structure creates inherent tensions within OpenAI's business model. As Hagey notes, "those contradictions are still there" after nearly destroying the company once before during Altman's brief firing.* OpenAI's leadership is trying to position this as a positive change, with plans to capitalize the nonprofit and launch new programs and initiatives. However, Hagey notes this is similar to what Altman did at Y Combinator, which eventually led to tensions there.* The decision is beneficial for competitors like XAI, Anthropic, and others with normal for-profit structures. Hagey suggests the most optimistic outcome would be OpenAI finding a way to IPO before "completely imploding," though how a nonprofit-controlled entity would do this remains unclear.Keach Hagey is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal's Media and Marketing Bureau in New York, where she focuses on the intersection of media and technology. Her stories often explore the relationships between tech platforms like Facebook and Google and the media. She was part of the team that broke the Facebook Files, a series that won a George Polk Award for Business Reporting, a Gerald Loeb Award for Beat Reporting and a Deadline Award for public service. Her investigation into the inner workings of Google's advertising-technology business won recognition from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing (Sabew). Previously, she covered the television industry for the Journal, reporting on large media companies such as 21st Century Fox, Time Warner and Viacom. She led a team that won a Sabew award for coverage of the power struggle inside Viacom. She is the author of “The King of Content: Sumner Redstone's Battle for Viacom, CBS and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire,” published by HarperCollins. Before joining the Journal, Keach covered media for Politico, the National in Abu Dhabi, CBS News and the Village Voice. She has a bachelor's and a master's in English literature from Stanford University. She lives in Irvington, N.Y., with her husband, three daughters and dog.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is May the 6th, a Tuesday, 2025. And the tech media is dominated today by OpenAI's plan to convert its for-profit business to a non-profit side. That's how the Financial Times is reporting it. New York Times says that OpenAI, and I'm quoting them, backtracks on plans to drop nonprofit control and the Wall Street Journal, always very authoritative on the tech front, leads with Open AI abandons planned for profit conversion. The Wall Street Journal piece is written by Keach Hagey, who is perhaps America's leading authority on OpenAI. She was on the show a couple of months ago talking about Sam Altman's superpower which is as a salesman. Keach is also the author of an upcoming book. It's out in a couple weeks, "The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI and the Race to Invent the Future." And I'm thrilled that Keach has been remarkably busy today, as you can imagine, found a few minutes to come onto the show. So, Keach, what is Sam selling here? You say he's a salesman. He's always selling something or other. What's the sell here?Keach Hagey: Well, the sell here is that this is not a big deal, right? The sell is that, this thing they've been trying to do for about a year, which is to make their company less weird, it's not gonna work. And as he was talking to the press yesterday, he was trying to suggest that they're still gonna be able to fundraise, that these folks that they promised that if you give us money, we're gonna convert to a for-profit and it's gonna be much more normal investment for you, but they're gonna get that money, which is you know, a pretty tough thing. So that's really, that's what he's selling is that this is not disruptive to the future of OpenAI.Andrew Keen: For people who are just listening, I'm looking at Keach's face, and I'm sensing that she's doing everything she can not to burst out laughing. Is that fair, Keach?Keach Hagey: Well, it'll remain to be seen, but I do think it will make it a lot harder for them to raise money. I mean, even Sam himself said as much during the talk yesterday that, you know, investors would like to be able to have some say over what happens to their money. And if you're controlled by a nonprofit organization, that's really tough. And what they were trying to do was convert to a new world where investors would have a seat at the table, because as we all remember, when Sam got briefly fired almost two years ago. The investors just helplessly sat on the sidelines and didn't have any say in the matter. Microsoft had absolutely no role to play other than kind of cajoling and offering him a job on the sidelines. So if you're gonna try to raise money, you really need to be able to promise some kind of control and that's become a lot harder.Andrew Keen: And the ramifications more broadly on this announcement will extend to Microsoft and Microsoft stock. I think their stock is down today. We'll come to that in a few minutes. Keach, there was an interesting piece in the week, this week on AI hallucinations are getting worse. Of course, OpenAI is the dominant AI company with their ChatGPT. But is this also kind of hallucination? What exactly is going on here? I have to admit, and I always thought, you know, I certainly know more about tech than I do about other subjects, which isn't always saying very much. But I mean, either you're a nonprofit or you're a for-profit, is there some sort of hallucinogenic process going on where Sam is trying to sell us on the idea that OpenAI is simultaneously a for profit and a nonprofit company?Keach Hagey: Well, that's kind of what it is right now. That's what it had sort of been since 2019 or when it spun up this strange structure where it had a for-profit underneath a nonprofit. And what we saw in the firing is that that doesn't hold. There's gonna come a moment when those two worlds are going to collide and it nearly destroyed the company. To be challenging going forward is that that basic destabilization that like unstable structure remains even though now everything is so much bigger there's so much more money coursing through and it's so important for the economy. It's a dangerous position.Andrew Keen: It's not so dangerous, you seem still faintly amused. I have to admit, I'm more than faintly amused, it's not too bothersome for us because we don't have any money in OpenAI. But for SoftBank and the other participants in the recent $40 billion round of investment in OpenAI, this must be, to say the least, rather disconcerting.Keach Hagey: That was one of the biggest surprises from the press conference yesterday. Sam Altman was asked point blank, is SoftBank still going to give you this sort of second chunk, this $30 billion second chunk that was contingent upon being able to convert to a for-profit, and he said, quite simply, yes. Who knows what goes on in behind the scenes? I think we're gonna find out probably a lot more about that. There are many unanswered questions, but it's not great, right? It's definitely not great for investors.Andrew Keen: Well, you have to guess at the very minimum, SoftBank would be demanding better terms. They're not just going to do the same thing. I mean, it suddenly it suddenly gives them an additional ace in their hand in terms of negotiation. I mean this is not some sort of little startup. This is 30 or 40 billion dollars. I mean it's astonishing number. And presumably the non-public conversations are very interesting. I'm sure, Keach, you would like to know what's being said.Keach Hagey: Don't know yet, but I think your analysis is pretty smart on this matter.Andrew Keen: So if you had to guess, Sam is the consummate salesman. What did he tell SoftBank before April to close the round? And what is he telling them now? I mean, how has the message changed?Keach Hagey: One of the things that we see a little bit about this from the messaging that he gave to the world yesterday, which is this is going to be a simpler structure. It is going to be slightly more normal structure. They are changing the structure a little bit. So although the non-profit is going to remain in charge, the thing underneath it, the for-profit, is going change its structure a little bit and become kind of a little more normal. It's not going to have this capped profit thing where, you know, the investors are capped at 100 times what they put in. So parts of it are gonna become more normal. For employees, it's probably gonna be easier for them to get equity and things like that. So I'm sure that that's part of what he's selling, that this new structure is gonna be a little bit better, but it's not gonna be as good as what they were trying to do.Andrew Keen: Can Sam? I mean, clearly he has sold it. I mean as we joked earlier when we talked, Sam could sell ice to the Laplanders or sand to the Saudis. But these people know Sam. It's no secret that he's a remarkable salesman. That means that sometimes you have to think carefully about what he's saying. What's the impact on him? To what extent is this decision one more chip on the Altman brand?Keach Hagey: It's a setback for sure, and it's kind of a win for Elon Musk, his rival.Andrew Keen: Right.Keach Hagey: Elon has been suing him, Elon has been trying to block this very conversion. And in the end, it seems like it was actually the attorneys general of California and Delaware that really put the nail in the coffin here. So there's still a lot to find out about exactly how it all shook out. There were actually huge campaigns as well, like in the streets, billboards, posters. Polls saying, trying to put pressure on the attorney general to block this thing. So it was a broad coalition, I think, that opposed the conversion, and you can even see that a little bit in their speech. But you got to admit that Elon probably looked at this and was happy.Andrew Keen: And I'm sure Elon used his own X platform to promote his own agenda. Is this an example, Keach, in a weird kind of way of the plebiscitary politics now of Silicon Valley is that titans like Altman and Musk are fighting out complex corporate economic battles in the naked public of social media.Keach Hagey: Yes, in the naked public of social media, but what we're also seeing here is that it's sort of, it's become through the apparatus of government. So we're seeing, you know, Elon is in the Doge office and this conversion is really happening in the state AG's houses. So that's what's sort interesting to me is these like private fights have now expanded to fill both state and federal government.Andrew Keen: Last time we talked, I couldn't find the photo, but there was a wonderful photo of, I think it was Larry Ellison and Sam Altman in the Oval Office with Trump. And Ellison looked very excited. He looked extremely old as well. And Altman looked very awkward. And it's surprising to see Altman look awkward because generally he doesn't. Has Trump played a role in this or is he keeping out of it?Keach Hagey: As far as my current reporting right now, we have no reporting that Trump himself was directly involved. I can't go further than that right now.Andrew Keen: Meaning that you know something that you're not willing to ignore.Keach Hagey: Just I hope you keep your subscription to the Wall Street Journal on what role the White House played, I would say. But as far as that awkwardness, I don't know if you noticed that there was a box that day for Masa Yoshison to see.