Podcasts about on lawyer

It's no coincidence that this week, as we honored the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Democrats had hoped to make progress on passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. However, the Democrats' efforts have been stymied by a Republican filibuster, resulting in a strategic shift from voting rights legislation to filibuster rule reform. Yet, with the rule change on the table, the Democrats failed to even secure sufficient party support, let alone the additional Republican support necessary to pass the change. So why is there so much controversy over the filibuster? How is it impacting legislation? And is reform the answer? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael J. Gerhardt, from UNC School of Law, as we spotlight the past, present, and possible future of the filibuster, and its impact on voting rights legislation.  

It's no coincidence that this week, as we honored the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Democrats had hoped to make progress on passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. However, the Democrats' efforts have been stymied by a Republican filibuster, resulting in a strategic shift from voting rights legislation to filibuster rule reform. Yet, with the rule change on the table, the Democrats failed to even secure sufficient party support, let alone the additional Republican support necessary to pass the change. So why is there so much controversy over the filibuster? How is it impacting legislation? And is reform the answer? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael J. Gerhardt, from UNC School of Law, as we spotlight the past, present, and possible future of the filibuster, and its impact on voting rights legislation.  

Has the topic of vaccines become the new “no talk of politics, sex, or religion at the dinner table?” As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, the topic of who is or is not vaccinated is sure to come up ahead of the big day. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 58.5% of the United States is currently fully vaccinated against Covid-19. So, if you're faced with a conflict with your family and friends this holiday season, how do you avoid a squabble of epic proportions? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by psychologist and therapist Dr. Roseann Capanna-Hodge to discuss hosting Thanksgiving and how to peacefully broach the controversial topic of vaccines with your family members. Craig and Dr. Roseann take a look at the reality of COVID during the holidays, public health, conflict resolution, negotiation, and the best approach to ensure safety at your home.

Has the topic of vaccines become the new “no talk of politics, sex, or religion at the dinner table?” As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, the topic of who is or is not vaccinated is sure to come up ahead of the big day. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 58.5% of the United States is currently fully vaccinated against Covid-19. So, if you're faced with a conflict with your family and friends this holiday season, how do you avoid a squabble of epic proportions? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by psychologist and therapist Dr. Roseann Capanna-Hodge to discuss hosting Thanksgiving and how to peacefully broach the controversial topic of vaccines with your family members. Craig and Dr. Roseann take a look at the reality of COVID during the holidays, public health, conflict resolution, negotiation, and the best approach to ensure safety at your home.

Many attorneys have received an offer of an award recognizing them as a distinguished lawyer in your city or state. Perhaps the message, coming as an email or a message on Facebook, offers a custom plaque, an inscribed crystal, and/or an appearance in a publication, and all for the low, low price of the membership fees to the awarding organization. Who would ever pass up such a rare opportunity? So are we looking at a pay-to-play here? A scam? What is the application process? And should lawyers beware?! On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Conrad Saam, founder of Mockingbird Marketing, to talk about the award industry, the constraints for legal marketing, and what lawyers should do if they receive a solicitation promising an award for a price. Watch this channel next week for a special bonus Lunch Hour Legal Marketing episode. But there's no need to wait! Click here to find all the great content from Lunch Hour Legal Marketing.

Many attorneys have received an offer of an award recognizing them as a distinguished lawyer in your city or state. Perhaps the message, coming as an email or a message on Facebook, offers a custom plaque, an inscribed crystal, and/or an appearance in a publication, and all for the low, low price of the membership fees to the awarding organization. Who would ever pass up such a rare opportunity? So are we looking at a pay-to-play here? A scam? What is the application process? And should lawyers beware?! On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Conrad Saam, founder of Mockingbird Marketing, to talk about the award industry, the constraints for legal marketing, and what lawyers should do if they receive a solicitation promising an award for a price. Watch this channel next week for a special bonus Lunch Hour Legal Marketing episode. But there's no need to wait! Click here to find all the great content from Lunch Hour Legal Marketing.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the eruption of COVID cases forced courts across the nation to close their doors. In its place, attorneys, judges and clients opted, where possible, to participate in virtual proceedings through phone calls and video platforms. Over a year later, with a backlog of cases clogging courts, and limited in-person proceedings, attorneys have increasingly turned to the alternate dispute resolution of mediation to resolve their cases. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by David A. Hoffman, the founding member of Boston Law Collaborative, LLC, as they take a look at the explosion of mediation during the pandemic. Craig and David discuss the push for mediation as an alternative to trials, and what the future holds for jury trials. Feel audio isn't enough? Check out a video of the conversation here.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the eruption of COVID cases forced courts across the nation to close their doors. In its place, attorneys, judges and clients opted, where possible, to participate in virtual proceedings through phone calls and video platforms. Over a year later, with a backlog of cases clogging courts, and limited in-person proceedings, attorneys have increasingly turned to the alternate dispute resolution of mediation to resolve their cases. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by David A. Hoffman, the founding member of Boston Law Collaborative, LLC, as they take a look at the explosion of mediation during the pandemic. Craig and David discuss the push for mediation as an alternative to trials, and what the future holds for jury trials.

