Podcast appearances and mentions of robinson bradshaw

In this episode, we feature excerpts from an interview with Russell M. Robinson II, the founding partner of the Robinson Bradshaw law firm. Robinson was born in Charlotte, NC, in 1932 and attended Princeton University for most of his undergraduate years. He then earned his Juris Doctor from the Duke University School of Law. Robinson is the author of Robinson on North Carolina Corporation Law, a publication providing coverage of the business corporation, limited liability company, and nonprofit corporation statutes in North Carolina. In the interview, Robinson shares the 5-year journey of writing the first edition of his book, how he and his partners started their law firm, and his opinions on how the practice of law has changed over the years.    "The practice of law has fundamentally changed and not for the better," Robinson said on the podcast. "More and more lawyers take-on their clients' position and lose their independence to be able to examine that position because it becomes their position too. That's an undermining of professionalism that I think is really regrettable." This interview was conducted in 2018 by John R. Wester of the Robinson Bradshaw law firm for the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism's Historical Video Series. A full version of the interview can be found on the NCcourts Youtube Channel.

Success in the courtroom depends on comprehensive trial support that starts long before the trial date.  How do you turn a compelling story into something that's easy to understand and memorable for the judge and/or jury. Enlisting the assistance of a trial support professional early on is key.   In Part Two of our Sitting in the Hot Seat podcast, our esteemed panel will discuss preparation tips and tricks, effective communication strategies, logistics (in its many forms), technology considerations, and some ideas for you to help your team win. Moderator:   Jill Okerlund - Legal Process Coordinator,  Robinson Bradshaw  Panelists:     Stephanie Mills - Manager, Discovery Services, Cassels Brock &  Blackwell LLP  Tim Piganelli - CEO, The Piganelli Consulting Group, Inc.  David Gomez - Practice Support Project Manager, Robinson Bradshaw

Host Robbie Allen talks to two of the best-known startup attorneys in the Triangle: Glen Caplan (Robinson, Bradshaw, & Hinson) and Neil Bagchi (Bagchi Law). They dive into how entrepreneurs can make the most out of having an attorney.

From creating a golf experience, to cost and accessibility, to the impact of Top Golf on the sport... we are talking all things golf with panelists: Bob Morgan, Director of Public Affairs, Robinson Bradshaw and Mark Farris, President and CEO, Greenville Area Development Corporation

Dianne Chipps Bailey is an attorney who helps non-profit organizations create a better world. She leads the non-profit and foundations practice group for Robinson Bradshaw, a full service law firm based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dianne speaks nationally and is an expert witness on non-profit, corporate governance and tax/regulatory issues. She has served on many non-profit boards and is particularly engaged in women's philanthropic giving. Dianne is a recipient of multiple awards, including the 2015 Mecklenburg Times Woman of the Year Award, North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Woman of Justice Award, and the Charlotte Business Journal Women in Business Achievement Award. She holds a B.A. with high honors in English and philosophy from the University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D. with honors from Georgetown University Law Center. This episode is perfect for anyone interested in the non-profit sector and matters of faith, privilege, perfection and gratitude. IN THIS EPISODE Dianne describes her practice and what she does for the clients she serves. She shares the phone call she most enjoys receiving. She talks about the impact of the Great Recession on the non-profit sector, how she looks at the current health of the sector, and where she sees increased sophistication. She reveals the issue that she is carefully watching and grades the non-profit sector. She answers whether we have too many non-profits, whether we would be better served by for-profit social entrepreneurs, and the disruption that is occurring in the non-profit sector. Dianne shares her one true love in the philanthropic community. She talks about where she is from and what she loves about her home state. She reveals who she considers to be the most important influence in her life and who she most aspires to be more like.  She explains what exploded her worldview in college and the fragmented life she led on campus. She discusses what is it that she struggles with and her thoughts about identity. Dianne shares a moment when she was adrift and what happened to change everything. She addresses the illusion of perfection and how she presents herself to the world. She shares her thoughts about privilege and her response to it in her life. She reveals the role she played in the political rise of Braxton Winston II. She discusses what she calls the Bailey Big Trip and what it means to her. Dianne shares what is most important to her. After the conversation, host Mark Peres adds a personal word that begins this way, "Dianne Chipps Bailey lives a life that by any measure is remarkable.  She is good at everything she seemingly sets out to do..."  To learn more, visit On Life and Meaning.

