Podcasts about Westlaw

This week, we welcome Laura Clayton McDonnell, President of the Corporates Business Segment at Thomson Reuters. Laura shares her inspiring journey from corporate securities law to executive leadership at top technology companies, including Apple, Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, and now Thomson Reuters. She discusses how her Silicon Valley upbringing and her family's immigrant experience have shaped her leadership style and commitment to innovation in the legal industry. Laura's personal purpose—rooted in values like courage, curiosity, and integrity—drives her mission to deliver measurable value to clients through legal technology and business transformation.The conversation highlights the rapid advancements in legal technology, with a special focus on the impact of generative AI and agentic AI in the legal sector. Laura explains how she stays ahead of legal tech trends by collaborating with internal teams, listening to customer feedback, and learning from her daughter, a practicing transactional lawyer. She emphasizes the importance of a growth mindset, continuous learning, and adaptability—qualities she honed during her time at Microsoft under Satya Nadella's leadership and through the teachings of Carol Dweck's “Growth Mindset.”Laura provides insights into how corporate legal, tax, and compliance departments are evolving from traditional cost centers to strategic business partners, thanks to innovative legal technology solutions from Thomson Reuters. She discusses how tools like Westlaw, Practical Law, Legal Tracker, and OneSource are helping legal professionals automate routine tasks, reduce contract review times by over 80%, and save millions on outside counsel spend. Laura notes that forward-thinking clients are not just adopting new legal tech tools—they are developing comprehensive strategies to transform business processes, training, and staffing for the future of legal work.The episode also explores the rise of alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) and the ongoing bifurcation of the legal market driven by technology adoption. Laura observes that general counsel are increasingly sophisticated in their approach, weighing cost, complexity, and the use of AI to achieve better outcomes. She stresses that legal technology is now essential for law firms and ALSPs alike, and that innovation and value delivery are key to staying competitive in the evolving legal landscape.Looking to the future, Laura predicts that predictive analytics, risk assessment, and cross-functional insights will become even more critical for legal, tax, and compliance professionals. She highlights the growing demand for skilled legal talent and the importance of ongoing training, ethical oversight, and building resilient, growth-oriented teams. Laura encourages legal industry leaders to prepare for a future where human expertise and advanced legal technology work together to drive strategic transformation and business success.For more information on legal technology trends, AI in the legal industry, and upcoming events, Laura invites listeners to connect with her on LinkedIn or visit Thomson Reuters. She also highlights the upcoming Thomson Reuters customer conference in November, where attendees can experience product demos and gain insights into the latest legal innovation and industry trends. Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] Links:• Forbes Article • GenAI Report• State of the Corporate Law Department ReportBlue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This week we welcome Raghu Ramanathan, President of Legal Professionals at Thomson Reuters, for an insightful discussion on the profound impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the legal industry. Raghu shares why he believes the legal sector, alongside healthcare, stands at the forefront of the AI revolution. His journey into the legal tech world, driven by the transformative potential of AI, sets the stage for a deep dive into current trends, future predictions, and the strategic initiatives shaping the future of law.Central to the conversation is Raghu's updated perspective on the evolution of law firms, revisiting predictions he first made in 2017. He outlines a compelling framework describing "three waves" of AI adoption currently underway. The first wave, "Optimization," which many firms are experiencing now, focuses on using AI to enhance existing workflows, making tasks faster and more efficient. The second wave, "Re-engineering," involves fundamentally rethinking processes, staffing models (including the traditional pyramid structure), pricing strategies, and the very nature of legal work to leverage AI's capabilities more deeply. Looking further ahead, the third wave anticipates the emergence of entirely "New Business Models."Thomson Reuters is actively navigating and shaping this transformation, particularly through its AI platform, CoCounsel. Raghu highlights the rapid evolution of CoCounsel, emphasizing the continuous development of new "skills"—capabilities ranging from summarization and research to drafting and complex analysis like the innovative "Claims Explorer." He explains TR's strategy involves integrating proprietary data (like Westlaw), client-provided documents, and public information, leveraging advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) from various providers to deliver comprehensive and powerful AI assistance. Prioritizing new skill development involves balancing significant client value with technical feasibility, constantly informed by close collaboration with innovation-focused customers.Beyond law firms, the conversation explores the crucial role and adoption of AI within the court system. Raghu notes a surprising enthusiasm among courts, driven by the urgent need to address growing case backlogs and enhance access to justice within tight budgets. He points to Thomson Reuters' significant partnerships, including a major agreement to deploy AI tools across the US federal courts and ongoing collaboration with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), which is fostering education and policy discussions among judges and court staff nationwide. Complementing product innovation, TR's expanded "Customer Success" initiative underscores the importance of user adoption, providing dedicated resources and best practices to help lawyers and legal professionals effectively integrate AI tools into their daily workflows, ensuring technology translates into tangible value.Raghu anticipates that smaller and mid-sized law firms may initially leverage AI more aggressively as a competitive equalizer, pushing larger firms to make bolder, more strategic moves beyond simple optimization. He stresses that the ultimate differentiator for success in the AI era will likely be less about the technology itself and more about effective change management. The rapid pace of AI adoption already witnessed in the legal sector signals that this transformation is not a distant prospect but a present reality reshaping the industry at an unprecedented speed.Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Transcript

Discover how legal research giants like LexisNexis and Westlaw are being disrupted by low cost AI tools like ChatGPT. Smart solo lawyers are ignoring overpriced AI tools favored by BigLaw in favor of cheaper, more innovative options. Listen to find out which AI-powered legal research options that deliver speed, savings, and simplicity without bloated price tags. Resources from this Episode Carolyn Elefant's LinkedIn Post  ChatGPT  Google NotebookLM  Midpage  Westlaw  LexisNexis CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters / Casetext AI assistant) Fastcase Vincent AI (Fastcase's AI research tool) Clearbrief Microsoft 365 Copilot Other Resources The 80/20 Principle (my techlaw newsletter) The 5 Pillars of a Tech-Powered Law Practice The Inner Circle (my online community for lawyers)   Follow and Review: I'd love for you to follow me if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. I'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Thanks to the sponsor: Smith.ai Smith.ai is an amazing virtual receptionist service that specializes in working with solo and small law firms. When you hire Smith.ai, you're hiring well-trained, friendly receptionists who can respond to callers in English or Spanish. And they have a special offer for podcast listeners where you can get an extra $100 discount with promo code ERNIE100. Sign up for a risk-free start with a 14-day money-back guarantee now (and learn more) at smith.ai.

