Podcasts about miami law school

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: In memory of Steven M. Wise, published by Tyner on February 21, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. LINK: https://everloved.com/life-of/steven-wise/obituary/ Renowned animal rights pioneer Steven M. Wise passed away on February 15th after a long illness. He was 73 years old. An innovative scholar and groundbreaking expert on animal law, Wise founded and served as president of the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), the only nonprofit organization in the US dedicated solely to establishing legal rights for nonhuman animals. As the NhRP's lead attorney, he filed historic lawsuits demanding the right to liberty of captive chimpanzees and elephants, achieving widely recognized legal firsts for his clients. Most notably, under Wise's leadership the NhRP filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of Happy, an elephant held alone in captivity at the Bronx Zoo. Happy's case, which historian Jill Lepore has called "the most important animal-rights case of the 21st-century," reached the New York Court of Appeals in 2022. The Court of Appeals then became the highest court of an English-speaking jurisdiction to hear arguments calling for a legal right for an animal. Although the Court ultimately denied Happy's petition, two judges wrote historic dissents refuting the idea that only humans can have rights. Under Wise's leadership, the NhRP also helped develop and pass the first animal rights law in the country in 2023-an ordinance that protects elephants' right to liberty. Wise said he decided to become a lawyer after developing a deep commitment to social justice as a result of his involvement in the anti-Vietnam War movement while an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary. He graduated from Boston University Law School in 1976 and began his legal career as a criminal defense lawyer. Several years later, Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation inspired Wise to become an animal protection lawyer. From 1985 to 1995, Wise was president of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. As Wise told The New York Times Magazine, his litigation work during this time led him to conclude that the rightlessness of animals was the fundamental barrier to humans vindicating animals' interests. This is because, under animal welfare laws, lawyers must make the case for how a human has been harmed by the animal's treatment or situation; as Wise elaborated in his writings and talks, legal injuries to animals do not matter in court because animals are unjustly considered legal "things" with no rights, legally equivalent to inanimate objects, their intrinsic interests essentially invisible to judges. In 1995, Wise launched the Nonhuman Rights Project to address this core issue facing all animals and their advocates. After more than a decade of preparation, the NhRP filed first-of-their-kind lawsuits in 2013, demanding rights for four captive chimpanzees in New York State. A year and a half later, two of the NhRP's clients became the first animals in legal history to have habeas corpus hearings to determine the lawfulness of their imprisonment. Wise was also a leading force in the development of animal law as a distinct academic curriculum, teaching the first-ever animal law course offered at Harvard University in 2000. He remained committed to educating the next generation of animal rights lawyers throughout his career, teaching animal rights jurisprudence at law schools around the world, including Stanford Law School, the University of Miami Law School, St. Thomas University Law School, John Marshall Law School, Lewis and Clark Law School, Vermont Law School, Tel Aviv University, and the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Wise is the author of four books: Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000); Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights (2002); Though the Heavens May Fall: T...

This week, Take It To The Board is proud to release its 50th episode! This podcast was started with the goal of giving its listeners a glimpse into the inner workings of a community association including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Now, it is only fitting to give a glimpse of its host, Donna DiMaggio Berger, who is joined by her husband, Michael Berger, a fellow University of Miami Law School graduate. Michael explains how his work as a business attorney draws upon his experience as a former owner of a manufacturing business with retail, wholesale, catalog, and internet operations. His experience provides a unique perspective on the business and legal needs of small to medium-sized entrepreneurial operations. Michael also discusses his work serving on the Broward County Human Rights Board over the last few years encouraging treatment equality and discrimination prevention.In this episode, Donna and Michael discuss how they met, their unorthodox introduction to the condominium approval process when they purchased their first home in Aventura, a special assessment they paid as new homeowners for a problem-plagued skylight repair project, and their separate experiences later serving on their Broward County HOA Board.  Conversation highlights include:What kind of community association disputes are heard by the Human Rights Board and the mission of that organization.How to get off on the right foot with new members of a community and whether there is a solution to owners failing to read their governing documents.The types of communication channels that foster transparency and community spirit and how volunteerism can benefit the association.How to make the community association lifestyle a positive – not a negative – experience.BONUS: Michael reveals two things about our host that most people don't know – but some may suspect! :)

There are still significant issues surrounding law student mental health, and the pandemic added even more layers to these wellness concerns. Molly Ranns and JoAnn Hathaway welcome David Jaffe and Janet Stearns to discuss their research and advocacy for law student well-being. They talk listeners through the latest statistics, emphasize the importance of continuing to destigmatize mental health struggles, and offer many strategies for advocating for wellness throughout the entire legal profession. David B. Jaffe is the Associate Dean of Student Affair at American University Washington College of Law. Janet Stearns is Dean of Students and Lecturer in Law at the University of Miami Law School.

There are still significant issues surrounding law student mental health, and the pandemic added even more layers to these wellness concerns. Molly Ranns and JoAnn Hathaway welcome David Jaffe and Janet Stearns to discuss their research and advocacy for law student well-being. They talk listeners through the latest statistics, emphasize the importance of continuing to destigmatize mental health struggles, and offer many strategies for advocating for wellness throughout the entire legal profession. David B. Jaffe is the Associate Dean of Student Affair at American University Washington College of Law. Janet Stearns is Dean of Students and Lecturer in Law at the University of Miami Law School.

In this episode, I talk to Greg d'Incelli. Greg is a graduate of the University of Miami Law School and worked for a number of years as a trial lawyer trying plaintiffs' personal injury cases before he parlayed an interest in crypto into his own crypto investing operation Scenius capital.As you'll hear more in the episode, Scenius runs a fund of funds of sorts in the crypto space, allowing investors to invest in one vehicle that is then spread out over a number of the best digital assets funds picked by Scenius.Enjoy! If you have input, criticism, or guest suggestions (including yourself) for the podcast, shoot me an email at Joseph@excellentatlife.com. Connect to me on LinkedIn here and say hello Follow me on Twitter hereCheck out GetSomeClass.com for fun team activities and wellness programming.In the meantime, may you walk your own winding path well.Joseph Gerstel

