Podcasts about Professional conduct

Eric Bland just had what he calls the worst day of his career outside of his father's cancer diagnosis — a brutal session before a commission of the South Carolina's Office of Disciplinary Counsel where one of the state's most decorated legal malpractice attorneys was made to feel like "a menace to the bar."  This week, investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney⁠⁠ and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ and attorney Eric Bland pull back the curtain on how a federally convicted felon seems to be weaponizing the ODC complaint process to punish the very lawyer who helped take Alex Murdaugh down.  They trace the chilling effect on every truth-teller in the system — from Liz's Baltimore deposition to Mandy's upcoming May 15 hearing at the Moss Justice Center, where we're calling for a packed courtroom of supporters.  Plus: Capital murder defendant Lee Gilly slips from Houston to Milan on a forged Belgian passport while pre-trial services waited out the weekend; court documents show. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️ Episode References How can you support Mandy? Crowd the Courthouse 

System and Organization Controls (SOC) reports are examinations performed by CPAs in accordance with the AICPA's Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements to evaluate the controls over customer data that service organizations such as cloud providers or payroll processors have in place. SOC reports provide independent assurance to the service organization's customers, aka user entities, that those controls are suitably designed and operating effectively. The entrance of technology vendors into the realm of SOC reporting has created some efficiencies, but it also has led to promises of "fast and easy" SOC reports that have raised credibility concerns in the marketplace.  In this episode of the Journal of Accountancy podcast, Amy Pawlicki, the AICPA's vice president–Assurance & Advisory Innovation, discusses recent developments affecting SOC engagements. The conversation also highlights what CPAs, service organizations, and report users should watch for to protect trust in SOC reporting. Other resources mentioned in the episode include: A JofA article on ethics risks related to SOC tool providers. The AICPA's SOC landing page. Ethics Staff Insights: Business Arrangements With SOC Tool Providers. What you'll learn from this episode: What SOC reporting is — and why a SOC 2 report is not a certification. How a technology trend is threatening SOC credibility. The ethical risks related to SOC reporting tool vendors. The peer review and the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct requirements for CPAs performing SOC work. Where to find AICPA resources for firms, service organizations, and users.

In this April 13th, 2026 episode of Market Trends, hosts Steve Kaempf and Matt Lombardi discuss the latest U.S. housing market data. Key topics include a 3.6% drop in existing home sales, record-high home prices of $800,000, and tight inventory. Lawrence Yun revised his 2026 sales growth forecast from 14% to 4%. The episode also covers a March inflation surge driven by energy prices, a $52.25 million NAR settlement on buyer agent commissions, homeownership trends by occupation, the proposed Fast Housing Act, and Zillow's expanding pre-MLS marketing platform.Episode Introduction (0:00) March 2026 U.S. Housing Market Snapshot (0:39) Drivers of Market Trends (1:56) Home Prices and Equity Gains (2:52) NAR Forecast Revisions (3:42) Property Type Breakdown (4:39) Affordability and Mortgage Rates (5:31) Key Market Takeaways (6:16) Market Resilience and Professional Conduct (6:52) Inflation and Consumer Prices (7:46) Whiplash Economy and Outlook (9:19) NAR Settlement Agreement Overview (10:47) Settlement Details and Impact (11:28) NAR Strategic Plan and Legal Position (14:33) Homeownership by Occupation (15:53) Geographic and Occupational Shifts (17:22) Middle-Income Squeeze and Affordability (18:26) Homeownership Priorities and Realities (19:04) Congressional Housing Initiatives (20:37) Key Reforms and Buckshot Strategy (22:00) Vacant Lots and Local Initiatives (24:20) Zillow Preview and Industry Adoption (24:45)www.peoplenottitles.com

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're discussing one of the most tested subtopics of professional responsibility -- the duty of a lawyer to maintain the confidentiality of all information relating to the representation of a client, a former client, or a potential client. In this episode, we discuss: Overview of confidentiality Core exceptions to the duty of confidentiality How confidentiality works when the client is an organization A hypothetical from a previous California bar exam Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) California Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/rules/rules-professional-conduct/current-rules-professional-conduct) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2009 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/February-2009-CBX.pdf) Podcast Episode 190: Listen and Learn – Exceptions to Confidentiality (Professional Responsibility) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-190-listen-and-learn-exceptions-to-confidentiality-professional-responsibility/) Podcast Episode 194: Quick Tips – The MPRE (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-194-quick-tips-the-mpre/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-347-listen-and-learn-duty-of-confidentiality-professional-responsibility/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Episode 107: Artificial Intelligence This month on Calendar Call, Matt Berardino talks with Attorney Karen Dowd, counsel at MDMC Law, about the many ethical implications that attorneys are facing as the use of artificial intelligence expands in the legal profession and elsewhere. Matt and Attorney Dowd discuss risks, implementation and application, biases, confidentiality, billing, clientele, and more. Rules of Professional Conduct Mata v. Avianca United States v. Heppner Policy on A.I. Research – Judge Vernon D. Oliver Rules Committee of the Superior Court

Episode 107: Artificial Intelligence This month on Calendar Call, Matt Berardino talks with Attorney Karen Dowd, counsel at MDMC Law, about the many ethical implications that attorneys are facing as the use of artificial intelligence expands in the legal profession and elsewhere. Matt and Attorney Dowd discuss risks, implementation and application, biases, confidentiality, billing, clientele, and more. Rules of Professional Conduct Mata v. Avianca United States v. Heppner Policy on A.I. Research – Judge Vernon D. Oliver Rules Committee of the Superior Court

