Podcasts about northwestern law

Stephanie Rupp (Hoffmann Eitle) and Ryan Phelan (Marshall Gerstein) explore how AI is reshaping medtech innovation and the IP strategies founders need to know. They break down key trends, from traditional model training to today's generative AI workflows, plus common pitfalls like novelty-destroying disclosures in pitch decks, websites, and investor conversations. Ryan explains why “file early” matters in the U.S. (and how provisional applications can backfire if they're too thin), while Stephanie shares how Europe's strict novelty rules and EPO “technical effect” requirements change how AI patents must be drafted. The conversation also covers cross-border collaboration, the Unified Patent Court, and why strong IP can become a startup's moat for investors and future growth. Guest links: https://www.marshallip.com | https://www.hoffmanneitle.com/ | rphelan@marshallip.com | srupp@hoffmanneitle.com  Charity supported: Save the Children Interested in being a guest on the show or have feedback to share? Email us at theleadingdifference@velentium.com.  PRODUCTION CREDITS Host & Editor: Lindsey Dinneen Producer: Velentium Medical   EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Episode 089 - Stephanie Rupp & Ryan Phelan [00:00:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Hi, I'm Lindsey and I'm talking with MedTech industry leaders on how they change lives for a better world. [00:00:09] Diane Bouis: The inventions and technologies are fascinating and so are the people who work with them. [00:00:15] Frank Jaskulke: There was a period of time where I realized, fundamentally, my job was to go hang out with really smart people that are saving lives and then do work that would help them save more lives. [00:00:28] Diane Bouis: I got into the business to save lives and it is incredibly motivating to work with people who are in that same business, saving or improving lives. [00:00:38] Duane Mancini: What better industry than where I get to wake up every day and just save people's lives. [00:00:42] Lindsey Dinneen: These are extraordinary people doing extraordinary work, and this is The Leading Difference.  Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Leading Difference podcast. I'm your host, Lindsey, and today I'm delighted to welcome as my guests Stephanie Rupp and Ryan Phelan. Stephanie's technical expertise stems from working in various fields of electrical engineering and information technology. She is particularly interested and experienced in communication technology, telecommunications engineering, and artificial intelligence due to her time at the university and various projects in the industry. For example, Stephanie gained industry experience with a leading technology company of measurement and high-frequency technology in the field of measurement technology for LTE. Working with a variety of clients from all over the world, Stephanie specializes in prosecution and oppositions at the European Patent Office and German Patent Office, freedom to operate, and patent drafting, in particular in the fields of computer-implemented inventions. Stephanie studied electrical engineering at the Technical University of Munich. She wrote her master thesis at the Chair of Communication Networks in the field of artificial intelligence with a focus on reinforcement learning. Ryan is a registered patent attorney who counsels and works with clients in all areas of intellectual property with a focus on patents. Clients enjoy Ryan's business-focused approach to IP. With an MBA from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, Ryan works with clients to achieve their business objectives, including developing and protecting their innovations and businesses with IP. Ryan has been published in several well-known IP publications, including World Intellectual Property Review, Bloomberg Law, and IP Litigator, and has spoken as a panelist at various IP conferences, including for the International Intellectual Property Law Association and for the University of Illinois Chicago Annual IP Conference. Since 2024, Ryan has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America list in the practice of patent law. All right, Ryan and Stephanie, welcome to the show. I'm so glad that you are here. Ryan, this is your second time. Delighted to have you return, and Stephanie, I can't wait to learn more about you and all the ways that you both contribute to the industry. So thank you both so much for being here. [00:02:54] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Glad to be back. [00:02:56] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. [00:02:56] Stephanie Rupp: And thank you v- very much for having me. [00:02:58] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes, of course. Well, I would love, if you don't mind, starting off by sharing just a little bit about yourself, your background, and what led you to medtech. [00:03:09] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. So I'll kick it off. My name's Ryan Phelan. I'm a partner at Marshall Gerstein, which is an IP boutique here in Chicago. I have a computer science background, so I see the world through, you know, everything computers and, of course, nowadays that means AI. On the, the medtech side you know, I, I have, experience in robotics and so, a lot of medtech devices are in the robotics field, so it's very natural for me to apply my skill set, to that, area of expertise, one of which is, prosthetics. So you have a robotic, prosthetic medical device, and that lends itself to, you know, some type of computational control. And there's certain, legal issues that usually come up in, the US practice. So I enjoy, applying that skill set, to the, to medtech space. also, you know, family members als- have, you know, ailments and things that, I have, grown up with, you know, as a, you know, young boy and, now I'm very happy to you know, give back in my own way. I'm not a doctor. I'm just a-- I'm a, I'm a humble patent attorney, but, helping the, IP world, and, doctors and physicians, with not only, you know, in the robotic space, but also, software medical inventions as well, and I, enjoy working in this space. [00:04:22] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. Thank you so much. Stephanie? [00:04:26] Stephanie Rupp: Yes. So as you hear from my accent, I'm from Germany, specifically from Munich, so that's a city in the southern part of Germany, close to the Alps. people might probably know Munich from the Oktoberfest that we have each year. And, so I'm a German and European patent attorney at Hoffmann Etile. I also throw it in as well, I'm also UPC representative, so we have, for three years now, we have the Unified Patent Court, so a really new court in Europe for centralized litigation for infringement and revocation actions. So I can also represent clients there. yeah, Hoffmann Etile is a, also a p- a IP boutique firm. not only in Germany, we also have offices, in other places in, Europe. And, yeah, my technical background is electrical engineering and information technology. And, during my studies, I just didn't work a lot in the medtech space. I was, ... my work concentrated more on the telecommunications side, working in a, bigger f- company that, concentrated on measurement and high-frequency technology. But, my master thesis was already about AI, so it was at the Chair of Communication Networks, and it was about, like, reinforcement learning, virtual network embedding. I won't say too much about that. I think it will bore the listeners. But so I didn't know at that time, but it opened my way to the medtech space afterwards. because when I joined Hoffmann Etile nine years ago with my training, the partners were really happy to hear that I have experience in the AI field and the technical background on that. And, around nine years ago, we saw a lot of patent applications being filed in the AI space, like using AI technology in different technical fields, and especially also in the medtech, field. And, so I had the opportunity to jump in there, like, right away when I started and was really happy to do that and also, like, still very glad to have that opportunity to work with the medtech, companies and to get the best patents for them in that, especially in that field. [00:06:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you both. So, all right. I have so many questions, but I will start here. I'll just, 'cause I'm curious. So how, how did you two meet? Do the firms come together and, and, collaborate? [00:06:38] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, absolutely. so Marshall, Gerstein and Hoffmann, Eitel had a relationship prior with, attorneys, that go back a generation or two, before Stephanie and I met. And so, their-- one firm would send attorneys to the other and vice versa. And then, after a while, given that Stephanie and I have similar backgrounds, it was very, simple just to connect us. And then we've worked together on matters, before and have similar backgrounds like Stephanie mentioned. She has electrical background, but has done a lot of stuff with AI. And so whenever you're doing, matters across the pond, as they say, you need expertise, in the EPO and the US and the laws are different, so you have to collaborate. And it's great to have, have people that you can collaborate and work with. [00:07:21] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, and a lot of clients, they're not only interested in getting an EP patent, but they also want to get a US patent. And, I'm not a US patent attorney, so, usually tell them, "Oh, yeah, I know a really good patent attorney in the US." And, thank you ... so I will, like, hand over the work to him and then the other way around if they have, like, clients that they want to get a EP patent, and that's how we work together and, also dis-discuss these cases together. And, so yeah, I'm currently in Chicago for a week, also to meet Ryan in person again. I do that, usually once a year. And, yeah, just have time to discuss some cases more regularly. [00:07:55] Lindsey Dinneen: I love that. That's cool. [00:07:56] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I was in, And I was in beautiful Munich last year, so it was, it was great. [00:08:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Very nice. That's wonderful. Okay. So again, so many things to talk about, but I, I, I'm curious in your interpretation of how AI has affected, especially the legal components of, say, filing a patent or IP protection or all of those things. When it comes to medtech founders, what are you seeing the trends to be, and also, what are some of the pitfalls to avoid? [00:08:29] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. So I've seen AI affect everything from filing strategy or information, gathering, like on the pre-stage of a patent, and then also, the invention itself, has also included AI. I think about it as like AI 1.0 and 2.0. before, 1.0 AI is, a lot of software inventions would train their own models with their own data. Maybe you have a, a cardio, application or something like that, that would use existing, information from patients and, that information, would be used to train a model, and that model would be able to output some type of response for a future patient. Maybe that model was inside of a device that was, implanted or, put on top of, a patient where that sensor data would be collected.  Nowadays, in, in tho-those inventions, usually incorporated some type of trained model. Nowadays, you have a lot of generative AI, where newer inventions are using out-of-the-box models from OpenAI, ChatGPT models, or Anthropic's Claude models. And, a lot of the same issues are still being addressed, where data will, will come from various sources, whether it's a patient's data or clinician's, or maybe it's, a diagnostics or maybe it is more in the robotic space for, prosthetics. But that data is now, instead of being pushed into more traditional models that would be trained, is now being used by these generative, LLMs. And then you can have combinations of the two. So it's, become an explosive field in AI at least from what I have seen. People are getting excited that you have these large treasure troves of data that you can synthesize, the information inside of it and then get some type of, useful output, and then you also have inventors that are seeking solutions, asking, LLMs to help find a particular solution, and they'll add to it. And our invention disclosures that we get, I, I typically joke and say, "Used to, it was hard to get an invention disclosure from an inventor." They would send you, like, a paragraph or two of the invention, and you'd be, "Well, is there anything else?" And now it's, they'll send you 100 pages of stuff. And like, "Well, let's, well, let's talk about what's relevant. Let's find the needle in the haystack here." So AI is, is influencing all sides of the invention from when it's coming in the door and then how, how, what the invention makeup is itself and how that's gonna be protected in the future. I, I see a lot-- In, in the future, I, I can predict or hopefully predict, there's gonna be, a lot of litigation or a lot of, like, questions about who owned what in the future for patents. So that's, that'll be interesting to see, too. [00:11:06] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Absolutely. [00:11:07] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah- I think what I just want to add is, that it also changes how we work. I think in the past it was, so we had, like, these different departments. We had mechanics, e-tech, biotech, chemistry, and it was, like, very clear when you get a new patent, like an invention disclosure in which department you will push it and, like, who will work on that. But now we have, like, more these interdisciplinary inventions especially, like, in medtech, pharmaceutical companies that are using AI and, and that also changes how we work, that we are trying to then find a interdisciplinary team as well, having, like, patent attorneys from different technical backgrounds, because I'm looking at a invention disclosure differently than a patent attorney with a chemistry background. And, so that makes very interesting for us as well, 'cause we have to work together and, that's why sometime I get a call from the biotech department saying, "Oh, we have a invention disclosure with a lot of AI in there. Could you maybe help us out?" And, so that, yeah, it, like, changes our way of working in there as well. That makes it very interesting. [00:12:12] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. That's very interesting, and I actually love that. It seems like a lot of, ability to learn from each other in that way, and so yeah, I love that exposure. So, okay, when it comes to filing patents, and protecting your IP in general, I'm, I'm curious what your advice is for, for founders that maybe have, like, basically timeline, when should they be thinking about engaging with you all, and h- how do they go about that? Just what is, especially for these younger startup founders, what's some advice that you just, you go, "Okay, now's the time. Here's what we need," and, and whatnot? [00:12:51] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I always advise as early as possible. Okay. usually it's-- usually most founders or startups are not thinking about patents in the beginning. But, you know, I always like to, to tell them when, when I'm speaking to a founder of a startup, think about it as insurance or similar to insurance, because at the end of the day, if you become very successful with your, medtech product, whatever it may be, people are gonna wanna copy you. [00:13:13] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:13:13] Ryan Phelan: And, that, that's probably not only important to you, but also to your investors, if you have them. If, like, you're seeking money from others, whether it be seed money, angel money, or series A, series B the, these people are probably gonna ask you what's your moat, what's your, what's your barrier to entry for others, so if your product, takes off, because they're thinking in terms of, "How much money will I get back if I invest?" It's gonna be s- 20x. And so, it-- they know, and the startup founders should also be aware that if somebody else comes into the market, especially a big player, and they, replicate your product or your software, then that could take market share from you. And so having a patent or building that patent portfolio at the same time, it protects you, from that. It also, of course, there's times, timing, that you have to be mindful of. As soon as you disclose something in the US, it kicks off a, a one-year clock... [00:14:04] Lindsey Dinneen: Hmm ... [00:14:04] Ryan Phelan: ...for you to file something. Just to get an invention in the US, and Stephanie, can let you know about, you know, elsewhere- Mm-hmm ... and in the EU, I understand that there's an absolute bar. Yeah. But for that reasons, for that timing purpose of when someone discloses your invention, and that can be a part of a pitch deck to a set of in- investors, if you don't have a non-disclosure a- agreement, an NDA, then that could also start that clock ticking. So you wanna be mindful. Do this in parallel at the same time, seeking to get your, patent, at least a provisional patent, on file before you go forward. [00:14:37] Stephanie Rupp: Okay. Yeah, as Ryan said, at the, in Europe, we don't have this kind of this year to file a application. Once you publish something, then it's out on, out there in the world and, endangers your own patent application. Because if you want to get a patent the claimed subject matter needs to be novel and inventive. And if you have, like, published this before, then that's prior art with respect to your own patent application. So you always have to keep that in mind and, that's why it's so important to file the patent application first before you use that information for advertisement, for example. And I, we see that often, with startups, and I complete- completely understand. They're super excited with regard to their, like, great idea, and they want to shout it out to the world. But once it's out there that hinders you to get a patent. so- As Ryan said, it's good to think about patents from the beginning and also, the market you're interested in, maybe about competitors and where they're in, which countries they're involved, and then you could also think about, okay, maybe, that is a market of your interest, and then also get advice from patent attorneys in that country because it's different from which d- like, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction how to get a patent, and you want to get the broadest patent as possible. And, especially with AI inventions, where they're the requirements are so different in the different countries, it's, good to have the advice from the beginning on so the patent application is written in the right way. Because once the patent application is filed, we cannot add anything anymore, or we cannot change it. That's why it's, like, good to have really a, like, a well-written patent application also for the jurisdiction you want to go in. [00:16:25] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay. Yeah. Thank you both. That was really insightful. I'm, I'm curious about the patent application itself. Is there-- Well, two questions, I suppose. Is there also a kind of provisional patent opportunity outside of the US, just out of curiosity, as, as well as in the US? And then also, you know, you mentioned being very careful and cognizant about the way that it is written, which of course now you two being experts in this, you know, back, you know, like the back of your hand. But I wonder, if people try to do it themselves. I would love just to hear some advice about that as well. [00:17:06] Ryan Phelan: Yes. Stephanie, do you wanna talk about the provisional outside the US and- [00:17:09] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. So in Europe, we don't have that provisional applications or non-provisional applications. what you have though is the priority year. So you can, like file an application, for example, first in Europe, and then you have a year to decide which other countries you want to go to, and then claim priority from that European patent application. So, I file a EP application, then after a year I think, okay, I want to go in other countries, I want to maybe file it, one in the US, then you can claim the priority from there. And the previous patent application that you filed will not endanger the other patent application. So that's one way of doing it, to buying yourself a little bit of time. Also, sometimes clients when they're like very cost sensitive, especially for startups, would first think, okay, we file a patent application first to Europe, and you get a, a search report within the priority year from the EPO. And then you already know the prior art that is out there, and you can assess how strong your patent application is, and then you can still decide, how to proceed from there. So there are like some ways of how you could do that. [00:18:19] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Thank you. [00:18:22] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. In the US, of course, we have provisional applications. It, it causes a great, amount of confusion, though, the provisional applications. A lot of startup companies will think that they can file a provisional application and it'll be, you know, a page or two in length, and then they can wait a year and inflate that to 20 pages or, or something like this. And of course, the, the trap for the unwary is, of course, if the claims, when you draft those for the non-provisional or the conversion application, if they are not grounded in that first provisional application, if one element of one of the independent claims, for example, is, s- solely supported by the new material added in the, the new, you know, 20 pages or whatever it may be, then the support gets you the date of your non-provisional conversion filing and not of the provisional. So, usually for startup clients, I have to-- we ta- we have this conversation called the delta. What's the delta between your provisional and your non-provisional? If there's a lot of it, then, that could be a problem because if your claims aren't supported by the text of that provisional application, you're not gonna get that original date. And so, usually that kicks off a conversation of how much of a provisional that you want, or do you just wanna go all non-provisional. Now, I do litigation as well, and I can tell you, the, the, the pitfall is if you file that provisional and you file a non-provisional later and you end up getting that later date, if there is intervening prior art in between, the provisional date and the non-provisional date, that comes before your non-provisional date, that could invalidate your patent despite your provisional. And there's, parties debate this. They, excuse me, fight about this in court all the time. Now, did you have sufficient written description and enablement in your provisional application in order to substantiate your claims later? And if they can find intervening prior art between that year or whatever the time may be, that can be a real problem. So, I, I always c- I always tell clients, like, the, the more you can file up front, the better, because you're gonna get more support or more, possibility to have that support earlier in time. Of course, it takes more work. Most startups don't like to hear that, but it is, but it is the truth, and it does, it does protect them against that insurance policy. You, you add it up front. Like Stephanie said, you wanna, put that information, on file before you go out and do your advertising and marketing. That's also true in the US. Just filing a provisional application, does not in and of itself somehow protect you if, if you don't, if you don't say what it is that you're trying to protect. [00:20:48] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Okay. That makes a lot of sense, and thank you so much for that insight. So you mentioned a couple of times that sort of disclosure component, and so just to d- just be very specific about that whole thing you mentioned that could be-- that could look like even just a, a pitch deck where you think it's potentially within a, a private setting thing. Of course, I would imagine that also extends to talking about it on social media or a website or something like that. So I'm just curious what are some of the things that you see besides maybe perhaps the broader, more obvious, like a website, what are some of those things that you see that people don't think to, be aware of, I guess? [00:21:34] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. I've seen websites. It's super easy to create a website nowadays. You can ask ChatGPT or Claude to generate a website, and if you're putting your invention out in a website form before you file a patent, that could be a novelty-destroying disclosure. if you have a detailed pitch deck that you give to, potential investors without some type of control, like an NDA, that could also be a novelty form of disclosure. Like in the US, for litigation, I, I can tell you one of the questions that always