Podcast appearances and mentions of robbie kaplan

In the last several years, there have been a wave of anti-LGBTQ laws passed across the country and ACLU is tracking 547 new bills in the 2024 legislative session. Robbie Kaplan and Brandon Trice describe their success challenging one of those laws, Florida's “don't say gay law.” In this wide-ranging conversation, we touch on the rising attacks on the LGBTQ community, the future of marriage equality, and the effect of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision on the E.Jean Carroll defamation judgement.

Edited highlights of our full length conversation. Which two things are true at once? Robbie Kaplan is a lawyer and the founding partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. Robbie is best known for successfully challenging a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, gay marriage is legal in America because Robbie Kaplan stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued for it. Recently, she was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in both of her successful lawsuits against Donald Trump. And among Robbie's many awards is one from The Financial Times, which named her the “Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year”. People that know her, say about Robbie Kaplan, “she just sees things from a thousand different angles all at once, it's hard to keep up with her thought processes. She's not afraid, if she sees a problem, to go figure out some law that's going to allow her to fix it.”  Others say she is “a lawyer that you don't want to see opposing you.”  They say, “she's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies for lunch.” And the Washington Post has described Robbie as “a brash and original strategist, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.” Which may make this admission surprising. Not everyone doubts themselves.  But many people do.  If you are one of those people, if sometimes feeling that you are an imposter is holding you back, is preventing you from unlocking the potential of the people around you, as in yourself, then let me offer you this. Two things can be true at once. You can feel like an imposter and achieve extraordinary things at the same time. You do have to be clear about the extraordinary things, and why they matter to you. But then that's what leadership is all about.

Edited highlights of our full length conversation. Which two things are true at once? Robbie Kaplan is a lawyer and the founding partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. Robbie is best known for successfully challenging a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, gay marriage is legal in America because Robbie Kaplan stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued for it. Recently, she was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in both of her successful lawsuits against Donald Trump. And among Robbie's many awards is one from The Financial Times, which named her the “Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year”. People that know her, say about Robbie Kaplan, “she just sees things from a thousand different angles all at once, it's hard to keep up with her thought processes. She's not afraid, if she sees a problem, to go figure out some law that's going to allow her to fix it.”  Others say she is “a lawyer that you don't want to see opposing you.”  They say, “she's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies for lunch.” And the Washington Post has described Robbie as “a brash and original strategist, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.” Which may make this admission surprising. Not everyone doubts themselves.  But many people do.  If you are one of those people, if sometimes feeling that you are an imposter is holding you back, is preventing you from unlocking the potential of the people around you, as in yourself, then let me offer you this. Two things can be true at once. You can feel like an imposter and achieve extraordinary things at the same time. You do have to be clear about the extraordinary things, and why they matter to you. But then that's what leadership is all about.

Here's a question. Which two things are true at once? This week's guest is Robbie Kaplan. Robbie is a lawyer and the founding partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. Robbie is best known for successfully challenging a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, gay marriage is legal in America because Robbie Kaplan stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued for it. Recently, she was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in both of her successful lawsuits against Donald Trump. And among Robbie's many awards is one from The Financial Times, which named her the “Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year”. People that know her, say about Robbie Kaplan, “she just sees things from a thousand different angles all at once, it's hard to keep up with her thought processes. She's not afraid, if she sees a problem, to go figure out some law that's going to allow her to fix it.”  Others say she is “a lawyer that you don't want to see opposing you.”  They say, “she's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies for lunch.” And the Washington Post has described Robbie as “a brash and original strategist, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.” Which may make this admission surprising. Not everyone doubts themselves.  But many people do.  If you are one of those people, if sometimes feeling that you are an imposter is holding you back, is preventing you from unlocking the potential of the people around you, as in yourself, then let me offer you this. Two things can be true at once. You can feel like an imposter and achieve extraordinary things at the same time. You do have to be clear about the extraordinary things, and why they matter to you. But then that's what leadership is all about.

Equality Florida sued Governor DeSantis et al., challenging H.B. 1557 (the "Don't Say Gay" law). The parties recently settled, and Florida agreed to limit the law's scope in significant ways.Robert is joined by John C. Quinn, a partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink, and D. Brandon Trice, counsel at Kaplan Hecker and Fink. John and Brandon were part of a team of lawyers, led by Robbie Kaplan, who, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represented Equality Florida. Documents: Second Amended ComplaintOrder Dismissing Second Amended ComplaintSettlement AgreementSummarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

We're reaching peak Alina saturation. ___________ Last week may have officially been "Legalweek" but it was bad lawyer week at Above the Law, where Alina Habba dominated traffic with her ongoing futility. Her rapid retreat from the very phony "it's actually bias that so many prominent lawyers all worked at Paul Weiss" motion after being informed of the very real sanctions that could result. Robbie Kaplan, one of the Paul Weiss alumni in question, also shared her story of Donald Trump pulling out the half-clever schoolyard insults. We also discuss a firm that announced it would lay off 1/3 of the first years... but not say which ones! And we talk a little about Legalweek and how AI isn't quite ready for primetime... even as lawyers keep getting in trouble for trying.

We're reaching peak Alina saturation. ___________ Last week may have officially been "Legalweek" but it was bad lawyer week at Above the Law, where Alina Habba dominated traffic with her ongoing futility. Her rapid retreat from the very phony "it's actually bias that so many prominent lawyers all worked at Paul Weiss" motion after being informed of the very real sanctions that could result. Robbie Kaplan, one of the Paul Weiss alumni in question, also shared her story of Donald Trump pulling out the half-clever schoolyard insults. We also discuss a firm that announced it would lay off 1/3 of the first years... but not say which ones! And we talk a little about Legalweek and how AI isn't quite ready for primetime... even as lawyers keep getting in trouble for trying.

E. Jean Carroll and attorney Robbie Kaplan join us to share the process and aftermath of Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump-- in which a jury just awarded her $83.3 million. What was Trump's vibe in the courtroom? Will he actually pay up? And what does E. Jean plan to do with all that money? Melissa, Kate, and Leah get all these answers and more.Read the NYT's piece on Robbie Kaplan: "In Trump's Bitter, Yearslong Brawl With Roberta Kaplan, He Keeps Losing"Read E. Jean Carroll's 2019 book in which she tells her story: What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer who represented E. Jean Carroll in her civil suit against Donald Trump, joins Tim to discuss her win against the former president for sexual abuse. She also gives her opinion on the current indictments against Trump, including which one could go to trial before the 2024 election, and her Supreme Court case that helped pave the way for marriage equality. Watch Tim interview Robbie on our YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/atasEPqnzA4

Former President Donald Trump is trying to turn the tables on the advice columnist who won a $5 million jury award against him in a sexual abuse lawsuit, saying in a countersuit that she owes him money and a retraction for continuing to insist she was raped even after a jury declined to agree. Lawyers for the Republican presidential candidate filed papers late Tuesday saying E. Jean Carroll should pay Trump unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and retract her damaging statements. The countersuit comes a month after Carroll's lawyers filed a rewritten defamation lawsuit seeking at least $10 million more from Trump over comments he made after the jury verdict in May. The jury concluded after a two-week trial that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in spring 1996. It also found that he defamed her in comments he made denying the attack last October. But the jury rejected Carroll's claim, first made in a 2019 memoir, that Trump raped her in the Bergdorf Goodman dressing room. At trial, Carroll testified that the rape occurred after a chance encounter with Trump at the midtown store, initially friendly and flirtatious, turned into a violent assault after they teased each other to try on a piece of lingerie. Trump has consistently denied ever raping Carroll or knowing her. He said the department store encounter never happened. In his countersuit, Trump's lawyers cited comments Carroll made in a CNN interview after May's verdict, saying that when she was questioned about the jury's finding that she was not raped, Carroll responded: "Oh yes he did, oh yes he did." And they said Carroll also revealed that when she spoke to Trump attorney Joe Tacopina immediately after the verdict, she said she told him emphatically: "He did it and you know it." The lawyers, Alina Habba and Michael T. Madaio, wrote that Carroll "made these statements knowing each of them were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity." "The Interview was on television, social media and multiple internet websites, with the intention of broadcasting and circulating these defamatory statements among a significant portion of the public," they added. In a statement in response to Trump's counterclaim, Carroll attorney Robbie Kaplan said that Trump "again argues, contrary to both logic and fact, that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused E Jean Carroll by forcibly inserting his fingers into her vagina." She said four of five statements cited by the counterclaim were made outside of the one-year statute of limitations when a claim must be made and predicted the other will be dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. "Trump's filing is thus nothing more than his latest effort to delay accountability for what a jury has already found to be his defamation of E Jean Carroll. But whether he likes it or not, that accountability is coming very soon," Kaplan said. Kaplan is not related to the judge. Trump, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run for president again next year, did not appear at the initial trial. But extensive excerpts of his recorded deposition were played for jurors, along with an infamous video revealed shortly before Trump's 2016 election in which he bragged that celebrities can grab women sexually without consent. - LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated PressSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of LGBTQ rights activist Edith Windsor, in United States v. Windsor, a landmark decision that invalidated a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) requiring the federal government to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Kaplan went on to author Then Comes Marriage: United States v. Windsor and the Defeat of DOMA, chosen by the Los Angeles Times as one of the top 10 books of 2015. Kaplan currently leads some of the country's highest-profile commercial and public interest litigation, from suing the neo-Nazis behind the violence in Charlottesville to representing E. Jean Carroll, Mary Trump and investors in ACN in lawsuits against Donald Trump. Kaplan left Big Law to found Kaplan Hecker & Fink in 2017 as a new kind of law firm blending a high-stakes commercial and white-collar practice with a fundamental commitment to public interest cases centered on values of inclusion, equity and justice. The firm is majority women- and LGBTQ+-owned and more than 75 percent of its attorneys identify as women, people of color and/or LGBTQ+. KHF takes on groundbreaking, precedent-setting cases that not only advance the public interest, but have a significant impact beyond the courtroom – especially for women and other marginalized groups. In pioneering this new kind of boutique law firm, Kaplan has redefined the traditional concept of “pro bono” by taking on important matters – both to the firm and the public – and ensuring they are at the core of the firm's practice. Kaplan has been widely recognized for her impact and leadership, including the New York State Bar Association's Gold Medal Award and a Lifetime Achievement Award from the New York Law Journal, which also named her Attorney of the Year in 2020. Kaplan was also named Litigator of the Year by The American Lawyer and Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year by The Financial Times. In addition to an A.B. from Harvard College (magna cum laude) and a J.D. from Columbia Law School – where she teaches a seminar on advanced civil procedure – Kaplan holds honorary doctorates from Johns Hopkins University and the Jewish Theological Seminary, among others. Recorded May 19, 2023.

