Podcasts about Professional conduct

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

Maintaining high professional standards is essential, both for individual accountants and for the profession as a whole. This episode of The Tax Track looks at the importance of protecting your professional reputation and, importantly, what members can do to ensure they get things right in the first place.Tax is complicated – and constantly changing – so CPD is important, as well as being an integral part of your ICAEW membership. Meanwhile, Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation (PCRT), prepared jointly by seven professional bodies and associations (including ICAEW) and endorsed by HMRC, sets out the fundamental principles and standards for tax planning that all members, affiliates and students who practise in tax must follow.LinksWhat is Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation? https://www.icaew.com/insights/tax-news/2025/feb-2025/what-is-professional-conduct-in-relation-to-taxationProfessional Conduct in Relation to Taxation: a tax perspective on ethics https://www.icaew.com/regulation/regulatory-news/regulatory-news-nov-2024/professional-conduct-in-relation-to-taxationICAEW Regulatory and Conduct Annual Report https://www.icaew.com/regulation/icaew-regulatory-and-conduct-annual-reportPanelistsLindsey Wicks, Senior Technical Manager, Tax Policy, ICAEWSophie Wales, Director of Regulatory Policy, ICAEWKatherine Ford, Technical Manager, Business Taxation, ICAEWProducerEd AdamsEpisode first published: 11 February 2025Podcast recorded: 25 February 2025

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

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

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

The introduction of minimum cyber security standards in Victoria earlier this year reinforces the fact that educating one's workforce and implementing optimal frameworks to prevent breaches and attacks is not just good practice – it goes to the heart of one's professional duties as a lawyer. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy welcomes back Law & Cyber principal Simone Herbert-Lowe to discuss her interest and background in practising cyber security, the introduction by the Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner of minimum cyber security standards and why the standards were brought in, what it means for practitioners in the Garden State and what practitioners in other state and territory jurisdictions should glean from the standards. Herbert-Lowe also delves into the extent to which upholding certain standards regarding cyber security is at the forefront of lawyers' minds, the expansion of the remit of professional obligations for lawyers, the potential penalties for lawyers who breach standards or civil liability obligations, what lawyers must do in order to ensure best practice and avoid disciplinary findings, and the need for constant vigilance rather than employing a “set and forget” attitude. If you like this episode, show your support by  rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au for more insights!

