Podcasts about Sidley Austin

Greg Lavigne, a partner in energy and infrastructure practice for Sidley Austin, joins the NPM podcast this week to discuss the ongoing tariff situation and its impact on developers, how the growth of private credit is supporting today's clean energy pipeline and how the industry might get impacted by changes coming in the inflation reduction act.NPM is a leading data, intelligence & events company providing business development led coverage of the US & European renewable energy & data center markets for the development, finance, M&A and corporate community.Download our mobile app.

U.S. President Donald Trump was sworn into office for the second time on Jan. 20, 2025. That means April 30 marks his 100th day back in office. A lot has happened during that relatively short period of time. The Trump administration has implemented sweeping changes to U.S. energy policy, primarily focused on promoting fossil fuels while curtailing renewable energy development. The administration declared a “national energy emergency” to expedite approvals for fossil fuel infrastructure and lifted regulations on coal plants, exempting nearly 70 facilities from toxic pollutant rules. Coal was officially designated a “critical mineral,” with the Department of Justice directed to investigate regulatory bias against the industry. Additionally, the administration ended the Biden-era pause on approvals for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, signaling strong support for natural gas expansion. On the environmental front, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced 31 deregulatory actions designed in part to “unleash American energy.” The administration is also challenging the 2009 EPA finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health—a foundational element of climate regulation. President Trump announced the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, effective in early 2026, and terminated involvement in all climate-related international agreements, effectively eliminating previous emissions reduction commitments. Renewable energy has faced significant obstacles under the new administration. A six-month pause was imposed on offshore wind lease sales and permitting in federal waters, with specific projects targeted for cancellation. The administration issued a temporary freeze on certain Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funds designated for clean energy projects. Policies were implemented to weaken federal clean car standards, potentially eliminate electric vehicle (EV) tax credits, and halt funding for EV charging networks—indirectly affecting power generation by potentially reducing electricity demand from EVs. Yet, the administration's tariff policy may end up impacting the power industry more than anything else it has done. “One thing in particular that I think would be hard to argue is not the most impactful, and that's the current status of tariffs and a potential trade war,” Greg Lavigne, a partner with the global law firm Sidley Austin, said as a guest on The POWER Podcast. In April, President Trump declared a national emergency to address trade deficits, imposing a 10% tariff on all countries and higher tariffs on nations with large trade deficits with the U.S. These tariffs particularly affect solar panels and components from China, potentially increasing costs for renewable energy projects and disrupting supply chains. Meanwhile, the offshore wind energy industry has also taken a hard hit under the Trump administration. “My second-biggest impact in the first 100 days would certainly be the proclamations pausing evaluation of permitting of renewable projects, but particularly wind projects, on federal lands,” said Lavigne. “That is having real-world impacts today on the offshore wind market off the eastern seaboard of the United States.” Despite the focus on traditional energy sources, the Trump administration has expressed support for nuclear energy as a tool for energy dominance and global competitiveness against Russian and Chinese nuclear exports. Key appointees, including Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have signaled a favorable stance toward nuclear power development, including small modular reactors. All these actions remain subject to ongoing legal and political developments, with their full impact on the power generation industry yet to unfold.

Send us a textPlease join co-hosts Joe Whitley and Nina Marino for an insightful discussion with our distinguished guest, Karen Popp. Karen, a partner at Sidley Austin, is a highly regarded and well-known leader in the field of white collar defense, internal investigations, crisis management, and compliance. Before joining Sidley, Karen served as Associate White House Counsel to the President of the United States, where she advised President Clinton and the White House staff on congressional and grand jury investigations and domestic policy issues. Prior to joining the White House, Karen served in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice where she advised Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department, the White House and other agencies of the executive branch on a wide range of legal matters. Before moving to Washington, D.C., Karen was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. Karen is also the co-founder and global chair of the Women's White Collar Defense Association (WWCDA).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWe live in an interesting time for Biglaw—in the ironic sense that “interesting” is used in the famous saying, “may you live in interesting times” (whose origin is disputed). Today is a time of unique challenges and opportunities for the world of large law firms.What does it feel like to sit in the chair of a Biglaw leader right now? To find out, I welcomed a guest I've been wanting to have on the podcast for a while: Yvette Ostolaza, chair of the management committee at Sidley Austin.I was hoping to ask Yvette about, shall we say, current events. But at the outset of our interview, she explained that she couldn't comment on recent news developments involving the firm. (She didn't name specific subjects, but an obvious one would be the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sending letters to 20 law firms—including Sidley—to obtain information about their DEI-related employment practices.)Nevertheless, we still covered a lot of ground. We discussed her journey to the top job at Sidley, the nation's #6 firm in terms of revenue; her vision for the future of the firm; and how she juggles running a Biglaw firm, litigating on behalf of her clients, and parenting three children. Thanks so much to Yvette for joining me.Show Notes:* Yvette Ostolaza bio, Sidley Austin LLP* Leader, Luminary, Role Model: Yvette Ostolaza Breaks Ceilings And Brings The Rain, by Liane Jackson for ForbesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

Houston's legal market wasn't always one of the most competitive arenas in Big Law. But today, 14 of the 15 largest law firms by revenue have an office in Space City. The market's growth has mirrored the explosion of the country's energy industry over the past decade or so. And the competition among law firms continues to evolve, as the biggest firms fight for their share of a market once dominated by local firms. On this episode of On the Merits, Bloomberg Law's Roy Strom spoke with Nick Dhesi, the managing partner of Latham & Watkins' Houston office, which is credited as the first to truly crack the once-insular market. Latham in February celebrated its 15th year in Houston. The firm has more than 120 lawyers in the city, the fifth-largest presence among the 100 largest firms by revenue, according to Leopard Solutions. Other firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis, Sidley Austin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, have piled into the market, lured by its dominant oil and gas scene. Just last year, Paul Weiss made an unsuccessful effort to open in Houston, Bloomberg Law reported, which included an attempt to poach from Latham. Latham, the second-largest firm by revenue, now has a roughly $2 billion energy and infrastructure practice, led by Houston partner Justin Stolte. In the podcast, Dhesi talks about Latham's main competitors now, what a "dirt lawyer" is, and how the Texas legal market will respond to an economy that's branching out of the traditional oil and gas deals that powered its growth. He also discusses how the Houston and Dallas legal markets are different, and what Texas law schools have been doing to supply more high-caliber lawyers to all the top firms clamoring for talent in the state. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The sports business is booming. You've probably seen the headlines. An NFL team sold for $6 billion, and private equity is pouring money into almost anything that involves a ball or a stick. For law firms, that means opportunity. More Big Law firms view the business of sports as a target for the types of megadeals that drive revenue. Naturally, there's a lot more competition coming for a practice area that was once dominated by only a handful of repeat players. On this episode of On The Merits, Bloomberg Law's Roy Strom spoke with Sidley Austin's Irwin Raij and Eric Geffner. The veteran dealmakers have guided transactions involving the NBA's Charlotte Hornets, the NFL's Washington Commanders and Carolina Panthers, and women's pro soccer franchise the Chicago Red Stars. Raij and Geffner discussed why sports deals work is a "very sexy practice right now" that's getting the attention from more major firms. They also talked about the growth of investments in women's sports and new opportunities for private equity in the National Football League. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Estate Settlement is one of the most feared parts of wealth transition. It is where trust and estate planning meet their first real test- usually when a will is put in front of the probate court system. JOEL SCHOENMEYER, Head of the Family Wealth Group at a Major Regional Bank joins us to discuss the ins and outs. https://youtu.be/OwepMwX0uao?si=YKevHbmDrtrRv12b What is Joel's background? I spent the first 15+ years of my career as a trusts and estates attorney. First at a few different law firms, including Sidley Austin – back when they had a T&E group. Then as a solo practitioner for more than a decade. In 2012 I made the transition to working for financial institutions, where I have held a number of roles: Legal department, in the trust counsel group Senior Trust Advisor on an ultra-high net worth team National Head of Estate Settlement Senior Wealth Strategist in a multi-family office group I'm now in charge of the Family Wealth group at Fifth Third, which is an offering for ultra-high net worth clients and families. Just broadly, can you explain what happens from a legal perspective when someone dies? Sure. First, a little terminology: “Estate settlement” is the overall process of wrapping up a deceased person's affairs, a job that's usually handled by an “executor”. That settlement process can include lots of different things, but it can be broken down into a few broad topics: Inventorying and collecting all assets; Identifying and then paying debts and expenses, including taxes (both final income taxes and, if the estate is large enough, estate taxes); and Distributing what remains according to the decedent's estate plan (or if they didn't have one, according to state law). “Probate” can be a part of estate settlement, and involves court supervision of the above process, to make sure that it is handled correctly. I spent some of my time as an attorney drafting Wills and Trusts. However, I spent even more time in court, dealing with probate issues (including litigation). We are going to be talking about messy estate settlement issues and how to avoid them. Why is this important? I will say that, throughout my career, I have met clients (or potential clients) who say, “I don't care what happens when I die – that's someone else's problem.” However, most people do NOT want to cause problems for their loved ones. The death of a parent or spouse or sibling is difficult enough without having to figure out where their stuff is, or what they wanted to do with it.There's also the positive aspect. You have family and friends – and possibly charities – that you hope will thrive after your passing. Why wouldn't you want to set things up so that they actually get your hard- earned money? Do you want to have that money go to the IRS or some probate litigators? How should people start to think about their estate? I break the issues to consider down into four interconnected categories: Assets Debts and expenses (including taxes) Personal Relationships Estate Plan (Will, Trust, etc.) One thing you will notice is that your estate plan is only one category here. A lot of people think that having a Will and/or Trust in place means that they are “done” with planning for their death. That's just not true. So let's start with assets in the estate settlement process. What is the big mistake people make with their assets in the context of planning for death? The main mistake is not paying attention to how your assets are titled. This is especially the case where people have an estate plan but then also have assets with a listed beneficiary, or assets owned jointly. For instance, I once handled an estate where the decedent's Will gave away her interest in a home – but the decedent already owned the home in joint tenancy with her sister! As a result, the gift under her Will was ineffective (but the situation created a lot of litigation as well as conflict)...

A case testing the federal government's ability to regulate potentially harmful tobacco products will kick off arguments at the US Supreme Court in December. The Biden Administration is fighting to keep off the market new liquids for e-cigarettes sold under flavors like "Blackberry Lemonade" and "Killer Kustard Blueberry" that can attract kids in its appeal of a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision to set aside the Food and Drug Administration's orders denying their approval. Typically, the court doesn't agree to hear a case "to pat the lower court on the head and say, 'Really good job,'" said Carter Phillips, a partner at Sidley Austin who's argued 90 cases before the justices. But, he said, "this is a court that is much more skeptical of agency decision-making than the court has ever been, at least in the time that I've been practicing before it." Phillips joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about the case and why his client, the nonprofit Global Action to End Smoking Inc., is supporting neither side in this dispute,. Guest: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Dorna Moini is the CEO and founder of Gavel (www.gavel.io), a no-code platform for building document automation and client-facing legal products. Prior to starting Gavel, Dorna was a litigator at Sidley Austin. There, in her pro bono practice, she worked with legal aid organizations to build a web application for domestic violence survivors to complete and file their paperwork, which led to the idea for Gavel.Gavel has been named Best Technology by the American Legal Technology Association and Disruptive Technology of the Year by Law.com. Dorna is on the Legal Services Corporation Emerging Leaders Council and a member of LAFLA's Advisory Board. She was named an ABA Legal Rebel and a Fastcase 50 honoree. She also teaches the Legal Innovations Lab at USC Law School.Company URL: www.gavel.io

Get your healthy meat today: https://parkerpastures.com/?ref=AWK ——————————— *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ *The Patriot Light: https://thepatriotlight.com/ ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ *BOWLING BROS: Sons Bowling channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Bowling_Bros/videos ————————————————— The Georgia Court of Appeals has OFFICIALLY ended any chance of Fani Willis bringing her RICO case against Trump https://t.me/professor_patriot_official/21246 A Second Shooter https://x.com/nomandatesco/status/1813398416078274579 Vance and Sidley Austin https://x.com/AutistDivision/status/1813191517365735545 Secret Service Barbie https://x.com/saras76/status/1813217783003427067 Governor  @SarahHuckabee  Sanders: “Not even an assassins bullets could stop him… https://x.com/DanScavino/status/1813402339039941033 $DJT SHORTS SKYROCKETED THE WEEK BEFORE THE HIT. https://x.com/JohnnyTabacco/status/1813199373154586889 Shot in 3D to Trump https://x.com/laralogan/status/1813461555226325471 Démocrat wakes up watching RNC https://x.com/RealAF_Patriot/status/1813299960877629941 Cuomo talks up Trump https://x.com/CarlosSimancas/status/1813359328310550723 Tenacious D and Jack Black cancel tour and  @libsoftiktok  bringing the reckoning https://x.com/shipwreckshow/status/1813219533336822146 Vance supported by Tucker https://x.com/TCNetwork/status/1812950751490327017 Here's JD explaining his past comments on Trump. https://x.com/catturd2/status/1812953683073900877 —————————— *DONATIONS SITE: https://bit.ly/2Lgdrh5   *Mail your gift to: And We Know 30650 Rancho California Rd STE D406-123 (or D406-126) Temecula, CA 92591   ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/   ➜ And We Know Challenge Coins & Patriot Pins https://andweknow.com/ThePatriotPin/   ➜ Audio Bible https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/kjv/1John.3.16   Connect with us in the following ways: + DISCORD Fellows: https://discord.gg/kMt8R2FC4z