Judge VanDyke made a YouTube video to accompany his dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, the Second Amendment case in which a Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld California's ban on handgun magazines over 10 bullets. Judge VanDyke's video shows him disassembling a gun, comparing accessories, and using a portion of oral argument to claim his point wasn't being heard. The issue: If a magazine is just an accessory not entitled to Second Amendment protection, then basically the entire gun is just a bunch of unprotected accessories.Jeff and Tim react:Can a federal judge issue a TikTok-style dissent? If so, can lawyers start footnoting their briefs with YouTube links?Does a video “illustration” that relies on props cross the line into new fact-finding? Or is it just illustrative of a legal point about distinguish an “arm” from its “accessories”?Are judges likely to do more of these dissents? Maybe explainer videos would be useful in patent cases (comparing iPhone and Samsung phone designs), or product defects, or police excessive-force cases?And practical questions: Will the video—and transcript—show up in Westlaw searches? How do you cite to something side during a dissent video?We also discuss a California Supreme Court ruling clarifying that malicious prosecution claims, even against lawyers, get the full two-year statute of limitations. Not the shorter one-year.And finally, an update from the J&J v. Trump litigation saga: a judge opens with a warning about the “priceless” nature of attorney integrity. The administration then invoked state secrets. Contempt proceedings now loom. Stay tuned.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Video Dissent: https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lkt7yftgqc2g

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 Panelist Introductions 03:43 Trump Cancels The SEC's Westlaw Subscription For Probably The Dumbest Possible Reason (Selected by Joe Patrice) 14:40 My JELL-O Theory of Legal Tech (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins) 30:50 Wondering what the Big 4 are up to? Stuart Bedford, KPMG's global head of legal services, makes it pretty clear (Selected by Stephen Embry) 41:50 Upsolve: Building the turbotax of bankruptcy and battling UPL restrictions (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 45:25 AI in Law Firms: Ethics Committees Are Clearing the Path Forward (Selected by Niki Black) 54:00 Deposely Offers Free AI Deposition and Litigation Tools Through New ‘Essentials' Program (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins)

The new federal deficit is the government's research deficit. ----- Elon Musk's aimless cost-cutting escapades turn to the SEC where DOGE slashed their Westlaw access because no one over there is smart enough to know how legal research works. Apparently now is an opportune time to start committing securities fraud! Speaking of aimless, former judge Alex Kozinski penned a meandering opinion piece about canceling elections in case, maybe, some president might want to consider it. And a few law schools quietly reworked their websites to remove diversity language. They probably won't be the last.

The new federal deficit is the government's research deficit. ----- Elon Musk's aimless cost-cutting escapades turn to the SEC where DOGE slashed their Westlaw access because no one over there is smart enough to know how legal research works. Apparently now is an opportune time to start committing securities fraud! Speaking of aimless, former judge Alex Kozinski penned a meandering opinion piece about canceling elections in case, maybe, some president might want to consider it. And a few law schools quietly reworked their websites to remove diversity language. They probably won't be the last. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to today's "AI Lawyer Talking Tech" podcast, where we explore the dynamic intersection of artificial intelligence and the legal field. Today, we'll delve into the latest developments, fromlandmark court rulings impacting AI copyright and the use of training data, to the growing adoption of AI tools within law firms and the implications of AI on legal practice. We'll also examine how AI is streamlining contract management, reshaping client outreach, and even aiding pro se litigants. We will also discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by this technological revolution, including data security, ethical considerations, and the changing skills required of legal professionals.“Largest data breach in US history”: Three more lawsuits try to stop DOGE12 Feb 2025ArsTechnicaJudges have issued preliminary injunctions against some of Donald Trump's executive orders. What does that mean?12 Feb 2025Northeastern Global NewsLawyers Continue To Embrace AI In All The Wrong Ways12 Feb 2025Above The LawThe Role of Legal Tech in Managing High-Profile Business Cases12 Feb 2025ITSupplyChain.comPreparing for a TikTok Ban: What Employers Should Do to Ensure Access to Crucial Information Before It Disappears12 Feb 2025JD SupraLaw Firm limits AI Access after Surge in Staff Use12 Feb 2025DESIblitzSpotDraft taps AI to help streamline contract management12 Feb 2025TechCrunchFederal judge delivers first major AI copyright ruling against startup12 Feb 2025TechSpotChat GPT - Don't Take A Law Library With You When You Travel - Take A Legal Assistant.12 Feb 2025FuturelawyerFirst AI copyright ‘fair use' ruling is won by Thomson Reuters12 Feb 2025ReadWrite.comA Beginner's Guide to Legal AI: Transforming the Legal Landscape12 Feb 2025Lawyer MonthlyStrengthening cyber security in law firms with Managed Device Solutions12 Feb 2025Legal FuturesLawyers and Law Firms Embrace AI: Navigating the Future of Legal Work12 Feb 2025Lawyer MonthlyWebinar: AI in Legal – Meeting the Need for Speed12 Feb 2025Artificial LawyerCNIPA Releases Guidelines for AI-related Patent Applications (Trial Implementation)12 Feb 2025LexologyHow AI is Revolutionizing Legal Telesales and Client Outreach11 Feb 2025Lawyer MonthlyTraining Data on Trial: How a Legal Battle Over Headnotes Could Impact AI12 Feb 2025Legaltech on MediumALSP 2025 Report Analysis: How are competitive dynamics playing out between law firms and independent ALSPs?12 Feb 2025Thomson Reuters InstituteHarvey Bags $300m, Values at $3 Billion + AL Analysis12 Feb 2025Artificial LawyerChatbots for justice: The impact of AI-driven tech tools for pro se litigants12 Feb 2025Thomson Reuters Institute10 Legal Tech Companies in the Philippines to Follow in 202512 Feb 2025Legaltech on MediumJudge rules that Ross Intelligence infringed Westlaw's copyright in landmark AI opinion12 Feb 2025Legal IT InsiderWebinar: AI in Legal – Meeting the Need for Speed12 Feb 2025Artificial LawyerHarvey Announces $300 Million Series D12 Feb 2025CooleyROSS AI Decision Gives Early Indication of Strengths and Weaknesses of Fair Use Defense12 Feb 2025Mayer BrownPress, Media, & Articles Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast California CRE Survey and Index Reveals Data Center Development Projected to Double, Driven by Demand for Digital Infrastructure 2.12.2512 Feb 2025Allen MatkinsPensions Weekly Update – 12 February 202512 Feb 2025Squire Patton Boggs