In this episode, Michael discusses Colorado's business climate, citing a report from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce Foundation that reveals the state's regulatory trajectory is actively repelling investment. He shares stories of companies leaving the state, including a solar company choosing Arizona over Colorado, and a data center developer opting for neighboring states due to tax incentives. Michael also highlights the challenges faced by a Colorado lawyer who was required to swear an oath under penalty of perjury to not cooperate with federal immigration authorities. He argues that this is a textbook violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After‑hours calls, patient autonomy, nervous patients… how do you handle the ethical curveballs that show up in everyday practice? We've got advice to help you confidently navigate some sticky situations.  Featured Guest: Dr. Kelly Roth  Special Guests: Dr. Craig McKenzie, Dr. Maryann Lehmann, and Dr. Lance Attiq  For more information, show notes and transcripts visit https://www.ada.org/podcast Show Notes  In this episode, we are talking about sticky situations. From after‑hours calls to patient autonomy, and nervous patients… how do you handle the ethical curveballs that show up in everyday practice? We've got advice to help you confidently navigate the tough issues.   Our guest for this episode is Dr. Kelly Roth, a general dentist in Canton, OH. She is the speaker of the House of Delegates of the Ohio Dental Association. She also previously served as the ODA's vice speaker of the House of Delegates and is the past chair of the ADA Council on Ethics, Bylaws and Judicial Affairs, past chair of the ODA Credentials, Rules and Order Committee, past chair of the ODA Ethics Subcommittee, past member of the ODA Council on Membership Services, and past president of the Stark County Dental Society. She is a member of the Pierre Fauchard Academy, Academy of General Dentistry, National Association of Parliamentarians, American Institute of Parliamentarians, and International College of Dentists.   Dr. Roth breaks down the ADA Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct, explaining what it is, why it matters, and the critical role it plays in modern dentistry.  In this episode, dentists openly share their stickiest real-world scenarios. First up, we're joined by Dr. Craig McKenzie, an assistant professor of dental anesthesiology and the director of the Center for Patients with Special Needs at the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. He is a past national president of the American Student Dental Association (ASDA) and was a founding member of the Coalition for Modernizing Dental Licensure. He currently serves as a member of the ADA Council on Membership, CODA site visitor for dental anesthesiology, as well as the Pennsylvania Dental Association's (PDA) Membership Committee and New Dentist Committee. He was recognized for his contributions with the ADA's 10 Under 10 award in 2025.  Dr. McKenzie shares his real-world case involving an adult patient with special healthcare needs who understood the risks and benefits of a specific procedure but was too anxious to consent, highlighting how he navigated consent, patient autonomy, anxiety management, and family involvement.  Our next guest is Dr. Maryann Lehmann, who has been in private practice for over 35 years in Darien, CT. She has been a dental researcher as part of the PBRN PEARL Network, and an inventor holding numerous patents in dental technology.  Her philanthropic efforts include being a volunteer adjunct professor of General Dentistry at the University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine, making service trips with students, and working at the CT Mission of Mercy.  Dr. Lehmann feels her greatest intention in being a dentist is to improve the quality of dental care for the greater good.  Dr. Lehmann shares how the overwhelm of all-hour messaging, and non-urgent demands have blurred patient boundaries after hours and raises questions about charging for emergency call-backs. The conversation turns to defining dental emergencies, boundaries, delegating in these situations, and how to protect dentists' mental health while still fulfilling ethical obligations.  Dr. Roth shares a story of an incident that helped her define boundaries for herself.  After prescribing medications to someone she believed to be a patient of her practice, she reflected on the lessons learned and the importance of establishing safeguards for emergency care.  Our last sticky situation comes from Dr. Lance Attiq, a general dentist practicing at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Arizona. With involvement in dentistry since a young age, his experience includes roles as a dental assistant, free clinic manager, clinical dentistry IT coordinator, and active participant in organized dentistry. In addition to clinical practice, Dr. Attiq serves as Adjunct Faculty at the Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, where he educates students and colleagues on leveraging technology to improve patient care.  Dr. Attiq recounts treating an extremely nervous patient who was vomiting before and after an extraction, despite stable vitals and repeated confirmation to proceed. This prompted a thoughtful discussion on managing severe dental anxiety, practicing the principle of doing no harm, and knowing when to pause treatment.  Resources  Download the 2026 ADA Principles and Code of Professional Conduct.  Learn more about the Council on Ethics Bylaws and Judicial Affairs (CEBJA).  You can read the Ethical Moment section in current and back issues of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA).  Listen to the ADA's CEBJA podcast, Dental Dilemmas.  Dr. McKenzie was recognized for his contributions with the ADA's 10 Under 10 award in 2025.  Have a story or show idea you want to share with us? Connect with us through ADA on social media! Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and TikTok for the latest industry news, member perks and conversations shaping dentistry.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're discussing Rule 4.1 of both the ABA and the California Rules of Professional Conduct -- what it prohibits and allows lawyers to do when communicating with opposing parties. In this episode, we discuss: Rule 4.1 of the ABA and California Rules of Professional Conduct Communication with represented and unrepresented parties A California bar exam hypo illustrating the rules Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) California Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/rules/rules-professional-conduct/current-rules-professional-conduct) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2024 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July2024CBXessayQsandAnswer.pdf) Podcast Episode 194: Quick Tips – The MPRE (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-194-quick-tips-the-mpre/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-346-listen-and-learn-communication-with-opposing-parties-professional-responsibility/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

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

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today we're going through three rapid-fire legal ethics scenarios and asking you, the listener, "What would you do?" We then provide you with the answers based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In this episode we discuss: Scenario 1: Conflict of interest Scenario 2: Client plans to lie on the stand Scenario 3: Pro bono when you're overworked Resources: Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) Professional Responsibility 101 – A Quick Look at Upperclassmen Courses (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/professional-responsibility-101-a-quick-look-at-upperclassmen-courses/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-544-quick-tips-rapid-fire-legal-ethics-scenarios/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

The respondents in these applications for leave to appeal, Mr. Walter and Mr. Gobeil, were recognized as representative plaintiffs for the class covered by a class action brought against the applicants/interveners in these applications for leave to appeal, that is, the Québec Major Junior Hockey League, now doing business as the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League Inc., and the impleaded hockey teams that are members of the League. In the class action, the respondents submitted that the applicants/interveners were refusing to recognize major junior hockey players as having employee status, with the result that the players had no access to the protection provided by legislation governing working conditions. Two other similar class actions were authorized, one in Ontario against the Ontario Hockey League and one in Alberta against the Western Hockey League. In total, 4,286 major junior hockey players, including 1,702 in Quebec, are covered by the class actions. On March 31, 2020, the parties to the three class actions reached a settlement agreement. The agreement was submitted to the superior courts in each of the three provinces through a joint hearing. The superior courts rejected the agreement in October 2020 solely on the basis that the scope of the release provided for was overly broad. In June 2023, after the releases were renegotiated, all of the parties, including the respondents, signed an amendment to the initial settlement agreement in order to replace the release provisions. However, it appears that, shortly after the signing, the respondents disavowed their signature and announced that they would oppose the submission of the amended agreement for judicial approval. Despite the instructions given by the respondents, Mr. Savonitto, a member of one of the firms that are applicants/interveners in these applications for leave to appeal, nevertheless submitted the amended settlement agreement to the Superior Court judge for her approval. In response, the respondents filed notices with the Superior Court formally revoking the mandate of the law firms that are applicants/interveners in this case and announced that they were retaining the services of other lawyers. The applicant/intervener law firms opposed the notices of revocation and asked the Superior Court to determine the conditions for approving the amended settlement agreement. The Superior Court recorded the revocation of the mandate of the applicants/interveners as far as the respondents were concerned, but it confirmed that the applicants/interveners still continued to represent the members of the class covered by the class action. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Superior Court's decision. Argued Date 2026-02-16 Keywords Civil procedure – Class action – Lawyer client relationship in context of class action –Lawyer's ethical obligations to client in context of class action – Protection for class members – Revocation of legal mandates given to firms by class representatives – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in ordering that agreement to settle authorized class action be submitted to court by applicants/defendants for approval, thereby placing their lawyers in conflict of interest and in situation that compromised their ethical obligations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in ruling that lawyer who acts for plaintiffs in class action: (i) has lawyer client relationship only with class representative; (ii) does not represent class members; and (iii) has no duty to act in best interests of class where those interests conflict with instructions of class representative – Whether Court of Appeal erred in breaching its own duty to protect interests of absent members, especially where those interests conflict with interests of class representatives – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that art. 2633 of Civil Code of Québec and art. 528 of Code of Civil Procedure concerning homologation of transaction under ordinary law apply to process for approval of transaction in class action, and thus in asking defendants to submit amended settlement agreement for approval if Mr. Gobeil and Mr. Walter refused to do so – Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, arts. 87, 528, 571, 575, 586, 589 and 590 – Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers, CQLR, c. B 1, r. 3.1, ss. 20, 23, 71, 72 and 120. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondents in these applications for leave to appeal, Mr. Walter and Mr. Gobeil, were recognized as representative plaintiffs for the class covered by a class action brought against the applicants/interveners in these applications for leave to appeal, that is, the Québec Major Junior Hockey League, now doing business as the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League Inc., and the impleaded hockey teams that are members of the League. In the class action, the respondents submitted that the applicants/interveners were refusing to recognize major junior hockey players as having employee status, with the result that the players had no access to the protection provided by legislation governing working conditions. Two other similar class actions were authorized, one in Ontario against the Ontario Hockey League and one in Alberta against the Western Hockey League. In total, 4,286 major junior hockey players, including 1,702 in Quebec, are covered by the class actions. On March 31, 2020, the parties to the three class actions reached a settlement agreement. The agreement was submitted to the superior courts in each of the three provinces through a joint hearing. The superior courts rejected the agreement in October 2020 solely on the basis that the scope of the release provided for was overly broad. In June 2023, after the releases were renegotiated, all of the parties, including the respondents, signed an amendment to the initial settlement agreement in order to replace the release provisions. However, it appears that, shortly after the signing, the respondents disavowed their signature and announced that they would oppose the submission of the amended agreement for judicial approval. Despite the instructions given by the respondents, Mr. Savonitto, a member of one of the firms that are applicants/interveners in these applications for leave to appeal, nevertheless submitted the amended settlement agreement to the Superior Court judge for her approval. In response, the respondents filed notices with the Superior Court formally revoking the mandate of the law firms that are applicants/interveners in this case and announced that they were retaining the services of other lawyers. The applicant/intervener law firms opposed the notices of revocation and asked the Superior Court to determine the conditions for approving the amended settlement agreement. The Superior Court recorded the revocation of the mandate of the applicants/interveners as far as the respondents were concerned, but it confirmed that the applicants/interveners still continued to represent the members of the class covered by the class action. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Superior Court's decision. Argued Date 2026-02-16 Keywords Civil procedure – Class action – Lawyer client relationship in context of class action –Lawyer's ethical obligations to client in context of class action – Protection for class members – Revocation of legal mandates given to firms by class representatives – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in ordering that agreement to settle authorized class action be submitted to court by applicants/defendants for approval, thereby placing their lawyers in conflict of interest and in situation that compromised their ethical obligations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in ruling that lawyer who acts for plaintiffs in class action: (i) has lawyer client relationship only with class representative; (ii) does not represent class members; and (iii) has no duty to act in best interests of class where those interests conflict with instructions of class representative – Whether Court of Appeal erred in breaching its own duty to protect interests of absent members, especially where those interests conflict with interests of class representatives – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that art. 2633 of Civil Code of Québec and art. 528 of Code of Civil Procedure concerning homologation of transaction under ordinary law apply to process for approval of transaction in class action, and thus in asking defendants to submit amended settlement agreement for approval if Mr. Gobeil and Mr. Walter refused to do so – Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, arts. 87, 528, 571, 575, 586, 589 and 590 – Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers, CQLR, c. B 1, r. 3.1, ss. 20, 23, 71, 72 and 120. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

