Podcasts about litigation

John Quinn is joined by Robert Loigman, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office, and Eric Winston, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office.  They discuss the extensive litigation that has followed the 2008 collapse of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.  The litigation stems from a liquidation by a court-appointed trustee under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).  The primary goal of the liquidation was to recover assets for Madoff's victims.  The litigation has continued for 17 years, so far, because of the number of parties involved and the multitude of proceedings and appeals in both the U.S. and foreign courts.The trustee has pursued clawback claims against “feeder funds” under fraudulent transfer theories, targeting both “net winners” who withdrew more than they invested and “net losers” who withdrew less than they invested.  After the estate recovered $7 billion recovery from one feeder fund, investors began to anticipate higher recoveries than normally occur in SIPA proceedings.  Over time, a secondary market in Madoff claims developed, with distressed asset investors buying claims at steep discounts and profiting when recoveries exceeded expectations.  The Madoff litigation has led to several significant legal developments.  One key issue involved included the safe harbor under the Bankruptcy Code for good faith conduct.  Initially, a judge in the SDNY ruled that to show a lack of good faith, a trustee must show that an investor was willfully blind to the fraud at issue.  In 2021, the Second Circuit ruled that simple inquiry notice is enough, placing a greater burden on investors to investigate irregularities.Another significant legal development was the Second Circuit's ruling that U.S. bankruptcy law could reach transfers between foreign debtors and foreign transferees, expanding the potential reach of clawback efforts.  Finally, the Second Circuit ruled that in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy case, certain U.S. standards would apply to transactions between foreign entities even though the foreign courts with jurisdiction over the entities would apply different standards.The uniquely large and visible fraud in the Madoff litigation case may have led courts to expand legal doctrines in ways that affect bankruptcy and investor litigation more generally.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Litigation attorney David Weinstein returns to break down the closing arguments in the Sean Combs trial. He walks us through the key moments from both the prosecution and defense, what the jury will likely consider, and what could happen next. Reality Life with Kate Casey What to Watch List: https://katecasey.substack.com Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/katecasey Twitter: https://twitter.com/katecasey Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/katecaseyca Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@itskatecasey?lang=en Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/113157919338245 Amazon List: https://www.amazon.com/shop/katecasey Like it to Know It: https://www.shopltk.com/explore/katecaseySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In recent years, a flurry of lawsuits has been launched nationwide against religious organizations, raising fraud and other claims related to tithing and church donations. These challenges generally argue that church leaders falsely claimed they would only put donations to one use, but instead put them to another. These cases, which have been heard in […]

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdanFollow Pat on LinkedIn athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Moore: Affirm Martinez: Affirm "Triple Crown: PuntILAPP:https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/IN SCT Martinez is here:https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=3011&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20IN SCT Triple Crown:https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=3007&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20

Verse-by-verse through the book of 1 Corinthians!

In episode 206, Coffey talks with Jill Koob about the Supreme Court decision on “reverse discrimination,” PTO policy trends, and AI adoption in the workplace. They discuss the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services eliminating different standards for "reverse discrimination" cases; how Title VII protects all individuals equally regardless of majority or minority status within protected classes; the challenges and failures of unlimited PTO policies leading employees to take less time off; new flexible PTO approaches allowing conversion to cash, student loan payments, or 401k contributions; mitigating bias in the employee selection process; why diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives should focus on business outcomes and widening candidate pools; the evolution of AI from individual productivity tools to organizational workforce transformation; the need for employees to actively learn and adopt AI tools to remain competitive; and how AI can handle transactional HR tasks while freeing professionals to focus on more strategic human-centered work. Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP206 and include the following topics: Breaking—Supreme Court Unanimously Lowers Bar for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Redefines Title VII Litigation More companies are letting workers cash in their vacation days. Should yours? 2025 Benefits and Compensation Trends Report How enterprise AI is reshaping EX, according to expert Josh Bersin AI superworkers ‘coming on like a freight train.' Are you ready? Amazon CEO Jassy says AI will reduce its corporate workforce in the next few years Message from CEO Andy Jassy: Some thoughts on Generative AI  Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com.  If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com.  About our Guest: Jill Koob, SPHR, SHRM – SCP is the founder and owner of Energize HR, an HR Consulting Firm that focuses on training solutions, strategic HR and organizational development and human resource support. Prior to starting her company, Jill served as a VP for a Houston Based Professional Employer Organization, where they received numerous awards including Best Places to Work and Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing companies. Jill has over twenty-five years of strategic HR experience working directly with hundreds of businesses with their people strategy needs. Jill Koob can be reached at:https://energizehr.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/jillkoob/   About Mike Coffey: Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Imperative has been named a Best Places to Work, the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year, and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike shares his insight from 25+ years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence by FW, Inc. and has twice been recognized as the North Texas HR Professional of the Year. Mike serves as a board member of a number of organizations, including the Texas State Council, where he serves Texas' 31 SHRM chapters as State Director-Elect; Workforce Solutions for Tarrant County; the Texas Association of Business; and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, where he is chair of the Talent Committee.Mike is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). He is also a Yoga Alliance registered yoga teacher (RYT-200) and teaches multiple times each week. Mike and his very patient wife of 28 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.   Learning Objectives: 1.       Understand that Title VII protects all individuals equally within protected classes, requiring the same burden of proof regardless of whether someone belongs to a majority or minority group within that class.2.       Design flexible PTO policies with clear guidelines and minimum requirements while offering options for employees to convert unused time to other benefits like cash, student loans, or retirement contributions.3.       Embrace AI as a collaborative tool for analyzing data, reducing bias in hiring processes, and handling transactiona...