On the morning of July 18, 2014, Dan Markel pulled into his garage in the upscale Betton Hills neighborhood of Tallahassee, where he was a law professor at Florida State University. Seconds later, the 41-year-old father of two was shot twice in the head. Taken to the hospital, he was pronounced dead less than 12 hours later.Dan Markel was a friend of mine. We worked together as editors of the Harvard Crimson in the 1990s, and we reconnected in the early 2000s as the founders of two prominent legal blogs, PrawfsBlawg for him and Above the Law for me.As both a friend of Dan's and a journalist covering the legal profession, I have closely followed the years-long quest to bring his killers—all of his killers—to justice. And so has litigator turned bestselling true-crime writer Steven B. Epstein, author of Extreme Punishment: The Chilling True Story of Acclaimed Law Professor Dan Markel's Murder. As I write in the foreword, “Meticulously researched and beautifully written, Extreme Punishment is now the definitive account of Dan's life and death, the standard against which all future tellings will be measured.”I invited Steve to join me as the third guest of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. We talked about what inspired him to tackle the Markel case, how he went about researching and writing the book, his email correspondence with Dan's ex-wife Wendi Adelson (who some suspect of playing a role in the murder), and his predictions for what might happen next in the case. To listen, please click on the embed at the top of this post.Show Notes:* Extreme Punishment: The Chilling True Story of Acclaimed Law Professor Dan Markel's Murder, Amazon* Extreme Punishment: The Chilling True Story of Acclaimed Law Professor Dan Markel's Murder, Barnes & Noble* Steven B. Epstein: True Crime Writer, author website* Steve Epstein bio, Poyner Spruill LLPPrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the third episode of this podcast, recorded one week ago, on Wednesday, October 12. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.For the first episode, I interviewed Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel, one of the nation's top trial lawyers. For the second episode, I interviewed Paul Clement of Clement Murphy, one of the nation's top appellate and Supreme Court lawyers.At the end of the second episode, I mentioned this third episode would be a bit different, and it is. Like my first two guests, my latest guest is a friend, but he has made his name outside the realm of practice.Steven B. Epstein is a lawyer turned bestselling true-crime writer. After earning his bachelor's and law degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, both with highest honors, he clerked for Judge Earl Britt in the Eastern District of North Carolina. After a few years in legal academia, Steve turned to civil litigation, practicing for more than 30 years and handling dozens of trials and appeals in federal and state courts. Since 2010, he has been a partner at Poyner Spruill in Raleigh, North Carolina.But I had Steve on the show not to chat about his legal career, but his career as a writer. In 2019, he published his first true-crime book, Murder on Birchleaf Drive: The True Story of the Michelle Young Murder Case, which became a #1 bestseller on Amazon in the true-crime genre. In 2020, he published his second book, Evil at Lake Seminole, about the murder of Mike Williams in Tallahassee. And this month, October 2022, Steve published his third book, Extreme Punishment: The Chilling True Story of Acclaimed Law Professor Dan Markel's Murder.As many of my listeners and readers know, this is a case to which I have a personal connection. Dan Markel was a friend of mine from college, when we worked together for the Harvard Crimson, and we reconnected as early entrants to the field of legal blogging, when he founded PrawfsBlawg and I founded Above the Law.In 2014, Dan was brutally murdered, shot in the head after pulling into his garage. Dan's murder—and the years-long quest to bring all of his killers to justice, which is not yet over—is the subject of Steve's book, Extreme Punishment. As I write in the foreword, “Meticulously researched and beautifully written, Extreme Punishment is now the definitive account of Dan's life and death, the standard against which all future tellings will be measured.”Without further ado, here's my interview of Steve Epstein.DL: Welcome to the podcast, Steve, and congratulations on the publication of Extreme Punishment, which I think is some of your best work yet. And on behalf of those of us who knew and cared about Dan, thank you for writing it. Before we dive into the book, can you introduce yourself to the readers—or listeners, I should say?Steve Epstein: Sure—and thank you for those kind words, David. For those who don't know, you've been along this ride with me for the last couple of years. I appreciate all of your encouragement. I appreciate the foreword to the book, which is beautiful, and I'm thrilled that that's the introduction my readers are going to have to my writing, so thank you for all of that.I'm a native of New York. I grew up mostly on Long Island. I then went south to go to college at the University of North Carolina and decided to stay there for law school. I clerked for a federal judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina. A couple years later, after I was done with the judge, I was off to the University of Illinois, where I was actually teaching on the University of Illinois law faculty for just two years. I've been back in North Carolina ever since 1996, when I finished up at Illinois, and I've been practicing law ever since then at two different private law firms. And as you said, I've also written three books.DL: And what is the focus of your legal practice, or what has it been over the years?SE: I was a civil litigator. I started as a personal injury lawyer and then became more of a commercial civil litigator, mostly on the defense side, mostly working for self-insured large corporations. Then over the years, I drifted into actually doing family law, which is about two-thirds of my practice now, and has been the majority of my practice for the last eight years.DL: As I mentioned in the foreword, you have multiple connections to this story, which we'll explore in a minute. But before we do that, for those of my readers who are not familiar with the subject of your book, Extreme Punishment, which is the murder of law professor Dan Markel—many of my readers are familiar with it, but for those who are not—can you give a quick overview of what this case is about?SE: Sure, and we'll start with the subject of the book, Dan Markel. Dan was a young, very hungry, very intellectually gifted law professor when he joined the Florida State faculty in 2005. He had two Harvard degrees, undergraduate and law school. He had a master's degree from the University of Cambridge. He was also somebody who took his Judaism very seriously, so that was part of his DNA. And he was very successful as a law professor.He was married to a woman named Wendi Adelson, who was from South Florida. Dan himself was from Canada, which is where he grew up—he actually never became an American citizen before his death, he was a Canadian. Wendi Adelson grew up in South Florida in a town called Coral Springs, which isn't too terribly far from Miami, and they wound up becoming a couple while Wendi was still a law student at the University of Miami, while Dan was practicing law at a boutique firm in Washington, D.C.Wendi actually went to Florida State with Dan when he got his gig as an assistant law professor, and Wendi finished up law school at Florida State University. Even though her degree says University of Miami, she actually finished up in classrooms in which Dan was teaching law school at Florida State.On July 18th, 2014, which is when my book actually begins—in fact, that's part of the title to chapter one—Dan was murdered by a gunman who showed up in his garage, shortly after he had dropped his two young boys off at preschool and gone to the gym for a workout. Two bullets penetrated the front window of his car and went straight into his head. He was pronounced dead at the hospital, Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, about one o'clock the next morning.So this is a story about Dan's life, Wendi's life, and how that all led to that fateful morning, and then the march to justice that has literally been going on now for eight-plus years, with four different people involved in this crime now behind bars—three convicted, one awaiting trial—and a significant possibility of more arrests and convictions later on.DL: That's an excellent overview of this really tragic, horrific event. And for those of us who knew Dan, it was just insane. As I write in the foreword, he was a law professor. He was part of our legal-nerd circles. I knew him from college because we worked on the Harvard Crimson together. I reconnected with him in the mid-2000s because we were legal bloggers.I remember the morning, that July morning, where there was just furious calling, texting, Facebook messaging among his friends, saying, did you hear what happened to Dan, did you hear what happened to Dan? And we just could not, for the life of us, figure out who would want to kill our friend who was a law professor. It just seemed so crazy….SE: And it was. And so investigators who started investigating this crime, literally within an hour of the shooting, were faced with this very puzzling dilemma: why would someone want to kill this 41-year-old, extremely successful law professor, who had made hundreds if not thousands of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, across the legal academy and across the world? He was enormously popular. He was extremely well-known. Who would want to kill him?DL: What I would add there is—as I've written in Above the Law and Original Jurisdiction covering Dan, as your biographical portrait of him makes really clear—he was a very complex guy. He wasn't boring, he wasn't vanilla, some people he didn't rub the right way. He had strong opinions. He was outspoken. But again, to us it just seemed that there was nobody who'd want to kill him. It just seemed like such a crazy thing.I will pause here for any listeners whose interest has been piqued by the discussion so far. Feel free to hop off the podcast at this point and get the book, Extreme Punishment by Steven B. Epstein, and you can always tune back in after you've had the chance to read the rest of it.Now, for those of us who are familiar with the case, let's take a deeper dive. We talked about or alluded briefly to your personal connections to this story. What inspired you to tackle the Dan Markel murder for your third?SE: Well, it's a story I really didn't initially want to write because I had just written a book about Tallahassee. I'm not from Tallahassee. I've been there a few times. My daughter was actually very interested in attending Florida State University. We visited Florida State University. She wanted to be a theater major. She wanted to audition there, and she was crushed to not be invited to give a live audition at Florida State University. She wound up at the University of Alabama.But you know, even then I noticed some things about Florida State. We actually did go down there when a friend of hers was in a play in production down there, and it's very interesting how seedy it is. It's almost like Yale, which you have a little familiarity with—it's odd that a university of that stature is in a town where, literally once you walk off campus, you don't feel safe. And that's definitely true about Tallahassee. It's got this very unique vibe to it for a capital city of the third-largest state.So I didn't want to write another story about a murder that happened to somebody who lived in Tallahassee. But the mother of the victim of my second story, Cheryl Williams, who is a fantastic human being—and I encourage you also to read my second book, Evil at Lake Seminole, where you'll learn a whole lot more about this incredibly courageous woman—we continued having conversations long after I finished that book. She's been a fan, she's been a friend, and she's been a confidant. And we were talking about what I was going to write next, and I was literally searching for the right true-crime story to write next when she encouraged me to think about writing about Dan Markel.At that point, all I knew about this story was stuff I gleaned from reading the pages of the Tallahassee Democrat, which I was doing as part of my research for Evil at Lake Seminole. And so I knew just a little bit about this law professor who was killed, and there was a suspicion that maybe his wife's family was involved, and I knew that there had been a trial, and that's literally all I knew.And then mysteriously within a couple of days of speaking with Cheryl and her encouraging me to write this story, on my DVR—we have Direct TV—on my DVR in my saved shows, a Dateline appeared, a Dateline about the Dan Markel murder. I don't know how it got there to this day, but I was like, okay, this is a sign, this is a sign from God. I'm going to watch the Dateline episode.I watched it, and I was mesmerized. And the thing that led me in the next direction was one of the talking heads, a guy named Matt Shaer. Matt did a podcast, which a lot of your listeners probably have listened to, called Over My Dead Body—sort of like the Serial podcast that is now getting a lot of attention because the person who was convicted of that crime in Serial has just been exonerated, released from jail after nearly 20 years. Well, this podcast sounded a whole lot like it had the production value of Serial, Over My Dead Body, and I listened to all eight episodes, and I was absolutely at that point convinced this was a book that I was meant to write.And so I started, and I reached out to Matt Shaer to get some assistance, I reached out to you because you were also interviewed in that podcast, and then I literally just started figuring out who was involved, sending emails. I made a visit to Tallahassee. I met with Dan Markel's next-door neighbor, Jim Geiger, who was the person who found him slumped over behind the steering wheel of his Honda Accord, the fateful morning of July 18th, 2014. I started realizing the enormity of Dan's circle of friends, and I basically had to start picking and choosing who I was going to talk to because there were far too many to interview. I wound up interviewing probably three dozen or so of Dan's friends, and then all of the lawyers involved in the case, and on and on and on.DL: One thing people will be curious about is did you reach out to or hear from Wendi Adelson, Dan's ex-wife—who some have suspected of involvement in the murder, other people have disagreed—but did you ever hear from her?SE: Yes, I did. So I actually have [these emails] in front of me, because I want to get it exactly accurate. At some point I wanted to reach out to Wendi's circle of friends, which was a lot smaller [than Dan's], and easily identify who the people were who I needed to talk to. The first person I reached out to is a woman named Jane McPherson, who was a Ph.D. candidate in the school of social work at Florida State. Why did I want to talk to her? She actually wound up in the interrogation room with Wendi the day Dan was shot, and she was there for about half an hour, and some of what happened during the time she was there was very significant, so I wanted to talk with her.I also wanted to talk with somebody who was a professor on the main campus named Daniel Sack. Ironically, Daniel Sack became Wendi's boyfriend not long after she broke up with Dan Markel—so the two Dans. And so I reached out to both Daniel Sack, who by that point was a professor in Massachusetts, and Jane McPherson, who I think at that point was a professor in Georgia, because their emails were easily accessible from their faculty websites.I began both emails—and this is significant—“My apology for this intrusion.” Each of the emails I started that way, and I explained who I was, explained I was working on a book about Dan Markel. I didn't hear from either of them. This was March 20th, 2021, it was a Saturday.So that Monday morning, at 10:53 a.m., I had this surprise email in my inbox, and all I could see in my inbox was only the name of the person sending me the email and the subject line, I saw the name was Wendi Adelson and the subject line was “Central character.” And it began, “Dear Steve,” and here are the magic words: “My apology for the intrusion”—which right away I found to be somewhat passive-aggressive.It's quite clear she was literally stealing my words that I used in the emails to her friends, Jane McPherson and Daniel Sack. She continued, “My apology for the intrusion, but my friends”—and I knew who they were—“have contacted me about your interview requests. As a central character in your writing, I am curious why you haven't contacted me. Most sincerely, Wendi.” As if we were on a first-name basis.I had never had any communications with her up until that point, and the reason I didn't is I knew full well she wasn't going to talk to me. She is implicated, certainly her family is implicated, in the murder of Dan Markel. There's no way she's going to talk to me. So I didn't reach out to her, and I literally said in response to her email, calling her bluff—and I knew it was a bluff—I said, “I didn't think you would talk to me, but if you are interested in talking to me, of course I would love to talk to you, and I won't talk with you about anything related to the murder. I'm interested in your background. I'm interested in growing up in Coral Springs, the relationship you had with your brothers. I'm interested in your appearance on The Weakest Link. So if you're interested in talking to about those things, by all means, let's chat.”And not surprisingly, I never heard another word from Wendi Adelson. But for some reason I decided, you know what? I'm going to reach out to her again. And I did in October, so some seven months had passed since my interaction with Wendi that she instigated, I didn't instigate, and I decided to push her a little bit and said, you know, I hadn't heard from her and I was wondering if she had actually gotten my email. And she responded within 15 minutes, and within 15 minutes she said, “Steve, you do not have my consent to use my identity and trauma for your own profit. Best, Wendi.”DL: “Best.” And I totally agree with you about the wording, the replication of “apologies for the intrusion.” She's trolling you. She's saying, I've got your number, and the people you're reaching out to, they're loyal to me, and I know what you're doing. She's yanking your chain, isn't she?SE: Yes. And if you pay close attention to her testimony in both trials [of Katie Magbanua], she does that quite a bit. She has little words and little phrases that just, you know, they're needling. She has this habit of needling.In talking with people who were mutual friends of Dan and Wendi's, that's what they said about her, is that she would needle them about little things. Like one of Dan's friends was a little bit short, and she would needle him about his height—not really appropriate, but as her way of one-upping him, she would bring up his height. And she was friends with him.I don't think she considers me a friend, and she was doing more than needling me. She was effing with me, in my view, with her emails and reaching out and calling herself the “central character.”Yes, she is a central character in my book. There's tons of information about Wendi Adelson in my book that I learned from all kinds of sources, not the least of which is Wendi's own writing, Wendi's own CV, which I was able to find, and then friends of Wendi's that I was able to talk with. So you'll learn a whole lot about Wendi Adelson, and you'll learn a whole lot about growing up Adelson in this book.DL: I thought her veiled threat was really a bit disingenuous because she's a smart lawyer, she knows you're a smart lawyer, she knows that this story is in the public domain, she knows the laws about privacy and defamation, and so the notion that you had to get her consent to write about something that is already out there—as long as you're writing stuff that is true, and your work is very heavily researched—that struck me as a bit rich.SE: Yeah, but it tells you a lot about Wendi Adelson, that it doesn't matter that I would've recognized right away that her threat meant nothing—which of course I did, I chuckled when I read it and then reread it to my wife and reread to all kinds of other people who also chuckled—that of course she knew that I didn't need her permission in order to write about her, as zillions of other publications have. I'm very careful and very diligent, and I'm confident that everything that I've said in this book is true and well-researchedDL: It's interesting—I will say also, just as a testament to the book, I think that the biographical chapter of Wendi is very fair and does not paint some negative or nasty picture. It's not a hatchet job. I think that you are trying to get inside her world, just as in the earlier biographical chapter about Dan, you tried to get inside his world. I think that later things develop, and we learn more about members of her family who are, shall we say, problematic. But I thought your chapter was very fair. I did not think you were out to get her or something.SE: If Wendi Adelson was a hideous, despicable monster, why would Dan Markel have fallen in love with her? Why would Dan Markel have married her and had two kids with her and have been beside himself with grief when she left? The notion that she's this horrible, despicable person, or this completely unintelligent person, doesn't make any sense. You have to understand why Dan was so head-over-heels in love with her in order to understand this story.This story is a love story about the two of them. And when that love fell apart, it's a story about what happens from there and why this becomes not just Wendi's mission, but her parents' mission, and her brother's mission, to do something about the fact that she lives seven hours apart from where she really wants to be and where they want her to be.That's what this story's really about. As a family-law attorney, we call that relocation. And Wendi tried her very best, mostly at the urging of her family, to relocate with the children to South Florida, so that they would have more access to both Wendi and the boys. And she failed. And the question then became, well, what now?Now we know the answer. Extreme Punishment is all about the answer, but you have to know the antecedents. You have to know the seeds of what happened, both in terms of the good and the relationship that was good for a long time between Dan and Wendi, and then how that relationship soured, and why it soured, and why the in-laws started getting involved.And understanding about Rob Adelson, Wendi's older brother, and how his parents got involved in his relationship, is a really telling part of this picture about how those parents of the Adelson children couldn't help themselves from being involved and completely overly involved in what was going on in their children's love lives.DL: One thing I'm curious about… when I talk about this case to people, they say, “Well, this sounds”—again, I've used this term multiple times in our conversation, but—“this sounds insane.” This is a family of well-to-do dentists, they're well-educated and they have significant assets and real estate investments, and they have lot to lose. And sure, divorces and custody battles and relocation battles can get acrimonious, but would a family that is this well-established and well-respected and well-to-do, would they really hire hit men to take out their former son-in-law? I think your book does a brilliant job of explaining how things came to that point, but can you give a short overview just to anyone who says, “I can't even believe this story, Steve, you're pulling my leg. This is ridiculous.” How did it come to this?SE: Well, the most telling pieces of evidence, if you're trying to follow the line from, okay, it's a simple divorce, and Dan and Wendi are going their own separate ways, and they're trying to figure out what to do with the boys and custody and all of that, the line from there to two bullets in Dan's head, you can't get there without really understanding four emails that were sent from Donna Adelson to Wendi Adelson, both before and after the relocation battle.[They make] very clear that Donna believed that there was no limit to what needed to be done in order to make sure that Wendi was able to move to South Florida with those boys—convert the kids to Catholicism, put them in church, have a Christian tutor, teach them about Jesus, make your Facebook photo, Wendi, a picture of the boys and you in front of a church. The goal was to get into Dan's head and make him believe these boys were going to be taken away from him one way or another. And his best bet was to do it amicably and peacefully by allowing them to relocate to South Florida, and he could deal with it then. There were places he could go there. He had a great uncle who lived there. He could stay with him. And Dan actually gave a little bit of thought to that from friends I talked to. Dan didn't consider that completely out of the question. But ultimately he decided this is my life, I've built a life here in Tallahassee. I like my life here in Tallahassee. Wendi actually has a good life here in Tallahassee. She's also on the Florida State faculty, albeit as a clinical faculty member. There's nothing wrong with both of us living here and raising these boys together. And I want to do that in a loving way, and my goal is to do that with Wendi and co-parenting with her.But the Adelsons didn't see it that way. The Adelsons saw Dan standing in the way of what they wanted. They were willing to spend a million dollars to bribe him to bring the boys to South Florida. And what's notable is that every time they were trying to do these despicable things, it was Wendi who had to play this role, and Donna told her, “You need to do this great acting job. You're a great actress when you want to be, you need to do this for us. It's going to be best for you. It's going to be best for the kids. Put on the best acting job of your life, sweetheart.”And what's notable is Wendi refused. She didn't do that. She wouldn't go along with the bribe. She wouldn't do her acting job. She lost the relocation battle. And now you're getting closer from just a simple divorce to two bullets in the head of the person standing in the way of the relocation.DL: She lost the relocation battle. The judge denied her motion to move six, seven hours closer to family. The other ploys that were suggested by Donna, [Wendi] didn't attempt or they didn't work. And so I think then you do get a little bit closer. You can kind of see how it got to this situation.SE: And let me add one more thing. Dan was doing his own legal writing. He had two different lawyers, and they literally were signing their names to the briefs that he was preparing. In family law—and I can say this because I'm a family law attorney—you don't write briefs to judges that have 47 footnotes that basically are half of each page, or dense footnotes underneath the line, which is what of course you do in law review articles. But that's the way these briefs were written to this family court judge who had, by the way, just recently been appointed as a family court judge.