Podcasts about litigation

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.

06-18-2025 David C. Japha Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/the-hidden-risks-in-partnership-breakups-litigation-you-didnt-expect/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

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.

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

IMS Senior Jury Consulting Advisor Chris Dominic is joined by Trial Consultant Michelle Cooper, Esq., for a compelling conversation on how trial teams can use storytelling, visual advocacy, and analogies to make complex financial concepts more relatable in the courtroom. Drawing from their real-world litigation expertise, Chris and Michelle explore effective strategies for framing issues like business judgment and trust in ways that resonate with jurors.  Their discussion offers insight into overcoming juror bias, building credibility, and clarifying abstract data through meaningful narratives. For legal teams navigating the complexities of securities disputes, this IMS Insights Podcast episode is a valuable resource for enhancing courtroom communication and achieving optimal outcomes.  IMS has delivered strategic litigation consulting and expert witness services to leading global law firms and Fortune 500 companies for more than 30 years, in more than 45,000 cases. IMS consultants become an extension of your legal team from pre-suit investigation services to discovery and then on to arbitration and trial. Learn more at imslegal.com.

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

Stephen Grootes speaks to Dawie de Villiers, Chief Executive Officer, Alexforbes about the group’s strong annual results. For the year ended 31 March 2025, operating profit rose 14% to R911 million, driven by revenue growth, better client retention, and efficiency gains. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Come to wickedproblems.earth to get the full-fat version! Exit music for this episode is “Oil Money” by Graham Barham. Because, well, it's a bit obvious this time, no?If insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result, global climate institutions like the annual COP meetings are definitionally loopier than Elon Musk deep down a K-hole.We spend our time arguing about how to count emissions in order to avoid the real conversation, which is a struggle between three asset classes: fossil fuel assets, ‘vulnerable' assets (like Small Island Developing States), and ‘green' assets. Pretending that struggle is not existential is the essence of climate diplomacy for the past 35 years.University of Toronto political scientist Professor Jessica Green thinks we're well past the point we can afford to continue pretending. Reading her forthcoming book, Existential Politics - Why Global Climate Institutions are Failing and How to Fix Them, was like waking from a dream. You should pre-order it now.She cuts through the nonsense to focus on the real dilemma. The only way through an “energy transition” is for fossil fuel companies, enormously powerful economic and political actors, to have $trillions in ‘stranded assets' and balance sheets that go up in smoke.Turkeys don't vote for Christmas (an idiomatic expression I'm pleased to be the first to share with Prof. Green). Yet the entire structure of global climate diplomacy is built on the fallacy that, somehow, oil majors and NOCs would ignore their self-interest and agree to die.As you'll hear in our conversation, Prof. Green doesn't pull punches and doesn't suffer fools. There's an impatience in her writing and her presentation that has a lot of James Dyke “fuck this noise can we please stop kidding ourselves” energy. At some points I wanted to reach for the hemlock, but thankfully she is as witty as she is sharp.I ask her how her ideas intersect or cut against other critiques of the mainstream climate conversation like Andreas Malm and Wim Carton in Overshoot, Rupert Read's take on transformative adaptation and Tadzio Mueller's anticipation of collapse.I think you'll enjoy the chat. Let us know what you think:In this Conversation01:48 Existential Politics Explained04:18 The Flaws in Carbon Markets05:47 Distributional Politics and Climate Policy08:36 The Role of Corporations in Climate Governance10:49 The Paris Agreement and Its Shortcomings19:26 The Misconception of Solving Climate Change Like the Ozone Problem20:54 Environmental Effects and Substitutes22:04 Challenges in Environmental Governance22:57 Market Dynamics and Trade Issues25:03 Fossil Capital vs. Green Capital28:31 The Role of Litigation and Policy37:11 Grand Bargains and Political Realities38:21 Carbon Capture and Storage Debate40:26 Buy this Book! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. 

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.