gets asked in discovery is, "Did you disclose this prior to the, the filing date?" And, if that person, that person will be required to answer under oath, and if they're, "Yes, I had a website," or, "I, I gave this pitch deck to 50 people for investing," usually that's a problem because that--the opposing side that's defending against that patent will do a, a deep analysis and, and look-- and try to find when that was disclosed, and does it map up to the claims, and that could, create a problem with, validity in the US. [00:22:31] Lindsey Dinneen: Oof. That's no fun. That's why they should talk- Yeah ... to you early and often. [00:22:37] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. Yes. Again, another example of filing early, you know, eliminates some of those issues. i-in fact, I tell a lot of the startup companies or any, any client, like, before you go out there and, you know, have your conference or your, your pitch, then file. Most sophisticated clients know this, but a lot of times startups do not. [00:22:54] Lindsey Dinneen: Sure. Yeah, and if you're a first-time founder or something like that, you wouldn't-- you don't know what you don't know for many different categories, so I can see why that is so critical. Yeah. Okay. So, I was wondering if both of you could talk a little bit about maybe, maybe a moment that has stood out to you as, as you've worked, especially with-within medtech and, and working with some of these founders. Are there any moments that really stand out as just affirming that, "Wow, I, I am doing the right thing in the right industry at the right time"? [00:23:28] Stephanie Rupp: Shall I start? Yeah. yes, I, I've-- So for me it was, like, never the plan to become a patent attorney and, and, like, never had that in mind. And, so it was more of a coincidence that I stumbled upon that and did the training and became a patent attorney and... But I still remember my first day in the office and having the feeling of, "Yes, I think that's what I want to do for the rest of my life." Like, continue learning, like, having, like, this incredible opportunity to speak with so many great inventors. Having, like, I don't know, it's always amazing, to see how their mind works and that they're, like, finding solutions for s- like, very complex problems. And, so that, like, from the day, first day on, I had, like, the feeling, okay, I think I can really help here and, protect their asset the best way possible. And then especially within the medtech field, I think what Ryan also said in the beginning, there's like, it's also for me, sometimes it's a kind of s- scary part thinking about, okay, what if you get sick at one point, or like from closer family that got really sick, and, having like this helpless feeling like that you maybe can't change anything here. And then when you work with the medtech industry and you see that they are working on that problem and have these great idea- to help people to like, that there's also k- some kind of involvem- like involvement in this technology. And, so for example, I, there's like one of my clients, they are, working on histological images and analyzing them also with respect to cancer types, and how AI can be such a great help there. And of course, there are like a lot of these discussions about, how we should be careful with the new technology and how we could re- regulate that and stuff like that, but there's also like so much good in there that can really help people's lives. And I think that's like for me, always very nice that yes, Ryan said we're no doctors. So like, we're just like patent attorneys, but still we could contribute a little bit to that too. Yeah. [00:25:34] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. [00:25:35] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. I would just, I would just echo everything that Stephanie said. That certainly is why I enjoy working in this space too, is, you, you feel like you have a, a little bit of contribution that you make. [00:25:44] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Absolutely. I, I couldn't agree more. I think, to your point, Stephanie, it's, it's so inspiring to see the innovation that's coming out, and it makes you feel like, especially when there's difficult world news, it makes you think, "Okay, but at least there are still these change makers who are really trying to make the world a better place and, and improve patient lives." And I think that's just a, a wonderful thing to get to witness and be a, a part of. It helps the soul. So, I'm always curious about the personal side of things as well. So just what are, what are some of the things that you all en- enjoy doing, say, outside of work? maybe some hobbies or volunteering or interests and things like that. What are... Let's, let's talk about the people as well behind these amazing patent attorneys. [00:26:36] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. everybody has a hobby, so I, I was, I like to run. I was running since high school, so I like to do that. And then, in the winter I like to ski. and then I'm, recently getting my scuba cert, with my daughter. So we're having a good time doing that this summer. So just trying to stay busy and active. I like to learn always, and so I, I, I love learning, I guess. and one of the reason why medtech is interesting to me 'cause I like to apply that, computer science skill to, the medtech field and continuously learn, in that space and also give back, like we talked about before. So, yeah, I guess I would lump in learning as one of my hobbies as well. I like... I, I'll say, and I, I'm not sure if we'll get into this later I think you had a question about, poss- if we, if we could teach one class or- No, we'll get into that ... [00:27:20] Lindsey Dinneen: Something like that. Yeah. [00:27:22] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, okay. I'll, I'll save that for a later time. So. [00:27:23] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay. Yes. Excellent. Stephanie? [00:27:28] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, I think that's, one common thing that we have, Ryan and I. It's, skiing. That's also what I enjoy a lot. so as I said, I'm from Munich, and it's very close to the Alps, so it takes us only, like, about, like, two hours to go to Austria. and so, but I really enjoy going there for the weekend, clearing my mind. Yeah, especially when the week was very busy with work. so it's like, thinking about something else. And, besides that, yeah, spending time outside, going hiking at the weekend, like when it's... there's no snow. Also, I picked up some hobbies that I had when I was younger. So for example, I had, piano classes for, like, when I was five years old, and then once I had, like, the training and everything else going on, paused that because, like, so much else going on. But then last few years I, taught myself, "Oh yeah, it would be such a waste not to do that anymore." And, so I'm, like, started playing piano again. I'm not good in it. It's more really as a hobby. And, but yeah doing something else in the evening and clearing my mind. So that's what I usually like to do as well. [00:28:35] Lindsey Dinneen: I love that. That's wonderful. I, yes, I, I understand that sometimes picking up a hobby that you sort of set aside for a while is really fun as an adult, 'cause you have a different way of interpreting that learning, back to your point, Ryan, of how it, it it changes. And I, I actually really enjoy that, of, of revisiting something where I might have thought g- especially growing up. Like for instance, I remember thinking I just could not paint for the life of me, like it was never gonna happen. And then as an adult, with a, an instructor who was... maybe s- spoke a slightly different, in a different way, and then getting to like go, "Oh, maybe I can" is always a nice thing to learn too. But anyway. [00:29:17] Stephanie Rupp: And also taking, taking the pressure out of it. Yes. So it's like, as I said, like piano class is just a hobby. I don't have to be good in it. It's just should give me some joy in it. And so yeah. [00:29:27] Lindsey Dinneen: Love that. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So now you've both been in positions of leadership, and I'm curious, and, and I know it's hard to boil it down to maybe one thing, but what is one or two, three things that you would say is your top leadership advice, especially for those who maybe are more in, middle management trying to continue to build their leadership skills? And what, what makes a good leader, in your mind, and then maybe what's one or two pieces of advice? [00:30:02] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. What makes a good leader in my mind is something that somebody that can lead by example, I guess. On like a first project or a new client or a new matter, I like to do it, do it myself once so I can go through it and, get the feeling for the new technology, that may be at play or the new matter, maybe the client's preferences whether it's a startup or a large company. And then once I have that kind of lead from the front, then I like to do, I guess, a military word, dis- decentralized command, which is get people that I trust and who I have a great assistant. I have attorneys that I work with European attorneys such as Stephanie, and then give them work with them and give them free reign and control, whether it's a colleague like Stephanie or a associate here at Marshall Gerstein to, work with the client or have agency over, what they do, 'cause I think it can also teach in that capacity, like things that I learned from the lead from the front can flow, down or through or out and then, that person can also learn on the job doing it themselves. I believe that, people doing, instead of just listening is the, a best way to learn for them and then also get better. And so I, I tend to approach, leadership, from that perspective. [00:31:12] Lindsey Dinneen: Love that. Yeah. Stephanie? [00:31:15] Stephanie Rupp: Yes. I see myself like still more at the beginning of my career, so I can, talk a little bit more of how I, see or like, yeah, see leadership or like, how I experience it. Yeah. it's more also I... like everything what Ryan said, I completely agree. And also like seeing the person behind that. It's like everyone is like very busy, especially when you're in leadership positions and, very busy schedules and, But also seeing the person as a whole- Mm ... and how could you like support them to be better, to grow and, how to also, yeah- lead them or like, yeah, lead them in the way they w- where they want to be at some point. And, I think that's, yeah, what you should not forget e- especially when you have a really busy schedule. That's it. [00:32:11] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. The, the person behind... Yeah. That, that's an interesting theme that continues to come up, time and time again, is, you know, if one of the tricks to being a good leader is to care. It seems so straightforward, but it's if you care about the person and you, you want the best for them, you are going to naturally be a better leader because you're investing in them and, and in their success and goals, and, it's, it's just cool to see. Okay, and then, all right, I'm just going to pivot the conversation a little bit for fun, and this is where exactly what you were referring to earlier, Ryan. So if you were to be offered a million dollars to teach a master class on anything you want, could be in your industry, but doesn't have to be, what would you choose to teach? [00:32:58] Ryan Phelan: I would teach a class called Patenting Software Inventions and, I'm actually currently teaching that class. Oh. they're not-- I'm not getting paid a million dollars to do it, unfortunately. [00:33:07] Lindsey Dinneen: Dang. [00:33:07] Ryan Phelan: But, but it is a, a, a passion and a love. I teach it at, Northwestern Law, where I went to law school. I-- it's, it's my pleasure and joy every year to go back. I teach a power course there every year, I think for the past eight years on, teaching students how to patent software inventions in the US, and I think, elsewhere there's a, you know, there has become, by at least some people, the belief that you can't patent software, you know, which of course is, not true. And so, you know, I teach methodologies in my class about how to, patent software inventions in the US using you know, guidance from the courts, from the Supreme Court, from the Federal Circuit, from the district courts here, in the US. A lot of it covers, things such as Section 101 you know, that changed, in 2014, from the Supreme Court's decision in Alice v. CLS, and how to address, issues, about what the, the court said there. And then also what later courts, the Federal Circuit, said that they wanted to see in order to overcome, Section 101 issues, in the US. A lot of times, too, it's interesting, we have, like, a small slide like that, that deals with EPO-- which Stephanie's much more adept than, than I am-- but what we tell our students is, and maybe Stephanie can address this, is that, you know, there seems to be a convergence, between Section 101 law and, something called a technical effect, an EPO, where it seems like both jurisdictions are wanting to see more of a technical disclosure incorporated into the application rather than just kind of claiming functionally or a high level language. So you need to be very careful in crafting these applications so there's-- they're successful when you're in front of the the patent office in the US. And if you, you do it right, you can, create, you know, not only a US-centric application, but one that might, withstand, the strictures of the EPO. In my opinion, I think that the EPO can sometimes-- and maybe this is just me being a US practitioner-- but the EPO can be somewhat more difficult, to get a patent, application. Maybe Stephanie would disagree and say it's the other way around, but but it's always good, and clients usually, even if they're not thinking about it, to have an application that could survive both places 'cause they tend to be, I think, the, the two more, more difficult, if not most difficult jurisdictions in the world to get a patent application. And if you go into it knowing and how to craft a patent application and you're ready, and you put into that application the right, material, then you can be successful. [00:35:40] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Stephanie, what would you teach? [00:35:44] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, maybe we, Ryan and I, could do a master class together then because he said, like, then we could explain the similarities or the differences between, US patent law and European patent law, and can also maybe, also add something about the UPC that we have now, the U- Unified Patent Court, and have a, maybe a lively discussion about all of that and, how to get the strongest and broadest, patent in the different jurisdictions. And as Ryan said, there are, like, some similarities, and I also have the feeling when I discuss with Ryan that, when we have a patent application where we struggle to get a patent on, then we usually also struggle with that in the US- Mm-hmm ... or the other way around. And, but of course, there are, like, differences in how the EPO and how the USPTO, like examine these AI inventions and, in the US you have these 101 objections that you usually get. In, Europe it's, they apply the so-called two hurdle approach where they, especially the second hurdle is usually harder to overcome. Mm. And that's also what, Ryan mentioned, is that you have to show the EPO that your AI invention or your AI steps contribute to the technical character of the invention. And that's, often, and I totally understand that, hard to grasp for an inventor because they think we have all these technical means here. We have a server, we have a processor, we have a memory, we have sensors getting data. Do you tell me now that that's not technical? [00:37:18] Lindsey Dinneen: Mm. [00:37:19] Stephanie Rupp: And, but that's not how the EPO thinks. It's, for them, they say, "What is your motivation for that invention?" Or, or in other, more their words, "What kind of technical problem you try to solve?" [00:37:32] Lindsey Dinneen: Mm. [00:37:34] Stephanie Rupp: And that is, what we also usually ask the inventors in our f- like, first meetings with them, "What is the technical problem you're trying to solve with that, and how does the, your AI steps, your method steps contribute to that?" Because that's, if you cannot show that to the EPO, then it's very hard to get a patent on. so maybe my combined master class- yeah ... where we show that and- It, [00:37:59] Ryan Phelan: It would- ... [00:38:00] Stephanie Rupp: Explain that, yeah. So ... [00:38:01] Ryan Phelan: Definitely it would, it would help out my meager EPO slide, any additional information on this, especially the, the UPC, which I'm glad you mentioned. But, maybe, we could take a minute to talk about the UPC and in, in the European area since that's like a new, newer, from what I understand, a newer avenue, the era approach in Europe. [00:38:20] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. Yeah. It's, so as I said, we have, like, for now three years now, the, Unified Patent Court. And, before that we also had European patents, but once it was granted, was divided into national patents. So if you wanted to, file an infringement action or a nullity action, you had to do that in each specific country. And that made it very complicated because I, I'm a German patent attorney. I don't know anything about Italian law, so you would then need an Italian patent attorney or French and so on. So it was, like, very complicated. And, so what we now have, and that is, like, very exciting to live at that time now, is, the Unified Patent Court, where it's, like, now centralized and you can attack patents at the, like, Unified Patent Court, like, for the whole patent, and you don't have to go to these before the national courts anymore. And, so that's, like, very exciting for us as well because case law is evolving now and, there's, yeah, you can see how, like, how it changes and how the judges are handling these cases and it's, like, also very, like, for us, a lot of new things to learn. [00:39:32] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:39:32] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. [00:39:33] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I was gonna say, I, I also heard, and, Stephanie can certainly chime on this, that certain cities in Europe, like Paris, or Munich, may have different judges that specialize in different arts or disciplines. I think, was it, w- what Munich was, I can't remember, is that the mechanical or- Yeah. [00:39:49] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. So that's, like, for the central division, but we also have then local divisions- Mm-hmm ... as well. So we have, four local divisions in Germany, but also in other countries. And that also, changes, of course, a little bit of how they handle the cases because the judges, they often came from the, like, the national courts. So they, like, when you're in Germany, of course, they still have little bit, little bit more of the German thinking in them. When you're going to a Dutch, local division, then they have a little bit of, like, another, like, view on that. And I think over time it will, like, unify a little bit. but these are, like, also differences that, makes it very interesting, to see. [00:40:27] Lindsey Dinneen: All right. Okay, so next question is, how do you wish to be remembered after you leave this world? [00:40:35] Ryan Phelan: I hope that people remember me as, somebody that was fun, like to, you know, either work or hang out with that regardless of whether we're working hard or, you know, playing hard, that, that it was just fun. So that, that's my only wish. So or, or main wish. [00:40:50] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. Steph? [00:40:52] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah, I think for me that I was maybe, like, a fair and trustworthy person. I think it sounds a little bit boring, but, more when people work with me and they, like, say, "Oh, when she gave me advice, I knew that she had, like, my best interest in mind as well, and not only, like, filling her own pockets or, like, trying to, like, improve it for herself, but having like..." Yeah, when they remember me of a person that you could trust with the advice, I think that would be, like nice to know for me. Yeah. [00:41:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, for sure. All right. Excellent. And then final question. What is one thing that makes you smile every time you see or think about it? [00:41:37] Ryan Phelan: I guess just sticking with our current theme, if in a work capacity, when a client gets a victory of some type certainly makes me smile. A lot of clients are happy when they get their patents allowed, or if you win that litigation case or you, you do things, a lot of times in the US we'll, we'll have these decisions or these patents, and it it, it, it makes me smile to think that, you know, I helped their business in that way to protect their, their IP and just going forward. I, I imagine it's a pretty standard answer, but, you know, certainly in the context of this podcast, that's absolutely one thing that makes me happy. [00:42:10] Stephanie Rupp: Mm. Yeah. I'm a person, I get excited very quickly or, like, really small things make me smile already. So I arrived on Saturday in Chicago, and I, for example, didn't expect to have a gym in the hotel, and then suddenly I discovered that and was really happy about that. So these are these small things that other people say, "Oh, yeah, whatever." but I think what makes me smile the most is, like, knowing that I have a weekend ahead of me with, like, my family and my partner, and we go ski. And I say that now we have, like, summer outs and, like, very warm temperature here in Chicago. I think it's about 80 degrees, and I'm already thinking about skiing and snow, but it's, more of... [00:42:52] Ryan Phelan: It's never too early. [00:42:53] Stephanie Rupp: Yeah. But more of, like, not the skiing per se, but just having time with family and- yeah ... clearing my mind and stuff like that. So, yeah. [00:43:02] Lindsey Dinneen: Excellent. Excellent. Well, thank you both so much for being here. I've so enjoyed the conversation, and you gave so much amazing advice and guidance, so thank you so very, very much for all of that. If folks who should be looking out for services such as yourselves, how do they get in touch with you? [00:43:25] Stephanie Rupp: I think like through the website, that, I think will be- mm-hmm published, with the, podcast. And, also my email address as well. You can find me on the website, or we can also add it to the, to the podcast info. yeah. [00:43:38] Ryan Phelan: What is your... [00:43:38] Stephanie Rupp: It's the easiest ... [00:43:38] Ryan Phelan: What is your email address, Stephanie? [00:43:41] Stephanie Rupp: It... Hopefully I say it correct now. It's, S for Stephanie, S Rupp, my, last name, @hoffmanneitle.com, so very easy. Yeah. [00:43:53] Ryan Phelan: Perfect. Excellent. Yeah, same thing for me. I believe the contact information will be at the with the podcast, but I can be reached at RPhelan R-P-H-E-L-A-N @marshallip.com, and welcome any questions or comments. [00:44:08] Lindsey Dinneen: Awesome. Well, thank you both so much again for your time today. We really appreciate it. We are so honored to be making a donation on your behalf as a thank you for your time today to Save the Children, which works to end the cycle of poverty by ensuring communities have the resources to provide children with a healthy, educational, and safe environment. So thank you so much for choosing that charity to support, and also thank you for continuing to work to change lives for a better world. Love learning about you, about your areas of expertise, and just really appreciate you, being willing to share with us. So thanks again, and, I suppose until next time. [00:44:51] Ryan Phelan: Thank you. Love to come back. [00:44:53] Stephanie Rupp: Thank you. Awesome. Yeah. Thank you so much. [00:44:55] Dan Purvis: The Leading Difference is brought to you by Velentium Medical. Velentium Medical is a full service CDMO, serving medtech clients worldwide to securely design, manufacture, and test class two and class three medical devices. Velentium Medical's four units include research and development-- pairing electronic and mechanical design, embedded firmware, mobile app development, and cloud systems with the human factor studies and systems engineering necessary to streamline medical device regulatory approval; contract manufacturing-- building medical products at the prototype, clinical, and commercial levels in the US, as well as in low cost regions in 1345 certified and FDA registered Class VII clean rooms; cybersecurity-- generating the 12 cybersecurity design artifacts required for FDA submission; and automated test systems, assuring that every device produced is exactly the same as the device that was approved. Visit VelentiumMedical.com to explore how we can work together to change lives for a better world.