Thursday, April 20th, 2023Today, in the Hot Notes; Trump attorney Boris Epshteyn is about to go through some things; a judge refuses to block the testimony of Mark Pomerantz pursuant to a Jim Jordan subpoena; Senate Dems are eyeing a hearing on the Clarence Thomas financial omissions; an organizer of the attack on the capitol pled guilty and is cooperating with investigators; and E. Jean Carroll attorney Robbie Kaplan fires back at Joey Taco Pants; plus AG and Dana deliver your Good News.Learn More About The Empower Project:Empower Projecthttps://empowerproject.us/https://twitter.com/EmpowerProjUShttps://www.instagram.com/empowerproject.us/ Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AG and Dana on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedy Promo Codes:Get $40 off your first order at meetmaev.com/dailybeans Google Doc of current legislation threatening trans people and their families:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fTxHLjBa86GA7WCT-V6AbEMGRFPMJndnaVGoZZX4PMw/edit?usp=sharing Have some good news; a confession; or a correction?https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Follow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3UKzKt0

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!Burying your own child is one of the most difficult experiences to endure. Burying your own child because he was murdered is even more horrific.Just ask Ruth Markel. She was the mother of my friend Dan Markel, the renowned professor of criminal law who was shot in his garage on the morning of July 18, 2014. At the time of his death, Dan was only 41, the father of two young boys. Now Ruth has written a powerful, deeply moving memoir about her life since that fateful day, The Unveiling: A Mother's Reflection on Murder, Grief, and Trial Life.I was honored to have Ruth as my guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast. We discussed what the past eight years have been like for her, why she wrote The Unveiling, how she got Florida to pass a landmark law about grandparental rights, and the latest in the Markel case—not just the legal proceedings, which are far from over, but also her struggle to win access to her grandsons, whom she was not allowed to see for six years. You can listen to our conversation by clicking on the embed above.[UPDATE (11/17/2022, 3:35 a.m.): Yesterday brought big news in the case: after staying silent for the more than six years since her arrest, Katherine Magbanua, who served as the go-between connecting the Adelsons and hit men Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, has agreed to talk to the authorities. Here's the order from Judge Robert Wheeler providing for her transfer from prison to the Leon County State Attorney'ss Office for a proffer on or before November 28 to 30.]Show Notes:* Ruth Markel, author website* The Unveiling: A Mother's Reflection on Murder, Grief, and Trial Life, Amazon* Mom's quest to solve university professor's murder, by Brad Hunter for the Toronto Sun* How targeted murder of Dan Markel went down, by Brad Hunter for the Toronto Sun* Surviving A Son's Murder With Ruth Markel, Surviving the Survivor (podcast)Prefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Tuesday, November 8. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.My plan for this podcast is to have at least two categories of guests. The first consists of high-profile lawyers, like Alex Spiro, Paul Clement, and Robbie Kaplan. The second consists of individuals with expertise in topics that are important to me and my audience.One such topic is the 2014 murder of law professor Dan Markel. Dan was a friend of mine from college, when we worked together at the Harvard Crimson, and from the early days of legal blogging, when he founded PrawfsBlawg and I founded Above the Law. I have been following the quest to bring his killers to justice for more than eight years, here at Original Jurisdiction and at Above the Law before that.For my third podcast episode, I had as my guest Steven Epstein, author of Extreme Punishment: The Chilling True Story of Acclaimed Law Professor Dan Markel's Murder. For this latest episode, I'm honored to have as my guest Ruth Markel, who has the most personal connection of all to the case: Dan Markel was her son. And like Steve Epstein, Ruth is also the author of an important and acclaimed new book about the case, The Unveiling: A Mother's Reflection on Murder, Grief, and Trial Life. Ruth is a noted author, public speaker, and the president of RNM Enterprises, a leading management consulting firm. She has worked in senior management positions in both private and public sectors for the past forty years. The Unveiling is actually her tenth book; some of her earlier works include Moving Up: A Woman's Guide To A Better Future At Work, published by HarperCollins in 1988, and Room At The Top: A Woman's Guide To Moving Up In Business, published by Penguin in 1985. In connection with the Markel case, she has appeared on such prominent programs as 20/20, Inside Edition, and Dateline NBC.In our conversation, Ruth and I discussed what the eight years since the murder have been like for her; why she wrote The Unveiling; how she got Florida to pass the Markel Act, an important piece of legislation about grandparental rights; and the latest developments in terms of both the legal proceedings in the Markel case and her ability to see her two grandsons, who were cruelly kept from her for years after the murder.Without further ado, here's my interview of Ruth Markel.DL: First of all, Ruth, congratulations on the book, which I have read and I highly recommend, and condolences on both Dan's passing and the journey you have been on these past eight-plus years. I think one point that you make in the book repeatedly is that this type of situation is not one discrete loss, but it's a suffering that recurs again and again as you go through what you refer to as the “trial life.” So again, just my condolences and thank you for trying to seek justice for Dan's murderers and also getting legislation passed to help other grandparents.Ruth Markel: Thank you so much, David. I first of all have to thank you, a long and special thank-you, because I know you've written so much about Dan's murder, and I know that you knew him too. And whatever you've written is very accomplished and very thorough, and I appreciate your hands and eyes on the case, because we always need people who really know what's happening, rather than just reporting on separate incidents. So I really, really have a lot of gratitude to say to you—on the part of the family, it isn't just me, but it's all of us who want to thank you.DL: It's the least I can do. As I've written before, I knew Dan—I knew him from college, when we worked on the Harvard Crimson, and then we reconnected again as bloggers, when he founded the extremely successful PrawfsBlawg and I started Above the Law.One thing I wanted to ask you about—and I know you've talked about this in past interviews—many of us know Dan as a brilliant legal scholar, a prolific blogger, an academic, but what can you tell us about his childhood? What was he like growing up? I think some readers will be interested in hearing that maybe he wasn't what we [might have expected].RM: No, not at all. I think if anybody had any contradictions from their later life to their earlier life, that would be Dan Markel, the late Dan Markel. Danny was a bum when he was younger. He was Dennis the Menace at his core—very, very high-energy as a child. He never liked normal toys. His favorite objects at 18 months, two years, were a pail, a mop-and-pail type of thing, and a stepladder. And a stepladder was his favorite toy. When he was really young, he would go up on the kitchen counter not to look for cookies, like many kids go into the pantry, but [for] the challenge of climbing it up and climbing it down, and so forth.We lived in Montreal. First, we're Canadian. Many people don't even know that we're Canadian, that Dan was Canadian. And there's a lot of places that write that he was born in Toronto, but that's not true—he was born in Montreal. We lived there until he started school, kindergarten, when he was five, and then moved to Toronto.And he was still [unfocused] in the first few years of school, even until eight, nine years old. The funny story is the school had an aptitude test in grade three, and they called me and they said he had the highest score in the school—not only the highest score in the school, but the highest score that [they] ever saw from this aptitude test. And then [the principal] said to me, bluntly, she says, “Why is he only getting an A-minus or A, what's wrong with him? He's not performing at this high peak.” So I said to her—it was a very funny conversation with the principal—I said, “You know what? Wait another year. I promise you, by when he's nine or ten, he'll settle down. Because he read all the comics from me, at five or six, his reading, his skills were there. But [he tended to] wander off, he had high energy, which really was, as you know, the trait for the rest of his life and so forth.So he really got serious about nine, 10 years old. And then he became really not serious in his choice of outside activities—he skied, he played baseball. But I would say, you know how there's the expression, “he settled down”—he settled down around 10, 11, and you could see he was going to be, I wouldn't call it scholarly yet, but that high level of achievement.DL: And then I know of course, and we all know of course, about his résumé and his credentials. He went to Harvard College. He studied abroad in Cambridge. He went to Harvard Law School. He clerked for Judge [Michael Daly] Hawkins on the Ninth Circuit. He worked at a very prestigious law firm, now known as Kellogg Hansen, and then he went into academia. But as I recall from past interviews, you've said that his success as a lawyer or as an academic is actually not what you're most proud of about him as an adult.RM: That's true. I'm most proud of him as a father and as what all his friends call the ”connector” part, the friend part. But let me talk about the father part for a minute. He was really amazing—his love for his children was so special. He would go to their daycare centers when they were small and he would have breakfast with the kids. He would read. As a dad he had a strong Jewish identity, and he would often at the daycare center say, this Jewish holiday is coming up, this is Christmas, this is Hanukkah. He would read stories, and they really liked that aspect of him.He also was amazing because when the children would do any artwork, Danny put up a clothesline, he had a very open space across his living room, and he hung all their artwork. And what was so funny is when some of the students—he invited all the students who went with him to the final-level criminal courses [over] for dinner—and they were shocked because they thought, oh my, they're coming to the stuffy professor's house, and if they didn't trip over the toys, they were lucky. Right across the room was all this artwork, and I used to tease him: he started a new design category called “Preschool Decor.”He was funny. He was really—as you know, Danny had an academic side—but his social side was so, so strong and so much a part of him that everywhere he went—and he lived in a lot of places, you mentioned a few, New York, Tel Aviv, London, Boston, San Francisco, Toronto—he always stayed connected. And he used to say, “Oh, my best friend here.” So we used to tease him—you have a hundred best friends in New York, a hundred here, a hundred there. And it was true actually. When he passed away, the memorializing [took place] all over the world. So he was blessed. We were blessed in that whole aspect of his life.DL: Fast forwarding now to the terrible events of July 2014, which again you talk about in detail in your book, what was it like when you heard the news that Dan had been shot? I think you said in the book that it was like an out-of-body experience, that it was just really surreal for you?RM: Right. I had several experiences. The first is numbness, and in the book I do talk about the purpose of the book. Maybe I should say it now because it'll give you really where I'm going. So I wrote the book, which is called The Unveiling: A Mother's Reflection on Murder, Grief, and the Trial Life, and the reason I wrote it and called it [that] is what's so significant here.The title of the book is The Unveiling. In Jewish life, the unveiling is the time after a person is buried, the gravesite has been settled, the funeral is over, [and] there's different cultural customs, but we chose about eight months after the [funeral for the] unveiling. On the tombstone is writing. And we spent a lot of time as a family writing what's called the inscription. The Jewish tradition is you leave this piece of fabric cover[ing] the tombstone until the day that you actually have a ritual or a service called the unveiling…. And so why I called it The Unveiling is because my real grief process—which is very important, which I want the public to know about, not just me, there's so many school shootings, and I'll come to this in the second part of the reason I wrote the book—but the first part is that was [the start of] my grief journey, the real deep, deep grief. And before that, I did have what you would call an out-of-body experience. I was numb. I was in a daze.The next reason for writing the book is more important to the public, and that's really to lift the curtain on what it is to be in a victim experience, particularly a victim experience in the criminal system. So there's two parts, and they're very important in the follow-through of not just my own personal experience.I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but there's a term called “homicide survivors.” Homicide survivors are different. It's a different loss and a different trauma than illness and so forth, and the homicide-survivor trauma lasts longer because it doesn't get resolved. In addition, it's the violent, sudden finality of the death, which other types of trauma don't have. Even the pathway afterwards is very different than other losses because now I'll go to the second point, which is the criminal system, and the victim experience of the criminal system, [coupled] with the fact that the psychological component of the trauma is very different, the criminal system doesn't end.And there's no such thing… the word “closure,” I've said it before, it's a word in the dictionary. All those words are not meaningful. You're dealing now with a psychological factor, which is impaired, let's call it, because of the level of grief and the long-term effect and the interaction of the criminal system, which is everlasting. Look, here we are, it's eight years, we're nowhere finished. So it's that combination that really makes this whole experience different.DL: You've actually just answered some of the questions I wanted to raise….RM: Oh, good.DL: … as to why you wrote the book and why you named it The Unveiling, which I think is a very powerful title. Let me ask you this. Some readers might not know, but this is far from your first book—it's your 10th, but your prior books were very different. They were focused on business and career and professional subjects. You've just talked about having to relive that pain and reopen that wound. Were you really convinced to write this book, given that it would involve reliving this trauma that you've just described?RM: No, this was hard. I'll tell you how I started to write the book. You're very right about the other books. [It's a] foreign language when you do a personal-trauma story, it's a foreign language as to business management books, where it's charts and checklists and a whole different kind of process.So how did I write the book, and why did I write the book? Right after Danny's murder—I hate to say the word—we were privileged with the media, as you know well, and you were part of it. There were tons and tons of things happening. I normally wasn't thinking initially of anything like this kind of book, but I did have—so I'm a little older—I did have a box, and I would photocopy and print [stories]. Nobody does that today. But I got this box filled up, which gave me a chronology. I could get the chronology on the internet, as you know, and I did as well, but it was just that, an earlier phase, and I was not planning this kind of book. I knew maybe I would write a book, but not the level that I wrote the trauma about. But, as time progressed, a lot of time actually, because we were preoccupied with the justice system, then it was about a year and a half or two years before the pandemic, which probably was a good thing because I used the pandemic to write, I have to tell you that. So in the period before I started to feel, I have a message, I guess it's because I've written before, whatever, but I started to feel really, I have a message about victims and trauma and grief. And there's not that much out there, and not that much with a personal story. So that was the real sort of the fork in the road. And I decided, okay, now it's serious.Then, as you know, you would know, you go out, you have to get a publisher, an agent, the whole thing. It was after [hitman Sigfredo] Garcia's [trial]… I needed to get, I guess, to Garcia's and [go-between] Katherine [Magbanua]'s trial of 2019…. The trial ended in October and in November, I was in New York looking for, starting the regular routine of pitching the publisher and not the publisher, really, but the agent at that point. And then the pandemic came, January [2020]. I live in Canada, and we locked down very, very early, so it was different here, a whole different climate. We locked down much more, I don't want to say seriously, but I would say more uniformly.Now I'm a person who's always doing something—I'm like Dan or Dan's like me, I don't know which one is which—but the point is I said, oh, now I better get this together. And that's what I did. I really wrote in the pandemic, the first year, because it was a good time to write—not smart time, maybe, because you are isolated. I hardly saw my grandkids, Canadian grandkids in that time, but I was, yes, the fact is that I was busy and I was occupied, but it was very hard. The first part of the book on the grief and the murder and the finding out, it was more than challenging.DL: Did you find the book therapeutic in terms of writing it and talking to other survivors of homicide? I know, for example, you mentioned in the book you had a coach, someone who had gone through a similarly awful experience. Did you find some solace in writing the book?RM: I wouldn't call it solace. I did have support. The coach was terrific and we had excellent expertise and legal support, as you know, from Gibson Dunn and others, and a lot of Danny's friends. So we were definitely privileged.I can't tell you… I can't tell you that the book in any way has added any closure. I don't use the word, but any help, “therapeutic”—has there been any cathartic benefit? Not yet. When we'll come to the grandparent legislation, the answer is totally different. And that's what's fascinating because I'm in the process still of the criminal system, I think because I'm still a victim.Look, I'm going to put it out in—I don't know if you want to go into the case, who's arrested and when, but we went through, now Garcia was arrested in 2016, later [hitman Luis] Rivera, later Katherine Magbanua. We didn't have any trial until 2019. And then there's the appeal of Garcia. What