Podcasts about Professional responsibility

On this episode, April Walker is joined by Benjamin Alarie, CEO and co-founder of Blue J, to discuss the ways that artificial intelligence (AI) is changing tax practice – not only by accelerating research and compliance work, but also by reshaping how firms define and deliver value. Ben shares new research showing widespread AI adoption among tax professionals and how firms are using the resulting time savings to improve client service, strengthen work-life balance and focus on higher value advisory work. The discussion explores whether the traditional billable hour model still makes sense when technology can dramatically reduce time spent on technical tasks. Together, April and Ben also examine the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) preliminary guidelines on responsible AI use and why professional judgement, due diligence and client trust remain essential in an AI-enabled profession. Questions answered in this episode:  How quickly are tax professionals adopting AI based on the most recent CPA.com/Blue J survey and what are they using it for? If AI can potentially provide research results in minutes instead of hours, how could this affect how firms think about pricing their services? What does the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility's guidelines on responsible AI use mean for tax practitioners? How can firms use AI to improve client service while maintaining professional responsibility and quality?  AICPA resources AICPA insights: Introductory guidelines for responsible AI use in federal tax practice 2026 AI Tax Research Solution Outlook Report by CPA.com and Blue J Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tax Research Center Statements on Standards for Tax Services (SSTSs) Treasury Department Circular No. 230 Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices. This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you're not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You'll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.

Red May, a month-long spree of red arts, red theory, and red politics based in Seattle, Washington, gathers each spring to discuss a world beyond capitalism. For this year's event at Town Hall Seattle, Red May brings together a panel to discuss policing in the age of ICE. "Counterinsurgency has come home. Since the end of the Vietnam War, innovations in militarized policing have come one after another. No knock raids. AI surveillance. Clear and hold neighborhoods. Each new tactic or strategy has been rubber-stamped in Congress by both Democrats and Republicans under the guise of a never-ending War on Crime. Now, the Trump administration has fashioned its own masked Gestapo; it has taken an existing organization designed for border control (ICE) and built it into a private army serving at the prerogative of the President, most egregiously for assaults on Democrat-run cities like Portland, and Chicago and the murder of protestors, reclassified as 'domestic terrorists.' How did we get here? How do we get out of here?" Join Red May and a panel of scholars to guide us through the labyrinth. Stuart Schrader is Associate Professor of History at Johns Hopkins and the Director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism. He is the author of Blue Power: How Police Organized to Protect and Serve Themselves, to be published by Basic Books in April 2026. Charmaine Chua is a Singaporean communist, and a professor of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley. Her interdisciplinary research is interested in the socio-spatial reconfigurations of global capitalism from the late twentieth century to the present through a focus on global supply chains, the Transpacific logistics industry, and policing. Her first book, The Logistics Counterrevolution, is forthcoming from University of Minnesota press in April 2027. Her work has been published in Society and Space, Review of International Studies, the Socialist Register, Theory and Event, Antipode, The Boston Review, The Nation, and Jacobin, among other venues. She co-directs the Marxist Institute of Research, serves as the Chair of Labor Organizing with the Council of UC Faculty Associations, and organizes with the Logistics Workers League, the communist caucus of the DSA, and No Harbor for Gencoide. In 2023, she was named a Marguerite Casey Foundation Freedom Scholar. Dan Berger is a Professor at the University of Washington Bothell. He is an interdisciplinary historian of activism, Black Power, and the carceral state in twentieth-century U.S. history. His latest book is Stayed on Freedom: The Long History of Black Power Through One Family's Journey, which is a biography of the modern Black freedom struggle through the lives of Zoharah Simmons and Michael Simmons. Angélica Cházaro is a Professor at the University of Washington Law School. She teaches Critical Race Theory, Poverty Law, Professional Responsibility, and courses on Immigration Law. Professor Cházaro served as a chief negotiator during a 56-day hunger strike at the Northwest Detention Center, representing immigrant detainees. She is a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission convened by the National Day Laborer's Organizing Network to provide the Executive Branch with recommendations on administrative relief for undocumented people. Related Books Blue Power: How Police Organized to Protect and Serve Themselves (Hardcover) Elliott Bay Book Company

»

»

»

»

Welcome to Episode 036 of the Bar Exam Drills Podcast! In this episode, we are diving deep into the data to bring you our highly anticipated essay predictions for the July 2026 California Bar Exam. Whether you are finalizing your study schedule or trying to figure out where to focus your last-minute review, this breakdown will help you prioritize the highly testable issues that are ripe for an appearance this July. We kick things off by looking at the recent February 2026 exam trends and mapping out what is highly likely to show up next. Our predictions cover heavy hitters like Professional Responsibility and Evidence, where we dive into specific issues like character evidence, bad acts, and prior convictions. We also analyze Torts and highlight the critical negligence, products liability, and defamation essays from past years that you need to screenshot and study. For Constitutional Law, we look at the potential for procedural due process, equal protection, and standing issues, tracking recent exam trends all the way back to the older California administrations. In Real Property, we make a strong case for studying joint tenancy and ouster, which has not been tested in six years. Plus, we break down our wild card picks, including Community Property tracking tracing, transmutation, and liabilities during marriage, as well as Criminal Procedure issues like Fourth Amendment searches, vehicle stops, and Miranda warnings. Make sure to pause the video, take screenshots of the essay lists and years we highlight, and head over to the Bar Exam Drills app to practice these essays for free. Drill these exact subjects, master the rule statements, and go into exam day with total confidence. Best of luck on the July 2026 exam, and make sure to come back to the comments to let us know how you did when results are released!