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and Son was in the office too, right, that was the third person.Keach Hagey: So it was a box in the podium, which I think contributed to the awkwardness of the day, because he's not a tall man.Andrew Keen: Right. To put it politely. The way that OpenAI spun it, in classic Sam Altman terms, is new funding to build towards AGI. So it's their Altman-esque use of the public to vindicate this new investment, is this just more quote unquote, and this is my word. You don't have to agree with it. Just sales pitch or might even be dishonesty here. I mean, the reality is, is new funding to build towards AGI, which is, artificial general intelligence. It's not new funding, to build toward AGI. It's new funding to build towards OpenAI, there's no public benefit of any of this, is there?Keach Hagey: Well, what they're saying is that the nonprofit will be capitalized and will sort of be hiring up and doing a bunch more things that it wasn't really doing. We'll have programs and initiatives and all of that. Which really, as someone who studied Sam's life, this sounds really a lot like what he did at Y Combinator. When he was head of Y Combinator, he also spun up a nonprofit arm, which is actually what OpenAI grew out of. So I think in Sam's mind, a nonprofit there's a place to go. Sort of hash out your ideas, it's a place to kind of have pet projects grow. That's where he did things like his UBI study. So I can sort of see that once the AGs are like, this is not gonna happen, he's like, great, we'll just make a big nonprofit and I'll get to do all these projects I've always wanted to do.Andrew Keen: Didn't he get thrown out of Y Combinator by Paul Graham for that?Keach Hagey: Yes, a little bit. You know, I would say there's a general mutiny for too much of that kind of stuff. Yeah, it's true. People didn't love it, and they thought that he took his eye off the ball. A little bit because one of those projects became OpenAI, and he became kind of obsessed with it and stopped paying attention. So look, maybe OpenAI will spawn the next thing, right? And he'll get distracted by that and move on.Andrew Keen: No coincidence, of course, that Sam went on to become a CEO of OpenAI. What does it mean for the broader AI ecosystem? I noted earlier you brought up Microsoft. I mean, I think you've already written on this and lots of other people have written about the fact that the relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft has cooled dramatically. As well as between Nadella and Altman. What does this mean for Microsoft? Is it a big deal?Keach Hagey: They have been hashing this out for months. So it is a big deal in that it will change the structure of their most important partner. But even before this, Microsoft and OpenAI were sort of locked in negotiations over how large and how Microsoft's stake in this new OpenAI will be valued. And that still has to be determined, regardless of whether it's a non-profit or a for-profit in charge. And their interests are diverging. So those negotiations are not as warm as they maybe would have been a few years ago.Andrew Keen: It's a form of polyamory, isn't it? Like we have in Silicon Valley, everyone has sex with everybody else, to put it politely.Keach Hagey: Well, OpenAI does have a new partner in Oracle. And I would expect them to have many more in terms of cloud computing partners going forward. It's just too much risk for any one company to build these huge and expensive data centers, not knowing that OpenAI is going to exist in a certain number of years. So they have to diversify.Andrew Keen: Keach, you know, this is amusing and entertaining and Altman is a remarkable individual, able to sell anything to anyone. But at what point are we really on the Titanic here? And there is such a thing as an iceberg, a real thing, whatever Donald Trump or other manufacturers of ontologies might suggest. At some point, this thing is going to end in a massive disaster.Keach Hagey: Are you talking about the Existence Force?Andrew Keen: I'm not talking about the Titanic, I'm talking about OpenAI. I mean, Parmi Olson, who's the other great authority on OpenAI, who won the FT Book of the Year last year, she's been on the show a couple of times, she wrote in Bloomberg that OpenAI can't have its money both ways, and that's what Sam is trying to do. My point is that we can all point out, excuse me, the contradictions and the hypocrisy and all the rest of it. But there are laws of gravity when it comes to economics. And at a certain point, this thing is going to crash, isn't it? I mean, what's the metaphor? Is it Enron? Is it Sam Bankman-Fried? What kind of examples in history do we need to look at to try and figure out what really is going on here?Keach Hagey: That's certainly one possibility, and there are a good number of people who believe that.Andrew Keen: Believe what, Enron or Sam Bankman-Fried?Keach Hagey: Oh, well, the internal tensions cannot hold, right? I don't know if fraud is even necessary so much as just, we've seen it, we've already seen it happen once, right, the company almost completely collapsed one time and those contradictions are still there.Andrew Keen: And when you say it happened, is that when Sam got pushed out or was that another or something else?Keach Hagey: No, no, that's it, because Sam almost got pushed out and then all of the funders would go away. So Sam needs to be there for them to continue raising money in the way that they have been raising money. And that's really going to be the question. How long can that go on? He's a young man, could go on a very long time. But yeah, I think that really will determine whether it's a disaster or not.Andrew Keen: But how long can it go on? I mean, how long could Sam have it both ways? Well, there's a dream. I mean maybe he can close this last round. I mean he's going to need to raise more than $40 billion. This is such a competitive space. Tens of billions of dollars are being invested almost on a monthly basis. So this is not the end of the road, this $40-billion investment.Keach Hagey: Oh, no. And you know, there's talk of IPO at some point, maybe not even that far away. I don't even let me wrap my mind around what it would be for like a nonprofit to have a controlling share at a public company.Andrew Keen: More hallucinations economically, Keach.Keach Hagey: But I mean, IPO is the exit for investors, right? That's the model, that is the Silicon Valley model. So it's going to have to come to that one way or another.Andrew Keen: But how does it work internally? I mean, for the guys, the sales guys, the people who are actually doing the business at OpenAI, they've been pretty successful this year. The numbers are astonishing. But how is this gonna impact if it's a nonprofit? How does this impact the process of selling, of building product, of all the other internal mechanics of this high-priced startup?Keach Hagey: I don't think it will affect it enormously in the short term. It's really just a question of can they continue to raise money for the enormous amount of compute that they need. So so far, he's been able to do that, right? And if that slows up in any way, they're going to be in trouble. Because as Sam has said many times, AI has to be cheap to be actually useful. So in order to, you know, for it to be widespread, for to flow like water, all of those things, it's got to be cheap and that's going to require massive investment in data centers.Andrew Keen: But how, I mean, ultimately people are putting money in so that they get the money back. This is not a nonprofit endeavor to put 40 billion from SoftBank. SoftBank is not in the nonprofit business. So they're gonna need their money back and the only way they generally, in my understanding, getting money back is by going public, especially with these numbers. How can a nonprofit go public?Keach Hagey: It's a great question. That's what I'm just phrasing. I mean, this is, you know, you talk to folks, this is what's like off in the misty distance for them. It's an, it's a fascinating question and one that we're gonna try to answer this week.Andrew Keen: But you look amused. I'm no financial genius. Everyone must be asking the same question.Keach Hagey: Well, the way that they've said it is that the for-profit will be, will have a, the non-profit will control the for profit and be the largest shareholder in it, but the rest of the shares could be held by public markets theoretically. That's a great question though.Andrew Keen: And lawyers all over the world must be wrapping their hands. I mean, in the very best case, it's gonna be lawsuits on this, people suing them up the wazoo.Keach Hagey: It's absolutely true. You should see my inbox right now. It's just like layers, layers, layer.Andrew Keen: Yeah, my wife. My wife is the head of litigation. I don't know if I should be saying this publicly anyway, I am. She's the head of Litigation at Google. And she lost some of her senior people and they all went over to AI. I'm big, I'm betting that they regret going over there can't be much fun being a lawyer at OpenAI.Keach Hagey: I don't know, I think it'd be great fun. I think you'd have like enormous challenges and have lots of billable hours.Andrew Keen: Unless, of course, they're personally being sued.Keach Hagey: Hopefully not. I mean, look, it is a strange and unprecedented situation.Andrew Keen: To what extent is this, if not Shakespearean, could have been written by some Greek dramatist? To what extend is this symbolic of all the hype and salesmanship and dishonesty of Silicon Valley? And in a sense, maybe this is a final scene or a penultimate scene in the Silicon Valley story of doing good for the world. And yet, of course, reaping obscene profit.Keach Hagey: I think it's a little bit about trying to have your cake and eat it too, right? Trying to have the aura of altruism, but also make something and make a lot of money. And what it seems like today is that if you started as a nonprofit, it's like a black hole. You can never get out. There's no way to get out, and that idea was just like maybe one step too clever when they set it up in the beginning, right. It seemed like too good to be true because it was. And it might end up really limiting the growth of the company.Andrew Keen: Is Sam completely in charge here? I mean, a number of the founders have left. Musk, of course, when you and I talked a couple of months ago, OpenAI came out of conversations between Musk and Sam. Is he doing this on his own? Does he have lieutenants, people who he can rely on?Keach Hagey: Yeah, I mean, he does. He has a number of folks that have been there, you know, a long time.Andrew Keen: Who are they? I mean, do we know their names?Keach Hagey: Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean, like Brad Lightcap and Jason Kwon and, you know, just they're they're Greg Brockman, of course, still there. So there are a core group of executives that have that have been there pretty much from the beginning, close to it, that he does trust. But if you're asking, like, is Sam really in control of this whole thing? I believe the answer is yes. Right. He is on the board of this nonprofit, and that nonprofit will choose the board of the for-profit. So as long as that's the case, he's in charge.Andrew Keen: How divided is OpenAI? I mean, one of the things that came out of the big crisis, what was it, 18 months ago when they tried to push him out, was it was clearly a profoundly divided company between those who believed in the nonprofit mission versus the for-profit mission. Are those divisions still as acute within the company itself? It must be growing. I don't know how many thousands of people work.Keach Hagey: It has grown very fast. It is not as acute in my experience. There was a time when it was really sort of a warring of tribes. And after the blip, as they call it, a lot of those more safety focused people, people that subscribe to effective altruism, left or were kind of pushed out. So Sam took over and kind of cleaned house.Andrew Keen: But then aren't those people also very concerned that it appears as if Sam's having his cake and eating it, having it both ways, talking about the company being a non-profit but behaving as if it is a for-profit?Keach Hagey: Oh, yeah, they're very concerned. In fact, a number of them have signed on to this open letter to the attorneys general that dropped, I don't know, a week and a half ago, something like that. You can see a number of former OpenAI employees, whistleblowers and others, saying this very thing, you know, that the AG should block this because it was supposed to be a charitable mission from the beginning. And no amount of fancy footwork is gonna make it okay to toss that overboard.Andrew Keen: And I mean, in the best possible case, can Sam, the one thing I think you and I talked about