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

This Day in Legal History: Organization of American States EstablishedOn this day, April 30, in 1948, a significant event in the realm of international law and diplomacy occurred with the establishment of the Organization of American States (OAS). This was formalized through the signing of the Charter of the Organization of American States during the Ninth International Conference of American States held in Bogotá, Colombia. The creation of the OAS marked a pivotal moment in regional cooperation, emphasizing the importance of legal and political solidarity among its member states.The Charter, serving as the foundational legal document of the OAS, laid down the principles of peace and justice, promoting the solidarity and collaboration among the member countries. The OAS was established primarily to foster mutual assistance and defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the states within the Americas.The organization's core objectives included strengthening peace and security, promoting the effective exercise of representative democracy, ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes among members, and facilitating economic, social, and cultural development. Over the years, the OAS has played a crucial role in various diplomatic and political crises in the Western Hemisphere, acting as a forum for multilateral negotiations and conflict resolution.The establishment of the OAS also symbolized a collective effort to prevent foreign interference in the Americas, which was a growing concern during the post-World War II era, particularly with the onset of the Cold War. The OAS's commitment to democracy and human rights has been tested through various crises, but it continues to serve as a prominent regional entity in promoting democratic values and facilitating cooperation among its member states.Today, the OAS includes all 35 independent states of the Americas and continues to influence the legal and political landscape of the region. Its ongoing initiatives and missions focus on critical areas such as the promotion of human rights, fostering educational and cultural exchange, and addressing contemporary challenges like drug trafficking, political instability, and the protection of the environment. The establishment of the OAS remains a landmark in the history of international relations in the Western Hemisphere, reflecting a lasting commitment to regional solidarity and cooperative governance.Jeffrey Clark, a former Trump administration official and US assistant attorney general, is facing the possibility of disbarment as the only sanction deemed appropriate by DC Bar officials. In late 2020, Clark attempted to influence Justice Department superiors to send a letter to Georgia officials, improperly questioning the election results. This act was characterized by DC Bar lawyers as a dishonest attempt to create national chaos just before January 6. The situation escalated after a three-person panel preliminarily found that Clark violated at least one ethics rule, which could potentially affect his future career prospects, particularly in a potential second Trump administration.Clark's legal representatives, Harry MacDougald and Charles Burnham, have not yet responded to requests for comments on the matter. Meanwhile, Clark has claimed in court filings that the disciplinary proceedings are being used politically against Trump's allies, arguing through his lawyer that the case is politically charged.The three-person panel involved in the case sought advice from DC Disciplinary Counsel Phil Fox on possible lesser sanctions if disbarment were not pursued. However, Fox, alongside two other attorneys, argued that suggesting a sanction other than disbarment would be inconsistent with their professional duty. They emphasized that lawyers who betray their country by violating professional conduct rules should face disbarment. The final stages of the disciplinary process will involve a recommendation by the panel, followed by reviews by the Board on Professional Responsibility and the DC Court of Appeals.The ethical violation considered here is Clark's attempt to misuse his position to influence electoral outcomes, a severe breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which mandates adherence to lawful and ethical standards by practicing lawyers. This emphasizes the critical nature of legal integrity and the repercussions of its breach.Jeffrey Clark Disbarment Is Only Possible Sanction, DC Bar SaysA new study by global consulting firm Workiva reveals that a significant majority of companies, nearly 90%, plan to voluntarily disclose extensive data on their carbon footprint, surpassing the mandated requirements. In the U.S., 86% of surveyed companies expressed intentions to adhere, wholly or partially, to Europe's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, despite not being obligated to do so. This directive requires companies with subsidiaries in the EU to report on their impact on local communities and fair labor practices, with enforcement potentially starting by 2026.Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's efforts to mandate climate impact disclosures have been delayed due to ongoing litigation, even as their proposed rules on greenhouse gas emissions reporting are perceived as less stringent.The motivation for these voluntary disclosures, as explained by Andie Wood, vice president for regulatory strategy at Workiva, stems from substantial investor demand and competitive pressures. Companies are committed to providing robust and comparable data, recognizing the strategic value in transparency.The survey involved environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practitioners from 2,204 companies globally, including 660 U.S.-based firms, all having at least 250 employees and a minimum of $250 million in annual revenue. Although these companies are confident in the accuracy of the data they volunteer, they anticipate challenges in meeting the more stringent EU reporting requirements. About 83% of respondents see accurately collecting data to comply with EU standards as a challenge, highlighting the complexity involved in fulfilling these regulatory expectations. This reflects a broader understanding among businesses that while they are confident in their current disclosures, there is room for improvement in efficiency and compliance with international standards.Most Companies Plan to Voluntarily Disclose Climate Rules DataOn Tuesday, the Biden administration announced the implementation of its second set of changes to the U.S. environmental permitting rules, aiming to accelerate the development of renewable energy infrastructure and other projects. These modifications are designed to balance the rapid construction of clean energy projects with the preservation of established environmental safeguards.The new rule introduces the concept of "categorical exclusions," which allows federal agencies to use previous decisions by other agencies for projects that are not expected to significantly impact the environment, thus bypassing more exhaustive reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It also promotes programmatic environmental reviews for broad actions, aiming to reduce the level of scrutiny for projects that either mitigate their environmental impact or provide clear environmental benefits.Additionally, the rule mandates that agencies must consider climate change impacts during environmental reviews and explore reasonable alternatives to minimize these effects. It also states that projects with long-term positive environmental outcomes may not require environmental impact statements (EIS).This rule covers a broad spectrum of construction activities, including renewable energy projects and infrastructure like roads and bridges, which are supported by recent infrastructure and climate legislation. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has worked to expedite the permitting process, with the White House reporting a 14% increase in the federal permitting workforce and faster completion of EIS processes under this administration.The rule is expected to attract more private investment in sectors such as advanced manufacturing and clean energy. Natalie Quillian, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lael Brainard, the national economic adviser, highlighted the importance of providing businesses with the certainty needed to invest confidently and navigate the federal permitting process efficiently.However, the rule has faced criticism from business groups who argue that it could favor certain projects, complicate agency analyses, increase litigation risks, and expand the scope of projects requiring NEPA review, potentially conflicting with the debt ceiling law. Despite these concerns, CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory expressed confidence in the new system's durability and effectiveness.Biden Issues Permitting Changes to Speed Clean Energy Build OutDonald Trump's criminal trial in New York, concerning charges of falsifying business records, is set to continue with testimony from a banker knowledgeable about the accounts involved in the alleged hush money scheme. This scheme was purportedly designed to influence the 2016 election by concealing a sex scandal. The trial, which marks the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president, began on April 22. Trump, who is also the Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election, faces accusations related to a $130,000 payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, to prevent her from discussing a claimed sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the encounter and pleaded not guilty.The trial has heard from various figures, including former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who testified about using his publication to suppress negative stories about Trump during the 2016 campaign. Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also claims to have been paid for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, are expected to testify.Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, is set to testify that he arranged and disguised the payments to Daniels and McDougal under Trump's direction, claims that Trump has denied. This case is one of several legal battles Trump is facing, with others concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his handling of classified documents. Trump has labeled all these cases as politically motivated witch hunts.Trump NYC hush money trial to resume with banker's testimony | ReutersChangpeng Zhao, the former CEO of Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, pleaded guilty to violating U.S. money laundering laws and is awaiting sentencing. The U.S. prosecutors have recommended a sentence that is twice the 18-month maximum suggested by federal guidelines, emphasizing the need for a stern penalty to serve as a deterrent in the cryptocurrency industry. Zhao has accepted responsibility and paid a $50 million criminal fine. His defense argues for probation, noting his cooperation and lack of prior criminal history.Zhao's sentencing is part of broader legal actions against cryptocurrency executives following the industry's downturn in 2022, which revealed widespread fraud and misconduct. Binance, under Zhao's leadership, admitted to evading anti-money laundering measures and agreed to a substantial $4.32 billion criminal penalty. The exchange has been criticized for a lax approach that allegedly facilitated transactions involving criminal and terrorist groups, as well as other illegal activities. Zhao, who has stepped down from his role and is on a $175 million bond, has agreed not to appeal any sentence within the recommended guidelines.Binance's CEO Zhao faces sentencing over money laundering violations | ReutersIn my column today, I discuss the increasing reliance of states on vice industries—like marijuana and online sports betting—for tax revenue. This approach seems attractive, especially as it promises substantial inflows that help offset persistent revenue shortfalls, a situation exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. For instance, California alone generated over $160 million from cannabis taxes in just one quarter of 2023.However, it's crucial to understand that these funds aren't "free money." They come with societal debts due to the decades of criminalization of these now-legal activities. Moreover, they bring potential future costs, such as increased health-related expenditures from addiction and mental health issues stemming from these industries.While the immediate fiscal benefits are undeniable, allowing states to bolster their budgets without divisive tax hikes, the long-term sustainability and ethical implications need careful consideration. Market saturation and the ineffectiveness of regional exclusivity are real risks as more states legalize these activities. It's no longer necessary to cross state lines for gambling, reducing the unique economic benefits previously offered by state-specific legalization.The revenue generated should not merely fill gaps caused by other tax policy failures but should specifically address the harms inflicted by these industries. Funds should be allocated to education, job training, and community development in areas most affected by past criminalization. Additionally, a portion should be earmarked for public health initiatives focusing on addiction treatment and mental health services.It is imperative that the utilization of vice tax revenues is approached not just as an economic opportunity but as a means to rectify historical injustices and promote social equity. This requires a strategic shift in policy, prioritizing long-term social benefits over short-term fiscal gains. Effective redistribution of these funds is essential to ensure that the communities historically disadvantaged by these policies see real improvements.Vice Taxation Isn't ‘Free Money' and Should Focus on Public Good Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Since its inception in 2017, the Committee on Disciplinary Rules and Referenda has been charged with the examination of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Procedure to determine rule adequacy and necessary changes. After extensive evaluation of existing rules, the committee proposed 12 new rules between 2021 and 2023 which Texas attorneys will now have the opportunity to vote on from April 1-30, 2024.  Rocky Dhir talks with committee members Lewis Kinard (Chair), Judge Phyllis Martinez Gonzalez, and Scott Brumley, and former member Claude Ducloux about the proposed rules to help Texas legal professionals gain a better understanding of the purpose and implications of the suggested changes. For more information, including links to background information on each rule proposal, go to texasbar.com/rulesvote.

