Podcasts about model rules

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today we're discussing ABA's Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3, which governs truth telling to the tribunal (a court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or any other body acting in an adjudicative capacity). We break down all of the rule's nuances and parts, and analyze a few hypothetical scenarios. In this episode we discuss: An overview of ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct The elements of Rule 3.3 "Candor Toward the Tribunal" A few hypothetical scenarios that show how this topic appears on an exam Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2024 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February2024CBXessayQsandAnswer.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2018 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/Feb2018_CBXSelectedAnswers_EssayQuestions.pdf) Talmage v. Smith (https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/intentional-interference-with-person-or-property/talmage-v-smith/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-547-listen-and-learn-duties-to-the-tribunal-professional-responsibility/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're discussing ABA's Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3, which governs truth telling to the tribunal (a court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or any other body acting in an adjudicative capacity). We break down all of the rule's nuances and parts, and analyze a few hypothetical scenarios.   In this episode, we discuss: An overview of ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct The elements of Rule 3.3 "Candor Toward the Tribunal" A few hypothetical scenarios that show how this issue appears on the bar exam Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2024 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February2024CBXessayQsandAnswer.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2018 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/Feb2018_CBXSelectedAnswers_EssayQuestions.pdf) Talmage v. Smith (https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/intentional-interference-with-person-or-property/talmage-v-smith/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-343-listen-and-learn-duties-to-the-tribunal-professional-responsibility/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Cultural competence in estate planning and how the ABA Model Rules guide ethical, inclusive client representation. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, ACTEC, is a professional society of peer-elected trust and estate lawyers in the United States and around the globe. This series offers professionals best practice advice, insights, and commentary on subjects that affect the profession and clients. Learn more in this podcast.

Bikinis After Babies is excited to share our NEW segment: Bikini MomTalk!  In this quarterly roundtable discussion, we will bring you our insight on hot topics and relevant industry news in the bikini and fit model world with our friends Meaghan Taylor, IFBB Fit Model Pro, and Julie Taylor-Deluca, IFBB Bikini Pro! On this episode of Bikini Mom Talk, we are discussing our insights on the recent NPC Nationals, the excitement surrounding the Arnold International and the list of IFBB Bikini Pros competing at the Bikini International, and the release of the official rules and 2026 show schedule for IFBB Fit Model.  As women who live the sport every day, we share real perspective on the sport we live everyday with personal experiences and highlights, as well as bold predictions on upcoming show placings.Unfiltered opinions. Insider insight. Zero fluff.If you love the sport, this one's a must-listen! ☕

The Model Rules are designed to make drafting rules easier for registered organisations. They include plain-language guidance, annotations, and practical examples to help organisations modernise their rule books and strengthen governance. 