»

»

»

The missing Acosta emails refer to a nearly year-long gap in the inbox of Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, during the most critical stretch of the Jeffrey Epstein negotiations. According to reporting on a court filing by attorneys for Epstein survivor Courtney Wild, the DOJ had not turned over significant documents tied to the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and had not clearly disclosed that Acosta's inbox had a “data gap.” That gap reportedly ran from May 2007, when a draft federal indictment had been prepared, to April 2008, just before Epstein's state plea effectively ended the federal case. That timing matters because it overlapped with Epstein's legal team aggressively lobbying Acosta's office and senior DOJ officials to avoid a federal indictment and secure the state-based resolution instead.The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility said the gap did not affect Acosta's sent mail, found no evidence of intentional deletion, and attributed it most likely to a technological error. But that explanation has never erased the larger problem: the missing inbox material landed exactly where the historical record needed to be strongest. OPR later concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case through the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, but the missing emails left survivors' attorneys arguing that the government's record was incomplete at the very moment the most consequential decisions were being made. In plain terms, the emails matter because they could have shown what Acosta was receiving, who was influencing him, what pressure was being applied, and how much of the Epstein deal was driven by internal DOJ judgment versus external lobbying by Epstein's powerful defense machine.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The OIG/DOJ reviews into Jeffrey Epstein's death and the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement gave the public a mountain of procedure, but not the kind of definitive answers the case demanded. On Epstein's death, the OIG documented serious and undeniable failures at MCC New York: Epstein was left without the cellmate he was supposed to have, required rounds and counts were not done, records were falsified, his cell was not properly searched, and the camera system around the SHU was riddled with failures that left investigators with limited recorded video evidence. The report still accepted the broader conclusion that there was no criminality connected to how Epstein died, but that conclusion rested on a broken record: missing video, falsified paperwork, asleep or negligent guards, institutional chaos, and interviews with people who had every reason to protect themselves. The problem is not that the OIG found no failures; it found plenty. The problem is that the most important questions were filtered through the least reliable environment imaginable — a jail unit full of misconduct, self-preservation, memory holes, and conveniently useless answers.The same weakness hangs over the review of the Epstein NPA. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Alex Acosta showed “poor judgment” and resolved the federal investigation before key investigative steps were completed, but it stopped short of the kind of institutional reckoning the deal deserved. That matters because the NPA was not some ordinary plea agreement; it ended a federal sex-crimes investigation, shielded Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, kept victims in the dark, and became the central symbol of how power protected Epstein when the government had him dead to rights. The later transcripts and testimony only sharpen the point: when officials and insiders were pressed on what happened, the answers too often collapsed into “I don't recall,” “I don't know,” “I can't speak to that,” and other forms of bureaucratic fog. That is not a reliable foundation for closure. It is the sound of a system investigating itself after the witnesses, lawyers, prosecutors, jail staff, and decision-makers had already learned that the safest answer in the Epstein universe was not the truth — it was amnesia.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

What if one of the most important responsibilities we have as educators isn't just teaching children, but continuing to learn ourselves?In this episode of The Everything ECE Podcast, Carla explores why curiosity is more than a personality trait. It's a professional responsibility.Drawing on more than 20 years in early childhood education, Carla reflects on what separates educators who continue to grow from those who become stuck in "the way we've always done it." She shares five ways educators can nurture their own curiosity, from learning alongside children and seeking perspectives that challenge their thinking to looking beyond early childhood for inspiration and remaining teachable throughout their careers.Because if we want children to become lifelong learners, shouldn't they see us modelling that every day?SUBSCRIBE & REVIEWIf you loved this episode, please take a moment to subscribe and leave a review. Your support helps us reach more ECEs who are in the thick of it!. Thanks for tuning in to The Everything ECE.  See you next week! shape their early years.CONNECT WITH CARLAThe ECE Entrepreneur ExperienceEmail Newsletter: ⁠⁠Click Here⁠Website: carlatheece.comInstagram: @carlatheece

The missing Acosta emails refer to a nearly year-long gap in the inbox of Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, during the most critical stretch of the Jeffrey Epstein negotiations. According to reporting on a court filing by attorneys for Epstein survivor Courtney Wild, the DOJ had not turned over significant documents tied to the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and had not clearly disclosed that Acosta's inbox had a “data gap.” That gap reportedly ran from May 2007, when a draft federal indictment had been prepared, to April 2008, just before Epstein's state plea effectively ended the federal case. That timing matters because it overlapped with Epstein's legal team aggressively lobbying Acosta's office and senior DOJ officials to avoid a federal indictment and secure the state-based resolution instead.The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility said the gap did not affect Acosta's sent mail, found no evidence of intentional deletion, and attributed it most likely to a technological error. But that explanation has never erased the larger problem: the missing inbox material landed exactly where the historical record needed to be strongest. OPR later concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case through the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, but the missing emails left survivors' attorneys arguing that the government's record was incomplete at the very moment the most consequential decisions were being made. In plain terms, the emails matter because they could have shown what Acosta was receiving, who was influencing him, what pressure was being applied, and how much of the Epstein deal was driven by internal DOJ judgment versus external lobbying by Epstein's powerful defense machine.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The OIG/DOJ reviews into Jeffrey Epstein's death and the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement gave the public a mountain of procedure, but not the kind of definitive answers the case demanded. On Epstein's death, the OIG documented serious and undeniable failures at MCC New York: Epstein was left without the cellmate he was supposed to have, required rounds and counts were not done, records were falsified, his cell was not properly searched, and the camera system around the SHU was riddled with failures that left investigators with limited recorded video evidence. The report still accepted the broader conclusion that there was no criminality connected to how Epstein died, but that conclusion rested on a broken record: missing video, falsified paperwork, asleep or negligent guards, institutional chaos, and interviews with people who had every reason to protect themselves. The problem is not that the OIG found no failures; it found plenty. The problem is that the most important questions were filtered through the least reliable environment imaginable — a jail unit full of misconduct, self-preservation, memory holes, and conveniently useless answers.The same weakness hangs over the review of the Epstein NPA. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Alex Acosta showed “poor judgment” and resolved the federal investigation before key investigative steps were completed, but it stopped short of the kind of institutional reckoning the deal deserved. That matters because the NPA was not some ordinary plea agreement; it ended a federal sex-crimes investigation, shielded Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, kept victims in the dark, and became the central symbol of how power protected Epstein when the government had him dead to rights. The later transcripts and testimony only sharpen the point: when officials and insiders were pressed on what happened, the answers too often collapsed into “I don't recall,” “I don't know,” “I can't speak to that,” and other forms of bureaucratic fog. That is not a reliable foundation for closure. It is the sound of a system investigating itself after the witnesses, lawyers, prosecutors, jail staff, and decision-makers had already learned that the safest answer in the Epstein universe was not the truth — it was amnesia.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