In today's episode of the IC-DISC show, I sit down with Andy Hein of Patent Veritas. Andy shares his impressive journey from chemical engineering and law firms to establishing his firm. He reveals how Patent Veritas helps businesses secure their intellectual property through strategic patent licensing. I learn how industries like restaurants and stock trading benefit from robust patent protection. Andy demystifies securing patent licenses through the secondary market, allowing businesses access to a vast portfolio. Tailored solutions are key to understanding clients' needs. For business owners, Andy discusses using patent licensing for long-term investment and coupling it with Private Placement Life Insurance. Andy offers valuable insights as we discuss real cases that illustrate high stakes, even in seemingly simple industries. We also touch on ethical considerations in competitive landscapes and ensure personalized services.     SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Andy Hein shares his background in chemical engineering and patent law, discussing his experience at Skadden Arps and Sidley Austin before founding Patent Veritas. We discuss the role of Patent Veritas in helping businesses secure their intellectual property through strategic patent licensing, particularly focusing on mitigating litigation risks from patent trolls. Andy explains how Patent Veritas acquires patents from the secondary market and licenses them to clients, allowing companies to preempt costly legal battles and enhance their IP portfolios. We delve into the benefits of understanding clients' revenue streams and technological processes to offer tailored patent protection solutions, applicable to various industries, including non-high-tech sectors like restaurant chains and stock trading operations. Andy elaborates on the concept of Private Placement Life Insurance (PPLI) for accredited investors, highlighting its dual benefits for business owners in protecting both their business and personal interests. We explore real-world cases, such as a litigation involving used car sales companies, to illustrate the high stakes of patent protection and the strategic moves companies can make to safeguard their operations. Andy discusses the ethical considerations and strategic advantages of having a robust patent portfolio to counteract competitor lawsuits, emphasizing the value of being proactive rather than reactive. We reflect on the rewarding aspects of offering personalized legal services and the importance of ensuring a good fit between clients and Patent Veritas' offerings, with a unique fee structure based on patent licenses rather than hourly rates. Andy provides insights into the competitive dynamics of the patent marketplace, explaining how companies can leverage patent licensing as a long-term investment to enhance their business value. We conclude with advice for entrepreneurs and business owners, stressing the importance of being hardworking, available, and respectful in building successful client relationships, and offering complimentary initial consultations to make the first step towards collaboration accessible.   Contact Details Email Andy (mailto:ahein@patentveritas.com) LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/andyhein1) LINKSShow Notes Be a Guest About IC-DISC Alliance About Patent Veritas GUEST Andy HeinAbout Andy TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dave: Hi, this is David Spray and welcome to another episode of the IC-DISC Show. My guest today is Andy Hein, a founder of a company called Cotton. Andy has a legal background. He's an attorney and worked at some of the top law firms in the world out of law school and then he saw an opportunity and started this business and it's really fascinating. And started this business and it's really fascinating. Apparently, almost every company, every privately held company, has exposure to being sued by patent trolls or competitors that use patents as a tool to extract money out of a company, and virtually every privately held, closely held company is at risk for this. And they have a solution that addresses this, by which the company can license or have a subscription that allows them to have access to tens of thousands of patents in the company's portfolio. So you don't need to own the patents, you can just license the necessary ones to protect you and your company. Andy: Anyway. Dave: Andy's a really dynamic guy, interesting guy, interesting service, and they can also wrap it in an estate planning wrapper to make it even more appealing. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did. Good afternoon Andy. Welcome to the podcast. Hey, good afternoon Dave. Andy: How are you doing? Dave: I'm doing great, thank you. So where are you calling in from today? Andy: You know I'm in the great town of Carmel, Indiana, so just right outside Indianapolis. Dave: I think you have more roundabouts than any city in the country, if my knowledge is correct on that. Andy: We do. I think we still have one or two stop signs and stoplights to take out, but they're getting thinner by the day. So, yeah, we have a lot of them Now are you a native of Indiana? Dave: I am, yeah, I'm originally from Crown Point, which is in Northwest corner of Indiana, and then eventually migrated our way down to central Indiana here, okay, well, my my all-time favorite basketball player is from Southern Indiana. Andy: Oh, who's that? Dave: That would be Larry. Andy: Legend, of course, yeah, no, obviously a great player, pretty famous around these parts too. Dave: Now you, you're an attorney. Where did you go to law school? Andy: So I went over to Georgetown Law Center over in DC and studied there, focusing mostly on patent law, but a bit on finance as well. Dave: And your undergraduate degree, I believe, is in engineering. Is that right? Andy: It is. Yeah, it's in chemical engineering from Trine University, which is a school just in northeast Indiana. Dave: Okay, yeah, it seems like most IP attorneys I know have a technical undergraduate degree. It seems to kind of go together. Yeah, it's like peas and carrots. Andy: You know, especially when you go to law school, they ask well, what do you study? A lot of folks study history or philosophy, and when you say engineering, they say you know you should think about being a patent attorney. And so you go into that and you think that's kind of interesting. Actually it's a lot of fun. So yeah, we all kind of end up there for the most part. Dave: Now, right after law school. Did you launch your own firm then, or did you take a different path? Andy: Yeah, no, I took a kind of a traditional path. So I started my career at a firm called Skadden Arps and I was in the Chicago office. There I worked on actually finance work, doing supporting M&A and chapter 11 bankruptcy, and then also did litigation there as well. So spent a few years there and then went over to another firm called Sidley Austin and there I concentrated just on patent litigation. Doing deals and litigation work is a lot of fun on paper but eventually you have to pick a horse to ride on. So I picked the litigation one, so just stuck with patent litigation and worked there for a number of years before setting out on my own. Dave: Yeah, and those are I mean arguably two of the top 10 law firms in the country, right by many metrics or top 20, you know very kind of traditional white shoe law firms right by many metrics or top 20, you know very kind of traditional white shoe law firms right. Andy: Yeah, they're up there for sure. So yeah, great place, great experience at both firms. It was a wonderful time there. Dave: So let's come up to the current time. So tell me about and off the top of my head, I don't even remember the name of the company. Tell me the name of the company and why you started it and what you guys do. Andy: Yeah, so our company is Patent Veritas. What we do is we help, for the most part, privately held businesses of all sizes with their IP litigation risk as well as enhancing their IP functionality within their business. It's kind of the culmination of what I've been doing over a number of years. We're very client focused and this is one where it kind of pulls together a lot of the past experience and work that I've done and my colleague Nick Stabinski and partner Nick Stabinski has done. So we formed that and the neat part about that is it addresses a real concern that some companies know about. Just actually had a conversation this morning where someone was very aware of what we're trying to do and trying to help the company with and others haven't heard of it. But it's a risk that's out there and a very real one that we're trying to help companies with. Dave: So I know what patent means. Veritas, I think is Latin, but I don't recall off the top of my head what does Veritas mean? Andy: So it's just patent truth. It just sounded pretty good Good Latin word in there, so we have to. We put it in there. Dave: That is great and it sounds like that you saw some opportunity in this space based on your prior experience or clients. Like was there a specific situation that made you say, hey, you know there needs, there's a hole in the market here and I think I'm the guy that needs to fill it. Was there anything in particular? Andy: Yeah, no, that's a great question and there was, it's. Mostly clients were coming to us. Two things we noticed over the years, and then also, more directly, folks were asking us On the patent side. Two things would happen, because what we do is the particular IP risk is against patent trolls. These are folks that buy patents. They don't make a product or otherwise, they just buy buckets of patents and they sue operating companies for licensing revenue. So we saw a number of clients getting sued that way, and patent lawsuits are expensive. I mean a cheap one. According to the AIPLA, which is an association of IP attorneys, a relatively lower cost one, or average one, is about $6 million if you're going to trial, which is, yes, it's a lot of money. We've had clients upwards of 50, spend 50 million plus on legal fees. So patent litigation is not cheap, and so a lot of the folks that are the patent trolls are also called non-practicing entities. These folks, they know that arbitrage costs right and so they'll come in, they'll buy the patents. A lot of times then they go to these companies and they ask for a license that's below the cost of the litigation and so that's their business model. So we saw that happening to a number of our clients and these are especially targeted now are oftentimes small and medium enterprises right, privately held businesses, because that's their money right, and so they're going to make a decision, perhaps different than a bigger company like a Samsung will make or otherwise, to say hey we have the money. Dave: Yeah, they may just make a more pragmatic decision, right, because they may not have $6 million to spend. Andy: Exactly so. The decision process by an Apple or Samsung, which has a much larger litigation budget, is a lot different than when you're targeting, say, privately held manufacturer or maybe a restaurant chain or something like that Very successful businesses and oftentimes making many millions of dollars, but their decision with that money is a lot different than an Apple. As to saying I'm just going to fight all this, we're just going to fight everything that comes our way which isn't really possible for these companies because they don't have that deep of pockets, and so we thought of a solution for that, which I'm sure we'll talk about soon. But it came from that. And then also in our work, we buy and sell patents. That's how we kind of got into forming Patent Veritas, and that comes into play here as well, where we see this secondary market of patent purchases and sales going through and oftentimes those patents ending up in the hands of these non-practicing entities or patent trolls, and then they go off and license that. So we see that market as well, and I think we're able to. We formed a company here to kind of make a difference for that and help folks out. Additionally, what we also saw a lot of times were our privately held clients again, successful businesses, all ranges of things but they didn't necessarily devote the resources or have the capability really in the IP space and so we also address that with Patent Veritas, which is helping companies have almost an instant patent portfolio when they work with us. That's also expensive to develop. You know it can cost several millions of dollars to develop your own patents organically and grow it, which is a great thing to do, but it takes money and time. It often takes several years as well. So our company kind of marries all that together, the experiences we've had with our privately held business clients, and put this together in a really neat service that we can provide to people. Dave: Okay, so I think, if my recollection is correct, I think it was in 1899 that the head of the patent office announced everything that could be invented had already been invented. Is this true? I think it was a moratorium on new patents for some period of time. Andy: Well, I think he wanted to. I don't know if he did, he might have, but that was definitely said and everyone always points to that as oh geez, you know, when everything is done, everything all the inventions are made, they point to this, you know. Some other interesting things were the patent office had kind of a list I think they still do of potential inventions or products that are impossible. One was heavier than air flight impossible right Until the Wright brothers came up with it. That didn't happen, so that was on the list. Another one that was on the list was I think this is funny hair growth for men. Almost impossible, right Until someone created it. So yeah, I think since 1899, we've had one or two inventions that have really helped us out, so I'm glad. Dave: Oh, that's funny. So you're saying so to kind of simplify things. The patent examiners just kind of had a cheat sheet of the 50 kinds of impossible things that some scam artist is going to try to patent and you can just automatically reject those when you just look at the impossible. Andy: That's right yeah. Dave: Well, talk to me about the patent, the secondary patent market. Andy: How large? Dave: like how many patents change hands a year, or what's the? How do you measure the size of that market? Andy: You know, honestly I'm not sure it's a private market. It's one where it's not there's metrics. But you know, this is one where companies buy and sell patents for strategic reasons. So it's not like the NYSE where you can go in and see how many million shares were traded. So it's one where it really is kind of a bespoke market. There's, I would say, several hundred thousand patents change hands maybe, or tens of thousands of patents maybe each year. It's quite a few, yeah. But it's a mixture between strategic players your Samsungs, your Apples, your Googles of the world maybe filling holes and doing deals with each other or other companies. And then it's also a combination of, say, these non-patent, non-practicing entities or patent trolls purchasing patents and that kind of makes this whole marketplace go. And it's a global market. People are buying and selling, especially you know some of the changes in Europe where they have a new patent court for the entire European Union, you know. So that made all these European patents change hands more often. So it really is one where there's no marketplace, single marketplace you go to and say I want to buy a patent. It's more of just folks brokering patents and just being part of the marketplace more of just folks brokering patents and just being part of the marketplace Gotcha. Dave: And then, in addition to the actual tens or hundreds of thousands of patents that are changing hands, you then have licensing deals, which are probably of a similar magnitude, I'm guessing. Andy: Yeah, oh, definitely. So there's a lot of licenses, yeah, and those now the patents, don't necessarily change hands, but certainly value does, right. So you'll see a lot of companies cross-license patents where they can have access to each other's portfolio, and then there's different degrees of licensing where, for example, at a university, you can license patents out on an exclusive basis. So you have every right as the licensee, almost every right except ownership of the patent itself, and so that too, even though that's a license, that's really closer to being a sale because of how many rights transfer over to the person. So, yeah, the patents are it's a little bit of a complicated business. Just because it's property, but it's intangible properties, you can do a lot of different things without actually changing hands, or you can change, actually have the property change hands. Dave: Fascinating. I wanted I'm really anxious to dive into this. I know you speak on the subject a lot. How do you want to kind of lay this out for the listeners? Andy: What kind of? Dave: sequence of events. Andy: You kind of want to go through to explain in more detail your services, your product and such yeah, we can just take it from the top of how we normally or folks will approach us because there's some, as you know, there's some interesting estate planning opportunities as well that we can put together with this. So, on the front end, with the businesses, a lot of times we'll be approached or we'll approach clients, or what have you usually referred over to? They're referred over to us and the ideal client is someone who's a privately held business, successful privately held business and it can be of a variety of. You know, a lot of times people think that the folks who need patents or use them are high tech, and that's not necessarily the case, especially in the fact of the non-patent. You know, the patent trolling side right, the patent trolls really like to have kind of simpler businesses to target, because even those simpler businesses use a lot of technology today. So our clients come to us all the way from their restaurant owners, successful restaurant chains, all the way to maybe trading operations where they're doing stock trading and they have their own software or sell software in that To, of course, you know your traditional high tech companies that are privately held, of which there's many, and then some people in between, so the metal benders of the world that you know are very. We have in the Midwest right A lot of manufacturing companies, so all those are great clients because they all use technology. Even real estate developers nowadays are using some really high-tech stuff and they're not just digging dirt and building houses. So really any of those clients are interesting folks to talk to and could use our services. So what we do is we'll sit down with them, talk about what we do, like we're doing, and then also just understand some of the risks they face, namely like what do you do to make money? How do you earn income? So we figure that out, because that's where the patent trolls are going to target. Then what we'll be able to do is match up. We have patents and then we can also purchase patents in the secondary market if we don't have the right ones for them. And then for the most part we'll figure that out and then we'll right size the license amount to see, okay, how many services of ours can we really help? What can we do? And then we'll get a patent license over to them, or the license or the patents from us. Because what we do is I didn't even mention this, I skipped ahead but we go in the marketplace, our marketplace that we're in every day, and we see these patents that are there that might be good patent, troll patents or targets, and we'll buy them before the trolls do. And then we own those patents, we put them essentially can think of in a bucket and then we license those out to our clients. So we have access whether we own them or have access to many tens of thousands of patents that can work for the client's purposes. So we do that client gets a license to this, and the longer they subscribe with us, the better. The value is because we'll charge a flat fee and we're going out there and buying patents all over the place for them. Also, what we'll do is kind of understand, okay, what are the risks that you face from competitors and what are some of your goals in the IP space. Like, do you have a patent portfolio? Do you want one? Should we have one? And then we can also use our own patents to provide that kind of starting point for them if they want to build their own portfolio or if they're sued by a competitor, which happens a lot, which is one of the reasons why we formed Patent Veritas, because we can instantly help them out and say hey, we have the following three or four patents you should probably use. You can sue the competitor, because the worst thing you can have is to be sued for patent litigation and not have a patent to sue back to somebody. They have a gun, you don't? That's a pretty bad fight and we get called a lot of times Again. One of the impetus, one of the reasons we started Patent Veritas we were getting calls from people to say hey, we have a patent lawsuit against us. I don't have any patents. Usually the lawyers would call us and say can you get us patents quickly? How fast do you need them, like in a day or two? Well, that's not going to happen. It takes a while to get these patents, to purchase the right ones. So now we can have these patents available in case they're sued by a competitor, and that really helps out a case. Dave: So that's on the front end. I was going to ask you, so your clients, are they licensing, like your whole portfolio of patents or just certain patents? How do you typically do that? Andy: Yeah, just the ones that are going to be of value to them. So we'll have groups of patents that are of value to almost any companies. I call them process workflow patents. So almost every business has some sort of process workflow that they go through, and it usually involves software. These are the most typical ones, but that's almost every company everything from a restaurant where you're purchasing you know you don't think about it, but if you order from a restaurant online on your phone, there's a process workflow that goes from start to finish, or even when you sit down. A lot of times restaurants are automated, especially some of the bigger, not necessarily publicly changed, but some of the better, even kind of privately held chained restaurants. They're going to have a process workflow from when you sit down, you order, you do this and there's going to be software and automation involved in that. So those sorts of patents, generally everybody should probably have a license to, and we're on the lookout for those all the time, because those are prime patent troll patents. So we want to buy those and at the same time then there's going to be some that are a little more bespoke to their industry, right. So if you're in the manufacturing business, you're going to have a certain need of different patents versus if you do, say, crypto trading, right, you're going to have a different set of patents that are more crypto specific. The metal benders of the world, the manufacturers of the world, are going to be over here. They're going to have a different group of patents, so we'll include those as appropriate. Or, if you're a restaurant, you're going to have different online ordering patents that are probably very relevant to your business, not so much to the crypto guys. So that's how we usually do that and kind of right size, which ones are going to work best for who? Dave: And you mentioned the scenario that an attorney representing a defendant will call you saying, hey, my client needs some patents. Can you help us out? It seems like, from what I know about litigation, it seems like it's almost too late by then. Is that true? Is it better, even if it was the day before they were sued, if they had the license in place? Yeah, oh yeah. Andy: Whenever, if you're the defendant and you're calling us looking for patents, it's on the late side and that's tough to get in place. We can do it, but it's going to take a while and that's not the position you want to be in, because the case isn't going to be stayed just because you don't have any defenses. It's going to keep moving. In fact, the plaintiff is going to be really happy. The adversary is happy that you don't have patents and to move that case along quickly because it's going to force you into a settlement. That's not very favorable. So yeah, so that's why we always try and get the word out, try and talk with people, like we're doing here, like, hey, guys, we can offer this, let's talk now, as opposed to when you're sued by a patent troll or you're sued by a competitor. Let's talk now and get this in place and let's get that access to the IP in place now. Dave: Okay, so let me just recap to make sure I have it. So you're having proactive conversations with these privately held companies and you're kind of assessing their current IP portfolio and then you're deciding if it should be supplemented with some patents licenses to patents that you own and then you kind of get them set up as a client to patents that you own. And then you kind of get them set up as a client and then over time you'll acquire more patents that they may just automatically benefit from. And then if they then do get sued, they have a really strong defense because they have access to all of the licenses or all the patents that they've licensed from you. So now, all of a sudden, instead of coming back saying, hey, you've infringed on the plaintiff's patent, they can say no, we haven't, and in fact we actually have intellectual property that protects what we're doing. Is that kind of the idea? Andy: Yeah. Well, it's even more than that they can use the patents to sue the other party. It's not so much it protects what they're doing, it's more of hey. They're going to say. The plaintiff is going to say, hey, you're using my patent. Look at this, You're manufacturing tires a certain way. That's fine. What they're going to say is now our client is going to be able to say fine, but we have five other patents that you're using right now, so we're going to sue you back, so we can either go through with this. We can either go through with this whole lawsuit and I'm probably going to make more money off this than you are or we can resolve this suit, Because the goal is to actually bring the suit to a close as quickly as possible for our client. And by doing that by having your own weapons, you can do that. Dave: Now with a patent troll, you won't have as much of an offensive approach. Right, that's really more if it's a competitor suing you. Andy: That's correct. Yeah, if it's a competitor, you have that. If it's a patent troll, the goal here is to try and starve the trolls of as many patents as possible and minimize that risk. So it's a double part that we're able to provide for that. Dave: Okay, okay, all right. Well, let's move on to kind of the next part of the process or the business. Andy: Yeah, no, I mentioned some really neat tax and estate planning opportunities here as well. So the way the business is structured is that, if we're able to allow our clients, this is kind of a longer term solution for them with their IP side, and that allows us to do some really neat things as well, because the most common, most popular thing is for us to actually then look at insurance and insuring our deal, if you will, and that is. There's a couple of different ways to do it and it really depends on the client's own estate planning. A lot of the folks that we work with are pretty well-off folks, pretty affluent folks from their businesses, but the simplest thing would be that we could take out a life insurance policy on the business owner who's of the company, and the reason we want to do that is because we want to make sure our deal goes through. So a lot of clients are going to sign a multi-year deal, three five-year deals, ideally even longer. We'll have you as a client as long as you want, but something in that order and then we're able to take out a policy and purchase a policy where we pay the premiums, and this is a whole life policy, and so the cash value is going to accumulate in that as we pay those premiums, and then if at a certain time the client decides to end the relationship with us, we're able to transfer that policy over to them in an efficient way however that works for them. Again, that's kind of bespoke to the particular client, but we can move that policy over to them. So the advantage is twofold. Now is that by working with us, their business is getting access to all these different patents, access to our portfolio able to counterclaim against adversaries if they're threatened or sued threatened or sued and at the same time now we can help them out with a life insurance policy where they name the beneficiaries, they do those sorts of things and then ultimately that policy will be sent over to them when our relationship with us ends. And so now they have a hopefully fully paid up whole life policy with cash value that they can use for whatever purpose they want. So it's a really neat way that it's structured. There's some other types of insurance as well. If folks qualify for that, it's called private placement life insurance, and with private placement life insurance that's for accredited investors. But that's another possibility where we can work with them via PPLI, or some of our clients have PPLI it's private placement life insurance is called PPLI. They have that in place already and so we can do something similar with that slightly different structure for our backend. But again, if it's already set up or if they want to set that up, that's a different form of life insurance and it really depends on what the client. What's best for the client as to their particular situation. But the neat part about that is is that they get a double. You know, they get both benefits, not just the. Their business gets the benefit and then they get the benefit as well. Personally for some of these in life insurance. So it's a neat system. We're able to work with that and to offer our clients. Dave: Okay. So let me just let me check for understanding there. So the client signs some, some contract with you, you know you, for some period of time three, five more years to basically have a subscription to the various bespoke combination of patents that they are licensing Because of that contractual relationship and the receivable that your company has, that gives you an insurable interest, because if the owner of that business were to die suddenly, that might jeopardize the ongoing nature of the business, which might jeopardize your ability to collect on this long-term contract, right? So that's what creates the insurable interest. And then, in theory, every client wants your product. They just maybe don't want to pay for it. Well, and it's not just your product, it's a lot of things, right? Most people want lots of stuff, they just don't want to pay for it. And so by using this structure, by adding the additional layer of the life insurance, it makes it a more attractive value proposition for them, and not only in the short run, but even in the long run. Andy: That does no well, said Absolutely, because, yeah, this is an extra benefit from working with us. It's not just, you know, especially privately held businesses, right, it's again, this is those owners money, right, and they're working hard for that. So they may want this service, but they say, like you said, geez, this is kind of expensive, because patent licenses are not cheap. There's several hundreds of thousands of dollars often. So this is a way, though, to provide an additional incentive for working with us over the long haul. Right, making a commitment with us will help make a commitment with you as well and provide a real benefit to you and your family from working with us, in addition to a client for the long term. And that's where the value can really accumulate for the business as well, because each year, we're going out, we're buying, we're bird dogging more patents, we're buying more patents, so that bucket, so to speak, just keeps getting bigger for that price. So it's a great thing for their business too, because the longer you work with us, the more patents you're going to have a license to, and the more value you're going to realize for your license, the more patents you're going to have a license to and the more value you're going to realize for your license. Dave: How do you decide, like, let's look at a hypothetical industry that has 10 players in it? Let's say it's some niche industry and there's 10 companies that all manufacture something similar? Well, obviously you can't go sell your solution to all 10 of the companies. I mean, I guess you could. It would at least protect all of them from the patent trolls, right? Give them any protection from one another. How do you? What's your strategy there? Is it kind of a once you know? In a situation like this, once you have one client in this space, do you not take on any more? Or by yeah, and I guess it depends on which risks they're trying to ensure. If it's the patent troll risk, in theory the 10 of them are all better off teaming up, if you will, to combine their resources, and it would be more cost-effective for you to license the same group of patents 10 times or sell 10 subscriptions instead of just one. Tell me about how you strategically look at that situation. Andy: Yeah, situations like that I mean you have to be careful on because you don't want to have where you know you start having kind of clients suing each other and both of them coming to you for patents to use against each other. So it's a great point made and we assess that on kind of a case by case basis. But it really is looking out for kind of a conflict of interest. We haven't had that happen, but if it is, we would look at that and say, okay, we'd be careful about what rights each party would have. Like you said, if they all want patent troll protection, that's not as big of a deal. But if folks want to have that access as well to the patent portfolio, now we really need to look at it and say, okay, what could happen if these guys sue each other and what should we do? And the right answer there is to not take conflicting positions. That's a pretty straightforward thing. Dave: Well, that's another reason. When you're talking to a potential client in this hypothetical scenario of 10 players in this industry, the fact that you're talking to one of them implies you don't have the other nine as a client. And if they say no to you in the back of their mind they have to be thinking well, you know who are they going to call next. Right, yeah no, that's. Andy: Yeah, we've had something not exactly similar but like that happened in other, and that's right. You know it's a Coke or Pepsi thing, so if Coke says no, we go to Pepsi, then Coke knows that. Well geez, that wasn't maybe the best thing. So yeah, that's absolutely right. It's a little incentive, I guess, for the client who we're talking to to sign up for us, in addition to all the benefits we just talked about. Maybe they don't want to see we'll be behind the scenes and all of a sudden get whacked over the head with some patents. That's never a fun day, sure. Dave: So can you for the listeners. I find that, like case studies, examples are really helpful to help learn. Do you have like an example or two you could give us and I'm sure you'll? You know they'll be anonymous, but maybe just an example of you know of maybe somebody who was a client who got sued and the outcome because of this? Or could you give us some kind of examples or a blended example of several things, a hypothetical, whatever you're most comfortable with? Andy: Yeah, we can do a couple different ones. I mean, we haven't had yet where a client was sued and had to access the portfolio. We haven't had that yet, but we have had in the past where we will get. As I mentioned, folks are sued, they don't have patents, their adversary does, and this was in an area where you wouldn't even think of as being like there's patents on this. Car sales, okay, used car sales, oh wow. No one thinks of this like that. But there is actually. There are patents out there. I know for a fact there are patents out there in the used car sales market at reaching pricing and reaching distribution and how to optimize inventory, all that. Those are real patents and they were issued by the United States government. And we were in the middle of that case won't name parties but where two competitors used car salespeople, big ones, very large companies, both privately held one sued the other. Not surprisingly, we got a phone call from their attorney and they said listen, we have a bit of a situation on our hands. These two companies are suing each other. Their competitor just sued them. They have a patent that pretty much covers 100% of their revenue, which is never a good position to be in, because that means that all of your businesses is at risk. We need patents. We need them now. We were able to help them and we were able to locate and find used car patents which was a great win. And they were very happy and were able to do that in a way that, in a timely fashion. However, that was a fire drill that I don't ever want to go through again and really did set this whole business of patent veritas in motion. One of the reasons because Nick and I Nick Stabinski and I looked at each other and thought there has to be a better way than this and so we formed this. So that's a great case study. Because, again, if I were to tell you before Dave, hey, a great case study. Because, again, if I were to tell you before Dave, hey, there's patents on used car sales, you'd think I'm crazy. But there is, and there's a lot of them out there. So that's a great example of that. And then, in terms of other folks just clients of signing up, how that works, sure, there's one. I'll give a more traditional role. They do they sell software, partially as a reseller of software and partially their own, and they have different process workflows that they have. They realize the value. I talked with these folks. They realize the value of our services and, fairly straightforward, just what I mentioned, which is you look, we sit down and say how do you earn your revenue, how do you make your money, what does your workflow look like? And you get a license in place relatively quickly. That only takes a license after we understand how the business works. It really only takes if the client's ready a day. It's very simple to have that we have, you know, our licenses we like to use. It's very simple to put one of these up and running, and so that was great. And then they also realized the value of the life insurance. And now that of course takes a little longer but the two can be done separately. We can get the license in place first and then let the process play out for the life insurance piece, because of course there's some underwriting for our client there personally to do and I should mention, there's at the same time depending on the carrier and provider. You know cause. Sometimes the question is well, what if I can't get insurance? Excuse me, there's actually ways, there's actually carriers that you can insure different groups and the like and still receive the benefit of some of those insurance things like cash value and the like that they might care about. You don't get all the benefits, but you can get some of the value still out of it. So you know, that wasn't this instance, the folks are going through the underwriting, no problem, but that's out there. So that's a fairly straightforward situation. Dave: Now, you're probably not going to like this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway, In this hypothetical example of the 10 companies in this one niche, and you're talking to one of them and they think might this be a strategy for me to weaken my other nine competitors? Might I be a little patent trollish, like, but this is at least a legitimate operating company and the patents that we would be seeking to enforce, I mean, actually revolve around our business. They're not the non. What did you call the patent trolls? Non-operating entities. Andy: Yeah, non-practicing entities Sure. Dave: So if somebody did that and let's just say they didn't even have the conversation, or a year into it, this idea suddenly strikes them and they get an aggressive attorney and they start suing these other folks. Is that a problem on your end, or whether they use their service offensively or defensively? Are you neutral to? Andy: that. So if they're a client and they come to us and say, hey, we want to use the patents offensively, we'd have to look at it and really think it might be best to even just sell them the patents at that point. So there's different ways. Yeah, we would talk with the client and understand their goals as to why they need it or otherwise, because, again, that's a competitive position. You know, it's obviously like in the example I gave with used car sales. The one company felt strong enough that they wanted to sue another used car sales company because maybe, it's you know, they're gaining market share or a whole bunch of reasons why companies might use patents, right. So you know, that's really a conversation we'd have to have with the client to understand is this the best way? Is this what you need for your goals? And then we'll kind of help them out as best as possible. Dave: Yeah, and especially with the Department of Labor. I think it was the Department of Labor that basically invalidated non-competes. So it could be, if this competitor is very good at stealing their top car sales people and they can't really use a non-compete to stop that any longer, maybe this would be another way to shut that off. Andy: Yeah, it could. I mean, these are kind of case-by-case examples that you want to really talk with the client. But yeah, that's correct. Especially it would be one where maybe they've stolen the IP that you have, they're implementing it in their system or whatever. Then you know, you really that's something that you, that's what patents are for, right, that's what we're here for. So we want to have that conversation, we want to talk with them and work with them to help our clients. Dave: What do you enjoy most about what you're doing now with Patent Veritas and your role within the company? What do you enjoy most? Andy: and a lot of money. And it's neat to see a lot of these folks grew the business from the ground up. Most of our clients are so. They started their businesses and have grown it the entire time, and in a whole bunch, like I said, everything from restaurants all the way to really complicated software that just boggles the mind when you look at it. But every single person is interesting because they all have some insight into their work that really has allowed them to be successful. And it's neat working with people like that. It's really a privilege. It's really fun because you learn something and you say why didn't I think of that? But then we're able to help them out and really help their business, protect their business with this and then help them personally as well, right With some of their estate planning, their tax and estate planning, with some of these insurance needs. So it's pretty cool to combine all that together. And it's never a dull day On the patent side, even you know, when we're out there in the market bird dogging and trying to buy patents, it's always interesting because you know you're always learning something off the patents themselves too. You get to read through those and kind of see is this something that's going to work for us, is it not? And you know, have the team kind of weigh in on all that, and that's a lot of fun too. So it's a really neat. It's a really neat business. It's every day is a little different. Every company definitely is a little different and every client's a little different, so it's always kind of cool. There's no, it's not a cookie cutter business where every day we're just like, okay, I mean, we have a nice workflow to get folks signed up, but it's always interesting to meet them and to learn more about what they do, like everything from the used car sales guys to, you know, the more traditional software folks and guys that manufacture, you know, boats. Dave: So it's kind of cool to just see like I can appreciate it, because that's really what I love about my role. You know, with my companies I'm working with the same type of clients. You are Mine just are in a niche where they export at least a portion of their product, and I love working with those folks because you know they're the lifeblood of our economy. You know there's just a, they're dynamic, you know ambitious, they're visionaries, they're successful. I mean just. You know there's a saying that you're the average of the five people you spend the most time with, and I can think of no better group of five people to spend the most time with than successful entrepreneurs. So I love that as well. Andy: It really is the best. I mean people I tell other, my friends or whatever, and I'm like it's pretty, it's just pretty cool, it's inspiring, like you said, just to be around these folks and to and then be able to help them. It's kind of neat Like hey, we're able to help your business just a little bit be more successful. That's pretty cool, it's a real privilege. Dave: Sure, Okay. So then that's the one side, that's the part you like some of the things your clients tell you. You know, like, once they become a client, you know they've started working with you. What are the things they tell you that they say that they really like working with your firm? What do they tell you makes your firm special and unique? Andy: You know, I we've been told a couple of different things. One is we're very, we're very hardworking. We're always working on their behalf, always going hard for them. That's always good, available. You know, we're very available to call folks like that and punctual, and also just actually had a nice award and they said you know, we treat people with respect and so it's. I think that's a big deal nowadays especially, so that's a wonderful thing. So folks like that as well, just I guess it's just we're hardworking, put our nose down for them and treat the folks with respect and be there for them. I think that's what I've heard. Dave: So that's great. That is great. Well, as we wrap up, I have three more questions. One is if somebody wants to reach out to you to explore the services, what's the best way for them to reach you? Linkedin, call you, email you. Andy: You know, email is always good, or a phone call, or LinkedIn, any of those. Dave: So I'll give you all three, yeah, the LinkedIn we'll put in the show notes so they'll have access to that. So what's the email? Andy: Sure, it's ahin ahein@patentveritas.com P-A-T-E-N-T-V-E-R-I-T-A-S.com, and then you can also phone. If you're so inclined to give a call, you can do so. It's oh geez, I just blanked that number because I don't call my own number. Dave: I know. Andy: But I'll give you another one 312-371-6578 is a direct number for me, so you can call that as well. Dave: It's kind of funny. I don't call myself, so I hear you Okay. Well, that's one of the three questions. The second one is there anything I didn't ask you that you wish I had? Andy: No, I think we covered a lot of information, so this is great. I'm sure I'll think about that an hour from now, but no. I think it's good Okay. Dave: Well, the last one. It's kind of a fun one and it's a question you may be don't get asked every day. So if you could go back in time and give advice to your 25-year-old self, when you were graduating from law school, what advice might you give to yourself? Andy: Wow, those are always that's tough to look back. I'd say you know it's going to. It all works out It'll work out Some things that happen to you. You don't realize why they do, but then later on, looking back, you understand that needed to happen. So some really good things happen later. Dave: So it works out and just keep moving forward, I and Well, that sounds like great advice for anybody, not just your 25 year old self. So that is great. Well, andy, I and Well, that sounds like great advice for anybody, not just your 25 year old self. So that is great. Well, andy I, this has really been fun and I've learned a lot and I think our listeners and my clients could really benefit from from knowing your company. Oh, I guess. The one other question so if somebody is interested in your service, you know you can take the law you're out of the law firm, but can you take the law firm out of the attorney? Does the clock start ticking, you know, the moment they call you, or how does your process work there? Do you have an introductory conversation? That's complimentary, or what's your? Andy: We don't. I mean we don't charge by the hour or anything like that. So all of this is the upfront work is done, just upfront work, just to see. Is this a good client? Is this a the person we're talking with? Would this be a good client, right? Would we be a good fit for them? Are we going to be able to provide the value that I just talked about and we just talked about? Are we going to be able to provide that value for you? Occasionally, the answer is no, because the business might not support it, and so that's simple. But no, our fees come from the patent license. That's how we make our money, and so we want to make sure that this is the right person that we're working with, because the right person. We can provide value to that person, we can actually add to their business. So there's no hourly rate, there's no anything that you know just to understand their business and otherwise have plenty of conversations, and if we're not the good fit, we'll tell you it's not going to be good for anybody. So we let folks know. Dave: That is great. Well, andy, again, thank you so much for your time. This has really been fun and you know, being from the Midwest myself, I'm from another one of those. I states Iowa. I always joke that, even though I've been in Texas for 40 years, I always joke. People in the West or the South, they all think Iowa, idaho, ohio and Indiana are the same place. All those states that start with a vowel end with a vowel somewhere up in the Midwest. They think they're all like the same place. Andy: Yeah, I've been asked if I like to ski in Colorado before, even though it's about a 12-hour drive, which the answer is yes, but I don't get there too often Understood. Dave: Well, hey, thanks again, Andy, and I hope you have a great afternoon. Andy: Cool Thanks, Dave. Thanks for having me, really appreciate it. Special Guest: Andy Hein.