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

Get an overview of the recent guidance and clarifications issued by the AICPA Professional Ethics Executive Committee. *** This episode qualifies for nano CPE credit. Find out more at https://njcpa.org/nano. *** Resources:PEEC Publishes Final Clarifications in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct for Engagements Subject to SSAEsPEEC releases clarifying guidance on independence in SSAE engagementsAccounting and auditing articles and eventsJoin the Accounting & Auditing Standards Interest Group

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this episode of the Research Insights Podcast invites listeners to reflect on equity, ethics, and professional responsibility. The episode revisits the compelling discussion titled "Race, Precept 1 & Professional Integrity: The Tale of Frederick L. Hoffman," which explores the historical context and actuarial implications of biased data and unethical practices. Through a thoughtful conversation, this episode challenges actuaries and professionals alike to examine the impact of historical bias in data, the role of Precept 1 of the Code of Professional Conduct, and how integrity must underpin actuarial work. As we commemorate Dr. King's legacy, we encourage listeners to think deeply about fairness, justice, and the responsibilities that come with professional designation. Listen now and join the ongoing dialogue on ethics and equity in the actuarial profession.

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

The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are for entertainment and informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Any characters, stories, or references to public figures are presented in a satirical or opinion-based context. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and consult with qualified professionals before making decisions based on the content. The hosts and guests disclaim any liability for actions taken or not taken based on what is discussed.Today we learn that Brandon Rafi has filed a motion to dismiss his own lawsuit against Gil Negrete.After more than 20 months of relentless litigation and baseless accusations, Rafi is now seeking to walk away from the case he initiated — the same case that has tormented Gil and his family since it began.By filing a motion to dismiss his own lawsuit, Brandon Rafi effectively concedes defeat, doing so to avoid his upcoming deposition and potential court sanctions.But rather than asking for the case to be dismissed with prejudice — which would permanently end the matter — he has asked for it to be dismissed without prejudice. That request keeps the door open for him to re-file the same claims later, perhaps in front of a different judge or under a new theory.This move signals retreat — a tactical withdrawal to regroup and strategize his next attempt.We also take a look back at the role of Paige Rafi.From our perspective, Paige — herself a licensed attorney — remained silent throughout this process. She stood by as her husband advanced false and defamatory allegations that accused Gil of a home invasion and even a bomb threat against Rafi Law Group — claims that were completely unfounded and never substantiated by any evidence.As an attorney, Paige had an ethical duty under Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 to report serious misconduct by another lawyer when it raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice. Her failure to intervene or report suggests at best willful blindness, and at worst, complicity.Instead of helping to end the conflict, she chose silence — and life continued as usual.We also uncover attorney Afshin's phantom release that was signed by an unconscious client.We further uncover the pending RICO case against Rafi Law Group and Jeff Raiffie at Arizona Injury Doctors. We apologize to Tyler aka Skrilla at AZ Spine! Keep grinding Tyler. If you've been a client of Rafi Law Group, you may be entitled to compensation. Feel Free to Reach Out to Us. Bye for now!

In this episode, Ajay Shandasani and guest John Y.C. Lee discussed how third-party funding is transforming legal departments by turning them into strategic value generators. The discussion highlighted how this non-recourse funding allows companies to monetize claims, transfer litigation risk to funders, and preserve capital for their core business. Lee explained that funders act as sophisticated investors, rigorously vetting cases for strong merits and enforceable awards, and are not just focused on ROI. He also emphasized the importance of carefully drafted funding agreements to avoid conflicts and maintain client control over the dispute.Our GuestJohn Y.C. LeeJohn is a solicitor admitted in Hong Kong and England & Wales, independent arbitrator and accredited mediator. He is a graduate of London University and has about 25 years of legal practice experience including as past partner and head of dispute resolution group of a major law firm.  His main areas of practice are commercial arbitration, litigation, risk management, advisory and related areas. He has handled commercial and civil cases including investment claims, company / shareholder disputes, construction claims, insolvency cases, competition law matters, intellectual property claims, land related disputes etc.  He is also a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators.  He serves as a risk management education tutor (part-time appointment of the Law Society of Hong Kong), Editorial Board member of the Solicitors' Guide to Professional Conduct, a member of the Law Society Arbitration Committee and the Arbitration Panel, and a member of the Law Society Risk Management Education Accreditation Sub-Committee.  He was appointed on the DOJ Working Group on ORFSA Checklists.Our HostAjay ShamdasaniAjay Shamdasani is a veteran writer, editor and researcher based in Hong Kong. He holds an AB in history and government from Ripon College, JD and MIPCT degrees from the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce Law School, and an LLM in financial regulation from the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law.His 15-year long career as a financial and legal journalist began as deputy editor of A Plus magazine – the journal of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants. From there, he assumed the helm of Macau Business magazine as its editor-in-chief, and later, joined Asialaw magazine as its deputy editor.More recently, he spent close to seven years as a senior correspondent with Thomson Reuters' subscription-based trade-wire service Regulatory Intelligence/Compliance Complete (previously called Complinet) in Hong Kong. While there, he covered regulatory developments in that city, as well as Singapore, India and South Korea.