California-based venture capital and growth firm with more than US$3 billion under management, NewView Capital invests in high-potential technology companies on a primary, secondary, or hybrid basis. Founded in 2018, NewView has emerged as an early leader in the secondary market, taking a boutique, high-conviction approach to backing category-defining companies. Latham has advised NewView on a range of primary, secondary, and hybrid investments across the US and around the world. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with NewView Capital Partner Ankit Sud to discuss the firm's thematic investment philosophy, its leadership in the secondary market, and how NewView helps portfolio companies reinvent themselves in the AI era.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Have you ever been in that uncomfortable situation where you feel like you might need to report something to either the state board or even the police? This episode digs into an incredibly yucky topic, but the information provided should make it useful for any listener. Dr. Kuba and Bethany shift through many of the various situations that can come across your plate that might necessitate you filing a complaint or taking some type of action. Dr. Kuba and Bethany remind listeners of other actions that people can take if they determine not to publicly file a complaint. Get your vomit bags ready!! Gather with other practice owners and team leaders and dive into the incredibly important topic of leadership at the upcoming LEADERSHIP SUMMIT. Friday, September 18 from 8:30-4:30. Register today to take advantage of the EARLY BIRD SPECIAL! HUB HIGHLIGHTTeam Feedback Bundle Build a stronger, more connected team with tools designed to encourage appreciation, honest feedback, and employee engagement. Practice Walk Through and Cleaning Bundle Help your team maintain a clean, welcoming practice with easy-to-use templates for daily cleaning and office walkthroughs. Don't forget to check out our social media for moreManaging Dental Drama FBManaging Dental Drama IGConnect with the Managing Dental Drama Community!Managing Dental Drama Membership Club Sign UpWait! There's More!We want to hear YOUR voice!Text a 2-minute voice memo to 214.326.4605 with your questions, comments, real-life examples, or tips for a chance to have YOUR voice on the air!Interested in the Leadership Summit?Join Us! Friday, September 18, 20268:30am - 4:30pmIn The Colony, TXInquire or register TODAY!HelloBethany.com/Leadership

For decades, Epstein survivors have been pushed from one locked door to another by the very institutions that were supposed to protect them. In Florida, federal prosecutors built a serious case, then cut a secret non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007–2008 without properly notifying or conferring with the victims, leaving them to discover after the fact that the government had already bargained away meaningful federal accountability. Courts later recognized that prosecutors misled victims, and the Justice Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility admitted the survivors were not treated with the “forthrightness and sensitivity” expected by the Department, yet the system still found ways to deny them a real remedy. Courtney Wild and others fought for years under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, only to be told that because no formal federal charges had been filed at the time of the secret deal, they had limited ability to enforce the rights the law was supposedly written to guarantee.That pattern never really ended: delay, concealment, partial disclosure, procedural excuses, and then a public-relations promise that accountability was just around the corner. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 before trial, wiping out the criminal case against him personally and forcing survivors to chase justice through civil litigation, Maxwell's prosecution, congressional hearings, document releases, and endless demands for transparency. Even the later “Epstein files” process became another source of anger, with survivors and their lawyers complaining that the government exposed sensitive victim information while still shielding powerful names and key investigative details; the DOJ's handling of those releases has since drawn oversight and an inspector general audit. So the runaround is not one single failure — it is the whole architecture of the case: survivors were ignored when the deal was made, sidelined when they challenged it, retraumatized when records were mishandled, and repeatedly told to trust the same government that had already failed them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

For decades, Epstein survivors have been pushed from one locked door to another by the very institutions that were supposed to protect them. In Florida, federal prosecutors built a serious case, then cut a secret non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007–2008 without properly notifying or conferring with the victims, leaving them to discover after the fact that the government had already bargained away meaningful federal accountability. Courts later recognized that prosecutors misled victims, and the Justice Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility admitted the survivors were not treated with the “forthrightness and sensitivity” expected by the Department, yet the system still found ways to deny them a real remedy. Courtney Wild and others fought for years under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, only to be told that because no formal federal charges had been filed at the time of the secret deal, they had limited ability to enforce the rights the law was supposedly written to guarantee.That pattern never really ended: delay, concealment, partial disclosure, procedural excuses, and then a public-relations promise that accountability was just around the corner. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 before trial, wiping out the criminal case against him personally and forcing survivors to chase justice through civil litigation, Maxwell's prosecution, congressional hearings, document releases, and endless demands for transparency. Even the later “Epstein files” process became another source of anger, with survivors and their lawyers complaining that the government exposed sensitive victim information while still shielding powerful names and key investigative details; the DOJ's handling of those releases has since drawn oversight and an inspector general audit. So the runaround is not one single failure — it is the whole architecture of the case: survivors were ignored when the deal was made, sidelined when they challenged it, retraumatized when records were mishandled, and repeatedly told to trust the same government that had already failed them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Residential real estate platform Opendoor puts homeowners in control by replacing the traditional, passive home-selling process with a streamlined e-commerce system. Founded in 2014, Opendoor has since expanded its reach across the lower 48 states, building out a partner network and tackling the complex ecosystem of utilities, title, escrow, and mortgage that surrounds every home sale. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with Christy Schwartz, Opendoor's Chief Financial Officer, and Rishi Kotiya, Head of Legal and Corporate Secretary, to discuss how OpenDoor is modernizing the home-selling experience at scale, navigating the operational and regulatory complexity behind residential real estate, and how AI is supporting the company's next phase of growth.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