In this episode of The Building Texas Business Podcast, I spoke with Brian Freedman, president of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, about the region's economic development. We explored the five major industry clusters shaping the area: maritime logistics, aerospace, tourism, healthcare, and petrochemicals. Brian shared updates on aerospace innovations at Ellington Field, including projects by Intuitive Machines and Axiom, while highlighting new opportunities in defence manufacturing. I learned about Project 11, an initiative to expand the Houston port's capacity for larger vessels. Brian explained how this infrastructure project connects to the broader transportation network, particularly the role of trucking in regional commerce. We discussed how the partnership works with legislators and industry leaders to address challenges like insurance costs and maintain economic momentum. The conversation shifted to leadership approaches and team dynamics in Texas business. Brian described how maintaining diverse projects keeps his team engaged and motivated. We explored how the Houston area supports entrepreneurs through community partnerships and mentorship programs while adapting to technological changes like AI integration. Our discussion wrapped up with a look at workforce development in the region. Brian explained how educational partnerships are building talent pipelines across industries. We covered the importance of aligning training programs with business needs while fostering collaboration between municipalities, educational institutions, and industry partners. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS In this episode, I spoke with Brian Freedman, president of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, about the economic development in the Houston Bay Area, focusing on the recruitment, retention, and expansion of primary employers. We discussed the significant industry clusters in the region, including maritime logistics, aerospace, tourism, healthcare, and petrochemicals, and their impact on the area's economic growth. Brian highlighted developments at Ellington Field, including contributions from companies like Intuitive Machines and Axiom, as well as the emerging opportunities in defense manufacturing and procurement. The episode explored the scale and impact of the Houston port, emphasizing Project 11's role in expanding the port's capacity and the importance of logistics and innovation for regional prosperity. We delved into the leadership style necessary for motivating teams and managing diverse projects, underscoring the Texan entrepreneurial spirit characterized by ambition and a collaborative approach. Brian shared insights on the vibrant business ecosystem in Texas, driven by a skilled workforce, affordability, and a supportive community fostering partnerships and mentorship opportunities. Finally, we addressed challenges like insurance costs and the importance of regional solidarity, as well as efforts to mitigate natural disaster risks and promote responsible development in the area. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About BAHEP GUESTS Brian FreedmanAbout Brian TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In this episode you will meet Brian Freedman, president of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. Brian shares how his organization works to recruit, retain and expand primary employers in the greater Houston Bay Area region. Brian, I want to welcome you to Building Texas Business. Thanks for joining us today. Brian: Hey, thank you, Chris. Honored to be here and great to catch up. Chris: Yes, likewise. So let's start with you. You're the president and the organizational name's kind of long it's Bay Area, houston Economic Partnership. Tell the listeners a little bit about what that organization is and what it does, to kind of put the rest of our conversation into context. Brian: Sure, so BayHEP is the short version of it. So we're the Regional Economic Development Group and kind of the, as I like to say, in the Houston-Galveston region. We're three o'clock to six o'clock on the watch, face right. So we kind of go out 225, all the municipalities and cities going out east and then going down south 45. We go a little west of 45, but really that 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock and we're really focused on how do you recruit, retain and expand primary employers in the region with the idea that if you can get great companies located here and have a group of industry clusters that are cranking away every day, that we can have a great place to live. We have great involved residents that are in this area and opportunities for the folks who live here and kind of build what the future will look like for this region. So a lot of good stuff going on and, happy to get into that a little further, we do economic development, recruitment, retention projects. So how do we get companies here? We do some grants and then we're a membership organization is how we're funded. So we have about 300 members, 19 municipal members, Harrison-Galveston County, the port, the airport system. It's really how do you get the leaders of a region to work together to advance what we're doing here. Chris: Wow, I mean that's it sounds like it's easier to say and harder to do coordinating that many organizations and trying to get everybody pulling the same direction. Brian: Yeah, it's a lot of fun and we get to work with a lot of great folks. That's how we met Chris, is that, you know, through some of our mutual connections. But yeah, you know, it's really when you can get generally like-minded folks thinking about what the future of a region will look like and pretty aligned and working towards that effort, it's more of a well, it's just fun and you can create a lot of impact and we're seeing that and I'll be happy to dive into some of the specific projects we're working down here. But I mean, you guys do it too at Boyer Miller. Y'all are working with clients all over the spectrum of types of industry and you have to adapt to what's coming up, what's at you, and be ready for that kind of stuff. Chris: Yeah, no doubt. So yeah let's jump into some stuff. Let's talk first, because when I think of your area, obviously the first thing that comes to mind is NASA and all that's going on around that, and that leads me to technology and innovation. So what are some of the emerging technologies or trends that you're seeing that are kind of helping shape the future of Texas and kind of