As students across the country return to classrooms, the controversy surrounding masks has reached a fever pitch. In at least 14 states, lawsuits have been filed either for or against masks in schools. This has led to protests, litigation, and even violence. Just this week, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights launched investigations into five states that have banned mask mandates in schools, alleging that the governors are violating the civil rights of students with disabilities. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Ellen Wright Clayton, JD, MD. Together, they take a look at the mask controversy in schools and communities across the United States. The conversation focuses on mask mandates, public health law, parental freedom, and litigation surrounding these issues.

As students across the country return to classrooms, the controversy surrounding masks has reached a fever pitch. In at least 14 states, lawsuits have been filed either for or against masks in schools. This has led to protests, litigation, and even violence. Just this week, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights launched investigations into five states that have banned mask mandates in schools, alleging that the governors are violating the civil rights of students with disabilities. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Ellen Wright Clayton, JD, MD. Together, they take a look at the mask controversy in schools and communities across the United States. The conversation focuses on mask mandates, public health law, parental freedom, and litigation surrounding these issues.

After failing to form a bipartisan committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol Complex, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi instead formed a select committee. However, accusations of partisanship have been leveled at the committee, particularly after Pelosi eliminated House Minority Leader McCarthy's offered committee members - representatives Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio. Last week, police officers from the U.S. Capitol Police and Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department appeared before the committee, giving their accounts of what happened that day. Since the hearings have started, the subject of subpoenas has come up, particularly for those who spoke with former President Trump that day. Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of the Republican committee members, indicated that this committee would use its subpoena power stating “I would expect to see a significant amount of subpoenas.” So will this select committee use their subpoena power? And how difficult will it be to get members of Congress, and maybe even the former president to testify before the panel? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor David A. Super from Georgetown Law, as they take a look at the creation of the House select committee and the investigation of January 6th. Craig and David discuss the hearings, the possibility of using subpoenas, and where this is all headed.

After failing to form a bipartisan committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol Complex, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi instead formed a select committee. However, accusations of partisanship have been leveled at the committee, particularly after Pelosi eliminated House Minority Leader McCarthy's offered committee members - representatives Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio. Last week, police officers from the U.S. Capitol Police and Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department appeared before the committee, giving their accounts of what happened that day. Since the hearings have started, the subject of subpoenas has come up, particularly for those who spoke with former President Trump that day. Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of the Republican committee members, indicated that this committee would use its subpoena power stating “I would expect to see a significant amount of subpoenas.” So will this select committee use their subpoena power? And how difficult will it be to get members of Congress, and maybe even the former president to testify before the panel? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor David A. Super from Georgetown Law, as they take a look at the creation of the House select committee and the investigation of January 6th. Craig and David discuss the hearings, the possibility of using subpoenas, and where this is all headed.

In cities across our nation, homelessness is an ongoing problem. According to the 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, completed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development prior to COVID, roughly 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in 2020. This represented the fourth consecutive year in which homelessness increased nationwide. The severity of this problem has led to high profile conflicts on how to address the crisis. In April of this year, US federal judge David O. Carter issued a 110 page order necessitating the city and county of Los Angeles to find shelter for all unhoused residents of Skid Row, as well as requiring an audit of any spending related to the homeless. Alleging that Judge Carter's ruling is a violation of the separation of powers, the city and county appealed the matter to the 9th Circuit, who heard arguments this month. So, how do we combat homelessness? And is enough being done by city officials? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Gary Blasi, from UCLA School of Law and Breanne Schuster, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, as they discuss the legal issues surrounding homelessness, separation of powers, current legislation, and what is being done to combat this nationwide problem.