The Southern District of Florida's handling of Epstein looks even worse when you follow what happened after the sweetheart deal machinery was already moving. This was not just a case where powerful defense lawyers outmaneuvered a federal office; it became a revolving-door story, where people connected to the very office responsible for scrutinizing Epstein later ended up in orbit around Epstein, his employees, or firms tied to his legal defense. Matthew Menchel, the former chief criminal prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. Attorney's Office who helped spearhead the federal case, left DOJ in 2007 before the non-prosecution agreement was finalized and went to Kobre & Kim; later records showed multiple dinners, meetings, and contacts between Menchel and Epstein years after the deal. Bruce Reinhart, another former assistant U.S. attorney in the same district, left the office at the start of 2008 and almost immediately began representing Epstein employees, including people who had been identified in the broader Epstein investigation.That is the heart of the problem: the same federal system that should have walled itself off from Epstein's influence instead produced a pipeline of former insiders who either represented Epstein-adjacent figures, joined firms connected to his interests, or maintained relationships that created the appearance of serious conflict. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later reviewed the Florida deal and did not find professional misconduct, but it still concluded that Epstein's victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected from the Department, which only underscores how badly the process failed them. When prosecutors leave public service and then quickly appear on the other side of a case like this, it feeds the suspicion that Epstein was not merely defended by expensive lawyers, but protected by proximity, access, and relationships. In a case already defined by secrecy, immunity language, hidden negotiations, and ignored survivors, that revolving door became one more reason people believe the Southern District of Florida did not just mishandle Epstein — it became part of the architecture that allowed him to survive accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci

The Southern District of Florida's handling of Epstein looks even worse when you follow what happened after the sweetheart deal machinery was already moving. This was not just a case where powerful defense lawyers outmaneuvered a federal office; it became a revolving-door story, where people connected to the very office responsible for scrutinizing Epstein later ended up in orbit around Epstein, his employees, or firms tied to his legal defense. Matthew Menchel, the former chief criminal prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. Attorney's Office who helped spearhead the federal case, left DOJ in 2007 before the non-prosecution agreement was finalized and went to Kobre & Kim; later records showed multiple dinners, meetings, and contacts between Menchel and Epstein years after the deal. Bruce Reinhart, another former assistant U.S. attorney in the same district, left the office at the start of 2008 and almost immediately began representing Epstein employees, including people who had been identified in the broader Epstein investigation.That is the heart of the problem: the same federal system that should have walled itself off from Epstein's influence instead produced a pipeline of former insiders who either represented Epstein-adjacent figures, joined firms connected to his interests, or maintained relationships that created the appearance of serious conflict. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later reviewed the Florida deal and did not find professional misconduct, but it still concluded that Epstein's victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected from the Department, which only underscores how badly the process failed them. When prosecutors leave public service and then quickly appear on the other side of a case like this, it feeds the suspicion that Epstein was not merely defended by expensive lawyers, but protected by proximity, access, and relationships. In a case already defined by secrecy, immunity language, hidden negotiations, and ignored survivors, that revolving door became one more reason people believe the Southern District of Florida did not just mishandle Epstein — it became part of the architecture that allowed him to survive accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucciBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Southern District of Florida's handling of Epstein looks even worse when you follow what happened after the sweetheart deal machinery was already moving. This was not just a case where powerful defense lawyers outmaneuvered a federal office; it became a revolving-door story, where people connected to the very office responsible for scrutinizing Epstein later ended up in orbit around Epstein, his employees, or firms tied to his legal defense. Matthew Menchel, the former chief criminal prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. Attorney's Office who helped spearhead the federal case, left DOJ in 2007 before the non-prosecution agreement was finalized and went to Kobre & Kim; later records showed multiple dinners, meetings, and contacts between Menchel and Epstein years after the deal. Bruce Reinhart, another former assistant U.S. attorney in the same district, left the office at the start of 2008 and almost immediately began representing Epstein employees, including people who had been identified in the broader Epstein investigation.That is the heart of the problem: the same federal system that should have walled itself off from Epstein's influence instead produced a pipeline of former insiders who either represented Epstein-adjacent figures, joined firms connected to his interests, or maintained relationships that created the appearance of serious conflict. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later reviewed the Florida deal and did not find professional misconduct, but it still concluded that Epstein's victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected from the Department, which only underscores how badly the process failed them. When prosecutors leave public service and then quickly appear on the other side of a case like this, it feeds the suspicion that Epstein was not merely defended by expensive lawyers, but protected by proximity, access, and relationships. In a case already defined by secrecy, immunity language, hidden negotiations, and ignored survivors, that revolving door became one more reason people believe the Southern District of Florida did not just mishandle Epstein — it became part of the architecture that allowed him to survive accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucciBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The corporate venture capital arm of Rakuten Group, Rakuten Capital invests in innovative startups across fintech, AI, and other high-growth sectors. Since its founding in 2014, Rakuten Capital has invested in companies like Lyft, Pinterest, Careem, and Upstart, establishing itself as a distinctive force in corporate venture investing. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with Saemin Ahn, Managing Partner of Rakuten Capital and Executive Officer of Rakuten Group, to discuss Rakuten Capital's investment thesis, its approach to AI infrastructure and energy, and the art of diplomatic capitalism.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Founded in 2020, Axiado deploys hardware-anchored, AI-driven platform security by embedding silicon directly on the rack, protecting AI and cloud infrastructure against cyberattacks in real time. Latham represented Axiado in its oversubscribed US$100+ million Series C+ funding round. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with Gopi Sirineni, Founder, President, and CEO of Axiado, to discuss the company's proximity-based security approach, the evolving cybersecurity landscape for AI infrastructure, and India's growing role in the global semiconductor ecosystem.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Alex Acosta is frequently singled out as the architect of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA), but mounting evidence suggests that he was more of a functionary than a decision-maker. As the U.S. Attorney in South Florida, Acosta did sign off on the sweetheart deal that allowed Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and serve minimal time in a county jail. However, emails and DOJ records show that once Epstein's legal team escalated their complaints, the matter was kicked up the chain of command to Washington. Acosta even reportedly told the Miami Herald that he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and that backing off was not a choice, further muddying the narrative that he acted independently. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later criticized Acosta's judgment but stopped short of alleging misconduct.The real power players behind the Epstein NPA appear to have been then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. When Epstein's lawyers petitioned to have the case reviewed, DOJ officials in D.C.—including those in the Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General's office—were briefed and ultimately approved the non-prosecution path. In other words, the final green light came from the top of the Justice Department, not Acosta's office alone. This recontextualizes the NPA as less a rogue local failure and more a coordinated decision at the highest levels of federal power. The narrative that Acosta alone bears the weight of the Epstein scandal not only oversimplifies the truth—it protects the very people who had the authority to stop it and didn't.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://nypost.com/2021/02/04/top-doj-officials-okd-epstein-deal-maxwell-lawyers/