last time is Sam clearly does, he's not driven by money. There's something else. There's some other demonic force here. Could he theoretically reinvent the company so that it becomes a kind of AI overlord, a nonprofit AI overlord for our 21st century AI age?Keach Hagey: Wow, well I think he sometimes thinks of it as like an AI layer and you know, is this my overlord? Might be, you know.Andrew Keen: As long as it's not made in China, I hope it's made in India or maybe in Detroit or something.Keach Hagey: It's a very old one, so it's OK. But it's really my attention overlord, right? Yeah, so I don't know about the AI overlord part. Although it's interesting, Sam from the very beginning has wanted there to be a democratic process to control what decision, what kind of AI gets built and what are the guardrails for AGI. As long as he's there.Andrew Keen: As long as he's the one determining it, right?Keach Hagey: We talked about it a lot in the very beginning of the company when things were smaller and not so crazy. And what really strikes me is he doesn't really talk about that much anymore. But what we did just see is some advocacy organizations that kind of function in that exact way. They have voters all over the world and they all voted on, hey, we want you guys to go and try to that ended up having this like democratic structure for deciding the future of AI and used it to kind of block what he was trying to do.Andrew Keen: What are the implications for OpenAI's competitors? There's obviously Anthropic. Microsoft, we talked about a little bit, although it's a partner and a competitor simultaneously. And then of course there's Google. I assume this is all good news for the competition. And of course XAI.Keach Hagey: It is good news, especially for a company like XAI. I was just speaking to an XAI investor today who was crowing. Yeah, because those companies don't have this weird structure. Only OpenAI has this strange nonprofit structure. So if you are an investor who wants to have some exposure to AI, it might just not be worth the headache to deal with the uncertainty around the nonprofit, even though OpenAI is like the clear leader. It might be a better bet to invest in Anthropic or XAI or something else that has just a normal for-profit structure.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And it's hard to actually quote unquote out-Trump, Elon Musk on economic subterfuge. But Altman seems to have done that. I mean, Musk, what he folded X into XAI. It was a little bit of controversy, but he seems to got away with it. So there is a deep hostility between these two men, which I'm assuming is being compounded by this process.Keach Hagey: Absolutely. Again, this is a win for Elon. All these legal cases and Elon trying to buy OpenAI. I remember that bid a few months ago where he actually put a number on it. All that was about trying to block the for-profit conversion because he's trying to stop OpenAI and its tracks. He also claims they've abandoned their mission, but it's always important to note that it's coming from a competitor.Andrew Keen: Could that be a way out of this seeming box? Keach, a company like XAI or Microsoft or Google, or that probably wouldn't happen on the antitrust front, would buy OpenAI as maybe a nonprofit and then transform it into a for-profit company?Keach Hagey: Maybe you and Sam should get together and hash that out. That's the kind ofAndrew Keen: Well Sam, I'm available to be hired if you're watching. I'll probably charge less than your current consigliere. What's his name? Who's the consiglieri who's working with him on this?Keach Hagey: You mean Chris Lehane?Andrew Keen: Yes, Chris Lehane, the ego.Keach Hagey: Um,Andrew Keen: How's Lehane holding up in this? Do you think he's getting any sleep?Keach Hagey: Well, he's like a policy guy. I'm sure this has been challenging for everybody. But look, you are pointing to something that I think is real, which is there will probably be consolidation at some point down the line in AI.Andrew Keen: I mean, I know you're not an expert on the maybe sort of corporate legal stuff, but is it in theory possible to buy a nonprofit? I don't even know how you buy a non-profit and then turn it into a for-profit. I mean is that one way out of this, this cul-de-sac?Keach Hagey: I really don't know the answer to that question, to be honest with you. I can't think of another example of it happening. So I'm gonna go with no, but I don't now.Andrew Keen: There are no equivalents, sorry to interrupt, go on.Keach Hagey: No, so I was actually asking a little bit, are there precedents for this? And someone mentioned Blue Cross Blue Shield had gone from being a nonprofit to a for-profit successfully in the past.Andrew Keen: And we seem a little amused by that. I mean, anyone who uses US health care as a model, I think, might regret it. Your book, The Optimist, is out in a couple of weeks. When did you stop writing it?Keach Hagey: The end of December, end of last year, was pencils fully down.Andrew Keen: And I'm sure you told the publisher that that was far too long a window. Seven months on Silicon Valley is like seven centuries.Keach Hagey: It was actually a very, very tight timeline. They turned it around like incredibly fast. Usually it'sAndrew Keen: Remarkable, yeah, exactly. Publishing is such, such, they're such quick actors, aren't they?Keach Hagey: In this case, they actually were, so I'm grateful for that.Andrew Keen: Well, they always say that six months or seven months is fast, but it is actually possible to publish a book in probably a week or two, if you really choose to. But in all seriousness, back to this question, I mean, and I want everyone to read the book. It's a wonderful book and an important book. The best book on OpenAI out. What would you have written differently? Is there an extra chapter on this? I know you warned about a lot of this stuff in the book. So it must make you feel in some ways quite vindicated.Keach Hagey: I mean, you're asking if I'd had a longer deadline, what would I have liked to include? Well, if you're ready.Andrew Keen: Well, if you're writing it now with this news under your belt.Keach Hagey: Absolutely. So, I mean, the thing, two things, I guess, definitely this news about the for-profit conversion failing just shows the limits of Sam's power. So that's pretty interesting, because as the book was closing, we're not really sure what those limits are. And the other one is Trump. So Trump had happened, but we do not yet understand what Trump 2.0 really meant at the time that the book was closing. And at that point, it looked like Sam was in the cold, you know, he wasn't clear how he was going to get inside Trump's inner circle. And then lo and behold, he was there on day one of the Trump administration sharing a podium with him announcing that Stargate AI infrastructure investment. So I'm sad that that didn't make it into the book because it really just shows the kind of remarkable character he is.Andrew Keen: He's their Zelig, but then we all know what happened to Woody Allen in the end. In all seriousness, and it's hard to keep a straight face here, Keach, and you're trying although you're not doing a very good job, what's going to happen? I know it's an easy question to ask and a hard one to answer, but ultimately this thing has to end in catastrophe, doesn't it? I use the analogy of the Titanic. There are real icebergs out there.Keach Hagey: Look, there could be a data breach. I do think that.Andrew Keen: Well, there could be data breaches if it was a non-profit or for-profit, I mean, in terms of this whole issue of trying to have it both ways.Keach Hagey: Look, they might run out of money, right? I mean, that's one very real possibility. They might run outta money and have to be bought by someone, as you said. That is a totally real possibility right now.Andrew Keen: What would happen if they couldn't raise any more money. I mean, what was the last round, the $40 billion round? What was the overall valuation? About $350 billion.Keach Hagey: Yeah, mm-hmm.Andrew Keen: So let's say that they begin to, because they've got, what are their hard costs monthly burn rate? I mean, it's billions of just.Keach Hagey: Well, the issue is that they're spending more than they are making.Andrew Keen: Right, but you're right. So they, let's say in 18 months, they run out of runway. What would people be buying?Keach Hagey: Right, maybe some IP, some servers. And one of the big questions that is yet unanswered in AI is will it ever economically make sense, right? Right now we are all buying the possibility of in the future that the costs will eventually come down and it will kind of be useful, but that's still a promise. And it's possible that that won't ever happen. I mean, all these companies are this way, right. They are spending far, far more than they're making.Andrew Keen: And that's the best case scenario.Keach Hagey: Worst case scenario is the killer robots murder us all.Andrew Keen: No, what I meant in the best case scenario is that people are actually still without all the blow up. I mean, people are actual paying for AI. I mean on the one hand, the OpenAI product is, would you say it's successful, more or less successful than it was when you finished the book in December of last year?Keach Hagey: Oh, yes, much more successful. Vastly more users, and the product is vastly better. I mean, even in my experience, I don't know if you play with it every day.Andrew Keen: I use Anthropic.Keach Hagey: I use both Claude and ChatGPT, and I mean, they're both great. And I find them vastly more useful today than I did even when I was closing the book. So it's great. I don't know if it's really a great business that they're only charging me $20, right? That's great for me, but I don't think it's long term tenable.Andrew Keen: Well, Keach Hagey, your new book, The Optimist, your new old book, The Optimist: Sam Altman, Open AI and the Race to Invent the Future is out in a couple of weeks. I hope you're writing a sequel. Maybe you should make it The Pessimist.Keach Hagey: I think you might be the pessimist, Andrew.Andrew Keen: Well, you're just, you are as pessimistic as me. You just have a nice smile. I mean, in all reality, what's the most optimistic thing that can come out of this?Keach Hagey: The most optimistic is that this becomes a product that is actually useful, but doesn't vastly exacerbate inequality.Andrew Keen: No, I take the point on that, but in terms of this current story of this non-profit versus profit, what's the best case scenario?Keach Hagey: I guess the best case scenario is they find their way to an IPO before completely imploding.Andrew Keen: With the assumption that a non-profit can do an IPO.Keach Hagey: That they find the right lawyers from wherever they are and make it happen.Andrew Keen: Well, AI continues its hallucinations, and they're not in the product themselves. I think they're in their companies. One of the best, if not the best authority, our guide to all these hallucinations in a corporate level is Keach Hagey, her new book, The Optimist: Sam Altman, Open AI and the Race to Invent the Future is out in a couple of weeks. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Sam Altman as the consummate salesman. And I think one thing we can say for sure, Keach, is this is not the end of the story. Is that fair?Keach Hagey: Very fair. Not the end of the story. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Join hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace as we talk to Jonathan Thorn, Technical Director and PFAS Practice Leader, at Eurofins, as debunk the biggest myths and misconceptions around PFAS from the perspective of the lab.Jonathan Thorn has worked in the field of environmental analytical chemistry for over 28 years. For the last eight years, his primary focus has been the analysis of PFAS in environmental samples, focusing on development and implementation of analytical methods in difficult matrices, including ground water, wastewater, landfill leachate, sediment, soil, biosolids, environmental tissues, agricultural products, and animal blood. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