In cities across our nation, homelessness is an ongoing problem. According to the 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, completed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development prior to COVID, roughly 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in 2020.  This represented the fourth consecutive year in which homelessness increased nationwide. The severity of this problem has led to high profile conflicts on how to address the crisis. In April of this year, US federal judge David O. Carter issued a 110 page order necessitating the city and county of Los Angeles to find shelter for all unhoused residents of Skid Row, as well as requiring an audit of any spending related to the homeless.  Alleging that Judge Carter's ruling is a violation of the separation of powers, the city and county appealed the matter to the 9th Circuit, who heard arguments this month. So, how do we combat homelessness? And is enough being done by city officials? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Gary Blasi, from UCLA School of Law and Breanne Schuster, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, as they discuss the legal issues surrounding homelessness, separation of powers, current legislation, and what is being done to combat this nationwide problem.

In cities across our nation, homelessness is an ongoing problem. According to the 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, completed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development prior to COVID, roughly 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in 2020. This represented the fourth consecutive year in which homelessness increased nationwide. The severity of this problem has led to high profile conflicts on how to address the crisis. In April of this year, US federal judge David O. Carter issued a 110 page order necessitating the city and county of Los Angeles to find shelter for all unhoused residents of Skid Row, as well as requiring an audit of any spending related to the homeless. Alleging that Judge Carter's ruling is a violation of the separation of powers, the city and county appealed the matter to the 9th Circuit, who heard arguments this month. So, how do we combat homelessness? And is enough being done by city officials? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Gary Blasi, from UCLA School of Law and Breanne Schuster, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, as they discuss the legal issues surrounding homelessness, separation of powers, current legislation, and what is being done to combat this nationwide problem.

The Declaration of Independence famously states "that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. But do those or similar unalienable rights extend beyond people? According to groups like the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, our ecosystem - the trees, oceans, animals and mountains - are entitled to rights of their own. So was the Declaration of Independence too limited in its language? Does nature have its own “self-evident” rights? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin, an attorney at Shearwater Law PLLC, to discuss what rights we have to access nature, whether there is a requirement for the government to preserve nature for us, and if we have any legal rights to force the preservation of other species.

The Declaration of Independence famously states "that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. But do those or similar unalienable rights extend beyond people? According to groups like the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, our ecosystem - the trees, oceans, animals and mountains - are entitled to rights of their own. So was the Declaration of Independence too limited in its language? Does nature have its own “self-evident” rights? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin, an attorney at Shearwater Law PLLC, to discuss what rights we have to access nature, whether there is a requirement for the government to preserve nature for us, and if we have any legal rights to force the preservation of other species.

The Declaration of Independence famously states "that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. But do those or similar unalienable rights extend beyond people? According to groups like the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, our ecosystem - the trees, oceans, animals and mountains - are entitled to rights of their own. So was the Declaration of Independence too limited in its language? Does nature have its own “self-evident” rights? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin, an attorney at Shearwater Law PLLC, to discuss what rights we have to access nature, whether there is a requirement for the government to preserve nature for us, and if we have any legal rights to force the preservation of other species.

The Supreme Court has seen a number of religious freedom cases so far in 2021. In a 5-4 ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, the high court struck down COVID-related restrictions on group religious activities in private homes. Also, in Fulton v. Philadelphia, a case involving a Catholic group that objects to placing foster children with same-sex couples, SCOTUS ruled that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it froze the contract of the Catholic Foster Care Agency. So, did the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett impact these religious freedom cases? Do these decisions set any sort of precedent for future cases? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Professor Jim Oleske from Lewis & Clark Law School, to discuss SCOTUS & religious freedom, focusing on the shadow docket, the rulings stemming from COVID restrictions, and the impact these rulings will have on future cases centered around religion.

The Supreme Court has seen a number of religious freedom cases so far in 2021. In a 5-4 ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, the high court struck down COVID-related restrictions on group religious activities in private homes. Also, in Fulton v. Philadelphia, a case involving a Catholic group that objects to placing foster children with same-sex couples, SCOTUS ruled that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it froze the contract of the Catholic Foster Care Agency. So, did the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett impact these religious freedom cases? Do these decisions set any sort of precedent for future cases? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Professor Jim Oleske from Lewis & Clark Law School, to discuss SCOTUS & religious freedom, focusing on the shadow docket, the rulings stemming from COVID restrictions, and the impact these rulings will have on future cases centered around religion.