Scott Sholder is co-chair of the Litigation Group at Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, one of the premier law firms in media and entertainment. A frequent writer and speaker on copyright and trademark issues, Scott has been recognized by Variety as “a thought leader in the artificial intelligence space as it relates to entertainment.” He was also featured in The Hollywood Reporter's 2024 “Power Lawyers” list. In addition to litigating on behalf of clients across the entertainment and media industries on copyright matters, Scott is representing world famous authors in a copyright class action litigation concerning the unauthorized use of literary works for generative AI “training.” He is the chair of the Copyright & Literary Property Committee A.I. Subcommittee whose mission is to keep tabs and stay current on the latest developments at the intersection of copyright law and generative A.I. Presented by the New York City Bar Copyright and Literary Property Committee and hosted by Theodora Fleurant and Jose Landivar, we discuss the latest developments in copyright law and artificial intelligence, discuss how taekwondo and power metal have shaped Scott's practice, and what it takes to be a high-performing litigator in 2025. (The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this podcast belong solely to the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect those of any organizations, employers, or affiliates they may be associated with. This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice.) Selected Links from the Episode: New York City Copyright & Literary Property Committee: https://www.nycbar.org/committees/copyright-literary-property-committee Copyright Claims Board: https://ccb.gov/ Red Rising by Pierce Brown: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Rising-Pierce-Brown/dp/034553980X Ghost, “Mary On A Cross”: https://open.spotify.com/track/2wBnZdVWa5jVpvYRfGU7rP?si=511c7ba7d3df4e21 Unleash the Archers,”Northwest Passage” https://open.spotify.com/track/3Fiz4tFoVBosOUm2uMgdlL?si=8af4660100604e89

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis and Lori Sommerfield discuss the latest regulatory, legislative, and litigation developments under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as accessibility of digital platforms and mobile applications increasingly become crucial for consumer finance providers. This episode covers the DOJ's guidance on website accessibility, evolving Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, potential legislative solutions, and the risks of private litigation amid a surge in lawsuits alleging violations of the ADA. With a focus on litigation trends and risk mitigation strategies, this discussion is vital for businesses striving to ensure compliance and protect their digital assets in a complex legal environment. Gain practical insights on assessing and improving website accessibility and learn how to establish a robust ADA risk management program to shield your business from potential legal challenges.

Today we're diving into the seventh installment of our eight-part, issue-based podcast series, and we will explore how nonprofits that operate in the health and disability rights space can boldly advance their missions through advocacy. Not only will we touch on recent developments in the news, but we'll also discuss various lobbying and non-lobbying strategies currently being used by nonprofit advocates working to improve healthcare access and disability rights.   Attorneys for this episode   Natalie Ossenfort Monika Graham Victor Rivera   Shownotes Current Events / Executive Orders ·      Trump Administration Directives on Health & Disability Rights o   The One Big Beautiful Bill introduces new eligibility requirements that will exclude an estimated 5.2 million adults from receiving Medicaid benefits. In total, over 8.6 million adults could lose healthcare coverage as a result of this bill. o   Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently dismissed the 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. o   Reports estimate that the Department of Health and Human Services has cut over 10,000 employees. o   The Trump administration has also taken recent actions that limit healthcare coverage for gender-affirming care in its crusade against gender ideology. ·      Supreme Court victory for disability rights o   The US Supreme Court unanimously held that children with disabilities should have an easier path to sue or seek recourse against schools for failing to provide ADA-compliant accommodations. This lower barrier of entry to bring legal claims represents a significant victory for disability rights groups.   Non-lobbying Advocacy Advocacy can take many forms, and lobbying is just one form. Your organization can engage in non-lobbying activities like: Organizing, educating the public, conducting research, executive branch and regulatory activities, working with your local state board of elections, training and litigation are just a few examples.   ·      Educating the Public o   The Arc's North Carolina chapter, an AFJ member organization, continues to shed light on how recent actions by the Trump administration may have a lasting impact on the rights of students with disabilities. ·      Holding a Rally o   This February[GU1] [VR2] [VR3] [GU4] , several health and disability rights groups held a Disability Advocacy Day at the Missouri Capitol. During the event, attendees urged the state to withdraw from a lawsuit brought on by 17 attorneys generals, including the Missouri AG. The groups want to keep federal protections for people with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 504 provides funds for special accommodations for students and protects qualified individuals with disabilities. ·      Litigation as Advocacy o   Planned Parenthood of Montana is celebrating a recent legal victory in the abortion space. by The Montana Supreme Court blocked several anti-abortion laws from taking effect in Montana that would institute a 20-week abortion ban and place significant restrictions on abortion-inducing medications. o   A federal district judge granted a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking a Trump executive order that prohibits prison officials from providing gender-affirming hormone therapy and other accommodations to transgender people. The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of DC, and the Transgender Law Center. Lobbying ·      Advocacy Days o   The Arc Minnesota recently organized a rally day at the Minnesota Capitol to protect disability funding. ·      Legislative Wins o   California: A coalition of nonprofit organizations successfully pushed SB634, the Unhoused Service Providers Protection Act, off the Senate floor. This bill is designed to increase protections for people and organizations that provide support to the unhoused. o   New York: The New York State Senate approved a bill that allows people facing terminal illnesses to end their lives on their own terms, which the bill's proponents say will ensure a measure of autonomy to New Yorkers in their final days. The bill has the support of several health and disability rights groups like Compassion and Choices.   Resources ·      Health and Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Health and Disability Rights ·      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 ·      Seize the Initiative  

In this episode of Paralegals on Fire, Ann Pearson answers a question submitted by one of her longtime email subscribers—a seasoned litigation paralegal with nearly four decades of experience who's ready for a change but not quite ready to retire. Drawing from her own background and insights from the industry, Ann offers practical advice on career paths that allow experienced paralegals to leverage their skills while achieving better work-life balance. Ann highlights several alternative career options outside of Big Law, including in-house corporate legal departments, litigation vendor roles such as project manager or litigation consultant, and regulatory or compliance positions across industries like healthcare, environmental law, and risk management. She also discusses potential opportunities in teaching and training for those considering a more flexible or part-time path. Whether you're a paralegal with decades of experience or simply exploring new professional avenues, this episode provides actionable guidance on how to parlay your legal expertise into new roles that fit your evolving career goals.   Key Takeaways: In-House Transition: Paralegals with a background in litigation and big law experience may find fulfilling roles within corporate legal departments, offering more balanced, less intense work environments. Vendor Opportunities: The role of a project manager or litigation consultant at ediscovery or trial vendors can be an ideal fit for experienced paralegals looking for new challenges without direct sales pressures. Compliance and Regulatory Roles: Transitioning into sectors such as healthcare compliance or environmental regulation can be a lucrative and fulfilling path using transferable skills from the legal field. Documenting Wins: Highlighting and documenting key career accomplishments can facilitate the shift to new roles by allowing potential employers to see the breadth of transferable skills. Teaching and Mentoring: Leveraging years of experience to educate upcoming professionals by teaching or creating courses can be both rewarding and impactful. Get more free paralegal resources:  https://paralegal-bootcamp.com/paralegal-resources 