[Dan] was writing these vicious, scathing attacks on Wendi and on Donna and Harvey, telling the judge that the parents were footing the bill [for the litigation], they were interfering, and telling [the judge] that Wendi was being dishonest, that in fact she should be sanctioned for all of her dishonesty. He came up with every adjective in the book to describe her and her lawyer, even at one point getting the point of suggesting to his friends that he was going to seek to have them disbarred.So all of these things he was saying about the Adelson family, not surprisingly, the Adelson family clearly took very personally. And then the last straw, which has been widely reported, is that in his final motion before he was killed, Dan asked the judge to take away visitation between Donna and her grandchildren, and that the only visitation she should be permitted to have would be supervised.Wendi testified at both trials [of Katie Magbanua] that nobody took that [threat of taking away Donna's visitation] very seriously. That is impossible for me to believe—having read Donna's attacks on Dan, and also knowing that Donna was losing at every turn, lost the relocation battle, there was a battle over whether Wendi would have a second deposition taken, she lost that battle—Donna was watching, and she was pissed at Wendi's lawyers for not doing a better job. So the notion that Donna Adelson was not concerned about this motion that would result in restricting her access to the grandchildren I find completely farfetched. And that was the last thing that was on the table and never got resolved because, again, two bullets wound up in Dan Markel's head and he was killed.DL: A lot of us who knew Dan, who were his friends, often wonder what could have averted this, or what [other] paths could have been taken. For example, you talk about how Dan came close to getting positions at other universities, including maybe universities closer to Wendi's family, and they didn't work out. And I think that'll be of interest to a lot of my listeners who are legal academics. You also talk about how this battle was litigated. Do you think that if he had not taken such a scorched-earth approach in the divorce or relocation litigation, maybe this wouldn't have happened? And again, I'm not victim blaming—I'm trying to figure out [if] there were off-ramps to avoid this tragedy, maybe in just different worlds.SE: Well, certainly if things had worked out differently. In his first year teaching at Florida State, Dan was offered a position at the University of Miami Law School and wound up teaching there in a look-see visitor position in the fall of 2006. By a whisker-thin vote against him, he was denied a position on the permanent faculty. It's interesting, Wendi had a full-year position there. She stayed. Dan went back to Tallahassee to teach at Florida State, licking his wounds and moving on, not having gotten that job. And the person that I spoke to at the University of Miami and remembers that vote vividly, he wakes up at night in a cold sweat because he knows that had that vote gone differently, this awful tragedy probably never would've happened because those grandchildren would've grown up within an hour's drive of Donna and Harvey Adelson. But because they were seven hours away, that was a game changer.And Donna—I haven't even mentioned this—Donna was driving up after Dan and Wendi broke apart. Donna was driving up, sometimes with Harvey, sometimes on her own, every other weekend. Every time Wendi had the kids, Donna was there. So she was living basically both in Tallahassee and in South Florida, and yet she was the office manager for the dental practice, and Charlie now owned the dental practice, and she didn't think that was fair, and she wrote in her emails that she wanted Wendi's lawyer to say how unfair it was that Donna had to drive up and Harvey had to come, and that the family had to spend all this time in Tallahassee when the easy solution was just to move the children down to where their loving family was. So that was one of the things that could have happened differently.Dan had three offers, actually, during the first five years he was at Tallahassee. He had three different offers. Take it back four years—he was there for four years, and within those first four years he had three different offers: one at the Washington University in St. Louis, one at Miami, and one at the University of Houston.Washington University in St. Louis wound up revoking his offer, and that story is told in the book. University of Houston occurred while Wendi was pregnant with Benjamin, and a very pregnant Wendi got on the plane with Dan to explore the University of Houston. Wendi actually described the position she was offered in the immigration law clinic as her dream job, but the timing just wasn't right.So there are all kinds of things that could have transpired differently. But certainly Dan getting under the Adelsons' skin—he basically was getting almost as vitriolic in his writing in those legal briefs and legal filings as Donna had been in her emails to Wendi—the acrimony was reaching a level that would've, I think, had a lot of people very upset on both sides. But no one could have predicted that this was how it was going to end.DL: No. Absolutely. Absolutely. And again, I think in some ways this was a story, terrible as it is, that you were just born to write, having been a matrimonial lawyer, having been a law professor, having been the author of two prior true crime books, one of them set in Tallahassee, the Mike Williams story. So again, I urge readers to check it out.SE: Yeah. To any of your listeners who have ever been to the “Meat Market” [academic job fair], I'm a three-time veteran myself. I describe the Meat Market in all of its gory detail. And what most people would not even suspect is that Dan was an abject failure at his first Meat Market. He had over two dozen interviews lined up and literally struck out, got nothing. And he learned about himself a lot through that process. And the second time he went through the Meat Market, he actually had a callback interview at Berkeley and came close to getting a teaching position at Berkeley.So there's a lot in this book about Dan. Dan had many facets to him, some weaknesses, and I don't try and hide Dan's weaknesses. Dan was well aware of his weaknesses and relied on Wendi as his wife to help him through some of his own social quirks—and Wendi did for a while. But that was one of the thingsthat chafed at her, along with how Jewish Dan was compared to the way she was brought up, and many other things. It got to the point where it was clear this marriage was not going to work, and then the thing in the divorce that really set the tone was they had very different ideas, not only about how to be married, but how to be divorced.Dan felt that the lines between them should be as blurred as possible. Dan felt that the more he was able to see the kids during Wendi's time, the more she was able to see the kids during his time, the more contact that they had with each other, the better off it would be for the kids. And Wendi didn't want that more than she wanted to be hit by a speeding train. She wanted nothing to do with Dan Markel. She realized she had to have something to do with him because they were raising their kids together. But the idea he had, the concept he had about what divorce should look like, could not have been more diametrically opposite as to what she thought divorce should look like. And that was one of the things that was also causing heightened acrimony between the Adelson family and Dan.DL: You have such incredible details in the book that capture these things. Take the scene where she is thinking of taking the kids to Whole Foods and it's during her time, and then she sees Dan inside and then she says, oh, I don't want to go in there because then we're going to see him and then he's going to want to talk, and then it's going to be like our shared time, and she goes somewhere else.SE: That was two days before he was shot. That was the Wednesday before the Friday of the shooting.DL: It's just amazing. One thing I'm curious about—and you do this so well in your other books too—you do all this research, but then what I love really about the writing, and I guess it's also true of the genre of true crime, is it's told in a narrative nonfiction way. It's told as if we are inside the heads of these protagonists. Is that difficult? And at times, do you find yourself having to take some poetic license to imagine what was going through people's heads? I remember you talk about Wendi putting her hair in a messy bun. And again, I know you can look at these things, you can look at the interview footage from her police station interview, and you can see her hair or what have you. But how do you do this? I think it's amazing.SE: There is definitely creative license that has to be taken to fill in very small, inconsequential gaps where I, as the writer, clearly don't have access to what was happening in Wendi's home the morning that Dan was shot. I know what she described in her interview with the police investigator, but I have to obviously fill in those gaps a little bit. So I do take creative license with very small things like that. And to the extent that there's dialogue that happens that there's no recording of, there's no transcript of—for instance, when Wendi called Dan when he was up in New York at a colloquium and she said, I'm leaving you, the exact words that were said, there's no written recording of that. So I'm obviously ad libbing the exact words that they said to one another at the time before Dan got on a plane and flew back to Tallahassee. So little things like that. As a writer, I do have creative license to manufacture. But important facts and things about people that are documented, I have to get those things right, and I work very, very hard, I kill myself trying to make sure I am getting those things right.DL: And I know it took you a long time to write and you interviewed 50-plus people for it. How long did it take you from when you started your research to the completion of your manuscript, roughly?SE: There was a little bit of waiting because I was waiting on the second trial and then I got a gift from God when they decided to indict and arrest Charlie Adelson. And I know I got the facts surrounding his arrest right, because I worked very hard to get the right interviews with the right people. That's an interesting story of itself, the arrest of Charlie Adelson. So there was a little bit of a gap there while I was waiting for that trial to occur. And then there was obviously Charlie's arrest. But I finished writing at the end of June, and I had started writing in December of the prior year. So it was a full 18, 19 months of writing.DL: It's interesting, the scene of Charlie [getting arrested] in his underwear, stoned probably, is… people just need to read it. But let me ask you this. I heard about this in a different podcast, your interview with Judy the YouTube Lawyer, and I thought it was a really interesting point you made. The first trial for Katie Magbanua, the go-between connecting the Adelsons and the hitmen, ended in a mistrial. And for those of us who've been following this case, it really saddened us and angered us to see how that first trial shook out. But can you explain how this might, totally counterintuitively, have been a good thing?SE: It was a blessing in disguise, as it turned out. So the juror who actually hung the jury, I met with that juror in person in Tallahassee and had an extensive interview. The juror was unabashedly, basically nullifying the judge's instructions, deciding that these two children—not the Dan Markel and Wendi Adelson children, but the children of the hitman, Sigfredo Garcia, and Katie Magbanua, the go-between between the Adelson family and the hitman—that those children shouldn't grow up without two parents. And so although she agreed to convict one, Sigfredo Garcia, she wouldn't agree to convict the other. And that's what hung the jury. And that story is told in the book, in the chapter called Civic Duty.But as it turns out, between that and Covid, that bought the State Attorney's Office a couple of years to try and figure out how to put on a better case. You've been a prosecutor, I'm sure you've been part of mistrials before, and as a prosecutor, you want to learn from your mistakes and do better the next time and put on a better case.The one thing in the first trial that left the prosecution unable to put on the case that they wanted to was not being able to use the Dolce Vita video and audio to show that Charlie Adelson and Katie Magbanua, two years after the murder, were basically discussing what had happened in the murder and how to deal with the fact that this perceived gang member was shaking Donna Adelson down as part of the so-called “bump” [undercover operation], and how to deal with that.There was a lot of valuable information in that dialogue, the State Attorney's Office believed, but it was a noisy Italian restaurant, and if they were going to play it for the jury, the jury wasn't going to be able to make out a thing. So they got the lead FBI agent to literally, on his own, over the course of a hundred hours, prepare a transcript by listening with noise-canceling headphones and using some proprietary FBI software.And lo and behold, he comes up with this great transcript, and the judge in the first trial, Judge James Hankinson, says no, you can't give the jury that transcript, because that's basically taking the FBI agent's own interpretation of what these people are saying, and the jury's just going to substitute that for the voices that they're hearing in the actual recording. So they put on one minute basically of the audio of the meeting in Dolce Vita between Katie Magbanua and Charlie Adelson, just to show the jury we don't really have anything useful here.In between the two trials, with all this extra time afforded by Covid, they reached out to several different audio forensics experts and eventually landed one in South Carolina named Keith McElveen, who had spent about 10 years working for the CIA dealing with this whole issue of how to hear individual voices in noisy, what he calls “cocktail party,” environments. And he came up with 12 different patents for proprietary software, and he was able to get a fairly clear recording for 41 minutes. He missed the first 25 or so minutes of the Dolce meeting between Katie Magbanua and Charlie Adelson, but the last 41 minutes he got pretty darn well, especially what Charlie was saying, and it was very clear they were talking about the murder and at one point—this is why Charlie was arrested at one point—Charlie literally says, “Why didn't they know it was me? Why didn't they know it was me?” And at another point he's talking about the money drop, and he asked Katie, “When everyone was there the next day, did anybody take any money? I mean, it's not like you're driving around in a Bentley, you know, riding around in a mega yacht on the seas.”And there were many other things. I actually have an entire chapter toward the end of the book that is devoted solely to how incriminating Charlie Adelson is in that Dolce Vita record—Katie not as much, because her voice is much softer, and you can't hear a lot of what she's saying.Why the Dolce Vita audio was so effective for the prosecution at the [second Magbanua] trial was because Katie didn't do anything like run away or say “what the hell are you talking about” or “I don't want to be involved in this.” She participated in this conversation, she chimed in, and you can hear her chiming in several times, basically accepting all of the premises in Charlie's rambling through the course of 41 minutes, and it was used extremely effectively during Sarah Kathryn Dugan's cross-examination of Katherine Magbanua on the witness stand. If anything, that cross-examination is what sealed Katie's fate with the second jury who unanimously found her guilty.DL: And then, of course, that Dolce Vita enhanced recording was used as the basis for arresting Charlie….SE: Absolutely.DL: …. which I know Georgia Cappleman in the state prosecutor's office had been resisting for a while because, understandably, they wanted to take their one best shot at Charlie if they were going to go after him.SE: And they wanted Katie to flip. They thought all that time that Katie… you know, who's going to spend six years in jail, when they have information that can land a much bigger fish with the prosecutors? Surely at some point they thought she's going to flip. But after six years she never did. And now she's convicted and sentenced to life in prison. At this point, she's made some horrible miscalculations. Maybe she believed her lawyers were so good, they were going to get her off. I don't know.DL: So you don't really have a theory on what I view as one of the huge questions to this case: why the heck didn't she cooperate? I know Georgia Cappleman at one point said [Katie] holds the keys to her own cell, or something along those lines. And yet here we are. She's been convicted. She's looking at life in prison. She has two kids. Her husband, or the father of her children, is also looking at life in prison. And yet she still has not said anything, right?SE: I think that the operative word there is “still.” So I posit at the very end of the book that it's not too late, and I spent some time on the phone with some big wigs, some stalwarts in the Florida criminal bar, to confirm that it is never too late for someone in their position, even after they've gotten a mandatory sentence of life in prison, which first-degree murder is in Florida, that there are ways around that mandatory life-in-prison sentence, and if they wanted to deliver the goods, it's never too late for them to approach the State Attorney's Office. And certainly somebody like Georgia Cappleman and Jack Campbell, the elected State Attorney, would be interested in hearing from Katherine Magbanua about all the stuff that they've been waiting for her for six years to tell them.What kind of deal she can get now, post-conviction, post-sentence, would certainly be a very different deal than what she could have gotten back then. And even Sigfredo Garcia, you wouldn't think that he's got something valuable to offer. But the reality is that Luis Rivera is not a terribly good witness after having already testified about a dozen times now. There are so many inconsistencies in his testimony. Sigfredo Garcia has never testified, so even if he just repeated the same sort of things that Luis Rivera has said at two different trials, he would be a much cleaner witness than Luis Rivera. So there probably is a deal there even for him, even if he can't point directly at Charlie Adelson.The obvious reason why he didn't come forward before Katie Magbanua's second trial was because anything he would've said would've implicated her. She's the mother of his children. She's the love of his life. It makes sense that he was never going to throw her under the bus. And even Katie during the first trial wouldn't let her lawyers say horrible things about Garcia. They had permission in the second trial to do that because he was already convicted and sentenced to life. And they did. They tried to make it seem like this was a direct conspiracy between Charlie and Garcia—they're the bad people, Katie knew nothing. And that never made any sense because the very first thing Sigfredo Garcia would've done upon his arrest, if in fact he had the goods on Charlie Adelson, is he would've run to the State Attorney's Office just like Luis Rivera did.And even though he didn't have the goods on anybody named Adelson, if Sigfredo Garcia had the goods on Charlie Adelson, especially after Katie Magbanua was arrested, if she knew nothing about it, he would've sprinted with his lawyers by his side to the State Attorney's Office to make a deal, and he never did. Because he didn't know they walled Charlie and the Adelsons off through Katherine Magbanua. That was her whole point. The whole point of Katie being involved was to wall the killers off from the people hiring them.DL: So you mentioned it's never too late. People are now looking at Charlie Adelson. He's sitting in jail. His motion for bail after the so-called Arthur hearing under Florida law was denied. He's looking at a trial early next year. Do you think he could cut some kind of deal? Any predictions about what will happen next if he goes to trial? Does he have any viable defense, especially in the wake of the enhanced Dolce Vita recording?SE: Well, according to Daniel Rashbaum, his attorney, his saying five or six times during the enhanced recording “and I had nothing to do with this”—that's his defense. The fact that he fit those words into that conversation, even though there are about 45 incriminating things that he said that belie the notion, such as “why didn't they know it was me”—how do you square those two together? Daniel Rashbaum has his work cut out for him.And besides that, Charlie Adelson is a very unlikable guy. If he takes the witness stand, the notion that he's going to charm this jury, I mean, they're going to hear all of these conversations that he's had with his mother, with Katie Magbanua, and they paint him in a horrible, horrible light, as does the Dolce Vita recording. So the notion that he's going to charm this jury into believing that he's an innocent victim or that he was only trying to hire these hit men not to kill Dan Markel, but just to scare him and intimidate him, none of that makes any sense. He really has his work cut out.That said, would the State Attorney's Office make some kind of a deal with him so they didn't have to try this [case]? We're just talking about the number of years, and would he accept 30 years instead of life? Would they do that? That's a possible deal that could get done. As you know, as a former prosecutor, most cases end in a plea bargain, not because the person being convicted is ratting somebody else out, but just because the most economically efficient thing for a prosecutor to do is to see if there's not a way to get somebody to agree they did the crime and accept a lesser sentence than their maximum sentence.So that's always possible. There are people speculating, you know, is he going to give up his sister? Is he going to give up his mother, his father, in exchange for his own freedom? A, it's hard to believe that anything like that happens, but B, would that even be something that the State Attorney's Office would consider? You're the person who paid a hundred thousand dollars to get this done. You're the person who had the relationship with Katie Magbanua. The fact that you might also be able to give us your mother or your father or your sister—that's not going to get you a better slice of bread. So at the end of the day, if Charlie's making a deal, he's making a deal to get a lesser sentence, not because he's going to give up one of his family members. And the likelihood of him making a deal increases exponentially if Katie Magbanua or even Sigfredo Garcia flips and turns state's evidence.DL: Looking at his family members, I agree with you. I don't think that [the government] would give him a good deal just because he can give up somebody else in his family. But do you think that the authorities will eventually move against Donna, who the evidence strongly suggests was involved?SE: If you remember back to the time that there was a turf war between the Tallahassee Police Department and the State Attorney's Office, even though they had drafted a probable cause affidavit and leaked it only for Charlie, that affidavit points the finger at Donna every bit as much as it points the finger at Charlie.And remember, Charlie's signature isn't on any important piece of evidence in this case. Donna's signature is on 44 pieces of evidence, the checks that were written to Katie Magbanua to keep her quiet from literally just after the murder happens until just before Sigfredo Garcia is arrested. And those checks stop the instant Sigfredo Garcia is arrested, and Donna is the one who stroked every single one of those checks, and there's no dispute. Both trials made clear that Katie didn't work for the Adelson Institute. There's no reason the Adelson Institute would've been paying her, but Donna was in on that.And then if you watch what happens in the bump and Donna's reaction to that, and all of the communications that Donna has with Charlie, and then Donna's communication even with the undercover agent who orchestrated the bump as she speaks to him for eight minutes, even that is quite entertaining, hearing Donna protest that she didn't know anything at all about what happened to Dan Markel and is as torn up about it as anyone. So yeah, there's tons of evidence against Donna and the very first thing she says after the bump to Charlie, “who does it involve,” he asks her, “who does it involve”? And she says, twice, “the two of us.” And then she says, “I think you know what I'm talking about.”DL: Exactly. SE: Those are incredibly incriminating words. And then you add that to the other evidence. You take the emails that she wrote, all of the checks that were written. I would hate to be Donna Adelson's defense lawyer as well.The only thing she has going for her is that she's in her seventies and she's not the most attractive target because she's got some sympathy on her side because she's in her seventies, she's a grandmother. But when you think about the role that she has played, she was the one who selected Danny for Wendi off of JDate. She was there at the beginning, and the evidence seems to suggest very strongly she was the one who decided not only that it was time for Wendi to leave him, but that it was time for his place in Ben and Lincoln's life to end as well, because Wendi needed to come home with the boys. And Donna Adelson was there literally every step of the way. And if you're the State Attorney's Office, you have to have her within your sights because of the very significant role she played in Dan Markel being part of this tragedy.DL: Absolutely. I totally agree with you.I'm so grateful to you, Steve, for taking the time and for writing this remarkable book, which as I say in the foreword is going to be the definitive account of this tragic event and its aftermath. So again, thank you for devoting so much time and energy to giving people an idea of who Dan was and telling the world about this crime and the quest to bring folks to justice. I believe this would've been, this month, Dan's 50th birthday?SE: The book was released on October 9th, and it was released on that day to be a further tribute to the late Dan Markel—that would've been his 50th birthday. Yes, and we are speaking, I don't know when this is going to drop, but we are speaking on Ruth Markel's birthday, so happy birthday to Ruth. She has her own book out, The Unveiling, and it comes straight from her heart, everything she's been through since that awful day in July of 2014.I've gotten to know her very well. She's an incredible human being. Two of my favorite people in the world now are Cheryl Williams and Ruth Markel, and I actually connected them at one point because they have so much in common. They've lived through so many similar things, and they're both incredible, incredible women.And that's one of the things that I love about true crime, is that you learn about just incredibly tenacious human beings who care so much about justice. And Ruth and Phil and Shelly [Markel] are not done getting the justice that they so richly deserve. Stay tuned. There's a lot more to be written even after folks turn the last page of my book.DL: That's an excellent note to end on. I agree with you that Ruth Markel is amazing and I urge people to check out her book, The Unveiling, just to see what she has endured and how she has tried to turn it into something for good, to protect the rights of grandparents who wind up in horrific situations like the one that she's faced. Again, it is a testament to the human spirit.So again, Steve, thank you for writing the book. Thank you for joining me, and we will continue to hope and pray for complete justice in the case of Dan Markel.SE: Thank you, David. Thank you for having me on. I really, really appreciate it.DL: Thanks again to Steve for joining me. As I wrote in the foreword to Extreme Punishment, “I wish nobody had to tell this tale. But since it is being told—and should be told, to honor Dan's legacy—I am thankful to Steve for doing so with such thoughtfulness, understanding, and skill.”As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram, at davidbenjaminlat. If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. And if you might be interested in sponsorship opportunities for either the podcast or the newsletter, please reach out to me.Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, November 2. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the New York Attorney General suing former President Donald Trump and three of his children for allegedly inflating the value of his real estate company's assets, the culmination of a years-long investigation.First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, discusses the Texas and Florida laws regulating social media that may come before the Supreme Court.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the New York Attorney General suing former President Donald Trump and three of his children for allegedly inflating the value of his real estate company's assets, the culmination of a years-long investigation.First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, discusses the Texas and Florida laws regulating social media that may come before the Supreme Court.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Justice James E.C. Perry made history in Florida. Now he says it's about time history is made in our country's highest court. Perry became the first African American appointed to the 18th Judicial Circuit Court, comprised of Seminole and Brevard counties, in 2000. Nine years later, he was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court. Perry recently sat down with Real Talk, Real Solutions host Ginger Gadsden to talk about the importance of breaking barriers and rising to the top as Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gets closer to earning her spot as the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. “Black females have been in the forefront of Black progress throughout the history of this nation and it's important they have a voice at an important table,” Perry said. He believes Jackson is ready for the job. “Her credentials are far superior to any of the last seven or eight appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perry said. According to the White House, Jackson has served as a public defender, a Supreme Court clerk and a judge on both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. While Perry says it's important to be educated and driven, he says other things also have to go right if you want to be a judge. “Being a judge entails more than you wanting to be one,” he said. “It's a political process, that the right person has to be in office to appoint you. They have to have the philosophy that diversity is important.” Despite her qualifications, Perry says many are still making digs about the fact that she is Black. It's something he says is familiar to him. ”Some call her an affirmative action appointment. I was (also) told, “Jim, you got this because you're Black and I said, ‘It's about time I got something because I'm Black because I was kept out of so many things because I am Black.'” Perry said he decided to go to law school when he heard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. “I still didn't know what law school was about, didn't know any lawyers. But I needed the credibility to try and continue Dr. King's fight and law would give me the credibility to do it... so I had no hopes and dreams of being a judge or a lawyer and it's made all the difference in the world,” Perry said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says her road was different. “My father, in particular, bears responsibility for my interest in the law. When I was four, we moved back to Miami so that he could be a full-time law student. And we lived on the campus of the University of Miami Law School,” Jackson said. “During those years, my mother pulled double duty, working as the sole breadwinner of our family, while also guiding and inspiring four-year-old me. My very earliest memories are of watching my father study. He had his stack of law books on the kitchen table while I sat across from him with my stack of coloring books.” But Perry stresses even if you don't have examples of what you want to do in your own circle, you can still achieve it. He added his parents had very little education. “If I had waited for my parents, where would I have been?” Perry said. “Education is an individual thing. It has to come from within. You have to want it so you can get it irrespective of what your conditions were when you were growing up.” Perry is excited about the prospect of Jackson being the first African American woman to serve on the Supreme Court. “I'm happy it's finally about to happen. It's going to happen. It's going to be close,” Perry said. “Hopefully, it will be bipartisan, but it probably won't be. Because that is just the nature of politics in this nation today. I think we are probably a very divided nation. It's time for us to come together as Americans. Not as Republicans or Democrats, not as blue, red or white, but as the United States of America.”