John McGinnis, law professor at Northwestern University and author of Why Democracy Needs the Rich, examines constitutional design, democratic stability, and the accelerating force of artificial intelligence. Drawing on the Federalist Papers, Tocqueville, and public choice theory, he argues that a realistic understanding of politics is essential to preserving both liberty and effective state capacity. McGinnis traces his intellectual formation to a "hard-headed realism" learned early in life and later reinforced by the American founding. At the center of his thinking is a practical constitutional question: how to build sufficient state capacity while preventing its abuse. He emphasizes the importance of an entrenched constitution that is difficult to amend, arguing that stability enables long-term planning and protects society from short-term political passions. Several themes shape the discussion: Public choice and political incentives. Politics does not operate in a purely public-spirited way; concentrated interests often organize more effectively than diffuse ones. Understanding this dynamic is essential for evaluating policy debates. Historical perspective as stabilizer. Many contemporary political phenomena appear unprecedented but are not. From Andrew Jackson to the present, democratic politics has repeatedly unsettled elites while preserving constitutional continuity. Technology as the dominant variable. McGinnis argues that AI will overshadow most current political disputes. As a general cognitive tool, it will be embedded across sectors, reshaping law, education, national security, and economic organization. Comparative advantage in an AI world. As machines assume cognitive tasks, human value will shift toward persuasion, judgment, and relational skills. Professionals must rethink where they add distinctive value. Education under acceleration. The coexistence of AI-enabled and AI-restricted learning may become necessary to preserve independent thinking while leveraging technological capability. The civic role of the wealthy. In Why Democracy Needs the Rich, McGinnis contends that wealthy individuals diversify democratic discourse, counterbalance concentrated interests, support minority rights movements, and fund public goods such as universities and museums. Their independence allows them to take risks others cannot. The episode also addresses rising student anxiety, the erosion of historical literacy, and the long-term question of meaning in a world where work may change substantially. McGinnis maintains that constitutional stability, plural centers of influence, and technological leadership remain central to American resilience. This conversation offers a grounded framework for thinking about democracy, incentives, and technological acceleration. It situates current debates within a longer historical arc while identifying AI as the structural force most likely to define the next decade. Get John's new book, Why Democracy Needs the Rich, here: https://tinyurl.com/msk9fd4k Claim your free gift: Free gift #1 McKinsey & BCG winning resume www.FIRMSconsulting.com/resumePDF Free gift #2 Breakthrough Decisions Guide with 25 AI Prompts www.FIRMSconsulting.com/decisions Free gift #3 Five Reasons Why People Ignore Somebody www.FIRMSconsulting.com/owntheroom Free gift #4 Access episode 1 from Build a Consulting Firm, Level 1 www.FIRMSconsulting.com/build Free gift #5 The Overall Approach used in well-managed strategy studies www.FIRMSconsulting.com/OverallApproach Free gift #6 Get a copy of Nine Leaders in Action, a book we co-authored with some of our clients: www.FIRMSconsulting.com/gift