Send us your feedback For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

This Day in Legal History: Military Selective Service ActOn June 24, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed the Military Selective Service Act into law, establishing a peacetime draft system in the United States. The legislation came amid rising tensions with the Soviet Union, as the early Cold War stoked fears about the need for a ready and scalable military force. This marked the first time the United States instituted a draft during peacetime, following the expiration of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which had been enacted during World War II. The new law required all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants between the ages of 18 and 25 to register with the Selective Service System.The Act granted the president authority to induct men into military service, with deferments available for education, occupation, or family hardship, though these often resulted in significant disparities in who actually served. Implementation began swiftly, with the first draft lottery since World War II conducted in 1948. This system remained in effect throughout the Korean War and into the Vietnam era, evolving with amendments but continuing to shape the composition of the U.S. armed forces.The 1948 Act also laid the groundwork for future national service debates, setting precedents for conscientious objector status and administrative appeals. Critics of the draft pointed to inequities and civil liberties concerns, while proponents argued it was essential for national defense and preparedness. Although the draft was suspended in 1973, the Selective Service System persists today, requiring registration for all male citizens and immigrants, preserving the infrastructure in case of future need. The 1948 legislation signified a turning point in American military policy, marking a transition from a wartime to a sustained peacetime defense posture.The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to resume deporting migrants to third countries without first giving them a chance to explain potential harm they could face there. This decision lifts a lower court injunction requiring due process protections like notice and a hearing before such removals, a move that drew a forceful dissent from the Court's liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the action a “gross abuse” of power, criticizing the Court for enabling potentially dangerous deportations while legal challenges are ongoing.The underlying policy targets migrants—often with criminal records—whose home countries won't accept them back, prompting the administration to seek deportations to other nations. A class action lawsuit challenged the policy, arguing that such deportations without procedural safeguards likely violate the Constitution's due process clause. Judge Brian Murphy had previously blocked removals to places like South Sudan, citing risks including armed conflict and political instability.Despite Murphy's order, the administration continued efforts to deport individuals to countries such as South Sudan and El Salvador, allegedly in defiance of judicial rulings. The administration maintains the policy is lawful and necessary to manage migrant removals. Immigrant advocates say the Court's decision endangers vulnerable individuals and weakens judicial oversight. The ruling reflects ongoing legal tensions surrounding Trump immigration strategies, many of which have now returned to the courts since his return to office.Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is set to begin congressional testimony this week amid political pressure from President Trump to cut interest rates. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling makes clear that Powell, and other Fed governors, cannot be removed over policy disagreements. This means Trump is unlikely to replace Powell before his term as chair ends in May 2026, and he may only get to appoint one additional Fed board member during his current term.Some in Trump's circle have floated the idea of naming a successor now to act as a “shadow” chair, but experts warn that would confuse markets and undermine both the nominee's credibility and the Fed's stability. The Fed's governance structure—with long, staggered terms and a mix of governors and independent regional bank presidents—limits any one president's influence.Despite Trump's calls for immediate rate cuts, Fed officials remain cautious, waiting for more clarity on the economic impact of tariffs and global instability, such as rising tensions with Iran. Interest rate decisions this year have been unanimous, including from Trump-appointed governors. With only two upcoming vacancies, the makeup of the Fed is largely locked in, reinforcing the central bank's independence even in a volatile political climate.Powell is staying at the Fed, with Trump appointments possibly limited | ReutersA federal judge has blocked President Trump's attempt to bar international students from studying at Harvard University, issuing a preliminary injunction that halts the administration's latest move in its ongoing campaign against the Ivy League institution. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration's actions likely violated Harvard's First Amendment rights by retaliating against the school for resisting demands to alter its admissions and curriculum practices.Trump had issued a proclamation citing national security concerns, suspending entry of foreign nationals to study at Harvard for six months and directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider revoking current student visas. Judge Burroughs rejected these justifications, stating the government's effort appeared driven by opposition to Harvard's perceived liberal stance, and warned it posed a threat to core democratic freedoms.This ruling extends an earlier order blocking similar measures and comes as Harvard fights back through two separate lawsuits—one to protect $2.5 billion in frozen funding, and another to safeguard its ability to host international students. Nearly 6,800 foreign students attend Harvard, representing about 27% of the student body. Homeland Security had previously attempted to strip the university's certification to enroll foreign students, also without presenting substantive evidence.Accusations from the administration included claims of antisemitism and ties to China, which Harvard disputes. The court's decision allows Harvard to continue welcoming international students while litigation continues, underscoring judicial resistance to executive overreach into higher education autonomy.US judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to international students | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, which proposes a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, is more about political optics than sound policy. While the bill claims to combat foreign influence and protect American businesses, it fails on both fronts. It doesn't differentiate between foreign and domestic investors and ignores how economic costs are actually distributed—those costs won't be eaten by funders but passed down to plaintiffs and, ultimately, to defendants via higher settlements. This is basic economics, not a national security fix.We've seen this before with contingent-fee arrangements, where higher costs didn't dampen litigation but merely increased settlement demands. The proposed tax would similarly inflate litigation costs without reducing the flow of capital into the system. It won't stop litigation or foreign investment—it'll just make lawsuits more expensive for everyone involved, including the very corporations the bill purports to protect.The real issue, if one believes foreign interference is a genuine threat, is disclosure—not taxation. Congress could require transparency in litigation finance arrangements instead of disguising a foreign policy concern as a tax policy. By pitching a punitive tax as a protective measure, lawmakers are undermining both tax integrity and judicial credibility. This bill won't fix the problem it pretends to solve; it just sends a message that certain markets are politically disfavored and fair game for symbolic taxation.Litigation Funding Tax Proposal Solves Nothing Besides Optics This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this podcast Jeff discusses a moment he never dreamed would occur: Iran's nuclear facilities were destroyed by America and Iran is finally punished for its global terror. Every President from Carter through Biden looked the other way or appeased Iran's terrorism — Trump did not. Jeff eats some crow but points out the MAGA leading voices who sided with the Muslim terror state that tried to kill our President. And an update on Jeff's federal fraud sentencing before his fraternity brother. It was a hoot, it was surreal and it brought back a lot of memories.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. explains how cortisol, the brain's primary stress hormone, can significantly impair witness performance during testimony. He describes how elevated cortisol levels, produced during perceived threats, impair cognitive functions such as memory, decision-making, and emotional regulation. Bill introduces the stress-performance curve, noting that optimal performance occurs at moderate stress levels (between 4 and 6 on a 10-point scale). When cortisol levels are too high, the brain shifts from logical, prefrontal cortex functioning into survival mode, triggering fight, flight, or freeze responses.  Bill urges attorneys to monitor their witnesses closely for early signs of rising cortisol, such as changes in facial expression, posture, tone, and speech. Once stress exceeds a 7, it becomes very difficult to recover, as cortisol can remain elevated for hours and often triggers adrenaline, amplifying the problem. He emphasizes the need for proactive breaks at the first signs of stress escalation to prevent overexplaining, guessing, or emotional outbursts during deposition. To counter cortisol's effects, Bill outlines a training protocol that includes education, skill development, and systematic desensitization. Witnesses must understand the stress response, learn to self-monitor their stress levels, and practice breathing, pacing, and positive internal dialogue. Witnesses must be neurocognitively trained to manage the foreign experience of a deposition and understand what may trigger emotional responses. Gradual exposure to emotionally triggering stimuli, such as graphic evidence or hostile questioning, helps the brain adapt and remain calm. Lastly, Bill stresses that effective witness prep must go beyond strategy and incorporate neuroscience to preserve witness credibility and performance under pressure.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/HQF