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 86 featuring Brett Trembly, Co-Founder of Get Staffed up and Founder of the Trembly Law Firm in Miami, Florida. We discuss Brett's journey from Eastern New Mexico University to the University of Miami Law School.  Brett tells us that he launched “Get Staffed Up” with another attorney and the simple mission: to liberate lawyers with incredible offshore staff.  We discuss delegating your way to freedom so you can focus on your passion!

Special guest Sergio Campos, Professor of Law at University of Miami Law School.Hosted by Scott Dodson.

Greg interviews Dean Myerow, Founder of Southern Waters Capital. Dean grew up north of Boston, and graduated from University of Miami Law School before jumping into the bond sales and trading markets on Wall Street. Dean co-founded Bergen Capital, which created an online exchange of bond quotes before getting acquired by BB&T. After years of special situations fixed income and capital markets, Dean moved back down to South Florida. What was a potential quiet retirement, turned into several entrepreneurial endeavors. Dean launched Southern Waters Capital, an asset management shop focused on real estate development and fixed income trading. Dean is also an active community member, and non-profit advocate through the Friendship Circle of Greater Fort Lauderdale.

Antitrust law expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School, discusses the antitrust lawsuit against 16 elite universities for allegedly conspiring to manipulate the admissions system to hold down financial aid for students and benefit wealthy applicants. First Amendment law expert, Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, discusses the Supreme Court taking the case of the high school football coach who wants to pray with his players on the 50-yard line after games. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Antitrust law expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School, discusses the antitrust lawsuit against 16 elite universities for allegedly conspiring to manipulate the admissions system to hold down financial aid for students and benefit wealthy applicants. First Amendment law expert, Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, discusses the Supreme Court taking the case of the high school football coach who wants to pray with his players on the 50-yard line after games. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Transcript: CHRIS NEWBOLD: Hello, well-being friends and welcome to the Path to Well-Being in Law podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I'm your co-host, Chris Newbold, Executive Vice President of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. Most of you are listeners. For those of you who are new to the podcast, our goal is pretty simple. It's to introduce you to thought leaders doing meaningful work in the well-being space within the legal profession and in the process to build and nurture a national network of well-being advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. I want to introduce my co-host, Bree Buchanan. Bree, how have you been doing? BREE BUCHANAN: Wonderful, Chris. Great to be here. How are you? CHRIS: Bree, I think I heard that you had just come off some vacation doing some bicycling in my neck of the woods. Tell us a little bit more about where you went and why. BREE: Yeah. So I got to go with a group of friends out over to your neck of the woods in Montana, the Trail of the Hiawatha and the Trail of the Coeur d'Alenes and got to get some cycling in, which was just really wonderful. CHRIS: Awesome, awesome. Glad to hear you get off the grid and that's such an important part. My vacation is next week where I'll be with my family on a lake, just relaxing, and we all know that, that's an important part of recharging and being our best selves. BREE: Absolutely. CHRIS: Yeah, so we are again, super excited for today's podcast. We are wrapping up a three-part series looking at the interconnection of well-being in law schools. We have had Linda Sugin from Fordham Law School, we have had Jennifer Leonard from Penn Law, and today we are so excited to welcome Janet Stearns from the Miami School of Law. Bree, I know that you have a personal relationship with Janet, a friendship. I would love it if you could introduce Janet to our listeners. BREE: Absolutely. I'm delighted that we've got Janet here today. I'll give you the official introduction to Janet, but from a personal standpoint, Janet and I have been sort of on the front lines of working in this area, gosh, Janet, I don't know, six, seven years starting back with the ABA's Commission on Lawyer's Assistance Programs. Janet has been a true leader in that space. So let me give you the full introduction, and then we'll go ahead and hear more from Janet. BREE: Janet Stearns is the Dean of Students and a lecturer in law at the University of Miami Law School. Has been there since October 1999. In 2007, she was appointed Dean of Students. Since 2011, she's regularly taught professional responsibility. Last year, she received NALSAP's CORE Four Annual Award recognizing the competencies, values and ethics of the very best law student affairs professionals, and I absolutely agree with that. She is the immediate past chair for the AALS Student Services Section, and as I know her, a member of ABA CoLAP, and not only an advocate for wellness programming in the law schools, but has also been the Chair of the Law School Committee and has led all of those efforts for, I'd say at least five years. Since she became the Dean of Students, she has been passionate about wellness initiatives there at Miami, including the Fall Wellness Week, Spring Mental Health Day, and a weekly Dean of Students constitutional walk around the campus. Finally, I'm proud to say that she won the CoLAP Meritorious Service Award in November 2020. So Janet, so glad to have you here. How are you doing today? JANET STEARNS: Well, Bree, that's such a generous introduction. So I'm blushing a little now, but I am delighted to be here with you and Chris and looking forward to chatting. BREE: Great. So Janet, because I know you, and I know how dedicated you are to this, I think that you've probably got a really good answer to this question that we ask all of our guests because we know that people that are committed to the well-being movement often have a real passion for the work. So what experiences in your life are the drivers behind your passion for being such a leader in the well-being movement in law? JANET: Well, Bree, I think I've often, for a long time been really interested in my own personal well-being. As I think back on my own experience in law school, a classmate of mine, we decided to decaffeinate together in law school. Not many people do that, but we did. We went off coffee cold turkey and really just recognized it made us less jittery and that we could actually feel better and be more present for what was happening around us. I tell students that's just one example of how we can actually use the law school experience to think about our own well-being. JANET: But I think that certainly my work here at the University of Miami has brought me into a space where I have had to work and counsel way too many students who have been struggling. Struggling with drugs and alcohol and suicide. JANET: I have spoken many times about a student of ours, Katie Corlett, who died just shortly after her graduation, really, I think about the week before the bar results came out. In a time, many of us can remember and relate to of incredible and stress, and she died of a drug overdose, and it had a huge impact on me because I had worked so hard with her to get her through law school. I had gotten to know her parents so well, and the time that we spent shortly after the overdose visiting her in the hospital and just thinking of the huge opportunity that was lost for her and for us. That has stayed with me. I often do say, as I talk to other law schools about our programming and our more institutional initiatives, we do not want to have any more Katies. BREE: Right. JANET: We want to do everything possible so that we can see our students graduate and be happy and not have any more Katies. BREE: Yeah, absolutely. Wow. That's powerful. CHRIS: Yeah. I mean, as the Dean of Students, you certainly get a window into some of those challenges. Janet, tell us a little bit about ... We're all creatures of our own experience and we all recall our own law school days ... Give us a little flavor of Miami Law. The location and the size, the focus, anything that you find particularly unique about the culture that you've worked to build at Miami Law. JANET: Okay, Chris. Well, Miami Law, we are actually in Coral Gables. We are not in Miami. But Coral Gables is a suburb of Miami, and the University of Miami Law School has typically been on the larger side of law schools. This year we're probably going to be welcoming just under 400 students, 1L new students to our law school, but we have about 1,300 students. So we have JD students, and we also have a very large population of LLM students in many different programs, but our international LLM is bringing students from all over the world with a particularly large focus on Latin America. So it is a school where we have a lot of international diversity. Miami is just a very, at its nature, multilingual community, but there is a lot of Spanish that is spoken and Portuguese and other languages. JANET: We have a lot of first-generation students, Chris, and working families, first-generation students from our community. As we know, Miami has been all over the news for various reasons. But it is certainly a very dynamic community with a lot of temptations, cultural temptations, drug, alcohol, late-night partying. Miami Beach goes around the clock. It's against that backdrop that we are trying to encourage people to really both focus on their studies and focus on their well-being. BREE: Yeah. So over the time ... You've been at Miami Law a little bit over 20 years ... What are some of the mental health and well-being issues you've seen your students face? I mean, certainly Katie that you talked about is the worst case scenario, but just from my experience, I imagine you've seen a lot of other things that don't lead up to such a tragic end. JANET: Right. Well, Bree, I do think that Miami is a community where there is a lot of opportunity to focus on well-being, the good and the bad, as I said. There are, I think a lot of stresses and temptations, but I think there also are a lot of an incredible amount of natural beauty here. Beaches and opportunities to get into the outdoors and enjoy the tropical climate, the Everglades when people take advantage of that. We really work hard to model that for our students. JANET: I think that we have gone through certainly over time, our students face a lot of challenges. I do think that being in such an active and vibrant place and such a, from my perspective, a city that never sleeps, we have to work really, really, really hard from the beginning of orientation to try to model limits. Limits on your time, learning how to say no, learning the value of sleeping, learning the value of focus. The fact is that you're not going to be at every single event or movie or social or networking opportunity. There's just too much. So I think learning how to set limits from the very beginning is actually one of the things I talk about in our orientation message. JANET: I do think another well-being issue and one we were just discussing some, it is an expensive city. There is a lot of opportunities to go out and spend a lot of money. There's a lot of variation in housing that's expensive. So we have to work very early to try to help people to understand their financial budget and how to plan for their law school years in a way that will make sense and leave them where they still can feel in control as they graduate and move into the legal profession. So financial literacy is another important aspect of well-being and one that we try to also talk to our students about from the very beginning. BREE: Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up because that's not something that we really talked about. There's the six dimensions of well-being, but that financial piece of it, that financial dimension, can be such a heavy burden for the students. Sure. JANET: Right. Right. Then of course, I mean, Miami Law and the whole world has had the opportunity, I would say through this pandemic, to even talk more about well-being. Right, Bree. I know that when I was sent home in March 2020, the first thing that I brought home from my office with me was I have a framed copy of The Serenity Prayer next to my desk. BREE: Right. Wonderful. JANET: In March, there were many, many calls with deans and faculty and students, "What about this? And what about this?" I just said, "We're going to say our Serenity Prayer. We are going to try to figure out what we can control here and what we cannot and how to distinguish those things." I think actually as we model that, because our students and people around us see our own process of trying to figure those things out and yet trying to stay calm and make decisions through the pandemic, I think we've really taught some valuable lessons. BREE: I think The Serenity Prayer should be standard issue with your law school diploma. JANET: Absolutely. BREE: That would be helpful. JANET: It always does the trick for me. CHRIS: Janet, I'm curious, as you think about kind of the state of well-being in your law school, has it become more challenging? Has it improved? I mean, you have the context of kind of stability and seeing it over a longer period of time, but just curious on your reflections on at least within your school what kind of trends that you're seeing as it relates to well-being. JANET: That's such a great question, Chris. I think what's interesting if we go back, I don't know ... I think when I started to work with Bree with the CoLAP but I would say we've been involved in planning ... I probably have done a Fall Wellness Week since I first became Dean of Students in 2007. I had been working with the ABA CoLAP and the ABA Law Student Division on the Mental Health Day Initiative now for, I don't know, five, six, seven years. JANET: There was a point I think when we would announce Mental Health Day and everybody would be like, "What is that? Why?" I would say in the last few years, what I'm noticing is I have a lot of people around the country, deans of students at other schools, they're like, "When are you going to announce the Mental Health Day plans? When is it coming? What's the theme this year because we're putting it on our calendars." I think people are very, very eager to talk about this right now, Chris, at some level. Of course, then we just have to reflect on the events of the last week of the Olympics. I mean, it just feels like we are truly having a national conversation, thanks to the courage of Michael Phelps and Simone Biles and others. BREE: Absolutely. JANET: We are having a national conversation, and people are eager to have this conversation with us. So there is a level of attention and focus that can only be a good thing right now for the work that we're doing. CHRIS: Yeah, for sure. Talk to us about some of the well-being initiatives at Miami Law that you're most proud of. I mean, you talked about Fall Wellness Week. Talk to our listeners about some of the things that you have initiated and instituted there that you think are actually driving results. JANET: So I do think that the Fall Wellness Week has become a great catalyst, and we try to have a very intentional conversation ... I was actually talking with some CoLAP colleagues yesterday about this, about when. When is the most effective time to raise these issues? My view has been orientation is not always the best time. I think your students are a little bit deer in headlights and it's a little bit too early, but we have been doing ... Recently we moved the National Mental Health Day to October. Now we try to program around October 10th. So for many of us, that's about six weeks into the school year, give or take. I think people are really receptive. They're starting to feel the stress. They're starting to feel some of the anxiety and self-doubt as they're trying to work their way through, and it's a really good time to come in and try to do some positive programming. JANET: We try to both do some national programming, but many schools are also using that to do school-based programming, often in partnership with the LAP in the state, everything from healthy smoothie happy hours, constitutional walks, yoga, physical fitness, and sometimes some actual conversations with thought leaders around the value of sleep as something that actually promotes your learning or the worries of study steroids. So we have used the Fall Wellness Week, I think, to maximum effect for a lot of programming. CHRIS: Do you keep that programming broader in terms of different areas of focus or do you actually look at kind of a 1L track, a 2L track, a 3L track? I'm just kind of curious on the structure of how you do that. JANET: Well, that's a great question. I would say right now the Fall Wellness Week has been broader for everybody. CHRIS: Okay. JANET: I think that we are actually starting to have some more conversations. We have been doing some 3L specific sort of pathway to the bar exam kinds of programming. I actually think there's a lot more that we can be doing in that regard. I think the ABA Law Student Division is also interested as we think about bar success and wellness. I think that there is some 3L targeted work that we have been doing, but I think that we could be doing more around that Chris, from my own perspective. JANET: But I think that point is well taken. I do think that we find by and large that if we were to hold a program either around suicide or around study steroids, or pick your topic, depression, and we just said, "Show up for a program," law students by and large are not going to show up for that program. They don't want to walk into a room and be identified and tagged as the person who's thinking about suicide. But if you can market your program, and I think we've thought hard about this, whether it has to do more broadly with mindfulness, well-being, success in law school, happiness in the profession, I think if you can market that program, you can deliver the same content, but you can get people in the room and then get the buy-in and really get much broader participation. So I feel very strongly about that. JANET: I just also wanted to highlight that I think over this last year, we have also tried to be a lot more intentional ... I'm not sure we weren't doing it before ... But about the crossover between the struggles over racial injustice that we are all experiencing, and certainly that some of our students in various affinity groups are experiencing with well-being. Last year's Mental Health Day highlighted my colleague, Rhonda Magee, who spoke about her fabulous book, The Inner Work of Racial Justice. We then had several follow-up programs that students found really, really impactful, where we were really focusing on the impact of well-being on targeted communities of color. JANET: We've had a lot of, I think, requests for some more programming targeted with our first-generation students around well-being. I think there is a huge outcry for doing more programming of this sort as we move forward. BREE: What advice do you have for others who may be working at a law school and are listening to this? Maybe they're faculty or administration and who want to enact some of their own initiatives. Do you have some advice for them? How to get it started and how to make sure it's successful? JANET: Well, Bree, I think, as you know, because you and I have talked about this a lot, I do feel that right now the vast majority of law schools in the country are doing positive things around well-being. Many want to do more. Some of us are doing it differently. Some have more resources than others to do this kind of programming. But I think there's a huge interest, and in fact, I think a demand to have well-being programming in law schools right now and to really connect this for our law students. This is one of the things I say to students all the time, "You're coming to us not only to learn about contracts and torts, you're coming to learn how to become a future professional. Some of the skills that we can teach and model for you about your personal well-being and learning to set limits and finding balance between yourself and your work, these are some of the most important skills and probably the most important skills we can teach you in law school." BREE: I think of sort of the fancy word for that, professional identity formation. Is that? JANET: We are all talking about professional identity formation. Exactly. Exactly. And this is a critical element of this. I think that the well-being community and the professional identity community have found a great partnership and shared interest. These are things that we are working together to message, and we're messaging them in all parts of the law school. We're messaging them in clinics and in externship programs. We are messaging this in all kinds of core courses, including professional responsibility. This is all a part of our shared mission right now. CHRIS: Janet, it's great to hear that. I mean, again, with your perspective. When I think of law schools and well-being, I think of you because I think that you've been kind of at the epicenter of kind of looking at what's been going on in the law school environment. It's encouraging to hear that your sense is that the vast majority of law schools have kind of leaned in on this particular subject. I'm just curious about maybe the why. Why we find ourselves in a significantly better position today than say we did 10 years ago? JANET: Well, I think first of all, I do believe as I both talk to people at Miami Law but people around the country, in fact, Chris many of us are experiencing issues or challenges around mental health and substances with our own families, with our friends. We have faculty ... In fact, I was on the phone the other day with a faculty member and she said, "My child is in the process of being hospitalized." So I think we are actually at a point where ... I have another faculty colleague ... Fabulous, very, very smart person who lost his wife to suicide. I'm coming to the world at this point. I think this it's not a Democratic issue, it's not a Republican issue. This is an issue that affects all of our families and things that we hold near and dear to us. I think people are being a little more open about that. JANET: I think as all of the work and certainly, Bree, all of the anti-stigma work that you and others have been doing for so long, I think this is seeping in, and I think people are coming forward and saying, "This affected my family. This affected my child. This affected my brother." I think faculty are also a little more willing, and I'm not saying everybody, but to be a little more vulnerable themselves with their students. I think some of this happened during the pandemic. I think there was something very equalizing about all of us being on Zoom. BREE: That's a great point. JANET: Struggling with Zoom, and I saw some faculty members, and then I heard about it from students who said, "I'm really struggling here. I haven't been able to see my parents. I'm divorced and I haven't been able to visit my child. And this really sucks right now. So I appreciate that this is really a confusing time for all of you as students and the faculty. Where it's like, "Oh my gosh, that torts professor's a real person." JANET: I view this as some of the, I like to call it the gifts of the pandemic, but I think that there were people who became a lot more real with each other. And that includes faculty members becoming a little more real with students as well. CHRIS: That's such a great observation. I've always been prone to say that we are obviously human beings before we are a law student, a lawyer, a professor, a judge. It feels like we're kind of getting more back to some of those kinds of basic levels of empathy and kind of all on the same trajectory of just kind of trying to live our best life. JANET: Right. Absolutely. CHRIS: Let's take a quick break here. We'll hear from one of our sponsors, and we'll be right back. — Advertisement: Meet Vera, your firm's virtual ethics risk assessment guide. Developed by ALPS, Vera's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots, from client intake to calendaring to cybersecurity and more. Vera: “I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you summary recommendations to provide course corrections if needed and to keep your firm on the right path.” Generous and discreet, Vera is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms like yours be their best. Visit Vera at alpsinsurance.com/vera. — BREE: Welcome back everybody, and we're here with Dean Janet Stearns from the University of Miami School of Law. Janet, so one of the things that I really want to dig into with you because you sit at such a unique position of this nationally, and that is some of the policy initiatives that are occurring across the country to really try to change this circumstances for law students. I want to hear, and this is particularly in your spot as Chair of CoLAP's Law School Committee, could you tell us about some of the initiatives that you all are working on? In particular, I'm thinking about the whole character and fitness process, which has had such a detrimental impact on students' willingness to ask for help. And then also to dig into some of the changes you guys are seeking for the ABA standards. JANET: Well, thank you, Bree. I have to say, I think it has been a tremendous honor for me to be able to be involved with the American Bar Association CoLAP because you really feel the capacity to make change, to be in a room with people who are not only passionate about these issues, but who actually have some policy vision and the power to then act upon that vision. JANET: So we have been working through the CoLAP on several national projects that we think can really shift the conversation on health and well-being for students. As you mentioned, the first has to do with character and fitness. Why is this so important? Because in surveys that have been done and the preeminent survey by Jerry Organ, David Jaffe and Kate bender, looking at law student well-being, we learned the very scary high numbers of students who are experiencing depression, suicidality, substance use/abuse. We also learned that a very small percentage of those students were willing to come forward and ask for help from deans of students like myself. And the primary number one reason they told us they would not come ask for help is because they were afraid that they would have to disclose it on their bar application. JANET: So this became a huge cultural issue for us. How can we shift that culture so that people understand that when they need help, they actually indeed must ask for help, that we are here to help them, and that the bar character fitness doesn't become a barrier to that. So we have been working on trying to both evaluate what states are doing around the country and advocating for change, and specifically trying to either eliminate questions in the character and fitness process asking about mental health history or history of substance use disorders or narrowing those questions in time and scope so that people understand that their first duty is to take care of themselves and get help, and it will not stand in their way of ultimately being able to become a lawyer. JANET: We have had, I think we both, there has been, I think some policy conversations, we've been able to do some writing in this field, but as we know, in 2020, one of the great gifts of the pandemic was that early on the State of New York removed their questions relating to substance use mental health. Anything outside of conduct is no longer asked by New York. BREE: That was huge. JANET: That was huge. It was huge. So many people came together including great advocates in Massachusetts, which had been doing this for a long time that made possible the change in New York. Shortly after New York, I think in March, literally as we were moving into the pandemic, Michigan removed its questions. Again, thanks to a lot of great advocacy by Tish Vincent and others involved with the LAP in Michigan, the law schools in Michigan, and a month later, Indiana followed Michigan's suit just after the pandemic had started. JANET: The Chief Justice in Indiana, who I just think is one of ... My Ruth Bader Ginsburg I tell her ... Justice Rush, who really was so eloquent in recognizing the importance of this issue. The Supreme Court took very quick action under her leadership to remove the problematic character and fitness questions in Indiana. Then by the summer, New Hampshire also followed suit. So those were four states all in 2020. I feel like there's a great momentum there, Bree, and I continue to remain hopeful that we can continue to make progress in other states, particularly where we have some matching of an active law school community, an active bar well-being community, a judiciary, and we know that there are other State Supreme Court justices that are very, very enlightened on these issues, that we can work together to have more states implement reform in the character and fitness process. JANET: I feel strongly also where we can, if we can get either frequently asked questions or preambles, things that we can use as educational materials with students as they enter law school, as we talk about bar admission, so that they are very clearly told that this should not in any way keep you from accessing mental health or other counseling resources when you need it. BREE: Right. I mean, that's one of the things also is to include very explicit language in the introduction to the questions of the application process or somewhere, we want you to get help. That can be helpful too. I know that the Institute for Well-Being in Law is going to be joining in the policy efforts there too around trying to bring about state by state change on those character and fitness questions. So we're going to have a good group of advocates working on this around the country. BREE: I know another thing that CoLAP has been doing, and you've been a leader on really, and I can't imagine how many, maybe hundreds of hours that you've spent writing and working on this, Janet, but that is around the ABA standards for law schools. Can you talk a little bit about that? What you've been working on and the progress that's been made? JANET: Well, thank you, Bree, and this truly has been a labor of love. So the CoLAP Law School Committee, hand-in-hand with the ABA Law Student Division, has been seeking changes in the ABA accreditation rules to recognize the integral role of well-being in law schools, student services, and law school curriculum. As you know, all accredited schools are subject to the ABA accreditation standard. These standards are voted through the Council on Legal Education, through the ABA, and then ultimately approved by the House of Delegates. JANET: And so we have asked for several years for some language on well-being. We didn't get very far the first two years, but this year, I think again, another gift of the pandemic has been the incredible focus and importance of well-being. The Council in fact, did put out some draft language. It was not all that we wanted, but it did include a recognition that every law school needed to provide some well-being resources to its students, either directly or in collaboration with university resources, LAP resources, looking as well at financial well-being, emergency funds, and other essential resources that every law school must do. So the ABA Council recommended this language. We then had a large comment period. We are currently in the middle of a second comment period on proposed language. We hope to hear more in this month of August as to whether or not the package of proposals will be pushing forward by February to the House of Delegates. JANET: I will note that the package right now also has some other very significant changes on professional identity education in law schools, and it also has a large package of proposals that have to do with diversity and inclusion and core curricula requirements in law schools around diversity inclusion initiatives. There is a very rich package of proposed revisions to the standards. We are going to remain hopeful that these can get to the House of Delegates this year. But I think the fact that we finally have well-being in a draft proposal as an essential part of every accredited law school, that is institutional change, and I'm very proud of how far we've come with this so far. BREE: Absolutely. And Janet, if our listeners, if somebody wanted to dig in further and learn more about that, can they go to the ABA website or how could they learn more or track what's going on in that area? JANET: All of the proposed changes and indeed all of the comments that have been received are all on the website for the ABA Section on Legal Education, as well as the notices of ... There will be a meeting as we're recording this, we are in the week of the ABA Annual Meeting ... But my understanding is August 19th and 20th, the Section on Legal Education will meet again, we understand, to discuss next steps on these standards. Of course, if that is a problem, anybody is free to email me at the University of Miami. We have a large community of friends across the country who are in a very close conversation about continuing to advocate for these changes to the standards. Please join us. CHRIS: Let's talk a little bit about the future as we kind of look ahead. Obviously we've made a lot of progress through the efforts of you and other folks who are keeping a close eye on this. You talked about the fact that there's more awareness, more eagerness, more focus, but we also know that culture shifts in our profession, they don't happen overnight. I'm just kind of curious on your perspective of what's on the horizon. What things do you see in the future being done by law schools to continue to move the needle on improving the well-being of law students? Because we obviously know that you're preparing the next generation in some respects. There are general generational aspects to the improvement of the profession. So I'd love for you to break out the crystal ball, so to speak, and kind of talk about what you see kind of coming down the road as we continue to maintain an emphasis on this issue in the law school environment. JANET: Well, thank you, Chris. I'm not very good with a crystal ball, but let me try here. So I do believe, and I think at the CoLAP level, first of all, I believe that we need to work hard to make sure that not just student services folks, but faculty and administration do need to be trained on mental health first aid, which is a course, i an eight-hour course, to make sure that they have basic skills to be prepared to have conversations with people. This course, this mental health first aid course is not only for law schools, this is being done in law firms, it's being done with police, it's being done all over the country right now so that people are more equipped when they come in contact with a client or a patient or a student or a colleague or a child that they have some more basic skills to be able to triage the situation and feel prepared to understand what somebody is going through. So I do think we need to continue to push that course out, number one. JANET: I think number two, that we need to have some more institutional structure for keeping these conversations going, as you've said, Chris. I would say at the University of Miami, I have formed some great partnerships with other people at our university. I would include the people, my friends at the medical school. I think that our medical education and legal education in our student populations, there're strengths and there're weaknesses. There's a lot of overlap. So I've tried to partner closely with the medical school, our counseling center, other people at the university so we have some institutional structure for continuing a conversation. I think that's incredibly important because me, one person, I get busy and distracted by other things. But when you know that people are coming together at regular intervals to have a conversation that is empowering. That creates accountability, JANET: I think we also get a lot of accountability by working with the LAPs in our state. We just, this summer, just last month, the Florida LAP got all of the law schools in Florida together for a program. I know that these regional meetings are taking place right now in other states. That also creates a catalyst for change. Also when you're working with the State Supreme Court on the character and fitness topic. I think there is a strength in numbers when we can bring people together, whether it's under the auspices of a well-being committee or whether it's just again, a time of coming together to support one another, share, and then try to again, begin to imagine ways that we can work together to create change. BREE: Absolutely. I've always felt that in regards to these policy initiatives and the work around the well-being movement, get passionate people together sitting around a table, you have a bunch of lawyers, they're brilliant, they're creative, they're solution-focused. We can figure this out. And so Janet, thank you for being there at the head of the table in these discussions, in this work around law school. BREE: I want to thank our listeners for joining us. This is the third and the final of our miniseries on initiatives and innovations in law school space. Please join us for our research miniseries, where we'll have three episodes digging in and talking with some of the lead researchers and thought leaders in the lawyer and well-being space movement. So want to thank everybody for joining us again today. We will be back with you in the next couple of weeks with more episodes. In the meantime, be well. Take care. Thank you all.  