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

Checks are slow, risky, and outdated. So why are so many law firms still using them? In this episode, Emery Wager sits down with Jayne Reardon to explore how law firms can transition to digital disbursements while staying compliant with the Rules of Professional Conduct. We break down the ethical considerations, share a practical checklist for moving to electronic payments, and explain why modernizing your payment processes is not just smart, but the right thing to do for your clients.To learn more about digital disbursements, visit confidolegal.com or check out our article in the link below.https://confidolegal.com/financiallylegal/can-law-firms-disburse-money-from-a-trust-or-iolta-account-electronically

Lecture One introduces foundational concepts in Constitutional Law, addressing federalism, separation of powers, and core individual rights (Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Commerce Clause). It explains federalism's distribution of authority between federal and state governments, highlighting key Supreme Court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden. It also discusses the essential separation of powers principle, reinforced by landmark decisions such as Marbury v. Madison. Critical individual rights are examined, specifically procedural and substantive due process rights, equal protection standards, and the extensive interpretation of the Commerce Clause through landmark cases.The lecture also covers fundamental professional responsibility topics guided by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, focusing on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and attorney-client privilege. It emphasizes the ethical duties and obligations attorneys have toward their clients and the legal system. The lecture concludes with practical preparation strategies for the MBE and introduces structured methods for writing effective MEE essays, including sample questions and essay analyses.Key Takeaways:Constitutional Law:Federalism: Federal government powers are enumerated explicitly; states hold reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.Separation of Powers: Legislative, executive, and judicial branches have distinct roles to prevent abuses of power.Due Process: Protects individuals from unfair government deprivation of life, liberty, or property.Equal Protection: Requires equal governmental treatment and scrutiny standards to evaluate discrimination.Commerce Clause: Grants broad authority to Congress over activities significantly affecting interstate commerce.Professional Responsibility:ABA Model Rules: Set ethical standards for legal practice; adopted widely by state bar associations.Conflicts of Interest: Attorneys must avoid or mitigate conflicts that impair professional judgment or client interests.Confidentiality: Lawyers have an expansive duty to protect client information, with limited exceptions.Attorney-Client Privilege: Specifically safeguards confidential communications meant to secure legal advice.Exam Preparation:Regularly practice MBE-style questions to build accuracy and analytical skills.Employ the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method systematically for MEE essays.Understand ethical dilemmas deeply to clearly articulate duties in professional responsibility essays.These key concepts form the foundation for your continued bar exam preparation.

This episode of the FM podcast is the continuation of an occasional series on the show called Beyond the Code. That means taking a detailed look at part of the CIMA Code of Ethics. Xose Lumor, manager–Advocacy and Professional Ethics, discusses details with Monique Samuel, associate manager–Professional Conduct, on how members can properly handle official complaints and what they should know about the process if a complaint moves forward. Resources mentioned in this episode include: n  A downloadable ethics checklist. n  CIMA Member in Practice Rules. n  A summary page on CIMA's approach to potential sanctions. What you'll learn from this episode: ·         An introduction of the topic and a refresher on the Beyond the Code series. ·         Why members in practice should maintain communication with a client that has raised an official complaint. ·         An explanation of resources, including an ethics checklist that can help members deal with ethical dilemmas. ·         Samuel's summary of the process after an ethics complaint is referred to the Disciplinary Committee. ·         A reminder that such complaints are rare.

Episode 101: Pro Bono This month on Calendar Call, Matt Berardino talks Pro Bono with Attorney Jenn Shukla, Director of Access to Justice Initiatives and Interim Director of DEI at the Connecticut Bar Association and Attorney Dan Brody, Co-Chair of the CBA's Pro Bono Committee. Matt, Attorney Shukla, and Attorney Brody discuss a number of topics including why do pro bono, pro bono obligations, potential MCLE credits for pro bono, and critical areas of need for pro bono. Other topics include opportunities available through the CBA, training for practitioners, concerns and issues, as well as many resources available. Rule 6.1 of Professional Conduct CTbar.org/volunteer

Episode 101: Pro Bono This month on Calendar Call, Matt Berardino talks Pro Bono with Attorney Jenn Shukla, Director of Access to Justice Initiatives and Interim Director of DEI at the Connecticut Bar Association and Attorney Dan Brody, Co-Chair of the CBA's Pro Bono Committee. Matt, Attorney Shukla, and Attorney Brody discuss a number of topics including why do pro bono, pro bono obligations, potential MCLE credits for pro bono, and critical areas of need for pro bono. Other topics include opportunities available through the CBA, training for practitioners, concerns and issues, as well as many resources available. Rule 6.1 of Professional Conduct CTbar.org/volunteer

Send us a textIn this episode, I'm talking about something that can seriously make or break your pool business—professional conduct and how to talk to your customers the right way. I'll share what's worked for me out on my route, from setting clear expectations to handling tough conversations with confidence and respect. Whether you're just starting out or looking to sharpen your communication skills, this episode is packed with real-world tips to help you build stronger relationships and a better reputation.Support the Pool Guy Podcast Show Sponsors! HASA delivers clean, healthy water solutions. https://bit.ly/HASAhttps://www.orendatech.com/The Bottom Feeder Professional Battery Powered Vacuum System. Save $100 with discount Code: DVB100https://bit.ly/THEBOTTOMFEEDERAnd Skimmer, America's #1 pool service software! Try Skimmer FREE for 30 days at:https://getskimmer.com/poolguy Thanks for listening and I hope you find the Podcast helpful! For other free resources to further help you:Visit my Website: https://www.swimmingpoollearning.comWatch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SPLPodcast Site: https://the-pool-guy-podcast-show.onpodium.com/

Like the show? Show your support by using our sponsors.Promotive can help you find your dream job, or help you hire. Touch HERE for more.Need to update your shop systems and software? Try Tekmetric HEREIn this episode, Jeff chats with Ben Dellaria from the Three T's Automotive YouTube Channel. Ben reflects on his journey from working at dealerships and independent shops to becoming a successful mobile mechanic, emphasizing the importance of professional conduct and strategic decision-making in business. Jeff and Ben discuss the significance of transparency, particularly when addressing mistakes, highlighting how it builds trust with clients.00:00 Podcast Recognition Milestone06:17 Outdated Carburetor Lessons in 200115:36 Stagnant Career in Auto Shops21:17 DIY Mobile Auto Repair Journey24:47 Critique of Mobile Auto Repair Jobs29:16 Optimizing Mobile Business Efficiency35:19 Transmission Repair Dispute Explained39:07 TikTok's Impact on Job Viability45:38 Incentive-Pay Myth in the Auto Industry51:47 "Focused on Vehicle Condition"59:25 Nissan Clutch and Compressor Failures01:02:11 Chevy Communication Issues Explained01:09:08 Repair Value Beyond Hourly Rate01:14:12 Florida Estimate Quoting Regulation01:17:49 Drawing the Line01:23:21 Corporate Dealer vs. Independent Dynamics01:31:22 "Resentment Towards Unqualified Technicians"01:36:27 Ignoring Advice: Miscommunication Issues01:40:14 Avoid High-Liability Jobs01:45:42 ASTA Networking: Transformative Experience Follow/Subscribe to the show on social media! TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@jeffcompton7YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@TheJadedMechanicFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091347564232

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

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination…in conduct related to the practice of law” […]

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.Featuring:Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In this episode of our "Listen and Learn" series, we're focusing on a topic from professional responsibility - namely, lawyer fee agreements. These are governed by Rule 1.5 of both the ABA and the California Rules of Professional Conduct. In this episode, we discuss: The general rules a lawyer must follow when entering into a fee agreement with their client Different types of fee agreements Prohibited contingency fee agreements A hypothetical scenario from a previous California bar exam Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2005 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/July%202005%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Herrscher v. State Bar of California (1935) (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1779870.html) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-301-listen-and-learn-professional-responsibility-fee-agreements/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Listen in to get those professionalism CE credits with host Jackie Lee and guest Cathy Quock. They talk about the differences between actuarial communications in a consulting role or internal company setting. They reference the Code of Professional Conduct and ASOPs.