This episode marks the fifth anniversary of the Boardroom Governance Podcast and Newsletter.In this solo edition, I reflect on:The origin of the podcast and newsletter, both launched during the pandemicKey lessons from over 175 episodes with leading voices in corporate governanceThe Boardroom Governance SummitMy role leading the Center for Business Law at UC Law SFThe Startup Litigation DigestThe VC-Backed Board Academy (VCBA)What's next for the Boardroom Governance communityMentioned in this episode:Boardroom Governance Podcast Archive: https://boardroom-governance.comBoardroom Governance Newsletter: https://evanepstein.substack.comStartup Litigation Digest: https://startuplitigation.substack.comVC-Backed Board Academy (VCBA): https://cbl.uclawsf.edu/programs/vcba/Contact Evan: epsteinevan@uclawsf.eduIf you've enjoyed the podcast over the years, please consider leaving a rating or review. Your feedback helps expand the conversation around boardroom governance. You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Chapters00:00Introduction to Laura Stearns01:42Exploring Trauma and Healing04:03The Impact of Childhood Experiences06:09The Role of Institutions in Abuse08:28Personal Stories of Assault11:04The Aftermath of Trauma12:59Marriage and Relationships Post-Trauma15:06Legislative Changes and Advocacy17:43Public Disclosure and Its Consequences20:38Understanding Trauma in the Arts22:08The Healing Journey and Self-Discovery26:36Navigating Identity and Relationships30:48The Impact of Trauma on Society32:24Current Projects and Future Aspirations35:49Living Authentically and Trusting Your GutSummaryIn this conversation, Laura Stearns shares her journey as an actor, author, and advocate for trauma survivors. She discusses her experiences with childhood trauma, the impact of her time in the theater community, and her healing process. Laura emphasizes the importance of understanding trauma, the implications of the Child Victims Act, and the role of art in healing. She also shares insights from her memoir and her current projects, highlighting the need for community and support for survivors.TakeawaysLaura's journey through trauma began in childhood.The theater community can harbor hidden dangers.Understanding false core beliefs is crucial for healing.The Child Victims Act allows survivors to seek justice.Art can be a powerful tool for healing and expression.Community support is vital for trauma survivors.Litigation can be a re-traumatizing experience.Self-discovery is a key part of the healing process.Sharing stories helps build connections and understanding.Trusting one's gut is essential for personal growth.Laura Stearns' BioLaura studied theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and has been working in professional theater since the age of thirteen. As a theater maker in the Twin Cities, which included twelve years on staff at the world-renowned Guthrie Theater, Laura has worked with some of the most talented artists from around the world, both on and off stage. Laura is an accomplished actor and director with a diverse skill set that has given her the opportunity to work in almost every department of theater production as a manager, technician, and designer. Now living in Southern California, she is the winner of the 2024 Desert Theatre League Award for Best Direction of The Woman in the Mirror. She also designed and fabricated the puppets for Avenue Q at Revolution Stage Company. Palm Springs audiences will recognize Laura from her performances this past season as Norma Baxter in Perfect Arrangement at The Bent, and Dr. Charlotte in Falsettos at Dezart Performs. She is also the author of Shattered: Exposing the Open Secret of the Children's Theatre Scandal and Daring to Heal: Growing Beyond Trauma Through Awareness, Acceptance, and Action, co-author of The Minnesota Theater Standards for Safety and Accountability and co-founder of the Minnesota Theater Accountability Coalition. Her testimony at the state legislature supported the removal of the criminal Statute of Limitations for rape victims in the state of Minnesota. As a proud member of Actors Equity Association and an associate with the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society, Laura is a fierce advocate for safe spaces in theater production and education. Learn more about Laura at http://www.laurastearns.comLAURA STEARNSshe/her/hersArtist ~ Advocate ~ ConsultantActor- SAG/AFTRA ~ AEADirector- Associate, Stage Directors and Choreographers SocietyIntimacy Direction - IDC Consent Forward Artist CertifiedWords and Actions Matter Contact Wilkinson: www.BecomingWilkinson@gmail.com

06-21-25See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For today's episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson and Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds sat down for a conversation about the rescissions package President Trump recently put forward to Congress, how it relates to the litigation over the president's attempted cuts to U.S. foreign assistance, and what it all signals about how the administration intends to handle impoundments moving forward.Discussed in this episode:“The Myth of Presidential Impoundment Power” from Protect DemocracyTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, John and Elliot discuss key outcomes from the June FATF Plenary, OFAC enforcement actions, the DOJ's evolving stance on white collar crime, the ABA's lawsuit challenging executive orders targeting law firms, a request for comment from the US bank regulators on payment and check fraud, and other issues affecting the financial crime prevention community.

