POPULARITY
108 episodes with Professional responsibility
11 episodes with Professional responsibility
7 episodes with Professional responsibility
10 episodes with Professional responsibility
2 episodes with Professional responsibility
2 episodes with Professional responsibility
14 episodes with Professional responsibility
4 episodes with Professional responsibility
5 episodes with Professional responsibility
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.
The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress
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
The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress
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.
Navigating Ethical Boundaries in Legal Practice: Rules of Professional ResponsibilityIn this episode, we explore the complex landscape of legal ethics, focusing on how lawyers can ethically acquire and maintain clients while respecting core principles like truthfulness, client independence, and supervisory responsibility. Given the evolving technological environment, understanding these boundaries has never been more crucial.Most legal ethics rulings are designed to prevent one thing: the abuse of power. But what happens when the game shifts from humans to AI at the speed of light? If you think ethics rules are straightforward, think again—particularly when it comes to client acquisition, courtroom communication, and supervising your entire firm. This episode pulls back the curtain on the complex, high-stakes world of legal professional responsibility, revealing the precise rules that guard against manipulation, deception, and overreach—and what happens when they're tested by emerging technology.We start with the foundational question: what's the difference between advertising and solicitation—and why does it matter? You'll discover how courts have fluctuated over the years, struggling to balance First Amendment rights with the need to shield vulnerable clients from high-pressure tactics. Through concrete examples—like billboard claims of million-dollar verdicts and high-stakes hospital visits—you'll see how subtle omissions or the context of a message can turn truthful claims into ethical violations.Navigate the labyrinth of rules governing communication—Rule 7.1's strict honesty, Rule 7.2's regulated advertising channels, and Rule 7.3's targeted, live, electronic solicitation—and learn how to identify when a practice crosses the line. We break down hot-button issues like "reply all" in email threads, the use of social media, and even AI-driven client outreach—highlighting real cases, from the famous Orlik ambulance chaser to the Supreme Court's anti-solicitation rulings. How do you ethically approach a distressed client, or a potential plaintiff found through social media? Find out.Crucially, we reveal the immense responsibility that supervisory lawyers bear under Rules 5.1 to 5.3. Learn how systemic failures—like neglecting conflict checks or ignoring misconduct—can lead to disbarment, even if you didn't directly commit the violation. We analyze the stark reality that reporting misconduct or stopping unethical acts often comes at great personal cost, as seen in landmark cases like BoHatch v. Butler and Binion. Your ethical duties aren't just about compliance—they're about safeguarding the integrity of the profession itself.Finally, we peer into the future: what happens when law firms deploy autonomous AI to identify clients and initiate contact at lightning speed? Could the core principles of protecting clients and maintaining honesty withstand the rapid evolution of legal technology? This episode offers a sharp, insightful blueprint to understand where the law stands now—and what you'll need to navigate the uncharted waters ahead.Perfect for law students, young attorneys, or anyone serious about the ethics that underpin the legal system—this isn't just exam prep, it's your guide to building a principled, resilient legal practice in a world that's changing faster than ever.
This episode breaks down the fundamental ethical principles lawyers must navigate when their duty to clients conflicts with their obligation to the justice system. We explore core rules, real-world scenarios, and the evolving challenges posed by technology and complex cases.When does a lawyer's duty of loyalty to a client give way to the pursuit of truth in court? Surprisingly often — and understanding the rules that govern this tension could be your biggest advantage on exam day. This episode reveals the hidden principles and future challenges that define legal ethics at the highest level.Imagine sitting in court, knowing your client's testimony is false, and facing an impossible choice: stay silent or expose a lie that could destroy their case—and their freedom. The core dilemma isn't just about honesty; it's about safeguarding the integrity of justice itself. We unpack the critical trilemma identified by Professor Monroe Friedman, which forces lawyers into a seemingly impossible position—are they loyal to their client, the confidentiality of information, or the court's pursuit of truth? You'll learn how the rules of candor, confidentiality, and fairness interconnect and what happens when they clash.In this episode, you'll discover:The precise boundaries of Rule 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), including how “knowing” is interpreted and what mitigating circumstances exist when facts change after submission.The step-by-step process for dealing with client lies—from private remonstration, to seeking withdrawal, to mandatory disclosure—guided by pivotal cases like Nix v. Whiteside.How ex parte proceedings demand full disclosure of adverse facts and why that transforms the lawyer's role when an emergency hearing is at stake.The intricacies of client perjury: when a lawyer must confront an outright lie on the stand, and how constitutional protections like the Sixth Amendment interact with ethical duties.Why disclosing adverse legal authority (Rule 3.3(a)) is non-negotiable, even if it weakens your case, and how to strategically use it to bolster your credibility.The prohibitions on evidence tampering, witness inducements, and false testimony, including what constitutes improper payments, contingent fees, and the ethical pitfalls surrounding expert witnesses.The profound importance of disclosure in criminal prosecutions—how prosecutors' duties under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 3.8 ensure justice isn't sacrificed for conviction wins.Looking forward, this episode also challenges you to consider how emerging AI technologies threaten to blur the lines of what constitutes “knowledge” and “knowing.” As evidence generation becomes more automated and less verifiable, the rules governing truth and deception will be tested in unprecedented ways.Perfect for exam takers and practicing lawyers alike, this deep dive arms you with a clear, practical framework—mental checklists to handle ethical dilemmas when your professional duties pull in opposite directions. At the core, it's about defending the integrity of the legal process, even when it feels like the right thing to do is the hardest.Whether you're mastering the ethics rules or preparing for your toughest questions, this episode will elevate your understanding of the role of the lawyer as both zealous advocate and officer of the court—and why that balance is crucial for justice.