This Day in Legal History: Sherman Antitrust ActOn July 2, 1890, U.S. President Benjamin Harrison signed the Sherman Antitrust Act into law, marking a transformative moment in American economic history. This landmark legislation aimed to prohibit the formation of trusts and monopolies that restricted trade across states, fundamentally altering the landscape of American industry. Named after Senator John Sherman, the act sought to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers.The Sherman Antitrust Act was a response to growing public concern over the power and influence of large corporations, which often stifled competition and controlled vast market shares. Notable entities affected by this law included John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil and the Bell System of telecommunications. Standard Oil, once a dominant force in the oil industry, was dismantled into smaller companies in 1911, following a landmark Supreme Court decision that found it in violation of the act.Similarly, the Bell System, which had monopolized the telecommunications industry, was broken up in 1982, leading to the creation of several independent companies. The Sherman Antitrust Act thus paved the way for more robust enforcement of antitrust laws and inspired future legislation, such as the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.The act's passage represented a significant shift toward greater governmental regulation of the economy, aiming to protect consumers and ensure a level playing field for businesses. Over the years, it has served as a critical tool for the U.S. Department of Justice in pursuing antitrust cases. The Sherman Antitrust Act remains a cornerstone of American antitrust policy, highlighting the ongoing importance of regulating corporate power to maintain market integrity.The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and new technology is providing a significant boost to private equity fundraising, benefiting law firms specializing in these areas. Investors have raised $17.4 billion for energy transition projects by June, surpassing last year's total of $10.3 billion, according to Preqin. This surge is driven by tax incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act, public demand for climate change solutions, and advancements in technologies like carbon capture.Prominent law firms, such as Davis Polk & Wardwell, Gibson Dunn, and Vinson & Elkins, are seeing increased activity due to the growing interest in energy transition investments. Michael Piazza of Gibson Dunn noted that despite the rise in renewable energy investments, continued investment in oil and gas remains necessary to support the energy transition responsibly.Major funds include Brookfield Asset Management's $10 billion fund announced in February and Morgan Stanley's plan to raise at least $1 billion. Firms like Blackstone, TPG, and KKR are also dedicating substantial resources to energy transition projects.While private equity fundraising has generally been sluggish, the energy transition sector stands out. Last year, private equity aggregate capital reached its lowest level since 2018, dropping over 8%. Limited partners are holding onto portfolio companies longer due to fewer exits via IPOs and secondary sales, complicating fundraising efforts.Law firms with expertise in private credit, fund formation, and energy deals are capitalizing on this trend. Firms such as Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett have been instrumental in advising on significant private credit loans and fund formations. The demand for legal services in energy transition has prompted firms like Paul Hastings and Sidley Austin to invest in hiring specialists in private credit and finance.Overall, the focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives has further fueled the energy transition boom, as limited partnerships increasingly include ESG criteria in their investment mandates. This shift provides incentives for investors to choose funds dedicated to climate technology and ESG projects over traditional private equity investments.Energy Transition Boom Aids Lawyers During Private Equity SlumpRudy Giuliani has requested to convert his Chapter 11 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 liquidation. If approved by Judge Sean H. Lane of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, a trustee will manage Giuliani's estate and liquidate his assets to pay off his creditors, including a $148 million defamation judgment owed to two Georgia election workers.Creditors had previously called for a trustee, alleging that Giuliani had delayed financial disclosures and moved assets out of their reach. Giuliani's lawyers denied any dishonesty, stating he was correcting past financial mismanagement. The motion to convert the bankruptcy was filed as a one-page document, indicating Giuliani's decision to pursue this legal option against what his spokesperson described as a "partisan and politically motivated proceeding."Judge Lane has expressed frustration over the slow progress of Giuliani's bankruptcy case, noting Giuliani's focus on appealing the defamation judgment. Giuliani filed for Chapter 11 in December following the defamation ruling. His legal team is from Berger, Fischoff, Shumer, Wexler & Goodman LLP, while the committee of unsecured creditors is represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.Giuliani Moves to Liquidate Assets to Pay $148 Million Debt (1)Donald Trump is seeking to overturn his New York hush-money conviction following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that grants him some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while president. Trump's lawyers have taken initial steps to request that the New York judge, Juan Merchan, set aside the jury's verdict, and propose delaying his sentencing to allow for briefing and arguments.The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision earlier stated that former presidents have immunity from prosecution for many official acts, reversing lower-court rulings and potentially influencing Trump's New York case. While two judges previously rejected Trump's immunity claims before this ruling, the decision could impact other legal proceedings against him.Trump's conviction involves 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult-film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election. Prosecutors argued Trump reimbursed Cohen with payments falsely recorded as legal services. Despite Trump's defense, the jury found the payments were intended to silence Daniels about an affair, not for legitimate legal work.The Supreme Court ruling could also affect other cases against Trump, including federal charges related to the 2020 election and classified documents. The legal landscape for Trump remains complex and dynamic as he navigates multiple legal challenges.Trump Seeks to Toss NY Felony Conviction After Immunity Win (1)The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity leaves Judge Tanya Chutkan with the challenging task of determining the extent of immunity Donald Trump has in his federal criminal case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The Court's 6-3 ruling affirmed that Trump has broad protection from prosecution for actions within his official duties as president. Judge Chutkan must now assess which actions fall under this protection and which do not, significantly impacting the four-count indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.This complex evaluation includes analyzing Trump's public statements before the January 6 Capitol attack and his attempts to organize alternate electors. Additionally, Chutkan will decide if prosecutors can overcome the presumption of immunity regarding Trump's pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence. The Supreme Court's ruling suggests these communications are considered official acts.The process will delay the trial, originally scheduled for March, potentially pushing it beyond the November 5 presidential election where Trump is the Republican candidate. Chutkan, known for her no-nonsense approach, has previously shown little tolerance for delays and has a history of imposing strict sentences on Capitol rioters. Trump's legal team plans to appeal any unfavorable rulings, which could further prolong proceedings.Chutkan's previous ruling in December 2023 rejected Trump's broad immunity claims, but the new Supreme Court guidelines require her to reassess this stance. Additionally, a separate Supreme Court decision last week raised the bar for federal obstruction charges, directly affecting two of the four counts against Trump. The outcome of these legal challenges will set a significant precedent for future presidential immunity cases.US Supreme Court leaves Judge Tanya Chutkan to parse Trump immunity | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