In part two of this interview at RIMS RISKWORLD, Allen Laman continues his conversation with Jennifer Akre, Managing Partner at Tyson & Mendes, about the growing integration of … Read More » The post AI in Insurance Defense: Predicting & Containing Nuclear Verdicts  appeared first on Insurance Journal TV.

At the beginning of April, US President Donald Trump made the announcement of his much-threatened 25% tariffs on Canadian imports.Later in April, the rest of the world felt the brunt of Trump's desire for tariffs, with the EU and Ireland being hit with a 20% tariff on imports to the US.Despite Trump's dialing back for the sake of negotiations, is it time now to forge new relationships and for Ireland and Canada businesses to join forces in a more meaningful way?Joining Kieran in Toronto to discuss is Gemma Healy Murphy, Partner, Litigation & Dispute Resolution Lawyer at McMillan LLP in Toronto and Craig Sowman, Partner and Co-Head of Restructuring & Insolvency at Addleshaw Goddard Ireland.

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we discuss and debate some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Ariel Wiebe. You can also listen on Apple, Spotify, Buzzsprout and SoundCloud, and find links to our blog posts on the cases covered in this podcast below: • Court of Appeal confirms that dishonesty is essential ingredient in half-secret commission claims https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/court-of-appeal-confirms-that-dishonesty-is-essential-ingredient-in-half-secret-commission-claims • High Court confirms 5,800 motor finance claimants can use omnibus claim forms and do not need to issue separate claim forms https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/high-court-confirms-motor-finance-claimants-can-use-omnibus-claim-forms-and-do-not-need-to-issue-separate-claim-forms • High Court confirms no novel "retrieval" duty owed by receiving banks to non-customers https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/high-court-confirms-no-novel-retrieval-duty-owed-by-receiving-banks-to-non-customers • High Court rules in favour of APP fraud victims in "derivative" action against PSP for breach of so-called Quincecare duty https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-04/high-court-rules-in-favour-of-app-fraud-victims-in-derivative-action-against-psp-for-breach-of-so-called-quincecare-duty • Banking litigation podcast episode 51: Quincecare special – March 2025 https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/Banking-litigation-podcast-episode-51--Quincecare-special-%E2%80%93-March-2025 • High Court finds Letter of Comfort creates binding guarantee and Ralli Bros principle not engaged where foreign illegality arises from failure to seek regulatory permission https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/high-court-confirms-letter-of-comfort-created-binding-guarantee-ralli-bros-principle • Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses: CJEU finds jurisdiction clause in favour of EU courts may be valid despite giving one party greater choice https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/litigation/2025-03/Asymmetric-jurisdiction-clauses--CJEU-finds-jurisdiction-clause-in-favour-of-EU-courts-may-be-valid-despite-giving-one-party-greater-choice- • Hedging: where is the dividing line? https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-04/Hedging--where-is-the-dividing-line- • Biannual Banking Litigation Update (Spring 2024) https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/bi-annual-banking-litigation-update-spring-2025 Don't forget to subscribe to the banking litigation blog. https://hsfnotes.com/bankinglitigation/subscribe/