On November 7, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Patchak v. Zinke, a case involving separation of powers concerns that may arise when Congress passes a statute directing federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit without amending any underlying substantive or procedural laws. In 2012, the Supreme Court held in the case Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak that David Patchak had prudential standing to bring a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), to challenge DOI’s taking title under the Indian Reorganization Act to a certain tract of land that was then put into trust for use by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Band or Gun Lake Tribe. Congress responded by passing the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (the Gun Lake Act), reaffirming DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe, removing jurisdiction from the federal courts over any actions relating to the land in question, and indicating that any such actions “shall be promptly dismissed.” The district court in which Patchak had filed his suit determined that its jurisdiction to resolve the suit had been stripped by the Gun Lake Act and that the act was not unconstitutional. It therefore dismissed Patchak’s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal.The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including the Supreme Court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, Attorney at Robinson Bradshaw.

On November 7, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Patchak v. Zinke, a case involving separation of powers concerns that may arise when Congress passes a statute directing federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit without amending any underlying substantive or procedural laws. In 2012, the Supreme Court held in the case Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak that David Patchak had prudential standing to bring a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), to challenge DOI’s taking title under the Indian Reorganization Act to a certain tract of land that was then put into trust for use by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Band or Gun Lake Tribe. Congress responded by passing the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (the Gun Lake Act), reaffirming DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe, removing jurisdiction from the federal courts over any actions relating to the land in question, and indicating that any such actions “shall be promptly dismissed.” The district court in which Patchak had filed his suit determined that its jurisdiction to resolve the suit had been stripped by the Gun Lake Act and that the act was not unconstitutional. It therefore dismissed Patchak’s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal.The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including the Supreme Court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, Attorney at Robinson Bradshaw.

Richard Vinroot, former Mayor of Charlotte, school choice advocate, and a founder of Sugar Creek Charter School in Charlotte, talks about school choice at a Shaftesbury Society Special Presentation at the John Locke Foundation. Photo courtesy of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson Music: Yusuke Tsutsumi, Untitled # 10

On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, a case giving rise to a dispute over the scope of federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction. A group of corporations whose food perished in a warehouse fire sued the warehouse owner, currently known as Americold Realty Trust, in Kansas state court. Americold then removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, which accepted jurisdiction and resolved the dispute in favor of Americold. On appeal, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court had lacked jurisdiction. Although the parties argued that diversity jurisdiction existed because the suit involved citizens of different states, the Tenth Circuit disagreed. As a trust and not a corporation, the court reasoned, Americold’s citizenship depended on that of its members, including shareholders. Given the lack of evidence regarding the shareholders’ citizenship, the court held, the parties had failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs were citizens of different states than the defendants. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, holding that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of an unincorporated entity depends on the citizenship of all of its members. Under Maryland law a real estate investment trust is held and managed for the benefit of its shareholders, the Court explained, so Americold’s members include its shareholders. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. -- To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an attorney with Robinson Bradshaw in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

John Conley of UNC and Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson speaks to CHI on March 3, 2015. Dr. Conley will be presenting during the IT Infrastructure – Hardware, Software Development, Cloud Computing and Data Security tracks at Bio-IT World Conference & Expo, April 21-23 in Boston, MA. Topics include data security and privacy at large health research institutes vs. smaller biotech companies, plus changes to international data privacy regulations and differences between the U.S. and European Union. Find more at: http://www.Bio-ITWorldExpo.com/