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

Check us out on this weeks episode as we discuss Cardi B and Offset's divorce woes, child labor in social media, shameful parenting, and so much more. Follow us on IG and Twitter (X) @Tripledosepod and share your thoughts with us!

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.  

There's hope there can be a turnaround in unruly Kāinga Ora tenants. A Government crackdown has resulted in 63 tenancy terminations in the past 10 months - up from 11 in the year before. Formal warnings have gone up 600%. Litigation Lawyer Adina Thorn told Mike Hosking the figures are encouraging. She says it looks like under this government, there's been a big step up and a moderate to good response to the behaviour that has been going on in some KO homes across New Zealand. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic are transforming weight loss and diabetes management. But no good deed goes unpunished, and the manufacturers of these medicines now face a wave of lawsuits, with plaintiffs claiming they weren't warned about rare but sometimes serious side effects. Is this litigation driven by solid evidence, or are the tort lawyers out for yet another unearned payday? Let's take a look.

My Co-Host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 163 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Lucy Wojcik, who is Chief Intellectual Property Counsel at OCADO GROUP PLC, and we talk about cross-border patent litigation, in-house organization of IP teams, agile IP and much more! Lucy has just been inducted […]

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Third Party: Government Entities as a refresher! Original Air Date: May14, 2021 Federal and State Governments are powerful entities. But are they so powerful that they can never be sued for damages? In this installment in our series on third party liability, join Rebecca and Steve as they explain why sovereign immunity can be a liability for your case if your third party is a government entity.   The special forums for these claims, the special rules, time limits, and notice requirements that apply, and whether the entity can be sued for subrogation at all depend on which state or political subdivision is at fault.  So buckle up and take notes for your next cross country claim.

"Where do victims of war crimes go to get reparations? We talk to Frederiek de Vlaming about the Nuhanovic Foundation's litigation against the Dutch government" “Do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/”

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into two significant legal topics that are currently shaping the landscape of litigation in the United States. The tax and spending bill (a.k.a. 'The Big Beautiful Bill') has raised eyebrows due to its implications for federal court contempt powers. The bill, which passed the House by a narrow margin, includes a provision that could severely limit federal courts' ability to enforce temporary restraining orders (TROs) & injunctions, in contrast to most new legislation it is written to be retroactive affecting previous rulings issued by federal courts. Specifically, the provision states that no court may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or TRO if no security was provided when the order was issued. This change could have far-reaching consequences, particularly in immigration cases and other areas of law where TROs are commonly sought. Jack explains the mechanics of Federal Rule 65C, which requires parties seeking injunctions to provide a surety bond to cover potential damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongful. The discussion highlights the potential chaos that could ensue if existing injunctions without bonds become unenforceable, particularly in cases involving civil rights and government actions.We then shift focus to the use of pseudonyms in litigation, and the delicate balance between the public's right to access judicial proceedings and the need for individuals to protect their identities in sensitive cases. Recent court decisions have indicated that the avoidance of reputational harm is not a compelling enough reason to allow litigants to proceed anonymously. A notable case from the Seventh Circuit involving a lawsuit against the University of Illinois, Initially allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, the university later objected. This case underscores the challenges faced by individuals who may have legitimate reasons for wanting to protect their anonymity, particularly in cases involving sensitive allegations.We encourage our listeners to stay informed about how these issues may affect their rights and responsibilities in litigation.Join us as we discuss the complexities of critical topics and we encourage our listeners to stay informed about how these issues may affect their rights and responsibilities in litigation.. Don't forget to subscribe to Litigation Nation for more updates on legal news and analysis!