John is a Univesrity of Texas School of Law Graduate and works as a Managing Partner at Rushing McCarl. In this episode, I had the pleasure of sitting down with John Rushing, whose journey is one of the most illustrious and multifaceted we've ever featured. From his mentorship under the former director of the NSA to dining with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, John's story is nothing short of extraordinary.Our conversation began at the University of Oxford, where John pursued Scholastic Philosophy and Theology. Despite his passion, he soon realized this path wasn't his calling. We delved into deep discussions on the overarching wisdom of philosophy and the perennial problem of evil. This, however, was just the warm-up.John then recounted his transition to the University of Texas School of Law, where he met his influential mentor, Bob Iman. Post-law school, John's career took off at Sidley Austin, one of the world's largest law firms. It was here that he ventured into political work, joining the campaign trail with an emerging Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. His political engagements continued as he later supported Joe Biden's presidential campaign.But John's ambitions didn't stop there. He shifted gears to become an actor, starring in multiple plays, one of which won a Pulitzer Prize. This success led him to Los Angeles, where he founded Rushing Entertainment. John thrived in the entertainment industry, acting in various shows and producing and directing movies.In 2020, John returned to his roots in law, co-founding Rushing McCarl with former guest Ryan McCarl. His story is a testament to the power of versatility and relentless pursuit of one's passions.John's wisdom and outlook on life are truly inspiring. His ability to succeed across diverse fields and live a life filled with purpose and adventure is something we can all aspire to emulate. Tune in to hear more about John's remarkable journey and the invaluable lessons he's learned along the way.John's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/john-rushing-b5401694John's IMBD: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3738224/?ref_=ext_shr_lnkCheck out the Official sponsor of the Lawyers in the Making Podcast Rhetoric:Rhetoric takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lawyersinthemaking.substack.com

This week we're looking back at one of our most popular episodes of the last 6 months: our conversation with Charles Baker.Every investment comes with plenty of responsibility, but in a multifaceted market like sports and entertainment with varied revenue streams and worldwide integration, navigating this complex landscape can be overwhelming. Today's guest is helping his clients make sure that all the bases are covered. Literally. We're sitting down with Charles (Chuck) Baker, who chairs Sidley Austin's Entertainment, Sports, and Media Group. Chuck represents investors in professional sports, businesses and teams, and advises on sports and entertainment transactions. He has decades of experience in the sports industry and has represented sports franchise purchases across multiple leagues, including the NFL, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the NBA, the NHL, the National Women's Soccer League, and multiple European football leagues.Recently, Chuck represented Genius Sports in its multi-year strategic partnership with the NFL and the Canadian Football League, and also advised on the acquisition minority interest in the Los Angeles Lakers, the Charlotte Hornets, as well as the 6+ billion dollar purchase of the Washington Commanders.Chuck has been highly recognized in the field of sports and entertainment law by multiple national publications. Most recently, the National Law Journal named him to its 2022 list of sports gaming entertainment law trailblazers. The Sports Business Journal also named him to their 2021 Power Players list, and Law 360 added him to their 2020 Sports Betting MVPs.Chuck is an active board member for the March of Dimes and Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. He is also an adjunct professor and advisory board member at the University of Miami School of Law, and a distinguished lecturer at NYU's Tisch Institute for Sports Management, Media and Business.Chuck was also an associate for former Senator, Dollar Bill Bradley, one of Tom's all time favorite Knicks! Highlights:Chuck's work background and how he came across his opportunity at Sidley Austin (4:34)Secular trends currently driving the sports and entertainment investment market (7:56)Chuck describes the investor audience specific to sports and entertainment (9:54)Current sports markets with high deal flow (12:58)Chuck tells the story of the Chelsea FC deal and his role in the transaction (15:14)The current trend and future of sports investments going international (17:53)Chuck describes Sidley Austin's recent partnership with Arctos (20:10) Market competition, industry saturation, and the market's outlook (23:11)How streaming and entertainment consumption affect media rights (25:17)Women's sports and growing investment markets (27:17)How market developments and investments affect fan experience (28:54)Chuck's most recent wins with his own sports teams (29:45)Links:Charles BakerCharles Baker on LinkedInSidley Austin on LinkedInSidley Austin WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, marion@lowerstreet.co.