Understanding conflicts of interest involving current and former clients is crucial for law students and legal professionals alike. This episode distills complex rules into a clear, actionable framework that ensures precise exam responses and ethical compliance in practice. Whether dealing with individual or firm-wide conflicts, and navigating the special rules for government lawyers, this discussion empowers you to master the doctrinal nuances with confidence.Most lawyers overlook the critical second a client walks out the door—that's when the rules about confidentiality shift dramatically, and a mistake here can cost everything. Imagine your loyalty evaporates, but your duty to protect secrets becomes forever. Understanding this deep divide between loyalty and confidentiality isn't just academic—it's the key to avoiding disqualification traps that can devastate your career.In this episode, we unravel the complex web of conflicts involving current and former clients, exploring how the law treats secrets differently depending on the stage of the relationship. You'll discover the precise two-part test in Rule 1.9 that determines when a conflict arises, and why courts apply an objective standard—it's not about what you remember, but what a reasonable lawyer would have learned. We break down the stark difference between using confidential information and revealing it, with real-world examples like public court opinions and high-profile cases that highlight the absurdity of perpetual confidentiality.You'll also master the nuanced doctrine of imputation—how one lawyer's conflict can spread through a firm—and how sophisticated screening mechanisms can save legal practices from disqualification. We explore the critical mechanics of effective screens, and how modern mega-firms are navigating conflicts across continents while balancing client secrecy against public perception. Plus, we dive deep into specialized rules for government lawyers and the criminal statutes that make conflicts potentially career-ending—sometimes even life-threatening.Why does all this matter? Because lawyers operating in a global, interconnected legal universe face conflicts that are more frequent and more complex than ever. The wrong move can damage reputations, destroy client trust, or even trigger criminal penalties under federal law. But armed with a clear, step-by-step exam strategy—focus on whether the relationship is current or former, the precise legal standard involved, and the mechanics of ethical screens—you'll confidently navigate these treacherous waters. Perfect for anyone serious about mastering professional responsibility, this episode arms you with the insight to think differently about conflicts and confidentiality—and to approach every case with strategic clarity.Whether you're preparing for the MPRE, a law school final, or simply aiming to elevate your ethical game, these principles form the backbone of a resilient legal practice. Remember: loyalty is fleeting, but a client's secrets are forever. Hit play now to decode the blueprint for conflict management in today's complex legal landscape.