Since its inception in 2017, the Committee on Disciplinary Rules and Referenda has been charged with the examination of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Procedure to determine rule adequacy and necessary changes. After extensive evaluation of existing rules, the committee proposed 12 new rules between 2021 and 2023 which Texas attorneys will now have the opportunity to vote on from April 1-30, 2024.  Rocky Dhir talks with committee members Lewis Kinard (Chair), Judge Phyllis Martinez Gonzalez, and Scott Brumley, and former member Claude Ducloux about the proposed rules to help Texas legal professionals gain a better understanding of the purpose and implications of the suggested changes. For more information, including links to background information on each rule proposal, go to texasbar.com/rulesvote.

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

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

Next time your opposing counsel takes issue with something you say, don't be surprised to find a complaint in the next filing citing to rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct—the new “snitch rule.”There are about a dozen terms of legal art in the snitch rule, so we asked Judge Meredith Jury (Ret.) and Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin what they mean:If you arguably misstate fact or law, is that a reportable event? Answer: Assume it is.What will this do to collegiality in the profession? Answer: Nothing good.If a partner committed indiscretions with the trust account, does it matter that you didn't know about it? Answer: Don't count on it.Every other state already has a snitch rule. How much guidance do they provide on its application? Answer: Very little.Will the snitch rule drive in reports to prevent Girardi-type scandals? Answer: The Bar had received some 200 reports about Girardi, so it's unclear what more reports would have done.But the snitch rule is a good idea, right? Answer: Check back in after a few years.And something you probably didn't know: The reason California doesn't follow the ABA Model Rules is because they are rules of ethics, where California's Rules are rules of discipline. We discuss the difference in theory (interesting!) and the difference in application (not much, actually).Judge Meredith Jury's (Ret.) biography.Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.3, “Reporting Professional Misconduct”Ethics Spotlight: The New ‘Snitch Rules', California Lawyers Association, Nov. 2023.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

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

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

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

Dec. 5, 2023 - The percentage of military members who reported being sexually assaulted by another member of the military more than doubled between 2018 and 2022, says a new report from Statistics Canada. Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture Lt.-Gen Jennie Carignan addresses the concerns. Plus, the White House warns vital military aid to Ukraine will run out this month without congressional action. We speak to the CBC's Alex Panetta in Washington.