About the CISO Circuit SeriesSean Martin and Michael Piacente join forces roughly once per month (or so, depending on schedules) to discuss everything from looking for a new job, entering the field, finding the right work/life balance, examining the risks and rewards in the role, building and supporting your team, the value of the community, relevant newsworthy items, and so much more. Join us to help us understand the role of the CISO so that we can collectively find a path to Redefining CyberSecurity for business and society. If you have a topic idea or a comment on an episode, feel free to contact Sean Martin.____________________________Guests: Heather Hinton, CISO-in-Residence, Professional Association of CISOsOn LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-hinton-9731911/____________________________Host: Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast [@RedefiningCyber]On ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/sean-martinMichael Piacente, Managing Partner and Cofounder of Hitch PartnersOn ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/michael-piacente____________________________This Episode's SponsorsImperva | https://itspm.ag/imperva277117988LevelBlue | https://itspm.ag/levelblue266f6cThreatLocker | https://itspm.ag/threatlocker-r974___________________________Episode NotesIn this episode of the CISO Circuit Series, part of the Redefining Cybersecurity Podcast on ITSPmagazine, hosts Sean Martin and Michael Piacente welcomed Heather Hinton, seasoned cybersecurity leader, to discuss the evolving responsibilities and recognition of Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs). Their conversation explored the transformative work of the Professional Association of CISOs (PAC), an organization dedicated to establishing standards, accreditation, and support for cybersecurity leaders globally.This episode addressed three critical questions shaping the modern CISO role:How can CISOs build trust within their organizations?What is PAC doing to elevate cybersecurity as a recognized profession?How can CISOs prepare for increasing scrutiny and legal risks?Building Trust: A CISO's Key ResponsibilityHeather Hinton, whose career includes leadership roles like VP and CISO for IBM Cloud and PagerDuty, underscores that trust is foundational for a CISO's success. Beyond technical expertise, a CISO must demonstrate leadership, strategic thinking, and effective communication with boards, executives, and teams. Hinton highlights that cybersecurity should not be perceived as merely a technical function but as a critical enabler of business objectives.The PAC accreditation process reinforces this perspective by formalizing the skills needed to build trust. From fostering collaboration to aligning security strategies with organizational goals, PAC equips CISOs with tools to establish credibility and demonstrate value from day one.Elevating Cybersecurity as a Recognized ProfessionMichael Piacente, Managing Partner at Hitch Partners and co-host of the CISO Circuit Series, emphasizes PAC's role in professionalizing cybersecurity. By introducing a Code of Professional Conduct, structured accreditation programs, and robust career development resources, PAC is raising the bar for the profession. Hinton and Piacente explain that PAC's ultimate vision is to make membership and accreditation standard for CISO roles, akin to certifications we've come to expect and rely upon for doctors or lawyers.This vision reflects a growing recognition of cybersecurity as a discipline critical not only to organizations but to society as a whole. PAC's advocacy extends to shaping global policies, setting professional standards, and fostering an environment where CISOs are equipped to handle emerging challenges like hybrid warfare and AI-driven threats.Preparing for Legal Risks and Industry ChallengesThe conversation also delves into the increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny CISOs face. Piacente and Hinton stress the importance of having clear job descriptions, liability protections, and professional resources—areas where PAC is driving significant progress. By providing legal and mental health support, along with peer-driven mentorship, PAC empowers CISOs to navigate these challenges with confidence.Hinton notes that PAC is also a critical voice in addressing broader systemic risks, advocating for policies that protect CISOs while ensuring they are well-positioned to protect their organizations and society.Looking AheadWith goals to expand its membership to 1,000 and scale its accreditation programs by 2025, PAC is setting the foundation for a more unified and professionalized cybersecurity community. Hinton envisions PAC becoming a global authority, advising governments and organizations on cybersecurity standards and policies while fostering collaboration among professionals.For those aspiring to advance cybersecurity as a recognized profession, PAC offers a platform to shape the future of the field. Learn more about PAC and how to join at TheCISO.org.____________________________Watch this and other videos on ITSPmagazine's YouTube ChannelRedefining CyberSecurity Podcast with Sean Martin, CISSP playlist:

About the CISO Circuit SeriesSean Martin and Michael Piacente join forces roughly once per month (or so, depending on schedules) to discuss everything from looking for a new job, entering the field, finding the right work/life balance, examining the risks and rewards in the role, building and supporting your team, the value of the community, relevant newsworthy items, and so much more. Join us to help us understand the role of the CISO so that we can collectively find a path to Redefining CyberSecurity for business and society. If you have a topic idea or a comment on an episode, feel free to contact Sean Martin.____________________________Guests: Heather Hinton, CISO-in-Residence, Professional Association of CISOsOn LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-hinton-9731911/____________________________Host: Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast [@RedefiningCyber]On ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/sean-martinMichael Piacente, Managing Partner and Cofounder of Hitch PartnersOn ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/michael-piacente____________________________This Episode's SponsorsImperva | https://itspm.ag/imperva277117988LevelBlue | https://itspm.ag/levelblue266f6cThreatLocker | https://itspm.ag/threatlocker-r974___________________________Episode NotesIn this episode of the CISO Circuit Series, part of the Redefining Cybersecurity Podcast on ITSPmagazine, hosts Sean Martin and Michael Piacente welcomed Heather Hinton, seasoned cybersecurity leader, to discuss the evolving responsibilities and recognition of Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs). Their conversation explored the transformative work of the Professional Association of CISOs (PAC), an organization dedicated to establishing standards, accreditation, and support for cybersecurity leaders globally.This episode addressed three critical questions shaping the modern CISO role:How can CISOs build trust within their organizations?What is PAC doing to elevate cybersecurity as a recognized profession?How can CISOs prepare for increasing scrutiny and legal risks?Building Trust: A CISO's Key ResponsibilityHeather Hinton, whose career includes leadership roles like VP and CISO for IBM Cloud and PagerDuty, underscores that trust is foundational for a CISO's success. Beyond technical expertise, a CISO must demonstrate leadership, strategic thinking, and effective communication with boards, executives, and teams. Hinton highlights that cybersecurity should not be perceived as merely a technical function but as a critical enabler of business objectives.The PAC accreditation process reinforces this perspective by formalizing the skills needed to build trust. From fostering collaboration to aligning security strategies with organizational goals, PAC equips CISOs with tools to establish credibility and demonstrate value from day one.Elevating Cybersecurity as a Recognized ProfessionMichael Piacente, Managing Partner at Hitch Partners and co-host of the CISO Circuit Series, emphasizes PAC's role in professionalizing cybersecurity. By introducing a Code of Professional Conduct, structured accreditation programs, and robust career development resources, PAC is raising the bar for the profession. Hinton and Piacente explain that PAC's ultimate vision is to make membership and accreditation standard for CISO roles, akin to certifications we've come to expect and rely upon for doctors or lawyers.This vision reflects a growing recognition of cybersecurity as a discipline critical not only to organizations but to society as a whole. PAC's advocacy extends to shaping global policies, setting professional standards, and fostering an environment where CISOs are equipped to handle emerging challenges like hybrid warfare and AI-driven threats.Preparing for Legal Risks and Industry ChallengesThe conversation also delves into the increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny CISOs face. Piacente and Hinton stress the importance of having clear job descriptions, liability protections, and professional resources—areas where PAC is driving significant progress. By providing legal and mental health support, along with peer-driven mentorship, PAC empowers CISOs to navigate these challenges with confidence.Hinton notes that PAC is also a critical voice in addressing broader systemic risks, advocating for policies that protect CISOs while ensuring they are well-positioned to protect their organizations and society.Looking AheadWith goals to expand its membership to 1,000 and scale its accreditation programs by 2025, PAC is setting the foundation for a more unified and professionalized cybersecurity community. Hinton envisions PAC becoming a global authority, advising governments and organizations on cybersecurity standards and policies while fostering collaboration among professionals.For those aspiring to advance cybersecurity as a recognized profession, PAC offers a platform to shape the future of the field. Learn more about PAC and how to join at TheCISO.org.____________________________Watch this and other videos on ITSPmagazine's YouTube ChannelRedefining CyberSecurity Podcast with Sean Martin, CISSP playlist:

Tom and Simon kick off with a discussion about Simon's upcoming trip to Australia for Crime Time Inc., emphasizing the importance of exemplary conduct and noting the organization's tight expense policies. They delve into famous Australian cases, including the legendary outlaw Ned Kelly. The conversation then shifts to a series of topical crimes, particularly those around Christmas time, as noted by their deep dive team. Paul Logan's unsolved murder is highlighted, with Tom discussing the importance of preserving evidence and keeping cold cases 'warm' for potential breakthroughs. They touch on infamous cases like the Sodder children and JonBenét Ramsey, critiquing poor initial crime scene management and exploring potential theories behind the incidents. The pair also reflect on Amelia Earhart's mysterious disappearance and the influence of conspiracy theories, driven by social media. The podcast transitions to a broader analysis of crime scene investigations, the importance of immediate actions by first responders, and conspiracy theories' propensity to thrive in the absence of definitive answers. Notably, Tom praises Police Scotland's Homicide Review Board for their methodical and thorough approach to solving cold cases. The episode also teases a future live show at the Mitchell Library in Glasgow and mentions their special guest, former crime reporter Jane Hamilton, who will bring a unique perspective as a journalist. This episode offers a blend of case analysis, procedural critique, and personal anecdotes, providing listeners with insight into the investigative process and the challenges faced in high-profile crime inquiries.00:00 Introduction and Trip Preparations00:21 Professional Conduct and Expense Warnings01:40 Famous Australian Cases01:57 Christmas Crimes and Cold Cases04:44 The Paul Logan Case06:56 Cold Case Investigations11:50 Forensic Evidence and Lockhart's Exchange Theory16:53 The Sodder Children Disappearance23:06 Violence in Policing26:11 The Importance of Searching Prisoners27:36 Public Inquiry into Sheku Bayoh's Death29:49 Botched Crime Scenes: Jon Benét Ramsey Case35:57 The Maurin Murders: A Complex Case42:20 Amelia Earhart: The Mystery of Her Disappearance46:16 Conspiracy Theories and Social Media48:57 Upcoming Live Show Details Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Onion is buying Infowars! Unless a bankruptcy judge puts the kibosh on the sale. And Rudy Giuliani's lawyers are pulling the ripcord in the Freeman/Moss case. Also … Attorney General Matt Gaetz? WTF?!?!   Links:   Onion Press Release https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/    Alex Jones Bankruptcy docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66583024/alexander-e-jones/   Giuliani - Caruso Declaration - lawyers withdrawing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.626017/gov.uscourts.nysd.626017.110.0.pdf   New York Rules of Professional Conduct https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2024/02/20240226-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-as-amended-6.10.2022.pdf   Matt Gaetz ethics report https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/us/politics/matt-gaetz-ethics-committee-report.html   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

In this episode, Jimmy Purdy and Steph, known as "that Tool Girl," delve into the polarization within the automotive industry, challenging the notion that "the customer is always right." Steph shares her insights on the critical need for clear, effective communication with customers to avoid misunderstandings and disputes. They also tackle the impact of social media on businesses, emphasizing the ethical responsibility of shops to admit and rectify their mistakes.00:00 Apprenticeship varies; four-year track for automotive.06:21 Government overreach deters poorly executed vehicle repairs.13:46 Imports car parts from USA; rotors locally.18:03 Unnecessary charges for simple repairs, excessive billing.23:47 Accountable for verifying before ordering parts.27:10 He avoided admitting fault to protect his ego.32:53 Fraud persists despite perceived transparency online.42:25 The Transmission issue led to burned overdrive clutches.44:19 Customer upset switches service after one mistake.50:46 Fear-driven avoidance hinders accepting and capitalizing on mistakes.54:19 Exaggerated video views, unexpectedly reached 3 million.01:04:46 Professionally handle mistakes, and prioritize the bigger picture.01:05:40 Viral video causes significant financial impact. Thanks to our sponsor, Shop Boss! See how they can simplify your auto shop HERE

Episode 94 – Attorney Succession Planning This month on Calendar Call, Matt talks with Attorney Elizabeth Rowe, First Assistant Bar Counsel, about attorney succession planning. Matt and Attorney Rowe discuss the first steps to winding down a practice, the types of retirements for attorneys, and options to consider when retiring. Additional topics include duties to former clients, plans for unexpected events, common mistakes, resources available, and more. Retirement FAQ's Rules of Professional Conduct

Episode 94 – Attorney Succession Planning This month on Calendar Call, Matt talks with Attorney Elizabeth Rowe, First Assistant Bar Counsel, about attorney succession planning. Matt and Attorney Rowe discuss the first steps to winding down a practice, the types of retirements for attorneys, and options to consider when retiring. Additional topics include duties to former clients, plans for unexpected events, common mistakes, resources available, and more. Retirement FAQ's Rules of Professional Conduct

This month Joe talks with Albert D. Spalding, CPA, JD, PhD, Associate Professor Emeritus at Wayne State University to discuss ethical decision-making in accounting. They explore whether ethics are innate or learned through two court cases highlighting moral development and discuss the importance of the AICPA's Code of Professional Conduct.