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
Conflicts of interest are among the most complex and high-stakes topics in legal ethics. This deep dive distills the essentials of Rule 1.7, offering a clear, structured approach to understanding, analyzing, and navigating current client conflicts to excel on exams and practice.Most lawyers unknowingly cross conflicts of interest that could ruin their careers — but understanding the precise rules can keep you out of trouble. If you're preparing for the MPRE or any professional responsibility exam, this episode unlocks the blueprint to mastering client conflicts with surgical clarity.Imagine negotiating a $50 million merger while behind the scenes, your firm is being sued in a completely unrelated matter by the same corporation—yet, due to imputed conflicts, the entire deal could freeze. This horrifying scenario exemplifies the importance of Rule 1.7, which shields the core of legal ethics: undivided loyalty. We dive deep into how conflict rules protect your credibility, but also how subtle mistakes—like confusing confidentiality with loyalty—can cause catastrophic breaches.You'll discover:The difference between direct adversity and material limitation, and why the latter is the lawyer's most common trap.How to identify when a client is still ‘current' versus ‘former'—a subtle distinction with massive consequences.The infamous ‘hot potato' doctrine: why trying to ditch a client to sidestep conflicts is a legal trap, not a fix.The precise four-part test for valid waivers, emphasizing objective reasoning over subjective feelings.Why some conflicts are non-waivable—covering statutory bans, same-litigation opposition, and the critical importance of informed, written consent.We also break down the steel-rigid mechanics for permission: ensuring your client truly understands the risks, confirming consent in writing—preferably with a signature—and navigating complex scenarios like aggregate settlements or business transactions under Rule 1.8. Learn how courts scrutinize every detail, from ongoing communications to the timing of client firing, exposing dangerous legal ‘hot zones' examiners love to test.Mastering conflict rules isn't just about rules—it's about embedding a culture of loyalty that anticipates problems before they explode. We give you a step-by-step 5-point checklist to streamline any conflict analysis, transforming overwhelming complexity into confidence. This episode is essential listening for law students, future lawyers, or anyone serious about integrity in legal practice.The stakes couldn't be higher: one misstep can lead to malpractice, disqualification, or worse. But with the right framework, you'll not only pass exams—you'll embody the ethical backbone of the profession.Your comprehensive roadmap to understand, identify, and ethically navigate client conflicts. Hit play now to build exam mastery and professional integrity that lasts a lifetime.
In this episode, we explore the critical distinctions between legal confidentiality and attorney-client privilege—two foundational but often conflated concepts in legal ethics and evidence law. Perfect for students, practitioners, and anyone keen on mastering a core area of professional responsibility, this discussion provides a structured approach to issue spotting, legal analysis, and ethical decision-making.Most legal dilemmas boil down to one core question: When can a lawyer reveal their client's secrets? The answer isn't simple—it's a delicate balance between ethical duties and courtroom protections. This episode cuts through the confusion, revealing the surprising truth about confidentiality and attorney-client privilege, and how understanding this distinction can make or break your legal career.Imagine a world where everything you learn from a client is shielded forever, but with cracks that could expose the deepest secrets. We explore how the vast scope of ethical confidentiality—the giant umbrella—protects all client-related information, from casual gossip to detailed legal research. But when the state demands answers—think subpoenas or court orders—that's where the narrowly crafted fortress of privilege comes into play, blocking compelled testimony and encouraging candor.You'll discover:The crucial difference between the broad duty of confidentiality rooted in professional conduct rules, and the narrow evidentiary attorney-client privilege meant to prevent forced disclosures in court.How a single third party in the room or a careless document can shatter the privilege—delving into the classic third-party waiver trap and the importance of intentional confidentiality.The subtleties of exceptions—like preventing imminent harm or financial fraud—and how they create critical escape valves, but only when used with surgical precision.The notorious crime-fraud exception, which destroys protection if the client uses the lawyer to further ongoing or future criminal acts, and how the timing of a confession can make all the difference.The unique challenges in corporate legal advice, especially under the landmark Upjohn case, where the scope of protection extends to all employees, not just top executives, and the vital “Upjohn warnings” for internal investigations.Why does this matter? Because misunderstanding or misapplying these principles leads to disastrous consequences—losing your license, exposing clients' secrets, or, worse, freeing a guilty party or risking innocent lives. It's an ecosystem built on trust, precision, and vigilance. A single slip-up can be the difference between upholding justice and causing irreversible harm.Perfect for law students, new attorneys, or anyone navigating legal ethics—this episode arms you with the ultimate three-step framework to analyze any confidential scenario. When faced with a fact pattern, ask: Is this relating to the representation? Is it a privileged communication? Is an exception or waiver at play? Master this sequence, and you'll confidently navigate the labyrinth of attorney-client confidentiality and privilege, every time.Join us for a comprehensive, real-world guide to one of the most tested and misunderstood areas of legal ethics. This isn't just theory; it's your blueprint to protecting client secrets, defending your reputation, and serving justice with integrity.