This Day in Legal History: ABA FormedOn August 21, 1878, 75 lawyers convened in Saratoga Springs, New York, and formally established the American Bar Association (ABA). Their shared aim was to advance the “science of jurisprudence,” promote uniform legislation, strengthen justice administration, uphold the profession's honor, and encourage collegial interaction among lawyers. Their organizing document—the original constitution—still shapes the ABA's mission today.Over time, the ABA became the premier professional association for attorneys in the U.S., influencing national legal education, ethics, and law reform. It introduced the first national ethics code in 1908 (the Canons of Professional Ethics), which eventually evolved into today's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.While the ABA once counted about 400,000 dues-paying members, by the low‑point of 2019, it had lost approximately 56,000 members—a symptom of shifting professional norms and changing perceptions of organizational value. Membership has continued to decline, with figures dropping as low as 227,000 by 2024. In response, the ABA has implemented membership reforms and reduced dues tiers to attract and re-engage lawyers, especially those early in their careers.The American Bar Association's recent actions reflect a mixed record in the face of escalating political pressure—particularly from the Trump administration and its allies. On one hand, the ABA has forcefully resisted efforts to erode legal independence: in 2025, it filed a federal lawsuit accusing the administration of intimidating law firms engaged in politically sensitive representation, and it criticized the DOJ's move to exclude the ABA from vetting judicial nominees as a blow to transparency and professionalism. It also defended its longstanding role in law school accreditation amid efforts to strip that authority.On the other hand, the ABA's decision in August 2025 to eliminate five Board of Governors seats historically reserved for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities marks a notable concession under pressure. The newly adopted policy opens these seats to anyone with a demonstrated commitment to diversity, regardless of their own demographic identity. While proponents framed the shift as a legal safeguard against lawsuits, critics viewed it as a capitulation—especially given the broader political context, including targeted attacks on ABA diversity programs and threats to its accreditation authority. The organization has also paused enforcement of its law school diversity standards until at least 2026.The Justice Department under the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its investigation into gender-affirming care, targeting the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with a sweeping subpoena demanding detailed records—including names and Social Security numbers—of patients who received such treatments. This move is part of a broader campaign to prosecute medical providers offering care to transgender youth, following a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to aggressively pursue these cases.The hospital pushed back against the subpoena, calling it an invasive overreach into a vulnerable population's privacy. In response, DOJ took the unusual step of asking the court to unseal the litigation, a departure from standard practice in sensitive investigations where proceedings are typically kept sealed to protect investigatory integrity. The judge sided with the DOJ, opening the docket earlier this month.The subpoena was signed by Brett Shumate, the newly confirmed head of DOJ's civil division, bypassing career officials who had refused to sign similar subpoenas due to ethical and legal concerns. Internal dissent had already emerged, with former officials warning that collecting such data lacked a strong legal basis, especially since off-label prescriptions like puberty blockers are not illegal under federal law.Critics say the investigation appears more performative than prosecutorial, designed to chill gender-affirming care through public pressure rather than build viable legal cases. The Trump administration has also directed other agencies, including HHS and the FTC, to scrutinize these practices, while states like Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's actions. The outcome of the Philadelphia case, now in front of a federal judge, could shape how far the administration can go in turning gender-related health care into a legal battleground.Justice Department Expands Gender Care Probe as Hospital FightsA recent ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked growing concern among corporate legal teams that the boundaries of attorney-client privilege—especially for in-house counsel—are being narrowed in ways that could harm innovation and compliance. The district court found Apple had improperly claimed privilege over documents that mixed legal advice with business guidance, drawing a sharp rebuke that “adding a lawyer's name to a document does not create a privilege.”That finding is now being appealed, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) warning that upholding the decision could upend how legal departments operate—particularly in fast-moving sectors like AI and cybersecurity, where legal and business decisions are tightly intertwined. In-house counsel argue they need the flexibility to weigh legal risks within the real-world context of product development, market pressures, and regulatory uncertainty.At issue is the standard used to define privilege. The Ninth Circuit has previously backed the “primary purpose” test, which protects dual-purpose communications if a significant purpose was legal. But the district court's approach appeared more rigid, raising fears that companies will be discouraged from seeking or documenting legal guidance unless they rely on expensive outside counsel.Legal leaders say this shift would disproportionately impact smaller firms and startups already stretched thin. They also point to a broader ambiguity across federal circuits regarding dual-purpose communications, and argue that only a Supreme Court ruling can definitively resolve the inconsistencies.Oral arguments in the appeal are set for October 21.Apple Ruling Raises Business Fear of Legal Privileges ErodingA federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending deportation protections and work permits for over 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unsigned order permitting the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these groups while legal challenges continue. No legal reasoning was provided in the brief order.The decision lifts an earlier block by a federal district judge, who had ruled that the move was likely driven by racial animus, violating constitutional protections. The new ruling immediately ends protections for Nepali nationals, with protections for Honduran and Nicaraguan immigrants set to expire by September 8.The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling as a step toward restoring the immigration system's integrity, arguing TPS has been misused as a backdoor form of asylum. Immigrant advocates, meanwhile, condemned the lack of explanation from the court and warned of serious humanitarian consequences for those now facing deportation to unstable regions.The case remains ongoing, but for now, thousands of individuals who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years are left in legal limbo.Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says | ReutersElon Musk must face a lawsuit alleging he and his political action committee, America PAC, ran an illegal election-year lottery disguised as a $1 million-a-day giveaway. A federal judge in Texas ruled that plaintiff Jacqueline McAferty plausibly claimed Musk misled voters—particularly in battleground states—into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering what appeared to be a random chance at a $1 million prize.McAferty alleges that, in exchange for signing, voters were required to provide personal data—names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails—which she claims was exploited for political targeting. Musk argued that the program was not a lottery because recipients were chosen to “earn” the funds and serve as America PAC spokespeople. But the judge pointed to conflicting language used in promotional materials suggesting the money could be “won,” making it reasonable for voters to think it was a sweepstakes-style contest.Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, also rejected Musk's argument that voters suffered no harm, noting that expert testimony could establish the market value of political data collected during the promotion.The lawsuit, filed on Election Day 2024, underscores growing concerns over the use of high-dollar giveaways in political campaigning and how voter data is gathered and deployed in swing states. Musk and his PAC have not yet commented on the ruling.Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week: the new One Big Beautiful Bill Act revives full expensing for U.S.-based research and development, a policy designed to encourage domestic innovation and hiring. At first glance, it seems like a major win for the tech sector and high-skilled job creation. But the labor market response reveals a deeper issue: you can't stimulate demand for talent without also addressing supply. With immigration pathways constrained and no meaningful expansion of domestic training infrastructure, the policy has triggered a spike in labor costs rather than a boom in innovation.In the absence of new talent pipelines, startups and tech firms are now paying steep premiums to hire U.S.-based engineers, effectively converting the R&D tax break into a subsidy for a tight labor market. Meanwhile, immigration policy remains restrictive, and education-focused workforce solutions aren't being scaled fast enough to meet the moment. The result is a bottleneck: jobs going unfilled, innovation slowing, and companies forced to reconsider hiring or delay projects altogether.The piece argues that while R&D expensing is smart fiscal policy, it only works as part of a broader strategy that includes visa reform, immigration support for high-skilled workers, and real investments in talent development. Without those pieces in place, we're left with a politically appealing tax tweak that, in practice, fails to deliver the innovation surge it promises.Turns Out Research Tax Breaks Alone Can't Conjure Developers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to AI Lawyer Talking Tech. The legal landscape is undergoing a fundamental transformation as artificial intelligence tools reshape how law is practiced. Today, we unpack this technological shift, discussing everything from the ethical responsibilities attorneys assume when using AI to the critical importance of verifying AI-generated information in legal filings. We'll explore the diverse AI applications available to legal professionals, the opportunities for increased efficiency and even access to justice, and the ongoing discussions about AI's role and regulation in the legal world. Join us as we examine how legal experts are engaging with this powerful technology, ensuring that human judgment remains central to the practice of law.US lawyer sanctioned after caught using ChatGPT for court brief31 May 2025AOL UKAchieving Data Privacy Regulation Compliance in 2025 Frameworks31 May 2025CyberSecurityNews.comAI Is Destroying Gen Z's Chances at Stable Middle-Class Jobs in These 5 Career Paths31 May 2025New Trader ULaw Without Walls and the power of collaborative innovation31 May 2025IManage.comGoogle fights DOJ in monopoly case that could break apart internet giant31 May 2025WFAA.comWhy do lawyers keep using ChatGPT?30 May 2025The VergeNew Class Certification Decision in App-Tracking Case Provides Critical Guidance for Businesses Facing Privacy Claims30 May 2025JD SupraMilvus Hits 35,000 GitHub Stars as AI Developers Embrace Open-Source Vector Database30 May 2025BigDataWireLawNext: AALL President Cornell Winston on Why Law Librarians Should ‘Be Bold'30 May 2025LawSitesTen Tools Legal Professionals Can Use Now (and Use Ethically)30 May 2025WorkersCompensation.comThe 1908 Problem: Unshackling Access to Justice Through Legal Ethics Reform30 May 2025Articles, Tips and Tech for Law Firms and LawyersThe legal profession falls behind on AI while other industries move ahead30 May 2025The Daily Record of RochesterStartup Corner: Crimson, the AI platform built to manage complex disputes30 May 2025Legal Technology InsiderWhat's behind the surge in AI-related lawsuits?30 May 2025AOL UKComment: How AI can reduce risk in regulated industries30 May 2025Engineer OnlineThe Fall of 23andMe30 May 2025Washington Journal of Law, Technology & ArtsExploring the Future of Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Technology: Challenges…30 May 2025Legaltech on MediumFFO: Law Insider, A Parrot, Definely + Legal Innovators California30 May 2025Artificial LawyerGenAI Prompting for Smart Legal Professionals: It's as easy as asking questions!30 May 2025Legaltech on MediumGIR Live: Women in Investigations 202530 May 2025CooleyThe Regulatory Roundup Panel—What You Need to Know30 May 2025Blank RomeCPPA's Precision Strike: Tackling the Fine Print of CCPA Regulations30 May 2025CooleyNew Class Certification Decision in App-Tracking Case Provides Critical Guidance for Businesses Facing Privacy Claims30 May 2025Fisher & Phillips LLPAlberta court finds sections of privacy law unconstitutional30 May 2025Norton Rose Fulbright8 Features to Look for in Legal Document Management Software29 May 2025TechSling WeblogAI Transforming Courtrooms with Lifelike Virtual Reporters Enhanced29 May 2025QUE.comGenerative AI in Professionals Services Report on workflows29 May 2025Legal.ThomsonReuters.comArizona Supreme Court turns to AI-generated 'reporters' to deliver news29 May 2025Yahoo! NewsWhen it Comes to AI, Lawyers have Model Rules to Guide Ethical Decisions29 May 2025WorkersCompensation.comHow Docusign Takes Legal Teams From Bottleneck to Business Backbone How Docusign can help struggling legal teams balance business growth and risk management amidst evolving regulations and technological advancements.29 May 2025DocuSign.comTake Control of Your CLE With Smarter Learning: Justia Webinars29 May 2025Legal Marketing & Technology Blog

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

An interview with Prof. Carrie Menkel-MeadowIn this episode, Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow of UC Irvine Law School delves into the ethical frontiers of legal negotiation, challenging attorneys to reflect on which tactics align with both zealous advocacy and professional integrity. Menkel-Meadow navigates the evolution from a model of unbridled assertiveness toward a modern framework that prizes diligence, honesty, and respect for the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.Throughout the conversation, she distinguishes between permissible strategic behavior—such as puffing, bluffing, and even certain aggressive maneuvers—and practices that cross the line into outright deception. By exploring the nuances of material misrepresentation versus acceptable exaggeration, Menkel-Meadow highlights the ethical dilemmas inherent in negotiation, including the fine balance between strategic omissions and the risk of fraud. She also emphasizes the long-term benefits of cultivating a reputation for fairness and transparency, arguing that such an approach not only upholds professional credibility but also better serves clients over time.(Credits: 1.25hrs Civility | MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

The wish to leave the world a better place has long inspired people to attend law school and make a difference in the important ways only trial lawyers can. According to NITA Trustee Angela Vigil and Program Director Henry Su, pro bono publico provides an opportunity both to help those in need of legal counsel and to develop one's oral advocacy skills. In this episode recognizing both this week's National Celebration of Pro Bono and the fifth anniversary of May the Record Reflect, Angela and Henry discuss a lawyer's professional responsibilities, the advocacy skillset that pro bono work develops, and how to find pro bono opportunities. They also reveal their favorite tips, common mistakes they see in depositions and trials, and qualities embodied by courtroom superstars. “I think law school lights a fire in smart and curious people for sure, so when you come out of law school, you have an idea of what kind of ways you want to apply these great new skills. That is definitely true in most recent generations and you just get rejuvenated when you talk with them and learn what they want to accomplish. I also think that, more and more, lawyers are listening and understanding that wellness and bringing your whole self to being part of your community is really important. You can't just be a lawyer who locks yourself in a room and bills a bunch of hours for decades. It's not healthy, it doesn't last, it's not good for you, it doesn't encourage diversity and community. So, I think we all—and certainly younger-generation lawyers—are recognizing that you've got to bring your humanity to being part of your practice as well.” Angela VigilTopics6:25    Model Rule of Professional Conduct 6.18:40    Pro Bono's impact on access to justice13:00  Learning trial skills through pro bono service16:44  Range of pro bono advocacy work27:35  Inspiration for doing work that is “advisory”33:45  Generational desire to make a difference35:37  Wellness and performance38:16  Obligation to provide competent representation42:25  Making time for pro bono46:15  Witnessing skills growth through pro bono53:00  Common mistakes in depositions and at trial56:54  Superstar lawyer qualities58:51  Favorite insider's tips1:00:46  Signoff questionsAngela Vigil (bio)Henry Su (bio)ABA Model Rule 6.1 (link)National Pro Bono Opportunities Guide (state search engine)ABA Free Legal Answers volunteer (registration)May the Record Reflect (Episodes 1, 2, 3, 4)The Resilient Lawyer (podcast episode)  