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump placed tariffs on many nations, the Asian nation exports are surging, even with the tariffs. More money for the people. Fuel prices are below $2 in many states. Trump has cut 646 regulations.Trump is using the Jacksonian Pivot to bring down the [CB] and go back to the constitution. The [DS] is losing it money laundering system. They are having a difficult time funding their operations. Trump is continually putting the squeeze on the [DS] and each nation run by dictators is going to fall one by one. Trump gave the [DS] 8 months to comply with his EO. He brought the NG into their states, they forced them out. He gave them a chance but they decided to escalate the situation. Next move is POTUS. Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2008258196322856968?s=20   all-time high. This is despite US tariffs which were initially set at to 49%, but later negotiated down to ~20%. At the same time, Chinese exports to the US plunged -40% YoY in Q3 2025. This comes as the region has a massive cost advantage over US and European manufacturing, which ranges from 20% to 100%, even after tariffs. Companies use Southeast Asian economies as alternative export bases to avoid China’s 37% reciprocal tariff. As a result, the amount of trade rerouting from China hit a record $23.7 billion in September. US trade flows are shifting sharply amid tariffs. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2008327708200104042?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2008516399564509382?s=20  https://twitter.com/DrJStrategy/status/2008306299235189133?s=20   and a decisive shift of policy emphasis toward productive capital and economic sovereignty rather than financial engineering, Trump has reoriented the engines of growth toward productive capital, investment, industry, and national capacity. Anchored by the Trump Corollary, asserting a sovereign, American‑led Western Hemisphere and demonstrated in both the flawless military operation in Venezuela and the broader regime‑pressure strategy, this doctrine is not theater but an integrated fusion of economic, security, and hemispheric power. These changes are as profound in their structural implications as the original Jacksonian pivot, and those who assume Trump is a merely performative politician and strategist are therefore sorely mistaken, confusing a disruptive style with a coherent focused project to realign America's coalition, its economic model, and its role in the world. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/KatieMiller/status/2008286018722562351?s=20 https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/2008263492030349618?s=20 Hilton Axes Hotel From Their Systems After Video Shows Them Continuing to Ban DHS and ICE Agents  https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2008497245826556404?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008497245826556404%7Ctwgr%5E65c50b3797a2e502ba8c026a05c290955554706a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F01%2F06%2Fhilton-axes-hotel-from-their-systems-after-video-shows-them-continuing-to-ban-dhs-and-ice-agents-n2197811 Less than two hours after the video had been uploaded to X, Hilton issued another statement saying they were dropping that particular hotel from their list of franchisees and accusing ownership of lying to them about making corrections to their policy. https://twitter.com/HiltonNewsroom/status/2008522493171298503?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008522493171298503%7Ctwgr%5E65c50b3797a2e502ba8c026a05c290955554706a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F01%2F06%2Fhilton-axes-hotel-from-their-systems-after-video-shows-them-continuing-to-ban-dhs-and-ice-agents-n2197811 Source: redstate.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2008256013162410201?s=20   mandatory detention without bond hearings. Judges opposing the move admitted the goal is to promote self-deportation rather than extended courtroom battles. Conservatives say the numbers reveal a coordinated judicial campaign to override Trump’s immigration policy. SCOTUS has yet to rule on the matter. DOGE Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board Votes to Dissolve Organization in Act of Responsible Stewardship to Protect the Future of Public Media   The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress to steward the federal government's investment in public broadcasting, announced today that its Board of Directors has voted to dissolve the organization after 58 years of service to the American public. The decision follows Congress's rescission of all of CPB's federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended. Source:  cpb.org Geopolitical https://twitter.com/Object_Zero_/status/2008524560891588691?s=20   flight path (ballistic or powered) from Kola to anywhere on the lower 48, then everything goes over Greenland. Greenland is the theatre where any strategic exchange between Washington and Moscow is contested. If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee. That's where Greenland is. So, without stating what should happen here, this is **why** the Trump administration says they **need** Greenland for national security. The other thing that is happening is that the Northern Passage through the Arctic is opening up, and soon there will be Chinese cargo ships sailing through the Arctic to Rotterdam. It's faster than the Suez and the ships aren't limited to Suezmax size so China and EU trade is going to accelerate a lot. This means Chinese submarines will also be venturing under the Arctic into the Northern Atlantic, IF THEY AREN'T ALREADY DOING SO. Hence, the North East coast of Greenland serves not 1 but 2 critical strategic security objectives of US national security. If this wasn't clear to you, please understand that the Mercator global map projection is for children and journalists only. It is not a useful guide to where any countries or territories actually are in the real world that we live in. No self respecting adult should be using Mercator for their worldview. Anyone saying “there must be some other secret reason for Trump being interested in Greenland” is a certified ignoramus. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2008414070425206927?s=20  permission from the Ministry of Defense. “We want to clarify that what happened in downtown Caracas was because some drones flew over without permission and the police fired dissuasive shots. No confrontation took place. The whole country is in total tranquility,” said a Spokesman for the Information Ministry. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2008420269480694261?s=20  Miraflores Presidential Palace.   Seems like a failed coup attempt https://twitter.com/jackprandelli/status/2008298246675021881?s=20   offshore oil, creating a massive geopolitical risk. The most immediate outcome in capture of Maduro is to neutralize this threat and secure the operating companies stakes in Guyana, as well as Western Hemisphere’s energy security. By stabilizing Guyana’s production, which is set to hit 1.7 million barrels per day, the intervention guarantees way more oil flow in near term than reviving Venezuela’s aged infrastructure and heavy sour oil. This move protects billions in U.S. investment and positions Guyana producers as the ultimate winners. https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/2008448254095012088?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2008591197728813564?s=20  Mass Protests Enter 9th Straight Day in Iran — Regime Accused of Killing Young Woman and Multiple Peaceful Protesters as Officials Deny Responsibility — Brave 11-Year-Old Iranian Boy Calls on Nation: “Take to the Streets! We Have Nothing to Lose!” (VIDEO)  Protests against Iran's murderous Islamic regime continued across the country for a ninth straight day over the weekend, as nationwide unrest intensifies and the government struggles to maintain control. Demonstrations have now spread to multiple cities throughout Iran, with citizens openly defying the Islamic Republic and targeting its symbols of power. The latest wave of protests was initially sparked by the collapse of Iran's currency, further devastating an already-crippled economy and pushing ordinary Iranians to the brink. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2008537318035173629?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2008532051331526713?s=20 https://twitter.com/infantrydort/status/2008501122902774238?s=20   when reminded that teeth still exist. They insist the world runs on rules now and that borders are sacred. Also that true power has been replaced by paperwork. This belief is not moral in the least. It's f*****g archaeological. They live inside institutions built by violence, defended by men they no longer understand, and guaranteed by forces they refuse to acknowledge. Like tourists wandering a fortress, they admire the stonework while mocking the idea of a siege. They confuse order with nature. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Then blame the person that reminds them of this. Civilization is not the default state of humanity. It is an achievement that is temporary, fragile, and expensive. It exists only where force once cleared the ground and still quietly patrols the perimeter. A lion does not debate the ethics of hunger. Neither does a starving empire. History is not a morality play, it is a pressure test. When pressure rises, abstractions collapse first. Laws follow power; they do NOT precede it. Property exists only where someone can prevent it from being taken. Sovereignty is not declared, it is enforced. The modern West outsourced this enforcement, then forgot the invoice existed. So when someone points out uncomfortable realities (whether about Greenland, Venezuela, or the broader balance of power) they respond with ritual incantations: “You can't do that.” “That's wrong.” “That's against the rules.” As if the rules themselves are armed. As if history paused because we asked nicely. This is how empires fall. Not from invasion alone, but from conceptual rot. From mistaking a long season of safety for a permanent condition. From believing lethality is immoral instead of foundational. Every civilization that forgot how violence works eventually relearned it the hard way. The conquerors did not arrive because they were monsters; they arrived because their victims could no longer imagine them. The tragedy is not that power still exists. The tragedy is that so many have forgotten it does. Idk who needs to hear this but civilization is a garden grown atop a graveyard. Ignore the soil, and someone else will plant something far less gentle. Hate me for being the messenger and asking the hard questions about conquest if you want. You're just wasting your time. War/Peace Zelenskyy Announces the Appointment of Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland as Economic Advisor  Chrystia Freeland was the former lead of the Canadian trade delegation when Trudeau realized he needed to try and offset the economic damage within the renegotiated NAFTA agreement known as the USMCA. Freeland was also the lead attack agent behind the debanking effort against Canadian truckers who opposed the vaccine mandate. In addition to holding Ukraine roots, the ideology of Chrystia Freeland as a multinational globalist and promoter for the World Economic Forum's ‘new world order' is well documented.    given the recent revelations about billions of laundered aid funds being skimmed by corrupt members of the Ukraine government, we can only imagine how much of the recovery funds would be apportioned to maintaining the life of indulgence the political leaders expect. In response to the lucrative “voluntary” appointment, Chrystia Freeland has announced her resignation from Canadian government in order to avoid any conflict of interest as the skimming is organized. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2008618653500273072?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2008610869924757613?s=20 this aligns with Trump’s stated approach, where Europe takes a leading role in postwar security but with American support to ensure durability—such as the proposed 15-year (or potentially longer) guarantees discussed in recent talks. The “Coalition of the Willing” (including the UK, France, Germany, and others) is coordinating these pledges to reassure Kyiv, but the framework explicitly ties into U.S.-backed elements like ceasefire verification and long-term armaments.  Russia has not yet shown willingness to compromise on core demands, so the deal’s success remains uncertain, but this step advances the security pillar of the overall plan. Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/2008435766742179996?s=20    dangerous diseases. Parents can still choose to give their children all of the Vaccinations, if they wish, and they will still be covered by insurance. However, this updated Schedule finally aligns the United States with other Developed Nations around the World. Congratulations to HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy, CDC Acting Director Jim O'Neil, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, CMS Administrator Dr. Oz, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, and all of the Medical Experts and Professionals who worked very hard to make this happen. Many Americans, especially the “MAHA Moms,” have been praying for these COMMON SENSE reforms for many years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2008416829404746084?s=20  https://twitter.com/WeTheMedia17/status/2008558203077095579?s=20 President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2008278499153637883?s=20   who tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh at his family home in Maryland. Read: https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/2008312587197497804?s=20 https://twitter.com/PubliusDefectus/status/2008542355838955625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008542355838955625%7Ctwgr%5E08a8ea4b3726984aaeb1e460fafe90ec5a25b84f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fhillary-clinton-launches-attack-trump-january-6%2F Developing: Lt. Michael Byrd Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Dead on Jan. 6, 2021 in Cold Blood, Runs an ‘Unaccredited' Day-Care Center in Maryland at His Home and Has Pocketed $190 Million in HHS Funds   Captain Michael Byrd and his home daycare in Maryland. In one of his autopen's last acts before Joe Biden left office was to pardon Capt. Mike Byrd, the DC officer who shot and killed January 6 protester Ashli Babbitt in cold blood during the protests on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.  Paul Sperry discovered recently and posted on Tuesday that Former Lt., now Captain Mike Byrd, has been running an unaccredited day-care center with his wife in their Maryland home since 2008. That is nearly 17 years! The Byrds have received $190 million in this HHS day-care scheme. Via Paul Sperry. Via Karli Bonne at Midnight Rider: https://twitter.com/PattieRose20/status/2008547480431218991?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008547480431218991%7Ctwgr%5Ec607b3d9ed0b3fbdb6e390fdfadc416d9a45a379%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F%3Fp%3D1506321 Source: thegatewaypundit.com The White House has published a page revealing the full TRUE story of January 6 — before, during, and after. It includes: – Video and evidence showing Nancy Pelosi's involvement – A complete, detailed timeline of events – A tribute to those who died on or because of J6 A full investigation into Nancy Pelosi and everyone involved is now essential. You can view the page here: https://whitehouse.gov/j6/  https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2008569594550895005?s=20 EKO Put This Out April 28, 2025. President Trump signs Executive Order 14287 in the Oval Office. The title reads like standard bureaucracy: “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.” But in the third paragraph, a single phrase changes everything: Sanctuary jurisdictions are engaging in “a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law.” Insurrection. The exact statutory term from 10 U.S.C. §§ 332-333 . The language that unlocks the Insurrection Act of 1807. Georgetown Law professor Martin Lederman publishes analysis within days. The executive order mirrors Section 334 requirements. The formal proclamation to disperse before military deployment. It designates unlawful actors, issues formal warning, establishes consequences. Governors dismiss it as political theater. Constitutional attorneys recognize something else. The proclamation was already issued. Trump just didn't announce it as such. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK January 20, 2025. Inauguration Day. Hours after taking the oath, Trump issues Proclamation 10886 declaring a national emergency at the southern border. Section 6(b) requires a joint report within 90 days on whether to invoke the Insurrection Act. The deadline falls April 20, 2025. Eight days later comes Executive Order 14287 . National emergency declaration establishes crisis conditions. The 90-day clock forces formal evaluation. The executive order provides the legal predicate. Section 334 of the Insurrection Act mandates the president issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deploying military force. April 28 order satisfies every requirement. It names the actors. Describes their unlawful conduct. Warns of consequences. Grants opportunity to comply. Governors treated it as negotiation leverage. It was legal notification. The trap locked in April 2025. Everything since has been documentation. THE TESTING PHASE Throughout 2025, the administration attempts standard enforcement. National Guard deployments under existing authority. October 4, 2025 . Trump federalizes 300 Illinois National Guard members to protect ICE personnel in Chicago. Governor J.B. Pritzker files immediate legal challenge. Federal courts block the deployment. Posse Comitatus restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement. November 2025 . Portland judge issues permanent injunction against Guard deployment in Oregon. December 23, 2025 . The Supreme Court denies emergency relief in Trump v. Illinois. Justice Kavanaugh files a brief concurrence with a consequential footnote: “One apparent ramification of the Court's opinion is that it could cause the President to use the U.S. military more than the National Guard.” Northwestern Law professor Paul Gowder decodes the signal : “This is basically an invitation for Trump to go straight to the Insurrection Act next time.” The courts established ordinary measures cannot succeed when states organize systematic resistance. They certified that regular law enforcement has become impracticable. They documented the exact threshold Section 332 requires. The founders designed a system that assumed conflict between federal and state authority. For decades, that friction was suppressed. Emergency powers normalized after 9/11, federal agencies expanded into state domains, courts deferred to administrative expertise. The Guard deployment battles weren't system failure. They were constitutional gravity reasserting itself. Courts blocking deployments under Posse Comitatus didn't weaken Trump's position. They certified that ordinary measures had become impracticable, crossing Section 332's threshold. December 31, 2025 . Trump announces Guard withdrawal from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland via Truth Social. Governor Newsom celebrates: “President Trump has finally admitted defeat.” But the machine's interpretation misreads strategic repositioning as retreat. You cannot claim ordinary measures have been exhausted if contested forces remain deployed. Pull back. Let obstruction resume unchecked. Document the refusal. Then demonstrate what unilateral executive action looks like when constitutional authority aligns. THE DEMONSTRATION Trump v. United States . THE HIDDEN NETWORKS Intelligence sources describe what the roundups since fall 2025 actually target. Embedded cartel operatives running fentanyl distribution chains under state-level protection. The riots following military arrests aren't organic resistance. They're funded backlash from criminal enterprises losing billions. Pre-staged materials appear at protest sites. Simultaneous actions coordinate across jurisdictions. The coordination runs deeper. Federal employee networks across multiple agencies held Zoom training sessions in early 2025. Officials with verified government IDs discussed “non-cooperation as non-violent direct action,” the 3.5% rule for governmental collapse, and infrastructure sabotage through coordinated sick calls. They planned to make federal law enforcement impracticable. The exact language Section 332 requires. Sanctuary policies exist because cartel operations generate billions flowing through state systems. Governors sit on nonprofit boards receiving federal grants. Those nonprofits contract back to state agencies, cycling federal dollars through “charitable” organizations. Cartel cash launders through these same construction and real estate networks. When Trump's operations extract high-value targets, they disrupt the business model. The Machine defends itself through coordinated obstruction designed to make federal enforcement impracticable. This transcends immigration policy. This tests whether states can capture governance for criminal enterprises and nullify federal supremacy. THE LINCOLN PARALLEL Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation confounded supporters and critics alike. Abolitionists expected moral thunder. Instead they received dry legalese about “military necessity” and “war powers.” The document deliberately avoided the word “freedom.” It specified which states, parishes, counties. It exempted border states still in the Union. Constitutional historians recognize the genius. Lincoln wasn't making a moral proclamation. He was establishing irreversible legal predicate under war powers. Once issued, even Northern defeat couldn't fully restore slavery. The proclamation made restoration of the old order structurally impossible. Trump's April 28 order follows identical construction. Critics expected immigration rhetoric. Instead: technical language about “unlawful insurrection” and “federal supremacy.” Specified sanctuary jurisdictions, formal notification procedures, funding suspensions. Avoided inflammatory language. Constitutional attorneys recognize the structure. Irreversible legal predicate under insurrection powers. Even political defeat cannot fully restore sanctuary authority. States would have to prove they're not in systematic insurrection. Both presidents disguised constitutional warfare as administrative procedure. THE COMPLETE RECORD When you review the eight-month timeline you recognize what most ‘experts' miss. The April 28 EO satisfied every Section 334 requirement. It designated sanctuary conduct as insurrection. It provided formal notification. It established consequences. It granted eight months to comply. Compliance never arrived. California and New York passed laws shielding criminal networks. Illinois officials threatened to prosecute ICE agents. Multiple states coordinated legal defenses against federal authority. Courts blocked every standard enforcement attempt. They certified that ordinary measures have become impracticable. Every statutory requirement checks complete: Formal proclamation warning insurgents to disperse: April 28, 2025 Executive Order 14287 Extended opportunity to comply: Eight months from April to December 2025 Documented systematic multi-state obstruction: Sanctuary laws, prosecution threats, coordinated resistance Exhausted ordinary enforcement measures: Guard deployments blocked by federal courts Judicial certification of impracticability: Supreme Court ruling with Kavanaugh footnote The legal architecture stands finished. The predicate has been established. Only the final triggering event remains. Thomas Jefferson signed the Insurrection Act into law on March 3, 1807 . He understood executive authority: forge the instrument ahead of the storm, then await the conditions that justify its use. Abraham Lincoln used it to preserve the Union when eleven states organized systematic resistance. Ulysses S. Grant invoked it to shatter the Ku Klux Klan when Southern governments refused to protect Black citizens. Dwight Eisenhower deployed federal troops to enforce Brown v. Board when Arkansas chose defiance. Each invocation followed the same pattern. Local authorities refuse to enforce federal law. The president issues formal proclamation. Forces deploy when resistance continues. The current situation exceeds every historical precedent in scale and coordination. Multiple state governments coordinating systematic obstruction. Sanctuary jurisdictions spanning dozens of cities. Criminal enterprises funding the resistance through captured state institutions. The April proclamation gave them eight months to stand down. They chose escalation. THE COUNTDOWN The January 4 statement confirms what the legal timeline already established. Prerequisites met. Constitutional threshold crossed and judicially certified. The operational timeline is active. The next escalation triggers the formal dispersal order. Section 334 requires the president issue proclamation ordering insurgents to “disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes” before deploying military force. That's the legal tripwire. Once issued, if obstruction persists after the compliance window closes, federal troops can enforce federal law. Active duty forces under the Insurrection Act. Constitutional. Unreviewable. The forces won't conduct door-to-door immigration raids. They'll provide security perimeters while federal law enforcement executes targeted operations against high-value assets. Operatives. Trafficking nodes. Criminal infrastructure. Targeting oath-bound officials elected and appointed, as well as federal employees who swore to uphold federal law and chose insurrection instead. THE RESTORATION Sanctuary jurisdictions received explicit insurrection warnings last spring. More than half a year to comply. Every olive branch rejected. Courts blocked ordinary enforcement repeatedly, certifying impracticability. The Venezuela op demonstrated unilateral resolve. Yesterday's statement activated the operational sequence. Pattern recognized. Machine is exposed. Evidence is complete. What remains is execution. They're just waiting to hear it tick. The most powerful weapon restrains until every prerequisite aligns. Until mercy extends fully and meets systematic rejection. Until the constitutional framework demands its use. Every prerequisite has aligned. Mercy has been extended and rejected. The framework demands its use. Revolution destroys. Reversion restores. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. The Insurrection Proclamation frees a republic.  https://twitter.com/EkoLovesYou/status/2008304655156342936?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2008597603412308341?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Candisse Williamson is a highly accomplished General Counsel known for her creative deal-making and extensive legal expertise across the entertainment and corporate sectors. After graduating from Northwestern Law, she refined her corporate law skills, with a focus on M&A and private equity, at prestigious firms including Paul Weiss and King & Spalding. Her career then transitioned to entertainment, where she served as VP of Business and Legal Affairs at The Madison Square Garden Company, notably as lead attorney for the renowned Christmas Spectacular Starring the Radio City Rockettes. Later, as General Counsel at Skybound Entertainment, Candisse built the company's legal department from the ground up, overseeing all transactions in film, TV, and gaming. She is now the GC of Hartbeat, actor and comedian Kevin Hart's media company. In this role, she established the legal department and now drives strategic deal-making across film, TV, audio, live events, and branded content, all while serving as a key member of the executive team. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT BUILDING LEGAL TEAMS AND MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL Most lawyers follow predictable career paths, but some find themselves in industries where the landscape shifts constantly. Candisse Williamson made the transition from corporate M&A at top firms to building legal departments in entertainment companies, where deal structures evolve rapidly and traditional contracts often don't fit. As General Counsel at Hartbeat, Kevin Hart's media company, Candisse has learned that success requires more than legal expertise. She's built two legal departments from the ground up, developed strategies for working effectively with outside counsel, and discovered that understanding the business is often more important than perfecting the legal details. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise Holtzman speaks with Candisse about her journey from Big Law to entertainment, how she approaches building and managing legal teams, and practical advice for lawyers looking to work with entertainment companies. 2:34 - Why Candisse wanted a legal career and her transition into entertainment law 5:30 - The biggest challenge for Candisse as VP/General Counsel 8:06 - How Candisse built Hartbeat's legal department from the ground up 11:09 -  Two main purposes of outside counsel and how Candisse maintains relationships  13:56 - Candisse's philosophy about handling difficult conversations with outside counsel 16:52 - How you can rise above the crowded field and grow a book of business as a private practice lawyer 23:18 - Why Candisse emphasizes diversity in her staffing decisions 25:43 - Challenges in the constantly evolving world of entertainment and media 30:03 - Candisse's personality and adaptability as an attorney  33:53 - Highly critical advice for in-house counsel   MENTIONED IN STRATEGY AND TALENT: HOW ONE GENERAL COUNSEL BUILDS LEGAL TEAMS AND CHOOSES OUTSIDE COUNSEL Hartbeat | LinkedIn | Instagram Laugh Out Loud Network: YouTube | TikTok | Instagram | Facebook | Snapchat | Twitter/X Anthony Desimone | Making AI Work For Your Law Firm Without Compromising Security or Excellence Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE... Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession.  If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Spivey J.D. admissions consultants Danielle Early (former Associate Director of Admissions at Harvard Law School and military/veteran admissions specialist) and Mike Burns (former Director of Admissions & Financial Aid at Northwestern Law and Navy veteran) interview Brian Henson, a former consulting client of Danielle's, Navy Intelligence Officer, Service to School mentor, Harvard Law Armed Forces Association president, and recent HLS graduate. They discuss Brian's story of applying to law school from the middle of the ocean on an aircraft carrier and his experiences as a veteran at HLS, plus insights into admissions and legal education specifically targeted at military veterans and those on active duty.What considerations should military applicants keep in mind that differ from non-military applicants? What is the adjustment like moving from the military to law school? What sorts of admissions resources are available for military members and veterans? What are common pieces of misinformation that military applicants may encounter, and what's the true story? They cover these topics and more, including admissions for enlisted soldiers vs. officers (29:36), getting letters of recommendation from supervisors/commanders (36:44), application timing (5:28 and 21:51), resumes (43:36), personal statements (46:08), determining your chances and making a school list (31:51), job search advice (1:03:42), and more.You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode here.