In this episode, we explore the core principles underpinning the formation, conduct, and boundaries of the lawyer-client relationship, emphasizing practical insights for exam success and legal practice.Most lawyers are unaware that their ethical duty to their clients begins way before any signed contract or retainer. Imagine standing at a dinner party, offering legal advice based solely on a casual conversation—without a formal engagement, a retainer, or written agreement. Surprisingly, in the eyes of the law, that moment could automatically create a binding attorney-client relationship—simply because the client reasonably relied on your words. Fail to understand when and how these relationships form, and you risk malpractice, disqualification, or worse.This episode unpacks the hidden intricacies of professional responsibility that every future lawyer must master. It's not about formal paperwork—it's about the concept of reasonable reliance from the client's perspective. You'll explore how courts determine when an attorney becomes ethically and legally bound, highlighting classic case law like Togstad v. Vensley, which illustrates the catastrophic consequences of inadvertently forming a client relationship through specific conduct, even in the absence of a signed agreement.We break down the key factors that establish this bond: tailored legal advice, document review, instructive language, or instructing clients to stop seeking other counsel. You'll discover the pivotal role of disclaimers—why they aren't foolproof and how courts assess your actual behavior versus what you say in disclaimers or on websites. Plus, we cover how to avoid the trap of forming a relationship on digital platforms through intake forms, social media replies, and AI chatbots that mimic firm branding. The line between general info and specific advice is thinner than you think—and the risk of malpractice hinges on it.Once the relationship forms, the stakes skyrocket. You'll learn how the rules allocate authority—what decisions the client owns versus what tactics the lawyer determines—focusing on the crucial ends-versus-means distinction. From plea deals to settlement negotiations, understanding these boundaries prevents ethical pitfalls, especially under pressure. We'll clarify how to handle limited scope representations, emergencies, outsourcing, and fee agreements—all areas notorious for exam traps.The episode also dives deep into the ethics of fees under Rule 1.5. You'll master the 8 factors to determine reasonableness, spot the pitfalls in contingency arrangements, and understand the prohibition of fees in criminal and family cases due to public policy. We clarify how detailed, written fee agreements must be—what they should explicitly specify to withstand scrutiny, especially regarding expenses and fee splits.Finally, with technology advancing at breakneck speed, legal practice is evolving beyond the traditional. We explore the emerging challenges posed by AI chatbots and digital intake forms—how they blur the lines around forming relationships and triggering malpractice concerns. These innovations require new frameworks for understanding reliance, competence, and control.Perfect for law students and exam takers, this episode offers a comprehensive blueprint—an architectural approach—to the complex world of professional responsibility. With crisp explanations, concrete case examples, and critical technical distinctions, it's your key to avoiding common pitfalls and mastering the ethical foundations that underpin every successful legal career.Whether it's a dinner conversation, an AI chatbot, or a court filing, the moment you speak, your legal duties may already begin. Stay sharp, fully informed, and confident in your understanding of when and how ethics come into play—and how to navigate this complex terrain with integrity.
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
The Law School Toolbox Podcast: Tools for Law Students from 1L to the Bar Exam, and Beyond
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
The Law School Toolbox Podcast: Tools for Law Students from 1L to the Bar Exam, and Beyond
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
The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress
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
The drug pricing and market access policy space saw a lot of change in 2025, and the pace is not slowing down. In this episode of Connected With Latham, pharmaceutical industry veteran Sabrina Aery, founder of Aery Policy and Access Partners, joins Washington, D.C. partner Chris Schott and associate Danny Machado for a wide-ranging discussion of key 2025 takeaways and what to expect in 2026. 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
Alisha was born and raised in Wyoming and graduated from the University of Wyoming with a BA in Psychology and Communications. Alisha then moved to Boise, Idaho where she spent most of her career as Development and Marketing Director for Saint Alphonsus Hospital. After 10 years in Boise, she returned to Wyoming to be the Executive Director of the Wyoming Medical Center Foundation. Alisha focused on capital projects such as building a new tower for the hospital and wellness center as well as specific programs such as providing support for cancer patients and a hospitality house for out of town patients. In 2017, Alisha became the Executive Director of the Child Development Center. The CDC serves over 700 children with early intervention therapies, preschool services, and free development screenings for the community. In 2024, Alisha received her Master's in Curriculum and Instruction as well as her Early Childhood Special Education Endorsement from the University of Wyoming. Alisha has sat on Wyoming's Early Intervention Council, the Wyoming State Bar Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming's Charter for Plans of Safe Care, and Wyoming's Department of Family Services Steering Committee. She leads a staff of 120 and through her leadership has a 90% staff satisfaction rating. The CDC has excelled under her leadership by opening an outpatient clinic for children birth to twenty-one years of age, a pediatric audiology clinic, and a quick care clinic. The CDC has received number one preschool and development center from Oil City News and the Casper Star Tribune, the State of Wyoming's Model Program for Inclusion, and won the Daniels Fund Salute to Excellence Award. In her spare time Alisha enjoys spending time with her husband Mike and two boys, Max, and Micky, in Wyoming's great outdoors.