Today, Jim Garrity talks about a powerful technique for increasing the persuasive impact of deposition testimony that must be read to the trier of fact when a deponent is unavailable. Done properly, according to some lawyers who've used the tactic, it can contribute to victory, without drawing the attention of an opponent.And while you're here, would you mind taking just a few seconds and give this podcast a 5-star rating on whichever site you visited (e.g., Apple, Spotify, Google). Your positive ratings are a huge thank-you to the production team that helps prepare and produce each episode. It means more to them than we can possibly explain. Thanks!SHOW NOTESwww.ActorsAtLaw.com (“Actors-at-Law provides trial attorneys with professional character actors as deposition readers at trial when witness is not available and a national movie/commercial casting director can help you with witness preparation and presentation skills in the courtroom or at mock trials")The Florida Bar Journal, “Action! This Witness is Played by An Actor!”, by Jan Pudlow, Senior Editor, July 1, 2011; https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/action-this-witness-is-played-by-an-actor/PrawfsBlog, July 11, 2011, Something New Under the Sun: Actors for Hire to Read Depositions, Baker, Thomas E.; https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2011/07/something-new-under-the-sun-actors-for-hire-to-read-depositions.htmlKlapsa, Katherine Lee, Lawyers Bring Big-Screen Drama To The Courtroom: How Popular Culture's Influence On The Law Has Created The Need For “Professional Witnesses” 18 Barry Law Rev. 355 (Spring 2013) (discussing the impact of movies and television on jury expectations to see powerful, compelling witnesses on the stand)Siegel, David D., Federal Subpoena Practice Under The New Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 139 F.R.D. 197 (Jan. 1992) (noting that when deponents are unavailable, “The questions and answers are read by others, sometimes even actors, with no opportunity to observe demeanor, etc., but the geographical restrictions on the civil subpoena have nevertheless made the deposition the main alternative [to live testimony]”)Elfrink, Tim, Lincoln Road's Actors at Law Hires Out Talent to Read Witness Testimony, Miami New Times Magazine (July 7, 2011); https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/lincoln-roads-actors-at-law-hires-out-talent-to-read-witness-testimony-6381626.Levy, Art, Courtroom Drama: Is It Ethical To Hire Actors To Portray Witnesses? Florida Trend Magazine (Jun. 14, 2011) (discussing tactic at length from business, legal and ethical perspectives); https://www.floridatrend.com/article/1856/courtroom-drama-is-it-ethical-to-hire-actors-to-portray-witnessesMorris v. Bland, Case No. 5:12-cv-3177-RMG, 2015 WL 1290632 (D. S. Carolina Jan. 30, 2015) (Not reported in Fed. Supp.) (denying taxation of costs associated with the hiring of, and lodging for, a professional actor to read testimony, where deposed witness wound up testifying live; but adding, “The normal practice for reading a deposition of an absent witness is that the presenting counsel will read the deposition to the jury or have a colleague take the witness stand and read the part of the witness. In over 35 years as a trial litigator and trial judge, the Court has never seen or heard of a lawyer hiring an actor to read a deposition. If an actor was proposed to be used, the Court would have to carefully evaluate the request to prevent any distortion of the testimony by an over-dramatic reading. The Court finds the hiring of an actor to read a deposition in this matter was unnecessary and unreasonable and denies reimbursement for this cost”)Browning v. Advoc. Health & Hosp. Corp., __ N.E. 3d __ (Ill. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2023), 2023 WL 5988690 (affirming $49 million verdict where excerpts of deposition testimony of doctors were presented by a “reader,” and where the jury was instructed that the “testimony [was] previously taken under oath at a prior deposition. You are to treat that testimony as if the doctor was here;” in addressing dissenting judges' criticism of the use of a reader, the court said that “The dissent implies that having an actor read a deposition at trial is unusual. The Illinois Rules of Evidence and the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010 do not prohibit it, and the practice has been around for years. Even if we to assume prejudice, neither the defendants nor the dissent explain how that would have affected the outcome.”)