This Day in Legal History: The Trial of GalileoOn April 12, 1633, a pivotal moment in the annals of legal and scientific history unfolded as Galileo Galilei faced the Roman Catholic Church's formal inquisition on charges of heresy. This trial was not merely a religious condemnation but a significant clash between emerging scientific ideas and established ecclesiastical doctrine. Galileo, by advocating the heliocentric theory that posited the sun at the center of the universe—a view first propagated by Copernicus—directly challenged the Church's geocentric model, which placed Earth and, by extension, humanity, at the cosmos' core.The inquisition's core accusation was that Galileo held "as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world," in stark contradiction to the theological view that emphasized Earth's central position. This confrontation was not just about celestial mechanics; it was fundamentally about the authority to define truth. The trial, therefore, was as much a legal battle over doctrinal correctness as it was a referendum on intellectual freedom and the role of evidence in shaping belief.Found "vehemently suspect of heresy," Galileo's conviction was a foregone conclusion given the Church's powerful influence over societal norms and scientific discourse at the time. His sentence to life imprisonment was a stark message to the intellectual community about the limits of inquiry. However, perhaps recognizing the harshness of this penalty or the potential for backlash, his punishment was later commuted to house arrest.During his house arrest, Galileo continued his scientific work, demonstrating a resilience and commitment to knowledge that would posthumously vindicate his theories. It wasn't until centuries later, however, that the Church would formally acknowledge the error in its judgment against Galileo. In 1992, Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Church had erred in condemning Galileo's support for heliocentric theories.This episode serves as a critical reflection point on the interplay between law, power, and knowledge. Galileo's trial underscores the dangers of legal systems enmeshed with doctrinal control and highlights the enduring struggle between innovation and orthodoxy. It remains a poignant example of the need for legal frameworks that protect and promote intellectual freedom, emphasizing that the pursuit of truth should guide both scientific inquiry and legal principles.The $20 billion allocated from the White House to fight climate change through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund aims to enhance the nation's clean financing capabilities while managing financial risks carefully. This fund is intended to catalyze up to $150 billion in private investments for clean energy projects and other initiatives to decarbonize the economy, prioritizing both greenhouse gas reduction and benefits to disadvantaged communities. However, these investments carry inherent risks, which have garnered scrutiny from congressional Republicans, who are vigilant for any signs of failure or financial missteps to politicize the issue.Sophie Purdom from Planeteer Capital notes the low threshold for political controversy, even if only a few investments do not perform as expected. Meanwhile, Beth Bafford of the Climate United Fund, which received the largest grant, emphasizes her organization's long-standing expertise in distinguishing between real and perceived risks and structuring financial transactions accordingly. This approach is aimed at enabling aggressive action towards achieving net zero emissions without jeopardizing financial sustainability.The discussion extends beyond financial returns, highlighting the potential for broader economic benefits, especially in underserved communities. For instance, investments are planned in areas like on-site solar, building decarbonization, and bringing electric vehicles to disadvantaged areas. The Climate United Fund alone plans to deploy significant capital towards these ends, leveraging their extensive experience in financing similar projects.Comparisons are drawn with other federal initiatives like the Paycheck Protection Program, where community development financial institutions played a crucial role with minimal risk of loss, suggesting a blueprint for successful deployment of the climate funds. Despite concerns about fraud which affected previous federal programs, advocates like Jessie Buendia from Dream.org suggest bolstering EPA staffing and education on using blended capital to mitigate risks and maximize the impact of investments.The political landscape remains contentious, with Republicans actively opposing the fund, citing concerns over waste and the influence of foreign supply chains. Yet, there is a call for bipartisan support to foster clean, thriving communities across all states, pointing towards a need for collaborative efforts between the government and the private sector for transformative market changes.Climate Lenders With $20 Billion in Grants Weigh Risk and RewardWinston & Strawn emerged as the top legal biller for the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), which significantly reduced its legal expenses to $1.7 million in 2023 after finalizing a new collective bargaining agreement. This figure marks a substantial decrease from the $3.7 million spent in the previous year during intense negotiations following a three-month league lockout. The legal fees covered a range of services, with Winston earning approximately $264,000 for salary arbitration work, signaling its longstanding role as a key advisor to the MLBPA.Following Winston in billing were several other prominent firms, including Latham & Watkins and Boston-based Hemenway & Barnes, with respective payments of $176,000 and $147,000. Additional significant contributions came from Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Sidley Austin, highlighting the diverse array of legal expertise enlisted by the MLBPA.The reduction in legal costs coincided with a major expansion of the MLBPA, which saw its membership grow from 1,200 to about 6,000 as minor league players were incorporated. This expansion suggests a broadening of the union's scope and responsibilities, potentially influencing its legal and operational strategies.Internally, the MLBPA faced discontent from some players critical of the union's direction and leadership under Executive Director Tony Clark and Chief Labor Negotiator Bruce Meyer. Clark's compensation nearly doubled over the past year, which, coupled with the union's strategic decisions, has fueled some unrest among members.The legal team at the MLBPA also saw changes, with significant salaries for roles such as the new general counsel and other senior positions, reflecting the union's complex legal and operational environment. Moreover, the MLBPA engaged other legal and advisory services, including risk analysis and lobbying efforts, to support its broadening agenda.Overall, the MLBPA's legal expenditures reflect its strategic navigation through labor negotiations, membership expansion, and internal challenges. The focus on managing both high-profile and routine legal matters underscores the critical role of legal counsel in supporting the union's evolving needs and ambitions in the dynamic landscape of professional sports.Winston, Latham Top Big Law Billers for Fractious Baseball UnionThe influence of U.S. News & World Report's law school rankings appears to be diminishing, evidenced by a significant decrease in web traffic for leaks of the rankings and a widespread boycott by law schools. Mike Spivey, a law school admissions consultant, noted a 50% drop in traffic when he published the top 25 law schools a week ahead of U.S. News' official release. This decline in interest is linked to recent controversies, including data errors in the previous year's rankings and a boycott that started in 2022, with 53 out of 197 American Bar Association-accredited schools refusing to submit data.Despite these challenges, the rankings still generate considerable attention, as noted by Staci Zaretsky from Above the Law, although the level of interest has waned compared to past years. A survey conducted by Kaplan Test Prep revealed mixed sentiments among law school admissions officers regarding the prestige of the rankings, with a majority acknowledging a loss in prestige over recent years.U.S. News has responded by adjusting its ranking methodology to de-emphasize LSAT scores and grades in favor of employment outcomes and bar pass rates. This change reflects broader concerns within the legal academy about the impact of ranking methodologies on financial aid distribution and academic priorities.The discussion around the rankings highlights a shift in priorities among law school applicants, with more emphasis being placed on employment outcomes rather than ranking positions. Spivey's own firm, which conducts rankings analysis, benefits from the ongoing relevance of the rankings, yet he advocates for greater transparency and meaningfulness in how the rankings are formulated and presented. This evolving perspective among stakeholders suggests that while the U.S. News rankings continue to influence applicant decisions to some extent, their dominance and credibility are increasingly being questioned within the legal education community.After setbacks, U.S. News law school rankings show signs of waning influence | ReutersEpic Games has called for significant reforms to Google's Play Store, following a jury's decision that Google had abused its dominant position in the Android app market. In a recent court filing, Epic suggested that the Play Store should allow third-party app stores and limit Google's agreements with device makers that prevent the preloading of alternative stores. These recommendations were part of a proposed injunction submitted to U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco, who oversaw the antitrust trial concluding with a verdict against Google in December.Epic's proposal does not seek monetary damages but aims to alter Google's practices to foster greater competition. Specifically, Epic wants to prohibit Google from restricting how apps inform users about purchasing options outside of the Google Play Store. This move is part of a broader challenge against major tech companies' control over app distribution and transaction processes.While Google has denied any wrongdoing and defended its app store policies, it has been compelled to make concessions in the face of legal pressures. In December, alongside the jury verdict, Google agreed to a $700 million settlement addressing allegations related to its Play Store restrictions. Moreover, Google introduced "choice billing" as an alternative for in-app purchases in the U.S., allowing developers more flexibility.The case against Google could extend for years, especially as Google plans to appeal the December verdict and potentially challenge any reforms mandated by Judge Donato. This legal battle mirrors a similar ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Apple, emphasizing Epic's broader strategy to challenge the app distribution monopolies held by tech giants. The outcomes of these cases could have significant implications for the app development industry and consumer choice in digital marketplaces.Epic Games proposes Google app store reforms after antitrust win | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven.Ludwig van Beethoven, born in 1770 in Bonn, Germany, stands as a monumental figure in the history of Western music. His works span the transition from the Classical period to the Romantic era in music and continue to be revered for their depth and innovative qualities. Beethoven was a virtuosic pianist and composer who was known for his profound ability to convey emotion and intellectual depth through his compositions. Despite suffering from progressive hearing loss that eventually led to complete deafness, Beethoven's relentless dedication to music allowed him to compose some of the most celebrated pieces of all time.Among his extensive body of works, Beethoven's symphonies particularly stand out, with each contributing uniquely to the evolution of the genre. His Symphony No. 6 in F Major, Op. 68, known as the "Pastoral Symphony," is an exemplary piece that depicts the composer's love for nature. Unlike many of his other symphonies, which are driven by dramatic heroism, the Pastoral Symphony is filled with warmth and expressions of the joy and peace Beethoven found in the countryside. This symphony is programmatic, meaning it intentionally evokes scenes or nature images, showcasing Beethoven's deep reverence for the natural world.The "Pastoral Symphony" is divided into five movements, each describing a different element of rural life. Of particular note is the first movement, marked "Allegro ma non troppo," which translates to "Lively, but not too much." This movement, titled "Awakening of cheerful feelings on arrival in the countryside," beautifully sets the stage for a symphonic expression of a day in the countryside. It starts with a leisurely pace that suggests the gentle unfolding of a landscape bathed in the rejuvenating light of spring. The melody is simple yet expressive, with flowing lines that mimic the tranquility of nature, perfectly capturing the essence of spring's awakening.In this movement, Beethoven uses a sonata form to explore musical themes that suggest the freshness of the season, the rustling of leaves, and the bubbling of streams. The development section weaves these elements together, creating a rich tapestry of sound that feels both vivid and idyllic. This movement not only sets the tone for the entire symphony but also offers listeners a sonic escape into the peacefulness and renewal that characterizes spring. Through the "Pastoral Symphony," particularly in the allegro of the first movement, Beethoven invites us to share in his reverence for nature and experience the restorative powers of the natural world.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, Allegro movement. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Sidley Austin's Josh DuClos offers his thoughts on the new SEC regulations for SPACs, the larger economy and market as well as the historic role that private equity firms have played in the SPAC sector.

Episode 54 of the "Everything Except The Law" podcast has arrived! This time we're speaking with Dorna Moini, the CEO/Founder at Gavel.In this episode, Dorna and host Nick Werker discuss the growing trend of legal productization, how law firms can better utilize their tech tools in 2024, automating your practice through Gavel and much more!About our guest: Dorna Moini is the CEO and founder of Gavel (www.gavel.io), a no-code platform for building document automation and client-facing legal products. Prior to starting Gavel, Dorna was a litigator at Sidley Austin. There, in her pro bono practice, she worked with legal aid organizations to build a web application for domestic violence survivors to complete and file their paperwork, which led to the idea for Gavel.Dorna is on the Legal Services Corporation Emerging Leaders Council and a member of LAFLA's Advisory Board. She was named an ABA Legal Rebel and a Fastcase 50 honoree. She also teaches the Legal Innovations Lab at USC Law School.Be sure to follow @dorna_at_gavel on social.Subscribe to the Answering Legal Channel so you never miss an episode of Everything Except the Law! Check out audio versions of the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Anchor. Learn more about the show here: http://ow.ly/Eni250LekLgCheck out more helpful stuff from Answering Legal here:Our Free 2023 Holiday Gift Package: https://ow.ly/2hJf50QwPG3Our Guide To Lawyer Wellness: http://ow.ly/ZxeS30rNBnyInterested in learning more about Answering Legal? Book an appointment to speak with us here: http://ow.ly/LSUq30sjviNYou can also give us a call at 631-400-8000 or go to www.answeringlegal.comThis podcast is produced and edited by Joe Galotti. You can reach Joe via email at joe@answeringlegal.com.

Every investment comes with plenty of responsibility, but in a multifaceted market like sports and entertainment with varied revenue streams and worldwide integration, navigating this complex landscape can be overwhelming. Today's guest is helping his clients make sure that all the bases are covered. Literally. We're sitting down with Charles (Chuck) Baker, who chairs Sidley Austin's Entertainment, Sports, and Media Group. Chuck represents investors in professional sports, businesses and teams, and advises on sports and entertainment transactions. He has decades of experience in the sports industry and has represented sports franchise purchases across multiple leagues, including the NFL, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the NBA, the NHL, the National Women's Soccer League, and multiple European football leagues.Recently, Chuck represented Genius Sports in its multi-year strategic partnership with the NFL and the Canadian Football League, and also advised on the acquisition minority interest in the Los Angeles Lakers, the Charlotte Hornets, as well as the 6+ billion dollar purchase of the Washington Commanders.Chuck has been highly recognized in the field of sports and entertainment law by multiple national publications. Most recently, the National Law Journal named him to its 2022 list of sports gaming entertainment law trailblazers. The Sports Business Journal also named him to their 2021 Power Players list, and Law 360 added him to their 2020 Sports Betting MVPs.Chuck is an active board member for the March of Dimes and Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. He is also an adjunct professor and advisory board member at the University of Miami School of Law, and a distinguished lecturer at NYU's Tisch Institute for Sports Management, Media and Business.Chuck was also an associate for former Senator, Dollar Bill Bradley, one of Tom's all time favorite Knicks! Highlights:Chuck's work background and how he came across his opportunity at Sidley Austin (3:36)Secular trends currently driving the sports and entertainment investment market (6:57)Chuck describes the investor audience specific to sports and entertainment (8:55)Current sports markets with high deal flow (11:59)Chuck tells the story of the Chelsea FC deal and his role in the transaction (14:15)The current trend and future of sports investments going international (16:54)Chuck describes Sidley Austin's recent partnership with Arctos (19:11) Market competition, industry saturation, and the market's outlook (22:12)How streaming and entertainment consumption affect media rights (24:18)Women's sports and growing investment markets (26:18)How market developments and investments affect fan experience (27:55)Chuck's most recent wins with his own sports teams (28:46)Links:Charles BakerCharles Baker on LinkedInSidley Austin on LinkedInSidley Austin WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, marion@lowerstreet.co.

THE TERRERO BIOS This is our second episode ever with two guests and because it's our 22nd, it's therefore apt to have remarkable twin brothers as our guests: Sinohe and Kenny Terrero. With Dominican parents that raised them in the Bronx, their early days were as humble as apple pie, or mangu. The brothers thought they were going to be in the music business but life had different plans for them. They are both examples of what hard work, grit, determination and masterfully playing the hand you are dealt does to a life trajectory.   Sinohe is currently CFO, COO and CRO of Envoy, prior to Envoy he was CFO of Etsy and IndieGoGo, both trailblazing companies in the creator economy and crowdfunding spaces. He also sits on the board of Code2040 serves as advisor to Carefully, Soleil Entertainment and Simon Data among others. He is an active seed investor and is an entrepreneur at heart, he started his career in finance roles at Citibank and the Boys and Girls Club of New York. Kenny is a partner at Sidley Austin and has broad experience in corporate and compliance matters relating to corporate issuers, fintech companies, closed end funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and digital assets and cryptocurrencies. He is a member of Sidley's Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee and an active member of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), Counsel of Urban Professionals (CUP), ALPFA (Association of Latino Professionals For America), Dominicans on Wall Street (DOWS) and and the Chamber of Digital Commerce. “What got you here will not get you there”; “Hard work is table stakes” - Kenny “I did not realize the kind of opportunity I had stumbled upon”; “...it was extra cheese on my pizza” - Sinohe TERRERO RELATED LINKS CFO Thought Leader Interview - Sinohe  CFO as Organizational Enabler- Sinohe Envoy Profile - Sinohe “The Smartest Securities on the Block”, Thompson Reuters - Kenny Sidley Austin Profile - Kenny Cornerstone Award - Lawyers Alliance of New York - Kenny GENERAL INFO| TOP OF THE GAME: Official website: https://topofthegame-thepod.com/ RSS Feed: https://feed.podbean.com/topofthegame-thepod/feed.xml Hosting service show website: https://topofthegame-thepod.podbean.com/ Javier's LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/javiersaade & Bio: https://tinyurl.com/36ufz6cs  SUPPORT & CONNECT: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/96934564 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551086203755 Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOPOFGAMEpod Subscribe on Podbean: https://www.podbean.com/site/podcatcher/index/blog/vLKLE1SKjf6G Email us: info@topofthegame-thepod.com   THANK YOU FOR LISTENING – AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PLATFORMS  

Co-hosts Tom Blakely and Jim Fiore conduct a wide-ranging interview with alumnus Max Meglio, associate in the M&A and Private Equity group in the Sidley Austin's Boston office, to get his view on landing a job working in private practice. Prior to joining Sidley, Max was a law clerk for the Honorable Justice John Englander of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. He was a Staff Writer and Senior Editor on the BC Law Review at Boston College Law School.