At RIMS RISKWORLD 2025, Insurance Journal’s Allen Laman interviews Jennifer Akre, Managing Partner at Tyson & Mendes, about evolving litigation trends. Jennifer highlights her firm’s innovative approach to … Read More » The post RIMS RISKWORLD 2025: Jennifer Akre on Litigation Trends and Medical Billing Practices appeared first on Insurance Journal TV.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. concludes our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill discusses juror sympathy and commitment to following the law. Bill talks about a concept called sympathy override and gives examples of how to get jurors to open up about the concept of sympathy and whether they can maintain discipline when it comes to sympathy. You have to address the challenge that jurors will experience when their heart and head are in conflict. Next, Bill explains Pre-Commitment Theory and how to leverage public commitment from jurors to increase the likelihood of them sticking to their commitment, plus how Pre-Commitment Theory can also be used to hold each other accountable in deliberations. Verbal commitment in front of the other jurors is critical for this to work. Bill concludes by emphasizing that the key to the entire concept of this sophisticated approach to voir dire is pre-programming the juror brain and the stepwise process required to do so. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/pXC

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Third Party: Dram Shop & Social Host as a refresher! Original Air Date: April 30, 2021 You've seen it before: drinks flowing at your local bar on busy Saturday night. A patron who's had too much leaves behind the wheel. If this person goes on to cause an accident, can the bar owner or bartender be held responsible for serving too much? What if it's a house party, instead of a bar? The answer is, they might be. Sit back and drink up this intoxicating subject as Steve and Rebecca use multi-state case law as real examples for when someone other than the inebriated party can be held responsible for a victims' injuries. From dram shop laws creating liability for bar owners, to social host laws that do the same for homeowners, use this episode as one more reason to take the keys from your own guests who have had too much. 