we just went through, just to give you the current view, is really amazing. We just did the trial from a point of view of calendar for Katherine Magbanua. We just finished it right in May, in July was sentencing, and Shelly, my daughter, had to do the victim impact statement. Then following that, Charlie Adelson was arrested, just before Katherine Magbanua's trial. Then he had the Arthur [bail] hearing. Now Katherine is appealing, and you know, the public doesn't see all this, but we are in full-blown systems and movements and conversations and communications about what's happening. And so that's why I think in all fairness, the book has not yet been as cathartic, let's call it. It's very helpful for me now to go out and talk about the victim experience, but because I'm still so immersed, I don't know if I have that feeling [of catharsis]. I'm still like a student in school. I didn't graduate yet. I'm studying still, if you know what I'm trying to say. It's continuous.DL: And you mentioned that throughout the book. You talk about, for example, even the different vocabulary words that you're learning as part of the legal process. And the book is interesting. There's an update at the end on the legal proceedings where you talk about how Katherine is about to be retried, and then of course now we know she was convicted on the retrial and sentenced. And then, of course, since the publication there has been another series of developments—for example, denial of Charlie Adelson's bail request, [after] the so-called Arthur hearing under Florida law.How would you say you feel in a general sense, given the state of developments right now? You have three people who have been convicted and put behind bars, and you have this pending appeal from Katherine, but honestly I don't think it's going anywhere, knock on wood. And then you have, of course, Charlie's looming trial for the first part of 2023. I know you may want to be a little guarded in some of the things you say, but what would you say you just feel generally about where the state of the legal proceedings is right now?RM: I think for us, for me… 2022 has been a great year, in the sense—and I'll explain why it has been very, very good. After 2016, after the arrest—I'm going to go into the grandparent issue for a minute because it relates to why 2022 has been very important—after the arrest in 2016, Wendi, Danny's ex-wife, cut us off from visiting the children. We tried behind the scenes, the lawyers and so forth, and we even used the media. Now, just to put it in perspective, we are privileged with the media, but Phil and I, Dan's father, we never went [to the media right after] Dan was murdered. Most parents and most lawyers, they bring their clients out into public view, and we didn't—we didn't need to, because Danny had quite a bit of international acclaim, he was memorialized all over the world, and [going public] was really not our way of grieving. However, after we were unable to see the boys, Benjamin and Lincoln, Dan's children, we decided, let's try whatever we can to get some exposure to the fact that we are not able to see these young children. So that's what we did. We went [to the media], we were going to anyway, the programs were running, as you know, 20/20 had two sessions, Dateline had two two-hour sessions, then the [Over My Dead Body] podcast came out, and so forth. So it's been an unusual journey [in having] so much media available to us.Then also, which really is a privilege, Jason Solomon started Justice For Dan. And he even started a petition on Justice For Dan to have people sign, and there were a lot of Canadians, a lot of Americans who signed [in support of] us to be able to see the children. Anyway, needless to say, that was effective, but not enough—it gave us a voice, but not a change in dynamics, let's call it.Anyway, so what happened was after Garcia's trial, it was October 12th, 2019, I'm in Tallahassee, it's my birthday, I'm in the hairdresser, and this young woman [Karen Halperin Cyphers] comes over to me and she says, “Can I give you a hug?” And I don't really know her, I don't recognize her as one of Dan's friends, but I could see she's his age, I thought maybe she saw me on TV. And then she told me who she was and so we went for coffee. And then she said to me….Now this is really important in the process of grief, I'm going to explain to you—I was advised by my New York lawyer, Matt Benjamin from Gibson Dunn, “Ruth, you're going to have to write a bill” [if you want to address the problem of grandparent alienation]. I'm sitting in Toronto. This is in 2016, after we went on Dateline and 20/20. A bill. I'm sitting in Toronto. What do I know? I'm in Canada. Although I had advocacy experience in my early, early social-work career, I did not know the American system, and also we are a little different in Canada, it didn't occur to me even that that [might be] the solution. And then my other friend said, “It's all-American—you have to get lobbyists.” So I prepped, I'm getting the buzz in my ear, but I didn't do anything for three years. And why I think this is important—I'll get back to the journey—the reason it's important is because many families that are grieving, they want to memorialize their child, they want to start a foundation, they want to do something, but they don't break out of it from out of their head. So here was my experience, I was sitting on it for three years, but Karen Halperin Cyphers says to me, right in the coffee shop [in October 2019], “Okay, what can I do for you?” And I just blurt out, “Grandparent alienation.” And she says, “Done.” So here I am, fortunate that Karen had all of these contacts through her position—at the time she was a partner in a media firm in Tallahassee—and this was only in October 2019. In January of 2020, Karen already organized in the Senate, [Florida State Senator] Jeff Brandes actually wrote a bill, got it passed in the Senate, but we couldn't get it into the other house in 2020. So this is another part. Try, try, and try again…. This is why we're coming back to 2022. Why is it such an exceptional year? In the first part of 2022, [Florida House Speaker] Chris Sprowls decided that he would get a representation in the House and the Senate at the same time, and he really organized. Anyway, the best news in the world: the Senate passed it unanimously, and the House was, I think, 112-3. And in the end, Governor DeSantis signed it on June 24. So that's the first part of 2022—and a really big part of the success that we feel. So the mood is changing, is what I'm trying to tell you.Now, the next good part of 2022. So Katherine Magbanua was scheduled to have her retrial in February. That was postponed. The word is “continued”—I love the word “continue” when it meets “canceled,” but we won't go into law language—anyway, and it's till May 16th. In the same period, I get an email from Wendi Adelson, that's Danny's ex-wife, the mother of his children: “Ruth, we're making a bar mitzvah for Benjamin around May 14th”—two days before the actual Katherine Magbanua trial—”and we're inviting you all then.” “All” means us plus Shelly's family.I couldn't be more delighted. And I said, yes, we're coming for sure, and then I suggested, “Can we have an in-person visit on May 13th, the day before the bar mitzvah? The kids have not seen us now [for a long time].” So she writes back right away, “You know what? If you want an in-person visit, come in April.” First the date she selected was the Passover date, then she wrote back, apologies, come April 20th. And we said, we're on. We came April 20th. We saw the kids. We had a wonderful visit. We get back to Toronto, let's say, 1 a.m. on April 21st, at 6 a.m. I get a call from law enforcement in Tallahassee—well, they're not in Tallahassee, now they're down in Broward [County in South Florida]—and they just arrested Charlie Adelson. In 24 hours, a lot on the children and on the case.So 2022, this is the big year, right…. it's an actually an important story piece because families wait and, and certainly for us, the waiting and uncertainty are really the characteristics of the victim experience. But this is just an example of sometimes when the waiting does materialize into something that's very fruitful.DL: Just to rewind a little bit, you mentioned the passage and the signing into law of the Markel Act, which deals with the problem of grandparent alienation. Can you say briefly to listeners what the Markel Act permits?RM: The Markel Act, actually, is not a broad-based, all-encompassing act for any grandparent who's alienated or any grandparent who has difficulty. Florida laws are very restrictive, [some] of the most restrictive ones in North America, and considering they have all these elderly people, their grandparent legislation is very, very restrictive. And there's a piece in there that people have to understand. The reason it's restricted is because the natural parent in Florida has the right for autonomy and privacy [in child rearing], and that is huge, and that trumps anything else, and it always has to be reviewed against what are their rights.So what happened with the Grandparent Act? When it was developed, it was developed to meet a very specific set of circumstances, which is if one of the partners in the marriage or ex-marriage or whatever divorced relationship was deceased or is deceased, and the other partner has some civil or criminal findings against them, that gives the grandparents rights to go to the courts and request a visit, and the request is less conditional than under other circumstances because those findings have to be met. So to that extent, it's very restrictive.Having said that, and one of the most amazing things of why I said earlier on, I have to say that having passed this legislation has really given me—I would say I always have hope, but it has given me more satisfaction on a different level—do you know how many people write to me now asking how to use the Markel Act, telling me about grandparent alienation, and what's really sad is how many circumstances there are in Florida where [the Act might apply]. [There is also a 2015 law about grandparent visitation rights, which] is something else which I did another presentation on… like if your child has committed a felony. It's not the same. It's not the Markel Act, I have to say. But the point is, what happens? These adult children come out of prison, and the grandparents have taken care of the kids all these years, and [the adult children] tell [the grandparents], “Bye bye, Charlie.” So the grandparents lose out, and the children really lose that because that's their new family. But those families can get help—not necessarily [from] the strength of the grandparent legislation, but there are places to help them, and also they should know to go to Legal Aid as well.DL: That's really important, and I'm glad you're sharing that information with people. One of the things that's interesting to note—it's very selfless in a way, what you've done, because the Markel Act, as I understand it, does not at the current time apply to your particular case. But on the bright side, I do note that very shortly after its passage, you were invited by Wendi to meet with the boys.So I see we're almost out of time. In closing, can you talk about how much contact you have with the boys right now? Because for those of us reading the book, that was in many ways one of the most heartbreaking things—that for years, you were kept away from your grandsons after this horrific event. Can you talk a bit about how often you get to see them now and under what circumstances?RM: We're only at a stage where the door is open, like a crack in the door. We did try to get some Zooms on the boys' birthdays to wish them happy birthday. We were successful. We made other attempts to get visits, which didn't materialize, but just recently, I asked Wendi for a visit in December, and she approved, she confirmed it. So that'll be the next visit. We saw the boys, we had contact with them in April, and now I'm really hopeful that I will get to see them in December. So we're, you know, it's a rocky ship still, but it's more open communication. And although small, but it's working in the right direction, very incremental, small steps. And so forth.DL: As you mentioned, 2022 was a big, big year for you and your family. My final question is, what are you hoping for or expecting from 2023? Which is not that far away, less than two months until the start of the new year. What are you looking forward to in the coming year?RM: I'm looking forward to, look, right now, I'll put it this way, the grandparent priority is a little bit, I don't want to say on the back burner at all, but it's less. Now we have to get justice in the criminal system, which has always been the competing priority…. So that's really one of the things I do want to say that I'm also looking at now, and in 2023 I want to make sure that people understand the victim experience, and particularly the legal and professional people who help—psychologists, lawyers, clergy, whatever, have to understand the victim experience. How can you learn to develop compassion for the victim in all these professions?I have an agenda, I guess I'm a person who has agendas, and this is really because I really think it's an undervalued [experience]. And there's a statement, I read this in one of the reports in Canada, the [statement] is “the victim is the orphan of the criminal system.” And so that's my new challenge, and I hope that there are some lawyers, legal schools, law firms listening today. I have a lot of programs that I would really like to talk about in terms of an educational format to get the sensitization to what the victim experiences in the criminal system.DL: Well, I think you've been doing a wonderful job of advancing your agenda, just in terms of getting people to understand that victim experience. And of course getting legislation passed to help other grandparents in similar situations. And of course spearheading and enduring this long, long quest for justice for Dan's murderers.So again, on behalf of my listeners, on behalf of all of us who knew and cared for Dan, thank you, Ruth, for everything you've done. You are really an inspiration—just how you have endured this tragedy with such dignity and grace and how you have managed to try and find some things positive out of an unspeakable tragedy. So thank you.RM: Thank you very much, and please continue writing. You're doing a great job.DL: Will do.RM: I always welcome your articles and your support, so thank you.DL: Thanks again to Ruth for joining me. As I have said before, her resilience and strength over these past eight-plus years, as well as how she has used her experience to help both other victims and other grandparents, is nothing short of inspiring.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, November 30. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Depositions are a crucial part of discovery—and they can also be, in the hands of a talented litigator, torture for the witness. So I suspect that many lawyers on the left—and beyond—might be jealous right now of Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, the iconic lawyer and founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink (“KHF”). Last month, Robbie had the pleasure of deposing former president Donald Trump—not once, but twice.I'm guessing it wasn't a fun experience for the Donald. His niece Mary Trump, who hired Kaplan Hecker to sue her uncle for fraud, described Robbie to Bloomberg as follows: “She's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated, and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies… for lunch.”Deposing the president twice in the same month is only the latest distinction for Robbie, known for handling some of the most high-profile and high-stakes cases in the country. She's most well-known for representing the late Edie Windsor in United States v. Windsor, the landmark gay-rights case in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. But Robbie is also the lawyer of choice for major corporations like Goldman Sachs and Uber, who hire her and KHF to handle their most complex legal problems.On Monday, I was delighted to speak with Robbie for the fourth episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. She wasn't able to say much about the Trump depositions, but she did talk about her multiple cases against Trump in broader terms. We also spoke about what makes her unique as a litigator; her epic victory last year in Sines v. Kessler, in which she won damages of more than $25 million from the white supremacists behind the violent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017; her vision for Kaplan Hecker & Fink, the thriving litigation boutique she founded after more than two decades at Paul, Weiss; free-speech and cancel-culture controversies in the legal world; and whether she's a tough boss.Please check it out by clicking on the embed at the top of this post. Thanks!Show Notes:* Roberta A. Kaplan bio, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP* Then Comes Marriage: How Two Women Fought for and Won Equal Dignity for All, Amazon* A History-Making Litigator Leaves Biglaw To Launch A Boutique, by David Lat for Above the Law* Roberta Kaplan Builds Progressive Firm Suing Trump, Defending Wall Street, by Erik Larson for Bloomberg* 2020 Attorney of the Year: Roberta Kaplan, by Jane Wester for the New York Law Journal* Lady Justice and Charlottesville Nazis, by Dahlia Lithwick for Amicus/SlatePrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by going to davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the fourth episode of this podcast, which airs every other Wednesday. Today I'm honored to be joined by one of the nation's most celebrated, successful, and significant litigators: Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink. She is most famous for winning United States v. Windsor, the landmark case in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for nationwide marriage equality a few years later. But she has worked on many other fascinating cases over the course of her career, including two pending cases against Donald Trump in which she deposed the former president—twice in the past month.Robbie was born in Cleveland and grew up in Ohio. After graduating from Harvard College, magna cum laude, and Columbia Law School, Robbie clerked for Judge Mark Wolf of the District of Massachusetts and the late Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. Robbie then practiced for more than two decades at the major law firm of Paul, Weiss, where she built a thriving commercial and pro bono practice, including her big win in Windsor.In 2017, Robbie left Paul Weiss to launch Kaplan Hecker & Fink (“KHF”), one of the nation's top trial boutiques, known for handling both complex commercial and white-collar cases and landmark public-interest matters. One of the first such cases filed by KHF was Sines v. Kessler, a high-profile lawsuit under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. That case went to trial, and a year ago this month, the jury awarded a total of more than $25 million to Robbie's clients.In our conversation, Robbie and I talked about her various Trump cases, how she knew she was destined for a legal career from a very young age, two qualities that have made her so successful as a lawyer, how KHF has managed to be so financially successful while also doing so much public-interest work, and her vision for the firm's