The Supreme Court has seen a number of religious freedom cases so far in 2021. In a 5-4 ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, the high court struck down COVID-related restrictions on group religious activities in private homes. Also, in Fulton v. Philadelphia, a case involving a Catholic group that objects to placing foster children with same-sex couples, SCOTUS ruled that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it froze the contract of the Catholic Foster Care Agency. So, did the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett impact these religious freedom cases? Do these decisions set any sort of precedent for future cases? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Professor Jim Oleske from Lewis & Clark Law School, to discuss SCOTUS & religious freedom, focusing on the shadow docket, the rulings stemming from COVID restrictions, and the impact these rulings will have on future cases centered around religion.

We have all seen a wave of ransomware attacks in the news as of late. For those who are unfamiliar, ransomware is a type of malware that threatens to publish, destroy, or block access to the victim's personal data unless a ransom is paid. The ransom is usually paid to these attackers through cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, impairing the ability to trace the transaction back to the perpetrator. Targets of all sizes, such as the Colonial Pipeline, McDonalds, the University of California, all the way down to dental practices, have fallen prey to these attacks. No one is immune. So could you be next? And what can we do to prevent these attacks from happening to us? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Thomas J. Holt, director and professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University.

We have all seen a wave of ransomware attacks in the news as of late. For those who are unfamiliar, ransomware is a type of malware that threatens to publish, destroy, or block access to the victim's personal data unless a ransom is paid. The ransom is usually paid to these attackers through cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, impairing the ability to trace the transaction back to the perpetrator. Targets of all sizes, such as the Colonial Pipeline, McDonalds, the University of California, all the way down to dental practices, have fallen prey to these attacks. No one is immune. So could you be next? And what can we do to prevent these attacks from happening to us? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Thomas J. Holt, director and professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University.

We have all seen a wave of ransomware attacks in the news as of late. For those who are unfamiliar, ransomware is a type of malware that threatens to publish, destroy, or block access to the victim's personal data unless a ransom is paid. The ransom is usually paid to these attackers through cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, impairing the ability to trace the transaction back to the perpetrator. Targets of all sizes, such as the Colonial Pipeline, McDonalds, the University of California, all the way down to dental practices, have fallen prey to these attacks. No one is immune. So could you be next? And what can we do to prevent these attacks from happening to us?  On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Thomas J. Holt, director and professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University.

According to The Hill, Republican lawmakers in 34 states have introduced more than 80 anti-protest bills thus far in the 2021 legislative session. In Florida, Governor Ron Desantis recently signed an ‘anti-riot' bill into law that states, in part, that a driver may avoid liability "for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.” And Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a similar bill into law as well, requiring that the driver "unintentionally harm[s] protesters in fleeing said protests". So is this legislation constitutional? Does it infringe on an individual's First Amendment's right to peacefully protest? Or is this a necessary deterrent to combat violence at protests? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by attorney Jeff Lewis, from Jeff Lewis Law, to discuss states regulating protests through legislation, how such laws intersect with the First Amendment, and the impact on those who protest.

According to The Hill, Republican lawmakers in 34 states have introduced more than 80 anti-protest bills thus far in the 2021 legislative session.  In Florida, Governor Ron Desantis recently signed an ‘anti-riot’ bill into law that states, in part, that a driver may avoid liability "for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.” And Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a similar bill into law as well, requiring that the driver "unintentionally harm[s] protesters in fleeing said protests". So is this legislation constitutional? Does it infringe on an individual's First Amendment’s right to peacefully protest? Or is this a necessary deterrent to combat violence at protests? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by attorney Jeff Lewis, from Jeff Lewis Law, to discuss states regulating protests through legislation, how such laws intersect with the First Amendment, and the impact on those who protest.

According to The Hill, Republican lawmakers in 34 states have introduced more than 80 anti-protest bills thus far in the 2021 legislative session. In Florida, Governor Ron Desantis recently signed an ‘anti-riot' bill into law that states, in part, that a driver may avoid liability "for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.” And Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a similar bill into law as well, requiring that the driver "unintentionally harm[s] protesters in fleeing said protests". So is this legislation constitutional? Does it infringe on an individual's First Amendment's right to peacefully protest? Or is this a necessary deterrent to combat violence at protests? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by attorney Jeff Lewis, from Jeff Lewis Law, to discuss states regulating protests through legislation, how such laws intersect with the First Amendment, and the impact on those who protest.