John is joined by Christopher Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office, and Jeffrey Chivers, co-founder of litigation AI company Syllo AI.  They discuss the transformative role artificial intelligence played in a recent Quinn Emanuel trial victory in Delaware Chancery Court.  The case involved Desktop Metal's attempt to force Nano Dimension to complete a $183 million merger, where Nano tried to stall the deal by slow-walking regulatory approvals by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States until the drop-dead date for the transaction had passed.  Quinn Emanuel was hired to represent Desktop Metal only six weeks before trial, requiring an accelerated approach to discovery and case preparation.  The team used Syllo AI, a litigation focused product that allowed them to review and organize massive volumes of documents through natural language prompts, create timelines, tag relevant material, and identify patterns much faster than traditional methods.  The Syllo platform also integrates multiple AI models that cross-check each other's outputs while following built-in mental models of legal reasoning.  During the trial, Syllo customized its tools to provide rapid privilege log and document production deficiency analysis, helping to identify gaps in the opposing side's discovery.  The team also worked with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic to test ideas, explore potential legal theories, and brainstorm approaches to witness examinations.  Syllo and Claude helped attorneys identify relevant evidence for use in expedited post-trial briefs and suggested potential lines of questioning for depositions.  Attorneys directed all AI usage, with Claude serving as a cognitive tool that amplified the legal team's capabilities while the attorneys maintained full responsibility for all work product.  AI did not displace anyone on the trial team. Instead, it complemented the attorneys' expertise, enhancing their ability to deliver strategic insights and respond effectively to case developments.  It may soon become malpractice not to use AI in trial preparation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Ryan Mulvaney, Lawyer Litigation Sports Entertainment joins 365 Sports to discuss his thoughts on the current state of college athletics with NIL, his thoughts on the roster limit decision for college football going forward,  how the roster limit will be implemented, his thoughts on the conceot of an “NIL Agent” and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The podcast we are releasing today is part 2 of a re-purposed webinar we produced on March 25 titled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Part 4.” As a result of the diminishing impact of the CFPB on enforcing the consumer financial services laws, we expect that void to be filled by state government enforcement agencies and private civil litigation, including class and mass actions.  Our webinar focused on private civil litigation. Our featured guest for this webinar was Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He was joined on the panel by Thomas Burke, Dan McKenna, Jenny Perkins, Joseph Schuster, and Melanie Vartabedian, litigators in our firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We discussed the following areas where the panelists are predicting an increase in private civil litigation during 2025 and beyond: 1. Solar Litigation Trends (Ira, Melanie). 2. Increased volume of arbitrations and mass arbitrations (Ira, Dan). 3. A general emphasis on “unfair” practices, including a close look at alleged unlawful fees (Ira). 4.  Crypto industry practices -fees, deception and third-party responsibility (Ira). 5.  National Bank Act preemption and DIDMCA opt-out litigation (Joseph). If you missed listening to part 1 of this re-purposed webinar, you can access the podcast in the link to the following blog which appears here. The blog describes the topics we covered. Alan Kaplinsky, the former chair for 25 years and now the Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show. For our podcasts repurposed from webinars that we produced as part of our series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB” Part 1 (regulations and other written guidance), click here and here; Part 2 (supervision and enforcement),  click here and here; Part 3 (state AGs and departments of banking), click here and here. 

In this episode of Law Talk with the Flock, CEO Jeana Goosmann is joined by litigation leader and former military judge Steven Henricks to dive deep into one of the most critical parts of any lawsuit: discovery. Together, they explore how digital evidence, including emails, chat logs, texts and cloud-based files, has reshaped how businesses and attorneys approach litigation — and how we can maximize efficiency even further.Steven shares his insights on navigating complex business disputes, what happens when a “litigation hold” kicks in, and how evolving technologies, like predictive coding and natural language processing, are transforming document review. The conversation also covers the risks of neglecting to preserve documents, the consequences of spoliation, and how clients can proactively work with their legal teams and IT departments to build strong cases from the start. When we embrace technology, we improve outcomes and reduce costs for clients — tune in now to find out how teams like ours can make a big difference.Visit our Website Follow Us on LinkedInSubscribe to our NewsletterRead Jeana's Book: Worth It