future. Without further ado, here's my interview of Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan.DL: Thanks so much for joining me, Robbie—it's an honor to have you!Roberta Kaplan: It's a pleasure to be here.DL: To start with what's in the news—and I feel like you're always in the news—what can you tell us about your latest high-profile case, namely, E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against former president Donald Trump? I know that you recently deposed him. Is there anything you can say either about the deposition specifically or about the litigation more generally?RK: Sure. We actually have two litigations that are very active against Donald Trump, and I actually deposed him in both, on two successive weeks. So it was a relatively exhausting period for me. I literally went to Mar-a-Lago two weeks in a row to depose him. That's about all I can say about it, in terms of the depositions themselves.But in terms of the cases, it's very interesting. The E. Jean case, which you asked about, is on the fastest track. Right now, trial is scheduled to happen on February 6th. Right now we have one case against Donald Trump for the defamatory statements he made in June 2019. That case is currently certified to the D.C. Court of Appeals as to the question of whether when he made those statements, he was acting within the scope of his employment as president—sounds like kind of a crazy question, but that's the question. And the D.C. Court of Appeals, I believe, recognizing the need for speed here, has scheduled that case on a very, very expedited schedule, with oral arguments to be on January 10. So I think it's entirely possible that we have a ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals before the trial before Judge [Lewis] Kaplan starts.Even if that's not true, however, we have a second case that we've told everyone in the world, including Judge Kaplan and Trump's lawyers, that we intend to file on November 24, which is the first day we can file it. That is a case directly for battery, the common-law cause of action by E. Jean against Donald Trump, based on a new law that was passed in New York called the Adult Survivors Act. It's patterned on the Child Victims Act, and it gives people who were survivors of rape that happened a long time ago basically a free one-year period to bring claims, notwithstanding statutes of limitations. That case we're definitely bringing out November 24th, and I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that we probably will add to that case some new defamatory statements that Donald Trump made on Truth Social against our client—again, none of which are subject to any Westfall Act issue at all, because he wasn't president when he made them.So big picture, it's highly likely, particularly given the judge we have—Judge Kaplan, no relation—that we will go to trial on all or at least some of those claims in February.DL: Wow.RK: And the new case shouldn't really delay anything because it's basically the exact same facts. As we told the court, the only thing that's different about the new case is the damages theory, so we will have different experts. You obviously have different damages for being raped than you do for defamation. But that's really it. Everything else has already been done in discovery. Fact discovery is closed, and I see very little reason for any additional fact discovery, again, because the facts are totally overlapping.DL: So what are the two depositions? What was the difference between the two depos?RK: The first deposition, which happened the week before, was in our fraud case. Before Judge [Lorna] Schofield in the S.D.N.Y., we have a nationwide class action, on behalf of people who invested—I'm using the word “invested” in quotes—in a business opportunity—I'm using “business opportunity” in quotes too—that Donald Trump endorsed and heavily promoted before he was president, known as “ACN” or “American Communications Network.”It's a multilevel marketing scheme—I don't think even they deny that—in which people pay $500 or $1,000 to become part of this opportunity. Then the goal is to sell video phones. The idea of selling video phones when Skype and other software was already heavily in use—not really the smartest idea in the world—and when I say video phones, I mean big, standard-looking video phones, like I haven't seen since I was a young associate, probably.The only way to make money as part of this multilevel marketing scheme is to recruit other people in it. You don't make money from selling the phones, you make money from bringing other people in, which is the classic hallmark of a multilevel marketing scheme. Trump was paid a lot of money, at least $11 million or so, from this entity over a period of years. He went to conventions where these people were recruited, and he had huge crowds going nuts for him that kind of looked like his conventions now, honestly. And he said it was the greatest investment he's ever heard of, he did tons of due diligence, he knew it was a great company, a great business opportunity, “people think I do this for the money, but I just like being here.”I gave you a sense of the kind of the statements he made, and we allege those were all fraudulent, in that they were untrue and he knew them to be untrue. In that case too, fact discovery is closed—there are a couple of exceptions that the magistrate judge ordered, but it's essentially closed. But in that case, given how much bigger the scope is, we are about to go into expert discovery and then class certification. So that case is behind the E. Jean Carroll case for those reasons, although we're very eager to try it before the next presidential campaign for sure.DL: Oh, interesting.RK: Because we don't want to lose our defendant.DL: Indeed. Totally, totally.So to rewind a little bit… as I know from having read your wonderful memoir, Then Comes Marriage, you knew from an early age that you wanted to be a lawyer. What can you tell us about your childhood or your upbringing that might have shed light on your future career or that shaped your career choice as a lawyer?RK: When I was a kid, I liked to talk a lot. I still do. I spent a lot of time with my maternal grandmother, who was a very wise, very smart person. And there's a famous story in my family that when my uncle was in the Peace Corps in India at the time, and there is a series of letters between my mom, my grandmother, and my uncle from India, and in those letters—we still have copies—my grandmother is talking about how I just keep talking all time, and how at one point she said to me, ‘Robbie, you know I love you, but can you just be quiet for like three minutes? Can you stop for three minutes?' And I said something like, ‘No grandma, I can't. I just can't help myself. I love to talk.'DL: Ha!RK: And at a certain point, at a pretty young age, because I liked to read, I realized that if you're a lawyer, you got paid to talk. And I was like, “Okay, that's the job for me!”Then Sandra Day O'Connor—this is going to show my age, but she was made a Supreme Court justice, I believe when I was in high school. And that had a big impact on me at the time, because prior to that I don't think a lot of women thought they really had—not that I wanted to be a Supreme Court justice, but after that [women] thought they really had a future in the law. I remember that to this day, when that happened, what a big thing that was.And I just told everyone that I'm 85 years old….DL: Did judicial office ever cross your mind? Was that something you might have been interested in, in the past?RK: I certainly have a lot of friends who are judges and I admire what they do, and I think it's a great job. But I like to be a fighter. I like to be an advocate, and obviously I can't do that as judge. I think I would find it too quiet probably for my taste, even at the district-court or trial-court level. But there's no question that more and more we need great judges, and it's probably the single—at least in my job, in my world—the single most important job anyone can have. The only legal philosophy that ultimately works for me is legal realism, which means that often how a case goes—the pace of the case, how it flows, and ultimately what the result will be—is going to be based not only the philosophy but also the life experiences and understanding of the judge. That's just crucial. So the more people who are people of high character and great experience become judges, all the better.DL: I totally agree with you, totally agree. Looking at your remarkable career as a lawyer, what would you say is your superpower that is unique to Robbie Kaplan? Obviously, we know about how hard you work and how much you prepare, and of course your tactical brilliance, but is there something you would regard as a little different [about yourself]?RK: So I have a son who's now 16, but when he was little, one of his favorite books that I used to read, hundreds if not thousands of times, was called Dog with a Bone. And I think the reason I liked that book so much probably said something about me, which is that, as a lawyer, I really am like a dog with a bone. I do not give up as a lawyer. Our firm doesn't give up. And if I don't succeed on something the first time for a client, I succeed the second or third time, and it's that stubbornness maybe—stubbornness isn't usually considered a good quality, but it's that ability to keep on fighting, our resilience, that is our number-one quality.Then I'd say, second, creativity. I'm the least creative human being on the planet. I can't draw. My son goes crazy if I try to sing in the car because I'm so off key. I could never do creative writing. My pottery teacher basically kicked me out of class in high school because he asked me why every single pot I made look like a bong. And I wasn't even trying to make a bong! I was like, “I don't know what you mean!” So I have no artistic talent. But to the extent I have any creativity at all, I apply it to cases and the law, and how to achieve what we want to achieve for our clients in a creative and often unusual way.DL: That makes me think of the Charlottesville case, and your case against the individuals who caused such violence there and how you used a very old statute that was designed to be deployed against the Klan to go after these white supremacists, which was quite brilliant and creative. How did that theory come to you?RK: We saw what happened in Charlottesville, and we knew something had to be done about it. We were very concerned—and my firm had four people at the time, four lawyers—we were very concerned that the Department of Justice, then headed by Jeff Sessions, was not going do anything. Which we turned out to be right about.Pretty quickly after Charlottesville happened, someone got into the Discord servers that the organizers used and leaked a whole bunch of messages. This made it very clear that this was a conspiracy. So okay, great, we have the facts, we have clients, we went down there—but what law do we use? And there's not a lot, frankly, of current law to deal with this, in part because no one—I hope we're not going back to those times—but at least in my lifetime up to now, no one ever thought this was a huge problem. No one ever thought that we would have private conspiracies that were racially motivated, that planned, promoted, and engaged in violence. That may be changing, and that's one of the most disturbing things about our country right now, but that's generally been true for decades and decades.We had to go back and look for a statute called the KKK Act of 1871, which was passed to do exactly what it says it was passed to do, which was to try to curb the growth of the then-new Ku Klux Klan in the Deep South. Arguably it didn't have great success in that regard, but there were cases in the 1870s when it was passed trying to curtail or slow or stop the growth of the Klan.When you think about what happened in Charlottesville, though, it really is the modern-day version of what that Reconstruction Congress was trying to deal with. Back in the 1870s in Alabama, mostly men would don white robes and white hoods, and they would meet in the forest, and they would plan, tragically and horribly, a lynching or whatever they were going do.Today it's much easier. All you need is a hashtag on Parler or Discord or one of these dark websites, and it's like whack-a-mole—the minute one of the sites stops hosting these people, another one will take over. So all you need is a hashtag—that keeps your anonymity for the most part, unless you self-identify in your hashtag—and you don't have to go into the woods. Literally the guys who organized Charlottesville are from all over the country, and they all were able to plan nationwide and even internationally.When we filed the Charlottesville case—this is going to show how naive I was—I thought it was a terrible one-off, but it was a one-off, and we needed to bring the case so that it would never happen again. How wrong, in humility, I have to say I was, because not only was it not a one-off, it was really a harbinger, a kind of a road map to a lot of what has happened since then. Even this guy who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband, while there weren't 20 guys who went to the house, everything that he believed and everything that he was motivated to do was based on these same kind of dark-web, white-supremacist, violent channels, which again, if you're interested or if you're a lonely guy who's looking for a community, it's pretty easy for you to get online and get indoctrinated in their thinking.DL: Absolutely. And I know this is perhaps a little far afield from your work as a lawyer, but maybe just even as a concerned citizen, how do we deal with this problem? How do we get ourselves out of this? It seems that it's just getting worse and worse.RK: I wish I knew. It's something I think and worry about all the time. We obviously—and I'm as committed as anyone to the First Amendment—we obviously have a right to free speech in our country, and we should have a right. But it may be both with the [Communications] Decency Act and with the case law, the developed case law in the First Amendment context, maybe [it] does not make sense in the modern day. For example, under Brandenburg, when you're doing something that wreaks havoc in a crowded theater, that may be translatable to things that people do online today in the dark web almost every single day. And whether our standards need to change to deal with that is a very, very serious question. Of course, whether or not this Supreme Court as currently constituted is open to hearing any of those arguments, I don't know.DL: That's very interesting. I wonder—because there are definitely some conservatives out there who want to revisit First Amendment doctrine as well—I wonder if this might be some weird area where maybe you agree with some of them?RK: We obviously have separation of church and state, though I'm a religious Jew, and Judaism going all the way back to the destruction of the Second Temple, in 62 AD or 66 AD, has been obsessed with speech. It's obsessed with speech because it understands that a lot of the damage that people can do to other people is through speaking. If you look at history, there's no question. Now, I'm not saying that we give up our right to free speech. It's embedded in our Constitution for good reason, and it came out of a world where people were severely restricted in what they could think and what they could say. But the link between certain kinds of speech and violence at this point is uncontroversial, and how we deal with speech that may not be committing violence, but is no question prompting and encouraging and invoking other people to commit violence, is a very serious issue.DL: Let me ask you this then, and again, perhaps I'm going a little bit out of what you usually focus on as a civil-rights, public-interest, and commercial litigator, but what is your take on what's happening to free speech in U.S. law schools right now? Because there have been speakers who have been shouted down, conservative speakers mainly, but of course, obviously conservatives have no problem going after free speech in other areas.What are your thoughts on that? Do you share the concern that certain speakers might come to law schools and inflict what activists call “harm” on students?RK: What I know about this, David, I mostly know from following your column, so that's basically the limit of my knowledge because I've been super-busy lately, but I have the general gist because you're a good journalist and I follow what you write. People have a right to protest. They should. But they don't have a right to protest in a way that stops other people from speaking.And there's no question that on both sides in our country right now—in fact, both the radical left and the radical right are looking more and more similar every day, which is petrifying because that's what it looked like in Germany in the thirties. So it's petrifying, but people both on the radical right and in the radical left who want to deprive other people of the ability to speak is not acceptable. It's not what the Founders meant. Speech and debate and discourse—even going back to Jewish law—is something to be highly encouraged. And we all make the situation worse, honestly, when we—I hate to use this expression, but when we cancel other people from expressing their views.Just because you don't agree with someone—I'm sure you and I don't agree on everything—doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss and debate and argue with each other, and it's terribly distressing because it leads to the kind of breakdown in civil society I think that we're seeing today. And that's also incredibly scary.DL: Related to these cancel-culture controversies, what are your thoughts on the extent to which advocates can or should be held accountable for their clients? Even though you are most known or most famous for your civil-rights work, your public-interest work, you also represent Goldman Sachs, Airbnb, large companies, and there have been some on the left who have taken this sort of purist approach: “Oh, well, you represent all these progressive causes, but then you represent all these evil companies and defendants and what have you. “ So what are your thoughts on that, the extent to which lawyers should be held accountable for the sins of their clients?RK: I don't think lawyers should ever be held accountable for the sins of their clients. That's what lawyers do, and if lawyers were in any way held accountable for the sins of their clients, then we wouldn't really have a legal profession. The only exceptions to that would be when lawyers commit the sins of their clients as part of their representation, and that's where, for me, you can't cross the line. I think every lawyer I know weighs these things differently.Let me begin to say, I don't acknowledge for a second that Goldman Sachs or Airbnb or any of our other clients…DL: I'm playing devil's advocate—I have nothing against them personally….RK: … are evil or do anything evil or anything like that.You have to look at it differently in the criminal context than in the civil context. Criminally, I think my colleagues at Kaplan Hecker would say that everyone is entitled to a defense, and while there may be some criminal defendants that we wouldn't or that they wouldn't want to represent, the breadth of whom you represent criminally when someone's facing imprisonment is different than civil.Civilly, personally, it's a choice—and