Free Easy LSAT Cheat Sheet: https://bit.ly/lsatcheatsheet LSAT Unplugged Courses: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-course-packages.html Best LSAT Books: https://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/best-lsat-prep-books.html LSAT Schedules: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/month-lsat-study-schedules-plans.html LSAT Blog Free Stuff: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-prep-tips.html LSAT Unplugged YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lsatblog LSAT Unplugged Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lsat-unplugged/id1450308309?mt=2 LSAT Unplugged Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lsatunplugged LSAT Unplugged TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lsatunplugged LSAT Unplugged Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LSATUnplugged LSAT Blog: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/

In this episode I speak with Karen Vladeck, an employment lawyer at the law firm Wittliff Cutter PLLC based in Austin, Texas. Karen represents corporate, start-up, and non-profit clients in the resolution of employment disputes and counsels clients from many different industries on employment-related issues. Before moving to Texas, Karen practiced employment law at Arent Fox LLP in Washington, D.C. After graduating from the University of Miami Law School, Karen started her legal career as a law clerk to Judge Mary Ellen Barbera of the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Maryland's highest court). In addition to her practice, Karen co-hosts a podcast called In Loco Parent(i)s with her husband Steve who is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law where they "discuss parenting and lawyering — in that order." In our conversation we discuss what employment lawyers do (and what she loves about that practice area), her unplanned path to Texas, the importance of both being lucky and making your own luck in finding career success, what its like to practice at a small, start-up-style law firm, strategies for balancing both personal and professional fulfillment in two-lawyer parent families, and what she loves and has learned from both podcasting and maintaining an active social media presence. If you enjoy this episode, make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

We highlight the hypocrisy of the progressive movement with an anecdotal example from the University of Miami Law School where a conservative spoke of election integrity and demographics of voters and was fired, while a progressive leader literally say "I HATE WHITE PEOPLE" with no repercussions whatsoever. This simply isn't equitable, is it? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thejohnnybrushow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thejohnnybrushow/support

Compliance executive and board and executive advisor Tiffany Archer of Panasonic Avionics shares how her study of psychology underpins her approach to ethics and compliance; what the differences are between diversity, equity, and inclusion, and why those distinctions matter; and how a company needs to look “below the iceberg” to find its true culture.   “It’s critical that we take time to get to know and understand our employee base, to uncover their values and beliefs that underlie they behaviors. When you’re armed with that information, you’re able to stand up meaningful, relevant, and actionable plans to advance an organization’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.” - Tiffany Archer   Tiffany Archer is a board and executive advisor, ethics and compliance officer, regulatory attorney, and D&I nonprofit advisory board/faculty member with 18+ years in Fortune 500 companies and AmLaw 100 law firms. Today, she is on the compliance leadership team for Panasonic Avionics Corporation, the global leader for in-flight entertainment and communications, providing solutions to 300+ airlines. At PAC, Tiffany, a strategic and practical business leader, is the lead ethics and compliance attorney for the Americas and Europe. Tiffany has been a compliance lead for teams up to 500+ internal stakeholders (Audit, Finance, Trade Compliance, IT, and HR), outside counsel, and vendors. She has led the design of global compliance programs impacting 10+ countries, as well as cross-border internal investigations. Her focus includes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), U.K. Bribery Act, and Anti-Kickback Statutes. As part of her regulatory relations and enforcement actions work, she has developed legal strategies and navigated inquiries from DOJ, SEC, FDA, FINRA, OFAC, and others. Tiffany is a co-chair of NYCBA’s General Corporate Ethics and Compliance Sub-Committee, and a member of NYCBA’s Compliance Committee. She was a 2020 Finalist in Compliance Week’s Excellence in Compliance Award for Anti-Corruption and featured in Modern Counsel. She is an active speaker and author, with 7+ events by Ethisphere: The Global Ethics Summit, CenterForce USA, LEC Experience LATAM (Brazil), and others, as well as 5+ articles in International Financial Law Review, New York Law Journal, and more. She has been a guest lecturer at 3 law schools. Before law school, Tiffany served in world-class financial services and consulting institutions, where she worked at the intersection of data, risk management, and operations at the inception of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (AI). She draws passion and excitement from analyzing the ever-evolving legal, ethics and compliance space through a behavioral science lens, in her efforts to combat financial crime and mitigate risk.   What You’ll Learn on This Episode: [1:22] How has Archer’s career path led her to her current position at Panasonic Avionics? [3:29] What does Panasonic Avionics do and what kind of work does the E & C program do to promote their culture? [6:01] What is Archer’s perspective on diversity, equity and inclusion? [9:58] What are some things that companies can do to improve their diversity, equity and inclusion programs? [12:56] What role do company boards play in forwarding the discussion on diversity, equity and inclusion [13:56] What are the next steps for advancing racial justice from a business perspective? [17:33] How has Covid impacted Archer’s work and what is her focus moving forward? [20:33] Who are the mentors in Archer’s career path and what advice would she give to someone wanting to get into the E & C field?   Find this episode of Principled on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Sound Cloud, Podyssey, or anywhere you listen to podcasts.   Transcription: Speaker 1: Welcome to the Principled Podcast brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change-makers. Ben DiPietro: Hello everybody, and welcome to another episode of season five of LRN's Principled Podcast. My name is Ben DiPietro. I'm the editor of LRN E&C Pulse newsletter. You can find that by going to lrn.com, clicking on the resources tab, and then clicking on the newsletters tab, if you can subscribe we'd love to have you. With us today is Tiffany Archer. She's a board and executive advisor and ethics and compliance officer, a regulatory attorney, and a faculty member with more than 18 years experience in Fortune 500 companies, and AmLaw 100 law firms. Today, she's on the compliance leadership team at Panasonic Avionics Corporation, global leader for in-flight entertainment and communications. Welcome, Tiffany, glad to have you with us today. Tiffany Archer: Thank you so much, Ben. I'm really excited to be here. Ben DiPietro: So tell us a little bit about how you became interested in ethics and compliance. Then take us through your journey that's led you to your current role at Panasonic Avionics. Tiffany Archer: First, I've always been a people person and incredibly fascinated by what it is that makes them tick. So while in college, I chose to major in psychology to learn more about human behaviors, motivations, mental states, decision-making processes. Later went on to law school and after graduating, I joined a major international law firm where I specialized in white collar crime and securities enforcement. So of course, my cases focused on corruption, bribery, money laundering, and other heavily regulated conduct. I was always interested in digging into the why, behind the decisions that these individuals or corporations made. And also to look a little more into what it is that really motivated the behaviors that led them down the path of wrongful conduct. So after nearly six years in private practice, I decided to switch gears and I moved in-house and have since held multiple compliance roles. The passion that I've always had for psychology and for connecting with, and understanding people is a key pillar of my personal compliance practice. Interestingly, many people consider compliance officers as police officers of sorts. Frankly, it's not unusual for the compliance function to be referred to as the department of no. With that in mind, I prefer to take a people centric and empathetic approach to compliance. My priority is to connect with people, learn more about their values and their beliefs, and really use that information to guide their behaviors so that they can make ethical decisions, and do the right thing even when no one else is looking. So ultimately on my compliance journey, I landed at Panasonic Avionics, where I'm currently the regional ethics and compliance officer and corporate counsel for our Europe and Americas regions. Ben DiPietro: Tell us a little bit about Panasonic Avionics and what it does? Then how your compliance team works to help create that culture you're talking about. Then how do you measure the success of your team in that particular area? Related Article: 6 Ways Compliance Training Can Measure Employee Performance Tiffany Archer: Sure. So Panasonic Avionics manufacturers in flight entertainment systems. Essentially those are the TV screens that you see on the seat backs of airplanes. We also provide connectivity services and then on the ground engineering support. Our focus is on innovation and most importantly, providing the best possible passenger experience. To bridge the chasm between compliance and culture within Panasonic, we partner very closely with our chief culture officer. One of the tools I would want to highlight here today is to measure the culture, we use anonymous pulse surveys, which are sent out quarterly. Essentially the purpose of those is to check the vitals on our employee population, find out how they feel about the culture of the company. Then we take those actionable data points from the surveys and use them to address concerns that intersect with the company culture. And we formulate ways to make improvements. Our chief culture officer does an incredible job of keeping our employees informed. I think it's quite clever actually. After each survey she sends out what's called a "So what, now what?" message. Essentially, what she's communicating is through this survey you've identified, "So what are the issues or the problems that you'd like addressed?" And "Now what?" is how she plans to put into effect initiatives or procedures to address those concerns. Panasonic's Compliance Department's mantra is compliance is our foundation. So not only do we measure our success by the implementation of the data points from the surveys, but we also measure it through our stakeholder satisfaction with our responsiveness to their needs. Ben DiPietro: That “So what, now what?” is really interesting because it shows the people that you're listening to them. That's so much more important to building that trust. That's going to get you to create the culture you're trying to achieve. Tiffany Archer: It's really about keeping those lines of communication open. I think our chief culture officer's initiative with the “so what, now what?” really makes people not only see that she's listening and that we're listening, but that we're actively responding. So it's really important to keep that dialogue open and to continue to show forward progress. Related Article: Building A Speak-Up Culture Ben DiPietro: So I know you have a big interest in matters of diversity, equity, inclusion. We both last year we're part of an LRN Consero round table on that topic. At the time I asked you about the differences between the D, the E, and the I, in that equation. I thought your answer was really excellent, and I think our audience would love to hear what you have to say about that. Tiffany Archer: Thank you, Ben, for highlighting this. Diversity equity and inclusion is such an important initiative and movement for me. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk a little bit more about what those letters mean to me, specifically. So not only are there differences in what the D diversity, E equity, and I inclusion pillars represent, each word also has a distinct impact on an organization's initiatives. Starting first with diversity, right? The focus is on creating an environment that's representative of the intersectionality between gender, race, sex, age, LGBTQIA, and many other identities. In my view, this pillar is particularly important because what many organizations I've seen do is have a one-dimensional perspective as it relates to that. For many of them, historically, everyone in the institution for the most part looks the same. They come from the same backgrounds, they belong potentially to the same country club. They went to the same schools I could go on but I think you get what I'm driving at. The thing is it's not too late to attack this root cause. No doubt it will be challenging to make the shifts since people are so used to the status quo. What the leadership of these organizations should recognize is despite the rocky road ahead, having to pivot towards a more diverse culture should not be considered a penalty. In fact, it's an opportunity for growth and expansion, and new or different ideas and perspectives, which can ultimately lead to a transformative experience for the organization. Now, under the equity pillar, the focus is more on fostering an environment where all employees have fair and equitable opportunities, right? They're looking for fairness when accessing resources, despite being amongst the majority who may not look like them. I thought it would be salient to use myself as an example here. I've spent much of my life competing with those who don't look like me, and for the listeners here today who may not know, I'm a Black woman of Jamaican descent, and I've always had to be the best and focus on not othering myself. There've been occasions where particular outcomes made me sit back and wonder, "Did I miss this opportunity or was I not selected? Or was I not appropriately rewarded because I don't look like the person that I was being compared against? I've definitely... I'll share a personal story here, walked into interviews where the interviewer was questioning whether I was in fact Tiffany Archer, because they didn't expect me to look- Ben DiPietro: This is true. Tiffany Archer: ... [crosstalk 00:08:52] but true. Sad, but true. But ultimately it shouldn't matter. You look like or what you sound like. The comparison should be on more substantive qualities and merit and what you bring to the table. Lastly, with the I. Inclusion, which is the practice of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized. The goal here is to create an environment where employees feel welcomed as a member of the organization. And that should be the priority. They want to be appreciated and recognized for who they are. And organizations, policies, and procedures should be carefully drafted to ensure that employees have that opportunity to feel that sense of belonging. One of my favorite quotes in this DEI realm is by Verna Myers, where she says diversity is being invited to the party and inclusion is being asked to dance. I like to add that equity would be allowing everyone the opportunity to actually pick the songs. Ben DiPietro: So now that you've laid that out as the framework, what are two things companies can do to improve their D, E, and I programs? How does the company get started on this process? Tiffany Archer: So first and foremost, leadership buy-in is paramount. Without a commitment from an involvement by leadership, employees will question how serious the organization is about undertaking this transformational process. Then secondly, companies have to commit to not applying a one-size-fits all approach or an off the shelf solution to address the myriad of D, E, and I issues that may exist. How does one get started? How does an organization tackle this? Frankly, we could probably have an entire podcast on this topic. But seriously Ben, many companies I'm seeing now they're forming task forces D, E, and I committees, retaining consultants all in an effort to kick off their transformational processes. I think these are helpful solutions, but only so long as that they're tailored for the company and its specific culture and values. Related Article: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Cannot Be Just An Internal Intitiative On the topic of culture, I want to highlight Edward Hall's culture, iceberg theory. I'm a huge proponent of his work. He was an anthropologist and a cross-cultural researcher who came up with this theory in 1976, on how you can address organizational culture. It's really quite simple, this theory. Basically, an organizational cultures like an iceberg, a very small portion of the culture, roughly 10% is exposed on the surface, right? Making these areas really easy to identify, and you can address in quick time any sorts of issues or problems you might see. But where the real work and the important cultural data points lie are below the surface. That's around 90%. These include things like cultural beliefs, people's ideas, thought patterns, their unconscious biases. So the real onus is on the D, E, and I team to engage their stakeholders in meaningful discussions, right? Gathering qualitative and quantitative data around behaviors, customs, core values, religious beliefs, and other characteristics. An iceberg model shows that you can't judge a book by its cover or that 10% of the iceberg that's exposed. It's critical that we take the time to get to know and understand our employee base, to uncover their values and beliefs that underlie their behaviors. When you're armed with that information, you're able to stand up meaningful, relevant, and actionable plans to advance an organization's diversity equity and inclusion initiatives. So the big takeaway is digging deeper into the layers of the iceberg will allow the team to learn the challenges and pain points in the diversity equity inclusion program, and begin that longer journey of creating an action plan that specifically meets the needs of the employee population. Ben DiPietro: That sounds like where maybe the board needs to get in. So what role does the board play in folding this discussion and getting deeper down into that iceberg?   Tiffany Archer: Well, again, as I said earlier board involvement and commitment and buy-in is key. We need board members to echo the same sentiment and messaging. We need the board to acknowledge that this process may be a long, arduous, challenging process, but we're committed to that process. I think also the board needs to echo the sentiment that it's going to take a lot of work, and despite the obstacles we're going to commit to moving forward. So I think, not only should leadership be doing that but the board should also have an active role in making sure that there's continuous forward progress in connection with these initiatives.   Ben DiPietro: Pushing forward all this D, E, and I discussion too has been the support for racial justice that poured out into the streets all over the world last year, after the killings of George Floyd and so many others. What are the next steps to advance this issue from a business perspective and how can organizations help do their part here? Related Article: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Cannot Be Just An Internal Intitiative Tiffany Archer: This is a sad topic. These tragic events have put a spotlight on the importance of addressing a long-standing crisis affecting people of color. You know, you raise George Floyd. We all know he died because we watched as an officer kneeled on his neck until he could no longer breathe. Breonna Taylor, another person of color was wrongfully shot dead while asleep inside of her home. Rayshard Brooks, another person of color was shot in the back as he was approaching his vehicle where his children were sitting. These are all circumstances where police officers prioritized power over judgment or procedure. These killings amplified the deaths of people of color at the hands of police and elevated the prominence of racial inequality and disparity in policing. Each of these were victims of racial profiling and they each suffered unjust and untimely deaths. With that, I think it's so very important that we don't allow the passing of these events and individuals to become the passing of an opportunity to proactively address and work towards a solution to this historical problem. As far as how businesses can help, they can play a key part in this by keeping these issues alive in front and center, and at top of mind. Again, we don't want the passing of these events to be a passing of an opportunity. I think they can leverage this opportunity by standing up as ambassadors of change. I would say that the reliance on two key guideposts would be really helpful in this realm. So the first one would be acknowledgment, right? And going back to leadership. It's paramount that leaders, the board, et cetera, are vocal about their commitment to the fight for racial equality, and enterprise-wide messaging would be the first step. Then secondly, action. You have to walk the talk if you truly have any interest in moving the needle. Even if the movement are just small steps, that forward cadence is critical. Related Article: Showing Up: LRN Launches New Anti-Racism Course So I advocate that businesses need to reassure employees that by really doing the work, not just through activities, like issue specific training on unconscious bias or diversity or sensitivity, but also focusing on developing equitable opportunities for growth and advancement, and not penalizing marginalized employees when they speak out. Again, as I said earlier, these will be difficult conversations and change will not happen overnight. But I think the most important thing that organizations need to demonstrate is that they're committed to the cause. Not only from the perspective of what is happening in the streets, but also from the perspective of what's happening within the walls of their offices. Ben DiPietro: Also, I believe they have a role to play in helping to reform police as well. We had an excellent podcast at the beginning of season four, with Florence Chung. [Listen to the episode] She's a member of the Hetty Group. Her job is to make a bridge between communities and police departments and try and rebuild some of that trust. She was talking about how business can be such a great mentor for departments that don't understand how to execute change management and all these things that businesses do very well. So there's a definite tie in and a role for them to play. Tiffany Archer: Yeah, absolutely. Ben DiPietro: The other topic dominating our world is COVID-19. It's obviously having a big impact on companies and their ENC programs and cultures. What have you learned about your program as a result of the pandemic, and what should the focus be on as you move forward? Tiffany Archer: A key theme that has come from this pandemic is the level of resilience our program has demonstrated. I know I'm proud of it, and I'm sure my colleagues would say the same thing. The aviation industry sadly suffered a tremendous blow between the travel bands, reduced flight capacity and routes, people's fear of flying because of COVID protocols. It's really been a challenging time, but nevertheless, our program's commitment to compliance has been unwavering. As I said earlier, compliance is our foundation. We've adapted to this new normal, and we've remained connected to our stakeholders. We make connecting virtually and regularly an absolute priority, and continue to reassure them that we are here to help. We've really tried our best to turn a dark and dreary time into something lighter and more personable and relatable. So for example, we've created a number of communication initiatives. One of which includes vignettes, where we have compliance character avatars work through COVID related or other challenging scenarios that our staff may face during this time. And kind of walk them through how best to deal with the circumstances or challenging decisions that they're confronted with. We've also focused on reminding employees that PAC's culture is rooted in honesty and integrity. There really should be no fear of speaking up if there are any questions, or concerns or something just doesn't feel right. For me personally, I found that the most success is in reminding my stakeholders that I'm a confidant and a business partner. I spoke earlier about not just being the department of no. I really do, do my best to be empathetic, and compassionate, and understanding, that everybody is going through a different circumstance, and one person's challenge might be very different from another's. But it's critical to continue to have these discussions and these dialogues to instill trust. When they trust me, I know that if the need arises, they'll come to talk to me to work things through. My role isn't to be a bottleneck it's to assess the facts, determine how to facilitate the outcome that they're looking for, but in a way that comports with our policies and procedures. Finally, I've spent a lot of time encouraging my stakeholders to consider their mental health, and their self-care regime, and to try to keep their spirits and mental fortitude up. We are all in this together. We are embracing the worst of times. But the key to getting to the other side is going to be through persistence and resilience, and that's the message that I try to communicate regularly. Ben DiPietro: That is such an important topic, and it's going to be with us for years to come I believe as the fallout from all this. Now let me ask you one last question. I want to thank you so much for your time today. This has been so much fun. Tell me about one or two of your mentors who have helped you work your way up in this profession? Then offer a piece of advice to young people, looking for a career in ENC. Tiffany Archer: One key mentor in my life is Marcia Narine Weldon. She went to Columbia University and is also a Harvard Law School grad. She's an attorney and a University of Miami Law School professor. She was formerly a chief compliance officer and deputy general counsel. She's played an integral role in really guiding me towards overcoming imposter syndrome, encouraging me to push past my internal boundaries. To continue to learn, to strive, to grow towards things that maybe I didn't think I was capable of, but because of her push and her encouragement I kind of stepped out and tried to do more. The second part of your question you asked me, one tip I could give younger people who are looking for a career in ethics and compliance? I would say that for those who are looking to foster a culture of compliance and have a successful career in compliance, they need to keep in mind that their emotional quotient trumps their intelligence quotient, or their IQ every time. So you may have gone to the best school, or you may be the smartest person in the room, or have the most experience in a particular industry but if your emotional potion is weak, or if you lack the ability to demonstrate empathy and emotional intelligence, and develop strong relationships, and diffusing conflict, and building trust with your teams, all of that may prove to be a very challenging feat. So I would say EQ trumps IQ every time. Ben DiPietro: That's a great way to end. Thank you so much, Tiffany. This was wonderful. I had such a good time talking with you. I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best of luck until then stay safe. Hopefully, we'll see you when we can all come outside and play. Tiffany Archer: Thanks so much, Ben, and same to you. Stay safe and I'll see you on the other side. Speaker 1: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire Principled Performance in global organizations, by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. If you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. Don't forget to leave us a review.        