This Day in Legal History: American Bar Association FoundedOn August 21, 1878, the American Bar Association (ABA) was founded in Saratoga Springs, New York, by a group of 75 lawyers committed to advancing the legal profession in the United States. The ABA quickly became the nation's premier organization for attorneys, setting standards for legal education, ethics, and professional conduct. It played a crucial role in shaping American jurisprudence, advocating for legal reforms, and providing resources for continuing legal education. Over the decades, the ABA influenced significant legal developments, including the establishment of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which guide attorney ethics nationwide.However, from 2009 to 2019, the ABA saw a substantial decline in membership, reflecting broader challenges within the legal profession, such as the rising cost of legal education, the changing dynamics of legal practice, and competition from other professional organizations. Despite these challenges, the ABA remains a key player in the legal field, continuing to influence policy and uphold the standards of the profession. Its founding marks a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, representing the formalization of efforts to unify and elevate the practice of law across the country.George Santos, a former U.S. congressman representing Queens and Long Island, has pleaded guilty to fraud and identity theft charges, agreeing to serve a minimum of two years in prison. U.S. Attorney Breon Peace highlighted that Santos' acceptance of mandatory prison time was a critical factor in finalizing the recent plea agreement. Originally charged with fabricating fundraising figures and falsifying extensive parts of his biography during his congressional campaign, Santos was expelled from Congress in 2023. The 36-year-old now faces a potential maximum sentence of 22 years, with sentencing set for February 7 by Judge Joanna Seybert. Despite pleading guilty to only two counts, Santos admitted wrongdoing in all 23 original charges, which may influence the severity of his sentence. Peace emphasized the significance of holding corrupt public officials accountable to maintain public trust in governmental institutions.Recent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of what constitutes bribery under federal law, impacting how prosecutors approach corruption cases. In June, the Court decided that accepting gratuities after performing an official act does not violate federal bribery statutes for state and local officials. Another ruling limited the application of honest services fraud charges to non-government individuals, further restricting prosecutorial avenues. These decisions present challenges for federal prosecutors, who must now navigate a more constrained legal framework when pursuing corruption charges. Despite these obstacles, prosecutors like Peace remain committed to holding public officials accountable by adapting their strategies within the revised legal boundaries. Understanding these Supreme Court decisions is crucial for comprehending the current landscape of political corruption prosecutions and the efforts required to secure convictions.Mandatory prison was key to George Santos deal, US prosecutor says | ReutersAnthropic PBC is facing a copyright lawsuit from authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who allege that the company used pirated versions of their works to train its AI model, "Claude." The authors claim that Anthropic used an open-source dataset called The Pile, which included a subset known as "Books3" containing nearly 200,000 pirated books, including their own. Although Books3 was removed from The Pile in August 2023, older versions with the pirated content remain available. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Anthropic of training its AI on this illegally obtained content instead of properly licensing it, likening the situation to a "modern-day Napster."The authors argue that Anthropic's actions harm their ability to earn a living by enabling users to generate text that would otherwise be paid for, thereby undermining the licensing market for copyrighted material. They pointed out that other AI companies, such as OpenAI, Google, and Meta, have struck licensing deals with content owners, highlighting a growing market for legally licensed training data. In a related issue, Anthropic is also being sued by eight music publishers for allegedly using its AI to reproduce song lyrics scraped from the internet. The authors' complaint criticizes Anthropic for claiming to be a public benefit company while allegedly causing significant harm to copyright owners.Anthropic Hit With Copyright Suit From Authors Over Flagship AIA bill passed by the U.S. Senate to add 66 new judges to federal district courts is projected to increase government spending by $349 million over the next decade, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The bill, known as the JUDGES Act, represents the first significant expansion of the judiciary since 1990 and aims to alleviate the increasing caseloads and staffing shortages in several states, including California, Texas, and Delaware. The bill plans to gradually create these judicial positions, including 63 permanent and three temporary ones, starting in January 2025.The CBO estimates that $98 million of the total cost will cover the salaries and benefits of the new judges, which are constitutionally protected and not subject to congressional appropriation. The remaining $250 million will cover administrative costs, including court staff, facilities, security, and technology. Additionally, the bill mandates that the Government Accountability Office report on judges' caseloads and federal detention space needs, which would cost $1 million over the same period.Despite the projected costs, supporters of the bill, including lead sponsor Senator Todd Young, argue that the cost of inaction would be higher, as delays in the judicial system could deny citizens timely access to justice. The bill now awaits consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives.Bill to add 66 US judges would cost $349 mln over a decade, CBO says | ReutersA federal judge in Dallas has blocked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from enforcing its near-total ban on noncompete agreements, which was set to take effect in September. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown ruled that the FTC lacked the authority to implement the ban, describing it as "unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation." This ruling, favoring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a Texas tax firm that challenged the ban, is a significant setback for the FTC. The decision contrasts with a prior ruling by a Pennsylvania judge who supported the FTC's authority.The FTC argued that noncompete agreements harm workers by restricting economic freedom, depressing wages, and limiting innovation, while employers claim they protect investments in employees. Currently, about 20% of U.S. workers are subject to these agreements. Although the FTC planned to use its authority to ban noncompetes as part of its mission to prevent unfair competition, Judge Brown's ruling could lead to an appeal, potentially to the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is one of three ongoing lawsuits against the FTC's rule, with other cases pending in Florida and Pennsylvania.FTC Ban on Worker Noncompete Deals Blocked by Federal Judge (2)US judge strikes down Biden administration ban on worker 'noncompete' agreements | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Andrews have faces made for audio-only podcasts. We are not models. The ABA, though, loves their models; namely the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Today we discuss a new opinion just handed down regarding case or fact pattern discussion and disclosure on listservs. You can find Formal Opinion 511 here.

Ethical considerations form the backbone of the legal profession, guiding attorneys in their conduct and decision-making throughout the civil litigation process. The ethical landscape attorneys navigate is complex, marked by both longstanding principles and evolving standards that respond to contemporary legal challenges. This discourse delves into the ethical obligations of attorneys, common ethical dilemmas faced during civil litigation, and recent developments and emerging trends in civil procedure law that impact ethical practice. Professional Responsibility in Civil Litigation The ethical obligations of attorneys in civil litigation are grounded in a set of core principles: competence, confidentiality, loyalty, and the duty to the court. These principles are encapsulated in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA), which serve as the benchmark for legal ethics in the United States, albeit with variations across jurisdictions. Competence (Rule 1.1 of MRPC): Attorneys are required to provide competent representation to their clients, which means having the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. This obligation emphasizes the need for continuous education and staying abreast of the latest legal developments and procedural rules. Confidentiality (Rule 1.6 of MRPC): Lawyers must protect the confidentiality of information relating to the representation of a client. This duty persists beyond the termination of the attorney-client relationship and extends to all information acquired during the course of the representation, regardless of the source or whether the client has requested confidentiality. Loyalty and Conflict of Interest (Rules 1.7-1.9 of MRPC): Attorneys owe a duty of loyalty to their clients, which necessitates avoiding conflicts of interest. This includes not representing clients with opposing interests without informed consent and not representing a new client in a matter that is materially adverse to a former client. Duty to the Court: Beyond their obligations to clients, attorneys have a duty to the court to conduct litigation with integrity, respect, and in a manner that upholds the dignity of the judicial process. This includes avoiding frivolous claims, ensuring that evidence is not falsified, and respecting the bounds of the law in advocacy. Ethical Dilemmas in Civil Litigation Civil litigation often presents attorneys with ethical dilemmas that test their commitment to these principles. Common ethical challenges include: Client Pressure to Pursue Questionable Claims: Attorneys may face pressure from clients to pursue claims or defenses that have little to no legal merit. The ethical attorney must balance the duty to advocate zealously for the client with the obligation not to file frivolous claims or make unwarranted arguments. Discovery Abuses: The discovery process can be a battleground for ethical misconduct, including withholding relevant documents, delaying responses, or submitting overly broad discovery requests as a tactic to burden the opposing party. Ethical attorneys must navigate these challenges by adhering to the rules of discovery and advocating for fair, efficient resolution of disputes. Conflicts of Interest: Situations may arise where an attorney's ability to represent a client is materially limited by a personal interest or a duty to another client, former client, or third party. Navigating such conflicts requires careful analysis, transparency, and, in many cases, the informed consent of the affected parties. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Modernization is pushing us toward change, and one area of contention has been Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 and related Unauthorized Practice of Law issues, particularly as they relate to multi-jurisdictional legal practice. Emma Raimi-Zlatic talks with Charity Anastasio and Micah Buchdahl about their session dedicated to the changing landscape of rule 5.5 and how things are shifting as the legal profession sees a greater need for multi-jurisdictional, national, and even global legal practice.  Charity Anastasio is a Practice and Ethics Counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Practice and Professionalism Center in Washington D.C.  Micah U. Buchdahl is an attorney and President of HTMLawyers, a law marketing company based in Moorestown, New Jersey.