Court packing is defined as “the act or practice of packing a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court.” Last month, Congressional Democrats introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, and President Biden announced the formation of a commission to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service. Of course, this has led to yet another controversy along party lines. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Tonja Jacobi, professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, to discuss packing the Supreme Court, the politicization of the High Court, potential reform, and next steps.

Court packing is defined as “the act or practice of packing a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court.” Last month, Congressional Democrats introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, and President Biden announced the formation of a commission to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service. Of course, this has led to yet another controversy along party lines. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Tonja Jacobi, professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, to discuss packing the Supreme Court, the politicization of the High Court, potential reform, and next steps.

Court packing is defined as “the act or practice of packing a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court.” Last month, Congressional Democrats introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, and President Biden announced the formation of a commission to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service. Of course, this has led to yet another controversy along party lines. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Tonja Jacobi, professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, to discuss packing the Supreme Court, the politicization of the High Court, potential reform, and next steps.

Social justice issues have been at the forefront of protests across our nation. In order to report on these protests, journalists have been on the front lines of the action. Yet, due to a lack of public trust, journalists are often targeted by law enforcement or counter protesters. American broadcast journalist Walter Kronkite, famously said, “Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.”So what are the rights of journalists during protests? What about public citizens? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Shannon Jankowski, the E.W. Scripps Legal Fellow at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and David Bralow, Legal Director for the Press Freedom Defense Fund & Senior Vice President, Law, for the First Look Institute, Inc., as they discuss incidents of mistreatment of journalists by law enforcement during recent protests. Together, we explore freedom of the press generally and in the context of protests; and talk briefly about the legalities surrounding the filming and photographing of the police by citizens. Shannon Jankowski is the E.W. Scripps Legal Fellow at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. David Bralow is Legal Director for the Press Freedom Defense Fund and Senior Vice President, Law, for the First Look Institute, Inc.

Social justice issues have been at the forefront of protests across our nation.  In order to report on these protests, journalists have been on the front lines of the action. Yet, due to a lack of public trust, journalists are often targeted by law enforcement or counter protesters.  American broadcast journalist Walter Kronkite, famously said, “Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.”So what are the rights of journalists during protests? What about public citizens? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Shannon Jankowski, the E.W. Scripps Legal Fellow at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and David Bralow, Legal Director for the Press Freedom Defense Fund & Senior Vice President, Law, for the First Look Institute, Inc., as they discuss incidents of mistreatment of journalists by law enforcement during recent protests. Together, we explore freedom of the press generally and in the context of protests; and talk briefly about the legalities surrounding the filming and photographing of the police by citizens. Shannon Jankowski is the E.W. Scripps Legal Fellow at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. David Bralow is Legal Director for the Press Freedom Defense Fund and Senior Vice President, Law, for the First Look Institute, Inc.

Social justice issues have been at the forefront of protests across our nation. In order to report on these protests, journalists have been on the front lines of the action. Yet, due to a lack of public trust, journalists are often targeted by law enforcement or counter protesters. American broadcast journalist Walter Kronkite, famously said, “Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.”So what are the rights of journalists during protests? What about public citizens? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Shannon Jankowski, the E.W. Scripps Legal Fellow at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and David Bralow, Legal Director for the Press Freedom Defense Fund & Senior Vice President, Law, for the First Look Institute, Inc., as they discuss incidents of mistreatment of journalists by law enforcement during recent protests. Together, we explore freedom of the press generally and in the context of protests; and talk briefly about the legalities surrounding the filming and photographing of the police by citizens. Shannon Jankowski is the E.W. Scripps Legal Fellow at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. David Bralow is Legal Director for the Press Freedom Defense Fund and Senior Vice President, Law, for the First Look Institute, Inc.