In this episode of "The Free Lawyer," host Gary interviews Kurt London, managing partner of London Parker Injury Law. Kurt shares his unique journey into personal injury law, including his transformative experiences in Russia and Kazakhstan, and a motorcycle accident that deepened his empathy for clients. He discusses the rapid growth of his firm, emphasizing the importance of personal branding, client empathy, and work-life balance. Kurt also highlights strategies for managing a law practice across multiple states and the significance of creating a supportive work environment. His story serves as an inspiration for lawyers seeking fulfillment and professional success.Kurt is the managing partner of London Harker Injury Law which serves the states of Utah, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, and California. Kurt is originally from Southern California andgraduated with his Juris Doctorate from Brigham Young University's J. Reuben Clark Law School.  After graduating, Kurt worked as an attorney for the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center, a chapter of the Innocence Project, to correct wrongful convictions in Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. Afterwards Kurt practiced personal injury for Robert J. DeBry & Associates and then for Craig Swapp & Associates. Kurt is a board member of the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center. He is also a member of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, and Utah Association of Justice where he serves on the Board of Governors and is a member of UAJ's Legislative Affairs Committee. To learn more visit www.londonharker.com.Personal Experience with Motorcycle Accident (00:03:09)Motivation to Enter Personal Injury Law (00:04:02)Prioritizing Client Interests (00:05:02)Building a Personal Brand (00:06:39)Importance of Brand Building for Attorneys (00:07:21)Kurt's Approach to Client Relationships (00:08:48)Marketing Strategies for a New Firm (00:10:09)Learning from Other Firms' Strategies (00:11:44)Empathy in Client Representation (00:13:43)Handling Cases Across Multiple States (00:15:12)Co-Counsel for Litigation (00:16:59)Challenges of Multi-State Practice (00:17:25)Overcoming Law Firm Challenges (00:18:10)Balancing Work and Family (00:18:58)Early Work Hours (00:19:44)Staff Appreciation Strategies (00:21:04)Creating a Supportive Firm Culture (00:22:59)Defining Personal Freedom (00:23:27)Utilizing LinkedIn for Branding (00:24:49)Building Authenticity in Branding (00:26:40)Advice for Stuck Lawyers (00:28:36)Would you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free Would you like to schedule a complimentary discovery call? You can do so here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-call

Extended School Year (ESY) services can raise nuanced questions for IEP teams and special education professionals. On this episode of the Lozano Smith Podcast, host Aly R. Bivins talks with Roxana E. Khan and Erin Frazor about how ESY differs from summer school, the legal requirements under the IDEA, and how to make sound, individualized decisions. They round out the conversation by highlighting common pitfalls and offering practical tips to ensure compliance, including the importance of clear documentation. Show Notes & References 2:10 – ESY (Extended School Year services) vs. Summer School 2:52  – FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and ESY 3:40 – Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (Client News Brief 12 - March 2017) 5:54 – Common ESY issues and questions 8:18 – How to determine eligibility for ESY 8:45 – Regression/Recoupment Analysis applied in California 10:14 – Three other standards determined by the courts 14:08 – What to provide during ESY 21:21 – When to make ESY determination 25:10 – Determining ESY eligibility for incoming students with less available information 28:01 – Litigation regarding ESY 34:17 – Does ESY only apply during the summer? 37:14 – Does the IDEA speak to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in relation to ESY? 38:45 – M.C. by & through S.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2023) Case No. 2:20-CV-09127-CBM-E, 2023 WL 11066079 40:07 – Continuum of ESY placement options   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Eric is a graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law and currently works as a Litigation Attorney at WGK Personal Injury Lawyers. Not only have I known Eric since I was 5, but hearing his riveting journey to the Law was a full-circle moment for me, and an excellent episode that anyone can learn from! Eric and I started before his introduction with his first run-in with Law School at Touro Law Center. Eric always wanted to be a Lawyer since he was 5 years old, with many of his relatives being Lawyers, and working in his Uncle's Law Office since he was young. Following his graduation from Plattsburgh, Eric would head off to Touro Law Center. Although after his father, my legendary lifetime lacrosse coach, was struck with cancer in the fall, Eric would miss out on the GPA minimum in his first semester and would be dismissed. But this wouldn't stop him, as the following fall, he would land himself at the University of Baltimore School of Law. With a new city to explore and having the prior experience of 1L, Eric would excel in his first year and beyond in Law School. Eric and I would discuss the various experiences he had throughout Law School, and how he came to find out that Personal Injury Litigation would be the path for him. Finally, we spoke about his post-Law School experiences and where he works today at WGK Personal Injury Lawyers. He spoke about identifying a company's culture and learning how to build up cases. He emphasized asking questions and always being available to help at any opportunity. This episode with Eric was a sentimental one for me, and I would be remiss not to shout out the entire Suris family for all that they have done for me and my family throughout the years! With that being said, you don't want to miss this one! Eric's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericsurisBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

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. 