On this episode of the Rules of the Game podcast (the third in an eight-part, issue-specific podcast series), we'll discuss recent headlines impacting criminal legal reform advocates and explain how nonprofits can take action with legislative, executive branch, and judicial branch advocacy. From responding to legislative proposals to initiating litigation, nonprofits nationwide are standing up to fight for our rights and critical reforms to our criminal legal system. This episode will highlight their work and provide information about the rules that apply when nonprofits engage in advocacy to ensure due process, protect the rights of the accused, and improve judicial systems. Attorneys for this episode Monika Graham Melissa Marichal Zayas Natalie Roetzel Ossenfort   Show notes ·      Recent Headlines: Legislation, Litigation, and More! o   Legislation: §  Family Notification of Death, Injury, or Illness in Custody Act: Bipartisan legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate. Would require the DOJ to issue guidance on how federal prisons should promptly notify families of incarcerated individuals who become seriously ill or pass away in prison. o   Litigation §  Criminal legal reform advocates scored a win in Michigan recently, when the MI Supreme Court ruled that mandatory / automatic life without parole sentences for 19-20 year olds convicted of murder are unconstitutional. o   Executive Branch Actions: §  Earlier this year, the DOJ froze work on police reform and other civil rights cases. Now, (in the absence of DOJ leadership on these issues), the burden has shifted to local governments to take action. o   Keep on Your Radar: Trump's “Opening Salvo” in His War Against Criminal Justice Reform Starts With This Nonprofit §  The Vera Institute of Justice, a major criminal justice reform nonprofit, had all five of its federal grants—worth about $5 million—abruptly terminated by the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi, a key Trump ally. §  Evaluate your funding sources, and make sure you're not overly dependent on any one source.   ·      Non-Lobbying Advocacy o   Nonpartisan Advocacy 101: 501(c)(3)s cannot support or oppose candidates for public office, but they can… o   Educate the public about issues of importance to your organization. §  Equal Justice Initiative recently provided education related to the wrongful incarceration and conviction of black defendants in murder cases. Not only did they report on research from the National Registry of Exonerations that black Americans are nearly 8x more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder, but they noted that they are also likely to spend more years in prison than wrongfully convicted white people. o   Hold a rally: §  Earlier this year, a coalition of criminal justice reform advocates and nonprofits in New Mexico held a rally to call attention to the reality of mass incarceration and to propose common-sense alternatives to harsh prison sentences. o   Initiate or participate in litigation: §  The Innocence Project (AFJ Member) and other members of the Innocence Network, engage in litigation on behalf of wrongfully convicted persons who can be proven innocent with DNA and other types of evidence. o   Fund Advocacy §  Private and public foundations can support organizations advancing their charitable missions through general operating grants and/or specific project grants, ensuring flexibility and sustainability in pursuit of shared goals.   ·      Lobbying o   501(c)(3) public charities are also allowed to use unrestricted funds to engage in some lobbying activities. o   Tax Code Lobbying 101: Public charities can lobby, but they are limited in how much lobbying they may engage in. §  Insubstantial part test vs. 501(h) expenditure test. §  Under either test, lobbying includes attempts to influence legislation at any level of government. §  Track your local, state, and federal lobbying, and stay within your lobbying limits. o   State/local level lobbyist registration and reporting requirements may also apply when engaging in legislative and executive branch advocacy. o   Ballot measure advocacy (direct lobbying) could also implicate state / local campaign finance and election laws. o   Lobbying win! §  In March, DC Justice Lab, an AFJ member, and several other nonprofits lobbied in support of Maryland's Second Look Act by submitting testimony to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. This legislation would permit individuals convicted of certain crimes between the ages of 18 and 25, and have served over 20 years of their sentence, to petition the court to modify or reduce their sentence based on demonstrated rehabilitation. Since the committee's hearing, the Maryland General Assembly has passedthe Second Look Act, which now awaits Governor Moore's signature.   Resources – ·      Justice & Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Criminal Legal Reform ·      Public Charities Can Lobby (Factsheet) ·      Practical Guidance: what your nonprofit needs to know about lobbying in your state ·      Investing in Change: A Funder's Guide to Supporting Advocacy ·      What is Advocacy? 2.0

In January, President Trump renamed the “Gulf of Mexico” the “Gulf of America.” The Associated Press refused to follow that lead, keeping “Gulf of Mexico” in its style guide. The White House responded by denying AP reporters access to some White House press events. The AP sued, and Judge McFadden of the District of Columbia […]

Too often, legal departments are on their heels defending litigation and managing unwieldy litigation budgets. Legal departments can generate an ROI for their companies by engaging in affirmative litigation. But who has the budget for that? At 20 years old, Eva Shang figured out how to turn litigation into investment returns and is now running a tech-enabled investment firm focused on litigation funding. Legalist, the company she co-founded with Christian Haigh at Y Combinator, now manages $1.5 billion in alternative investments in litigation funding, bankruptcy, and government receivables. In this episode, Eva, now the firm's CEO, shares how litigation funding works, how Legalist's "truffle sniffer" technology sources litigation cases for her team of in-house attorneys to underwrite and evaluate for investment. Eva shares insights on how to evaluate cases and "pick a winner", how to get litigation counsel to set and stick to a budget, and how her team that a "win" will be collectable at the end of the day. And as a bonus, Eva shares insights of what the CEO wants from their lawyers. Turns out, mitigating risk isn't at the top of the list.

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.Featuring:Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman VogelModerator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel--To register, click the link above.

In January, President Trump renamed the "Gulf of Mexico" the "Gulf of America." The Associated Press refused to follow that lead, keeping "Gulf of Mexico" in its style guide. The White House responded by denying AP reporters access to some White House press events. The AP sued, and Judge McFadden of the District of Columbia recently issued an opinion siding with the AP. What are the First Amendment principles at play? Might this headline-grabbing fight have broader implications for the First Amendment or the separation of powers?Join us for a litigation update on this case. Featuring: Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Casey Mattox, VP of Legal Strategy at Stand Together

Ripped from the Pulse! Your PFAS headlines for the month of April.We're talking big moves from Trump's EPA to end PFAS bans and eliminate research grants.On the research front, we also take a peek at nanocage PFAS tech!And we talk about new anti-PFAS lobbying efforts from unexpected areas.All articles and studies can be found, linked, on the PFAS Pulse!  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Litigation Strategies In Pathology RCM On this second installment of our pathology RCM series, we take a high-level look at a topic many practices avoid until it's too late—litigation as a strategic tool to protect and recover revenue. With decades of experience supporting pathology groups, David Smith, COO of MedReceivables Advisor, returns to guide us through the legal considerations that come into play when reimbursement efforts stall. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen

We have a packed show today: first up, we chat with California Secretary of State Shirley Weber about The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, proposed federal legislation that would require all Americans to reregister to vote, in person, with either a birth certificate or passport. Weber outlines concerns that the law would effectively disenfranchise millions of voters who may not have access to their birth certificate, and those - like many married women - whose documents no longer match their birth name. And, perhaps an even bigger problem: who pays?  Counties project millions in costs to administrate, but the  legislation includes no funding mandate.We also spoke with Trans activist Ebony Harper, founding executive director of California TRANScends, and the author of The Trans Manifesto. Harper shared how she is responding to the current wave of anti-Trans sentiment, her reaction to Governor Newsom's recent podcast comments, and how Coast to Coast and NPR shaped her life.Plus - Who Had the Worst Week in California Politics?1:38 Capitol Weekly Update2:13 Correction: Dan Weintraub was the first California politics blogger3:33 Big Day of Giving: May 15:49 SOS Shirley Weber on the SAVE Act6:21 "What are they trying to save?"7:25 What does it do?8:41 Disproportionately affects women11:12 The fraud problem13:11 The cost to counties15:05 Impact on Trans people16:51 Litigation?18:01 Most states see this as an obstacle19:56 Ebony Harper24:01 How do you respond to the current moment?27:55 The Trans Manifesto30:09 The governor's comments carry a lot of weight, but..34:12 Anti-Trans messaging36:13 "The same playbook"37:13 Origin Story39:18 Coast to Coast and NPR42:37 "We're still coming out every day, even though it's a hostile environment"43:24 Where is Ebony Harper in five years?45:44 #WWCAWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/ Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang "#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. continues with part 3 of our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. In this part, Bill talks about cognitive dissonance and personal responsibility. Cognitive dissonance is defined as mental discomfort. You have to give jurors examples of when you have experienced mental discomfort so they can relate and will share their own experiences with cognitive dissonance and also so they will hold themselves and each other accountable during deliberations. Next Bill describes how to address the topic of personal responsibility and how to plant seeds on it so you prime their brain for the concept of personal responsibility. Lastly, Bill talks about the topics of sharing fault and risk awareness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oBj

Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. argued before Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Greg Gerard Guidry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of the Institute for Free Speech) and Cory R. Liu (on behalf of J.R. Johnson, et al.). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech website: Texas law prohibits corporations—including nonprofits—from making “in-kind contributions” to candidates and political committees. The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) recently interpreted this ban to extend to pro bono litigation services, even when such services aim to challenge the constitutionality of state laws. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) filed a federal lawsuit against the TEC commissioners and executive director over this ban on pro bono legal services. This law stops organizations like IFS from advocating for the civil rights of Texas candidates and political committees in court. It imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties for violations. The lawsuit argues that the TEC's interpretation of the Texas Elections Code violates IFS' First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The TEC's reading of the law prevents IFS from representing potential clients like Chris Woolsey, a city councilmember in Corsicana, and the Texas Anti-Communist League PAC, headed by Cary Cheshire, both of whom want to contest a state law that compels speech on political signs. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Institute for Free Speech press release Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief  Complaint  The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

The podcast we are releasing today is part 1 of a re-purposed webinar we produced on March 25 titled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Part 4.” As a result of the diminishing impact of the CFPB on enforcing the consumer financial services laws, we expect that void to be filled by state government enforcement agencies and private civil litigation, including class and mass actions. Our webinar will focus on private civil litigation. Our featured guest for this webinar was Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He was joined on the panel by Thomas Burke, Dan McKenna, Jenny Perkins, Joseph Schuster, and Melanie Vartabedian, litigators in our firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. The podcast began with Ira observing that state enforcement agencies and plaintiffs' class action lawyers will be taking a careful look at enforcement actions voluntarily dismissed by the CFPB to ascertain whether the complaints should be re-filed by them in federal or state court.  We then proceeded to discuss the following areas where the panelists are predicting an increase in private civil litigation during 2025 and beyond: Increased FCRA litigation, especially in ID Theft (Jenny, Ira). The use of AI and corporate responsibility for ensuring that it does not create unfair or discriminatory practices (Ira). Increased retail bank litigation, including EFTA claims (Ira, Tom). Part 2 of this re-purposed webinar will be released next Thursday, May 1. Alan Kaplinsky, the former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show. For our podcasts repurposed from webinars that we produced as part of our series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB” Part 1 (regulations and other written guidance), click here and here; Part 2 (supervision and enforcement),  click here and here; Part 3 (state AGs and departments of banking), click here and here. 

When federal law enforcement raids the wrong home, do innocent homeowners have any legal recourse? The answer is more complicated than one might expect. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability to bring constitutional claims against federal officers, citing the absence of a congressionally authorized cause of action. However, Congress has provided a remedy for certain torts committed by federal law enforcement through the law-enforcement proviso of the Federal Tort Claims Act—legislation enacted in response to notorious federal raids in the 1970s. Yet even this statutory remedy may fall short today.In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.Featuring:Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of LawAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National ReviewWilliam Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & AssociatesModerator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding--To resgister, click the link above.

Prompted by the reintroduction of federal Litigation Transparency Act legislation, this panel will address a variety of issues raised by litigation funding with a special focus on patent litigation. Panelists will provide an overview of the Act and consider likely reactions from various constituencies, giving possible policy arguments for and against litigation funding disclosure. The panel will also consider constitutional and practical dimensions of funding disclosure, and the possible ethical issues raised by litigation funding. Featuring: Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig -- To register, click the link above.

John is joined by Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, one of the foremost companies in the world specializing in software platforms for big data analytics. They discuss the emerging trends in AI regulation.  Courtney explains the AI Act recently passed by the EU Parliament, including the four levels of risk it assesses for different AI systems and the different regulatory obligations imposed on each risk level, how the Act treats general purpose AI systems and how the final Act evolved in response to lobbying by emerging European companies in the AI space. They discuss whether the EU AI Act will become the global standard international companies default to because the European market is too large to abandon. Courtney also explains recent federal regulatory developments in  the U.S. including the framework for AI put out by the National Institute of Science and Technology, the AI Bill of Rights announced by the White House which calls for voluntary compliance to certain principles by industry and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which requires each department of the federal government to develop its own plan for the use and deployment of AI.  They also discuss the wide range of state level AI legislative initiatives and the leading role California has played in this process.  Finally, they discuss the upcoming issues legislatures will need to address including translating principles like accountability, fairness and transparency into concrete best practices, instituting testing, evaluation and validation methodologies to ensure that AI systems are doing what they're supposed to do in a reliable and trustworthy way, and addressing concerns around maintaining AI systems over time as the data used by the system continuously evolves over time until it no longer accurately represents the world that it was originally designed to represent.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

PIMCON 2025 Tickets On Sale Now —--> Get yours today! You've got mountains of records, limited bandwidth, and a ticking clock. When the stakes are high in mass tort litigation, even the sharpest teams need an edge. Lisa Gorshe and Cara Wall have found it. In this episode of Personal Injury Mastermind, discover how forward-thinking attorneys are using AI not to replace legal judgment—but to sharpen it. From eDiscovery to cross-examination prep, Lisa and Cara reveal how AI is helping mass tort firms scale smarter, move faster, and fight harder for their clients. They're not talking about hypotheticals. This is hands-on insight from two litigators testing tools, navigating ethical gray areas, and presenting together at Mass Torts Made Perfect. Whether you're AI-curious or deep into prompt engineering, this episode will change how you think about the tech reshaping the industry. Key insights: What happens when your AI assistant knows your case better than your associate? The one AI feature that helped organize 20,000+ pages—and saved weeks of manual work Why seasoned trial lawyers are turning to AI for cross-exams (and what they're not trusting it with) The surprising metaphor trick that unlocked a powerful opening statement What happens when you treat AI like a coworker—with a name, role, and attitude The real reason AI won't replace lawyers (but will absolutely replace something else) Guest Details Lisa Ann Gorshe Managing Attorney | Johnson // Becker, Lisa brings over 25 years of experience in mass torts and complex litigation. Known for her even-tempered leadership and strategic insight, she's guided her firm through massive technological shifts with a steady hand and open mind. Johnson Becker | LinkedIn Carasusana “Cara” Wall Partner | Zoll & Kranz, A rising force in PI and mass torts, Cara blends courtroom skill with tech fluency. She's part of a new generation of lawyers who treat AI like a teammate—and know how to use it to get results. Zoll & Kranz | LinkedIn Chris Dreyer and Rankings Details Chris Dreyer is the CEO and founder of Rankings.io, the elite law firm marketing experts - for all your digital and traditional needs.   Rankings: Website, Instagram, Twitter Chris Dreyer: Website, Instagram Newsletters: The Dreyer Sheet  Books: Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT; Niching Up: The Narrower the Market, the Bigger the Prize Work with Rankings: Connect