Alex Acosta is frequently singled out as the architect of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA), but mounting evidence suggests that he was more of a functionary than a decision-maker. As the U.S. Attorney in South Florida, Acosta did sign off on the sweetheart deal that allowed Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and serve minimal time in a county jail. However, emails and DOJ records show that once Epstein's legal team escalated their complaints, the matter was kicked up the chain of command to Washington. Acosta even reportedly told the Miami Herald that he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and that backing off was not a choice, further muddying the narrative that he acted independently. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later criticized Acosta's judgment but stopped short of alleging misconduct.The real power players behind the Epstein NPA appear to have been then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. When Epstein's lawyers petitioned to have the case reviewed, DOJ officials in D.C.—including those in the Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General's office—were briefed and ultimately approved the non-prosecution path. In other words, the final green light came from the top of the Justice Department, not Acosta's office alone. This recontextualizes the NPA as less a rogue local failure and more a coordinated decision at the highest levels of federal power. The narrative that Acosta alone bears the weight of the Epstein scandal not only oversimplifies the truth—it protects the very people who had the authority to stop it and didn't.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://nypost.com/2021/02/04/top-doj-officials-okd-epstein-deal-maxwell-lawyers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Alex Acosta is frequently singled out as the architect of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA), but mounting evidence suggests that he was more of a functionary than a decision-maker. As the U.S. Attorney in South Florida, Acosta did sign off on the sweetheart deal that allowed Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and serve minimal time in a county jail. However, emails and DOJ records show that once Epstein's legal team escalated their complaints, the matter was kicked up the chain of command to Washington. Acosta even reportedly told the Miami Herald that he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and that backing off was not a choice, further muddying the narrative that he acted independently. The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later criticized Acosta's judgment but stopped short of alleging misconduct.The real power players behind the Epstein NPA appear to have been then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. When Epstein's lawyers petitioned to have the case reviewed, DOJ officials in D.C.—including those in the Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General's office—were briefed and ultimately approved the non-prosecution path. In other words, the final green light came from the top of the Justice Department, not Acosta's office alone. This recontextualizes the NPA as less a rogue local failure and more a coordinated decision at the highest levels of federal power. The narrative that Acosta alone bears the weight of the Epstein scandal not only oversimplifies the truth—it protects the very people who had the authority to stop it and didn't.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://nypost.com/2021/02/04/top-doj-officials-okd-epstein-deal-maxwell-lawyers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Celera Semiconductor aims to radically accelerate the development of analog semiconductor chips using AI. Founded in 2018, Celera has raised US$34 million in funding, including a recent Series A led by Maverick Silicon that Latham advised on. The company partners with the world's largest independent analog fab to engage customers in high-growth industries like data centers, consumer electronics, and industrial components. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with Celera's Chief Executive Officer, Patrick Brockett and Chief Operating Officer, Alberto Viviani, to discuss the technology breakthrough behind Celera's platform, its go-to-market strategy in the booming custom analog segment, and the talent, capital, and macro trends shaping the future of AI-driven semiconductor design.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Send us Fan MailIn this week's episode 352 of the Fragmented to Whole Podcast, I'm talking about burnout, compassion fatigue, and the deeper reason so many people struggle to consistently care for themselves—even when they know how important self-care is.This episode was inspired by a conversation I saw online about self-care in the helping professions, but the truth is, this applies far beyond therapists, coaches, or healthcare workers. If you're responsible for other people in any capacity, your internal state matters. Your nervous system matters. And your ability to stay connected to yourself matters.Some of the talking points I go over in this episode include:Why self-care is not optional, but a professional responsibilityThe difference between burnout and compassion fatigueHow burnout can be intensified by weak boundaries and chronic over-functioningWhy many people know self-care matters but still struggle to follow through on itThe role internal boundaries play in staying present with others without absorbing their painI also share personal experiences from my early internship work before recovery and compare that to the way I'm able to hold space for people today through the lens of recovery and boundaries work.This episode is a reminder that the issue is not simply knowing what to do. The deeper work is learning how to stay with yourself when guilt, anxiety, urgency, or discomfort show up the moment you try to take care of yourself.Because that's what ultimately protects you from burnout, compassion fatigue, and the ongoing pattern of overriding yourself.Be sure to tune in to all the episodes to receive tons of practical tips on living a more whole life and to hear even more about the points outlined above.Thank you for listening! If you enjoyed this episode, take a screenshot of the episode to post in your stories and tag me! And don't forget to follow, rate and review the podcast and tell me your key takeaways!Learn more about Fragmented to Whole at Fragmented to Whole PodcastFeeling drained? Take my free Boundaries Drain Quiz to find out where your energy is leaking and how to reclaim it. Start your quiz here: Boundaries Drain QuizCONNECT WITH BARB NANGLE:Subscribe to “Friday Fragments” weekly newsletterLinkedinWork with Barb! Book a “Say No Without Guilt” Session