Ryan Phelan is a partner and patent attorney at Marshall Gerstein. He discusses his journey from a background in computer science and fintech to becoming a prominent IP attorney serving clients in the MedTech industry and beyond. He shares insights on the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for startups, and the burgeoning role of AI in medical technology. This succinct yet fascinating conversation highlights the critical intersection of law, technology, and medical innovation. Guest links: https://www.marshallip.com | https://www.patentnext.com/  Charity supported: Sleep in Heavenly Peace Interested in being a guest on the show or have feedback to share? Email us at theleadingdifference@velentium.com.  PRODUCTION CREDITS Host: Lindsey Dinneen Editing: Marketing Wise Producer: Velentium   EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Episode 058 - Ryan Phelan [00:00:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Hi, I'm Lindsey and I'm talking with MedTech industry leaders on how they change lives for a better world. [00:00:09] Diane Bouis: The inventions and technologies are fascinating and so are the people who work with them. [00:00:15] Frank Jaskulke: There was a period of time where I realized, fundamentally, my job was to go hang out with really smart people that are saving lives and then do work that would help them save more lives. [00:00:28] Diane Bouis: I got into the business to save lives and it is incredibly motivating to work with people who are in that same business, saving or improving lives. [00:00:38] Duane Mancini: What better industry than where I get to wake up every day and just save people's lives. [00:00:42] Lindsey Dinneen: These are extraordinary people doing extraordinary work, and this is The Leading Difference. Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Leading Difference podcast. I'm your host, Lindsey, and I am so looking forward to my conversation today with Ryan Phelan. Ryan is a partner and patent attorney at the Chicago based intellectual property law firm, Marshall Gerstein, where he counsels medtech companies on protecting their valuable IP. Ryan ultimately believes that AI is an important technology to embrace, but cautions medical device and related companies to approach it pragmatically, developing a policy to govern and protect intangible assets and innovation. All right. Well, thank you so much for being here, Ryan. I'm so excited to speak with you today. [00:01:29] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. Thank you for having me. Thank you, Lindsey. [00:01:31] Lindsey Dinneen: Of course. Well, I'd love if you'd start off by sharing a little bit about your background and what led you to medtech. [00:01:39] Ryan Phelan: Sure, absolutely. So I'm an attorney by trade. And I started off in probably a different place than most people in MedTech, but I have a computer science degree and I worked in industry first for Accenture, doing a lot of programming and consulting in the FinTech world. So, high frequency trading and programming some pretty complicated data algorithms in order to trade stocks and bonds and securities, and things like this. That let me see aspects of intellectual property that people were doing with respect to the code I was writing. So I got curious with IP and law, and that led me to law school, Northwestern Law, in pursuing a joint JD, MBA program, which I finished in 2010. And I went into IP law with a passion for technology, pretty much in the computing space. And then in the last decade or so, IP practitioners, not unlike doctors, like to practice in specific areas and one of the ones that I focused on is software medical devices. And so that, that kind of led me into the realm of medtech. [00:02:48] Lindsey Dinneen: Very nice. Okay. So you have had such an interesting career trajectory and I'm wondering, back in the day, say you're a six year old Ryan, could six year old Ryan have predicted that you would be a lawyer and particularly intellectual property? [00:03:04] Ryan Phelan: Absolutely not. I mean, first of all nobody in my family, at least immediate family, was a lawyer. And so going to law school was not on the radar. I grew up in Louisiana in a small town, basically farm life, so certainly technology and stuff like that wasn't available in the city. But I did have a passion for things that were tech. I was certainly a kid that loved to take things apart and put them back together and build all kinds of Legos and stuff like that. So that basic kind of STEM acumen or desire was always there from the beginning. And so, as I, I grew up and got exposed to more things, certainly in college, it became kind of a passion. And so, I ended up doing that. We did have some medical issues in my family, including cardiac and cancer and stuff like that. So, those types of things always hit home with me and you're getting to a chance to kind of lean into medtech, at least on the software side, with medtech devices that include or incorporate medical technology became very interesting to me personally. [00:04:07] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, of course. And so going back just a smidgen when you decided to go into law and you know, you've come from this background that was the software engineering and you've got this fintech background and you have all of these amazing skill sets already, what led you specifically to say, "Okay, I want to focus on intellectual property, and so this is going to be my, my sweet spot." [00:04:33] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. So when you go to law school, you get exposed to a lot of different classes. In fact, in your first year law school, you're required to take a bunch of baseline courses like criminal law and all these things. And so you quickly figure out what you like and what you don't like. And so for me, a computer science degree is always kind of the beating heart of what I loved. And so I wanted to, I tended to like, classes that were up that alley, so to speak. And the IP course that I took was definitely there because it was all about technology, inventions, people making things, and how those inventions played out in court. So I found my greatest joy in law school to be in those classes. So I spoke up the most in class and did the best. There's common saying that "you should do things that you love because you never have to work a day in your life" kind of thing. So I always try to think about that, and certainly fun today because I practice in IP and picked that direction. [00:05:27] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, absolutely. So, in addition to all of the other credentials you have, you are also a published author and you are a speaker. And I would love if you would share maybe a little bit more about how you got into being a thought leader as well in your industry and how that path has taken you. [00:05:51] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, for sure. It's the same kind of thing. I've always liked to write as well. And I feel that when I write about something, I really get to understand it. And so in my field, there's a lot of stuff happening all the time. Like a court will come out with a new case, an IP and medtech or AI or something like this, and I really like to dig into it to figure out how can I use this court decision as a tool for clients, or how does this change things up? What will clients ask me questions going forward, or how can this be an interesting topic to either write about or to speak about? And so, I try to learn when I'm reading, and then I write it, and that teaches me, and I think and hope that others get a benefit from that too when I publish, so. [00:06:34] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes, of course. Of course. And you are also, if I'm not mistaken, an adjunct professor. So, first of all, do you sleep? And second of all, tell me more about this as well, please. [00:06:47] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, so I'm an adjunct professor at Northwestern Law. I teach a course on patenting software inventions. I do sleep because it's only once a year for a power week. You know, I think it's like three days out of the year. There's the long classes, they're like a few hours each, but we pack in several 30 minute core sessions into a day. So one day, maybe we'll go for three hours or two hours. And, you know, we will get the benefit of several weeks of coursework by doing all of that at once in those three days. And so, I teach on that. We teach fundamentals of patenting softwares and inventions, which includes medtech software devices. For example, the FDA classifies software, medical inventions in, in, in certain ways, like their software as a medical device where you have the software only such as, you have database with medical data and you're either formatting it or storing it or processing in some unique way, or you have software in a medical device where you actually have a physical device. It's a cardiac device where the software is running or at least partially running that device. And so we talk about ways to, to patent those inventions primarily with US law. So. [00:07:59] Lindsey Dinneen: Very nice. So specifically thinking about your medtech clients, because I know you probably have clients in many industries, but specifically in medtech, what are some of the common mistakes you see medtech companies making? Especially say, you know, an earlier startup or something like that, when maybe they haven't thought through an aspect that really should be thought through a little bit earlier in the process. What are some common things that you see that people should be aware of? [00:08:27] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I mean, easily one of them is not filing a patent application early. And if they are a startup company and they have their biggest selling product, or what they think will be their biggest selling product, and they don't file a patent application on it, that could be bad because you have one year to get to the patent office with that, at least in the U. S. to file something once it's been publicly disclosed. And if you miss that deadline, then effectively you're allowing your competitors to copy it. And if you're a startup company, the last thing you want is for your product to become extremely successful and then a big Fortune 500 company gets wind of it, figures out you don't have a patent, and then just starts making it themselves and it takes away your market share. So that would be, you know, I think that's every inventor of startups like worst nightmare, right? So, getting that patent on file before the deadline is pretty important. [00:09:22] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, of course. Now, I noticed you had recently written an article on LinkedIn about when to file this patent. And I know part of maybe some concerns that might arise are, "Well, we don't necessarily want this to be in public awareness yet." So how do you walk that line between "This is our IP, we're really trying to keep it very tight," versus, "But I also need this protection, this legal protection." So how do you navigate things like that? [00:09:54] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, so the point at which you need to make your invention publicly available or to disclose it because you need to, you know, maybe you're going to pitch competition and you need to show your invention on like a PowerPoint deck in front of hundreds of people. Then that's probably a good point to start thinking about filing a patent application if you're still developing it, and it's like in your basement, so to speak, and nobody's seen it. It's still secret then. You don't need to necessarily file a patent application at that point. Although, there's a funny thing in patent law where, if you have an idea, sometimes there's somebody else thinking about it too, and the first one to get the patent office, wins, and so, you certainly don't want to wait around too long and find out years later that you filed your patent application the day after somebody else. This actually happened with Thomas Edison and the light bulb and he had lots of fights about the other person that was claiming the same thing that lost, and we don't remember his name today because of that. So anyway, so that's one thing to keep in mind when you're starting out. [00:10:54] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Well, and speaking of those kinds of stories, are there any that particularly stand out to you as you've worked with all of these incredible clients who have seriously life changing products they're creating. Are there any that really stand out to you in your memory as affirming, "Oh my goodness, this is why I'm here. This is why I'm doing what I'm doing." [00:11:17] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, for sure. One that stands out is one in the opioid or the narcotics market. In my family, we have an individual who is unfortunately affected by this. And so, I had a client that reached out to me to create a VR program that helps to eliminate or to reduce cravings in this field. And that one was really impactful because using technology and non pharmaceutical way in order to reduce cravings for people that are struggling with addiction of some type, I felt to be very important. So I thoroughly enjoyed working with that inventor and helping to, to create that patent application for that invention. [00:11:59] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, of course. Yeah. Thank you for sharing about that. I think sometimes those really personal connection kinds of stories are the ones that really stick in your mind because it, it helps to have this moment of realization, like you know that what you do matters, of course, but then having that extra layer of confirmation that "Yes, this is helping somebody who could literally be a family member or a close friend or relative" is really impactful. [00:12:25] Ryan Phelan: Exactly. [00:12:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. So considering all of the industries that you currently serve, and of course, you have this incredibly varied background, which can only be wonderful to draw on from this rich history and experience of yours. What are some interesting crossovers you see between industries that can be useful in terms of, maybe one industry approaches something in a way that you've seen could actually really benefit folks in medtech or vice versa. Are you seeing trends like that? [00:12:59] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of the biggest ones that I can think of now is artificial intelligence coming into play with medtech. I mean, certainly, medtech kind of runs the gamut of, you know, like, like we mentioned before software only to physical devices that incorporate software. And so AI is interesting because you can load it and AI model onto one of these physical devices, or you can have an AI model that's medtech based sitting on a server somewhere that can help doctors look or find particular cause or whatnot like that, based on symptoms that a patient may walk into, or maybe there's a device, like a needle, that allows that has an AI model on it that helps with injection or something like this. And so, these AI tools are becoming smarter. And I think that they help in the field of medtech and they require a different level of expertise with these inventions to not only create them because they're complex, but also to bring them to market because they require specific FDA regulations. Even the FDA right now is trying to figure out AI. They have approved several AI devices, but it usually comes down to, you know, is your AI device going to change in the near future because you're going to update the model? And if so, does that change it enough to require like a new submission? So the fact that AI moves so rapidly doesn't really mix well with the FDA's process of approving the device and having it set in stone at that approval state. [00:14:30] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. So where do you anticipate that this will take medical devices? Do you think it'll become so naturally ingrained in many of them that it's just sort of part of our reality, or do you think we'll still have those --what do we want to call them-- not AI functionality devices? [00:14:48] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I think both will exist. You know, certainly a spectrum of these devices, right? Certainly there's surgical tools that exist now that have hundreds of years, or a hundred years, just in different, maybe better forms. So, those will stay, stick around. The AI assisted ones, I'm sure will find their niche, and live alongside the the existing tools. [00:15:10] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, absolutely. If you could narrow it down, what would be maybe your top piece of advice for a MedTech startup founder from your perspective, in your role? [00:15:23] Ryan Phelan: Yeah, I guess the number one would be again to, you know, make sure you're not giving away your crown jewels. Have your patent filed before you step out. If you're trying to raise money, just be careful that you're not sharing information publicly. You have to share with a potential investor, consider an NDA or if they won't sign an NDA, you can file a provisional patent application with the patent office. That shows that you have something on file before you talk to others. And as long as you describe the invention sufficiently in the four corners of your provisional application, then that's often the best way to protect yourself going out. So I think, as an IP attorney, that, that would be the number one advice that I would give a startup company in the medtech space. [00:16:10] Lindsey Dinneen: That's incredible. Thank you for that. That's really appreciated advice. So, it's so interesting because when I was looking at your LinkedIn profile, of course you have all of this incredible experience, and one thing actually really stood out to me, and that was that at least at some point you have been a and --I'm sure you've done this throughout your career multiple times-- but a pro bono lawyer for Lawyers for the Creative Arts. And I was curious about that and how you got involved, and can you share a little bit about that journey? [00:16:40] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. So LCA or Lawyers for the Creative Arts is an organization here in Chicago that deals with artists of limited means. You know, usually they have some type of basic issue that they want handled and it mainly deals with IP. Typically, I work on a different capacity for these because I see them as like kind of fun learning opportunities. I usually work in the copyright space and the clients that I work with need help either filing a copyright for maybe a piece of art that they've created, or maybe have a question about how their IP is being used or sold in some way, and they need to figure out if their IP has been infringed. And so, we'll work with them in a pro bono capacity to help write a letter to a company or to file a copyright registration and things like that. [00:17:28] Lindsey Dinneen: Well, as a, as my side thing as also an artist, I just want to say thank you because it is so great that you're doing things like that for the artist community. It is not always easy. So, oh, that's great, appreciate it. Yeah. So as you look towards your own future, what are you excited about say in the next year or two? [00:17:50] Ryan Phelan: Very excited to see how, I guess, AI is playing out with medtech. You're seeing regulations and guidelines coming out that The United States Patent and Trademark Office and also the Copyright Office about how these laws will impact artists. I've sat on a panel with the Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office as they're thinking through these decisions and putting out these guidelines. There is questions about, is the new administration going to change things up with respect to guidance and guidelines that have come out. So, you know, artists are looking at AI is like a tool, like a paintbrush. And the law is kind of looking at it, obviously from the legal perspective and it doesn't seem like those two things are aligned yet. There's common in, in history that the law typically lags the technology by, you know, a decade or two or more. And so that's certainly the case with AI. For example, there is a famous -- I wouldn't call it a case-- but a denial of a copyright registration at the copyright office for a gentleman that had created an AI piece of artwork, won the Colorado state fair, I think in 2022, and tried to file a copyright registration, but was denied. And he told the copyright office, basically he had entered in 500 plus prompts in order to generate, or at least partially generate, this work of art, but was still denied . Not because of his effort, just because of the way the law is written under current copyright statutes. And so, things like that seem to be, at least from a policy perspective, incorrect. And so it'd be great to see exciting how this plays out. Will Congress care enough to change it or how will artists be impacted under these types of laws and policy considerations going forward? [00:19:35] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, absolutely. So pivoting the conversation a little bit just for fun, imagine that you were to be offered a million dollars masterclass on anything you want. It can be within your industry or part of your amazing background, or it could be about something entirely different. What would you choose to teach? [00:19:55] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. Wow. You know, I guess I would teach what I'm currently teaching. Cause I, I do enjoy the class I teach now. I'm at Northwestern, my alma mater, which I love. It's down the street from the office, get to go in same place where I went to school and teach the law and things that I do every day, which is patenting software inventions, including the medtech space. If I could get a million dollars to teach what I do now, that would be wonderful, in this hypothetical, so. [00:20:22] Lindsey Dinneen: Right. I love it. Excellent. And how do you wish to be remembered after you leave this world? [00:20:30] Ryan Phelan: Wow. I hope people remember me as someone who was fun loving and enjoyed tech and hopefully brought some information to the world that helped them in some way. [00:20:42] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, of course. And final question, what is one thing that makes you smile every time you see or think about it? [00:20:51] Ryan Phelan: Oh, wow. I guess there's a lot of stuff. I also like to do some type of sports. Currently, the ski season is ending, so I certainly enjoy skiing, so when I see or think about that's one of those things, and now coming is the golf season, so I transitioned into that. We're looking forward to some good weather here, finally, in Chicago. It was 80 degrees last week, and it snowed yesterday, so things are changing from golf to ski season, but one of those is always fun, so. [00:21:17] Lindsey Dinneen: That's awesome. That's fantastic. Yeah. If folks who are listening are in a position, would there be a way for them to get in contact with you and then how early should they do that actually? [00:21:31] Ryan Phelan: Yeah. There's multiple stages. They can get in touch with me anytime they want. You can always find me at our firm's website, Marshall Gerstein. Or if you want to, you can go to patentnext.com, just patent and the word next. com. That's my blog that I write on typically, and it has my contact information there, including my email address. [00:21:51] Lindsey Dinneen: Perfect. Well, thank you so much. Well, Ryan, it has been a joy to speak with you today. I really appreciate you sharing a little bit about your career and your insights, your advice, especially appreciate that for MedTech founders who might, you know, not quite know where to start with this whole legal element that they really need to consider. So I really appreciate you sharing kind of when and how to do that. And we're excited to be making a donation on your behalf, as a thank you for your time today, to Sleep in Heavenly Peace, which provides beds for children who don't have any in the United States. So thank you for choosing that charity to support. And thank you again so much for being here. This has been a wonderful conversation, and I just wish you the most continued success as you work to change lives for a better world. [00:22:41] Ryan Phelan: Thank you, Lindsey. My pleasure. Happy to be here too. Thank you for having me. [00:22:44] Lindsey Dinneen: Of course. And for our listeners, thank you so much for tuning in. If you're feeling as inspired as I am, I'd love it if you'd share this episode with a colleague or two, and we'll catch you next time. [00:22:56] Ben Trombold: The Leading Difference is brought to you by Velentium. Velentium is a full-service CDMO with 100% in-house capability to design, develop, and manufacture medical devices from class two wearables to class three active implantable medical devices. Velentium specializes in active implantables, leads, programmers, and accessories across a wide range of indications, such as neuromodulation, deep brain stimulation, cardiac management, and diabetes management. Velentium's core competencies include electrical, firmware, and mechanical design, mobile apps, embedded cybersecurity, human factors and usability, automated test systems, systems engineering, and contract manufacturing. Velentium works with clients worldwide, from startups seeking funding to established Fortune 100 companies. Visit velentium.com to explore your next step in medical device development.

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike Spivey has a conversation with Associate Dean Don Rebstock—who, among multiple other departments, heads both Admissions and Career Services at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law—about the first 2024-2025 law school applicant data that was released last week, what it means for applicants, and why it's not as scary as it looks. Some of the questions they discuss include, will the numbers go down? How much will they go down? Why are LSAT scores so high? How will this impact competitiveness? How will it impact the pace of the cycle? Will law schools enroll more students next fall? Plus thoughts on grade inflation, rankings, employability, and their best advice for applicants in light of the new data. You can find our recent blog on predicting this cycle here. Mike's interview with Justin Ishbia, also mentioned in this episode, is here. You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode here.