Modernization is pushing us toward change, and one area of contention has been Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 and related Unauthorized Practice of Law issues, particularly as they relate to multi-jurisdictional legal practice. Emma Raimi-Zlatic talks with Charity Anastasio and Micah Buchdahl about their session dedicated to the changing landscape of rule 5.5 and how things are shifting as the legal profession sees a greater need for multi-jurisdictional, national, and even global legal practice.  Charity Anastasio is a Practice and Ethics Counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Practice and Professionalism Center in Washington D.C.  Micah U. Buchdahl is an attorney and President of HTMLawyers, a law marketing company based in Moorestown, New Jersey.

Welcome to 'AI Lawyer Talking Tech', where we delve into the intersection of artificial intelligence and the legal industry. Today, we explore the ongoing AI revolution in law, covering a myriad of innovations, challenges, and ethical considerations. From AI-powered compliance engines in automotive dealerships to the impact of generative AI in legal research and case filings, we'll discuss the latest developments shaping the legal landscape. Join us as we unravel the increasing significance of AI in the legal profession and analyze its potential implications for the future. Top Five Myths About Outsourcing Marketing Technology and Data Quality Support22 Feb 2024National Law ReviewThe essential guide to case management systems in legal practices22 Feb 2024Legal FuturesAllegations Against Workday's AI Hiring Tools22 Feb 2024JDJournalComplyAuto Unveils Revolutionary AI-Powered Compliance Engine for Automotive Dealerships22 Feb 2024Morningstar.comNot Again! Two More Cases, Just this Week, of Hallucinated Citations in Court Filings Leading to Sanctions22 Feb 2024LawSitesLegalWeek 2024 Special Part Four: Joshua Lenon from Clio22 Feb 20243 Geeks and a Law BlogSquare Mile and Me: Robin AI CEO Richard Robinson on making it in the startup world22 Feb 2024Yahoo! Finance UK and IrelandRipple and Coinbase Legal Drama Intensifies with Departure of SEC's Lead Lawyer22 Feb 2024CryptoNews.netWolohojian appears poised to ride wave of support to SJC21 Feb 2024NECN.com5 Industries That Will Undergo the Most AI-Fueled Change Over the Next Decade21 Feb 2024International Business Times UKNotable lawsuits and legal cases involving Generative Artificial Intelligence22 Feb 2024TekediaCity giant uses generative AI to develop lease reporting tool22 Feb 2024Legal FuturesSupporting Your Legal Department with the Four Pillars21 Feb 2024AxiomLaw.comABA Requests Public Comment on Possible Regulatory Implications of Exploring Possible Amendments to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 to Increase Permissible Cross-Border Practice21 Feb 20242CivilityAnti-ESG legislation seen facing uphill struggle to become law22 Feb 2024Thomson Reuters InstituteNew York Department of Financial Services Issues Proposed Circular Letter on Use of AI in Insurance Industry22 Feb 2024Bond Schoeneck & KingUSPTO Releases Guidance on AI and Inventorship22 Feb 2024Latham & WatkinsFCC CPNI Certification and Privacy Rules Update22 Feb 2024Nelson MullinsGovernment Affairs and Lobbying Section: Executive Order on New Standards for AI Safety and Security21 Feb 2024Gray Robinson.com

It's Season 4, Episode 1 of the FanGirlHour!  And, in this episode, could be called the FanGirlHour...& a little bit more, I interview my good friend, Ray Nomoto Robison who shares his life long  love & journey with film-making.  Ray shares how he fell into film-making and the reasons why, what influenced him including family, upbringing, favorite films, and just why he loves the art & creation of filmmaking that keeps bringing him back again and again! Ray Nomoto RobisonFilmmakerA Fine Arts major in college Robison decided half way through his freshman year that film should be his medium. After receiving his film degree he opted not to move to LA or any other metropolitan area preferring a more rural lifestyle. In Montana and Oregon Robison made a 20 year career of producing and directing local television commercials then began teaching at Southern Oregon University where his students reignited his passion for filmmaking. He began production on his first feature film in 2001. The ultra-low budget feature was sold to a small east coast US distributor allowing Robison to recoup some of his investment. He then began writing his second feature film and in 2007 he saw his first film festival screening (Dances with Films) with his film noir piece Sixes and the One Eyed King. The experience increased the momentum in his passion for filmmaking and he began work on the short film Model Rules which would be the first short film he had made since college. Numerous features and shorts followed and today Robison as a film director has over 100 film festival selections under his belt and continues independent filmmaking primarily in Oregon where he makes his home. He is currently in pre-production on a horror film And Evil Makes 8 which will be the first feature he will have directed in over 10 years. Kickstarter link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/raynomoto/the-eve-of-may-0?ref=project_link&fbclid=IwAR3YD-C57fJArGbXMvm-gl-wz052QIr_gPOS53Kohh8uLdFVs1kqxk4gwOw The Eve of May Enter The Trunk https://youtu.be/4WPFzsq9Wdc AN AFFAIR REMAINS https://vimeo.com/272112071 Four Daughters https://youtu.be/vAWocL3YkVs DEAR FUTURE SELF https://vimeo.com/155446175 The Trunk Enter https://tubitv.com/movies/694485/vampire-camp Vampire Camp (2012) Enter Ray https://watch.plex.tv/movie/sixes-and-the-one-eyed-king Sixes and the One Eyed King (2006) Enter Ray https://watch.plex.tv/movie/die-before-i-wake Die Before I Wake (2007) Enter Ray https://tubitv.com/movies/464223/besetment?tracking=justwatch-feed&utm_source=justwatch-feed Besetment (2017) Enter Ray https://tubitv.com/movies/100002942/the-reading-of-hammer-ridge?tracking=justwatch-feed&utm_source=justwatch-feed The Reading of Hammer Ridge (2014) RayRay

In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the following areas of legal ethics and professional responsibility:Using artificial intelligence for preparation of legal documents: some ethical implications and the development of guidelines and best practices.Insights into when unprofessional conduct becomes unethical conduct and how supervisory attorneys (and others) can help younger lawyers avoid some common ethical pitfalls. Ethical and other issues facing compliance lawyers under Arizona's Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law and some takeaways from Arizona's experience three years into this experiment.Brief overview of the ABA's amendment to Model Rule 1.16.Featuring:Hon. Margaret H. Downie, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme CourtAndrew F. Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurigHon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

A law professor explores the legal ethics of representing clients with diminishing capacity and reviews the ins and outs of the ABA's Model Rule 1.14 and ACTEC's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on the topic. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, ACTEC, is a professional society of peer-elected trust and estate lawyers in the United States and around the globe. This series offers professionals best practice advice, insights and commentary on subjects that affect the profession and clients. Learn more in this podcast.