Send us Fan MailIn this week's episode 352 of the Fragmented to Whole Podcast, I'm talking about burnout, compassion fatigue, and the deeper reason so many people struggle to consistently care for themselves—even when they know how important self-care is.This episode was inspired by a conversation I saw online about self-care in the helping professions, but the truth is, this applies far beyond therapists, coaches, or healthcare workers. If you're responsible for other people in any capacity, your internal state matters. Your nervous system matters. And your ability to stay connected to yourself matters.Some of the talking points I go over in this episode include:Why self-care is not optional, but a professional responsibilityThe difference between burnout and compassion fatigueHow burnout can be intensified by weak boundaries and chronic over-functioningWhy many people know self-care matters but still struggle to follow through on itThe role internal boundaries play in staying present with others without absorbing their painI also share personal experiences from my early internship work before recovery and compare that to the way I'm able to hold space for people today through the lens of recovery and boundaries work.This episode is a reminder that the issue is not simply knowing what to do. The deeper work is learning how to stay with yourself when guilt, anxiety, urgency, or discomfort show up the moment you try to take care of yourself.Because that's what ultimately protects you from burnout, compassion fatigue, and the ongoing pattern of overriding yourself.Be sure to tune in to all the episodes to receive tons of practical tips on living a more whole life and to hear even more about the points outlined above.Thank you for listening! If you enjoyed this episode, take a screenshot of the episode to post in your stories and tag me! And don't forget to follow, rate and review the podcast and tell me your key takeaways!Learn more about Fragmented to Whole at Fragmented to Whole PodcastFeeling drained? Take my free Boundaries Drain Quiz to find out where your energy is leaking and how to reclaim it. Start your quiz here: Boundaries Drain QuizCONNECT WITH BARB NANGLE:Subscribe to “Friday Fragments” weekly newsletterLinkedinWork with Barb! Book a “Say No Without Guilt” Session

The Trump administration has advanced many policy initiatives in the drug pricing and market access area, and CMS —the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — is the agency at the heart of many of these efforts. Rujul Desai, Senior Counselor to CMS and former Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Health & Human Services, joins Washington, D.C. partner Chris Schott and associate Danny Machado for an update on key CMS priorities. Rujul also discusses the transition from big law to government and shares practice pointers for engaging with the agency.   Also check out our bi-weekly Drug Pricing Digest on the website or subscribe to receive future editions in your inbox.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Washington, D.C. partner Chris Schott, and associates Danny Machado and Evan Rothkoff, share observations and insights from the recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Conference and the American Health Law Association's Institute on Medicare and Medicaid Payment Issues conference. They also discuss updates that government speakers shared at these events.   Also check out our bi-weekly Drug Pricing Digest on the website or subscribe to receive future editions in your inbox.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

A-Frame Brands identifies emerging signals in culture, consumer behavior, and category white space — then moves fast to bring the right products to shelf. They work two ways: co-creating private-label and exclusive product lines with the world's leading retailers, building a portfolio of standalone brands with world-class talent partners across beauty, personal care, fragrance, home care, and pet care. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with A-Frame's Founder and CEO, Ari Bloom, to discuss A-Frame's business model, how the company has evolved, and what draws retailers and talent partners to A-Frame.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Over two decades, more than 350 Latham lawyers have taken on Holocaust reparations matters, helping Holocaust survivors apply for pensions for work performed in Nazi-controlled ghettos during World War II. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Laura Atkinson-Hope, Public Service Counsel and Director of Global Pro Bono at Latham, sits down with Anna Bravo, Attorney Support Manager and longtime leader of the firm's Holocaust reparations program, and Isabelle Sarfati, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor client. Together, they reflect on the completion of Latham's final reparations case in 2025, the challenges survivors faced in documenting their experiences, and how Isabelle's curiosity and research about her father's experience in the Warsaw Ghetto ultimately led to a successful outcome for her family.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

ParaFi Capital is an alternative asset management and technology firm focused on blockchain and digital assets. Founded in 2018, the firm was among the earliest institutional investors in the blockchain industry and has evolved into a trusted partner to leading institutions around the world. Latham has advised ParaFi on a range of strategic investments across the digital asset ecosystem, including venture financings and DeFi transactions. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with ParaFi's Founder and Managing Partner, Ben Forman, and Chief Operating Officer and Partner, Adrian Uberto, to discuss the company's growth journey, the macro and AI trends shaping the future of blockchain and cryptocurrency, and how ParaFi is positioned to navigate them.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