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: For Civilization and Against Niceness, published by Gabriel Alfour on November 21, 2023 on LessWrong. Scott Alexander wrote a great essay, called " In Favor of Niceness, Community and Civilization". Scott is a great writer, and conveys what I love about civilization in a beautiful way. Unfortunately, the essay conflates two behaviors. Though to be fair, those two behaviors often go hand in hand: Being uncivil, as in: breaking the norms of civilization. Being mean, as in: being not-nice, unpleasant to be around. The following paragraph embodies this conflation quite well: Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword. Liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules, slowly growing until eventually an equilibrium is disturbed. Its battle cry is not "Death to the unbelievers!" but "If you're nice, you can join our cuddle pile!" I love civilization! Democracies let me politically coordinate with people internationally, socially liberal systems grant me freedom to be as weird as I want in private, and economically liberal systems let me try many exotic kinds of positive-sum trades with people! None of this would be possible without civilization. I agree, Civilization is great. But I don't want to join your cuddle pile! Civilization is often about being not nice As Scott Alexander says, civilization is about "agreeing to play by the rules." But this is not about niceness. On the contrary, playing by the rules often requires being not nice. [1] While we want companies to abide by strong regulations, and not cause negative externalities (like pollution), we also do not want them to be nice to each other. This is the core of antitrust law, that aims to minimize anti-competitive practices. More concretely, the goal of companies is to capture value (make profits), while the goal of free-markets is for companies to create value for consumers. The way those two incentives are aligned is through competition. By getting companies to compete, they need to keep improving compared to other companies to keep their profits, increasing the share of the value enjoyed by consumers In other words: We want companies to compete as fiercely as possible, thereby driving quality up and pushing prices down. As Adam Smith wrote: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." This is a feature of economic liberalism. Similarly, in a court of law, while we want all lawyers present to strictly adhere to their local equivalent of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, we don't want the defense attorney and the prosecutor to be nice to each other. When younger, I could not understand attorneys that defended people who they knew were criminals. Weren't these attorneys making society strictly worse? My confusion went deeper when I learnt that they had an ethical obligation to defend people who they knew were criminals. But it makes sense: the attorney doesn't issue the final sentence, the judge does. And the judge doesn't know if the person is innocent or not, or when they're guilty, how guilty they are. To solve this, judiciary systems go through something close to an Adversarial Collaboration. Both sides need to bring forward as much evidence for their case as possible. Only then can the judge make the best decision with as much information as possible. When the defense attorney makes their case, they are not changing the sentence, they are giving more information to the judge, who then decides on the sentence. If you think about it, it is obvious: it is better for the judge to have more information. And to get there, you need people to optimize for both sides of the story, not focus on the one we already believe to be correct. This is why prosecutors and defense attorneys sh...

Hilary Gerzhoy has devoted her career to maintaining the highest standards of ethics in legal practice. As a seasoned litigator, she boasts an impressive array of accomplishments, including her pivotal role on the ethics and compliance team during the Biden/Harris transition to the White House in 2020. Presently, she holds the positions of partner and Vice Chair of the Legal Ethics Group at HWG LLP. In addition to her practice, she enriches minds as an adjunct professor of Law and Legal Ethics at Georgetown University and serves diligently as the Vice Chair of the D.C. Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct Committee. With such a rich background in legal ethics, who could be better suited to join “The Future is Bright” podcast? Hilary is here to share crucial advice on navigating the nuanced, yet critically important, aspects of making a lateral move to a new law firm, and to guide listeners in creating a comprehensive plan for a smooth, ethically sound transition.   For U.S. lawyers, adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct is paramount, and this commitment extends to the specific codes of their firms and the stipulations of their employment contracts—no matter how long ago they were signed. Even the smallest misstep by a partner can give their current firm grounds to meticulously scrutinize the lawyer's entire tenure with the organization. Hilary has witnessed firms initiate formidable attacks against individuals attempting to make a move.   Hilary asserts that nearly all the potential pitfalls associated with transitioning between firms are avoidable. By participating in today's discussion, she is here to share strategies and precautions necessary to sidestep these challenges, paving the way for a seamless transition.   Quotes “There's a number of loopholes that somebody can fall into if they're not cognizant of it. And usually, it's not because they're trying to purposely not follow the rules, just because they're not thinking about how to navigate this process.” (23:39 | Hilary) “What I have seen is, the bigger the book of business, the more contentious the fight can be.” (24:37 | Hilary) “If you're thinking about making a move, you want to think about what you need to do at your existing firm and where you want to go. And there are two stages of this.” (25:27 | Hilary) “You essentially give a blueprint of what your practice will look like, if the firm were to hire you. What you want to be able to do is deliver on that. There are certain things that are beyond your control in delivering on that, and you want to try to get everything squared away to the extent that you can ahead of time.” (32:05 | Hilary)   Links Connect with Hilary Gerzhoy: LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hilary-gerzhoy/ Law firm website bio: https://hwglaw.com/members/hilary-p-gerzhoy/   Connect with Chris Batz: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisbatz/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theliongroupkc  Instagram: @theliongroupllc Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm  