we, at Kaplan Hecker, think very seriously about these issues. We talk about them among the partners, and we won't take on a client who we feel somehow contravenes our values in some fundamental way. But that's a choice. I wouldn't judge another lawyer who did that because that's what lawyers do, if that makes sense.DL: That makes perfect sense, especially as you were saying in the civil context as well, because look, [clients] have a wide variety of lawyers they can choose from, and you have clients that you can choose from, you're very busy, and not everyone is entitled to Roberta Kaplan. I totally get that.RK: Other than E. Jean Carroll, who's entitled to me.DL: Indeed, indeed—and Edie Windsor, who was amazing, of course. This might be a dumb question, but is [Windsor] the win that you are most proud of in your long career? And if that is, then do you have a number two?RK: Charlottesville. Edie would be first, Charlottesville number two. Charlottesville, unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on how you look at it—was not covered that much. And the reason why is there were two highly racially motivated criminal trials going on at the same time. They were both in state court, so they were televised. So for the press, it was very easy to cover both those cases rather than cover Charlottesville, which had no cameras in the courtroom because we were in federal court, with very severe restrictions for Covid, and other things about access to the courtroom too. And I guess sadly in certain ways, the record we made wasn't really the focus of people's attention the way it should have been.But because of that, I don't think people realize how incredibly difficult it was. We were on trial for about four weeks. We had about a week of jury selection, so about five weeks total. Two of the defendants were pro se, Richard Spencer and Chris Cantwell. Chris Cantwell was then serving a sentence in federal prison for making violent threats against another white supremacist—I think he threatened to rape and kill his wife—but a week either before or after that, he made similar violent threats against me, saying something like, “When this case is over, we're gonna….”Can I swear on this?DL: Yeah, go for it.RK: “When this case is over, we're gonna have a lot of f**king fun with Robbie Kaplan.” And so we were in trial in this closed courtroom—the whole courthouse was closed, there was no other case going on for four weeks—with these two, with a bunch of defendants, but two of them who were pro se. I think Judge Moon rightly probably let them get away with almost anything they wanted to do because he was very concerned about an appellate record. And in retrospect, he was probably right.But living through it every day was extremely hard. They would just make incredibly outrageous arguments. Chris Cantwell in his closing started screaming, and I thought threatening the jury. The marshals would say to me, “Okay, you know, if Cantwell gets closer to you, we're gonna stay closer by you in case he tries anything.” It was crazy. And so just as a sheer endurance contest, and for being able to keep our dignity in the face of a trial where literally every day these guys were talking about how much they loved Mein Kampf—the rhetoric was unbelievable—is something I'm very proud of. And it's not just me, it's our entire team. I don't know how we did it so long, but we somehow managed to do it, and getting the verdict we did was incredible.DL: Absolutely. Congratulations. And Karen Dunn [of Paul, Weiss], Alan Levine [of Cooley]—you had a lot of other amazing lawyers involved as well, and other law firms. Did you have personal security at some point in addition to the marshals?RK: Yeah, I can't get into it, but yeah, so that made it hard too. We were really kind of trapped in the hotel in a lot of ways for security reasons. So imagine going from this closed-in courtroom to being trapped within the hotel for four weeks and thinking about how you're going to cross-examine someone about Mein Kampf or put on Deborah Lipstadt to talk about why these guys are obsessed with the Holocaust. It was something, for sure.DL: Yeah. But a great victory, a huge verdict, and a real blow against white supremacists and others who would harm the country.On a happier note, Kaplan Hecker & Fink celebrated its fifth anniversary, I guess this was over the summer?RK: Yeah, July 1.DL: Congratulations. What are you most proud of about the firm so far?RK: When we set out to create this firm, we had certain specific core values. One, doing work in the public interest together with commercial work and white-collar work. Two, having a paramount respect for maintaining our culture and making sure that we all liked each other and were friends and had the same values. And three, being as non-hierarchical as you can possibly be, in the sense that we hire, I think we now have 10 percent of our lawyers are Supreme Court clerks. That's kind of insane—like, I couldn't get a job with me anymore. But because we bring in such brilliant people, we make sure that we listen to their ideas, from day one.What I'm most proud of is that we kept to that. We really have to this day kept to that. Our greatest challenge, frankly, is not getting so large that we lose it. That's frankly the thing that we worry about the most right now. There are a number of partnerships where the partners don't know each other well enough to keep that sense of camaraderie and culture, and that's what we face every day. We're not there yet for sure, but that's what we think about a lot.DL: Right now the firm I think has around 60 lawyers, maybe 10 partners or so?RK: I think we're about—well, maybe about 13 or 14 partners.DL: Oh, okay.RK: And I think the limit for me, based on my experience, is about 25. Once you get to more than 25, it's hard for everyone to be friends the same way we are now. So we have some room to grow.DL: And what about total lawyers? Right now you're around 60-ish?RK: Yeah. Again, we don't know, but I think everyone agrees that at 125 we'd pretty much be at our limits. Again, we're nowhere near that now, but that's kind of what people have in mind, and I'm not sure all of us want to get even that big. We also, I think speaking unanimously for the partners, are not into this idea of having a lot of satellite offices.DL: That was my next question.RK: We have New York, which is kind of the main office, and then we have D.C., and I don't anticipate us expanding anywhere else. Before Covid, we might have thought about an office in California. One of the few good things about Covid, of very few good things, is that you see that you can practice across state lines in a much easier way than I ever anticipated. So I can't imagine [opening more offices] anytime in the near future.DL: Yeah, I totally agree with you. I don't think it's quite as imperative, and in this day and age of remote work, it is much easier.Let me ask you this question because people have asked me about it, and I'm genuinely curious for the answer. At Kaplan Hecker & Fink, you do tons of public interest work, you do tons of pro bono work, and then, on the other hand, you still pay above the Biglaw salary scale for associates.Something here is not computing. How do you do it? Maybe I'm being too nosy, but… are you content to just make, you know, a couple million rather than many millions, like you did at Paul, Weiss? What's the secret here?RK: I'm not going to get into any numbers—obviously, my partners would kill me—but let me put it this way: other than in our first year probably, I have not had to sacrifice anything financially at Kaplan Hecker & Fink.DL: Wow.RK: And I think for me and almost all the partners, we are doing appreciably better than we would have at big firms.What's our secret sauce? For one thing, we are very, very efficient. Even though our fees aren't significantly lower than big firms, our bills tend to be, because we don't have to have four levels of people working on something. The work product that we get from our associates is usually excellent and doesn't take as much work than it might at a big firm.Two, we're very creative about fee arrangements, which is also not a big-firm thing, at least in the past—it may be more so now. My managing partner, Julie Fink, was a client at Pfizer for years before she came here, and so she really understood this. We're very creative about success fees or contingency fees or flat fees in a way that I think is hard at big firms.DL: Hmm-mmm.RK: But suffice it to say that we're doing—knock wood, I'm knocking wood right now—we're doing okay, and we're pleased to be able to pay our associates and our staff the way we do. And money is not the paramount thing. No one comes to Kaplan Hecker thinking, “I want to earn as much as a hedge-fund person or an investment banker or a tech guy.” We do very well, and no one is in any financial distress. But maximizing dollar amounts per share, per partner, is not our number-one goal.DL: That makes perfect sense. I'm curious, since you mentioned contingency-fee arrangements—do you do a significant amount of plaintiff-side that work that helps generate unusually high revenue per lawyer, perhaps?RK: We've done some, we're certainly interested in doing more. We probably get, I don't know, I'd have to look at the numbers,.we get between six and a dozen people calling a week [with such cases]. We've probably turned down, I think the numbers have got to be 90, upwards of 95 percent of those. But the ones we take on tend to be profitable, so yes, that certainly helps the bottom line.DL: And then another thing I've heard about the firm is some of your public-interest work is also paid work, right? That it's not just entirely pro bono?RK: Yeah, some of it is funded. It's funded at a lower rate, so we have a public-interest rate we use that's about half our regular rate. We do a number of cases like that—a lot of the election work, cases that Joshua Matz does, are funded in that way.DL: Okay. So one last question before we go to my little lightning round of final questions. And again, maybe this is a delicate subject, but some people in the law firm world say you're a tough boss. Do you consider yourself a tough boss?RK: So let me tell you a story. Paul, Weiss had upward reviews. I don't remember when they started, but at some point when I was a partner, they started upward reviews. And my upward reviews—I'm not proud of this—but I would always have maybe one or two associates at a time that I didn't work so well with, and it always turned out that of the people who did the reviews, those would be the people who would turn in reviews. And so my upward reviews were not great. Then I did the Windsor case, and all of a sudden my upward reviews were stellar! I remember my wife saying to me, “Well, look, I don't understand.” Because I don't think I changed as a boss. I think what changed is the way people perceived me as a boss.DL: Hmm-mmm.RK: So, I don't know. Those were a long time ago, and I know I was under a lot of stress as a young partner at Paul, Weiss. But I don't think anyone today—you can ask them yourselves—has a problem with me as a boss. I certainly, and we all do, have high standards. We operate in very demanding situations, and our clients justifiably expect a lot from us. But I don't think anyone in the Charlottesville case or in E. Jean or in any of the paying matters for Airbnb or Uber would say I'm tough. If by tough you mean I have high standards, yes. But I'm also mentoring people and giving people opportunities to take depositions and to examine people at trial. We were the only firm in Charlottesville that had associates examining witnesses.DL: Wow. That's remarkable.RK: And that speaks for itself.DL: Totally, totally.So here are my standard final questions, which are standard for all my lawyer guests.My first is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as that abstract system that rules over us all.RK: I think what I like the least is the tendency of lawyers and judges at times to fail to see that behind all this case law and precedent and statutory language are real people, and that each case affects a real live person. And it's hard to keep those things balanced in your head, but good lawyers and good judges need to. And I sometimes find it very frustrating when people take things to such a level of abstraction that they fail to see the common humanity in what we do.DL: And I think that is one of your talents as a lawyer, just bringing out the humanity of your clients, whether it's Edie Windsor or Heather Heyer or E. Jean Carroll. I think your storytelling about these very real, flesh-and-blood people is something that just stands out about your practice,RK: Thank you, because I would like someone to say that about me, so I'm very pleased that you have. That's something we really care about a lot at Kaplan Hecker.DL: My second question is—and this'll be interesting because I know that from a young age, I think you have a line in your book about how at age 10 or 12, you were plotting out your legal career—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?RK: Believe it or not, because it's pretty timely, I thought seriously about becoming a Russian historian.DL: That was your undergrad major.RK: Yeah, I was a Russian history and lit major, and I spent—I think it was probably the single biggest influence on who I became—I spent the spring semester of my junior year in Moscow, in what was then the Soviet Union, but glasnost had been announced. So it was kind of the beginning of change, although change that didn't last very long. And I think that semester, I was fluent in Russian then, watching and living in what was then a totalitarian regime in, in a lot of ways—we were bugged and all kinds of things—just had a huge impact on the way I see the world. And maybe that made me a good lawyer, because I always expect the worst—which is a good thing as a lawyer in a lot of ways, because you want to be planning for and anticipating all contingencies.I ultimately realized that there are not a lot of happy years in Russian history, sadly continuing to today, and that if I became a Russian historian, it was going to be pretty depressing. But I originally went to law school just thinking, “Okay, this will be a way to figure out what else I want to do in my life.” And then I fell in love with it. I'd kind of forgotten about what I was thinking as a 10-year-old about getting paid to talk.Oh, and I flirted with the idea of going to the CIA.DL: Oh?RK: I started taking Russian because that was a big period of global crisis between the Soviet Union and the United States. My professor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, who came up with the phrase “the evil empire.” And I thought about it, but at that time, I don't think it would've been very easy for someone who was—I wasn't out as gay, but I certainly had concerns that I was gay and or lesbian, and I was smart enough to know that that probably wouldn't mix too well with going into either the NSA or CIA. So I didn't do it.DL: Mmm-hmm.RK: Probably the best for me in a whole lot of ways.DL: And certainly history has benefited from your choice to become a lawyer. So my third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?RK: Believe it or not, I'm probably at the high end of the people you've talked to, seven to eight hours a night. I've never been someone who's functioned well with very little sleep. I remember my freshman year in college, some of my friends and I decided as an experiment that we were going to stay up all night and then write some essay that was required for some writing class we had to take, taking a lot of NoDoz, like only freshmen in college would be stupid enough to do something like that. But suffice it to say, I had to ask for an extension of the due date for the essay.When I'm on trial, I sleep obviously a lot less, but even then I'll go to bed at midnight and wake up at four or five in the morning. I still need to sleep every night.DL: I'm glad to hear that. I always love talking to successful people who [get decent sleep]. And who are also working parents—you have a son. I think it's great when people can… Look, I know work-life balance may be sort of an illusion or maybe a little much to ask, but I'm glad to hear that you can get a decent amount of sleep.RK: I've had migraines ever since I was 12. I suffer from migraines, and if you sleep too little, it will bring on migraines. I remember once, when I was working for Chief Judge Kaye, I hadn't slept enough or I don't know what had happened, but she came into my office and I was curled up under my desk in the fetal position because I had a migraine. And I'll never forget, she thought I would die. She's like, “What is going on?” So since I suffer from something like that, I'm very careful about doing things that won't bring on a migraine, and lack of sleep—or even too much sleep, both sides—can cause migraines.DL: My final question: any words of wisdom for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Robbie Kaplan?RK: I'm not sure anyone should say that because we all have our own lives, and you shouldn't want my life any more than anyone should want anyone else's.But I would say one, stick to your guts. The single greatest lesson I've learned as a lawyer is to trust your own guts because they often tell you the right thing. There's a lot of distractions that you may listen to or follow instead of following your own inner voice, and that's really important, to hear your own inner voice.And two, and I alluded to this earlier, your ability to function as a lawyer is based on your integrity, and you should never, ever, no matter what the fee, what the pressure, what the circumstance—and again, we're seeing this today, unfortunately—never do anything for a client that in any way compromises your integrity. I learned that at Paul, Weiss. I learned it from my mentor at Paul, Weiss, Marty London, and a bunch of others. And it's the single most important thing you need to know as a lawyer.DL: Well said. Thank you so much, Robbie, for joining me. I am so grateful for your time and your insight, and I know my listeners will appreciate it as well.RK: It's a pleasure.DL: Thanks again to Robbie for joining me. She's had such a remarkable life and legal career, and it was wonderful to hear about her landmark wins and what she's working on today. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend her memoir, Then Comes Marriage.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please help spread the word by telling your friends. And if you don't already, please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast will appear two weeks from now, on Wednesday, November 16. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Mary Trump is joined by legal masterminds Dahlia Lithwick, Robbie Kaplan, and Jen Taub to lament the recent surge in gun violence and look at the possible solutions.  Then, they discuss the need to restore trust in our courts and institutions, the perils President Biden faces in pulling the country together, and the need for strong messaging that inspires people to get out and vote! ‘Ask Mary Anything' Email: MARY@POLITICON.COM Get More From This Week's Guests: Dahlia Lithwick: Twitter | Slate | NewsWeek | Amicus Podcast | UVA Law | Author Robbie Kaplan: Twitter | Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP | Website | Columbia Law | Author Jenn Taub: Twitter | Western New England University School of Law | Website | Author of “Big Dirty Money”