the business opportunities, at least in your region and for Texas? Brian: Yeah, so I call it kind of the big five on the industry cluster. So everybody thinks about this area for NASA, which we love right, because it really is a crown jewel out here, but I call it the big five right Maritime and all the associated logistics with the port aerospace and aviation, so nasa, but also the great work that the airport system is doing with ellington and hobby, tourism and recreation, health care and all the hospitals that have campuses down here, and then specialty and petrochemical and the energy industry partners and every one of those ecosystem has a ton of stuff going on. So I'm happy to talk about some of those more granular. But a couple of observations. One is that often overlooked in this community and really an asset to the greater Houston region is Ellington Field, ellington Airport, the Spaceport and, if you haven't seen or heard about it, the work that's going on at the Spaceport. They have three new beautiful buildings. One is occupied by Intuitive Machines who just put the first commercial lander payload on the surface of the moon. One is occupied by a company called Axiom that's building the next generation of commercial spacesuits and the next generation space station, and Collins who do spacesuit design in our building and maintaining the current spacesuits. They've set up huge facilities down there and so new stuff coming on. But I'm equally excited about just across the runway is the 147th Reserve Group. So there's a reserve unit out there, a reserve base, and the defense opportunities are pretty exciting. So that's highlighted by the 147th. But almost every branch has a reserve unit out there, save the Space Force, and we're working on that. And so the opportunities with defense manufacturing to come out to do more work in Houston and some of their innovation units and, as mundane as it sounds, some of the procurement opportunities, because when it comes to contracting, having a group of folks here would be a great opportunity for Houston businesses to then pipeline the work that they're doing into the broader defense industry, which can be really exciting. One other thing I'll mention, chris, is if you just look at the path of predictable growth for Houston, right, it keeps going out and we see that on our freeways every day. So there are growing pains that come with that, but for our region it's that steady march down Interstate 45. And so while Clear Lake Lake City are starting to get to fully built out and we're looking at what is the next generation of building look like, what's redevelopment look like For communities Dickinson, hitchcock, santa Fe, to some extent Texas City. Although they've got quite an industrial complex too, there's still space, and so it really brings up the opportunity of we can handle big projects, and whether they're industrial or tourism, there's a lot of opportunity that comes with that. And so, as folks you know, as we get built out further and further, those cities that were, they've always been important cities for the regional ecosystem, but they become major players, and so it's exciting to be able to work with them on that stuff. Chris: Sounds like a lot of opportunity for real estate development. Both residential, retail, commercial, industrial kind of all sectors are going to be playing a big part in that ongoing development in your region. Brian: Exactly right, and part of the the fun part is, you know, every municipality has different targets of what they view their economic development to look like, and so we get to work with all those cities where some may be really focused on industrial, some may want to be bedroom communities and be focused on residential. Our task is to support those municipalities in this region and identifying good players to bring to the table. So who are people that we do want to partner with that can follow through on the projects that can complete them and make them successful? Chris: That's great. I think I saw recently in the news the state of Texas, I think it's had something along these lines, but it's like a fund for the space-related projects and I know I don't know the name and you'll help me with that, but I seem to recall the governor being in town and making some big announcement right after the first of the year. Tell us a little more about that. Brian: Recall the governor being in town and making some big announcement right after the first of the year. Tell us a little more about that, exactly, right? So last legislative session, primarily spearheaded by State Representative Greg Bonin, who's also a Princewood resident he's a neurosurgeon by day and State Representative Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee during the legislative session he had this kind of vision of how does the state become a major player in the aerospace community. That's been primarily a federal and private industry ecosystem and so under his vision and with support of the state legislature and certainly the governor, they put a bill that kind of outlined a direction for the state to engage and the resources behind it. It does a couple of things. One was it allocated about $200 million that would go to Texas A&M to build this A&M Space Institute, and they've actually located that property. It will be built on the edge of the campus of Johnson Space Center, so for those familiar with this area, right on Saturn Lane. $200 million building and, as A&M's laid it out, it will have a giant lunar rock yard and a giant Mars rock yard, with the idea that everybody who's going to be doing hardware testing to send vehicles to the moon or Mars is trying to figure out where they're going to do that testing. And it's very expensive to build, obviously. And so companies are making the decision whether they're going to build that themselves and own it or go lease it somewhere. And if they're going to lease it, where do you go to find a giant brockyard to simulate the surface of the moon? And well, the state of Texas answered that question. So what was so unique about that vision was that everybody who's in that ecosystem now wants to come through Houston Texas to do that work. And so with that comes the. You know they'll be have their lab space there, but they may need offices, they're going to be hiring people, and so you know it really is an exciting project. They had their groundbreaking right at the end of last year. I've seen surveyors out there and they think they're going to have it open in 2026. So an aggressive timeline to get that bill. The other part to that bill was they appropriated $150 million for a grant program to incentivize sort of space leadership projects in the state of Texas, and so they have to set up a whole, basically administration portion of this. So they selected nine individuals to serve on the Texas Space