In this episode of Connected with Latham, complementing Latham's "10 Key Focus Areas for UK-Regulated Financial Services Firms in 2026" report, London partners Rob Moulton and Nicola Higgs and counsel Becky Critchley discuss the key trends for financial services firms in 2026. Amongst other topics, they discuss the Leeds Reforms, the ESG landscape, and enforcement trends. 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
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!
The pharmaceutical industry has seen major legal and policy changes in recent years, from the Inflation Reduction Act to the Trump administration's aggressive pricing policies. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Mike Domanico, a pharmaceutical industry veteran with experience in Big 4, brand drugs, biosimilars, and generics, and most recently Vice President of Revenue Finance, joins Washington, D.C. partner Chris Schott and associate Danny Machado to discuss how organizations can best respond to the changing environment. As Mike explains, think of meeting the challenge as a loop that connects the business, compliance, and legal in a cross-functional collaboration. 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
Recent FDA actions are reshaping key aspects of drug and biologic development, including the Commissioner's National Priority Voucher program, the "plausible mechanism" pathway for personalized therapies, and new draft guidance aimed at streamlining biosimilars and interchangeables. Join Washington, D.C. partner Nathan Beaton and counsel Monica Groat and Chad Jennings as they discuss how these moves differ from traditional policy-making, as well as the practical implications for pricing, manufacturing, M&A, and litigation risk in the healthcare and life sciences industry. 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
Listen back to some of the IICLE staff's favorite episodes from 2025, including attorneys' responsibilities for shaping the practice with Timothy Eaton, enduring the emotional toll of divorce proceedings with Erin Wilson, the unique ownership positions of condo purchasers with Kenneth Michaels, Jr., and a literary outlook on the law with Meghan Brinson. IICLE® is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit based in Springfield, Illinois. We produce a wide range of practice guidance for Illinois attorneys and other legal professionals in all areas of law with the generous contributions of time and expertise from volunteer attorneys, judges, and other legal professionals.
Government pricing assessments are an important tool to help pharmaceutical manufacturers review their government price reporting function. They can also help uncovering strategic benefits and opportunities. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Eliza Biedziak, Managing Director at Ernst & Young LLP, joins Washington, D.C. partner Chris Schott and associate Danny Machado to explore how these assessments are conducted, the compliance benefits they offer, and the strategic insights they can provide. 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
The report from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility found that no prosecutors committed formal misconduct in approving Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement, but condemned Alexander Acosta (then U.S. Attorney in Miami) for “poor judgment” in allowing the deal to proceed without full federal investigation, excluding key evidence, and failing to notify victims before the plea. It noted a troubling 11-month gap in Acosta's emailed records during the critical period when the federal indictment was being drafted and abandoned. The deal also included sweeping immunity for potential co-conspirators, negotiated with minimal transparency, while Epstein was allowed to escape what many considered imminent federal charges.Critically, the report drew fire for virtually ignoring the survivors themselves: meetings with victims, their input, and their statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act were treated superficially or bypassed entirely. One alleged victim called the report “another slap in the face,” arguing that it served more as a self-protective cover-up than a genuine reckoning of how power, money and institutional apathy let Epstein continue abusing minors. In failing to hold anyone accountable—despite what the survivors and victim-rights advocates say was extensive prosecutorial and institutional failure—the review leaves the deeper questions of enablement, institutional bias and justice for victims unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Jack Smith, the former Biden administration enforcer working under the title of special counsel finds himself in trouble. He's been formally indicted. Smith's idea of justice was less "scales of fairness" and more sledgehammer to the kneecaps of anyone orange-tinted or wearing a MAGA hat. And now the universe offers a cosmic karma chuckle and flipped the script. Referred to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility for what can only be described as a masterclass in overreach, Smith's not just in hot water—he's marinating with a garnish of disbarment proceedings in Tennessee and New York tossed on top. What led to this eventuality isn't some isolated blooper. It's the encore to a four-year farce where the Biden-era DOJ treated "equal justice under law" like a suggestion written on a karaoke song sheet. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The government argues that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein remains legally binding and cannot be “scrubbed” because it was negotiated and approved by federal prosecutors acting within their discretion, and thus no valid basis exists to void it. Under internal standards, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility found that although the deal may have been “poor judgment,” it did not constitute professional misconduct because the Prosecutor had the “plenary authority” to resolve the federal case via a state plea, and none of the terms violated clear and unambiguous Department standards.Moreover, the government emphasises that the language of the NPA itself explicitly provides immunity from federal prosecution for “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” including unnamed individuals.