Scott Greytak of Transparency International U.S. joins the podcast to talk about the many loopholes that permit U.S. lawyers to work for criminal actors as they exploit the U.S. financial system. He brings us up-to-date on the ABA's recent change to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct and when we'll see the ENABLERS Act revisited.

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.

Create a free profile on Alex's baseball-specific recruiting platform called Premier Athletes. Learn more about Alex's Premier Athletes Recruiting Program here. I wanted to share some crucial news about the changes in the NCAA Division I college baseball recruiting rules. These new rules will significantly impact the recruiting process for high school underclassmen. I encourage you to check out my latest YouTube video or podcast episode for a more in-depth look at these rule changes and their impact on the recruiting landscape. You'll find expert insights, analysis, and advice to help you navigate the new rules. In a nutshell, the changes will prevent communication between college coaches and high school underclassmen, including scholarship or roster offers, until August 1st going into their junior year. So the summer after their sophomore year.  This shift in the recruiting timeline is intended to give student-athletes and their families more time to research, make informed decisions, and focus on skill development. Please feel free to reach out if you need further assistance. I'm here to support you and your son through the recruiting process.

Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, dealing with Misconduct, is subtitled with the phrase “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession”. When attorneys engage in unethical behavior, it is believed that their actions harm the industry. As such, disciplinary procedures are a key feature to maintaining the legitimacy of not only the profession, but the legal system as a whole. Usually, attorney disciplinary matters don't enter the broader public discourse, but, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we have seen an increase in high-profile attorney disciplinary matters. Attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and John Charles Eastman, and the disciplinary charges brought against them in DC and California respectively, have been featured prominently in the news of late, and so it's time we turn our attention to the issue of attorney misconduct and discipline. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Leslie C. Levin, professor of law at University of Connecticut School of Law to take an overall look at prominent attorneys who have come under fire for their violation of the rule of law, measures taken to regulate attorney's actions, and the consequences that could stem from their actions.

Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, dealing with Misconduct, is subtitled with the phrase “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession”. When attorneys engage in unethical behavior, it is believed that their actions harm the industry. As such, disciplinary procedures are a key feature to maintaining the legitimacy of not only the profession, but the legal system as a whole. Usually, attorney disciplinary matters don't enter the broader public discourse, but, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we have seen an increase in high-profile attorney disciplinary matters. Attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and John Charles Eastman, and the disciplinary charges brought against them in DC and California respectively, have been featured prominently in the news of late, and so it's time we turn our attention to the issue of attorney misconduct and discipline. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Leslie C. Levin, professor of law at University of Connecticut School of Law to take an overall look at prominent attorneys who have come under fire for their violation of the rule of law, measures taken to regulate attorney's actions, and the consequences that could stem from their actions.