Commission who will review those proposals and evaluate them and make awards. Who will review those proposals and evaluate them and make awards, and then they'll also help advise the state on how they can keep their leadership position in the space industry. The first of those awards about 20 million were released a little over a week ago. A couple of them were studies for best use for really cool stuff hypersonic corridors where to be landing sites. And then another one that is to build assets and capabilities for the Space Force in El Paso to have more of a Space Force presence in the state of Texas, which is pretty exciting. So I'm optimistic about what's to come for them. Chris: Yeah, that sounds very exciting, especially the concept of the $200 million grant to A&M and what that will do to attract other businesses that might relocate somewhere else and bring them here, and then all the ancillary things around hiring and jobs et cetera. So that's very exciting news and I think it'll be just around the corner. Let's maybe talk a little bit about. You mentioned Maritime and the port, and most Houstonians People know the Houston port is a significant asset for our area. Anything going on there that's new and exciting, any kind of innovation that you see when you're working with those entities and, I guess, the port authority itself. Brian: Yeah, well, maybe the first thing when you talk about the port is you're absolutely right just how important they are to this well, to all of Houston, but to the country I mean. The scale of the port is hard to appreciate when you just look at the numbers. But the numbers are just staggering. The amount of capability that comes through there and the innovation really is on the logistics and management for how they move, whether it's container, you know, container containers, the container terminal organization and how that whole orchestra is operated, and the capabilities from there is that the crane's getting stuff unloaded, then onto the trucks or rail or whatever. The mechanism to get it out and then get it distributed to wherever it's going is pretty incredible, and so we're fortunate to have them. We just hosted the new port CEO, charlie Jenkins, who's a phenomenal leader, has a career in service of the port, is the right guy to lead that organization into their next chapter. But he made this comment kind of in passing that the port's operations are about a $3 billion a day operation, you know, and you just go like a day of economic impact that go into that. The scale is really something impressive and that's all the trickle out and secondary effects. But it's amazing, the big thing that's going on with them right now is Project 11. That's the deepening and widening of the channel that'll allow additional capacity to go in there, and it's really writing the story for what the next chapter of the port's future is and Houston as a trading hub is, and so it'll allow for larger ships to come through. The additional investments they're making will allow faster turn and movement of all the goods that are on there. So a lot of good stuff going on. I guess the last thing I'll say is anybody who's driven 225 sees all those trucks and I drive it pretty regularly and see that too and as much as nobody likes driving next to a giant 18 wheeler, every one of those trucks is jobs and prosperity for our region, and so the next time you're driving there and you see a hundred trucks going down 225, that's our economic prosperity moving around our region and, candidly, around the country. It's good stuff. Chris: It's a good point. Yeah, I mean it's. You wouldn't want the roads to be empty and no trucks moving. I mean that's not a good sign. So feel blessed that we have all that you know in our area and driving all kinds of different prospects and opportunities for people. So when you are working with, let's talk a little bit about these member organizations and all the different moving parts you know what are you doing? How do you, I guess, keep things organized and people kind of moving in the same direction? Just, I would think that in itself is a full-time job. Brian: Yeah, it's a lot, but you know it's good stuff. I guess I'll start with a phrase that I kind of live by, which is we have a lot of stuff going on and so we'll find something to get on about. Right, we can always find something to work together on, and so, if you kind of start with that attitude, there's a lot of common issues that really require a lot of work but you can get maybe not perfect alignment, but general directional alignment. And so you know, one of the big issues we're working with right now is insurance. Right, we're all dealing with it. I'm sure you've gotten your insurance bill, but whether it's home or your business insurance, all those things, and so you can find a lot of commonality and ideas about hey, how can we work with our state leaders, potentially our federal leaders, with the insurance companies themselves, to try to manage the cost of doing that and find ways could it be grouping, doing kind of what they do in medical where you can have these larger groups or other mechanisms to try and help mitigate some of the costs? For that I'm getting a little granular, but you can find these little pockets where you can go move the ball down the field and get general alignment and so we spend a lot of time doing that. But we are very fortunate that our membership and generally this is kind of a Texan spirit type thing is hey, how do we go get some stuff done? Right, we want to go work on some stuff we want to go work on together. Generally it's a rising tide mentality and I spent a good portion of my career in industry and there are times where we compete like crazy and that's fun and, you know, makes great products and great opportunities for our customers. There are a lot of times where we need the tide to rise and finding alignment about that we try to be an outlet for that and keep things running. Right Is that we have not a big staff but a staff that can help make sure that. You know, our members are doing a lot of this stuff as volunteers, right, but they're bringing ideas to the table. So how can we make sure that they're staying engaged, that we're checking in on them, that we're helping carry these things and that we're creating a forum to have the right discussions and bring leaders together so we can invite in elected officials over relevant stuff, the right industry players, and bring them to the table and figure out what we can do, and then I guess the last thing I'll say is that manifests itself. We have a very active state legislative agenda. That we're going to be spending a fair amount of time in Austin, federal priorities. That we work with our congressional delegation and then very on the ground working with our municipalities and all the companies that are out down here to