In a Daily Beast article published on April 13, 2021, Julia Davis writes that, “the head of the Kremlin-funded RT and Sputnik news agencies believes Russia will invade Ukraine, sparking a conflict with the U.S. that will force entire cities into blackouts.” Also, according to a White House produced readout of a recent call between Presidents Biden and Putin, the leaders discussed a potential upcoming summit as well as Russia's military buildup and the ongoing tensions centering around Ukraine. Tensions between the United States and Russia are nothing new, but have recently intensified as a result of findings of Russian interference in US elections, the high profile SolarWinds cyberattack, and the Biden administrations implementation of a new round of sanctions. With no indications of relief on the horizon, what should we expect in the future? Will a cyber attack against the U.S be next? Should we be on high alert? Are we already? Or could we see a resolution of some sort between the two leaders? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Claire Finkelstein, professor of law and philosophy from University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School/Penn Law and General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., former deputy judge advocate general of the United States Air Force, and professor from Duke Law. They discuss national security, potential threat of cyber warfare, U.S./Russia relations before and after interference in our elections, UN involvement, international law, and what kind of cyber protections are needed. Mentioned in this Episode: Daily Beast Article: Top Kremlin Mouthpiece Warns of ‘Inevitable' War With U.S. Over Another Ukraine Land Grab Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia Lawfire blog

In a Daily Beast article published on April 13, 2021, Julia Davis writes that, “the head of the Kremlin-funded RT and Sputnik news agencies believes Russia will invade Ukraine, sparking a conflict with the U.S. that will force entire cities into blackouts.” Also, according to a White House produced readout of a recent call between Presidents Biden and Putin, the leaders discussed a potential upcoming summit as well as Russia's military buildup and the ongoing tensions centering around Ukraine. Tensions between the United States and Russia are nothing new, but have recently intensified as a result of findings of Russian interference in US elections, the high profile SolarWinds cyberattack, and the Biden administrations implementation of a new round of sanctions. With no indications of relief on the horizon, what should we expect in the future? Will a cyber attack against the U.S be next? Should we be on high alert? Are we already? Or could we see a resolution of some sort between the two leaders? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Claire Finkelstein, professor of law and philosophy from University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School/Penn Law and General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., former deputy judge advocate general of the United States Air Force, and professor from Duke Law. They discuss national security, potential threat of cyber warfare, U.S./Russia relations before and after interference in our elections, UN involvement, international law, and what kind of cyber protections are needed. Mentioned in this Episode: Daily Beast Article: Top Kremlin Mouthpiece Warns of ‘Inevitable' War With U.S. Over Another Ukraine Land Grab Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia Lawfire blog

In a Daily Beast article published on April 13, 2021, Julia Davis writes that, “the head of the Kremlin-funded RT and Sputnik news agencies believes Russia will invade Ukraine, sparking a conflict with the U.S. that will force entire cities into blackouts.” Also, according to a White House produced readout of a recent call between Presidents Biden and Putin, the leaders discussed a potential upcoming summit as well as Russia's military buildup and the ongoing tensions centering around Ukraine. Tensions between the United States and Russia are nothing new, but have recently intensified as a result of findings of Russian interference in US elections, the high profile SolarWinds cyberattack, and the Biden administrations implementation of a new round of sanctions. With no indications of relief on the horizon, what should we expect in the future? Will a cyber attack against the U.S be next? Should we be on high alert? Are we already? Or could we see a resolution of some sort between the two leaders? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Claire Finkelstein, professor of law and philosophy from University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School/Penn Law and General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., former deputy judge advocate general of the United States Air Force, and professor from Duke Law. They discuss national security, potential threat of cyber warfare, U.S./Russia relations before and after interference in our elections, UN involvement, international law, and what kind of cyber protections are needed. Mentioned in this Episode: Daily Beast Article: Top Kremlin Mouthpiece Warns of ‘Inevitable’ War With U.S. Over Another Ukraine Land Grab Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia Lawfire blog

On March 24th, 2021, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling and upheld the effective ban on the open carry of firearms in the state of Hawaii. Coming in the wake of multiple high-profile mass shootings around the country, the case of Young v. Hawaii is likely to be a contentious development in the ongoing gun debate. To briefly recap, back in 2011, George Young, a resident of Hawaii County, unsuccessfully applied for a carry permit twice citing a need for self-defense. Young filed suit, arguing that Hawaii's law was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Eric Ruben, an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow to discuss the debate surrounding open carry laws, the history of Young v. Hawaii, this recent federal court ruling, and open carry vs. public safety.

On March 24th, 2021, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling and upheld the effective ban on the open carry of firearms in the state of Hawaii. Coming in the wake of multiple high-profile mass shootings around the country, the case of Young v. Hawaii is likely to be a contentious development in the ongoing gun debate. To briefly recap, back in 2011, George Young, a resident of Hawaii County, unsuccessfully applied for a carry permit twice citing a need for self-defense. Young filed suit, arguing that Hawaii's law was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Eric Ruben, an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow to discuss the debate surrounding open carry laws, the history of Young v. Hawaii, this recent federal court ruling, and open carry vs. public safety.