Henry Keogh is an Australian convicted of murder. He grew up in Adelaide, South Australia and was educated at Saint Ignatius College and briefly at the School of Dentistry at The University of Adelaide.In 1995 he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for the 1994 murder of his 29-year-old fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney, then head of Professional Conduct at the Law Society of South Australia: it was alleged that Keogh had planned the murder for over two years.Mr Keogh and his family have always maintained his innocence, and raised their doubts regarding some of the evidence upon which the conviction was based. Mainly that of South Australia's former Chief Forensic Pathologist Dr Manock.Henry admitted to signing five life insurance policies on behalf of Cheney. Whereas the prosecution alleged the combined value of $1.15 million AUD was motive for the murder, Henry says that these were submitted to prevent insurance agencies he had established from lapsing, and that the amount eligible to claim was closer to $400,000. The prosecution would conceded during the trial that Anna-Jane was aware of at least two of these policies.After over 20 years Henry would subsequently be released from prison on appeal, the prosecution would look to take him back to court on the charges but it would never eventuate.This is the story of Henry Keogh as told by him.Join the OMF family here and start enjoying the benefits now. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Henry Keogh is an Australian convicted of murder. He grew up in Adelaide, South Australia and was educated at Saint Ignatius College and briefly at the School of Dentistry at The University of Adelaide.In 1995 he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for the 1994 murder of his 29-year-old fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney, then head of Professional Conduct at the Law Society of South Australia: it was alleged that Keogh had planned the murder for over two years.Mr Keogh and his family have always maintained his innocence, and raised their doubts regarding some of the evidence upon which the conviction was based. Mainly that of South Australia's former Chief Forensic Pathologist Dr Manock.Henry admitted to signing five life insurance policies on behalf of Cheney. Whereas the prosecution alleged the combined value of $1.15 million AUD was motive for the murder, Henry says that these were submitted to prevent insurance agencies he had established from lapsing, and that the amount eligible to claim was closer to $400,000. The prosecution would conceded during the trial that Anna-Jane was aware of at least two of these policies.After over 20 years Henry would subsequently be released from prison on appeal, the prosecution would look to take him back to court on the charges but it would never eventuate.This is the story of Henry Keogh as told by him.To join the OMR family and start enjoying the bonus extras click HERE Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Henry Keogh is an Australian convicted of murder. He grew up in Adelaide, South Australia and was educated at Saint Ignatius College and briefly at the School of Dentistry at The University of Adelaide.In 1995 he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for the 1994 murder of his 29-year-old fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney, then head of Professional Conduct at the Law Society of South Australia: it was alleged that Keogh had planned the murder for over two years.Mr Keogh and his family have always maintained his innocence, and raised their doubts regarding some of the evidence upon which the conviction was based. Mainly that of South Australia's former Chief Forensic Pathologist Dr Manock.Henry admitted to signing five life insurance policies on behalf of Cheney. Whereas the prosecution alleged the combined value of $1.15 million AUD was motive for the murder, Henry says that these were submitted to prevent insurance agencies he had established from lapsing, and that the amount eligible to claim was closer to $400,000. The prosecution would conceded during the trial that Anna-Jane was aware of at least two of these policies.After over 20 years Henry would subsequently be released from prison on appeal, the prosecution would look to take him back to court on the charges but it would never eventuate.This is the story of Henry Keogh as told by him. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Henry Keogh is an Australian convicted of murder. He grew up in Adelaide, South Australia and was educated at Saint Ignatius College and briefly at the School of Dentistry at The University of Adelaide.In 1995 he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for the 1994 murder of his 29-year-old fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney, then head of Professional Conduct at the Law Society of South Australia: it was alleged that Keogh had planned the murder for over two years.Mr Keogh and his family have always maintained his innocence, and raised their doubts regarding some of the evidence upon which the conviction was based. Mainly that of South Australia's former Chief Forensic Pathologist Dr Manock.Henry admitted to signing five life insurance policies on behalf of Cheney. Whereas the prosecution alleged the combined value of $1.15 million AUD was motive for the murder, Henry says that these were submitted to prevent insurance agencies he had established from lapsing, and that the amount eligible to claim was closer to $400,000. The prosecution would conceded during the trial that Anna-Jane was aware of at least two of these policies.After over 20 years Henry would subsequently be released from prison on appeal, the prosecution would look to take him back to court on the charges but it would never eventuate.This is the story of Henry Keogh as told by him. Join the OMR family here and start enjoying the bonus content now. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada in Engineering, Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan was commissioned into the Canadian Military Engineers in 1990. Since then, she commanded two Combat Engineer Regiments, Royal Military College Saint-Jean and the 2nd Canadian Division, where she led more than 10,000 soldiers and spearheaded crisis operations during the flood relief efforts in the spring of 2019 in Quebec. More recently, she led NATO Mission Iraq from November 2019 to November 2020. LGen Carignan participated in three previous expeditionary operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Golan Heights, and Afghanistan. Along the way, LGen Carignan earned a Master's degree in Business Administration from Université Laval and a second Master's degree from the United States Army Command and General Staff College and the School of Advanced Military Studies. She is also a graduate of the National Security Studies Programme from Canadian Forces College in Toronto. LGen Carignan has been invested as Commander of the Order of Military Merit and is the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal. She received the prestigious Gloire de l'Escolle medal which recognizes graduates from Université Lavalwho have distinguished themselves professionally and in service to their communities. She was recently awarded an honorary doctorate in Business Administration from Université Laval. LGen Carignan was promoted to her current rank in April of 2021 and appointed as Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture, a newly created position in the CAF.  Married, Jennie is the mother of four children, two of whom proudly serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.  https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/organizational-structure/chief-professional-conduct-culture/biography.html ------------------- Merchandise: ⁠https://shoot-like-a-girl-podcast.square.site⁠ Instagram: ⁠@shootlikeagirlpodcast⁠ Contact: shootlikeagirlpodcast@gmail.com