make movement. Probably talk all day about little one-offs. Advert Hello friends, this is Chris Hanslick, your Building Texas business host. Did you know that Boyer Miller, the producer of this podcast, is a business law firm that works with entrepreneurs, corporations and business leaders? Our team of attorneys serve as strategic partners to businesses by providing legal guidance to organizations of all sizes. Get to know the firm at boyermillercom. And thanks for listening to the show at boyermillercom. And thanks for listening to the show. Chris: Well it is. You know legislature is in session, so I know that creates a busy time for you. You talked a lot about some of the opportunities and I hope we can talk some more about that, but I do want to ask you at this point what are some of the headwinds that you see you know this region and specifically kind of where you are. You know that could be out there. That you see you know this region and specifically kind of where you are. You know that could be out there that you've got to try to deal with, to get ahead of or navigate through. Brian: I'll start with. It's a great time down here. Just the way that each one of those big five industry clusters is going about is that it's a. You know they're all doing well and have a lot of opportunity that's on the horizon or that they're in the midst of right now, but certainly you know, a few headwinds. One of the things that we're always worried about and we work actively is just natural disaster flood mitigation and storm surge and making sure that we're resilient and prepared for the future, and so the risk from some incident happening. I'm more excited to talk about, when it comes to that, all the things that we're doing to mitigate that. In terms of flood mitigation, the coastal barrier protection work that we've been spending a lot of time on. That's the Ike Dike. It has a lot of names, but most commonly known is that but a system to protect us from storm surge. So one is the risk of natural disaster I don't like it, but it's a real thing, right? The second is that we're in the you know how do we have responsible development? And so when you have a project that comes online, there are, you know, reasonable concerns from citizens saying, hey, is this the best thing to be doing with this piece of land, and so anytime you're talking about a development that's going to take a field and turn it into a thing, people get concerned about that and that's perfectly reasonable for them to be concerned and want to do that. And so part of what I spend time doing is addressing like, hey, here's why this is worthwhile, here's why this funds your local municipality and build more parks so we can have the resources and the tax base that justify expenditures that come elsewhere and make through that. But just the ability for the public's ability to impact development, as it happens, is important. But for them to do that knowing all the ground truth, knowing what the trades are and understanding that, so that if they are concerned about something that they come with that from an educated knowledge base and so that's out there. And then I certainly don't want to get political, but anytime there's an administration change, there's just priorities that get changed. And so we're still waiting to understand all of those. We're kind of watching how things are shaken out in Washington DC and we'll adapt and make sure that we're doing everything we can to put our region in a great posture with whatever those priorities are at the end of the day. Chris: So yeah, to that last point where you're kind of right in throws that change. Right now that's happening pretty fast, so you got to stay on your toes. Let me take you back to the Ike Dike, because that you know something to get after Harvey. Hurricane Harvey got talked about a lot. You don't hear much about it anymore. Any kind of updates for the listeners. That might be curious. Is it really going to happen and, if so, what's really going on down there to make sure it doesn't happen? Brian: And if so, what's really going on down there to make sure it doesn't happen? Yeah, so it's still moving along, you know, and with some enthusiasm. So a couple of big milestones. One is that in December of 22, it became a formal project of the US Army Corps of Engineers. It was authorized by Congress as a project, so that says, you know, they can now go focus on that. And so the next big question becomes how do we pay for it? To answer that, the state stepped up in a big way in the last legislative session and they had previously formed what's called the Gulf Coast Protection District. That is the local entity for that project. That will work with the US Army Corps of Engineers. So that group exists and has monthly meetings. They actually have an office in our suite. We lease an office to them them and they have their meeting in our conference room two out of every three months and then they do a rotation on that. Third, and they've been funded to the tune of about a half a billion dollars from the state of Texas. So they're ready to take significant action. We've been working with our federal partners about identifying where the big dollars come from for that project. It's going to be expensive and it's going to take a long time, but it will be likely done in phases and so that allows it. Where you don't need this one giant tranche of money all at once, you can do it sort of in a series and address the most important aspects of that, like the gates, some of the initial most highly populated areas, in phases. But we got to get federal appropriations for it. So in addition to the state entity being in our office, actually the US Army Corps of Engineers is on the fourth floor of this building and so all of the players for that project are in one building in our area right here, so that when what I'm hopeful for is if Corps moved in about six months ago, anytime an elected leader wants to come down and meet, they'll get every leader for that project in the same building and often meeting in our conference room or one of the core conference rooms. But a lot more can get done. There's sort of the opportunity for water cooler conversations between the state and the fed folks, and so I'm optimistic that the cadence just from that proximity will be helpful to that effort. Chris: Very good, that's good to hear. Let's change conversation a little bit. So, as I said, you're the president of BHEP. You mentioned your staff. Let's talk a little about leadership. How would you describe your leadership style and how do you think that's evolved kind of as you've been in this role? Brian: Yeah, well, I don't know that I can quantify terribly well, but I'm a kind of hey, all hands on deck and let's all just lean into wherever we're going. Right, and I kind of have that expectation of our team that we're have a clear