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Spivey Consulting President Anna Hicks-Jaco has a conversation with three Spivey Consultants and former law school admissions officers—Sam Kwak (Stanford Law, Northwestern Law, Indiana University Law), Paula Gluzman (UCLA Law, UW Law), and Joe Pollak (Michigan Law)—a group that has collectively spent over 20 years advising law school applicants one-on-one as consultants. In that time, they have assisted hundreds of law school applicants in creating strategic school lists, the topic of today's episode. How do you estimate your chances of admission to determine reach, target, and "safety" schools? How many schools should you apply to? How many schools do most applicants apply to (and how is the oft-cited average number of applications per applicant somewhat misleading here)? Where can you find the best and most up-to-date information about law schools when doing your research? We cover all of the above and more. This episode is a companion to our recent blog post on this topic, How to Create Your Law School List. Here are a few other resources we mentioned in this episode: Law School Application Fee Waivers blog post series from Joe Pollak: Part 1 (Unsolicited Fee Waivers), Part 2 (Soliciting Fee Waivers), and Part 3 (Need-Based Fee Waivers) Podcast: "Safety Schools" and Making a Law School Backup Plan (with Danielle Early, former Harvard Law admissions officer) 2024 Medians Spreadsheet (Spivey Consulting) Official Guide to ABA-Approved JD Programs (LSAC) ABA-Required Disclosures (including admissions and employment data for all ABA-accredited law schools) How I Lawyer Podcast with Jonah Perlin (also check out our Status Check episode with Jonah here and Jonah's episode interviewing Mike Spivey here) My Rank by Spivey (custom law school rankings according to your priorities and preferences) You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode here.

Ashley Kirkwood struggled to get into law school. Her struggle was so real that she literally camped out in the admissions office until they let her in. She worked hard and transferred to Northwestern Law graduating at the top of her class. She tells me she felt unseen and underutilized at her firm. So she quit a job paying her more than $300,000 a year to go into business for herself. Now she runs a law firm and a speaking business. Her book is Speak Your Way to Cash.

Welcome to a special episode of Divorce and Beyond!! Airing right after Thanksgiving and just before Giving Tuesday 2023 on November 28th, we're revisiting a powerful episode titled "Sharing is Caring: How Philanthropy Can Help You Heal." In this replay, Susan Guthrie speaks with Caren Yanis, a philanthropy Sherpa, and former Oprah Winfrey Foundation Executive Director. Together, they explore the transformative power of giving, delving into how it can guide us through challenging times, including the complexities of divorce. This is a heartfelt conversation about how philanthropy intersects with divorce, families, the future, and beyond. Caren, now the principal of Croland Consulting, shares insights on building a culture of purpose and legacy for families, athletes, and celebrities.  Let this episode inspire you to embrace the spirit of generosity on Giving Tuesday.   Topics and Golden Nuggets include Divorce is a prime time to do something outward-focused with your children, such as giving. Philanthropy can help you heal from the trauma of a difficult divorce Engaging in the arts and using the arts to help other people is a fabulous way to elevate everybody **************************************** About this week's special guest: Caren Yanis Caren is the principal of Croland Consulting, a philanthropic advisory group that guides families, athletes, and celebrities in building a culture of purpose and legacy. She was Executive Director of the Oprah Winfrey Foundation and Oprah's Angel Network, (2000-2009) the height of the Oprah Winfrey Show.  She went on to become President of Crown Family Philanthropies in Chicago.  Caren's focus is on deepening intergenerational engagement and social impact using a variety of assets and strategies. Keynotes, podcasts, and panel discussions have included Family Business Magazine's Legacy and Wealth Conference, Yale's Philanthropy Conference, and the Society for Trust and Estate Planners annual and regional conferences. She has been a guest on podcasts including The Heart of Giving (Better Business Bureau), Denton's, Alliance Bernstein, and Family Business Magazine's Legacy and Wealth Conference.  She is an adjunct professor at Tulane University, the University of Chicago Booth School in their Private Wealth Management program, and at the Spertus Institute where she also mentors graduate students. University speaking engagements include Northwestern Law, NYU, Duke and Johns Hopkins. Caren chairs the board of The Poetry Foundation (which received a significant bequest from Ruth Lilly in 2002) and has guided it through meaningful organizational and governance change. She is an advisor to the Aubrey and Marla Dan Foundation, and to the (Deepak) Chopra Foundation, is a member of the Board of Visitors at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University, and the Women's Philanthropy Institute, a research organization focused on trends in giving. In her spare time, Caren hosts salons that bring bold thinkers together for meaningful conversations. She has a passion for listening deeply, navigating challenges, and guiding people who have the potential to make the world a better place.  Caren Croland Yanis | Philanthropic Advising: caren@crolandconsulting.com  Caren's website: CrolandConsulting.com  Caren on Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/carenyanis ***************************************** Episodes and Resources mentioned in this episode: The Divorce & Beyond website is a great place to visit if you want more support and information as you move through your divorce and beyond.  We have links to all the latest episodes, show notes, and the most recent episode. Plus, you can sign up for the weekly newsletter, freebies, and downloadable resources.  Visit DivorceandBeyondPod.com today!  Singing ”Single Bells” This Holiday? Surviving the Solitary Season with Special Guest, Jenny Stevens  PoetryMagazine.org/EventsOffer:1 year of Poetry Magazine for $20. Regular price is $35.   Generosity Project: https://www.ted.com/talks/sasha_dichter_the_generosity_experiment  Women's Philanthropy Institute – The Women's and Girls Index: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/21010/wgi-infographic.pdf  Women's Philanthropy Institute -Women as Change Agents:  https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/21440/change-agents-infographic.pdf  Women Moving Millions: https://womenmovingmillions.org/  Thresholds  - mental health and breaking the cycle of poverty: https://www.thresholds.org/  Friends of the Children – mentoring high risk children: https://friendschicago.org/about  Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: theMMRF.org  ***************************************** THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSOR: SOBERLINK Thriving in divorce and beyond means not having to worry about the safety of your children when it comes to co-parenting. With alcohol abuse on the rise, many co-parents are turning to the system committed to providing proof, protection, and peace of mind. Soberlink's alcohol monitoring system is the most convenient, reliable, and reasonable way for a parent to provide evidence that they are not drinking during parenting time. Soberlink's real-time alerts, facial recognition, and tamper detection ensure the integrity of each test, so you can be confident your kids are with a sober parent. With Soberlink, judges rest assured that your child is safe, attorneys get court-admissible evidence of sobriety, and both parents have empowerment and peace of mind.  Pull back the curtain on the mysteries of parenting time and trust The Experts in Remote Alcohol Monitoring Technology™ to keep you informed and your kids safe and secure. To download the addiction and children resource page that I developed with Soberlink, visit www.Soberlink.com/Susan  ********************************************************************* SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE!  https://divorcebeyond.com/Sponsorship-Info ******************************************************************* MEET OUR CREATOR AND HOST: SUSAN GUTHRIE®, ESQ., the creator and host of The Divorce and Beyond® Podcast, is nationally recognized as one of the top family law and divorce mediation attorneys in the country.  Susan is the Vice Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and is a sought-after keynote speaker, business and practice consultant, coach and trainer. You can find out more about Susan and her services here:  https://neon.page/susanguthrie Internationally renowned as one of the leading experts in online mediation, Susan created her Learn to Mediate Online® program and has trained more than 25,000 professionals in how to transition their practice online.  Susan recently partnered with legal and mediation legend, Forrest "Woody" Mosten to create the Mosten Guthrie Academy which provides gold-standard, fully online training for mediation and collaborative professionals at all stages of their careers.   Follow Susan Guthrie and THE DIVORCE AND BEYOND PODCAST on social media for updates and inside tips and information: Susan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/susaneguthrie/ Susan on Instagram @susanguthrieesq ********************************************************************* We'd really appreciate it if you would give us a 5 Star Rating and tell us what you like about the show in a review - your feedback really matters to us!  You can get in touch with Susan at divorceandbeyondpod@gmail.com.  Don't forget to visit the webpage www.divorceandbeyondpod.com and sign up for the free NEWSLETTER to receive a special welcome video from Susan and more!! ********************************************************************* DISCLAIMER:  THE COMMENTARY AND OPINIONS AVAILABLE ON THIS PODCAST ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE.  YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

We're sure you've heard of the Nobel Prize although it's hard to make the case Beth has since she mispronounces it quite a bit in this episode. But have you heard of Nobel Disease? It's when people are labeled geniuses and go on to embrace some whackadoodle pseudoscience. In today's Strange Country episode, Beth and Kelly discuss Kary Mullis, the only Nobel winner to be referred to as “generally barking mad.” He discovered the polymerase chain reaction, which we all regularly employed when we wanted to make dang certain it wasn't covid. Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands Cite your sources: “First DNA Exoneration, Center on Wrongful Convictions: Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.” Northwestern Law, https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/gary-dotson.html. Accessed 9 October 2023.   Guo, Jerry. “A Little Off the Top for History.” The New York Times, 13 July 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/fashion/13hair.html. Accessed 9 October 2023.   Jarry, Jonathan. “The Man Who Photocopied DNA and Also Saw a Talking Fluorescent Raccoon.” McGill University, 15 August 2019, https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/technology-history/man-who-photocopied-dna-and-also-saw-talking-fluorescent-raccoon. Accessed 9 October 2023.   Joseph, Pat. “Intolerable Genius: Berkeley's Most Controversial Nobel Laureate.” Cal Alumni Association, 12 December 2019, https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/winter-2019/intolerable-genius-berkeleys-most-controversial-nobel-laureate/. Accessed 8 October 2023.   Loeb, Dylan. “Kary B. Mullis, 74, Dies; Found a Way to Analyze DNA and Won Nobel (Published 2019).” The New York Times, 15 August 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/science/kary-b-mullis-dead.html?searchResultPosition=1. Accessed 9 October 2023.   Markel, Howard. “How the talented Oscar Levant broke taboos by talking about mental health.” PBS, 14 August 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-the-talented-oscar-levant-broke-taboos-by-talking-about-mental-health. Accessed 9 October 2023.   “Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Fact Sheet.” National Human Genome Research Institute, 17 August 2020, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Polymerase-Chain-Reaction-Fact-Sheet. Accessed 9 October 2023.   Schreiber, Dan. The Theory of Everything Else: A Voyage Into the World of the Weird. HarperCollins Publishers, 2023.   Thielking, Megan. “How Linus Pauling duped America into believing vitamin C cures colds.” Vox, 27 February 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7547741/vitamin-c-myth-pauling. Accessed 9 October 2023.   Warden, Rob. “Kary B. Mullis: A lament for the loss of a life that saved many.” Injustice Watch, 18 August 2019, https://www.injusticewatch.org/commentary/2019/requiem-for-kary-b-mullis-a-lament-for-a-life-that-saved-many/. Accessed 9 October 2023.

Pinnacle Leadership: Business and legal leader Lindsay Guion is pursuing an LL.M. program at Northwestern Law and IE Business School, focusing on practical experience and the law's societal and business impact for a changing legal landscape. GUION PARTNERS City: New York Address: 590 Madison Avenue Website https://www.guionpartners.com Phone +1-646-340-5000 Email ceo@guionpartners.com

In this episode, Susan Guthrie, Esq. is joined by philanthropist Caren Yanis who shares the many ways that being generous and sharing with others can actually help you heal after divorce.    Being philanthropic is not just about money. We have social capital, intellectual capital, time or the ability to be purposeful with lots of different tools. Whether someone has millions of dollars or is on a shoestring budget, being able to give, in some way, can make a difference. Caren Yanis joins Susan Guthrie for a conversation about philanthropy as it intersects with divorce, families, your future, and the beyond. There is power in giving. It can help you heal, be an outlet for your children during divorce, and make the world a better place to live.  Caren Yanis is the principal of Croland Consulting, a philanthropic advisory group that guides families, athletes, and celebrities in building a culture of purpose and legacy. Topics and Golden Nuggets include  Divorce is a prime time to do something with your children that is outward-focused, such as giving The benefit of having a philanthropic advisor or sherpa to create a long view goals of giving Philanthropy can help you heal from the trauma of a difficult divorce Examples of women who come at philanthropy not with a lot of financial resources but with energy and attention, and do amazing things Engaging in the arts and using the arts to help other people is a fabulous way to elevate everybody Whether you have billions of dollars or zero dollars, we all have something to give and to benefit others. About this week's special guest: Caren Yanis Caren is the principal of Croland Consulting, a philanthropic advisory group that guides families, athletes, and celebrities in building a culture of purpose and legacy. She was Executive Director of the Oprah Winfrey Foundation and Oprah's Angel Network, (2000-2009) the height of the Oprah Winfrey Show.  She went on to become President of Crown Family Philanthropies in Chicago.  Caren's focus is on deepening intergenerational engagement and social impact using a variety of assets and strategies. Keynotes, podcasts, and panel discussions have included Family Business Magazine's Legacy and Wealth Conference, Yale's Philanthropy Conference, and the Society for Trust and Estate Planners annual and regional conferences. She has been a guest on podcasts including The Heart of Giving (Better Business Bureau), Denton's, Alliance Bernstein, and Family Business Magazine's Legacy and Wealth Conference.  She is an adjunct professor at Tulane University, the University of Chicago Booth School in their Private Wealth Management program, and at the Spertus Institute where she also mentors graduate students. University speaking engagements include Northwestern Law, NYU, Duke and Johns Hopkins. Caren chairs the board of The Poetry Foundation (which received a significant bequest from Ruth Lilly in 2002) and has guided it through meaningful organizational and governance change. She is an advisor to the Aubrey and Marla Dan Foundation, and to the (Deepak) Chopra Foundation, is a member of the Board of Visitors at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University, and the Women's Philanthropy Institute, a research organization focused on trends in giving. In her spare time, Caren hosts salons that bring bold thinkers together for meaningful conversations. She has a passion for listening deeply, navigating challenges, and guiding people who have the potential to make the world a better place.  Caren Croland Yanis | Philanthropic Advising: caren@crolandconsulting.com  Caren's website: CrolandConsulting.com  Caren on Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/carenyanis Also mentioned in this episode: Book a Strategy Session with Susan!  Singing ”Single Bells” This Holiday? Surviving the Solitary Season with Special Guest, Jenny Stevens  PoetryMagazine.org/EventsOffer:1 year of Poetry Magazine for $20. Regular price is $35.   Generosity Project: https://www.ted.com/talks/sasha_dichter_the_generosity_experiment  Women's Philanthropy Institute – The Women's and Girls Index: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/21010/wgi-infographic.pdf  Women's Philanthropy Institute -Women as Change Agents:  https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/21440/change-agents-infographic.pdf  Women Moving Millions: https://womenmovingmillions.org/  Thresholds  - mental health and breaking the cycle of poverty: https://www.thresholds.org/  Friends of the Children – mentoring high risk children: https://friendschicago.org/about  Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: theMMRF.org  If you want to see the video version of the podcast episodes they are available on The Divorce & Beyond YouTube Channel!  Make sure to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss a single episode! THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSOR: HELLO DIVORCE Your divorce, your way.  Say hello to an easier, kinder, and less expensive divorce.  They can handle almost every divorce without a court for thousands less than hiring a lawyer.  Easy, quick online divorce process  We review, file, and serve for you  Expert legal and financial help as you go  Get more information, resources, and support at hellodivorce.com/beyond and receive $100 off your service with the code BEYOND!  Visit hellodivorce.com/beyond for $100 OFF! ********************************************************************* SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE!  https://divorcebeyond.com/Sponsorship-Info ******************************************************************* MEET OUR CREATOR AND HOST: SUSAN GUTHRIE®, ESQ., the creator and host of The Divorce and Beyond® Podcast, is nationally recognized as one of the top family law and divorce mediation attorneys in the country.  Susan is the Vice Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and is a sought-after keynote speaker, business and practice consultant, coach and trainer. You can find out more about Susan and her services here:  https://neon.page/susanguthrie Internationally renowned as one of the leading experts in online mediation, Susan created her Learn to Mediate Online® program and has trained more than 25,000 professionals in how to transition their practice online.  Susan recently partnered with legal and mediation legend, Forrest "Woody" Mosten to create the Mosten Guthrie Academy which provides gold standard, fully online training for mediation and collaborative professionals at all stages of their career.   Follow Susan Guthrie and THE DIVORCE AND BEYOND PODCAST on social media for updates and inside tips and information: Susan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/susaneguthrie/ Susan on Instagram @susanguthrieesq ********************************************************************* We'd really appreciate it if you would give us a 5 Star Rating and tell us what you like about the show in a review - your feedback really matters to us!  You can get in touch with Susan at divorceandbeyondpod@gmail.com.  Don't forget to visit the webpage www.divorceandbeyondpod.com and sign up for the free NEWSLETTER to receive a special welcome video from Susan and more!! ********************************************************************* DISCLAIMER:  THE COMMENTARY AND OPINIONS AVAILABLE ON THIS PODCAST ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE.  YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