John is joined by Spencer Collins, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of Arm Holdings, the UK-based semiconductor design firm known for powering over 99% of smartphones globally with its energy-efficient CPU designs.  They discuss the legal challenges that arise from Arm's unique position in the semiconductor industry. Arm has a unique business model, centered on licensing intellectual property rather than manufacturing processors. This model is evolving as Arm considers moving “up the stack,” potentially entering into processor production to compete more directly in the AI hardware space.  Since its $31 billion acquisition by SoftBank in 2016, Arm has seen tremendous growth, culminating in an IPO in 2023 at a $54 billion valuation and its market value nearly doubling since.AI is a major strategic focus for Arm, as its CPUs are increasingly central to AI processing in cloud and edge environments.  Arm's high-profile AI projects include Nvidia's Grace Hopper superchip and Microsoft's new AI server chips, both of which rely heavily on Arm CPU cores.   Arm is positioned to be a key infrastructure player in AI's future based on its broad customer base, the low power consumption of its semiconductors, and their extensive security features. Nvidia's proposed $40 billion acquisition of ARM collapsed due to regulatory pushback in the U.S., Europe, and China.  This led SoftBank to pivot to taking 10% of Arm public.  Arm is now aggressively strengthening its intellectual property strategy, expanding patent filings, and upgrading legal operations to better protect its innovations in the AI space.Spencer describes his own career path—from law firm M&A work to a leadership role at SoftBank's Vision Fund, where he worked on deals like the $7.7 billion Uber investment—culminating in his current post.   He suggests that general counsel for major tech firms must be intellectually agile, invest in best-in-class advisors, and maintain geopolitical awareness to navigate today's rapidly changing legal and regulatory landscape.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

On Episode 5 of The Bitcoin for Corporations Show, Pierre Rochard is joined by Garrett Johnston of Marsh to explore how Bitcoin can radically transform the insurance industry. From the trillions in insurance float to the fiduciary risks of ignoring Bitcoin, this episode uncovers the hidden forces shaping treasury strategy, litigation risk, and D&O coverage in the age of BTC.Garrett breaks down the disconnect between Bitcoin-native firms and traditional insurance carriers, and explains why a failure to adopt Bitcoin may soon be seen as a breach of fiduciary duty. Essential viewing for corporate leaders, CFOs, risk managers, and Bitcoin-aligned executives.Chapters:00:00:00 Fiduciary Duty & Bitcoin 00:04:30 Garrett's Insurance Journey 00:09:00 Bitcoin's Disconnect with Insurance 00:13:30 Institutional Misunderstanding of BTC 00:18:00 Insurance Float & Melting Ice Cubes 00:22:30 Litigation and Inflation Risks 00:27:00 Bitcoin's Role in Corporate Risk 00:31:30 Misconceptions about BTC & FTX 00:36:00 MicroStrategy's Legal Landscape00:40:30 Future of Governance & Communication

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

Machalagh Carr is a trusted and discreet counselor with decades of private sector and government experience. She has nimbly navigated the intersection of congressional investigations and oversight, law, geopolitics, international anticorruption measures, and policy, and served as the top staffer in Article I as Chief of Staff to Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy.  She is the Founder & CEO of Quell strategies, a boutique consulting firm where she helps client navigate Washington and translates the intricacies of public policy to the business world.  Prior to her role as Chief of Staff, she served as General Counsel for the Speaker and Office of the Republican Leader at the U.S. House of Representatives. Previously, she served as General Counsel & Parliamentarian for the Committee on Ways and Means, where she handled all legal and procedural issues for the Committee. Before that, she was the Oversight Staff Director at the Committee where she led the investigations and oversight of all issues within the Committee's jurisdiction, served as the Director of Oversight and Investigations for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and as Senior Oversight Counsel at the Committee on Natural Resources. Prior to her public service, Machalagh served in the Office of Global Compliance of an international energy company where she conducted internal anti-corruption investigations, audits, and compliance reviews for the company, including expertise in FCPA, and UK Bribery Act.  She also practiced in the Litigation, White Collar, and Government Investigations Group at Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal LLP (now Dentons).   She currently serves as the Head of Global Policy for Palantir Technologies.  Directly after law school, Machalagh clerked for the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She taught Trial Practice at Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, is a Politics and Public Service Fellow at Georgetown University McCourt School, and lives in Virginia with her husband and three sons.

We don't know who is running ads on podcasts advocating for anti-litigation finance legislation. But, given how many enemies the practice has among conservatives and big business, the list of potential culprits is huge. Bloomberg Law reporter Emily R. Siegel wrote a story about these podcast ads, which call for restrictions on third parties who fund lawsuits in exchange for a cut of any awards they generate. The ads failed to disclose who was behind them as required by law and were quickly pulled after Siegel started asking questions about them. Siegel joins our podcast, On The Merits, to talk about the stakes of this anti-litigation finance legislation and the beef these groups have with litigation finance. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This week Jeff opens with the long-awaited Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, a dazzling military operation years in the making. But instead of support for Israel, Jeff is stunned by the response: hatred not only from the far left but now pouring out of MAGA's biggest names. Yes, the Trump-right has joined Hamas and the progressive left in their obsessive Jew hatred, and Jeff is seething.Trump, meanwhile, couldn't resist taking credit for the Israeli success after the fact, even though he reportedly tried to block the strike for months. And if he actually helped, why didn't he greenlight American B-52s to finish the job on the underground nuke sites? Why is he trying to make a huge deal when the world's biggest sponsor of terror is on its knees?Also this week: a tale of how a young lawyer buying his first suits comes full circle 30 years later, this time as a man paying cash with 44 tailored suits under his belt. Plus, Jeff faces a federal judge he went to college with and admits, despite all of his own accomplishments, the judge is the better man.As always, Jeff pulls no punches. Not for MAGA. Not for Trump. Not for the far left. And certainly not for anyone siding with the world's worst terror regime.

Louisa Klouda is the CEO and Founder of Fenchurch Legal, and is responsible for overseeing all business operations. Louisa founded Fenchurch Legal in 2020 after an interest in the litigation finance market sparked an idea to apply a secured lending model to litigation finance. She discovered a market largely dominated by funders focusing on high-value, complex cases such as class actions, however, there was a lack of support for smaller claims. This insight led to the creation of Fenchurch Legal. Before launching Fenchurch Legal, Louisa operated the broking and dealing desk for a corporate brokerage and finance firm in London. In this role, she gained extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and investment product structuring.