In a Special Edition of LegalAF x MeidasTouch, the top-rated law and politics podcast, anchors Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are joined by special guest, Constitutional and Civil Rights Litigator, Roberta Kaplan, Esq., to analyze the disclosure this week that the Supreme Court voted in February to end a woman's constitutional Right to Choose and overturn Roe v. Wade along with 50 years of legal precedent. We cover: 1. The leaked draft majority opinion draft by Justice Alito, and how it came to be. 2. Whether there is a chance that the draft opinion and individual Justice voting will change before the final decision is rendered. 3. If Alito's draft is close to final, what happens next in State Houses and in Congress 4. Whether right-wing States can make criminals out of its residents who travel to Pro-Choice States for abortions. 5. Whether the Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to protect individual liberty and constitutional rights. (that's rhetorical) Join the Legal AF Twitter Community: https://twitter.com/i/communities/151... Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The midweek edition of LegalAF x MeidasTouch, the top-rated podcast covering law and politics, is anchored by national trial attorney and strategist, Michael Popok and former prosecutor and leading criminal defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo. On this week's episode, they discuss: (a) SCOTUS' landmark 6-3 decision this week in Thompson v. Clark finding that a person has a 4 th Amendment right against being falsely arrested or prosecuted; (b) the uptick in the pace of the DOJ's criminal prosecution of Trump and those involved in the Big Lie; and (c) an update in the Ketanji Brown Jackson SCOTUS confirmation process. Special Bonus: KFA and Popok preview their guest for next week's show, attorney superstar Robbie Kaplan and the first federal constitutional challenge against Florida's Don't Say Gay law just filed by her law firm. Follow Legal AF on Twitter: Legal AF: https://twitter.com/MTLegalAF Karen Friedman Agnifilo: https://twitter.com/kfalegal Michael Popok: https://twitter.com/mspopok Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us in the BreakLine Arena for a conversation with living legend Tina Tchen. Tchen serves as president and CEO of TIME'S UP Now and the TIME'S UP Foundation, overseeing the organizations' strategic plans to change culture, companies, and laws in order to make work safe, fair, and dignified for women of all kinds. In 2017, Tina co-founded the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund with Robbie Kaplan, Fatima Goss Graves, and Hilary Rosen; since then, the Fund has connected thousands of people to legal or PR support for sexual harassment across dozens of different industries.Tina served all eight years in the Obama White House, including as an Assistant to President Obama, Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and Chief of Staff to First Lady Michelle Obama. While at the White House, Tina spearheaded the first-ever White House Summit on Working Families and helped form the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.Prior to taking the helm at TIME'S UP, Tina was a lawyer specializing in workplace culture, advising companies on gender inequity, sexual harassment, and diversity. She has served on numerous strategic advisory boards for organizations, businesses, and nonprofits, including the United State of Women, which she continues to co-chair.If you like what you've heard, please subscribe, follow, and rate our show! To learn more about BreakLine Education, check us out at breakline.org.