The legal profession tends to breed a type of disposition more akin to something in Homer than The Wonder Years. A rooted posture towards adversity rather than compromise or even common ground. Much of this is taught in law school, even if indirectly, with a ruthless employment competition cycle the second 1Ls start their fall semester and that infamous curve that pins students against one another and judged over the smallest of differences. My guest today is David A. Grenardo and our topic is an antidote to this madness, which is civility. We discuss not only what it is, but more importantly, how it tends to improve the quality of the legal profession and those inside. His latest paper in the Toledo Law Review is called Why Civility?, but his record on this goes back 15 years. David is a professor of law and associate director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions. He joined St. Thomas Law in 2022. He was previously a professor at St. Mary's University School of Law (Texas) where he taught Professional Responsibility, Contracts, Sports Law, Business Associations, Civil Procedure, and International Sports Law. Full bio. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

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

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

This episode takes a deep dive into the fundamental principles that uphold the integrity of the judicial system and the legal profession. You'll learn how trust functions as a shared hallucination—an essential framework that keeps society functioning—and how strict ethical rules are designed to protect this trust.Most legal systems, including ours, fundamentally rely on a shared trust—on the belief that the system is fair, impartial, and operates reliably. But what if that trust is a fragile illusion built solely on shared perceptions? In this episode, we peel back the layers of judicial and professional ethics, revealing how the entire fabric of justice depends on maintaining public confidence. Discover why judges operate under standards that go far beyond personal integrity, how systemic risks shape every ruling, and the Supreme Court case that made clear: even the appearance of bias can undermine due process.We break down the critical rules governing judicial conduct—Examining ex parte communications, conflicts of interest, and recusal triggers—so you can identify the hidden shadows that threaten systemic trust. Learn how the profession polices itself through Rule 8.3, and why shielding misconduct is a threat to the entire legal system. Moving beyond the courtroom, we explore how the law prevents unqualified actors from practicing—covering multi-jurisdictional practice, safe harbors, and the clash between federal and state authority.Perfectly suited for law students and practitioners, this episode provides a clear, practical framework to decode complex ethical scenarios on exams and in real life. We illuminate the high-stakes game of maintaining public trust—because if that trust erodes, so does the system itself. Whether you're preparing for exams or navigating multi-jurisdictional practice, you'll walk away armed with insights to see the bigger picture—and ensure justice not only is done, but is seen to be done.Credibility note: This episode features a detailed analysis by a seasoned legal ethicist, known for translating intricate professional responsibility principles into accessible, actionable insights.Most legal systems, including ours, fundamentally rely on a shared trust—on the belief that the system is fair, impartial, and operates reliably. But what if that trust is a fragile illusion built solely on shared perceptions? In this episode, we peel back the layers of judicial and professional ethics, revealing how the entire fabric of justice depends on maintaining public confidence. Discover why judges operate under standards that go far beyond personal integrity, how systemic risks shape every ruling, and the Supreme Court case that made clear: even the appearance of bias can undermine due process.We break down the critical rules governing judicial conduct—Examining ex parte communications, conflicts of interest, and recusal triggers—so you can identify the hidden shadows that threaten systemic trust. Learn how the profession polices itself through Rule 8.3, and why shielding misconduct is a threat to the entire legal system. Moving beyond the courtroom, we explore how the law prevents unqualified actors from practicing—covering multi-jurisdictional practice, safe harbors, and the clash between federal and state authority.Perfectly suited for law students and practitioners, this episode provides a clear, practical framework to decode complex ethical scenarios on exams and in real life. We illuminate the high-stakes game of maintaining public trust—because if that trust erodes, so does the system itself. Whether you're preparing for exams or navigating multi-jurisdictional practice, you'll walk away armed with insights to see the bigger picture—and ensure justice not only is done, but is seen to be done.Credibility note: This episode features a detailed analysis by a seasoned legal ethicist, known for translating intricate professional responsibility principles into accessible, actionable insights.

In this episode of LAWsome, we are discussing one of the most important topics we've ever covered on the podcast: domestic abuse. This issue is much more common than people think, even in high achievers, community leaders, and successful individuals. Co-hosts Tanner Jones and Matt Smyers sit down with the Founder and CEO of Lee Consultants, Amanda Lee, to speak about the responsibility leaders have in creating a safe environment where the topic can be discussed.  Amanda Lee was a trial attorney for 20 years, working in various areas, including organizations and non-profits that dealt with sexual abuse. For over a decade, while she built her career and became the successful woman she is today, she was a victim of domestic abuse. After she left that situation, she realized there was a large gap in not only knowledge but also resources for successful women in her situation. She built Lee Consultants to help others in similar situations.  Amanda shares information and actionable steps to take in helping raise awareness in the workplace, and offers resources to help. Tune in to this episode of LAWsome to learn why domestic abuse can be difficult to notice in legal professionals, how to better understand how you can help successful individuals who may be experiencing it, and how to challenge the narrative and stigmas associated with it. You can connect with Amanda on her Website and on her LinkedIn. TLDR: In this episode, you will learn about What steps should be taken in the workplace to raise awareness  How to foster a safe environment to speak about the topic Resources for individuals who may be in domestic abuse situations

OA1245 - Federal prosecutors have just secured the first convictions in US history in which the Department of Justice has brought charges relating to associations with “Antifa,” an organization which demonstrably does not exist. We take a closer look at the plight of the eight defendants convicted on charges relating to a noise protest outside of an ICE detention center in Prarieland, Texas to break down the unusual legal basis for this case, understand how protesters were cast as terrorists, and what this all means for the future of American dissent. Then in better news, we take a closer look at the recent bar complaint against one of Trump's favorite lawyers (and our favorite MAGA characters) and AG Pam Bondi's efforts to claim that the feds can hold up similar investigations brought by state regulators. Matt explains why this proposed rule is not only obviously illegal but doomed to fail before providing some news you can use in today's footnote: the official OA guide on how to get away with a $100 million jewelry heist. Superseding Indictment #1 in United States v. Arnold (2025) Jury verdict in in United States v. Arnold (2025) “Meet the Defendants,” DFW Defense Committee website “Specification of Charges in the matter of Edward R. Martin Jr.” District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility (3/6/2026) “Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys,” Federal Register (3/5/2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