Rear Admiral Melissa Bert serves as the Judge Advocate General and Chief Counsel of the United States Coast Guard. She is the first woman to serve in this position. Prior flag assignments held by Melissa Bert include the U.S. Coast Guard’s Director of Governmental and Public Affairs and Deputy Director of Operations for U.S. Northern Command. Before promotion to flag-rank in 2016, she distinguished herself in service in both legal and operational capacities.  As a lawyer, she was Chief of the Coast Guard’s Maritime and International Law Office, supporting U.S. engagement with the International Maritime Organization and providing legal advice on a variety of policies – including the Law of the Sea, drug and migrant interdiction, homeland security, search and rescue, pollution response, port and vessel safety/security, counter-terrorism, Arctic policy, and environmental protection. For her legal expertise she was awarded the Young Military Lawyer of the Year for the Coast Guard by the American Bar Association in 1997 and the Judge Advocates Association Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney Award in 2006. Operationally, she was Chief of Staff for the Seventh Coast Guard District, responsible for oversight of Coast Guard operations in the Southeastern United States and Caribbean. During the attacks of 9/11, she was the Operations Officer for Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach protecting one of the nation’s most valuable ports. She previously served aboard two cutters, including as Executive Officer of the Cutter Red Birch in Baltimore, Maryland. Rear Admiral Bert is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and George Washington University Law School. She has been a national security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and a military fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York. She has taught as an adjunct professor at George Washington University and University of Miami Law School. She is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Proctor in Admiralty in the United States Maritime Law Association and a Proctor in Admiralty in the United States Maritime Law Association. She is also the founder of the Women’s Leadership Initiative supporting mentoring and professional development for Coast Guard women in uniform and civilians. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/mettle-of-honor/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mettle-of-honor/support

Vanessa Kuljis is the Founder of BloomRise LLC and a GALLUP Certified Strengths Coach. She works with lawyers and other professionals to discover individual talents, own their unique value proposition, and move toward setting and achieving authentic goals. Vanessa was previously the Director of Professional Development and Leadership Initiatives at the University of Miami Law School and, before that, a litigation associate. In this episode, we discuss: Vanessa went straight through from undergrad to law school into a litigation practice As the child of immigrants, the idea of being a professional working in a big fancy building seemed like the ultimate achievement  Vanessa realized she really wanted more interaction with people, and more emphasis on relationship-building in her work She also started to realize she wanted to build something, she just wasn't sure what yet Vanessa moved to NY for a year for her husband's job and decided to explore other interests rather than practice Ultimately, Vanessa went into higher education, working in student services at a law school As part of her job, Vanessa got the Gallup CliftonStrengths certification  She ended up consulting on strengths on the side and realized this was the business she wanted to build In leaving her job to do her new business full-time, Vanessa realized how true it is that courage isn't absence of fear, it's taking the leap despite your fear It may look from the outside like a move was sudden and easy, but it's just because you don't see all of the the thought and processing going on behind the scenes Strengths coaching walks you through 3 stages: awareness, appreciation, application You often can't see your strengths because they are so inherent to who you are It's a much higher return to invest in your strengths than try to improve on your weaknesses Vanessa's Website: www.BloomRiseCo.com   Lawyer's Escape Plan Quiz: http://bit.ly/lawyersescaperoutequiz Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/megansmileyesq/   

Bios JAY EPSTIEN Jay Epstien represents local and national owners, developers and users in all aspects of real estate transactions involving urban office buildings, shopping centers and mixed use projects. He has been the lead lawyer on many of the largest office leases in Washington, DC, representing both landlords and tenants, including numerous law firms that have sought his counsel. He has represented major corporations in corporate real estate facilities matters, involving corporate relocations and disposition of significant existing facilities. In addition, he has represented both landlords and tenants in major grocery store leases throughout the United States. Under Jay’s leadership, the DLA Piper real estate practice became the leading practice in the world. He also created the DLA Piper Global Real Estate Summits − industry-leading events held in Chicago, London, Tel Aviv and Dubai – which established DLA Piper as the global thought leader among real estate law firms. FRED KLEIN Fred Klein helps real estate and finance clients solve problems, structure and close complex real estate transactions and manage risk. Fred represents offshore, local and national developers and investors, and construction and permanent lenders (including life insurers) on transactions, development projects, and real estate finance. His clients include owners, operators and developers of office, multifamily, retail, hotels, manufactured housing and student housing in major markets and in more than 25 states. Fred has advised numerous clients on the purchase and sale of distressed debt, and has extensive experience representing borrowers and lenders on loan workouts and disputes. He has also recently assisted several clients in connection with the restructuring of ground leases, and has drafted and negotiated numerous ground leases during the past 30 years. Some of these clients are families that have owned income producing property for several generations, and in those cases, Fred helped either to restructure or reposition the assets, or advise on sales strategies. Show Notes CURRENT ROLES Jay Epstien 25 years with DLA Piper now together (5:00) Senior Partner with firm and connecting people around the firm (5:15) Fred Klein Co-partner and leader of the Real Estate group of firm in Washington DC (5:50) Coordinates exporting business throughout the firm (6:40) Negotiate, draft, structure deals (7:00) ORIGIN STORIES Fred Klein Cumberland, MD- Dad was a dress manufacturer (7:40) Moved to NY when a child (7:55) NY Mets and Jets fan Went to Mercersburg Academy (8:20) Great experience there Involved with several activities there 50th Reunion First coed class when he was there in 1969 Attended Duke University (11:15) Learned about writing from four people (11:40) Floyd Robinson at Mercersburg Andy Burness at Duke Judge Paul Roney (12:10) Shelly Weisel (12:30) University of Miami Law School