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has issued a report recommending that former Department of Justice lawyer Jeffrey Clark be disbarred for his role in Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.The Report states: "On the merits, we conclude that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent (Jeffrey Clark) attempted to make intentionally false statements when he continued to advocate that the Justice Department issue a letter containing falsehoods. Thus, Respondent's (Clark's) conduct constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department's investigation. . . A majority of the Board recommends that Respondent (Clark) be disbarred. Glenn reviews this new legal development.For nightly live Law Talks, please join Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Monday, August 4th, 2025Today, party preference in the US has shifted back to the Democrats for the first time since 2023; Virginia Giuffre's family responds to Trump's admission that she was trafficked from Mar a Lago; trump always chickens out - he pauses Mexico tariffs for another 90 days; the DC Bar's Board of Professional Responsibility has recommended Jeffrey Clark be disbarred; the Navy reverses its decision to stop sharing weather data at the last minute; the Florida attorney general issued a subpoena to a bar to get the names of people who participated in a drag show; we have more details on California's plan to redraw voting maps in response to Texas; and Allison and Dana deliver the good news.Thank You, DeleteMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout.Stories'Alligator Alcatraz' detainees on hunger strike for 10th day, protesting conditions | NBC NewsLeaked memo from Hegseth's brother calls for US army to help with deportations nationwide ‘for years to come': report | The IndependentSupreme Court signals it may rule on law protecting power of minority voters - The Washington PostEXCLUSIVE: Someone Waived Ghislaine Maxwell's Sex Offender Status to Move Her to a Minimum Security Camp in TexasI Am Suing the Department of Justice for the Epstein Files Training Videos | Allison Gill — National Security Counselors - DonateTrump fires labor statistics boss hours after the release of weak jobs report | NBC NewsGavin Newsom may call special election to redraw California congressional maps | The GuardianSmithsonian says Trump impeachments will be restored to exhibit | CBS NewsSenate confirms Jeanine Pirro as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia | CBS NewsTesla hit with $243 million in damages after jury finds its Autopilot feature contributed to fatal crash | NBC News Good Trouble The white house wants to know what topics you'd like to hear more about, so they've sent out a survey: What topics would you like to hear more about from the White House?From The Good NewsBaltimore protesters show support for Maryland pastor detained by ICE agents - cbs newsDemonstrators gather in Colorado Springs for nationwide ‘Rage Against the Regime' protest - KKTV11American Community Survey (ACS) Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beans Federal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts
Friday, August 1st, 2025Today, party preference in the US has shifted back to the Democrats for the first time since 2023; Virginia Giuffre's family responds to Trump's admission that she was trafficked from Mar a Lago; trump always chickens out - he pauses Mexico tariffs for another 90 days; the DC Bar's Board of Professional Responsibility has recommended Jeffrey Clark be disbarred; the Navy reverses its decision to stop sharing weather data at the last minute; the Florida attorney general issued a subpoena to a bar to get the names of people who participated in a drag show; we have more details on California's plan to redraw voting maps in response to Texas; and Allison and Dana deliver the good news.Thank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything - John Fugelsang, The John Fugelsang PodcastJohn Fugelsang - Substack@johnfugelsang.bsky.social - Bluesky, @JohnFugelsang -TwitterSeparation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang - Pre-order StoriesDemocrats Regain Advantage in Party Affiliation | GallupNewsom will move to redraw California map if Texas redistricts, teeing up national fight | Texas TribuneGOP Attorney General subpoenas bar to hand over list of people who watched a drag show | LGBTQ NationTrump announces 90-day extension of prior trade deal with Mexico | NPRIn reversal, Defense Department will continue providing crucial satellite weather data | NPRGood Trouble Are you near Bethesda, Maryland? So What Else needs volunteer drivers with SUVs or trucks, or willing to make multiple trips in small cars, on Tuesday, August 5th, 11am-3pm to pick up food drive donation bags from houses in Montgomery County.Email volunteer@sowhatelse.org with any questions or concerns!So What Else From The Good NewsIt helps by mitigating many of the onerous side effects of the treatments, as well as the anxiety that comes with having the condition.Pretty Gritty ToursRainy Day Rabbit HolesTavern Talks, @taverntalksusa - Instagram, @tavern.talks6) - TikTokAPPEARANCES – DANA GOLDBERGReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Donate to the MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory FundMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beans Federal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