For decades, attorney Robbie Kaplan has been at the center of legal battles around issues like white supremacy, marriage equality, sexual assault, and domestic violence. This week, she joins Tali for an expansive discussion about the capacity of the law to help push the cultural conversation forward. This podcast is paid for by New Yorkers for Tali. To learn more about Tali's campaign for Manhattan DA, please visit http://taliforda.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

NOTE: Part of this conversation discusses sexual assault, which may be triggering to listeners. As the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump began in the Senate this week, Emily interviewed Robbie Kaplan about the ways that Trump is able to be held accountable now that he left office, which includes impeachment. In December, Robbie and her firm filed a Supreme Court brief defending the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against claims of election fraud. The firm is also representing Mary Trump, President Trump’s cousin, and E. Jean Carroll, who has accused the former president of sexual harassment. Every week, Your Political Podcast brings you smart, but bite-size conversations with women at the seat of power and activism. With a new Presidential administration and new Congress, there is a significant amount of work to do cleaning up the bad policies of the last administration and enacting new ideas into law. Some ideas are new and some are the policies debated throughout the 2020 presidential race that we walked through with you. To catch up on our latest IG Live series, follow us on Instagram @YourPoliticalPlaylist

On the 34th episode of the #VoteHerIn series, a partnership project of Two Broads Talking Politics/Kelly Pollock and Rebecca Sive, author of *Vote Her In: Your Guide to Electing Our First Woman President*, you’ll hear an interview with Tina Tchen. Tina Tchen serves as president and CEO of TIME’S UP Now and the TIME’S UP Foundation, overseeing the organizations’ strategic plans to change culture, companies, and laws in order to make work safe, fair, and dignified for women of all kinds. In 2017, Tina co-founded the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund with Robbie Kaplan, Fatima Goss Graves, and Hilary Rosen; since then, the Fund has connected thousands of people to legal or PR support for sexual harassment across dozens of different industries.A former assistant to President Barack Obama, executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama, Tina has worked for decades to advance gender equality, particularly for working women. At the White House, Tina spearheaded the first-ever White House Summit on Working Families and helped form the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.