Paul L. Reiber was appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court as an Associate Justice in October 2003 and Chief Justice in December 2004. In 2010 he served as Chair of the Vermont Commission on Judicial Operations resulting in historic legislation that unified the state court system. He now Chairs the Vermont Justice Reinvestment II Working Group, and Co-Chairs the Chief Justice Task Force for Children and the Vermont Commission on Well-Being of the Legal Profession. He is the immediate past president of the Conference of Chief Justices, 2018-2019 Chairman of the Board of the National Center for State Courts, and involved in several other efforts devoted to access to justice and the rule of law. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, the American Law Institute and active in his local chapter of the American Inns of Court. Transcript: CHRIS NEWBOLD:               Hello and welcome to episode nine of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being podcast series, the path to well-being in law. I'm your co-host Chris Newbold, executive vice president of AlPS Malpractice Insurance and as you know, our goal here is simple, to introduce you to interesting leaders doing awesome work in the space of lawyer well-being and in the process build a nurture of national network of well-being advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the legal profession. Once again, I'm joined by my friend, Bree Buchanan. How are you today, Bree?BREE BUCHANAN:I'm doing great. Hello, everyone.CHRIS:               Awesome, and today we're going to continue our march around the states and many of the states have really taken charge in the well-being movement, engaging in initiatives, commitments and success and we've previously on the podcast talked to leaders in Virginia, in Massachusetts, in Utah and today we turn our attention to the Green Mountain State, otherwise known as Vermont and we're very excited to welcome our friend and fellow National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being member, Chief Justice Paul Reiber to the podcast. Bree, would you be so kind to introduce Chief Justice Reiber to our audience?BREE:             I would be delighted to do so and it's a real honor. The chief, you can imagine, very distinguished individual, but as you will hear over the course of this podcast, a really delightful human being and that wasn't in the bio, so I just had to add that, so I'm going to give you [crosstalk 00:01:41]-CHIEF JUSTICE PAUL REIBER:             Thank you. That's very nice.BREE:        ... The official bio. Paul Reiber was appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court as an associate justice in October of 2003 and a year later as a chief justice in 2004. In 2010, he served as chair of the Vermont Commission on Judicial Operations, resulting in historic legislation that unified the state court system. He now chairs the Vermont Justice Reinvestment II Working Group and co-chairs the Chief Justice Task Force for Children and the Vermont Commission on Well-Being of the Legal Profession and we'll hear more about that in a few minutes.He most impressively, I think, there's many impressive things, but he is immediate past president of the Conference of Chief Justices. He is the 2018-2019 chairman of the board of the National Center for State Courts and involved in several other efforts devoted to access to justice and the rule of law, which includes his sitting on the board effectively at the National Task Force. He is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, the American Law Institute and active in his local chapter of the American Inns of Court. Chief Reiber, welcome to our podcast. We're so delighted to have you here today.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             Thank you so much, Bree and Chris. Thank you, it's a pleasure to join you here.BREE:              And, a question we ask, we've sort of a tradition here of asking each of our guests at the very beginning about their... What is behind their passion for the lawyer well-being movement? What brought you to this work? Because you and I have been working on this together for, I'd say, three years and I know that you are very passionate about this, so if you could talk a little bit about what brings you to this work.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             Well, it's a good question and I'm glad you asked it. I was not a trial judge before I came to the Supreme Court. So, I was appointed directly out of private practice and I was a trial lawyer in private practice and I think as is not uncommon among members of the bar who engage in the same kind of practice. As I told the Vermont Bar Association when I spoke to them the first time about this subject a few years ago, I said, "All of us have got challenges in our lives, but in particular those of us who practice law and those of us who go to court, many of us suffer from anxiety and depression and substance abuse."And I said, "And, I have checked off all of those boxes." So, I had a very personal real world interest in this and was excited when a report came out several years ago, which presented to the Conference of Chief Justices at our annual meeting in Philadelphia and a resolution was passed there and I came home back to Vermont and we immediately started to address it.CHRIS:             It's interesting that I think you came back and I think that your first probably act was to begin a dialogue about developing a commission on the well-being of the legal profession there in Vermont.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:         That's right.CHRIS:               Talk to us about how that got started, what your role was [crosstalk 00:05:30].CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Right, all of us have got close friends that we collaborate with and brainstorm with on different issues and a good friend of mine who was on the trial bench at the time and has now joined me on the Supreme Court is Bill Cohen and Bill and I had practiced together. He also was a trial lawyer. We were in the same firm, had offices down the hall from each other, shared cases, tried cases together. Good friends, have known each other for a long time and I brought it to Bill and I'll tell you who else, Teri Corsones, who was then and is now the executive director of the Vermont Bar Association, and another great guy both of you may know, Mike Kennedy who is our bar council here in Vermont and really is a terrific contributor in many, many ways to the well-being of the profession and the four of us sat down together that fall and I want to say it was the fall of 2017, but I'm not exactly sure. It was right after the report the National Report issued-BREE:          Right, that was fall of 2017.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             Okay, and we met two or three times. One of the things that I thought was very important, we all thought was important, was not only that we get a project started, but that we make sure that we had the full and unequivocal support of the entire Vermont Supreme Court, my colleagues on the court. And so, we outlined a program that we wanted to pursue. Essentially, by forming a commission that simply mirrored exactly the outline that was provided in the National Report. We did that, we put it in writing, presented it to my colleagues on the court. They were enthusiastic and supporting it and the court eventually issued, and I don't mean this to suggest there was a delay, but the court issued what we call a charge and designation, which is an administrative document that reflected on the need for this effort to be undertaken, reflected on the fact the National Report had issued, recited the resolution that the joint conferences of chief justices and court administrators had passed earlier that year in Philadelphia as I said.And then, concluded that an effort need to be made here in Vermont to evaluate this concern that we all shared about mental health, substance abuse among members of the bar. And so, we began that process with a commission that was formed under the charge and designation the entire court signed off on.Bree Buchanan:               And, Chief, that charge and designation, by the way, is on the National Task Force's website lawyerwellbeing.net.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Oh good.BREE:              We've actually offered that up to other states at times who are trying to figure out how to get it started in their own state, how their own Supreme Court have the authority, I guess, to move forward. And so, it's been a useful document and a sample for other courts.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Well, I'm glad to hear that, Bree. I wasn't aware of that. One of the things I thought was very important was that we put a timetable on the effort. And so, we called for the commission that we formed to report back to the court I think it was within 12 months, by the end of 2018 with specific recommendations and in fact, we can discuss this down the road as well, but we have renewed that charge and designation by the way as a result of the fact that the first charge expired on its own terms.CHRIS:                 There's a couple of things, Chief, that I just love about what happened. First of all, Vermont, I'm guessing it's a lot like Montana where these smaller bars, it's just very easy to know lots of people, right?CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:         Yeah.CHRIS:             And, to bring people to the table because you really did jump out in front of the movement, so to speak, in terms of... The report was released, but that was a call to action that you answered and we needed states like you to answer that call. That was such an important part of the growth of the well-being movement because you guys just kind of took the baton and ran.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           You know, Chris, there's sobering... Not meaning to make a pun, sobering things that are going on that really are very important for us to pay attention to. There's suicides, there are lawyers who are suffering from depression, anxiety, substance abuse. There was a front page... This is one of the things that motivated me by the way. In the front page article, you both may remember, in the business section of the Sunday New York Times about that time, about the summer of 2017-BREE:             Absolutely, yeah.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:   Profiled a young father very, very successful lawyer in California who had two homes, as I remember it, including a home in, I think Nevada or one of the Western states, but lived in California, a very successful guy with a young family, two young kids and committed suicide. This is really a problem. I'll tell you something, you say we got out in front of it. It's not exactly you suggest that. Between the time that my court issued its charge and designation and the day I gave a speech to the bar in March of 2018 about the importance of this problem, we lost two lawyers in this state, two lawyers in this small state.This is a problem that we cannot allow to languish. We have to bring attention to it, we have to bring our best efforts to trying to make sure that people understand this is something that has to be addressed.BREE:            And unfortunately, there are so many people when I get up and speak and talk to people in the audience about the issue of suicide, there are so many people, if you've been in the profession for very long at all, you know someone or know of someone-CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             That's right.BREE:            And, the only silver lining to that situation is that it has spurred a lot of changes in the profession.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Bree, the first time you and I met was when telephoned you on your honeymoon, if you don't mind me bringing this up, I hope you-BREE:            You called me in New Zealand.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: In New Zealand. I got your number and you said, "Who is this guy trying to get a hold of me?" And, I was on a panel, I think with Shaheed maybe down in Miami at the University of Miami Law School.BREE:            Judge David Shaheed.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Great guy, great, great guy and Jaffe was there was well.BREE:              David Jaffe.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: David Jaffe, our friend from American University Law School and we were there talking about this problem to a group, a very broad cross section of people by the way, and I remember telling them that our profession has changed, it has changed, it already has changed, and of course, we need to continue on this trend, but when I started practicing law back in the 70s and I mentioned this, lawyers I know, including myself by the way, would mark a trip to a court in another city 60 miles away, let's say Burlington, Vermont, by the number of beers that you would consume on the trip.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: All right? So, we would say, "Oh, I've got to go to court." Now, I'm not suggesting that we'd necessarily drink before the hearing, although many lawyers did, believe me, but it was the trip home. "I've got to go to court in Burlington this week, that's a two beer trip," somebody would say. This was very commonplace in my state and alcohol... There was a bar in my home of Rutland, Vermont called the Carriage Room and I'll bet there's a story similar in many, many other locations around the country. Lawyers would try a case down the street and go to the Carriage Room and wait for the jury's verdict and the clerk of the court knew where to find you.You call the Carriage Room if you want to find Paul Reiber because that's where he's hanging out drinking with his buddies. That's the way it worked. So let me say, I gave up drinking many years ago because of the finally recognizing the problem. It was beginning to dominate my life. We had two kids in high school, I was drinking wine with dinner every night. My wife doesn't drink, she never has. It was not right and I felt like I was letting my family down and I gave it up and I'm pleased to say that, but this was very, very common among the trial bar in my state and I suspect that's not a unique story.CHRIS:                 Chief, let's talk a little bit about the state action plan. So, you brought the constituencies, the stakeholders together, you guys got to work. I love the notion and I love the recommendation that you're making to others who embark on this to set it up in a time frame basis [crosstalk 00:17:07]-CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           Right.CHRIS:               [crosstalk 00:17:07] let the clock start ticking in terms of what we needed to do, yet you really came out, and again, we're going to publish this in conjunction with the podcast on the National Task Force site, but your state action plan is really a phenomenal roadmap for recommendations and opportunities to advance well-being. I'd love for you to talk a little bit about what you're most proud of that's come out of that process on the state action plan front.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Well, I'll tell you, to be honest, what I'm most proud of are the number of lawyers who have stepped forward to contribute to this effort. We had, as you know, Chris, several different committees that we formed, again, following the outline of the National Report, so we had a law school committee that was chaired by the dean of... We have one law school in Vermont, great guy named Tom McHenry. He's the dean and he chaired that committee. We had a lawyers committee that actually was co-chaired by an attorney from Burlington who essentially represented the large firm sector of the state and then a woman from the Northeast Kingdom part of Vermont who represented, if you will, the small firm segment of the state.We had a regulators committee, we had a judges committee that my friend Bill Cohen chaired. These are people who... And, they each had, by the way, several volunteer lawyers and with the dean's situation, students and faculty, who stepped forward to participate in the effort, and the thing I'm most proud of is the fact that all of these people put themselves out, spoke publicly about the importance of this and brought their perspective on moving the ball forward with regard to addressing the real needs that I think the attorneys have and the judges by the way. I don't mean to leave judges out. I think the bench is a very important part of this and the student body, the students as well, law students as well.BREE:        Absolutely, and what I've seen just across in states is where the people who come to the table to work on this project find it so fulfilling. Lawyers care about the legal profession and one another, and so to be able to take affirmative action and step forward and do something about a problem that we all see, maybe not on ourselves, but over the course of our career and actually take some positive action. I'm wondering, out of the state action plan... That's the name on the document that came out from your work.Some of the states have like a report and yours actually has a state action plan. Can you talk about some of the pieces in that action plan, the recommendations that you made that stick out?CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Yeah, absolutely. The recommendations included, and these are things that we've actually done as well through the court's interventions, we amended the comments to rule 1.1 of the Vermont rules of professional conduct to acknowledge that maintaining a lawyer's well-being is an important aspect of maintaining competence in the practice of law. We amended the mandatory continuing legal education rules to require at least one credit hour per reporting period of attorney wellness programming.We promulgated rule changes to create a bar assistance program within Vermont's professional responsibility program, those are changes that actually we just adopted and will take effect in, I think it's February 1 and I think importantly as well, we extended, as I alluded to earlier, the commission and commission's charge and designation and called upon the commission to annually review the progress of the state action plan and to report back to the Supreme Court on its progress, something that the first annual report under the renewed charge and designation issued just earlier this year in June.So, that the focus is to attempt to bring life to the work in a way that acknowledges that there is no off/on switch to fixing this. It's not a matter that you simply... What we're talking about are problems in the human condition. These are behavioral problems, problems that need to be addressed through a thoughtful, respectful, empathetic means that help people along and bring them to a better understanding of their situation and feeling better about where they are and in particular about the practice of law.CHRIS:               I think the thing that's really exciting about what you have done there in Vermont is obviously, you took the National Report and used that as a template to build state-based, engaged lawyers around the committees. Again, for all our audience, this is about a 100-page report and it's chock full of... In each of the committee areas, the judges committee, the bar association, the regulators, the law school, legal employers. I know you've made some progress on the lawyer's assistance program front [crosstalk 00:23:53]. Again, I play the small role from the professional liability carrier.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: You sure did. You did and thank you for that.CHRIS:               And, it's really interesting because I think each one of those committees have both identified and begun to enact recommendations. There's five to 10 recommendations in each area, so if you're looking for ideas about what Vermont's done. Again, Vermont's a smaller state, obviously less than I think 5,000 lawyers and so-CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: That's right.CHRIS:                This is a really interesting template for a lot of other rural states out there that I think face similar issues in terms of either geographic distance or just demographics of the profession and I think our office was a little bit different when you get to the smaller bar size.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           And, the bar size does make a difference, the office size. We have a lot of sole practitioners in the state, small firm profiles in the state, and this is a problem that crosses all boundaries, large firms, small firm, and people have taken... The evidence is that people are taking this seriously and really I think putting effort into addressing the needs that we've got.CHRIS:               Excellent. This is I think a good time for us to take a break. Let's hear from one of our sponsors. This is an awesome conversation and I just love what's going on in Vermont, and so we'll be back right after the break.—Advertisement: Your law firm is worth protecting, and so is your time. ALPS has the quickest online application for legal malpractice insurance out there. Apply, see rates, and buying coverage all in about 20 minutes. Being a lawyer is hard, our new online app is easy. Apply now at applyonline.alpsnet.com.—BREE:            Welcome back, everybody. This is Bree Buchanan and we have our guest today Chief Justice Paul Reiber of the Vermont Supreme Court and we're having a wonderful, very candid conversation here today. And so, Chief, we've heard about the process of developing the state action plan for Vermont and it's been about two years, I believe, since that was published, coming up on... I think the date on it is December 31st, 2018.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             Right.BREE:              What has been the trajectory of the well-being movement in Vermont since its publication?CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: Well, one of the things I'd like to do is sing the praises of the Vermont Bar Association. Teri Corsones, and the leadership, the board, the president, these folks have been extremely instrumental in keeping the news of the need for lawyers to address this alive. We are seeing it's a little bit difficult to put your finger on it given the virus and the fact that face-to-face meetings have suspended for the last several months, but the bar association had their regular meetings and we have an independent bar association by the way. It is not connected to the court. It's not within the court, but they have specifically identified wellness seminars for everyone of their meetings that they're offering, which is terrific.In addition to that, Mike Kennedy, terrific Mike Kennedy and Teri Corsones in the VBA are publishing regularly in the Bar Association Journal a story about a lawyer in Vermont who... I forget the title of it, but it's basically about how to maintain balance in your life, how to... They profile an attorney who has a great road running program that they follow and profile that. Somebody else who is very involved in art in a way that, it's a project that helps them maintain balance in their life.This is I think very, very important to keeping this issue fresh in people's minds and in addition to this, Mike tells me that some of the larger firms actually are bringing him in to speak to their lawyers during the noon hour. Again, this was before the pandemic, to provide them with ideas and incentive for maintaining balance in their lives. So, I'm very, very pleased about the work of the bar in this respect and I give credit to the folks that are really carrying the heavy load on it.CHRIS:               It sounds like there's been a real commitment on behalf of, again, all the players involved to just keep this issue front and center because it's, again, if we don't tackle it, nobody's going to tackle it because it's the life, that's the profession that we're currently in and there's certainly room for improvement there.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           Well, years ago I met with a great trial lawyer out in Salt Lake City about reforming the civil rules in my state, something that they had done in Utah and were very successful with and I had this lawyer's name who spearheaded the project and I had lunch with him and I said to him, "Francis, tell me, how can I do this back home in Vermont?" He said, "What you need is a guy like me." Because he was the one who really pushed it through. He was a trial lawyer and he headed the thing up.Well, I would tell you that I've got people like Teri Corsones and Michael Kennedy who writes a blog the two of you may be aware of, which is really excellent and frequently addresses wellness issues. Mike is just a champion in this regard, so we have real heroes in this respect and I think this is one of the keys to making this work is to find people who are willing and have a genuine interest in committing to addressing this problem.CHRIS:                 Well, let's not negate your role from the head of the judiciary. Again, I think I'm making an observation I think is true, which is when we have seen judiciary engagement on well-being, the wheels of progress and the wheels of success and creativity and initiatives has really flourished. So, I'd love for you to just talk about, again, your role from the chief justice perspective and then I know how much this issue has also caught hold as something that's being discussed amongst the Conference of Chief Justices.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           It is, yeah.CHRIS:             Which is really, I think, impressive in terms of your... As leaders of our profession, you're contemplating and appreciating just how important this is to the health and well-being of our profession and out ability to serve society.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           I think it actually is remarkable how the interest... This has sparked an interest for reform if you want, in this area in terms of some of the rule changes that I've mentioned that we've made here and simply embracing the need to bring the problems to the forefront and talk about it and get people's attention on it, it has, across the country. I see colleagues, chiefs in other states, one after another who have formed these commissions. I'd like to remember, as a matter of fact in that regard, my friend Ralph Gants who passed away suddenly about a month ago, was a chief justice of the SJC in Massachusets.BREE:              Right.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:    Ralph had started, before he died, and I attended his memorial virtually actually, but of course that was put on by Northeaster University Law School, a really wonderful tribute to him, but he had started a project just like this. We had talked about it. As a matter of fact, he and I were on a panel at a New England Bar Association meeting a few years ago, along with Paul Suttell from Rhode Island and we all talked to the members of the New England Bar about this and the interest that we all shared in promoting this in our respective states and Ralph had done great work in this regard in bringing it forward with the Massachusetts Bar, but I see it... Hawaii, Mark Recktenwald is the chief out there.Mark has started a project. He and I talked about that. It is really taking hold across the country and I think it is a recognition of the need for sea change from those days I mentioned. Back in the 70s when I started practicing law, and the trips, the court, and I think everybody is recognizing that this is a moment that we need to change our perspective and I'm really pleased to see it.BREE:              It's really encouraging and it makes you feel like it's the right idea at the right time the way it has taken off and-CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           Isn't that true?BREE:            Yeah, and on the homepage of our website, the lawyerwellbeing.net, if you scroll down, there's an interactive map where you can see all the states that are taking this on and it's just such a delight every time we can go in and highlight another state where a Supreme Court or a state bar has taken this one and done a multi-stakeholder initiative and I think there's 32 or 33 states, so-CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:  That's terrific.BREE:            Absolutely. Chief, before we go, I don't want to pass up all the opportunity to ask you about just any lessons learned in this process. Any lessons learned that you can pass on to other states, maybe other Supreme Court justices or just people, state bar leaders that are thinking they want to start their own well-being task force or something similar? What would you share with them?CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER: You know, Bree, I think picking up on what I said a few moments ago, I think a key to getting it started is identifying two or three people in your jurisdiction who are thoughtful in this direction and interested in this direction and begin to put together the seeds of a project like ours and then build it and build it in a way that it has the force and the authority of the Supreme Court, something I would imagine is available in every jurisdiction once they have attention brought to the issue.I think the people, and identifying the right people is extremely important, but the other thing I would say is don't wait. You can't wait. There are people who are dealing with these problems, they need help. We need to be in the forefront of helping them. We are in a profession that has susceptibility, great susceptibility to these issues and as leaders, we need to tackle those issues. So, don't wait, identify the key people who can help get the project off the ground and then engage your court to support the effort into the outset.CHRIS:               One final question that I would ask you is, as we think about where this movement goes, I live in the business world and we're always talking about what our key success indicators are and how do you think about the well-being movement in the health and the vibrancy of our profession? I'm just kind of curious to your perspective on, how do we measure success in terms of getting to a point that we feel better than obviously we are today in knowing that there's a long road ahead of us, but how do we measure success?CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           You saved the toughest question for the last, Chris. That's not fair. How do we measure success? Huh? That's a tough question.CHRIS:             It's a little off-script [crosstalk 00:38:13]-CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             No, no, no, no, that's all right. I don't mean that. That's a tough chore. I think part of what we do is we make sure that we're accountable for the work that we start. I don't like the idea of just starting a project like this and letting it mature on its own schedule, on its own timetable and then not having some accountability back to an authority like the Supreme Court. It doesn't have to be I suppose, but I think that the court and the justices can play a very important role in that regard.So, accountability and putting people on a time I think are very, very important in terms of trying to find success, but measuring success, boy, I don't know what the answer to that is. I have a feeling that there is success in this regard just because of the work the two of you have done and obviously the success that you're having in bringing this word out to the profession, but data, I don't know. I don't know how you would do that.I think the problem is, I mentioned, it's part of the human condition and it is something that we all struggle with in a fashion in our own personal lives and it's not something, like I said before, that you just can turn the switch on and off. So, I think it's a very important problem that we have in front of us and we have to keep talking about it.CHRIS:           For sure.BREE:            Absolutely.CHRIS: Well, thank you so much, Chief Justice Paul Reiber of the Vermont Supreme Court. You've been a leader in our movement and I know that you just brought an idea home and I got things rolling, but these are the small steps that lead to the big steps that lead to a ripple effect that ultimately allowed Vermont to go out front and start to pave the way to a pathway toward a recognition that to be a good lawyer you have to be a healthy lawyer and that ultimately our ability as a profession to be able to deliver to society is premised on perhaps speaking about the way that we attack the profession in just a little bit of a different way.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:           Well, thank you both for what you're doing.BREE:              Thank you.CHIEF JUSTICE REIBER:             Much appreciated.CHRIS:               Absolutely. All right, so we will be back in a couple of weeks with another well-being guest and until then, stay well out there. I know we're in the midst of the pandemic and I know we are at a point now around the country where numbers are as high as they've ever been, which again, I think creates more challenges when it comes to both the administration of justice, but also the health and well-being of lawyers and probably time for us to bring in a couple of guests to actually talk specifically about how COVID has impacted the well-being of lawyers, so stay tuned for that on the horizon and until then, be well. Thanks for joining us.BREE:            Thank you. 