In this week's Legal Speak episode, Sidley's Dan Clivner and Sharon Flanagan share how the firm is leveraging its leadership and executive development model Built to Lead to ensure associates are not falling through the cracks.

This day in legal history, October 27, 1787, marks the first publication of the Federalist Papers, an event that significantly influenced the ratification of the United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison under the collective pseudonym "PUBLIUS," these essays were intended to sway public opinion in favor of adopting the new Constitution, which had been drafted in Philadelphia earlier that year. The first paper, penned by Alexander Hamilton, was published in a New York newspaper and argued that the proposed system would safeguard against factionalism, a problem that had plagued the country under the Articles of Confederation.The Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays, each dissecting different elements of the Constitution and the broader governmental system it sought to create. From the division of powers among the three branches of government to the mechanisms of checks and balances, the papers provide a comprehensive rationale for the Constitution's architecture. John Jay wrote only a few of the essays due to illness, while Hamilton and Madison carried the bulk of the work. Interestingly, these papers were aimed specifically at the state of New York, as it was a critical swing state for the Constitution's ratification.As an intellectual cornerstone, the Federalist Papers are not just historical artifacts but continue to be cited in legal opinions, scholarly works, and constitutional debates to this day. The trio's incisive arguments succeeded in their immediate goal; New York ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788. However, the enduring legacy of the Federalist Papers stretches far beyond that, serving as an indispensable guide to understanding the intentions of the Framers and the intricate framework of American governance.This year's annual bonus season for Big Law firms is anticipated to be relatively uneventful in terms of changes to the bonus scale. Top firms are expected to maintain the existing bonus structure, offering up to $115,000 for the most senior associates, even as the industry faces a slowdown in corporate work and some firms have reduced staff. While firms that have laid off associates or faced declining profits are expected to offer market-rate bonuses to signal a return to full strength, eligibility criteria are likely to be stricter. Firms are expected to increase the billable hour requirements for bonuses and may also consider office attendance as a factor.Joshua Holt, a former Goodwin Procter lawyer, suggests that the strict criteria allow firms to claim they offer market rates, even if few associates actually qualify for bonuses. Quinn Emanuel has broken the mold by announcing special bonuses based on seniority and billable hours, but this move is not expected to set a trend. According to industry data, lateral associate hiring has also declined by nearly one-third, reducing expectations for additional bonuses.The widening gap between the most profitable firms and the rest raises questions about whether some firms will cease trying to match industry-leading compensation packages. Moreover, firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Sidley Austin, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett have announced they might cut bonuses for associates not meeting office attendance targets, prompting discussions on the fairness of such criteria.Big Law Bonuses Holding Steady But Now Come With More StringsCalifornia has passed a bill (A.B. 39) to license the cryptocurrency industry, making it the second major U.S. state after New York to regulate the sector. While the comprehensive regulations will not come into effect until July 2025, the bill outlines various requirements for applicants and gives the state Department of Financial Protection and Innovation discretion over who should be regulated. Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the bill, indicated that the licensing framework may still require further clarity and potential cleanup legislation. Industry groups are now focusing their attention on the department, which will write the rules for licensing and enforcement.The bill also includes a provision that allows the department to grant exemptions from the licensing requirements if deemed "in the public interest." This has led industry groups like the Crypto Council for Innovation to lobby for broader exemptions, especially for startups and smaller companies. Joe Ciccolo, a board member of the Digital Currency Traders Alliance, said that the department could handle exemptions in various ways, including categorizing activities into different risk classes or regulating on a case-by-case basis.Concerns have been raised about the logistical challenges of implementing the new licensing system. Industry representatives are wary of a slow rollout similar to New York's and are calling for a public plan detailing how the department will manage the expected influx of applications. Despite these challenges, there's optimism about the law's future, as California officials have reportedly been in communication with counterparts in New York, and the state has shown willingness to listen to industry perspectives.Crypto Industry Girds Itself for California's New Licensing LawNew findings suggest that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to fully repay a significant portion of a $267,230 loan he received in 1999 from wealthy friend Anthony Welters. Senate Democrats have intensified their criticism of the Supreme Court for not having a binding code of conduct in light of this information. The loan was reportedly forgiven in 2008, but Thomas did not disclose the "forgiven debt" on his 2008 financial disclosure forms, raising ethical and legal questions. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden has asked Thomas to clarify how much debt was forgiven and whether it was reported on his tax returns.In response, Thomas's attorney stated that the loan was never forgiven and that all payments were made until the agreement's terms were satisfied. The case adds to previous criticisms of Thomas for failing to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions. Unlike other federal judges, Supreme Court justices are not subject to a binding code of ethics, although they do have certain financial disclosure obligations. Legal ethics experts have noted that the failure to disclose the loan is more significant than past omissions, highlighting the absence of a binding ethics code for Supreme Court justices. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a Democratic-backed bill to mandate such a code, but it faces stiff Republican opposition.Clarence Thomas loan report spurs new ethics criticism of US Supreme Court | ReutersLegal academics are expressing concern over a proposal by the American Bar Association (ABA) to standardize what law students should learn and how they are assessed. The ABA suggests that law schools should adopt and publish specific learning objectives for each class to help schools better understand their educational goals. However, numerous law professors and deans argue that the ABA is overreaching its authority and micromanaging how law is taught. They worry that the proposal could stifle the freedom faculty members have to teach courses based on their own expertise and approaches.Law deans from prestigious institutions like Columbia, UC Berkeley, Vanderbilt, and Georgetown have jointly written that the proposal could constrain faculty members and deprive students of a diverse learning experience. The ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, William Adams, explained that the proposed changes aim to provide clearer guidance to schools, as existing standards were criticized for being "too general."The proposal also includes a requirement for all first-year classes to have at least one early assessment and mandates academic support for students who don't perform satisfactorily. Some critics say this proposal could dismantle the successful system of student learning outcomes that the ABA introduced in 2015, which allows schools to set their own objectives and evaluate student progress accordingly.The new proposal extends to individual classes as well, demanding a set of skills and knowledge that students should acquire from each course. Some commenters worry that this could create additional bureaucratic burdens for schools, particularly as the proposal offers no specifics on how these outcomes should be measured. The ABA's legal education council is expected to consider the proposal in its February meeting.Law professors say ABA is 'micromanaging' with proposal to make courses more uniform | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge with active status at 96, is fighting for reinstatement after her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suspended her. The suspension followed an investigation into her mental fitness and her refusal to undergo a full neurological workup. Newman has sued several of her fellow judges and the court's Judicial Council, which voted unanimously to suspend her for at least a year. In a recent filing, Newman argues that the US District Court for the District of Columbia should grant an injunction to restore her to the bench immediately.The Judicial Council contends that the district court lacks the authority to review its disciplinary actions. Newman fired back, stating that a judicial council should not operate without constraints or review mechanisms, as that would be an exercise of "arbitrary power" not tolerated by the Constitution. Newman is also challenging the council's dual suspensions against her; one for a case backlog and another for her refusal to cooperate with the mental fitness investigation.Newman argues that the council was not acting as a court but in an administrative role when they suspended her, which means their actions should be reviewed by a district court, not the Supreme Court. She accused Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of pre-judging her case, arguing that her colleagues merely adopted formal procedures afterwards.Mediation between Newman and the council has reached a deadlock, and both parties are now disputing a confidentiality agreement they signed before the mediation session. Newman also plans to challenge the council's order at the US Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability. The case represents a significant clash over the extent to which judicial councils can exercise authority over individual judges.Nation's Oldest Judge Claps Back as She Seeks Reinstatement (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court justices return to the bench on Monday for a new term that's shaping up to be an impactful one, with issues ranging from gun ownership rights in domestic violence cases, to the legality of administrative courts and the First Amendment implications of public officials blocking critics on social media. Let this episode of Pro Say be your guide for the term as we talk about all the major cases and storylines with special guest and prolific Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips from Sidley Austin. Also this week, the Federal Trade Commission finally brings down the antitrust hammer on Amazon, and former President Donald Trump is found liable for fraud in a high-profile civil case brought by the New York attorney general.

Dive into our latest Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers episode as we engage with Daren Firestone, name partner at Levy Firestone Muse. We explore his time in government, including service as a federal prosecutor and White House lawyer; his shift to private practice; and his fascinating practice representing whistleblowers, especially in the cryptocurrency space. We also discuss some of his more high-profile matters, including investigations into doping in Major League Baseball and the French government's actions during the Rwandan Genocide. In our Moves of the Week, we highlight the launch of Meier Watkins, a spinoff from the Clare Locke defamation boutique, and Kenneth Polite, former head of the DOJ Criminal Division, joining Sidley Austin. Tune in for a deep dive into Firestone's dynamic career and the latest legal shifts! 

On this day in legal history, President Richard Milhouse Nixon announced his resignation of the office of the presidency, effective the following day at noon. On August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon addressed the American public from the Oval Office to announce his resignation, marking the end of the infamous Watergate scandal. This scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972, followed by the Nixon administration's attempts to cover up its involvement. The Watergate saga eroded Nixon's popular and political support, leading him to the brink of almost certain impeachment. In his speech, Nixon explained that he was resigning due to a lack of congressional support, believing this would hasten the healing process in America. He expressed regret for his wrong judgments but did not mention the pending articles of impeachment. On August 9, he submitted his formal resignation to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, becoming the only U.S. president to ever resign from office. Vice President Gerald Ford succeeded him, stepping into the presidency.The Ninth Circuit Court has overturned a decision upholding Hawaii's butterfly knife ban, ruling that the ban violates the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The court reversed a summary judgment favoring state officials and instructed the lower court to continue proceedings in line with its determination. Judge Carlos T. Bea noted that butterfly knives, whose blades unfold manually from a split handle, are typically owned for lawful purposes. State officials argued that the ban was similar to statutes dating back to 1837 regulating other bladed weapons, but the court pointed out that Hawaii hadn't banned any type of pocketknife categorically. The ban on carrying butterfly knives was first imposed in 1993, extending to manufacturing, selling, and possessing them in the state. Various groups filed amicus briefs for and against the rule, reflecting a broader debate on weapon regulations. The case, known as Teter v. Lopez, represents a significant ruling on knife rights and the interpretation of the Second Amendment.Hawaii Butterfly Knife Ban Violates Second Amendment, Court SaysNew Jersey is escalating its fight against New York's remote-work tax rules, seeking a legal confrontation. The state spends over $2 billion annually, crediting residents for income taxes paid to other states due to employer locations, mostly relating to New York jobs. Since the pandemic and the shift to remote work, the situation has been under closer examination, with New Jersey's credited amounts rising significantly. New York's "convenience of the employer" rule, which taxes residents working in their home states, is at the center of this dispute. New Jersey has now implemented a law to incentivize challenges to this rule and shift some employer dynamics to keep taxes within the state. However, legal experts believe that residents' challenges to New York's application of this rule may face an uphill battle, as the rule has been enshrined in New York law for over 35 years. While the law aims to replace some of the revenue New Jersey loses to New York and send a message about the tax issues between the two states, the real economic impact might be limited. The situation highlights the complexities of taxation in the remote work era and the potential legal battles that could arise between states.New Jersey Ramps Up Its Fight Against New York's Remote-Work TaxA federal appeals court has blocked a rule from the Biden administration that would make it easier for students defrauded by their schools to have their loans forgiven. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency injunction at the request of a group representing for-profit colleges, known as Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST), halting the rule's implementation pending an appeal in November. The three-judge panel did not provide a reason for granting the injunction. CCST sued in February after the Education Department's new rule was finalized, offering greater grounds for borrowers to seek debt relief in cases of fraud and establishing a procedure for debt forgiveness in groups of students. This rule is separate from President Biden's broader student debt relief plan, which the Supreme Court blocked in June. The Education Department stated that it is reviewing the court's order and will continue its efforts against predatory colleges. CCST described the rule as unlawful and unconstitutional, aiming for massive loan forgiveness and reallocating financial liability to higher education institutions.US court blocks Biden debt relief rule benefiting defrauded students | ReutersKenneth Polite, the outgoing head of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division, has revealed that more significant corporate settlements are coming soon. In an exit interview, Polite stated that there is a "very strong pipeline of investigations" that will result in resolutions in the near future, some of which were impacted by the COVID pandemic. The resolutions often involve substantial fines that companies pay to settle criminal charges such as foreign bribery or money laundering. In 2022, there were seven global resolutions, with the DOJ involved in penalties totaling $2.14 billion. Polite also mentioned that the recent corporate investigations have involved "much larger schemes and activities," including groundbreaking joint resolutions with countries like South Africa and Switzerland. He has overseen policy changes aimed at better policing corporate misconduct, including a new pilot program to decrease fines for companies if they recover compensation from individual wrongdoers. Polite will join the law firm Sidley Austin in October, where he is expected to be "instrumental" in helping clients navigate the department's new policies.More big corporate settlements coming, says departing U.S. Justice Dept official | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, Jeff sits down with his friend Sal Churi, Founder and General Partner at Trust Ventures, a VC firm that helps portfolio companies navigate and change regulatory issues that are impeding their progress and their positive impact on society. They discuss Sal's family history that includes surviving the holocaust and fighting in wars, his growing up in Ohio, and how he transitioned from a law professor to a policy-focused Venture Capitalist, and more… Watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/l7a5QrV8-YY Learn more: Host: Jeffrey M. Zucker Producer: Kait Grey Editor: Nick Case Recording date: 7/11/23 https://www.trustventures.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/trustventures/ Bio: Salen is a leading expert on navigating the collision points of innovation and regulation. A former law professor at the University of Chicago and founder of its Innovation Clinic, he has advised startups on regulatory strategy across industries. Previously, Salen practiced law at the international law firms of Kirkland & Ellis and Sidley Austin, and advised low-income entrepreneurs in overcoming barriers at the Institute for Justice. 0:00 - Intro 5:19 - Upbringing 13:35 - Early Career 29:56 - Trust Ventures 35:25 - Financial Success vs Policy Success 44:23 - Business as a Vehicle for Change 50:36 - Clean Energy and Affecting Policy Change 53:16 - Oklo Energy 58:46 - Antora Energy 1:02:27 - AI 1:06:22 - Future of Trust Ventures 1:07:57 - Mercatus Center 1:10:42 - When Work Effected Change 1:14:12 - Mentor 1:18:56 - Ask Jeff a Question 1:20:45 - Most Proud of 1:24:24 - Snap Your Fingers 1:26:03 - How to Support

Holly Gregory is at the pinnacle of America's top corporate lawyers. She co-chairs law firm Sidley Austin's global Corporate Governance practice and also co-leads its Chambers-recognized ESG and Crisis Management teams.She's won just about every honor available to her. She chaired the American Bar Association's Corporate Governance Committee. The National Association of Corporate Directors named her one of the hundred most influential people in corporate governance 16 straight years. Ethisphere calls her one of the Attorneys Who Matter. She's been recognized by Euromoney and by Legal 500. The National Law Journal says she was a "white collar regulatory and compliance trailblazer". Corporate Secretary Magazine gave her a Lifetime Achievement Award.Holly played a key role in drafting the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance and advised the Internal Market Directorate of the European Commission on corporate governance regulation. And while most service assignments at Sidley are confidential, those that have been made public are eye-opening.She advised the Business Roundtable on its 2019 Statement on the Purpose of the Corporation, advised ICANN, the international Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (so you can thank her for the fact that your URL still works). She advised the Board of The Pennsylvania State University on governance reforms in the wake of a sexual abuse scandal.Holly always has a sharp eye for current culture and a wicked sense of humor. Her video breakdowns of the law and corporate governance practices underlying HBO's "Succession" have made her a social media star, and on top of all that, she plays a mean Bluegrass mandolin.