CSI Litigation Consultant Linda Khzam joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss managing emotional and anxious witnesses during deposition prep. Drawing on her background in cognitive neuroscience and working with crime victims, Linda explains that many witnesses enter the litigation process with no understanding of what to expect, likening it to being dropped unprepared into a foreign country. She stresses the need to provide a clear roadmap, explaining logistics, roles, and expectations, to help witnesses feel grounded and prepared. A crucial aspect in witness preparation is identifying anxiety before it escalates. Linda describes signs such as rapid speech, over-explaining, or defensiveness as early indicators that a witness is becoming emotionally activated. She emphasizes the importance of mock questioning to surface these behaviors and help the attorney recognize when intervention is necessary. Witnesses are also encouraged to develop self-awareness around their “tells” and learn to pause and regulate themselves before they spiral. Sophisticated neurocognitive training teaches witnesses these tools. Linda and Steve emphasize that deposition prep must be tailored to each individual, especially those dealing with external stressors or trauma. She explains that emotional issues like guilt, fear of job loss, or personal crises can interfere with memory and decision-making during testimony. By building rapport with the witness, taking time to address personal challenges, and practicing in realistic conditions, witnesses can approach depositions with more clarity, control, and confidence.  Watch the video of the episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/euB

Ryan Mulvaney, Lawyer Litigation Sports joins 365 Sports to discuss his thoughts on how much of a problem Title IX could be in the NCAA Settlement, his thoughts on the lack of uniformity around college athletics, his thoughts on the direction that College Athletics is headed and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Subrogation damages, like most civil lawsuits, are a matter of proof.  You need evidence to prove that you and your insured suffered the losses you are claiming.  So what happens when those losses are not for damaged property or medical bills, but for lost profits?  Can you ask the court to look into the future to pay for sales your insured would have made, but for the incident at issue?  On this week's episode, Rebecca and Steve explore real scenarios to guide listeners through the legal standards that shape these complex claims and break down the core elements behind successful lost profit recovery cases.  Whether the insured business is a long-term established entity, or a brand new storefront, you may be able to successfully recover lost profits, as long as you have receipts. 

In Ogletree Deakins' new podcast series Litigation Lens, Shareholder Michael Nail (Greenville) will discuss and analyze real employment law cases and outcomes to provide listeners with practical takeaways and insights. In the inaugural episode, Michael is joined by Sarah Zucco (of counsel, New York) to discuss a recent summary judgment opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas regarding a case involving a supervisor who was allegedly “forced” to retire for failing to report a sexual harassment complaint, as required by company policy. The plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of age discrimination; however, the court found the employer's decision was legitimate and not pretextual. This episode provides practical tips for employers on how to handle similar situations.

Co-host Matthew Wallace just completed his first PFAS sampling!Here's a breakdown of what we wanted to know from the EHS&S Professional:We thought a little breakdown of Do you do much sampling generally?Without telling us who the client was, or giving away too much, can you tell us what the facility was, what it was like?What kind of sampling was this?What was the preparation that you have to for PFAS specifically?What were the special considerations for this particular event? Things you thought about doing, changes up  Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation.   They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts.  The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently.Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available.  &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes.  Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output.The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace.  It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence.&AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing.  This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there.  AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation.  This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly.  Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm's proprietary data and preferred styles.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Today we're diving into the sixth of our eight-part series, exploring how nonprofits champion democracy and protect voting rights. We'll unpack the strategies these organizations use to advocate for democratic participation while operating within the law. This conversation feels especially urgent as we see acceleration to challenges to voting rights and democratic institutions in 2025.   Attorneys for this episode   Tim Mooney  Natalie Ossenfort Susan Finkle Sourlis    Shownotes Current Events / Executive Orders ·      Trump Administration Directives on Voting & Civil Rights o   Disbanded the DOJ Voting Rights Section's Election Monitoring Program. o   Rescinded Biden executive order promoting federal agency voter registration partnerships o   Halted implementation of interagency plans for voter access through social service agencies, and redirecting the Election Assistance Commission to implement draconian requirements outside the scope of its mission his authority over it. ·      Impact on Vulnerable Communities o   Revoked supporting access to the ballot for voters with disabilities and non-English speakers. o   Pressured USPS to deprioritize ballot delivery during election periods and issued an EO that attempts to reject mail in ballots postmarked on Election Day but received afterward.   Nonlobbying Advocacy Although you may consider this an off year for federal elections (but many local and state elections are happening this year)  – now is the time to work to ensure the protection of voting rights for the future. Advocacy can take many forms, lobbying is just one form. There are many ways organizations can advocate for change to ensure democracy and voting rights are secure. Organizing, educating the public, conducting research, executive branch and regulatory activities, working with your local state board of elections, trainings and litigation just to name a few way.   Here are some ways organizations have undertake ·      Educate the Public o   Democracy North Carolina launched a digital explainer on redistricting and gerrymandering for community audiences, and engaged in election protection work. This included monitoring polling stations for long lines, problems with voting, voting misinformation. ·      Hold a Rally or Event o   Detroit Action organized “Halloween Early Vote,” a trunk or treat in a historically underrepresented part of Detroit, promoting civic pride, early voting… and candy. ·      Litigation as Advocacy o   Campaign Legal Center and Southern Poverty Law Center sued Louisiana for new proof of citizenship documentation as a violation of federal law. o   League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democratic National Committee and others sued to overturn Trump's federal elections executive order, successfully enjoining some of the more egregious parts of it. Foundation-Funded Advocacy ·      Public and private foundations can fund 501(c)(3) nonpartisan voter engagement activities that do not support or oppose candidates for public office. ·      Special rules for private foundations re: voter registration drives (grants must be for nonpartisan VR drives conducted in 5 or more states over multiple election cycles), but community foundations can fund VR even for small, local, grassroots organizations. ·      Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York have supported nonpartisan voter education and rights litigation to strengthen democracy and public trust in government.   Lobbying ·      Legislative Wins o   New York: Enacted the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, pushed through with support from a coalition including Legal Defense Fund and Citizen Action of NY o   New Mexico: Passed legislation mandating automatic and same-day voter registration following lobbying by ProgressNow NM and allies. ·      Ballot Measures Protecting Voting Rights o   Michigan Proposal 2 (2022): Guaranteed early voting and drop boxes; supported by Voters Not Politicians and League of Women Voters of Michigan. o   Arizona: Local advocates, including Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), defeated multiple voter suppression ballot initiatives. o   Nevada: Voters passed automatic voter registration (2018) and expanded it further in 2022 with strong nonprofit support. Resources ·      Democracy & Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Democracy and Voting Rights ·      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 ·      Seize the initiative