The Lincoln Law Pod breaks down the season 2 opener of The Lincoln Lawyer. Tune in to the latest episode of the Lincoln Law Pod to hear what Tracey and Jay have to say about S2E1 ‘The Rules of Professional Conduct'. Written by Ted Humphrey and directed by Rob Seidenglanz, the premiere episode has great […] The post The Lincoln Lawyer: Podcast for season 2 episode 1 appeared first on So Many Shows!.

Episode 187:           Welcome to this week's episode of PI-Perspectives. Today Kitty Hailey is back with a big announcement. Kitty has released her latest book. Code of Professional Conduct, Standards and Ethics for the Investigative Profession. Kitty is here to announce that all Investigator's Toolbox members can access her book right on the website. This book is the industry standard on how to ethically run an investigation firm. If you are not a toolbox member, here is another reason to join. Please welcome Kitty Hailey and your host, New York Private Investigator, Matt Spaier    Links:      Matt's email: MatthewS@Satellitepi.com   Linkedin: Matthew Spaier       www.investigators-toolbox.com   Kitty on Linkedin : Kitty Hailey Kitty's Email: kittycli@aol.com, Kittys book https://www.amazon.com/Code-Professional-Conduct-Investigative-Profession/dp/B0BR2DS3QP/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1682783007&refinements=p_27%3AKitty+Hailey&s=books&sr=1-1 PI-Perspectives Youtube link:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYB3MaUg8k5w3k7UuvT6s0g Sponsors:     https://piinstitute.com/ http://investigators-toolboxinsurance.com/ https://pi-perspectivesinsurance.com/ https://piinstitute.com/ https://satellitepi.com/ https://www.skopenow.com/

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