We have another Andrew Johnson-related “this day in legal history” for today – on May 26 in 1868, the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson concluded without conviction. In 1868, President Johnson faced impeachment, and his fate rested on a single vote in the Senate trial. Johnson had become president after Abraham Lincoln's assassination and had a strained relationship with Republican leaders, particularly the Radical Republicans. The House of Representatives impeached Johnson on charges of violating the Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without approval. The Senate trial required a two-thirds majority to convict Johnson.Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, a Republican, cast the deciding vote. It was expected that Ross would vote against Johnson, but to the surprise of many, he voted "Not guilty." The Radical Republicans requested an adjournment, and the trial concluded on May 26 with failed votes on two more articles.The controversy surrounding Ross's vote centers on why he changed his mind. Some speculate that he may have been influenced by a $150,000 slush fund set up by Johnson's supporters. However, there is evidence that Ross's vote may not have been crucial, as at least four other senators were prepared to oppose conviction if necessary.Skadden, one of the largest law firms in the US, has announced a new policy requiring lawyers to work in the office four days a week. Previously, attorneys were required to be in the office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays. The firm stated that the modified hybrid work model aims to leverage the benefits of remote work while fostering innovation and professional development through increased in-person collaboration. Other prestigious law firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Milbank, and Simpson Thacher have already implemented similar office attendance policies. Some firms, such as Simpson Thacher and Sidley Austin, have even threatened to withhold bonus money from associates who do not comply with the office attendance requirements. The shift in policies reflects a power shift in the legal industry, with employers holding more sway due to economic conditions and cost-cutting measures. Younger lawyers, in particular, prefer flexible work arrangements, and a significant number would consider leaving their current jobs for opportunities with greater remote work options. Hybrid work arrangements have become prevalent across industries, with companies like Starbucks, Amazon, and Walt Disney implementing similar policies. However, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has expressed skepticism about remote work, stating that it doesn't work well for younger staff and management roles.Skadden Forces Lawyers Back to Offices Four Days Per Week (1)Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his involvement in a plot to keep former President Donald Trump in power after losing the 2020 election. Another member of the Oath Keepers, Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida contingent, received a 12-year prison sentence. These are the first sentences for seditious conspiracy in over a decade. The judge emphasized that Rhodes' actions posed a threat to democracy and the fabric of the country, and he expressed concerns about future election-related violence. Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy by a Washington, DC, jury in November, and the judge ruled that his actions amounted to domestic terrorism. Prosecutors had requested a 25-year prison sentence for Rhodes, while Meggs showed contrition and received a lesser sentence due to his lesser role in the conspiracy. Rhodes, before his sentencing, claimed to be a political prisoner and repeated false allegations about the 2020 election. The sentencing is seen as having a chilling effect on extremist groups, and Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn stated that he hopes former President Trump will be held accountable next.Stewart Rhodes: Oath Keepers leader sentenced to 18 years in prison for plot to keep Trump in power | CNN PoliticsThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has announced plans to restrict the growth of large banks and potentially force them to sell assets if they fail to address ongoing issues. The decision follows concerns raised by acting Comptroller Michael Hsu that certain banks are becoming "too big to manage." The OCC intends to use various measures against banks that receive poor management grades, fail to address problems identified in enforcement actions, or face multiple enforcement actions over three years. These measures could include increasing capital and liquidity levels, limiting expansion plans, or canceling dividend payments. In severe cases, the OCC may consider mandating banks to reduce their asset size, divest subsidiaries or business lines, or exit certain markets. The policy aims to ensure that deficiencies are identified and that banks are given opportunities to rectify them. The new enforcement policy comes at a time when U.S. regulators are sending mixed signals regarding allowing further consolidation in the banking industry. Some regulators, such as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra, argue for dismantling large banks that pose risks to the economy, while others, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, suggest that increased merger activity may be necessary to strengthen the financial system.Big Banks With ‘Persistent Weaknesses' Targeted for BreakupHouse Republicans are preparing to introduce a tax package that reveals divisions within the caucus and provides insights into the policy approach of the new Ways and Means Committee chairman. The economic package, set to be unveiled in early June, is expected to include measures such as research and development tax breaks, full bonus depreciation, and interest expense deductions. Lawmakers are vying to ensure their priorities are included in the package, with potential measures including lifting the state and local tax deduction cap and changes to the Child Tax Credit. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith has shown interest in the Child Tax Credit, and the bill will provide an indication of his stance on various tax issues. The package will need to garner enough votes from the caucus to pass the House. Republican lawmakers have been discussing potential provisions, including individual tax relief and increasing the 1099-K tax reporting threshold. There is also support for a version of the Child Tax Credit to be included, as it expired in 2021. The inclusion of some Child Tax Credit provisions would signal willingness to collaborate with Democrats. Additionally, Republican lawmakers from high-tax states are meeting with Smith to address the cap on state and local tax deductions. The caucus has not decided on its position if the package does not address the SALT cap, but it remains an important issue for them.SALT Cap Tweak, Child Tax Credit in the Mix for GOP Tax Package Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We have a regretful this day in legal history today, which is the flipside of yesterday's anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Plessy v. Ferguson, widely regarded as a low watermark for the court and the origin of the “separate but equal” doctrine overturned in Brown was decided on this date in 1896. The case involved a Louisiana state law that permitted segregation by race, providing for "equal but separate accommodations" for white and colored individuals. The ruling upheld the constitutionality of the law, with Justice Henry Brown arguing that the separation did not imply inferiority, but rather was an interpretation chosen to be taken up by the “colored race.” Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, considering the law to be inconsistent with personal liberties and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. The decision reinforced the doctrine of "separate but equal" and allowed for the continued enforcement of racial segregation laws. It was not until the aforementioned landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s and subsequent civil rights legislation that state-enforced segregation was officially dismantled.The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments regarding a challenge to a New York City law that requires just cause for terminating fast-food workers. The law, enacted in 2021, limits the authority of fast-food companies to fire employees without valid reasons. If upheld, this law could have broader implications for exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine in other industries and regions. The New York City Council is also considering extending just-cause protections to all industries, and similar legislation is pending in Illinois. The case has attracted numerous amicus briefs from both business groups and worker advocacy organizations. The at-will employment doctrine, which allows companies to terminate workers for any reason except for discriminatory ones, is uncommon among industrialized democracies. Exceptions to this doctrine exist in the form of anti-discrimination laws and specific employment agreements. New York City's law applies to fast-food chains with a minimum of 30 locations and includes requirements for progressive discipline and written explanations for terminations. A US District Judge previously rejected the challenge to the law, ruling that it does not infringe on the collective bargaining process. The arguments in the Second Circuit will further determine the fate of the law.NYC's Protections for Fast-Food Workers Get Second Circuit TestThe EPA's $27 billion clean energy fund is driving the establishment of green banks in various states, irrespective of their political affiliation. Over the past two years, several states, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, have launched green banks, while others are moving closer to implementing them. The Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the $27 billion fund, has encouraged states to embrace green banks as a means of generating job opportunities and investment in renewable energy. Typically associated with blue states, green banks are now gaining traction in red states like Alaska, Florida, and Texas. The EPA's funding could mobilize over $250 billion in total investment, addressing a significant portion of the emissions reductions required to achieve President Biden's net zero emissions goal by 2050. Local green banks, such as Maryland's Montgomery County Green Bank, are well-positioned to leverage federal funding and have a track record of aligning with environmental equity objectives. However, advocates express concerns that Republican-led efforts to rescind climate provisions could undermine the benefits for disadvantaged communities. Despite the establishment of green banks, some Southern states still have policies that discourage residential solar projects, posing additional challenges to clean energy adoption.Green Banks Spring Up in States, Spurred by $27 Billion FundSimpson Thacher, a prominent Big Law firm, has implemented a policy stating that associates must be present in the office at least three days a week to be eligible for annual and discretionary bonuses. The firm recently updated its employee handbook, warning that associates who fail to comply may have their bonuses reduced or become ineligible. As the pandemic subsides, in reality or in practice, law firms are grappling with how to encourage lawyers, particularly junior associates who, the logic goes, benefit from in-person training, to return to the office. Simpson Thacher's move follows a similar announcement by Sidley Austin, another major Big Law firm, which emphasized that attendance would be a factor in bonus considerations. The adjustment in firm policies is attributed to the decrease in leverage for associates due to a slowdown in demand and cost-cutting measures. Simpson Thacher, a top performer in the mergers and acquisitions space, reported substantial gross revenue of nearly $2.2 billion last year. However, some associates express dissatisfaction with the requirement to work in the office while partners often work remotely, leading to challenges in communication and collaboration. Still others see it as a generational difference in work style.Simpson Thacher Tells Associates to Hit Office or Risk BonusesA little bit of tax talk. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced increased contribution limits for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) in 2024. Individuals with self-only coverage under a high-deductible health plan can save up to $4,150, compared to $3,850 in 2023. For family plans, the contribution limit has risen to $8,300 from $7,750. To qualify, individuals must have a high-deductible health plan with a minimum annual deductible of $1,600 for self-only coverage or $3,200 for family coverage. These adjustments allow individuals to deposit more tax-free money into their HSAs.IRS Increases Contribution Limits for Health Savings AccountsMontana Governor Greg Gianforte has signed legislation to ban Chinese-owned TikTok from operating in the state, making it the first U.S. state to ban the popular short video app. The ban, which takes effect on January 1, 2024, prohibits Google and Apple's app stores from offering TikTok within the state. However, there will be no penalties imposed on individuals using the app. TikTok, owned by ByteDance, responded by stating that the new law infringes on First Amendment rights and that it will continue to defend the rights of its users. The app has faced concerns about potential Chinese government influence and has over 150 million American users, mostly teenagers. The ban is likely to face legal challenges, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has criticized it as unconstitutional. Former President Donald Trump's attempt to ban TikTok and WeChat in 2020 was blocked by multiple courts. If the ban is effective, users of TikTok will have to get their Big Sky content from neighboring North Dakota which has, at best, a solid Medium Sky.  Montana to become first US state to ban TikTok | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dorna Moini is the CEO and founder of Gavel (formerly Documate), an easy-to-use platform for building client-facing legal apps. Prior to starting the company, Dorna was a litigator at Sidley Austin. There, in her pro bono practice, she worked with legal aid organizations to build a web application for domestic violence survivors to complete and file their paperwork, which led to the idea for Documate - to enable other attorneys to do the same in any area of law. Dorna is on the Legal Services Corporation Emerging Leaders Council and a member of LAFLA's Advisory Board. She was named an ABA Legal Rebel and is on the Fastcase 50 list.  In this conversation, we discussed: Dorna's initial interest in the law was human rights issues She ended up in BigLaw and actually enjoyed it! Dorna did a lot of pro bono work with domestic violence victims, which prompted her to develop a platform to make legal services more accessible to them; and that evolved to Documate Getting to the point where she couldn't run the business and work at the law full-time Her firm offered for her to go part-time, but she decided she wanted to focus completely on her business Dorna felt comfortable taking a leap knowing she could always go back to practice She experienced a huge learning curve, but found it easy to self-educate with all the resources available  Getting comfortable with what other people think of you making the jump from law to entrepreneurship  The fear of regret was larger than the fear of failure The importance of building a team that deeply believes in the core mission You don't need to go to business school to start a successful business Working hard feels different when your heart is fully in it Connect with Megan! Daydreams to Designs Private Podcast: https://bit.ly/daydreamstodesigns Employee to Entrepreneur Quiz: https://bit.ly/employeetoentrepreneurtype Schedule a Catalyst Call: https://megansmiley.com/schedule-a-call Website: https://www.megansmiley.com/ ~ Connect with Dorna! Gavel's Website: https://www.gavel.io/

Tom Cole, recently retired Partner and chair emeritus of Sidley's Executive Committee from the law firm Sidley Austin, joins us today to talk about board governance and his book CEO Leadership: Navigating the New Era in Corporate Governance. Tom joined Sidley in 1975 and quickly rose through the ranks to focus on public company M&A as well as advising CEOs and boards on a broad range of issues in corporate governance. He shares his lessons building boards, corporate governance as well as fiduciary duties. This episode is a wealth of information that you don't want to miss! On this episode of #TheKaraGoldinShow. Enjoying this episode of #TheKaraGoldinShow? Let me know by clicking on the links below and sending me a quick shout-out on social. Or reach out to me at karagoldin@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/karagoldin/ https://www.instagram.com/karagoldin/ https://twitter.com/karagoldin https://www.facebook.com/KaraGoldin/ Check out our website to view this episode's show notes: https://karagoldin.com/podcast/386 To learn more about Tom Cole and CEO Leadership: https://www.sidley.com/en/people/c/cole-thomas-a https://www.amazon.com/CEO-Leadership-Navigating-Corporate-Governance/dp/022666516X

Chris Fonzone is the General Counsel of ODNI and has worked in senior legal roles at the Defense Department, the National Security Council, and the Department of Justice, and in the private sector as a partner at the Sidley Austin law firm. Laura Galante is the Intelligence Community's Cyber Executive and Director of ODNI's Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC). She worked previously in a position that involves supporting Ukrainian government agencies on cyber defense in the Defense Intelligence Agency and in the private sector at Mandiant.David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Chris and Laura to talk about their careers, the intra- and interagency issues in cyber policy and operations, the new National Cyber Strategy, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Building a new business or shifting to a new business model? How do you get started? How can you make the processes easier? How can technology help small law firm owners?In today's episode Jim and Tyson are talking to Dorna, CEO and founder of Gavel.io, a no-code platform for building document automation and client facing legal products.Prior to starting Gavel, Dorna was a litigator at Sidley Austin. There in her pro bono practice, she worked with legal aid organizations to build a web application for domestic violence survivors to complete and file their paperwork, which led to the idea for Gavel. And the rest they say - is history. Listen in.  01:48 Leaving the law firm life05:10 Tech start up process is a lot like starting your own law firm 06:57 When you might need to build out a system 09:30 Use cases examples — including horse law?11:40 What most lawyers don't understand about what is coming …13:20 The way we work is going to change15:40 How can technology help small law firm owners disrupt?18:07 How Dorna spends her days wearing all the different hatsJim's Hack: Using an app called Streaks that allows you to put in 24 different things that you want to keep track of daily. You can set up a timer for everything and have fun tracking your progress. Dorna's Tip: Have the motto (for your startup) of: think big, start small and iterate rapidly. Tyson's Tip: Jason Selk released a new app called Level Up Game Plan that works in your browser to help you learn and implement Jason's 3 minute and 40 second, cognitive -science-based daily ritual to live a more purposeful life.