The eldest daughter of two immigrant entrepreneurs, Priyanka Murthy has a talent and passion for the law. She became a Fulbright Scholar, a cum laude Northwestern Law graduate, an editor of the Law Review, and a law clerk to two prolific federal judges. But a side hustle with her parents' small jewelry wholesale business made her realize that the jewelry industry was outdated and ripe for disruption.To meet this challenge head on, Priyanka launched Access79 to eliminate the risk of buying fine jewelry online by providing a personal and curated, convenient, digital-meets-high-touch shopping experience. The company later rebranded to become Array.Today, Priyanka counts Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Lopez, and Rachel Zoe as fans of her jewelry.In this episode, you will hear:The methodical step Priyanka took to test out her try-before-you-buy solution instead of simply selling for revenuePriyanka's unique business model and how she convinced talented designers to work with her in this new wayWhy working at the intersection of a tech company and a luxury brand is different than other types of startupsTake 15% off your first full price order with code ArrayRenegade15 Connect with your host on Instagram at @shauna.armitage and listen to more Startup Renegade stories at www.startuprenegades.com

Jonathan Jacobson is a Trial Attorney in the Public Integrity Section at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.Jonathan is a graduate of the University of Illinois (2008) and Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (2014). Learn more about the Honors Program at the Department of Justice here. Connect with Jonathan on LinkedIn.Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comOn Twitter @PersonalJxPodAnd on Instagram @PersonalJxPodcastPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Our Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

Chloe is Senior Counsel at Longroad Energy. You can find out more about the work Longroad does here. Chloe Rossen is a graduate of Tufts University (2008) and Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (2014). Connect with Chloe on LinkedIn. Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comOn Twitter @PersonalJxPodAnd on Instagram @PersonalJxPodcastPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Personal Jurisdiction is edited by Scott Donnell at Run and Drum Media https://www.runanddrummedia.comOur Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license 

Support the work of Social Change by donating, volunteering your time, and following Social Change on social media to keep updated on the important work they're doing. Visit Social Change online at https://socialchange.siteFollow Social Change on Twitter @CHIsocialchange,  Instagram @CHIsocialchange and Facebook Connect with Todd Belcore on LinkedIn. Learn more about the Equal Justice Works Fellowship that Todd was a part of after law school. As an EJW Fellow, Todd worked at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law in Chicago where he focused on litigating, organizing, educating, and crafting legislation to ensure that individuals with criminal records are not unjustly denied employment or occupational licenses.Todd is a graduate of the University of Michigan and Northwestern University School of Law.Todd also makes an impact by mediating disputes and teaching law students how to transform systems to make them equity-centered via a class called "The New Jim Crow" (that he teaches at Northwestern Law and University of Chicago Law School).As a result of Todd's commitment to transforming lives and communities, he has received 23 honors, including the ABA's National Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year and the White House's Champion of Change Awards. Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comOn Twitter @PersonalJxPod And on Instagram @PersonalJxPodcastPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Personal Jurisdiction is edited by Scott Donnell at Run and Drum Media https://www.runanddrummedia.comOur Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

Welcome back to America's leading higher education law podcast, EdUp Legal - part of the EdUp Experience Podcast Network! This conversation with David Klieger, Senior Research Scientist in the Center for Educational and Career Development at the Educational Training Service (ETS) and Daniel B. Rodriguez, the Harold Washington Professor and Dean Emeritus at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and Chair of the newly created Legal Education Advisory Committee at ETS, explores the history of law schools utilizing the GRE in addition to the LSAT and provides insight into why schools might consider including the GRE following the ABA's recent decision for widespread acceptance of either admission test. They discuss ETS' partnership with the University of Arizona Law School on JD-Next for aspirants or accepted law students to be exposed to what law study might be like or to prepare them for that study, and the PSQ initiative that is under development and which will assess 14 different soft skill areas and composites. Dr. Klieger and Dean Rodriguez go on to discuss ways that ETS is focused on the advancement of innovation and diversity, equity, and inclusion in legal education, and they both opine on the future of legal education. Thank you so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for your EdUp time! Connect with your host - Patty Roberts ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow EdUp on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening!

Welcome back to America's leading higher education law podcast, EdUp Legal - part of the EdUp Experience Podcast Network! This conversation with David Klieger, Senior Research Scientist in the Center for Educational and Career Development at the Educational Training Service (ETS) and Daniel B. Rodriguez, the Harold Washington Professor and Dean Emeritus at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and Chair of the newly created Legal Education Advisory Committee at ETS, explores the history of law schools utilizing the GRE in addition to the LSAT and provides insight into why schools might consider including the GRE following the ABA's recent decision for widespread acceptance of either admission test. They discuss ETS' partnership with the University of Arizona Law School on JD-Next for aspirants or accepted law students to be exposed to what law study might be like or to prepare them for that study, and the PSQ initiative that is under development and which will assess 14 different soft skill areas and composites. Dr. Klieger and Dean Rodriguez go on to discuss ways that ETS is focused on the advancement of innovation and diversity, equity, and inclusion in legal education, and they both opine on the future of legal education. Thank you so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for your EdUp time! Connect with your host - Patty Roberts ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow EdUp on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening!

“Whatever benefits advanced legal technology may bring to lawyers, I am concerned about this sort of technology seeping into the legal writing classroom,” writes Northwestern University Legal Writing Professor Michael Zuckerman in an article he penned for the ABA Journal, Law Professor Makes Case Against Automating Legal Writing in Law School. However, Professor Zuckerman is not anti-legal tech. In fact, as he explains in the latest episode of Technically Legal, he even founded a legal tech company before joining the law school faculty at Northwestern. His concern is that if law students are not first taught to write their own legal documents and do their own legal research, but instead rely on tech, it may very well come at the expense of their ability to employ critical legal thinking and, ultimately, be effective attorneys to their clients. Professor Zuckerman also talks about how the Rules of Professional Conduct are also implicated by the use of legal technology.

On Aug.1, Hari M. Osofsky took office as dean of Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, after four years as dean of Penn State Law School and nearly two decades of teaching law. Having herself established a reputation for driving innovation, and coming into a school that is already recognized as innovative, her mission is to lead the school's next chapter of innovation.    But she also arrives as a profound moment of social change in our society and in the legal profession, a moment that has raised new questions about the nature of legal education and the role of law schools in helping to shape the profession. As she steps into this role, where does she start and what challenges does she face?    On this episode of LawNext, Osofsky joins host Bob Ambrogi to discuss her new role and to share her thoughts on legal education, bar admission, legal innovation, and legal regulatory reform.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.  Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, and MerusCase, and e-payments platform Headnote. Woodpecker, legal document automation for solo and small firms.   A reminder that we are on Patreon. Subscribe to our page to be able to access show transcripts, or to submit a question for our guests.

In this episode of Break Into Law School, I am joined by Jasmeene Burton-Martin, incoming Northwestern Law student, former boot camp student and current instructor at S. Montgomery Admissions Consulting. We will be talking about how to conquer the LSAT when you need accommodations. How do you prepare for the LSAT with text anxiety? ADHD? A learning disability? We'll discuss how to ask for the right accommodations, who to talk to, and when to make your request. 

Yesterday I saw a re-run of Jerry Springer on a television at a restaurant. The episode was about "Sex With a Pregnant Stripper." This led me to do some Googling about Jerry Springer, and I discovered that he delivered Northwestern Law School's 2008 Commencement Speech. I couldn't find the video online, so I have reverse-transcribed it to audio. The text is hosted on Northwestern's website. It regards life, ethical considerations, and the American Dream. Forty years ago this week I sat where you now do, degree in hand, the prestige of this great law school on my résumé and, perhaps immodestly, a real sense of achievement in my heart, but no sense of what my future would be or if in fact there would even be one.Please understand, I was not alone in my uncertainty — for this was 1968, and America was unraveling.Our cities were burning, and Vietnam was beckoning. Martin Luther King Jr. had just been assassinated, Bobby Kennedy was about to be, and within a few months and a few miles from here, Chicago would explode around the dysfunction of the Democratic National Convention. I remember thinking that our sheltered existence at law school, however prestigious, seemed totally detached from the chaos that consumed the world outside.There were 190 of us in my graduating class, and believe it or not, only two of the 190 were women. Of the 188 men, only one was African American. As a class we were too white, too male and too privileged. And though it certainly took too long to change, what comfort it is today to look out at all of you and see the racial, gender and ethnic diversity that really is America.But as happy as I am to look out and see all of your faces, I understand there are a number of you who aren't too happy to see mine.To the students who invited me — thank you. I am honored. To the students who object to my presence — well, you've got a point. I, too, would've chosen someone else. But once asked it would've been kind of arrogant, or at least unappreciative, for me to have said "no." So, here I am.I've been lucky enough to enjoy a comfortable measure of success in my various careers, but let's be honest, I've been virtually everything you can't respect: a lawyer, a mayor, a major market news anchor and a talk show host. Pray for me. If I get to heaven, we're all going.Let's assume that your prime discomfort with me is based on the ethics of what I do for a living. Well, that's a fair question, worthy of a serious response. I can tell you with some confidence that you, too, will likely deal with these very same ethical considerations, no matter what path your career takes.Surely, in every one of my chosen professions there were ethical "red flags" rising virtually every day. When I was Cincinnati's mayor, there were two or three issues I really wanted to focus on. But how much would I compromise on other legislation just to get the votes I needed on my priorities? And how much pandering would I do to the voters, rationalizing that if I didn't get re-elected I wouldn't be able to get anything done?Then for 10 years I became a journalist — perhaps the most ethically challenging profession of all. You see, I knew that 90 percent of what's in the paper or on the television news, we don't really need to know. And yet, how often do we go with a story anyway because it will make a great headline, sell papers or drive up ratings, even if we know it might embarrass or hurt the business or career or family or reputation of the person we're reporting on? That is a daily ethical question that I can tell you is almost always ignored.And then, of course, there is my profession now as host of a crazy talk show. Well, at least I can rationalize that the show is only open to those who really want to be on it, and they get to choose the subject matter, what is revealed and what must not be revealed. Even with this I grapple with ethical questions.What about the career most of you will be choosing, that of an attorney? Think of the ethical issues you will have to deal with. Will you work for a corporate client who perhaps is polluting? Will you walk into your senior partner's office after having been asked to prepare a memorandum in support of this client's case and say, "I'm sorry, I'll have to leave and find another place to work," and then explain to your family why there won't be a paycheck coming in this month?I'm not suggesting that these moral dilemmas don't have answers. But what I am saying is that whatever you plan to do with this diploma, the ethical questions will never stop.Welcome to life. Unavoidably, you will all join me on this witness stand of conscience, trying your best to figure it out — never perfectly but, hopefully, always sincerely.It is perhaps inevitable that we are inclined to always judge others. But let me share this observation. I am not superior to the people on my show, and you are not superior to the people you will represent. That is not an insult. It is merely an understanding derived from a life spent on the front lines of human interaction. We are all alike. Some of us just dress better or have more money, or perhaps we were born into better circumstances of parental upbringing, health, brains and luck.On this great day when we honor your achievement, we might also say thank you to God in full recognition that whatever we achieve in life is 99 percent a gift.Life is a gift — as is living in America. And I know that from personal experience. You see, I am not the first lawyer in my family. My dad's brother was. His practice was cut short, as was his life — in Auschwitz. My grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins — they met their end as well in Chelmno, Theresienstadt and in camp after camp, Hitler turning my family tree into a single vine. Mom and Dad, by the grace of God, survived, enabling them to bring my sister and me ultimately to America.With four tickets on the Queen Mary, January 1949, we sailed into New York Harbor. In silence, all the ship's passengers gathered on the top deck of this grand ocean liner as we passed by the Statue of Liberty. My mom told me in later years (I was 5 at the time) that while we were shivering in the cold, I had asked her "What are we looking at? What does the statue mean?" In German she replied, "Ein Tag, alles!" (One day, everything!)She was right. In one generation here in America, my family went from near total annihilation to this ridiculously privileged life I live today because of my silly show. Indeed, in America, all things are possible.So as we honor your achievement, may it be for you as it was for me, "Ein Tag, alles!" One day, everything!Thank you for having me. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit underconsumed.substack.com

I sat down to chat with Zenobia Bivens. Zenobia is the Managing Partner of the Houston office of Frost Brown & Todd.  She is a Northwestern Law graduate. Her law practice focuses on business litigation. Zenobia's cases have been featured in Forbes Magazine, the New York Times, and the Houston Chronicle. She has been recognized as a Texas Super Lawyers Rising Star, named a Top Woman Lawyer in Texas Monthly, and a Top Houston Lawyer by Houstonia Magazine. The definition of a lady boss! Her interview will be an excellent testament of being strategic, never settling & practicing persistence.

Welcome to Episode 42 of the Asian Hustle Network Podcast! We are very excited to have Alex Su on this week's episode. We interview Asian entrepreneurs around the world to amplify their voices and empower Asians to pursue their dreams and goals. We believe that each person has a message and a unique story from their entrepreneurial journey that they can share with all of us. Check us out on Anchor, iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play Music, TuneIn, Spotify, and more. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave us a positive 5-star review. This is our opportunity to use the voices of the Asian community and share these incredible stories with the world. We release a new episode every Wednesday, so stay tuned! Alex Su is the Director of Business Development at Evisort, a Series A enterprise legal technology company backed by Microsoft. Before his technology career, Alex was a lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the world's most prestigious law firms, and was the first law clerk hired by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang, the first Asian American federal judge in Chicago. Alex graduated from Northwestern Law in 2010, where he served on the law review and was elected by his classmates to be the student commencement speaker. He's also a 2005 graduate of Carnegie Mellon University, where he was the President of the Taiwanese Students Association and a charter member of Lambda Phi Epsilon, a national Asian-interest fraternity. Please check out our Patreon at @asianhustlenetwork. We want AHN to continue to be meaningful and give back to the Asian community. If you enjoy our podcast and would like to contribute to our future, we hope you’ll consider becoming a patron. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/asianhustlenetwork/support

Daniel W. Linna, Jr. is Senior Lecturer and Director of Law and Technology Initiatives at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, with an additional appointment in Northwestern University's McCormick School of Engineering.  He's also a former litigation partner in a large law firm in Detroit.   He joined Mike Madison for an energetic conversation about legal system innovation and change, what law schools and law firms are doing right and wrong today, and about the need to ground innovation on all sides in evidence.  Dan Linna at Northwestern Law. Dan hosts the LegalTech Lever blog. And he has his own podcast, Law Technology Now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before becoming President and CEO of Shriver Center, Audra Wilson served as Deputy Press Secretary to then-state-Senator Barack Obama’s campaign, was an adjunct professor at Northwestern Law, and served as Executive Director of the Illinois League of Women Voters.Intergenerational Politics is a podcast created by Jill Wine-Banks and Victor Shi dedicated to engaging all generations in politics with weekly unfiltered conversations with experts across the nation. Be sure to subscribe to and rate us on Apple Podcasts. You can also find us on Spotify or any other podcast streaming services.Intergenerational Politics on social media:Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intergenerational-politics/id1522241906Twitter: https://twitter.com/IntrgenpoliticsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/intergenpoliticspodcast/

Welcome to So, Here’s the Thing! In this episode, Ashley Kirkwood joins us to discuss the trademarking process and why it’s important for your brand. Listen in as she describes when to trademark your business and three ways to go about doing it! After graduating top of her class at Northwestern Law and going to […] The post Episode 52: The Importance of Trademarking Your Brand with Ashley Kirkwood appeared first on Laylee Emadi Photography Blog.

In today’s podcast episode Jim and Tyson discuss leaving a big law salary of 300k to go out on your own starting at zero with Ashley Kirkwood. After graduating top of her class at Northwestern Law and going to trial around the country for Fortune 100 corporations, Ashley left her mid-six-figure salary to be a full-time entrepreneur. Now, Ashley runs both a law firm and a speaking business. Ashley has earned the nickname of “the lit lawyer” due to her fun DIY legal trainings such as Get The Tea On Trademarks and Clapback With Contracts. Through her law firm, Mobile General Counsel, she helps entrepreneurs with critical elements of their business such as trademarks and contracts. 4:05 98% of clients from social media4:50 going out on your own8:00 walking out on $300k to zero clients9:11 showing up for six months10:21 too much work to get clients11:00 where does initial business come from21:20 infusing your personality in your marketing23:20 speaking as a business 26:00 podcasting for lawyers Jim’s Hack: Mindfulness in the morning - not hopping on social media right away. Ashley’s Tip: Have automated systems before the consult! Tune in to hear about Ashley’s personal system 30:28. Tyson’s Tip: App: Reclaim - allows you to control your calendar more. It gives you tips on things to add to your calendar. TOMORROW is the last day to join the Guild at our lowest member price! Prices go up Tuesday September 30th at midnight.