In this podcast episode, Julie Alexander discusses the serious issue of sexual assault within the massage therapy industry. She shares her personal experience of being sexually assaulted on the massage table and emphasizes the importance of reporting such incidents to state boards and the police. Julie highlights the necessity of separating the public perception of massage therapists from that of sex workers and advocates for setting appropriate professional boundaries. She also outlines steps to create a safe environment for both clients and therapists, including proper client screening and avoiding inappropriate client communications. The episode calls for ongoing discussion and action to stop sexual misconduct in the industry. [00:00] Introduction and Trigger Warning [00:58] Personal Experience and Initial Reaction [02:57] Detailed Account of the Incident [05:06] Importance of Reporting and Taking Action [07:07] Addressing the Broader Issue in the Industry [08:11] Setting Boundaries and Professional Conduct [11:55] Practical Steps for Safety and Prevention [14:30] Conclusion and Call to Action Connect with Julie Alexander and Handcrafted Therapy Join our email list!  To learn more about Julie Alexander, LMT, and Handcrafted Therapy Events and Wellness Center, head over to www.handcraftedtherapy.com  Join the Handcrafted Therapy Facebook community  Or the Handcrafted Therapy YouTube channel:

Threat actors use a malicious Pidgin plugin to deliver malware. The BlackByte ransomware group is exploiting a recently patched VMware ESXi  vulnerability. The State Department offers a $2.5 million reward for a major malware distributor. A Swiss industrial manufacturer suffers a cyberattack. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) responds to claims of data theft by the Hunters International ransomware gang. Park'N Fly reports a data breach affecting 1 million customers. Black Lotus Labs documents the active exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability in Versa Director servers. Federal law enforcement agencies warn that Iran-based cyber actors continue to exploit U.S. and foreign organizations. We kick off our new educational CertByte segment with hosts Chris Hare and George Monsalvatge. Precrime detectives root out election related misinformation before it happens.  Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest On today's show, our guests are N2K's Chris Hare and George Monsalvatge introducing our new bi-weekly CertByte segments that kick off today on the CyberWire Daily podcast. CertByte Segment Welcome to CertByte! On this bi-weekly segment hosted by Chris Hare, a content developer and project management specialist at N2K, we share practice questions from our suite of industry-leading content and a study tip to help you achieve the professional certifications you need to fast-track your career growth. In each segment, Chris is joined by an N2K Content Developer to help illustrate the learning. This week, Chris is joined by George Monsalvatge to break down a question targeting the Project Management Professional (PMP)® certification by the Project Management Institute®. Today's question comes from N2K's PMI® Project Management Professional (PMP®) Practice Test. The PMP® is the global gold standard certification typically targeted for those who have about three to five years of project management experience. To learn more about this and other related topics under this objective, please refer to the following resource: Project Management Institute - Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Have a question that you'd like to see covered? Email us at certbyte@n2k.com. If you're studying for a certification exam, check out N2K's full exam prep library of certification practice tests, practice labs, and training courses by visiting our website at n2k.com/certify. Please note: The questions and answers provided here, and on our site, are not actual current or prior questions and answers from these certification publishers or providers. Selected Reading  Malware Delivered via Malicious Pidgin Plugin, Signal Fork (SecurityWeek) BlackByte Hackers Exploiting VMware ESXi Auth Bypass Flaw to Deploy Ransomware (Cyber Security News) US Offering $2.5 Million Reward for Belarusian Malware Distributor (SecurityWeek) Services at Swiss manufacturer Schlatter disrupted in likely ransomware attack (SiliconANGLE) US Marshals say data posted by ransomware gang not from 'new or undisclosed incident' (The Record) Park'N Fly notifies 1 million customers of data breach (Bleeping Computer) Taking the Crossroads: The Versa Director Zero-Day Exploitation (Lumen) Iran-based Cyber Actors Enabling Ransomware Attacks on US Organizations (CISA) Hundreds of 'PreCrime' Election-Related Fraud Sites Spotted (Metacurity) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

In this episode, we escape the summer heat of Houston to explore out-of-the-box places and ways to practice law. Listeners will hear about combatting sex trafficking in Kenya, living in Puerto Vallarta while virtually practicing law in Houston, and engaging in immersive travel without interrupting service to one's clients in Houston.  Segment 1:There's No Place Like Home (in Kenya): Combatting Sex Trafficking in AfricaAnna Swanson, who is now practicing in Houston, completed her work last year as the Manager of Security, Investigations, and Law Enforcement Development at International Justice Mission's (“IJM”) field office in Mombasa, Kenya. In that position, Anna worked with government officials and law enforcement entities in different countries to train officials to use equipment and online investigation tools essential to investigate tips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children digital world of evidence so that the evidence they obtained would be admissible in court. Anna discusses the types of child trafficking crimes in Kenya and how the court system there deals with defendants accused of such crimes. She also addresses the importance of collaboration and partnerships in achieving international legal goals – in this case protecting children. She also goes into some of the complexities of digital evidence and how the IJM and its partners were able to educate investigators, prosecutors, and even courts in Kenya on its use. Segment 2:You Had Me at Hola! (in Puerto Vallarta): Practicing Law in Texas While Living AbroadNikita Lamar of Lamar Legal Group (https://www.lamarlegalgroup.com/about-6) joins us from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. She has an almost fully virtual law practice as a Houston lawyer living elsewhere. Nikita discusses why attorneys sometimes need to pivot, such as burnout. She also addresses the logistics of changing a firm's practice model to permit moving the practice out of the country, such as necessary changes to client engagement letters, and she talks about what lawyers moving abroad need to consider with regard to Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.03 and 1.05. And, she touches on the importance of exploring Digital Nomad laws and tax implications of the locations you are considering and getting the advice of a tax professional before making a move. Nikita has started an online group called “Esquires Abroad” for lawyers who have virtual practices and live abroad (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12974315).Segment 3:Adventure is Out There: Enjoying Geographic Freedom While Maintaining a Successful Law PracticeArati Bhattacharya of AB Law (https://ab-firm.com/meet-the-team/) talks with new Behind-the-Lines interviewer Rinku Ray about how Arati structured her firm so that her family can engage in immersive travel experiences while she maintains a successful legal practice in Houston. Arati provides pointers and encouragement for lawyers who would like to take control of their lives and legal practices but may be afraid to do so.  HBA members are eligible for 0.75 hr. CLE credit (0.25 ethics) for listening to the 1st 2 segments. See The Houston Lawyer Committee page on the HBA website for details. For full speaker bios, visit The Houston Lawyer (hba.org). To read The Houston Lawyer magazine, visit The Houston Lawyer_home. For more information about the Houston Bar Association, visit Houston Bar Association (hba.org).*The views expressed in this episode do not necessarily reflect the views of The Houston Lawyer Editorial Board or the Houston Bar Association.

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

We're back with another episode highlighting the philanthropic work of DPT students! We were honored to speak to the very first winner of the Solstice Scholarship from Western Michigan University, Chloe Catallo. Chloe discusses her journey with the Solstice Scholarship and how she organized a rock-climbing event to support victims of substance abuse through the Community Healing Center and Climb Kalamazoo. She shares her passion for community outreach and health equity, highlighting the importance of advocating for underserved populations. Never underestimate the power of a motivated student! Planet Rock Terra Firma Bouldering Co. APTA Academy of Leadership and Innovation APTA Code of Ethics and Guide for Professional Conduct