In April, Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt was criminally convicted in a British court for offering consensual conversation in an abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth, England. The court found that she violated a Public Spaces Protection Order that prohibits “engaging in an act of approval or disapproval with regard to abortion services,” despite holding a sign that simply read: “Here to talk if you want." The U.S. State Department issued a statement of concern about her case and the decline of freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. Dr. Tossici-Bolt's conviction is the latest in a string of cases targeting thought and peaceful speech. In October 2024, the same court convicted Adam Smith-Connor for silent prayer in a "buffer zone.” U.S. Vice President JD Vance highlighted his case at the Munich Security Conference.Featuring: Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF InternationalModerator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

On this episode of Best Ever CRE, Joe Cornwell interviews Andy Wyman, a Florida-based attorney and founder of Wyman Legal Solutions, who specializes in construction and real estate law. Drawing on nearly 30 years of experience and a background in a family of contractors, Andy shares the most common legal pitfalls property owners and investors face when hiring contractors. He emphasizes the importance of vetting, clear communication, permits, and using contracts that protect both parties. The conversation covers red flags in hiring, the hidden risks of litigation, and practical guidance for both investors and contractors navigating construction disputes and project planning. Andy Wyman Current role: Founder & Construction Attorney, Wyman Legal Solutions Based in: Boca Raton, Florida Say hi to them at: www.wymanlegalsolutions.com Phone: 561-361-8700 Get a 4-week trial, free postage, and a digital scale at ⁠https://www.stamps.com/cre⁠. Thanks to Stamps.com for sponsoring the show! Post your job for free at https://www.linkedin.com/BRE. Terms and conditions apply. Join the Best Ever Community  The Best Ever Community is live and growing - and we want serious commercial real estate investors like you inside. It's free to join, but you must apply and meet the criteria.  Connect with top operators, LPs, GPs, and more, get real insights, and be part of a curated network built to help you grow. Apply now at ⁠www.bestevercommunity.com⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is widely known that schools have instituted equity-focused policies, teacher training, and curriculum. Critics wonder whether this focus on equity is illegal and unconstitutional.Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.Featuring:Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation

Encinitas Unified School District required two fifth-grade boys and their assigned kindergarten buddies to read and watch My Shadow is Pink and do an activity, pressuring the kindergartners to choose a color to represent their own shadows. The plaintiffs allege this was designed to make the students question their gender identity. Represented by First Liberty Institute and the National Center for Law and Policy, the families filed a complaint in the Southern District of California and sought a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 12, 2025, Judge M. James Lorenz granted that motion in part, requiring the school district to provide advance notice and opt-outs when gender identity material is taught in mentoring programs. The judge’s opinion focused on compelled speech, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of that claim.Free speech expert Professor Eugene Volokh and counsel Kayla Toney, who represents the families, will break down the opinion and discuss its ramifications for First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:Kayla Ann Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Hillary Walsh -- a renowned immigration lawyer in Phoenix and owner of New Frontier Law -- and I talked on June 2, 2025 about practicing one of the hottest areas of law.   Hillary shares her powerful story of finding her purpose and surviving in a harsh system.  She also offers practical suggestions of how to prepare for the worst case scenario -- practical advice not only for immigration clients, but also for all of us.www.atgimagemgtwww.joybertrandlaw.com

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. delivers a detailed lecture on the concept of neurocognitive remapping and why the human brain is not neurologically equipped for the pressures of litigation. He explains that 95% of witness errors are psychological, not legal or strategic, and that traditional attorney-led preparation often fails because it overlooks critical elements like cognition, emotion, and behavior. Neurocognitive remapping a science-based process that helps witnesses respond to high-stress litigation stimuli in a calm, logical, and strategic manner. Bill explains how the brain is evolutionarily wired for workplace and social environments, where quick responses, cooperation, and elaboration are rewarded. However, those same behaviors become liabilities in testimony. A core focus of the training is slowing down cognitive reflexes, as fast answers often lead to volunteering harmful information or falling into traps set by opposing counsel. He introduces the question-answer cycle, a temporal model showing how witnesses can control half of the deposition process through deliberate pacing - improving cognition and limiting vulnerability by reducing the number of questions the opposing attorney can ask. The remapping process includes assessing each witness's cognitive, emotional, and communication profile, simulating real testimony pressure, and using operant conditioning through immediate feedback and reinforcement. Drawing from sports psychology, the training builds emotional regulation, focus, and mental endurance to keep witnesses functioning from the prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain where logic and impulse control reside - rather than slipping into amygdala hijack and fight-or-flight responses. Bill emphasizes this is not basic witness coaching, but a structured neurocognitive program that cultivates control, composure, and precision, ultimately producing testimony that is sharp, accurate, and resistant to tactics like the Reptile and Edge Theory.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/307

Continuing to focus on the Trump Administration tariffs, in this session, Crowell hosts Nicole Simonian and Dj Wolff, Co-Chairs of the International Trade Group, talk with Daniel Wolff, Crowell's Litigation and Trial partner, as they review and consider the impact of the Court of International Trade's recent decision on the tariffs imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Global Trade Talks is a podcast that shares brief perspectives on key global issues on international trade, current events, business, law, and public policy as they impact our lives.

In a groundbreaking development for the digital health world, Eli Lilly, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, has filed lawsuits against a growing number of telehealth companies over the sale of compounded drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound, two popular GLP-1 medications. Nawa Lodin, Associate, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Lauren Petrin, Associate, Wiley Rein, discuss the background of compounding and when it is allowed under FDA regulations; the legal and regulatory issues at play in Eli Lilly's lawsuits, including issues related to the corporate practice of medicine and FDA regulations; and key compliance considerations. Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstaVQGtY24AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