In this episode, Cat and Chris speak to Alyson Carrel, professor at Northwestern Law and legal innovator extraordinaire, about what it means – empirically and practically – to be a high functioning lawyer. Alyson and our very own Cat Moon are co-creators of the Delta Model which is a multidimensional paradigm of what it takes to practice law. Of course, it takes knowledge of the law itself. But it also takes a human who knows how to take charge, play well with others, and to self-reflect and assess. This model is not merely descriptive, however, but is itself a call to action. This discussion will give law students a vital glimpse into the skills and behaviors that they need to cultivate not only to be a good law student but to be competently prepared for the real thing once these three years fly on by.At the top, Rachael, Chris and Cat give a rundown on the thorn-bud-rose of the week, talking about law firm deferments, why bad midterm grades are a great opportunity, and we brag on our fantastic students here at Vanderbilt Law.Check out the show notes for all things Delta!https://bit.ly/zoomingshownotes

Emily Kadens, legal historian with a particular focus on medieval and early modern history of commercial law and practice, shares her research on the origins of commercial fraud in England and dispels the myth of a golden age of commerce.  Fraud is not a modern problem. In this episode of Northwestern Law’s Planet Lex, host Jim Speta is joined by Emily Kadens, Professor of Law, to discuss her new article New Light on Twyne’s Case, one of the oldest English cases still being cited by American courts. Through first-hand research and unprecedented access to Common Pleas writ rolls, she unearths some fascinating details about the complicated history of commercial fraud.

Dan Rodriguez, formerly Dean of Northwestern Law and president of the Association of American Law Schools, gets inside the future of legal education for the benefit of legal professionals and new law graduates.  The interview is hosted by Mike Madison.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

INDIVISIBLE CHICAGO PODCAST SHOW NOTES FOR MONDAY, JULY 20, 2020 1. Remembering John Lewis. 2. Since 1988, Northwestern Law professor Andrew Koppelman has been arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination. It took a while, but last month, the US Supreme Court finally agreed. Professor Koppelman is theJohn Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University. His latest book is Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty: An Unnecessary Conflict, from Oxford Press. The article mentioned in the interview is available here: bit.ly/3fIitwD

In the midst of a global pandemic, federal and state governments are tasked with addressing a public health emergency while steadfastly protecting civil liberties. In this episode of Planet Lex, host Vice Dean Jim Speta is joined by Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor and former dean of Northwestern Law, to discuss the myriad (and ever-evolving) legal issues surrounding COVID-19. Rodriguez also discusses the “pop-up” course he created in order to teach the topic in real-time, and looks at the long-term ramifications that technology-enabled courts will have on the legal system.

In the midst of a global pandemic, federal and state governments are tasked with addressing a public health emergency while steadfastly protecting civil liberties. In this episode of Planet Lex, host Vice Dean Jim Speta is joined by Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor and former dean of Northwestern Law, to discuss the myriad (and ever-evolving) legal issues surrounding COVID-19. Rodriguez also discusses the “pop-up” course he created in order to teach the topic in real-time, and looks at the long-term ramifications that technology-enabled courts will have on the legal system.

What's good guys! Last time I had Paul Jones on the podcast was in November when he was 3/4's done with his Law School Grind at Northwestern University. Today, Paul is finally done with Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Tune in as he shares his full Northwestern Law experience and the challenges he overcame to finish law school. Hope you all enjoy this episode! Instagram: @Jonesy630 @TheDMPodcast_ Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5uNsn8rQXbVM2wOAoVC1hw?view_as=subscriber --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dejuan-marrero/support

Northwestern Law’s intellectual property and patent law scholars are truly leaders in their field. In this edition of Planet Lex, host Jim Speta welcomes Laura Pedraza-Fariña and David Schwartz to discuss the study of innovation and the law in an era of rapid technological change. The guests share their individual paths to intellectual property and patent law and offer insights on how patents affect innovation. They also discuss their current research projects and outline the unique advantages of pursuing their scholarship with an interdisciplinary team. Laura Pedraza-Fariña is an assistant professor of law and a faculty affiliate of the science in human culture program at Northwestern University. David Schwartz is a professor of law and associate dean of research and intellectual life at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

Danny Greenfield and Maggie Filler of the MacArthur Justice Center discuss solitary confinement. Namely, why we should end it, why we should care about it, and why listeners should come to Northwestern Law Review's 2019 Symposium: Rethinking Solitary Confinement. Rethinking Solitary Confinement will be held at Northwestern Law on November 8, 2019, and will feature activists, lawyers, survivors, and more. Details and registration here: https://northwesternlawreview.org/symposium/symposium-home/ Recommendations from the podcast: -Solitary by Albert Woodfox (book) -Solitary: Inside Red Onion State Prison (HBO documentary) -Ear Hustle (podcast) Websites for more information: -MJC: https://www.macarthurjustice.org/ -ACLU Stop Solitary: https://www.aclu.org/issues/prisoners-rights/solitary-confinement/we-can-stop-solitary -Solitary watch: https://solitarywatch.org/ Hosts: Danielle Berkowsky & Amanda Wells, NULR Online

Wouldn't it be cool if a law school and a business school could collaborate on issues of legal analytics, entrepreneurial opportunities in the law, and collaboration between the university and the local business and law firm industries? We talk with a couple of professors at Georgia Statue University (GSU) who are turning this 'cool idea' and making it a reality. Anne Tucker, Professor of Law, Legal Analytics & Innovation Initiative, and Ben Chapman, Executive Director, Legal Analytics and Innovation Initiative join us to discuss the details behind The Institute for Insight at GSU. The Institute brings together professors from different backgrounds of Engineering, Computer Science, and Statistics and with this type of cross-pollination with business and law, the professors are looking at applied analytics questions and bringing in their own unique skill sets to understand and solve these issues. This mashup of law, business, data science, risk management, statistics and more isn't a purely academic endeavor for the Institute. Following in the tradition of GSU being an urban school, the Institute works with well known players in the Atlanta business and legal community to put the ideas into real-world situations. This gives the Institute's professors and students the opportunity to work side-by-side with the business and legal leaders to help identify, study, analyze, and potentially solve issues facing the business and legal industry. This is one of the many values which Tucker and Chapman see for not just preparing students for the practice of law, but also for the business of law. Information Inspirations While Greg was busy playing guitar in his law firm's band, Marlene was speaking at the DLaw Summit in NYC last week. Competitive Intelligence guru, Kevin Miles from Norton Rose Fulbright gives us some nice checklists on different CI topics along with some templates designed in MS Word to help start you on the CI path at your law firm. The Financial Times came out with a 15 article report on the legal industry ranging from top legal business technologists, to the Big-Four's advancement in the legal industry, to both the promise, and the overwhelming nature of understanding legal tech processes. We hope that Google still follows the "Don't Be Evil" rule because they are now touting success in the Quantum Computing area. Google recently announce that its new Quantum Computer can computerate complex data in less than 3 minutes what it would take current supercomputers 10,000 years to do. We guess it's not a good or bad thing, but the future is definitely upon us. Northwestern Law's Daniel Rodriguez, and Legal Mosaic's Mark Cohen have a lengthy discussion on how to advance today's law school's teaching into the 21st Century. It's a great conversation. Listen, Subscribe, Comment Subscribe, rate, and comment on The Geek In Review on your favorite podcast platform.

If fairness doesn’t always mean treating everyone the same, then what does it really mean? In this edition of Northwestern Law’s Planet Lex, host Vice Dean Jim Speta is joined by Kimberly Yuracko, Dean and Judd and Mary Morris Leighton Professor of Law, to discuss her extensive research on gender equity. Speta and Yuracko survey current social issues and discuss how laws surrounding these matters are changing. They also examine gender equity in the legal profession, and discuss the responsibility of law schools and law firms to create a more equitable profession, especially at the top.

When it comes to sports, the legal landscape is constantly evolving, and this episode’s guest knows that better than anyone. Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the Chicago Bulls and the Chicago White Sox, has been a franchise owner for over 25 years and has seen his sports teams through a number of critical changes. The Northwestern Law alum joins host Jim Speta to talk about going from law student to franchise owner, the impact of the law and technology on the future of sports, cheering on Jackie Robinson, and why he and his teams prioritize giving back.

A Seventh Circuit extravaganza featuring Tacy Flint, Will Baude, and Jim Pfander. The episode was recorded before a live student audience at the University of Chicago Law School at the invitation of UChicago chapter of the Federalist Society.   Tacy Flint is a partner at Sidley Austin who has practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal courts of appeal. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer and Judge Richard Posner. Tacy is a UChicago law grad.   Will Baude is a professor at UChicago Law and the author of Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful? Will clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Michael McConnell and at the Institute for Justice.   Jim Pfander is a professor at Northwestern Law and the author of many articles examining Bivens and the importance of remedies against federal officers for constitutional violations. Jim clerked for Judge Levin Campbell. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Pretrial detention: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D01-23/C:17-1510:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2282458:S:0   Vicarious liability: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D04-03/C:17-3618:J:Hamilton:con:T:fnOp:N:2318717:S:0   Indianapolis forfeiture: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D02-26/C:17-2933:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2299727:S:0

Northwestern Law professor and blogger at "Law and Liberty", John O McGinnis, joins John to discuss how Trump's new tax cuts are helping states.

When cases like Brendan Dassey’s are examined, many see a pressing need to rethink the definition of coercion and the law of voluntariness, especially in cases involving minors. In this episode of Planet Lex, host Jim Speta talks to Northwestern Law professors, Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth attorneys, and Netflix stars Steven Drizin and Laura Nirider about false confessions and the legal proceedings covered in the second season of “Making a Murderer.” They catch us up on what has happened in the Brendan Dassey case since season one and talk about the further options available to him as he continues to seek release. Steve and Laura also talk about the involvement of Northwestern Law’s clinical students in cases like Brendan’s, as well as their efforts to protect vulnerable juveniles by educating law enforcement on appropriate interrogation practices with children.

Our guest this week on LawNext is Daniel B. Rodriguez, who recently stepped down as dean of Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, where he gained wide recognition for his work to innovate legal education, and recently stepped up to become chair of the governing council of the ABA Center for Innovation, which focuses on improving the affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility of legal services. Rodriguez was dean at Northwestern Law from 2012-2018 and now serves on the school’s faculty as Harold Washington professor of law. Before joining Northwestern, Rodriguez was Minerva House Drysdale Regents Chair in Law at the University of Texas-Austin; a research fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy; dean and Warren Distinguished professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law; and professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Widely recognized as a thought leader on innovation in law and legal education, Rodriguez was the 2014 president of the Association of American Law Schools and was a member of the 2014-2016 ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services. He is currently a visiting professor at Stanford Law School and, in the spring semester of 2019, will be a visiting professor at Harvard Law School.   In a wide-ranging interview, Rodriguez and host Bob Ambrogi talk about the meaning of innovation in law and at law schools and the obstacles to achieving innovation. Comment on this show: Record a voice comment on your mobile phone and send it to info@lawnext.com.

President Trump and other politicians have painted the media as the “enemy of the people” -- purveyors of fake news who use their platform as a means to defame others. But really, what are the legal requirements of the media when reporting news? In this episode of Planet Lex, host Jim Speta talks to Northwestern Law alumnae Kate Shaw and Megan Murphy about their experience as lawyers in the media. They discuss the many legal issues facing journalists and pundits, and whether more law is needed to manage these matters. They also give tips on how to cultivate an ideologically diverse media diet and discuss the impact of social media on news. Megan Murphy is an award-winning journalist and commentator whose 20-year career has spanned multiple countries and events, from the 2016 presidential campaign to the global financial crisis. She most recently served as editor-in-chief of Bloomberg Businessweek. Before starting her career in journalism, Murphy was securities lawyer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, CA. She currently lives in London. Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School and the Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Before joining Cardozo, she worked in the White House Counsel’s Office for the the Obama Administration. She clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Kate is a legal and Supreme Court analyst for ABC News.

As the November midterm elections loom, issues of election law continue to have a significant impact on the voting process. In this episode of Planet Lex, new host Jim Speta, Vice Dean at Northwestern Law, talks to Professor Michael Kang about everything election law, from partisan gerrymandering and the constitutional issues involved in redistricting, to the effects of voter ID laws. They discuss how the different parties have used redistricting to gain an advantage, the urban/rural divide, and the role of state courts in the voting process. Michael S. Kang is the William G. and Virginia K. Karnes Research Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance, voting rights, redistricting, judicial elections, and corporate governance.

The violence that grips the streets of Chicago has been the subject of news outlets and even the President’s tweets, but what is actually being done to address the issue? In this episode of Planet Lex, host Daniel B. Rodriguez talks to Alexa Van Brunt, an attorney on the MacArthur Justice Center, about police brutality and bias in Chicago and the draft consent decree to reform the Chicago Police Department. They discuss the Justice Department’s report on police misconduct during the Obama Administration, how new policies might impact law enforcement, and the challenges of reform. They also talk about the MacArthur Justice Center’s role in combating police misconduct in Chicago. Alexa Van Brunt serves as a clinical associate professor at Northwestern Law and an attorney on the MacArthur Justice Center team where she works on key cases, including litigating on behalf of victims of the Jon Burge police torture scandal and other police misconduct.

Committees have been formed, seminars have been taught, and conferences have been hosted — all in an effort to convince lawyers that new technology will save them time and money. Sometimes the message sticks; sometimes attorneys run in the opposite direction. But is it lawyers themselves or the industry's rules and culture that hinder innovation in legal tech? In this episode of Planet Lex, host Daniel Rodriguez talks to Bill Henderson about innovation in the legal industry, including the cultural and regulatory restraints that keep new technology from impacting the legal industry at large. They discuss the diffusion theory, which explores how innovative ideas percolate within a market; traditional practices in law firms that impede the adoption of new ideas; and the role of law schools in encouraging exploration. Bill Henderson is the Stephen F. Burns Chair on the Legal Profession at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and a visiting professor at Northwestern Law.

Why have so many of us failed to support opportunities for women and girls? Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff and long time civil rights attorney, Tina Tchen, highlights how everything from systemic work place policies, harassment, and backwards health care laws have challenged the identity and progression of American women, and the responsibility all of us (especially men) have in creating. Christina M. “Tina” Tchen is an American lawyer who most recently served as Assistant to the President Barack Obama and Chief of Staff to First Lady Michelle Obama. While devising and implementing the First Lady’s policy priorities — including improving access to health coverage for underserved women and investing in the economic opportunity of veteran families — Tchen also served as the Executive Director of the Council on Women & Girls, which advanced initiatives to minimize the gender pay gap, empower men to own their role in speaking out against sexual harassment and abuse, and invested in ensuring access to education among young girls in developing countries. An Ohio native, Tchen graduated from Northwestern Law and became a partner in the Chicago office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. She was active on the boards of entities such as University of Chicago Medicine and Chicago Public Library and celebrated for her public service and civil rights work by the Anti-Defamation League and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois. Tchen recently began leading the Chicago office of the Buckley Sandler law firm, and is spearheading a practice dedicated to weaving diversity and inclusion policies into the DNA of workplace cultures.

The Supreme Court has faced a whirlwind of change and controversy over the last year, first with the death of Justice Scalia and then with election of President Trump and the actions of his Administration. In this episode of Planet Lex, host Daniel Rodriguez talks to Carter Phillips about the current state of the Supreme Court in 2017. Their discussion includes President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch, the Democrat Party opposition during this process, and the consequences of the nuclear option, whether it’s used or not. They conclude the episode with a brief discussion of the textbook Phillips co-authored with Northwestern Law faculty, Advanced Appellate Advocacy. Carter G. Phillips is the chair of Sidley Austin LLP’s Executive Committee and was the managing partner of its Washington, D.C. office from 1995 to 2012. He has argued 75 cases before the Supreme Court since joining Sidley, more than any other lawyer while in private practice.

Trump’s presidency has brought about a lot of change, especially in regard to law. In this episode of Planet Lex, host Daniel Rodriguez interviews Northwestern Law faculty members Deborah Tuerkheimer, Andrew Koppelman, and Eugene Kontorovich about recent actions by President Trump and the legal considerations facing this new administration. In their discussion, they cover a wide array of topics, including President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, his expansion of executive power, and the potential of the Department of Justice shifting away from certain civil rights issues. They conclude with a lightning round that touches on topics like climate change, affirmative action, and power the president holds and doesn’t hold over foreign treaties. Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer joined the Northwestern Law faculty in 2014. She teaches and writes in the areas of criminal law, evidence, and feminist legal theory. She’s a former assistant district attorney and a frequent contributor to Slate. Professor Andrew Koppelman is John Paul Stevens Professor at Northwestern Law, where he received the 2015 Walder Award for Research Excellence. His scholarship focuses on issues at the intersection of law and political philosophy. Professor Eugene Kontorovich specializes in constitutional law, federal courts, and public international law. He has published over thirty major scholarly articles and book chapters in leading law reviews and peer-reviewed journals in the United States and Europe.

Featured Debate Participants - Richard Garnett, Notre Dame Law - Andrew Koppelman, Northwestern Law