How has technology and remote practice effected the ethical rules of law? Listen in to today's episode when our host Mary Vandenack, CEO, Founder and Managing Partner at Vandenack Weaver Truhlsen, and her guest Dan Siegel, an attorney in the Philadelphia area and a nationally recognized authority on legal ethics and technology discuss updating the Model Rules to reflect the current practice of law. Tune in as they talk about which model rule is most important to change, how the use of social media has impacted the rules, confidentiality, licensing issues, and much more.A Hurrdat Media Production. Hurrdat Media is a digital media and commercial video production company based in Omaha, NE. Find more podcasts on the Hurrdat Media Network and learn more about our other services today on HurrdatMedia.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode Jim Garrity tackles the propriety of a question often heard in depositions when the deponent has just contradicted the testimony of another witness: "Are you calling them a liar?" Is this objectionable? If so, what's the objection? If it's objectionable and you don't object, is it per se reversible error? Is there a better way to ask the question? So many questions, so little time. But Jim answers them all and more, in just 13 1/2 minutes. (And speaking of time, do you have time to leave a 5-star rating for our podcast wherever you listen to our show? It takes no more than ten seconds, and our entire team will be forever grateful. Those 5-star ratings are like Kobe beef to the crew. Thanks!)SHOW NOTESMerritt v. Arizona, No. 21-15833, 2022 WL 3369529, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022)g. “[T]he prohibition on improper vouching based on evidence outside the record extends to civil trials")Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209, 213, 243 P.3d 1212, 1214 (2010) (“The Oregon Supreme Court has recently reviewed and elaborated on its decisions on this subject. In State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346, 357, 234 P.3d 117 (2010), the court stated:“This court has long held that one witness may not give an opinion on whether he or she believes another witness is telling the truth. * * * Applying that principle is a straightforward matter when one witness states directly that he or she believes another witness, or that the other witness is honest or truthful. However, statements that fall short of such overt vouching also may be impermissible”)United States v. Pereira, 848 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2017) (“In United States v. DeSimone, 699 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2012), this court clarified that although [i]t is improper for an attorney to ask a witness whether another witness lied on the stand[,] ... [i]t is not improper to ask one witness whether another was “wrong” or “mistaken,” since such questions do not force a witness to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar. There is no error in simply asking a witness if he agreed with or disputed another witness's testimony”)Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., No. CV 3:10-857 JJB-CBW, 2017 WL 3946261, at *3 (M.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 10-857-JJB-CBW, 2017 WL 3928939 (M.D. La. Sept. 7, 2017) (order adopting magistrate's report recommending the granting of motion in limine to exclude testimony as to one witnesse' opinion of another's testimony); see also Defendants' Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony (CM/ECF Doc. 588), Defendants' Memorandum In Support Of Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony (Doc. 588-1), Joseph N. Broyles, et al. v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., et al., Civil Action No.: Case 3:10-cv-00854-SDD-CBW Document 588 (M. D. La. filed May 13, 2016), Consolidated With: Civil Action No. 3-10-Cv-00857-JJB-SCR; CM/ECF Doc. 672 (Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To S&Y Parties' Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony)United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084, 1096–97 (11th Cir. 2015) (“As to the propriety of questions by a prosecutor that prod a defendant to accuse another witness of lying, we have held that such questions are not proper. United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1268 (11th Cir.2011). . . .Of course, the fact that a prosecutor should not ask a testifying defendant whether another witness was lying does not mean that the prosecutor will be prohibited from pinning down a defendant's testimony by focusing the latter on conflicts between his account of a certain event and another witness's testimony on that point. Indeed, in Schmitz, we cited with approval the Third Circuit's observation that “it is often necessary on cross-examination to focus a witness on the differences and similarities between his testimony and that of another witness. This is permissible provided he is not asked to testify as to the veracity of the other witness”)United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1268–70 (11th Cir. 2011) (“We hold that it is improper to ask a testifying defendant whether another witness is lying”)Southern Union Co. v. Sw. Gas Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1127 (D. Ariz. 2003) (propriety of such a question may depend on the context in which the question is asked, citing cases for proposition that ‘were they lying' questions may not always be improper, and that the balance may shift in favor of admitting lay opinion as the distance increases between the opinion and the ultimate issues)Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209, 214–15, 243 P.3d 1212, 1215 (2010) The question at issue here, and the answer it elicited, were not of the same sort found to be objectionable in those cases. Here, A.H.'s mother was not asked whether she believed that A.H. was telling the truth (nor did her answer reveal whether she believed that A.H. was telling the truth). Rather, she was asked if she knew of any motive A.H. would have to lie. Admittedly, this line of questioning may skate close to the edge of what is permissible, given the real danger that it might elicit a response that includes a comment on the credibility of a witness, even if the question does not specifically call for such a response. Here, however, the response did not contain the mother's opinion as to whether A.H. was telling the truth. Moreover, as the state notes, the defense theory of the case was that A.H. had a motive to lie about the abuse, because she was angry with petitioner and petitioner's daughter. In that circumstance, questions of A.H.'s mother concerning whether she knew if her daughter had such a motive were permissible. Her response to the challenged question merely was that she did not know of any motive that her daughter had to fabricate the allegation of abuse. We conclude that the post-conviction court correctly determined that the question and answer at issue here were permissible”)Com. v. Baran, No. 1804251, 2006 WL 2560317, at *16 (Mass. Super. June 16, 2006), aff'd, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 256, 905 N.E.2d 1122 (2009) (vacating criminal convictions in part based on prejudicial vouching; “Moreover, the issue concerning the vouching of credibility is not limited to experts: “[I]t is a fundamental principle that ‘a witness cannot be asked to assess the credibility of his testimony or that of other witnesses.' Commonwealth v. Montanino, 409 Mass. 500, 504, 567 N.E.2d 1212 (1991). To violate this principle, testimony supporting a witness's credibility “need not be direct. The question is whether the witness's testimony had the same effect as if [the witness] had directed his comments specifically to [another witness's] credibility”)Schmitz v. City of Wilsonville, No. CV-96-1306-ST, 1999 WL 778586, at *4–6 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 1999) (declining to extend vouching to civil cases; but finding no plain error from comments and denying motion for new trial)Sneed v. Burress, 500 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Ky. 2016) “(It is equally impermissible for an attorney to phrase her remarks so as to indicate that a witness is lying based on the evidence presented. Of course, pointing out inconsistencies in a witness's statements and other evidence—and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom—is entirely permissible to the extent that it otherwise comports with our rules of practice and procedure. However, counsel is not permitted to make affirmative conclusions as to the credibility of a witness. Determining witness credibility “is within the exclusive province of the jury.” Id. (citation omitted).”) Also held can be considered harmless error based on circumstsances, but remanded for retrial)State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748, 779–80, 931 A.2d 198, 218 (2007) The other claimed improprieties in the present case, however, involve a variation on the classic type of Singh violation in which a defendant is asked whether another witness is lying, instead asking the defendant whether a witness' testimony was “true,” “right” or “accurate” and whether the defendant agreed with certain statements of other witnesses. Although these questions did not ask the defendant overtly to say whether a witness was wrong or mistaken, effectively, they essentially asked the same improper question, only phrased in the positive rather than in the negative. See United States v. Freitag, 230 F.3d 1019, 1024 (7th Cir.2000) (asking defendant if testimony of other witnesses is true is improper because it “invades the province of the jury; indeed asking if testimony is true implies that if it is not, it is a lie, which is a credibility question for the jury to decide”); see also United States v. Sanchez–Lima, 161 F.3d 545, 548 (9th Cir.1998) (reversible error when one government witness permitted to testify, over defense objection, that another government witness was telling truth, because determination of witness credibility is for jury and such testimony constituted bolstering by inadmissible evidence)Hunter v. State, 397 Md. 580, 591, 919 A.2d 63, 69 (2007) (“We agreed with the trial court that this line of questioning was impermissible because the attorney was effectively asking the witness to say “whether the witness who gave [the statement] [ ] testified falsely.... [O]ne witness cannot be asked to characterize the testimony of another Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Lycan, 57 Kan. 635, 47 P. 526, 528 [ (1897) ] ), since that is exclusively the function of the jury.” Id. at 314–15, 171 A. at 55. Thus, as early as 1934, we held that “were-they-lying” questions are impermissible in civil cases.”; reversing judgment and ordering new trial)Eggleston v. Com., No. 2010-CA-002291-MR, 2012 WL 6061711, at *2 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012)In Moss, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that it is improper to require a witness to comment upon the credibility of another witness: With few exceptions, it is improper to require a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness. A witness's opinion about the truth of the testimony of another witness is not permitted. Neither expert nor lay witnesses may testify that another witness or a defendant is lying or faking. That determination is within the exclusive province of the jury")State v. Airhart-Bryon, 13 Wash. App. 2d 1003, review denied, 196 Wash. 2d 1018, 474 P.3d 1052 (2020) (“Airhart also cites Boehning to argue prosecutors commit flagrant misconduct as a matter of law whenever they ask one witness if another is lying. Boehning generally supports this proposition. 127 Wn. App. at 525, 111 P.3d 899. However, our Supreme Court's longstanding requirement is that allegations of prosecutorial misconduct be evaluated “ ‘in the context of the entire record and the circumstances at trial.' ” See, e.g., Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 442, 258 P.3d 43 (quoting Magers, 164 Wn.2d at 191, 189 P.3d 126). Here, we look to the context of the entire record to conclude there was no incurable misconduct”)Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. v. P.F, 137 Md. App. 243, 268, 768 A.2d 112, 126 (2001) (“The second reason assigned by the Bohnert Court was that a social worker's opinion regarding the credibility of the child invades the fact finder's role in assessing credibility and resolving disputed facts. Citing well-established limitations on the role of witnesses, the Bohnert Court held that the social worker's opinion constituted an improper “vouching” for the credibility of the alleged victim. In a criminal case tried before a jury, a fundamental principle is that the credibility of a witness and the weight to be accorded the witness' testimony are solely within the province of the jury.... It is also error [in civil cases] for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying....”, (citing Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 277, 539 A.2d 657, 662 (1988)It is also error for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying. Thompson v. Phosphate Works, 178 Md. 305, 317-319, 13 A.2d 328 (1940); American Stores v. Herman, 166 Md. 312, 314-315, 171 A. 54 (1934). The Court of Special Appeals said in Mutyambizi v. State, 33 Md.App. 55, 61, 363 A.2d 511 (1976), cert. denied, 279 Md. 684 (1977): Whether a witness on the stand personally believes or disbelieves testimony of a previous witness is irrelevant, and questions to that effect are improper, either on direct or cross-examination.”)Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The current version of the Model Rules similarly states that, in both civil and criminal trials, a lawyer shall not “state a personal opinion as to ... the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.” Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.4(e) (2015). In sum, our prior case law indicates that attorneys may not rely on evidence outside the record during closing argument and that prosecutors may not vouch for witnesses' credibility. We now make clear that the prohibition on improper vouching based on evidence outside the record extends to civil trials”)Shuang Ying Nancy Zhang v. A-Z Realty & Inv. Corp., et al., No. EDCV 19-887-KK, 2022 WL 17361983, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022) (“In addition, “counsel in a civil trial may not rely on evidence outside the record during closing argument")Fed. R. Evid. 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness.Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons (The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence)Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge. (A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703.Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses (If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702)

Ethics attorney Jim Doppke makes his fourth appearance on the show to discuss the pros and cons of liberalizing legal ethics rules like Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 that prohibit people who are not lawyers from owning an interest in legal services companies and preventing them from sharing in legal fees. In recent years, states like Utah and Arizona that are testing the waters and permitting lawyers to team up with others to provide legal services and share legal fees. Jim discusses the ethical implications of these programs and explores preliminary statistics from the programs that trac the number of people served and the number of complaints raised about the services. Jim is an ethics attorney with the Chicago firm of Robinson, Stewart, Montgomery & Doppke. Before that, he spent most of his career as a prosecutor with the Illinois ARDC (the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission). He also has a legal ethics focused podcast called Legal Ethics Now and Next.