Increasingly, independent third parties—better known as “corporate compliance monitors”--are appointed to oversee a company's compliance following the settlement of a criminal or, sometimes, civil enforcement case. Justin Savage of Sidley Austin LLP, speaks with Ike Adams, a Partner at Sidley Austin, and Michele Edwards and Brad Wilson, both with StoneTurn, a global advisory firm. The trio discuss corporate compliance monitorships, which has been a perennial hot topic in DOJ enforcement, particularly in the environmental space over the last 5 years. The episode is part of The Enforcement Angle series, featuring conversations about state and federal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations with senior enforcement officials and thought leaders on environmental enforcement in the United States and globally.  ★ Support this podcast ★

Dorna Moini is the CEO and founder of Gavel, a no-code platform for building document automation and client-facing legal products. Prior to starting Gavel, Dorna was a litigator at Sidley Austin. There, in her pro bono practice, she worked with legal aid organizations to build a web application for domestic violence survivors to complete and file their paperwork, which led to the idea for Gavel.Dorna is on the Legal Services Corporation Emerging Leaders Council and a member of LAFLA's Advisory Board. She was named an ABA Legal Rebel and a Fastcase 50 honoree. She also teaches the Legal Innovations Lab at USC Law School.Gavel is an easy-to-use platform for building legal products. It allows you to automate powerful documents, conduct client intake, and create white-labeled tools that generate revenue for your firm. Connect with Dorna on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/documentautomationVisit Gavel's Website: https://www.gavel.io/On This Episode, We Discuss…The Story Behind GavelThe Best Tech Stacks to Use with GavelHow Gavel Works & Defining Document AutomationWhat's In-Store for AI in 2023

Layman meets with the founding framer of The Reconstitution project, Ari Allen, to talk about the genesis and goals of The Reconstitution: a collective experiment in revising the United States' Constitution and drafting a series of amendments responsive to some of the deepest challenges confronting the country, its people, and its governing bodies: polarization and corruption, the influence of money in elections, limitations to meaningful participation in government and self-governance, imbalances in representation, the status of corporations and the need to address corporate influence on democratic process, the role of advertising in a free society, and much more. Ari reflects on the historical justification for such an experiment, what he has learned through convening this imaginal Constitutional Convention, and how the resulting document might be used going forward, to foster dialogue, stimulate creative thinking, and hopefully catalyze meaningful change. Ari Allen earned his JD from Georgetown Law and has worked at Sidley Austin, representing clients on Capitol Hill during the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform. He holds a Masters in Psychology degree from the California Institute of Integral Studies, and currently works in the education technology industry. He is also a writer, philosopher, and a DJ. The Reconstitution Project https://www.thereconstitution.com/ Follow The Integral Stage on Fathom! https://hello.fathom.fm/ 2Subscribe, and support The Integral Stage on Patreon to make more of these conversations possible! https://www.patreon.com/theintegralstage Special thanks and big love to Shai Newman, Brandon LaChance, Mike McElroy, Brandon Norgaard, Brendan Graham Dempsey, Francesca, and all of our other Patreon supporters!

Last week, Documate, the no-code document automation platform, rebranded as Gavel, a move designed to better reflect the company's mission to become the platform of choice for legal professionals and legal organizations wanting to “productize” the delivery of legal services by packaging services as online legal products. Gavel founder and CEO Dorna Moini joins LawNext this week to discuss how her company has evolved from document automation to come to support law firms, courts, legal aid organizations, and even legal tech companies such as Hello Divorce, as they build tools to automate legal services. She also discusses how a law firm can get started on productizing its own services, why a firm would want to to this, and whether some practices are better suited for productization than others. Moini was an associate at the law firm Sidley Austin in San Francisco when she left in 2017 to found what was originally called HelpSelf Legal and focused on automating legal help to domestic violence victims. Interest from others within the legal industry in her automation platform led her to pivot the next year as Documate and focus on building automation. Over the years, as more and more of her customers built out full legal products using Documate, she decided to rebrand again as Gavel, a name that Moini believes invokes a trusted process.   Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.  Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks.   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

Bruce's Beach, in Southern California, represents the first example in the United States of reparations to a family harmed by the racist use of eminent domain. This agreement — and the family's recent sale of the land back to L.A. County for $20 million — was made possible by careful, skilled pro bono representation. Hear from George C. Fatheree III, partner at Sidley & Austin and lead counsel for the Bruce family's descendants, about this unprecedented matter — and why he found it personally and professionally compelling. Link to a bonus episode where you can hear more about George's path into real estate law and his approach to pro bono work. PLI is proud to offer programs, Pro Bono Memberships, and scholarships to support the essential public service work of the legal profession. 

Sujit Raman discusses the current state, regulatory framework, and future of cryptocurrency with us on Two Think Minimum. Sujit is General Counsel at TRM Labs, a leading blockchain and Web3analytics company that helps organizations detect, assess, and investigate crypto related fraud and financial crime. Previously, he was a partner at Sidley Austin, where he focused his practice on cybersecurity and data privacy issues, internal investigations, and white collar criminal defense. Earlier in his career, Mr. Raman served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the US Department of Justice, and he also helped oversee the DOJs cyber related policy development. In addition, he oversaw the creation of the Department's cryptocurrency enforcement framework, which remains federal law enforcement strategy blueprint for investigating crypto related crime.

Michael Bloom is the CEO of Praktio, a platform that helps junior lawyers at law firms learn how to draft contracts, which is used by over 50 of the AM Law 200. Michael graduated from Yale Law into the Financial Crisis and took a voluntary deferral from Sidley Austin.Rather than twiddling his thumbs, Michael found a role teaching a clinical contracts course at U of Chicago Law School. That course turned into coauthoring a textbook on contracts and ultimately with some hops and jumps and more hops over to launching Praktio.If you're graduating law school now or worried about what's happening in the current economic environment, you might take comfort from the fact that often what we're not expecting ends up taking us down paths that prove to be fruitful and that we may not have anticipated to begin with.This week, Tuesday, December 6th at 6:00 PM, EST, Raleigh Williams from Episode 15 is going to be leading a free workshop on investing in small businesses for busy lawyers.If you want to attend or learn about future workshops like this email me at Joseph@excellentatlife.com.I'm also going to be launching a newsletter shortly called Excellent at Life: A Personal Growth Newsletter for Attorneys and Other Humans. You can sign up for it by emailing me at Joseph@excellenatlife.com or going to ExcellentAtLife.com (will be live shortly). If you have input, criticism, or guest suggestions (including yourself) for the podcast, shoot me an email at Joseph@excellentatlife.com. Connect to me on LinkedIn here and say hello Follow me on Twitter here and I'll follow you backCheck out GetSomeClass.com for fun team activities and wellness programming.In the meantime, may you walk your own winding path well.Joseph Gerstel

In this episode, Josh Fougere, partner with Sidley Austin's D.C. office, and a member of the NAWL Advocacy and Survey Committees speaks with Tacy Flint, an appellate litigator, and partner with Sidley Austin's Chicago office, about the U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and how to discuss in depth the consequences of the Dobbs decision to non-lawyers.NAWL Resolution on Reproductive Justice: https://www.nawl.org/d/do/1089

The composition of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically since Carter Phillips' first argument in 1982, but his preparation for his 89th argument next month will be largely the same. The Sidley Austin partner spoke to Law360's The Term this week on the lessons learned from his prolific career, and why he isn't surprised by his former colleague Justice Samuel Alito's rising profile on the nation's top court. Plus, a look at the latest election litigation on the justices' "shadow docket."

In today's world, purchasing technology is no longer a sure fire way to solve a business problem. In addition to the right technology you need to have the right people, following the right process and leveraging the right technology to solve the complex business problems law firms are facing. But how do you connect these three concepts within your organizations? Listen to this discussion with Rachel Shields Williams from Sidley Austin and Debbie Foster from Affinity Consulting Group. Questions Rachel will ask Debbie: · What is the secret to connecting people, process and technology in today's modern law firm. · Is there one part of the “People, Process, and Technology” that leaders should focus on more? Or do you see people focus one more than the other? · Common pit falls when trying to connect the dots? · What is one piece of advice that you would give to anyone trying to connect the dots? Moderator: @Rachel Shields Williams - Director, Knowledge Management, Sidley Austin LLP Speaker: @Debbie Foster - Partner, Affinity Consulting Group Recorded on 09-19-2022

This week: Special Legal Edition with Sidley Austin's Kevin Lewis, Bart Biggers, Michael Burke, Karen Kazmerzak. Topics include: Inflation Recovery Act, Clean fuel/SAF tax credit, Foreign carriers filing for Ch. 11 in US Courts, Stepped up antitrust enforcement, Pilot shortage/Pay; Listener input: Charging differently for bags, 737 vs 320. Shout-outs.

Jim and Jeff talk with Rosa Black, Manager of IAM at Sidley Austin, about the first day of the 2022 Gartner IAM Summit in Las Vegas and our favorite sessions and highlights from the day. Connect with Rosa on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rosanna-black-422710bb/ Connect with Jim and Jeff on LinkedIn here: Jim McDonald: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmcdonaldpmp/ Jeff Steadman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffsteadman/ Visit the show at www.IdentityAtTheCenter.com, follow @IDACPodcast on Twitter, and check out our live streams at www.idac.live

0:00 -- Intro.1:34 -- Start of interview.2:04 -- Derek's "origin story". He grew up in Chicago and graduated from WUSTL with a degree in applied math and an MBA in finance. From there he went to Capital One, "at the time it was at the forefront of making decisions with data". He then got his law degree from Stanford Law School (Class of '04). After graduating he joined WLR&K. From there he moved to hedge funds including Scoggin Capital (NY) and then Voce Capital (SF/Bay Area). In 2015, he joined Camberview Partners (now PJT Camberview) to head its activism defense practice. In 2019, he joined as a partner and co-chair of Sidley Austin's shareholder activism practice.8:03 -- On what makes Derek's practice at Sidley Austin distinctive: "this is all we do." "We've seen over 100 proxy contests over the last 5 years." 10:05 -- On this year's proxy season and activist campaigns. "We're back at pre-Covid levels, both in amount and mix of activism." "The reported campaigns are just the tip of the iceberg (many situations get resolved before they reach the public's eye)."14:30 -- The impact of COVID-19 in the activism realm: "it was a very quick slow-down."16:54 -- Why activists and companies continue to favor settlements over drawn-out proxy fights. (Per Lazard's H1 2022 Review of Shareholder Activism "[C]ontinuing 2021's trend, a historically high proportion of Board seats (91% of the 75 total Board seats won) were secured via settlement agreements."21:20 -- Activism in different size of companies (small, mid and large or mega caps). 23:13 -- Some take-aways from the Exxon Mobil case (generally): "Size is not a defense, and use of ESG by activists as a core thesis." On the influence of the large institutional investors ("only a few individuals that control a big part of the vote.") [See The Future of Corporate Governance Part I: The Problem of Twelve by John Coates, 2018). 28:53 -- On the impact of the current market downturn in activism. Targeting tech companies.32:40 -- On activism targeting tech companies that are founder controlled (sometimes with dual-class share structures.) "Independent directors play a big and important role."35:52 -- On contested M&A (hostile take-overs).38:34 -- The impact of universal proxy cards in contested director elections. [See Sidley Austin's position on this topic]42:47 -- Take-aways from shareholder proposals from this year's proxy season. 44:24 -- Take-aways for directors (generally) from this year's proxy season. "The most important thing is universal proxy and what it will do to shareholder activism: there will be a much deeper focus on skills sets of individual directors (impacting Nom-Gov committee.)" "Be your own activist." 46:22 -- On board diversity in shareholder activism.47:13 -- A book that has greatly influenced his life: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"  by Ralph Leighton and Richard Feynman (1985).48:45 --  A quote he thinks of often or lives his life by:  "Think for Yourself." (a Beatles song).50:07 --  An unusual habit or an absurd thing that he loves: watching 5min clips in YouTube with his kids (space and astrophysics related). From these, emerged his new favorite animal: Tardigrade.51:38 --  The living person he admires: Nate Silver (because "he's representative of somebody who uses information, evidence and data to guide decision-making.")Derek Zaba is a partner in the Palo Alto and New York offices and co-chairs Sidley's Shareholder Activism practice. He counsels companies on a variety of matters, including activism defense/proxy contests, activism preparedness, takeover defenses, shareholder engagement and corporate governance.__ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Today's headlines: the prime minister of Moldova told CNN in an interview that she is concerned Russia is going to invade them next. Meanwhile, two people were shot in the middle of the day in Whistler, Canada yesterday while a 37 year old woman opened fire inside Dallas Love Field Airport. A group of Republican state legislators sent a letter to law firm Sidley Austin, threatening the company and its lawyers with disbarment and protection if they facilitate abortions. Finally, Democrats in the Michigan state House called for a federal investigation into 11 republican lawmakers for seditious conspiracy, while a former republican congressman from Indiana has been charged with insider trading by federal prosecutors and the SEC. Resources/Articles mentioned this episode: Business Insider: Moldova says it fears a Russian invasion as more neighbors ring alarm over Ukraine war Washington Post: Deadly shootings in Whistler and Langley rock British Columbia NY Times: Woman Opens Fire at Dallas Love Field and Is Shot and Arrested Daily Beast: Texas Republicans Threaten Lawyers with Prosecution and Disbarment if They Facilitate Abortions Michigan Radio: Michigan House Dems call for federal investigation into GOP colleagues CNBC: Former GOP Rep. Stephen Buyer charged with insider trading by federal prosecutors, SEC

With the environment at the forefront of everyone's minds thanks to the recent SCOTUS decision on West Virginia v EPA, our hosts chat with Justin Savage, the global co-leader of the Environmental practice at Sidley Austin LLP. Join Justin and our hosts as they discuss what the decision means, how it will affect the way law firms advise their clients, and its implications for the ESG space. For their moves of the week, our hosts break down Ropes & Gray LLP's recent office opening in Los Angeles and a pair of notable lateral hires by Sidley Austin LLP, including one in Miami. Plenty to unpack. As always, be sure to rate, review, and subscribe!

Plus Texas targets Biglaw. Since the Dobbs opinion came down, Supreme Court justices have faced protests outside their homes and outside their favorite restaurants. The Supreme Court asked local officials to clamp down on it and Morton's Steakhouse used its JD from the Filet Mignon School of Law, but the Court's problem is its own pesky precedents catching up with it. We also discuss the threat Texas legislators sent to Sidley Austin suggesting it would go after the firm for its health plan covering health care travel and the future of state border-crossing laws and guns and briefly preview Elon Musk's Twitter fight.

Tim Muris was chairman of the FTC from 2001 to 2004. He was director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection from 1981 to 1983 and of the Bureau of Competition from 1983 to 1985 and an assistant to the director of the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation from 1974 to 1976. He currently is George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, senior counsel at Sidley Austin and a visiting senior fellow at AEI [American Enterprise Institute]. Howard Beales was director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC from 2001 to 2004. He was associate director for policy and evaluation from 1983 to 1987. He was an assistant to the director from 1981 to 1983 and a staff economist from 1977 to 1981. He currently is emeritus professor of Strategic Management and Public Policy at the George Washington University School of Business and a visiting senior fellow at AEI.