More than two months after the event, federal prosecutors continue to file charges against individuals involved in the January 6th U.S Capital riot. In his confirmation hearings, now confirmed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that charging those involved in the Capitol Riot would be his #1 priority. “We begin with the people on the ground and we work our way up to those who were involved and further involved.” Currently, there are over 300 individuals charged from more than 40 states. At least 149 of those individuals have been freed pending trial after posting bail or agreeing to supervised release. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by former U.S. Attorney, professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, and co-host of the new podcast #SistersInLaw, Joyce White Vance. Craig and Joyce discuss charging the Capitol rioters, and look ahead to how the recent confirmation of Merrick Garland will impact the Justice Department, the cases against those involved in the Capitol riot, and who Attorney General Garland means by those “further involved”.

More than two months after the event, federal prosecutors continue to file charges against individuals involved in the January 6th U.S Capital riot. In his confirmation hearings, now confirmed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that charging those involved in the Capitol Riot would be his #1 priority. “We begin with the people on the ground and we work our way up to those who were involved and further involved.” Currently, there are over 300 individuals charged from more than 40 states. At least 149 of those individuals have been freed pending trial after posting bail or agreeing to supervised release. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by former U.S. Attorney, professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, and co-host of the new podcast #SistersInLaw, Joyce White Vance. Craig and Joyce discuss charging the Capitol rioters, and look ahead to how the recent confirmation of Merrick Garland will impact the Justice Department, the cases against those involved in the Capitol riot, and who Attorney General Garland means by those “further involved”.

In February, two severe winter storms swept across the United States, ultimately hitting the state of Texas hard. These storms caused major power outages, water and food shortages, and dangerous weather conditions, leaving Texans across the state struggling to survive. So who is liable? And was this preventable? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Heather Payne from Seton Hall University School of Law, to discuss litigation and liability stemming from Texas' recent weather crisis.

In February, two severe winter storms swept across the United States, ultimately hitting the state of Texas hard. These storms caused major power outages, water and food shortages, and dangerous weather conditions, leaving Texans across the state struggling to survive. So who is liable? And was this preventable? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Heather Payne from Seton Hall University School of Law, to discuss litigation and liability stemming from Texas’ recent weather crisis.

On February 9th, 2021, reversing what had been seen as a landmark legal victory for civil liberties groups, First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch ruled in the matter of Alasaad v. McAleenan, finding that both basic and “advanced” searches fall within “permissible constitutional grounds” at the U.S. border. The dispute centers around the search and temporary detainment of electronic devices by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and ICE agents, as well as the retention of data found on those devices - even in circumstances where no suspicious activity has occurred. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Laura K. Donohue, director of Georgetown’s Center on National Security and the Law, to discuss this recent circuit court ruling on electronic device searches at the U.S. border, reaction to the ruling, the First and Fourth Amendments, and next steps. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

On February 9th, 2021, reversing what had been seen as a landmark legal victory for civil liberties groups, First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch ruled in the matter of Alasaad v. McAleenan, finding that both basic and “advanced” searches fall within “permissible constitutional grounds” at the U.S. border. The dispute centers around the search and temporary detainment of electronic devices by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and ICE agents, as well as the retention of data found on those devices - even in circumstances where no suspicious activity has occurred. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Laura K. Donohue, director of Georgetown’s Center on National Security and the Law, to discuss this recent circuit court ruling on electronic device searches at the U.S. border, reaction to the ruling, the First and Fourth Amendments, and next steps. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

With a stack of executive orders piled on his desk, President Biden wasted no time. According to Newsweek, “President Biden signed more executive orders in the first 12 days of his presidency than the combined number issued by Donald Trump and Barack Obama for the same point in their tenures.” From revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and reversing the travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries, to requiring mask wearing and preventing and combating discrimination, President Biden covered and reversed a wide range of policies with the stroke of a pen. So what is the effect of these orders under the newly elected Biden? And what questions arise as to their legality and constitutionality? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Dr. Kevin G. Vance from the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Department of Political Science, as they discuss President Biden's executive orders, their impact, their constitutionality, the ramifications of the immediate reversal of the prior president’s actions, and what’s to come from this new administration. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