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. 

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

In this minicast (short + focused podcast) episode on coaches, emergency medicine physician and coach  Dr. Gita Pensa shares insights from coaching physicians facing malpractice litigation and from her 12-year legal battle. She discusses how fear pervades these experiences and offers practical approaches to managing anxiety while working to change medicine's culture of shame. Gita is based in Rhode Island. She is the CEO and founder of DoctorsAndLitigation.com, where she coaches clinicians facing litigation stress. Dr. Pensa is also the creator and host of Doctors and Litigation: The L Word podcast and has pioneered work in physician litigation stress. Key Take-awaysFear is the dominant emotion among physicians facing litigation Many malpractice cases are eventually dropped, but the anxiety persists The culture of shame in medicine surrounding litigation needs transformation Communication resolution programs can heal patient-doctor relationships after adverse events Documentary: A World of Hurt Book a consultation session with Gita Website: DoctorsAndLitigation.com YouTube: @DoctorsandLitigation If you enjoy the show, please leave a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ rating on Apple or a

Get down with lawyers who rock, and some rock that led to lawsuits. Litigators Andrés Correa and Chris Patton of the Dallas firm Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann LLP are both rock and rollers and accomplished litigators. Hear how they make time for their passion for music, and how the outlet releases stress and opens paths to creative thinking and strategies they've applied to their legal careers and cases. Their passion for music inspired them to co-write the Litigation article “Rock Around the Court: How Copyright Litigation Reflects the Muddy Origins of Rock ‘n' Roll,” which explores the legal issues surrounding music and creativity. As those who came before influence styles later, music copyright claims have led to legal cases that shape the world of music and art. Lawsuits continue to this day. What's “inspiration” and what's copyright infringement? From Elvis to Led Zepplin to today. Now, imagine where the brave new world of AI is going to take us. Resources: “Rock Around the Court: How Copyright Litigation Reflects the Muddy Origins of Rock ‘n' Roll,” by Chris Patton and Andrés Correa, Litigation Journal “Jimmy Page, Sony Pictures Sued by Songwriter Over Led Zeppelin Song,” Reuters “Led Zeppelin Emerges Victor in 'Stairway to Heaven' Plagiarism Case,” Reuters “George Harrison's “My Sweet Lord” Copyright Case,” Performing Songwriter “Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams to Pay $5 Million to Marvin Gaye Estate for 'Blurred Lines'” NBC News “Reggaeton Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Targeting Over 100 of the Genre's Biggest Acts to Move Forward,” Variety American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section

Going to trial for the first time as a litigation paralegal? Deep breaths! This episode is for you.   In this episode, I'm sharing the 5 most important things that every litigation paralegal should know before their first trial to help you. And even if you've already been to trial, maybe you need a refresher or want to hear a funny trial war room story!   SPONSOR SPOTLIGHT This episode is brought to you by Raise the Bar Media - a weekly newsletter for legal professionals that want clear, relevant updates without the clutter. Each issue delivers practical insights on firm management, legal tech, hiring, billing, and client service, curated by industry pros who get the realities of running a modern legal practice. Get the newsletter here.     To get all the information mentioned in the episode, go to this episode page here: https://paralegal-bootcamp.com/paralegalpodcast-episode152   Other episodes/Resources mentioned: Episode 146 with Vincent Ascolese, the video interview version  One Lesson I Learned at Trial Litigation Paralegal Boot Camp 3-Step Method to Better Case Management

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