John is joined by Maaren A. Shah and Luke Nikas, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's New York office.  Maaren and Luke have the top art disputes practice in the world.   They discuss Maaren and Luke's recent victory in the multi-front litigation concerning the legacy of American pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his iconic LOVE sculpture. The case began when Indiana's longtime advisor, who held exclusive rights to fabricate Indiana's works, discovered that Michael McKenzie was creating and selling unauthorized artworks.  This led to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit.At the time, Indiana was elderly, isolated on an island off the coast of Maine, and physically deteriorating.  Indiana's situation was worsened by a coordinated effort by several individuals to cut him off from his longtime supporters and assume control over his name, artwork, and brand. The day after the initial lawsuit was filed, Indiana passed away, causing further complications.  His estate sought to terminate contracts with the advisor and seize control of its intellectual property rights and valuable inventory of Robert Indiana artworks.  The legal fight quickly expanded into multiple jurisdictions with overlapping lawsuits involving McKenzie, the advisor, the estate, and the sole beneficiary of the estate, a charitable foundation called the Star of Hope.  Maaren and Luke formed an alliance with the Star of Hope and the Maine Attorney General's office, which regulated the foundation.  They secured an agreement with the foundation ensuring the advisor would retain its rights, inventory, and business role regardless of the outcome of the litigation with the estate, rendering that litigation moot.  The Estate quickly buckled and ended its pursuit of the advisor.With the advisor's rights and assets secured, the team turned back to McKenzie, who had previously misrepresented the number of Indiana works in his possession.  After the team uncovered numerous hidden artworks and secured devastating testimony from McKenzie's former associate, among others, the court imposed terminating sanctions, including dismissing McKenzie's claims and awarding the advisor its attorney's fees.  The victory ultimately protects Indiana's legacy and ensures stability in the market for his art.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Welcome to a special edition of We get work®, recorded live from Workplace Horizons 2025 in New York City, Jackson Lewis's annual Labor and Employment Law Conference. Over 500 representatives from 260 companies gathered together to share valuable insights and best practices on workplace law issues impacting their business today. Here's your personal invitation to get the insights from the conference, delivered directly to you. 

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

On May 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit challenging Microsoft's $69 billion purchase of “Call of Duty” maker Activision Blizzard, affirming the lower judge's order finding that the FTC was not entitled to a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, which closed in 2023. Hear from former agency officials and amici filers for the Business Roundtable, Communications Workers of America, and TechFreedom as they discuss the various views presented in the briefing and the ramifications of this decision on future merger enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.Featuring:Allen P. Grunes, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber SchreckHon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiRahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & CaseBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies--To register, click the link above.

Show Notes: Dan Tabak, a lawyer and treasurer of Harvard Hillel, spent three years at Columbia Law School, he then worked as a litigator at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, but took a year off to clerk for a federal judge in Brooklyn. He went back to work at Simpson Thacher before moving on to his current firm, Cohen & Gresser which operates primarily in New York City but has offices in London, Paris, Dubai, and Washington, D.C. He currently lives in Scarsdale, New York with his wife and two kids. On the Board of Harvard Hillel Dan joined the board of Harvard Hillel during the pandemic, which allowed him to participate more actively. He explains why he joined the board and supporting the Jewish community was an important part of his decision. In response to the fact that Harvard has been in the news in connection with  anti-semitism, Dan states that the board has a diverse board with diverse viewpoints. He also mentions a 311 page study on anti-semitism at Harvard and notes that there are problems at Harvard that were different from what his class perceived, and that students today interact differently than when Dan was a student, specifically the inability to disagree with civility and respect for diversity of opinions.  The Decline of Jewish Students at HarvardDan discusses the decline in Jewish students at Harvard and similar institutions, noting that he believes it has not emerged from a top-down decision, but traces back to the Immigration Act of 1965. He notes that there was a high likelihood of having a Jewish roommate or blockmate in the class of 1992 and a lower chance now, which has led to fewer people understanding Jews and Jewish life at these institutions. He attributes the decline to the emphasis on more diversity on identities within admissions and how students feel a responsibility to represent their specific background as well as the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened doors to different communities, particularly immigrant families, who tend to value education highly and are now more represented at Harvard.  A Career in Law and Improving the Public School Systems Dan talks about his career at Simpson Thacher, one of the world's largest firms. His senior thesis in college involved a school funding decision in New Jersey. From his first week as a summer associate at Simpson Thacher to his departure years later, he worked with a group bringing a similar case in New York, Campaign For Fiscal Equity against the state of New York. The case involved school kids in New York City suing the state for a sound basic education under the New York State Constitution. The trial went nine months, and the students won the trial.  He summarizes the process from determining there is a right to finding the remedy.  The remedy involved resources and money, and the case went through another set of hearings to determine the appropriate resolution. Dan also discusses what the research revealed about class sizes, funding, and how the family situation impacts the education of a student.  A Focus on Financial Service CompaniesThe conversation turns to Dan's legal work, focusing on commercial litigation, with a focus on financial services companies, and bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related litigation. He talks about his involvement in a case involving Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan, in the bankruptcy of Gawker and Gawker's founder. He also touches on how this case helped lead to a change in how the public views the publication of sex tapes. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape and the impact of cases like this on the legal landscape. Skills and Superpowers in LawDan believes that his strengths in law are the strategizing of how to get from here to there, listening to the client, and having a goal in mind. He also mentions being a good writer, which helps convey his thoughts. He initially was less strong at oral arguments but has since improved his skills and persuaded judges to change course and decide for his clients. One example of a successful legal strategy involves listening to clients and helping them figure out what they really want. For example, he has worked with pro bono clients who are more interested in justice than achieving a result. They often get a settlement offer and he explains the consequences if they don't take it. He explains that the lawyer must work through the emotional aspects and consider the implications of suing them and going to court. With corporate clients, Dan emphasizes the importance of listening to clients' goals and working relationships with the other party. A settlement can be a win-win situation for everyone involved, as long as they can continue doing business together. This is a different function of listening to what the client is trying to get out of the case. The Limitations of  Legal EducationDan believes that a course he took from Roger Fisher with the Harvard Negotiation project was more helpful in negotiation and negotiation strategy than anything he learned in law school. He also mentions that law school was more about hearing the cases and understanding the law, rather than emotional intelligence and negotiating strategies. He also mentions that law schools did not teach how to manage junior attorneys and paralegals, which he believes is essential for success in law firms. He talks about the many small inflection points in a lawyer's career, such as meeting the right people and introducing them to potential clients that change or shape direction and offer opportunities. Influential Harvard Professors and CoursesDan mentions the Negotiation course and a Constitutional Law class with H.W. Perry, where he learned how to read legal cases and understand constitutional law. Dan shares a memorable experience while he was taking the Constitutional Law course where he argued a case in front of classmates, including "Chief Justice" Ketanji Brown Jackson, and also mentions learning in an Intro to Psychology course about the concept of idiosyncrasy credits.