I am so sorry that I was not able to get back to you. I got your message but could not call and have not been home to write a note.  You do not know how much I cherish you already.  You gestures and your thoughts are seemingly from another planet due to your gracious mannerism.   I long to know you much better.   Would you call me whenever you get up.  I do not want to wake you too early, AND, I know your 10:00 appointment that you must be preparing for.  I would think that calling me on my cell would be best, I may well be on my way to you when you do call.  God bless you abundantly, - Peter Kent   He didn't get home until 1:00 am because he was in jail for shoplifting a $3.00 kitchen knife.  A pastor-friend down the street came and bailed him out.   I didn't get the message because I didn't have AOL at home.   8:45 am My intention at the moment, is to make contact with you earlier today.  I am off to get a drivers license address change and then I will be going the long way around to pick up some meds at Costco in Brandon on my way to you somehow.   I am excited about us launching something together, a relationship.  You seem to feel about me as I would wish my special person to feel.  I do not take that lightly, it is very filling and I could not ever say enough good about it.  What I wish to learn is to 'act' or 'be' as though it means the world to me, rather than playing safe and untrustworthy of relationship.   I think that going slow and talking about it a lot, as knowledgeable adults, is the way to go.  I have many worthy things to do. - Peter Kent   Dear Peter Kent,  I did not have access to a computer last night.  The old lap top that I carried to the island was having modem trouble.  I got it up and running, but it was too slow to bother with this morning.  I am glad you called.  As much as I dislike talking on the phone, it is still the most effective for two people on the move.  It is different when it is you anyway.  Perhaps you will help me to overcome this little problem.   I just got in to Easy Street and read your notes.  I do care about you and think about you throughout the day.  Being a woman, it is always easy to start over, because there is always someone who will take you in, make you strong and wish you well on your way.  I think it must be much harder for a man.  You would know.   I don't want you to try and argue with me about this trip.  I will pay all of the costs involved and don't want you to reach for your wallet in any part of the travel or food expense this weekend.  The only thing that I want from you is that you are well rested and prepared for your exam.  In some ways I think even the distraction of a woman is bad timing for this, but I don't know quite what to do about that.  Just know that I am patient (you will not believe how patient until you know me better) and I, too, want to go at this relationship slowly.  As much as I love the thrill of infatuation, I want something more lasting and ultimately, more satisfying.   We are having a chicken crisis right now, so I can't devote the time to that thought that I would like.  Brandon is very congested, so be careful.  If you get lost trying to get back to Easy St. most people know where the Citrus Park mall is and we are across the street.  I will send another letter momentarily that has the work list.  For the cats,  Carole Lewis, Founder   RE:  The only thing that I want from you is that you are well rested and prepared for your exam.   This exam is fairly simple, I already passed the hard part.  I had taken the exam in March at the University of Miami Law School, AND, arrived 93 minutes late.   The exam is two parts, point location (easy, and should take about 35 minutes of the three hours they a lot) and comprehensive.  They let me sit for the exam anyway but I missed the instructions for the point location procedure.  I thought I got them all correct because they were commonly used points.   I got a 35% on that part and passed the difficult part.  All I really need to do is look through the book on the way there and tomorrow morning, when I can really cook (I usually study 300 times faster in the early morning).   RE: In some ways I think even the distraction of a woman is bad timing for this, Nah.....   RE:  but I don't know quite what to do about that.   There are only two requirements:  1) Do what I say, 2) do it immediately.......... (lol)   I am leaving in about 20 minutes.   Truly you are a gift I must pray about. - Peter Kent   Carole, the unpleasant part is the money end.   In the past I had done all fix-up stuff by bid or by time and materials.  I have a lot of tools to make things go faster and generally charge $29/hr for my time.  (I worked as a sub-contractor for a big fix-up firm in Albuquerque for a while and they bid me at $55/hour, until I got a school and a church to build I went off on my own while in school).   I am fast and work hard.  I usually do not like working more than 6-7 hours per day depending on my energy levels and the work entailed.   I am wishing for this to be fair a profitable for you.  I thank you for your loving ways, I wish not to be any burden.   11/9/01 I drove with Peter Kent in the 98 Dodge van to Jacksonville.  We pulled into the parking lot of the Ramada Inn at dusk and as we drove around back, I realized that this was the same hotel that Judy Watson, Hercules (the Snow Leopard) and I stayed in back on August 7-11, 1997 for the LIOC meeting.  I began thinking about what that signified.   That was the last “normal” week of my life.  Seven days later, Don was gone and my world was shaken upside down.  I told Peter Kent what was going on in my head and wondered aloud if this was God's way of saying that things would now get back to “normal” for me.  I could love again.  I could be happy again.  I could see the future again.   I wore my gown to bed because I did not wish to seem presumptuous and at some level really thought he should forego sex before this big exam.  I would leave that choice up to him.  He would know his needs and weaknesses better than I.  We continued exploring each other and then he kissed me.   I've been writing my story since I was able to write, but when the media goes to share it, they only choose the parts that fit their idea of what will generate views.  If I'm going to share my story, it should be the whole story.  The titles are the dates things happened. If you have any interest in who I really am please start at the beginning of this playlist: http://savethecats.org/   I know there will be people who take things out of context and try to use them to validate their own misconception, but you have access to the whole story.  My hope is that others will recognize themselves in my words and have the strength to do what is right for themselves and our shared planet.    You can help feed the cats at no cost to you using Amazon Smile! Visit BigCatRescue.org/Amazon-smile   You can see photos, videos and more, updated daily at BigCatRescue.org   Check out our main channel at YouTube.com/BigCatRescue   Music (if any) from Epidemic Sound (http://www.epidemicsound.com) This video is for entertainment purposes only and is my opinion.

Get to know Joe Sternberg, Esq. From The University of Arizona, to his study abroad in Spain, to obtaining his law degree from The University of Miami Law School, to partner at Landers & Sternberg PLLC - D.O. discusses why Joe became an attorney, the law as it pertains to tenants and landlord disputes, as well as CDC guidelines and the C.A.R.E.S. Act, and the law as it pertains to divorce and more.   FIND US ON SOCIAL! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheLoanOfficerPodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theloanofficerpodcast/

LSAT-Flex FAQ: https://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-flex-faq.html LSAT-Flex Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgOHAiSs08EZGx4RXCMzBQQKtUe05wwmq Free LSAT Course: https://bit.ly/lsatcourse Free LSAT Cheat Sheet: https://bit.ly/lsatcheatsheet LSAT Courses: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-course-packages.html Best LSAT Books: https://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/best-lsat-prep-books.html LSAT Schedules: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/month-lsat-study-schedules-plans.html LSAT Blog Free Stuff: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-prep-tips.html LSAT Unplugged Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lsat-unplugged/id1450308309?mt=2 LSAT Unplugged Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lsatunplugged LSAT Coaching Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgOHAiSs08EbD-kfDFqIEoMC_hzQrH-J5 Admissions Coaching Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgOHAiSs08EbsqveKs_RZEy2sqqbz3HUL LSAT Unplugged Facebook Group (community and free livestream classes): https://www.facebook.com/groups/LSATUnplugged LSAT Blog: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/

Free LSAT Course: https://bit.ly/lsatcourse Free LSAT Cheat Sheet: https://bit.ly/lsatcheatsheet LSAT Courses: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-course-packages.html Best LSAT Books: https://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/best-lsat-prep-books.html LSAT Schedules: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/month-lsat-study-schedules-plans.html LSAT Blog Free Stuff: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-prep-tips.html LSAT Unplugged Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lsat-unplugged/id1450308309?mt=2 LSAT Unplugged Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lsatunplugged LSAT Coaching Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgOHAiSs08EbD-kfDFqIEoMC_hzQrH-J5 Admissions Coaching Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgOHAiSs08EbsqveKs_RZEy2sqqbz3HUL LSAT Unplugged Facebook Group (community and free livestream classes): https://www.facebook.com/groups/LSATUnplugged LSAT Blog: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/

Overnight schedules. Decision making for the children. Birthdays. Holidays. Doctor's appointments. There are SO many factors to consider carefully when creating a parenting plan. - only many of us don't know what to consider when putting together a parenting plan. That's why I consulted the expert of all experts, my husband, family court Judge Spencer Multack. Spencer is not only incredibly knowledgeable on all things "co-parenting," - he is FAIR and truly understands both sides and their needs when helping divorcing couples figure out the best way to create a parenting plan after their divorce. I'm lucky to be married to him, and everyone who appears in front of him in court is lucky, too. He not only has the expertise in his profession as a former lawyer-turned-judge, he's lived the divorce process himself, and has been co-parenting for almost 5 years now. The Hon. Spencer J. Multack, a graduate of Syracuse University and University of Miami Law School, once known for trying cases against public officials charged with corruption, was first appointed to the bench in 2011. Since then, he's presided over domestic violence issues, criminal cases, and now in the family court, all things divorce, co-parenting, and making the best decisions for the children involved.

Bill King is joined by Greg Levy, Associate Dean of the University of Miami Law School and Peter Carfagna, Co-Director, Sports Law Track at the University of Miami, to discuss force majeure in the time of COVID-19 and about the summer course they are leading to help students understand this part of contract law.

Bill King is joined by Greg Levy, Associate Dean of the University of Miami Law School and Peter Carfagna, Co-Director, Sports Law Track at the University of Miami. They discuss force majeure in the time of COVID-19 and the summer course they are leading to help students understand this part of contract law.

Kelly Kosow, CEO of The Ford Institute, talks about Authenticity, Shadow Beliefs, Goals and Abundance on this week's The Health Zone.   Find out more below...   This interview was conducted by Micheál O'Mathúna who is a Journalist, Author, Filmmaker, Media Relations Consultant and Radio Show presenter. He also conducts one-to-one coaching, group coaching and delivers transformative workshops in various areas of health and wellbeing. He is also the founder of The Health Zone, which an inspiring, motivational and educational platform to empower people to be healthier, happier, more authentic and realise their true potential in their lives. You can find out more about Micheál O'Mathúna and The Health Zone here. You listen to every episode of The Health Zone here ------> http://www.thehealthzones.com/ Follow us on Instagram here ---> https://www.instagram.com/dhealthzone/ Follow us on Facebook here ----> https://www.facebook.com/thehealthzoneshow/ Follow us on Twitter here ---> https://twitter.com/dhealthzone Subscribe to our YouTube channel here ---> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbZXDYJF_ypdjEmQk-BEIg ---> Join our Facebook Group here ---> https://www.facebook.com/groups/thehealthzone/   Kelly tells us:   ----more----   How many of us try to hide who we really are and how shame is one of the reasons why we don't reveal ourselves.   How you shadow beliefs can hold you back and prevent you from achieving what you want in your life.   How your inner world is a reflection of your outer world.   How when you start embracing all that your are, that is when you start hearing the whispers of your soul.   How the shadow side of yourself can block the abundance of money coming into your life and how to overcome it.   Kelley Kosow is recognized as being one of the world's leading experts on shadow work, emotional freedom, and personal mastery.  Known as being “the coach's coach,” Kelley uses her quick wit, laser sharp insight, genuine examples, and ruthlessly compassionate style to support people in liberating themselves from the bonds of their past, transforming their lives and stepping into a new reality.   Kelley is a Master Integrative Life Coach and CEO & Program Leader of The Ford Institute For Transformational Training. Kelley was hand-picked and personally trained by the late Debbie Ford to lead The Ford Institute and continue the legacy of this life changing work. She is the only person who was authorized by Debbie Ford to lead her ground-breaking Shadow Process Workshop in English and has led several since Debbie's passing in 2013   Kelley is a graduate of Brown University and University of Miami Law School. Although a successful practicing attorney, her heart yearned for “something more.” That is when she discovered Debbie Ford's powerful work.   Kelley has been featured in local and national media. Oprah Magazine named Kelley as someone who could “Dream it, Do it.” She has also been featured in In Style, People, Working Mother, The NY and LA Times. Most recently Conde Nast Traveler, in an article entitled “Spotlight on Miami,” referred to Kelley's brand of coaching as “Miracle Therapy” and to Kelley as a “powerhouse.”  Kelley has also appeared on “The Balancing Act” and Better.tv.   Kelley is currently working on her first book, The Integrity Principle.   http://www.debbieford.com    

In today's podcast, Mike interviews Celeste Siblesz Higgins, a renowned defense lawyer who has more than 100 federal criminal jury trials under her belt. She is a past chair of the University of Miami Law School trial skills program; in this episode of 10 minutes at the Bar with Michael Tein, she reveals the secret sauce for dealing with pre-trial jitters.

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Danielle Garno has a very full — and intense — life, as a mom of 4 young girls and a Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, she's quickly become the go-to person for Fashion Law (she just wrapped teaching the first Fashion Law class at University of Miami Law School!). We discuss her drive, competitive nature, and what it's been like being a woman in this rough and tumble profession. We talk about the myth of work-life balance, the importance of being present and appreciating how far you've come.

On this week’s If Then, Slate’s April Glaser and Will Oremus talk about a somewhat surprising speech from the antitrust chief of Trump’s DOJ. They bring you up to date on a big new data privacy bill in Congress, and Mike Nuñez, a journalist for Mashable, joins the show to discuss how his reporting on alleged liberal bias at Facebook has sparked a somewhat bizarre Congressional inquiry. The hosts are also joined by Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law at the University of Miami Law School, where she teaches criminal law, First Amendment law, and Technology policy. They speak about the massively important Communications Decency Act, which was just amended to allow victims of sex trafficking to sue websites that knowingly facilitate it. And as always, “Don’t Close My Tabs,” the Sean Hannity/Jeff Bezos edition. Timestamps: 1:40 DOJ Antitrust Speech 6:15 New data privacy bill 11:13 Diamond and Silk on Capitol Hill: phone call with Mashable’s Michael Nuñez 20:55 Zillow clarification regarding last week’s show 22:14 Interview: Professor Mary Anne Franks on amending the CDA to fight sex trafficking 44: 08 Don’t Close My Tabs Don’t Close My Tabs Links: KQED: How Sean Hannity Began His Path to Punditry on Santa Barbara Community Radio Washingtonian: Here Are the Floor Plans for Jeff Bezos’s $23 Million DC Home Podcast production by Max Jacobs. If Then plugs: You can get updates about what’s coming up next by following us on Twitter @ifthenpod. You can follow Will @WillOremus and April @Aprilaser. If you have a question or comment, you can email us at ifthen@slate.com. If Then is presented by Slate and Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week’s If Then, Slate’s April Glaser and Will Oremus talk about a somewhat surprising speech from the antitrust chief of Trump’s DOJ. They bring you up to date on a big new data privacy bill in Congress, and Mike Nuñez, a journalist for Mashable, joins the show to discuss how his reporting on alleged liberal bias at Facebook has sparked a somewhat bizarre Congressional inquiry. The hosts are also joined by Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law at the University of Miami Law School, where she teaches criminal law, First Amendment law, and Technology policy. They speak about the massively important Communications Decency Act, which was just amended to allow victims of sex trafficking to sue websites that knowingly facilitate it. And as always, “Don’t Close My Tabs,” the Sean Hannity/Jeff Bezos edition. Timestamps: 1:40 DOJ Antitrust Speech 6:15 New data privacy bill 11:13 Diamond and Silk on Capitol Hill: phone call with Mashable’s Michael Nuñez 20:55 Zillow clarification regarding last week’s show 22:14 Interview: Professor Mary Anne Franks on amending the CDA to fight sex trafficking 44: 08 Don’t Close My Tabs Don’t Close My Tabs Links: KQED: How Sean Hannity Began His Path to Punditry on Santa Barbara Community Radio Washingtonian: Here Are the Floor Plans for Jeff Bezos’s $23 Million DC Home Podcast production by Max Jacobs. If Then plugs: You can get updates about what’s coming up next by following us on Twitter @ifthenpod. You can follow Will @WillOremus and April @Aprilaser. If you have a question or comment, you can email us at ifthen@slate.com. If Then is presented by Slate and Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever have a dispute that you wanted to settle but didn’t think you had the money or resources to hash out in Court? Or maybe you thought that filling out a stack of complicated documents just wasn’t worth the hassle or time? Did you know that there is another way to settle a dispute outside of a courtroom – one that can be resolved quicker and costs less money? In this episode of Open Ninth, Chief Judge Fred Lauten sits down with Lawrence Kolin, a mediator at Upchurch, Watson, White, & Max, to discuss the purpose and advantages of mediations. With a law degree from the University of Miami Law School and over a decade’s experience in mediation, Kolin became a full-time mediator with the Orange County Bar Association in 2010. Kolin defines a mediator as being a neutral third party who facilitates a meeting between two conflicting parties in efforts to help both sides find a resolution. A mediator, as explained by Kolin, is different from a judge or lawyer in that the mediator does not litigate, take sides, or make a ruling in the case. Kolin states that mediations are voluntary, confidential, and are risk-free – if a resolution is not achieved, the parties can continue litigating their case in Court. After last year’s impact from Hurricane Irma, the Orange County Bar Association provided mediation services to all Orange County residents completely free of charge. If you’d like help resolving a dispute that you may be having with either a neighbor or landlord, or a consumer complaint, property damage or settlement issue, please visit www.orangecountybar.org for more information. Let us know what you think about the podcast.

Entrepreneurial Attorney / Life Coach, Laina Caltagirone, joins Law and Caleb to talk about how to become entrepreneurial without becoming typecast. This episode is sponsored by Urban Resto, a customized, rustic furniture and fixture woodwork.  Tags: Tulane, Miami Law School, Marie Forleo, Life Coaching, Solopreneur, Hope Solo, Unroll.me, Mary Ann Williamson, The Alchemist

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Mary Anne Franks back for the December 16, 2014 episode. Mary Anne Franks, an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law and Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) talks about the Anthony Elonis case that is coming up before the supreme court. Mr. Elonis of Pennsylvania was convicted of making threatening statements on Facebook about his estranged wife, law enforcement officials and a Kindergarten. He claims that these were not real threats, but instead therapy to help him deal with his broken marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court is now determining what is protected by free speech versus what constitutes a true threat that is not protected by free speech. Professor Franks walks us through the details of this interesting case. Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Family Law. Professor Franks is also the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative which is a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform. This work has allowed her to work with legislators to draft laws against "revenge porn". Before working at the University of Miami Law School, Professor Franks was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. (D. Phil and M. Phil, U. S. equivalent of doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy. Professor Franks earned her degrees in Modern Languages and Literature).          

The Social Network Show welcomes Mary Anne Franks to the July 30, 2014 episode. Mary Anne Franks, an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law and Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) gives us an update on the legal aspects of Revenge Porn, sometimes and more correctly called non-consensual pornography. Hear Mary Anne answer the following questions: Who posts  images or personal information online about another person without their consent and is it always for revenge? Is there ever a connection to human trafficking? How is it that people are in a situation to have these photos taken and is it with or without their consent? What can young girls do to protect themselves from this type of situation? What are the states in the U.S. doing about this in the legal sense? Which States is the CCRI working with? Check out these website mentioned in this episode: Social Science Research Network and the National Conference of State Legislatures Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Family Law. Professor Franks is also the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative which is a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform. This work has allowed her to work with legislators to draft laws against "revenge porn". Before working at the University of Miami Law School, Professor Franks was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. (D. Phil and M. Phil, U. S. equivalent of doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy. Professor Franks earned her degrees in Modern Languages and Literature).        

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Mary Anne Franks back for Part 2 of The Mary Anne Franks Series on cyber civil rights, March 17, 2014. Todays topic with Professor Franks, a law professor and expert on cyber civil rights, is "free speech" on social networks. Professor Franks compares the popular conception of free speech and the confusion about what the 1st Amendment really says. Listen to the show to learn more about the following: Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act which gives immunity for online service providers and users from actions against them based on content of 3rd parties; Social Networks policies on content and what are they allowed to do; The legal case of the gossip website, "The Dirty", and the reason the owner was found responsible for content; Thoughts on how we can civilize the internet; The best way to communicate with social networks regarding their policies on content and the watchdog groups you can connect with. Professor Franks shares these links to the watchdog groups: http://www.endmisogyny.org/ Twitter misogyny_online http://www.everydaysexism.com/  Twitter @EverydaySexism http://www.seejane.org/  Geena Davis's organization Here's the open letter re: Facebook's anti-woman pages, including many links to great organizations: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/an-open-letter-to-faceboo_1_b_3307394.html On gender and race: http://www.mediawatch.com/ Race: http://racismwatch.newsvine.com/ Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Family Law. Professor Franks is also the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative which is a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform. This work has allowed her to work with legislators to draft laws against "revenge porn". Before working at the University of Miami Law School, Professor Franks was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. (D. Phil and M. Phil, U. S. equivalent of doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy. Professor Franks earned her degrees in Modern Languages and Literature). You can connect with Professor Franks on the CCRI website or on Twitter.        

A talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. This week, David interviews Prof. A. Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami Law School on Internet kill switch legislation. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.

Markus Wagner, Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami Law School, gives a talk for the 2011 Hilary term ELAC/CCW seminar series.