set of priorities generally around the growth of this region and the projects that we're undertaking and that we're just leaning into them all the time and focusing. That I've been. You know I love getting down and into projects and so that's as I've been on this journey. That's been one of the big focus points to me is that you know you need a team to get this amount of stuff done and the size of these projects and the scope and so the ability to trust in the team and lean on them and let them go run with the ball is really important. I've been extremely fortunate that we have a great staff and we have a great membership base that we can lean on to help go bring those things to fruition. But it's a lot of fun coming to work. I think the team has a great time and enjoy the work that we do and you can see the difference that we make because there are buildings. We can point to that, wouldn't, you know, if not for the work of us and the leaders in this community wouldn't be there, and I'm looking forward to seeing that one on Saturn Lane with giant Texas A&M buildings sticking out of it coming through. Chris: It sounds like it's going to be impressive with the rockyards and all. But, you know, it made me think, though your team has a lot on its plate, I would think at times it may feel overwhelming. So, you know, what do you do to kind of help keep the motivation and keep the energy level up for a team that probably, at some points is, you know, starting to get to the end of the rope or run out of gas? Brian: Yeah, diversity of projects and lots of different stuff to work on. I'm guessing and actually I'd kind of turn that question on you, chris, because I can only imagine the type of stress that you guys live under, especially working big cases and big projects. There's one part that is, hey, we're just all in this together, right, and the esprit de corps that comes with. We're tackling big projects and that's just part of what comes with it. But there's another part where you just need to shift gears for a little bit and work on something different and give yourself a little recharge time. But how do you guys deal with it? I'm curious how? Chris: Boyer Miller, yeah that's a fair question to turn around on me. I would say it's similar. I think it's. You know to me that you can't underestimate the power of a team and if you have the right people on the team, there's some self-motivation just within that group, Right. And then I think it is the. We are fortunate to have very diverse type projects. We practice in all industries. So we may be doing a, a deal or a project, but it's in a different industry and there's different nuances that make it exciting. And at the end of the day I think it's the one point you highlighted on you can point to something and we're helping clients achieve their goals. So we can, you know, point to a deal that's been done or, you know, maybe it's a merger of two companies, or one that's grown and now has a new building and doing whatever. But you can point to those successes that you, where you've helped the client achieve, you know something really big for them and their business and their life. And so I think all of that continues the motivation. Yes, sometimes at the end of a big deal, you need just a little bit of a breather, but you just jump right back in and get going. So it makes it fun. Brian: Well, if you'll let me share. So you and I first met in person, had an opportunity to meet at one of your big forums, and that was a bunch of your customers and clients were there, and I love meeting new folks, as you probably saw, and I you know, walking around just saying, hey, I'm Brian, what do you do? And almost every one of them I would ask like, hey. So how do you know Chris, how do you know this group? You know, have you worked with them? And they all had a story. That was exactly that. You know, whatever thing it was that you helped them. We did XYZ project and it was awesome. We use them all the time for all these things. It was just very striking how passionate your customers, your clients, are with the help they've gotten from you guys, and so, anyway, that is extremely commendable and what I've seen from your team has just been amazing. Chris: Well, I appreciate the feedback. It's always good to get that, especially from different sources. So you know, like I think, we're always trying to create raving fans so that they'll keep coming back and tell their friends. So you get a unique seat and I think it's similar. You kind of analogize back to us. I think we get a unique seat to work with Texas entrepreneurs, and that's a pretty cool thing to do, in my view. What's, what would you or how would you describe the Texas entrepreneurial spirit if you could, based on your experience? Brian: Yeah well, I'm a native Texan. I have this hypothesis that part of the reason we're such a proud bunch is that when you go through I don't know if you grew up in Texas, chris but then also this sense of like we can do big things and big audacious things and we can make big asks and ask big questions and go get it done. And so we see a lot of that down here. And so you know, if you were sitting in I'll make this up Iowa and you said you know I want to have a space business and we want to go put hardware on the moon, and you know your neighbors would look at you and kind of scratch their head and in Texas they'd go oh yeah, that's intuitive machines and they're down the street, you should go. You know, go talk to them. They'd love to work with you. So that kind of spirit is really something special. When I was in industry I traveled all over the country working projects. There's something very special about this region, this community, this state, and that translates into why people want to come here. You know we keep Texas and Houston keep winning all these awards for business, new businesses coming here, people moving here, and that's not by accident, it's not by coincidence. It's because we have a great, great story to tell, whether that's workforce and the capabilities, the affordability of being here, the caliber of people you can work with and who your competitors are, and the level of intensity in the game that we play here is high and that creates the right ingredients for a really thriving community, for entrepreneurs, but also for industry any size. Chris: Right, very good. So what advice would you give to entrepreneurs out there that might be looking to start a business, let's say specifically, kind of within your region? If not, maybe beyond that in Houston? What's? Some of the advice you might give them if they wanted to get involved in some of the all the things you've been talking about. Brian: Yeah, dive in. It's a great community and a great ecosystem and there's a reason people are investing here and making a great run at it. We try to make that as easy as it can