Speaker: Professor Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (University Carlos III of Madrid) Held jointly with the Cambridge Private Law Centre. Biography: Professor Rodriguez de las Heras Ballell is Professor of Commercial Law, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain. She works extensively in the area of AI, the digital economy and fintech, and is a member of EU Expert Groups on Liability for AI and other emerging technologies, on the Platform Economy and on Model Contract Terms for B2B Data Sharing and Cloud Computing. She is also an expert at UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL in Working Groups on Enforcement (Technology), Warehouse Receipts and Digital Economy (AI for international trade, Data transactions, Online Platforms) and has been the Spanish Delegate to UNCITRAL WG VI on Security Interests and WG IV on E-Commerce (Projects on AI in international data and Data transactions), and to UNIDROIT for the MAC protocol to the Cape Town Convention. She is an active member of the European Law Institute, and has been involved in many ELI projects: as the author of “Guiding Principles on ADM in Europe”, (2022), as co-reporter to the Project on Algorithmic Contracts, as a member of the project on Model Rules for Online Platforms and as assessor to the project on Smart Contracts and Blockchain. Her main other research interests focus on international business transactions and secured transactions and corporate finance. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (University Carlos III of Madrid) Held jointly with the Cambridge Private Law Centre. Biography: Professor Rodriguez de las Heras Ballell is Professor of Commercial Law, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain. She works extensively in the area of AI, the digital economy and fintech, and is a member of EU Expert Groups on Liability for AI and other emerging technologies, on the Platform Economy and on Model Contract Terms for B2B Data Sharing and Cloud Computing. She is also an expert at UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL in Working Groups on Enforcement (Technology), Warehouse Receipts and Digital Economy (AI for international trade, Data transactions, Online Platforms) and has been the Spanish Delegate to UNCITRAL WG VI on Security Interests and WG IV on E-Commerce (Projects on AI in international data and Data transactions), and to UNIDROIT for the MAC protocol to the Cape Town Convention. She is an active member of the European Law Institute, and has been involved in many ELI projects: as the author of “Guiding Principles on ADM in Europe”, (2022), as co-reporter to the Project on Algorithmic Contracts, as a member of the project on Model Rules for Online Platforms and as assessor to the project on Smart Contracts and Blockchain. Her main other research interests focus on international business transactions and secured transactions and corporate finance. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Attorneys are increasingly required to demonstrate technological proficiency in addition to remaining current on the law and legal practice. It's not just a skill requirement but an ethical one, too, as states continue to adopt new rules. The challenge for attorneys, judges, and the rule makers is that technology is generally evolving faster than they can keep up. This creates grey areas and blind spots that pose risks to busy litigators with already full plates and hectic schedules. In 2012 the American Bar Association amended Comment 8 to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Lawyers Duty of Competence) to address technology competency. “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” Most states (40) have rules addressing technology competence among attorneys. Daniel Gold is the Managing Director of BDO's E-Discovery Managed Services practice group and the creator of BDO's Athenagy™, the only patent pending business intelligence solution in the world that created a Common Data Model and data driven insights fueled by both M365 E5 Compliance Suite's Microsoft Advanced E-Discovery and RelativityOne. Daniel has nearly 20 years of experience in the legal space. As a practicing lawyer, he identified that by harnessing new forms of legal technology, both lawyers and legal professionals could be vastly more productive. This realization led him to the legal service provider space and with it, came years of success at consulting with some of the largest corporate law departments and law firms across the country. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ordinarily, when I think of ethics they either feels legalistic, like the rules of professional conduct, or else I think of the rules I learned in Sunday school. Mindfulness offers an invitation to consider ethics in a different way: not so much as rules but more as a way of life that feels right and has better all-around consequences. For me, the motivation to discover that life is more motivating than the Model Rules or the Ten Commandments. It also feels more optimistic.

Check ur notes --- 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/fgoldbuster/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/support

Diane Burkert, BSN, RN, Health Professions Investigator with the Iowa Board of Nursing, joins us to discuss the Board's rules regarding maintaining professional relationships with patients and families. Host: Anne Ryan ******************** Resources: Iowa Legislative Code citations: 655 Chapters 6.2(4)e, 6.3(7)f and 4.6(5): https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-24-2021.655.6.2.pdf https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/11-17-2021.655.6.3.pdf https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-23-2022.655.4.6.pdf National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN): https://www.ncsbn.org/transcript_ProfessionalBoundaries.pdf https://www.ncsbn.org/21_Model_Rules.pdf 

Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal! In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal! After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important object lesson that you can never trust the fact section in a SCOTUS case involving religion these days. Links: The brilliant and hilarious Merrill Markoe captured the live-captioning of Pat Cipollone's name as Patsy Baloney (and others) on Twitter. For the background for the crime-fraud exception, check out Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. You can check out the Senate Judiciary testimony of Jeff Rosen as well as Richard Donohue for all sorts of new goodies, some of which we covered on the show! Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Carson v. Makin., which we previously broke down in Episode 608 with Andrew Seidel. Finally, secret link! CLICK HERE to read the Kurt Olsen draft complaint for the DOJ, which we discovered in all its madness after the end of the record. Remember you can still donate to the Opening Arguments Foundation at OAfund.org!

Dr. Jimmy Reyes, Associate Director of Nursing Practice and Nursing Education and Anne Ryan, Host discuss the history and development of nursing education regulation and how the Board currently regulates nursing education. Dr. Reyes draws on his experience and expertise to provide insights and share challenges in this field. ******************** Resources: Iowa Legislative Code citations: 655- Chapter 2: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/administrativeRules/rules?agency=655&chapter=2&pubDate=05-04-2022 National Council of State Boards of Nursing- Model Rules (Published Aug 2021): https://www.ncsbn.org/21_Model_Rules.pdf  

Die Themen im heutigen Versicherungsfunk Update sind: Allianz dampft Software-Pläne ein Die Allianz legt das Thema Allianz Betriebssystem (ABS) zu den Akten. Ziel war es, dieses Betriebssystem auch anderen Versicherern anzubieten, folglich zum Software-Anbieter zu werden. Ein Problem sei der hohe Anpassungsbedarf von ABS. Das berichtet die „Süddeutsche“. Zudem gebe es eine Reihe von etablierten IT-Dienstleistern, die Standard-Lösungen auch für Versicherer bieten. Zu diesen zählt unter anderem der deutsche Software-Riese SAP. Auf diese Angebote werde von Versicherern weit häufiger zurückgegriffen. mehr >>> www.versicherungsbote.de/id/4905735/Allianz-wird-doch-kein-Software-Haus/ Globale Mindeststeuer möge erst 2024 greifen Der weltweite Dachverband der Versicherungswirtschaft (GFIA) fordert in einer mit dem Gesamtverband der deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft (GDV) abgestimmten Stellungnahme, den Erstanwendungszeitpunkt der Mindestbesteuerungsregeln auf den 1. Januar 2024 zu verschieben. Anderenfalls stehe nicht mehr genügend Zeit für die Umsetzung zur Verfügung. Zudem kritisiert die GFIA die in den Model Rules vorgesehene Begrenzung des Steuersatzes für die Berechnung latenter Steuern auf 15 Prozent. VGH Versicherungen mit solidem Geschäftsverlauf Die VGH Versicherungen haben im Jahr 2021 Bruttobeitragseinnahmen von rund drei Milliarden Euro eingefahren. Lediglich bei der Provinzial Lebensversicherung sanken die Beiträge. Hier gaben die Einmalbeiträge deutlich nach. Dafür haben sich die Überschüsse in allen Bereichen positiv entwickelt. Deutsche machen Milliarden-Gewinne mit Kryptowährungen Die Bundesbürger erzielten mit Kryptowährungen 2021 Gewinne in Höhe von umgerechnet 5,8 Milliarden US-Dollar. Nur in Großbritannien und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sprudeln die Gewinne noch mehr. Dies geht aus einer neuen Handelskontor-Infografik hervor. Geringere Fahrleistung durch Corona Deutsche Autofahrer legten durchschnittlich 10.928 km im vergangenen Jahr zurück. Im Jahr 2019 waren es noch 11.371 km. Das geht aus einer Auswertung des Online-Portals Check24 hervor. Mehrheit junger Menschen offen für Pflege von Angehörigen Die Mehrheit der jungen Menschen in Nordrhein-Westfalen ist bereit und offen für die Pflege von Angehörigen. Nach einer Sonderauswertung des Pflegereports der DAK-Gesundheit gaben dies 68 Prozent der Befragten an. Mehr als ein Viertel der 16- bis 39-Jährigen ist demnach schon täglich in der Pflege ihrer nahen Verwandten aktiv.

#數位經濟課稅 #國際租稅 #BEPS #稅基侵蝕及利潤移轉 #全球利潤分配稅制 #Pillar1 #支柱一 #Pillar2 #支柱二 #反避稅 OECD於2022年2月18日公布全球利潤分配稅制（又稱支柱一，Pillar 1）第二部分細節法規架構（Model Rules）的徵求意見稿，針對如何確定稅基提出更為明確的指引。本期說明稅基確定的主要內容，及Pillar One法規架構的13項內容。 另外，針對香港及新加坡將引進的國內最低稅負制，說明研擬導入的措施及稅率。資誠提醒，如同目前全球的稅務趨勢變化，對大型企業加稅，並將對不動產課徵累進稅率，企業的成本勢必上升，台資企業必須密切觀察各國變動情勢，以進行相關調整因應。 歡迎成為資誠會員：https://pwc.to/2V8Lh8v

On 22 December, the European Commission issued 2 proposals. One proposal deals with the introduction of the global minimum tax in the EU by 2023. The EU proposal deviates from the OECD proposal on a number of topics. Find out how the proposal will look like in this Tax Bites episode with Jean-Philippe van West and Isabel Verlinden. In addition, we also discuss the proposed directive covering the ‘unshelling' of the EU: the proposed ATAD 3, or should we say, ‘new DAC'. Let us know what you think!