Attorneys representing Richard Allen, the suspect in the Delphi murders case, have filed a motion seeking the removal of Special Judge Fran Gull from the proceedings. In a recent legal maneuver, attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi argued that Judge Gull should be replaced or should recuse herself from the case.    The motion is the latest development in a series of legal maneuvers surrounding the Delphi murders case. Richard Allen faces charges related to the deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German in February 2017 near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi, Indiana.    Baldwin and Rozzi, who were recently reinstated as Allen's defense team, are now seeking Judge Gull's removal from the case. This move follows Gull's earlier call for their removal, citing a social media leak of evidence as a factor. Although Baldwin and Rozzi initially resigned, they later contended that they did so under pressure. Subsequently, two new attorneys were appointed to represent Allen.    The reinstatement of Baldwin and Rozzi involved a legal battle that reached the Indiana Supreme Court. While the highest court in the state reinstated the defense attorneys, they also denied a motion to remove Judge Gull from the case.    In their latest motion seeking Judge Gull's removal, Baldwin and Rozzi, on behalf of their client Richard Allen, questioned Gull's impartiality and her ability to oversee the case without bias. They expressed concerns that Gull's previous actions had affected their attorney-client relationship.    The motion argued that Gull's recusal would help eliminate any perception of impropriety in the case. It questioned whether Gull, having previously removed the defense attorneys, could make rulings without raising doubts about her impartiality.    During the course of the proceedings, Gull had accused Rozzi and Baldwin of acting negligently and with incompetence in their defense of Allen, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. She also expressed "grave concerns" about their ability to represent him. The defense attorneys contended that Gull's actions had violated Allen's constitutional right to due process.    In a 22-page affidavit accompanying the motion, Richard Allen accused Judge Gull of misleading the public during the October 19 proceedings when she announced the attorneys' withdrawal from the case. He also claimed that Gull had interfered with his right to a speedy trial.    The affidavit further alleged that Gull had treated the prosecution more favorably than the defense. Allen accused Gull of allowing the prosecution to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence for months, while she had criticized the defense attorneys for their actions.    The motion argued that Judge Gull had interfered with Allen's right to a speedy trial by preventing him from having counsel of his choosing, resulting in trial delays. Additionally, Allen claimed that his confinement at Westville Correctional Facility since his arrest in October 2022 had led to both mental and physical deterioration.    Furthermore, the affidavit asserted that Judge Gull had shielded certain defense documents and records from public view, violating administrative rules from the Indiana Supreme Court and compromising public access.    The motion ultimately called for Judge Gull's removal or recusal from the case, citing concerns about her impartiality and her impact on the attorney-client relationship. It remains to be seen how this latest development will affect the ongoing legal proceedings in the Delphi murders case. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys representing Richard Allen, the suspect in the Delphi murders case, have filed a motion seeking the removal of Special Judge Fran Gull from the proceedings. In a recent legal maneuver, attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi argued that Judge Gull should be replaced or should recuse herself from the case.    The motion is the latest development in a series of legal maneuvers surrounding the Delphi murders case. Richard Allen faces charges related to the deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German in February 2017 near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi, Indiana.    Baldwin and Rozzi, who were recently reinstated as Allen's defense team, are now seeking Judge Gull's removal from the case. This move follows Gull's earlier call for their removal, citing a social media leak of evidence as a factor. Although Baldwin and Rozzi initially resigned, they later contended that they did so under pressure. Subsequently, two new attorneys were appointed to represent Allen.    The reinstatement of Baldwin and Rozzi involved a legal battle that reached the Indiana Supreme Court. While the highest court in the state reinstated the defense attorneys, they also denied a motion to remove Judge Gull from the case.    In their latest motion seeking Judge Gull's removal, Baldwin and Rozzi, on behalf of their client Richard Allen, questioned Gull's impartiality and her ability to oversee the case without bias. They expressed concerns that Gull's previous actions had affected their attorney-client relationship.    The motion argued that Gull's recusal would help eliminate any perception of impropriety in the case. It questioned whether Gull, having previously removed the defense attorneys, could make rulings without raising doubts about her impartiality.    During the course of the proceedings, Gull had accused Rozzi and Baldwin of acting negligently and with incompetence in their defense of Allen, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. She also expressed "grave concerns" about their ability to represent him. The defense attorneys contended that Gull's actions had violated Allen's constitutional right to due process.    In a 22-page affidavit accompanying the motion, Richard Allen accused Judge Gull of misleading the public during the October 19 proceedings when she announced the attorneys' withdrawal from the case. He also claimed that Gull had interfered with his right to a speedy trial.    The affidavit further alleged that Gull had treated the prosecution more favorably than the defense. Allen accused Gull of allowing the prosecution to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence for months, while she had criticized the defense attorneys for their actions.    The motion argued that Judge Gull had interfered with Allen's right to a speedy trial by preventing him from having counsel of his choosing, resulting in trial delays. Additionally, Allen claimed that his confinement at Westville Correctional Facility since his arrest in October 2022 had led to both mental and physical deterioration.    Furthermore, the affidavit asserted that Judge Gull had shielded certain defense documents and records from public view, violating administrative rules from the Indiana Supreme Court and compromising public access.    The motion ultimately called for Judge Gull's removal or recusal from the case, citing concerns about her impartiality and her impact on the attorney-client relationship. It remains to be seen how this latest development will affect the ongoing legal proceedings in the Delphi murders case. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys representing Richard Allen, the suspect in the Delphi murders case, have filed a motion seeking the removal of Special Judge Fran Gull from the proceedings. In a recent legal maneuver, attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi argued that Judge Gull should be replaced or should recuse herself from the case.    The motion is the latest development in a series of legal maneuvers surrounding the Delphi murders case. Richard Allen faces charges related to the deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German in February 2017 near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi, Indiana.    Baldwin and Rozzi, who were recently reinstated as Allen's defense team, are now seeking Judge Gull's removal from the case. This move follows Gull's earlier call for their removal, citing a social media leak of evidence as a factor. Although Baldwin and Rozzi initially resigned, they later contended that they did so under pressure. Subsequently, two new attorneys were appointed to represent Allen.    The reinstatement of Baldwin and Rozzi involved a legal battle that reached the Indiana Supreme Court. While the highest court in the state reinstated the defense attorneys, they also denied a motion to remove Judge Gull from the case.    In their latest motion seeking Judge Gull's removal, Baldwin and Rozzi, on behalf of their client Richard Allen, questioned Gull's impartiality and her ability to oversee the case without bias. They expressed concerns that Gull's previous actions had affected their attorney-client relationship.    The motion argued that Gull's recusal would help eliminate any perception of impropriety in the case. It questioned whether Gull, having previously removed the defense attorneys, could make rulings without raising doubts about her impartiality.    During the course of the proceedings, Gull had accused Rozzi and Baldwin of acting negligently and with incompetence in their defense of Allen, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. She also expressed "grave concerns" about their ability to represent him. The defense attorneys contended that Gull's actions had violated Allen's constitutional right to due process.    In a 22-page affidavit accompanying the motion, Richard Allen accused Judge Gull of misleading the public during the October 19 proceedings when she announced the attorneys' withdrawal from the case. He also claimed that Gull had interfered with his right to a speedy trial.    The affidavit further alleged that Gull had treated the prosecution more favorably than the defense. Allen accused Gull of allowing the prosecution to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence for months, while she had criticized the defense attorneys for their actions.    The motion argued that Judge Gull had interfered with Allen's right to a speedy trial by preventing him from having counsel of his choosing, resulting in trial delays. Additionally, Allen claimed that his confinement at Westville Correctional Facility since his arrest in October 2022 had led to both mental and physical deterioration.    Furthermore, the affidavit asserted that Judge Gull had shielded certain defense documents and records from public view, violating administrative rules from the Indiana Supreme Court and compromising public access.    The motion ultimately called for Judge Gull's removal or recusal from the case, citing concerns about her impartiality and her impact on the attorney-client relationship. It remains to be seen how this latest development will affect the ongoing legal proceedings in the Delphi murders case. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

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