On the 34th episode of the #VoteHerIn series, a partnership project of Two Broads Talking Politics/Kelly Pollock and Rebecca Sive, author of *Vote Her In: Your Guide to Electing Our First Woman President*, you’ll hear an interview with Tina Tchen. Tina Tchen serves as president and CEO of TIME’S UP Now and the TIME’S UP Foundation, overseeing the organizations’ strategic plans to change culture, companies, and laws in order to make work safe, fair, and dignified for women of all kinds. In 2017, Tina co-founded the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund with Robbie Kaplan, Fatima Goss Graves, and Hilary Rosen; since then, the Fund has connected thousands of people to legal or PR support for sexual harassment across dozens of different industries.A former assistant to President Barack Obama, executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama, Tina has worked for decades to advance gender equality, particularly for working women. At the White House, Tina spearheaded the first-ever White House Summit on Working Families and helped form the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.

The Careerist's interview with Robbie Kaplan and Sharon Nelles is the first in an occasional series focused on the struggles and successes of women and minority lawyers.

On Wednesday, April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the biggest cases of the year: Trump v. Hawaii, the challenge to the latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s efforts to restrict travel to the United States by nationals from certain countries. The federal government contends that a ruling for the challengers would “hamstring” the president’s ability to conduct foreign relations and protect the national security; the challengers counter that allowing the so-called “travel ban” to stand will not only preclude over 150 million people, overwhelmingly Muslim, from coming to the United States, but it will also consolidate “breathtakingly vast” power in the executive branch. Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston. He blogs at JoshBlackman.com and has written dozens of blog posts, editorials, and articles on the Trump v. Hawaii case. Joshua Matz is of counsel at Gupta Wessler PLLC and Kaplan & Company LLP. He is the publisher of the Take Care blog. He filed an amicus brief (with Robbie Kaplan) on behalf of constitutional law scholars in Trump v. Hawaii, on behalf of the respondents. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.”  Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

HBS 035 Interview w_ Robbie Kaplan -Then Comes Marriage_ United States v. Windsor and the Defeat of DOMA Roberta A. "Robbie" Kaplan is an American lawyer. She is the founding partner of Kaplan & Company, LLP, a law firm dedicated to commercial litigation and public interest matters, and an adjunct professor of law at Columbia University Law School. Until July 2017, she was a partner in the Litigation Department of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Kaplan successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of her client, Edith Windsor, in United States v. Windsor (2013). This resulted in a landmark decision that invalidated a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. Windsor led to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down all remaining state and federal laws against same-sex marriage across the United States. United States v. Windsor In 2009, Kaplan agreed to represent Edie Windsor pro bono. Windsor's wife, Thea Spyer, had died two years after they wed in Canada, leaving Windsor her sole heir. But because their marriage was not recognized under existing U. S. federal law, Windsor received an estate tax bill of $363,053. Windsor went to gay rights advocates seeking redress but could find no one to take her case. She was referred to Kaplan, who later recalled, "When I heard her story, it took me about five seconds, maybe less, to agree to represent her." Kaplan had been co-counsel on the unsuccessful bid for marriage equality in New York state in 2006. In a spirited exchange between Kaplan and Chief Justice John Roberts during oral arguments for the case, Roberts alleged that politicians were "falling all over themselves" to support her case. Kaplan responded, "The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chief Justice, is that no other group in recent history has been subjected to popular referenda to take away rights that have already been given or exclude those rights, the way gay people have." On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. Edith Windsor declared, "Robbie Kaplan said, as Martin Luther King said before her, there is no wrong time to seek justice." Roberta (Robbie) Kaplan, the founding partner at Kaplan & Company, LLP, one of the few women-led elite boutique litigation law firms has been described as a “powerhouse corporate litigator” and “pressure junkie” who “thrives on looking at the big picture” whether “in the gay-marriage legal fight or high-profile corporate scandals.”  She has been selected as one of “The 100 Most Influential Lawyers” in the United States, as a “Litigator of the Year” by The American Lawyer, and as a “Lawyer of the Year” by Above the Law. In addition to representing large institutional and corporate clients like Fitch Ratings, Airbnb, Columbia University and T-Mobile,  Robbie book “Then Comes Marriage: United States v. Windsor and the Defeat of DOMA” (W.W. Norton 2015),  was chosen by the L.A. Times and Ms. Magazine as one of the top 10 books of 2015.  In commenting on the book, President Bill Clinton called Robbie an “American hero.” Robbie has received numerous recognitions for her legal accomplishments and charitable activities, including the New York Law Journal Lifetime Achievement Award;  Financial Times Legal Innovator of the Year; the Columbia Law School Medal of Excellence; as well as an honorary doctorate from the Jewish Theological Seminary.   Kaplan wrote about United States v. Windsor in the book Then Comes Marriage: United States v. Windsor and the Defeat of DOMA. Roberta A. "Robbie" Kaplan Kaplan & Company, LLP. @kaplanrobbie   HELP SPREAD THE WORD PLEASE! SCREENWRITERS, DIRECTORS, AUTHORS, we would love to help spread the word about your Film, Book, Crowdfunding, etc., Contact us! (EMAIL: Info@hollywoodbreakthrough.com ) See Videos of  interviews at http://www.hollywoodbreakthrough.com Please subscribe to iTunes and write us a review! Follow us on  Social Media Sites |  Twitter @TheBreakThur|  Facebook: facebook.com/HollywoodBreakthroughPodcast Subscribe! Or, Please contact us for Interviews or Sponsorship of an episode!  Hollywood Breakthrough Show Website (EMAIL: Info@hollywoodbreakthrough.com )   Support Podcast :   Hollywood Hero Agent Fenix Hill  Hollywood Hero App Game Link   Scottie The Baby Dino Scottie The Baby Dino App Game Link   Gladiator Coliseum Challenge Gladiator Coliseum Challenge App Game Link    

For Beyond 50's "Legal" talks, listen to an interview with Roberta Kaplan. She is renowned litigator Robbie Kaplan. She'll talk about her story of working on a case that ultimately brought down DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) before the United States Supreme Court in one of this country's most significant civil rights victories. Together with her legal team and client, Kaplan formulated a strategy to bring down the law. Having lost the case for marriage equality before New York State's highest court in 2006, Kaplan was determined not to lose again. She coined the maxim "It's all about Edie, stupid" to constantly remind herself and her team what the case was really about, and that refrain aptly describes the book itself. In 1996, when DOMA was passed, more than 68 percent of Americans opposed the idea of gay people marrying. In 2010, when Windsor's case was filed, only four states (not including Kaplan and Windsor�¢??s home state of New York) recognized marriages between gay couples. This year's ruling by the Supreme Court that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states firmly places the ruling with other landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia. Tune in to Beyond 50: America's Variety Talk Radio Show on the natural, holistic, green and sustainable lifestyle. Visit www.Beyond50Radio.com and sign up for our Exclusive Updates.

Robbie Kaplan's twins died in infancy of heart defects, here Robbie speaks of using adversity to effect change. Robbie's bio.