#BEPS #全球最低稅負 #租稅優惠 #數位經濟 #CFC 本期說明OECD發布全球最低稅負制（支柱二，Pillar Two）的法規架構（Model Rules），包含數位經濟對利潤分配規則的衝擊、第二支柱的規定說明及有效稅率計算方式、全球防止稅基侵蝕規定基本原理、最後有相關範例說明及未來預計時程。資誠建議台資企業宜根據全球防止稅基侵蝕規定的不同變化，啟動方案規劃；並發現主要受影響的國家，提前針對重要議題進行調整。 歡迎成為資誠會員：https://pwc.to/2V8Lh8v

The Ernst & Young ITTS Washington Dispatch brings you a monthly review of US international tax-related developments. In this edition: Biden Administration's Build Back Better legislation stalls in Congress; Senate Finance Committee releases updated international tax provisions – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republicans urge vote on 2010 US-Chile tax treaty – Treasury releases final foreign tax credit regulations – IRS issues final rules on tax consequences of transition from LIBOR and other interbank offered rates in certain financial contracts – OECD releases Model Rules on Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax – OECD releases 2020 peer review report on BEPS Action 5 on Exchange of Information of Tax Rulings.

Ricky Thornton Jr. is set to make his Chili Bowl debut and we've got details plus a total entry list update. We are also talking Silver Crown rides, Anthony Perrego's new deal, and the unified dirt late model rules.

  John Dean, best known for his treatise on Richard M. Nixon joins Michael Zeldin to discuss his recent psychological investigation into the psyche and personality of former President Donald J. Trump. Dean has partnered with Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology whose expertise is the study of authoritarianism, to see why Trump's base is so faithful to him, no matter what he does. Why do evangelical Christians support him, for example, despite his well-documented sexual predations? Why do so many working class Americans support him, despite the way he works against their interests? Why do facts and logic not change their minds? "Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers” is the first book to take a deep dive into the psychology of Trump's base: How do Trump's communications campaigns continue to appeal to them, while taking actions so contrary to their economic, health and religious interests.  Why do his followers believe the flagrant lies about his record, despite so much proof to the contrary?  How do they continue to have faith in a man whose irrational words continue to contradict reality and who to this day warns them: “What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening.” Guest John Dean John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973. Before becoming White House counsel at age thirty-one, he was the chief minority counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, an associate director of a law reform commission, and an associate deputy attorney general at the US Department of Justice. His undergraduate studies were at Colgate University and the College of Wooster, with majors in English Literature and Political Science; then a graduate fellowship at American University to study government and the presidency before entering Georgetown University Law Center, where he received his JD with honors in 1965. John recounted his days at the Nixon White House and Watergate in two books: Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). After retiring from a business career as a private investment banker doing middle-market mergers and acquisitions, he returned to full-time writing and lecturing, including as a columnist for FindLaw's Writ (from 2000 to 2010) and Justia's Verdict (since 2010), and is currently working on his twelfth book about Donald Trump's presidency. Trump's election has resulted in renewed interest in (and sales of) John's earlier New York Times best-sellers: Conservatives Without Conscience (2006), which explained the authoritarian direction of the conservative movement that resulted in Trump's election a decade before it happened, and Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches (2008), which addresses the consequences of GOP control of government. His most recent bestseller, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It is being developed by Amazon Studios into a feature film entitled “Watergate.” John Dean held the Barry M. Goldwater Chair of American Institutions at Arizona State University (2015-16), and for the past decade and a half he has been a visiting scholar and lecturer at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communications. John has been teaching a long-running continuing legal education (CLE) program series which examines the impact of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on select historic events from Watergate with surprising results, along with the lasting impact of Watergate on the legal profession – The Watergate CLE. Since 2017 he has been a political/legal commentator for CNN, and currently is working on his twelfth book Follow John on Twitter: @JohnWDean Host Michael Zeldin Michael Zeldin is a well-known and highly-regarded TV and radio analyst/commentator. He has covered many high-profile matters, including the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the Gore v.

  John Dean, best known for his treatise on Richard M. Nixon joins Michael Zeldin to discuss his recent psychological investigation into the psyche and personality of former President Donald J. Trump. Dean has partnered with Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology whose expertise is the study of authoritarianism, to see why Trump's base is so faithful to him, no matter what he does. Why do evangelical Christians support him, for example, despite his well-documented sexual predations? Why do so many working class Americans support him, despite the way he works against their interests? Why do facts and logic not change their minds? "Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers” is the first book to take a deep dive into the psychology of Trump's base: How do Trump's communications campaigns continue to appeal to them, while taking actions so contrary to their economic, health and religious interests.  Why do his followers believe the flagrant lies about his record, despite so much proof to the contrary?  How do they continue to have faith in a man whose irrational words continue to contradict reality and who to this day warns them: “What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening.” Guest John Dean John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973. Before becoming White House counsel at age thirty-one, he was the chief minority counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, an associate director of a law reform commission, and an associate deputy attorney general at the US Department of Justice. His undergraduate studies were at Colgate University and the College of Wooster, with majors in English Literature and Political Science; then a graduate fellowship at American University to study government and the presidency before entering Georgetown University Law Center, where he received his JD with honors in 1965. John recounted his days at the Nixon White House and Watergate in two books: Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). After retiring from a business career as a private investment banker doing middle-market mergers and acquisitions, he returned to full-time writing and lecturing, including as a columnist for FindLaw's Writ (from 2000 to 2010) and Justia's Verdict (since 2010), and is currently working on his twelfth book about Donald Trump's presidency. Trump's election has resulted in renewed interest in (and sales of) John's earlier New York Times best-sellers: Conservatives Without Conscience (2006), which explained the authoritarian direction of the conservative movement that resulted in Trump's election a decade before it happened, and Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches (2008), which addresses the consequences of GOP control of government. His most recent bestseller, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It is being developed by Amazon Studios into a feature film entitled “Watergate.” John Dean held the Barry M. Goldwater Chair of American Institutions at Arizona State University (2015-16), and for the past decade and a half he has been a visiting scholar and lecturer at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communications. John has been teaching a long-running continuing legal education (CLE) program series which examines the impact of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on select historic events from Watergate with surprising results, along with the lasting impact of Watergate on the legal profession – The Watergate CLE. Since 2017 he has been a political/legal commentator for CNN, and currently is working on his twelfth book Follow John on Twitter: @JohnWDean Host Michael Zeldin Michael Zeldin is a well-known and highly-regarded TV and radio analyst/commentator.

The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel's Fellows discuss the ins-and-outs of effective professional Engagement Letters. Engagement Letters or Engagement Agreements are an invaluable tool for attorneys and set the stage for the representation and managing a client's expectations. Please visit ACTEC Foundation to read more about the 3rd Edition of Engagement Letter, created by the ACTEC Professional Conduct Committee.  The document builds on the initial editions by: Updating the forms and checklists to address the latest version of the Model Rules and modern challenges to a lawyer's ethical responsibilities; Respond to other changes in the law; Provides cross references to the latest edition of the ACTEC Commentaries; Includes checklists and forms that address a variety of engagement scenarios that were not dealt with in the prior Edition; Offers additional drafting options; Includes Word versions of each letter. ACTEC Trust & Estate Talk offers professionals best practice advice, insights, and commentary on subjects that effect the profession and clients. ACTEC, a professional society of peer elected trust and estate lawyers, is passionate about estate and trust issues including elder law, estate planning, wealth planning, probate law, wills, living wills, power of attorney, guardianship, medical power of attorney, trusts, irrevocable trusts, special needs trusts, charitable trusts, trust funds, Rockefeller trusts, marital trusts, asset protection, family partnerships, estate taxes, gift taxes, tax legislation, tax law, and tax reform.

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.