Founded in 2013, Fetch is a daily rewards destination for consumers and brands, turning everyday actions like shopping, dining out, and playing games into tangible value for consumers while delivering measurable advertising for consumer, retail, and restaurant brands. Latham represented Fetch on a series of strategic growth financing transactions in 2025. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Haim Zaltzman, Global Vice Chair of Latham's Emerging Companies & Growth Practice, sits down with Fetch's Chief Financial Officer Gideon Oppenheimer and General Counsel Dave Toomey to explore macro shifts in advertising, capital allocation tradeoffs, expansion into new verticals like fitness and health, and creating a transparent, privacy-forward ecosystem powered by AI to build long-term trust with users.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

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

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

States continue to expand their review of healthcare transactions involving private equity, real estate investment trusts, management services organizations, and other investors. Join Washington, D.C. counsel Nicole Liffrig Molife, Los Angeles counsel Yanyan Zhou, and Washington, D.C. associate Margaret Rote as they discuss how the increased level of state regulatory oversight affect health services transactions and key takeaways for investors looking to purchase healthcare companies this year.   Also check out our report: US State Regulatory Spotlight on Healthcare Transactions: Reflections From 2025   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

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

OA1233 - We are not conspiracy theorist type people. But... yeah man I don't know. But also, so much more in these files to talk about. If you know anything about the federal government's 2007 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein you know that it was bad. But newly-released documents from the Epstein files show that it was actually much worse than that! Thanks to a newly-released legal memo, a draft indictment, and internal emails between prosecutors we now have a much better understanding of the disagreements within US Attorney for the District of Southern Florida Alex Acosta's office as they finalized the terms of a much-too-friendly agreement between the US government and a billionaire pedophile which a federal appeals court would later call “a national disgrace.” Matt has the receipts for this special emergency episode. You can also watch this episode on YouTube! Steve Bannon's Interview with Jeffrey Epstein (directly downloaded from the DOJ) Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation (Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, 2020) Incident Report (Palm Beach Police Department, 2006)  Epstein indictment draft (United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, 2007) Appendix in The People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey E. Epstein (2013) Opinion - Alex Acosta acted with professionalism and integrity in handling the Jeffrey Epstein case (Miami Herald, 2/16/2019)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Ready for more Dallin Oaks stuff? First we talk about a letter Joseph Smith wrote to W.W. Phelps. Then we discuss the law review article  "Ethics, Mortality, and Professional Responsibility", by Dallin Oaks published October 1975 in the BYU Law Review. For the Sword of Laman, we take a look at the first two chapters of Oaks' book Pure In Heart.  We finish it off with some happy news about a judge overturning Trump's block of an off-shore wind project that could power 600,000 homes. Enjoy!    Show Notes:  Letter to W. W. Phelps Jan 11, 1833 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-william-w-phelps-11-january-1833/2#historical-intro Modern D&C 52 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-6-june-1831-dc-52/2 Ethics, Morality, and Professional Responsibility by Dallin Oaks http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=lawreview Wickersham Commission https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/wickersham-commission Criminal Justice in U.S. History https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/criminal-justice-us-history   Sword of Laman: Pure In Heart, by Dallin H. Oaks  Woes of the Pharisees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_of_the_Pharisees  Cleansing the Inner Vessel by Ezra Taft Benson (April 1986 GenCon): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/04/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng  Inspiring Music, Worthy Thoughts by Boyd K Packer (GenCon 1973): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/10/inspiring-music-worthy-thoughts?lang=eng  Worthy Music, Worthy Thoughts (1976 filmstrip): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ5Z6AoEKuY  Richard G Scott in April  GenCon 1992: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng     Happy News: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/02/trump-halted-offshore-wind-project-to-proceed   Other appearances: Chris Shelton interviewed us in the beginning of a series on Mormonism on his Speaking of Cults series. Our most recent discussion was on The Unpaid Army of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de543-d9tME  He has had MANY different fascinating people on so go take a look!  Here is the whole playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpGuS7GcsgA&list=PLGrPM1Pg2h72ADIuv8eYmzrJ-ppLOlw_g   Email: glassboxpodcast@gmail.com  Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GlassBoxPod  Patreon page for documentary: https://www.patreon.com/SeerStonedProductions BlueSky: @glassboxpodcast.bsky.social  Other BlueSky: @bryceblankenagel.bsky.social and @shannongrover.bsky.social  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glassboxpodcast/  Merch store: https://www.redbubble.com/people/exmoapparel/shop Or find the merch store by clicking on "Store" here: https://glassboxpodcast.com/index.html One time Paypal donation: bryceblankenagel@gmail.com  Venmo: @Shannon-Grover-10  

E18 - Congress required the Department of Justice to release (nearly) everything it had from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell by December 19th, so of course they pretended to do that on time on Friday afternoon and then waited until everyone was just about to start heading home for the holidays before actually dumping 30,000 pages of anything resembling actual substance into the record on Tuesday morning. We review and discuss new revelations on how much more time Trump spent on Epstein's plane than we ever knew, the 30-year-old FBI report that could have changed everything, the astonishing correspondence between the prosecution and the Epstein defense team throughout his 2008 plea negotiations, and so much more. You can also watch this episode on YouTube! The Epstein Files Transparency Act  Epstein Files database (Camaron Stephenson) DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report on Epstein plea negotiations (NOV. 2020) Maria Farmer's 1996 report to the FBI Opinion and Order from Judge Kenneth Marra in Jane Doe cases summarizing DOJ's failure to advise Epstein survivors of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement and plea Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!