With a stack of executive orders piled on his desk, President Biden wasted no time. According to Newsweek, “President Biden signed more executive orders in the first 12 days of his presidency than the combined number issued by Donald Trump and Barack Obama for the same point in their tenures.” From revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and reversing the travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries, to requiring mask wearing and preventing and combating discrimination, President Biden covered and reversed a wide range of policies with the stroke of a pen. So what is the effect of these orders under the newly elected Biden? And what questions arise as to their legality and constitutionality? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Dr. Kevin G. Vance from the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Department of Political Science, as they discuss President Biden's executive orders, their impact, their constitutionality, the ramifications of the immediate reversal of the prior president’s actions, and what’s to come from this new administration. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

As the nation celebrated the 59th Presidential Inauguration, the White House, U.S. Capitol and other federal buildings were surrounded by checkpoints, a seven-foot-high fence, thousands of National Guard Troops, and military vehicles patrolling the streets of DC, all stemming from the riot at our U.S. Capitol just over two weeks ago. Since the riot, there have been federal felony arrests and charges brought against many of those who entered the Capitol or committed related crimes on January 6th. But who else will be held legally liable for these riots in the year ahead? President Trump? Sponsors and planners of the rally pre-riot? Members of Congress? What about those who have incited violence or spread misinformation through their social media channels? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by attorney Alan Gassman from the law firm Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo and attorney Michael McAuliffe from the firm, McAuliffe Law PLLC as they discuss legal liability stemming from the U.S. Capitol riot, federal felony charges, and what lies ahead for all involved. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception. Discussed in this episode: The Legal Fallout Expected After The Capitol Riots How Could Capitol Riot Prosecutions Play Out? A Former Prosecutor Offers a Road Map No Truth Left to Tell

As the nation celebrated the 59th Presidential Inauguration, the White House, U.S. Capitol and other federal buildings were surrounded by checkpoints, a seven-foot-high fence, thousands of National Guard Troops, and military vehicles patrolling the streets of DC, all stemming from the riot at our U.S. Capitol just over two weeks ago. Since the riot, there have been federal felony arrests and charges brought against many of those who entered the Capitol or committed related crimes on January 6th. But who else will be held legally liable for these riots in the year ahead? President Trump? Sponsors and planners of the rally pre-riot? Members of Congress? What about those who have incited violence or spread misinformation through their social media channels? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by attorney Alan Gassman from the law firm Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo and attorney Michael McAuliffe from the firm, McAuliffe Law PLLC as they discuss legal liability stemming from the U.S. Capitol riot, federal felony charges, and what lies ahead for all involved. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception. Discussed in this episode: The Legal Fallout Expected After The Capitol Riots How Could Capitol Riot Prosecutions Play Out? A Former Prosecutor Offers a Road Map No Truth Left to Tell

Sedition is defined as “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” Throughout the Trump presidency, the word “sedition” has been used by both parties to describe various actions alleged to have crossed a legal line. For instance, Attorney General Barr suggested to prosecutors to file sedition charges against protesters in wake of protests across the country. On January 6, 2021, Pro-Trump protestors stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were in the process of certifying Electoral College votes in favor of President Elect-Biden. So are any of these actions considered seditious? And if so, what is being done about it? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by constitutional law professor Carlton Larson from UC Davis School of Law, as they talk about sedition as it applies to the actions of the current administration, identify the legal line between sedition and free speech, and define what is and isn't sedition. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception. Discussed in this episode:  On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law The Trials of Allegiance: Treason, Juries, and the American Revolution

Sedition is defined as “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” Throughout the Trump presidency, the word “sedition” has been used by both parties to describe various actions alleged to have crossed a legal line. For instance, Attorney General Barr suggested to prosecutors to file sedition charges against protesters in wake of protests across the country. On January 6, 2021, Pro-Trump protestors stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were in the process of certifying Electoral College votes in favor of President Elect-Biden. So are any of these actions considered seditious? And if so, what is being done about it? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by constitutional law professor Carlton Larson from UC Davis School of Law, as they talk about sedition as it applies to the actions of the current administration, identify the legal line between sedition and free speech, and define what is and isn't sedition. Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception. Discussed in this episode: On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law The Trials of Allegiance: Treason, Juries, and the American Revolution