be. Now it is not easy. There's no illusions that starting a company you know scaling and growing a company all those things are very challenging. So the question I find myself asking I don't know that I'm in a position to give you know this immense amount of wisdom about these things, but what can we as a community and we as an organization be doing to help that entrepreneur? How do we help them build a relationship so that if they're having trouble with a permit, they know who to go ask, who to go talk to If they have a big idea, who might be good partners If they want to bounce something off, a retired executive who they might go talk to about that has the right skillset, so that we can create the conditions for them to be successful? And so that's really how we find ourselves interfacing that ecosystem is how do we put the right players together to go make things happen? Chris: Very good. So the other thing I'm curious to know is what do you see? You mentioned your five big industries. What have you observed of those industries working together to create innovative ideas to help each other? You got to move forward. Brian: Yeah, there's been a lot of. So workforce has been one of the biggest, especially over the last few years, where there's been this really high intensity competition amongst folks. And I wouldn't be surprised if you have been in some of that with, you know, recruiting and retaining high talent attorneys, right Is that? That's been, and so we've spent a lot of time and I've observed a lot of our members in this community go with that as a spirit of, hey, we're not really doing anybody any good If we're just poaching each other's people and you know, and creating pain points and friction between senior executives and those kinds of things. Let's go look at other communities and go figure out hey, what are the best universities and how do we get the professors that are training the students in it to send resumes to our area, right, and that we have a coalition of companies, not just one company has a relationship with one professor and that company benefits from that it's. How do we build that relationship as a community and say to them hey, we have a very strong demand signal, let's work together on things like that and so feeding that workforce pipeline so we're not divvying up the pie, we're growing it. And so, on the workforce side. I hate to be cliche because everybody's talking about AI, but we've had a couple of membership meetings about it. We've been working with partners about integration of it. We've adopted different technologies that have come out of it. But that stuff really, I mean it's the wave that we're living in right now, and so the integration of that into systems, both the how to do it and the mitigation of risk. I think I saw over the weekend that the new DeepSeek had a big not terribly surprised, but had a giant data leak and compromise, and so when you know when you're using that, I can only imagine, chris, I'd be curious how y'all are integrating it. But you know everything you put in there. You got to assume that at some point, somebody you don't want to have access will at least have the opportunity to have access to it, and so you have to be quite careful about how you integrate it. I, just as an aside, how are you guys using it much? Have you all banished it? What's the? Chris: Well, I'd say it's a little bit of both. I mean, we are definitely looking at and finding ways to integrate it. We've adopted a policy, but it starts with, as you mentioned, with us. It starts and stops with maintaining client confidentiality. So there's some systems out there through recognized kind of legal researchers. So Westlaw comes to mind, where they developed AI tool that is solely within their database. So it's secure, it's, it's all legal. You don't have to worry about we were still spot. You still have to check things right the human element of that. But if you're searching, for example, using the AI tool within Westlaw, you don't have to worry about the fake cases you've seen in the news. But our attorneys, you know, if you're going to use it, it has to be approved through the firm which are only a handful. You can't use anything outside and everything has to be double checked by a person to make sure for accuracy, etc. But so it is. I mean, the confidentiality side is a real concern, not just for law firms, for everybody, any company using it, and unfortunately that's just gonna be more and more what we see right. The more that we're moving everything to cloud, you're going to have people coming after it to try to. You know, on the bad side of that and certain countries it's not illegal to be a hacker. So it's just, you know, that's the world we live in now. Yeah Well, you know, brian, this has been a very interesting conversation and the you know, the last time we spoke I came away with the same feeling, and that is, we talked a lot about a lot of opportunity going on in the three to six o'clock region of greater Houston and we didn't even scratch the surface, I'm sure. But my takeaways have been it doesn't matter what industry again, I said earlier, you always kind of automatically think of space and NASA, but it's every type of business you could think of. An industry you could think of Sounds like you've got ample opportunity for businesses and entrepreneurs to start, grow, expand and be there and thrive. Brian: Well, perfectly said, and I think we get a recording. I may use that in some of our promotional material. Chris, that's exactly right. Great time, great place to be and welcome folks to reach out to us to help however we can if they're interested in looking at opportunities down here for that Before I lose you. Chris, one of the favorite questions that you had sent over that I wanted to ask you that you didn't get a chance to ask is what your favorite recreation vacation spot in the state of Texas is. Chris: Well, I'll answer that. I was about to ask you that. I would say if it's kind of a vacation spot in Texas, it would probably be anywhere along the Texas coast to relax a little bit and get some fishing in. Brian: Perfect. Chris: How about you? Brian: We are huge campers, like we love going camping. My kids are eight and 11 and we have state parks pass, and so any day I'm in a state park is a good day for me. But Inks Lake is one of my favorites and McKinney Falls between the two of those. Those are my top two right now, but we've probably been to Keene and we're just checking off the box to hit them all, and maybe we'll upgrade to National Parks as we get a little bit older. But I love our visiting our state park system. They're just absolutely wonderful. Chris: That's great. Okay, last question You're native Texan, so do you prefer Tex-Mex or barbecue? Brian: Oh, I feel like that question is going to get me in trouble, but if you made me choose, I'd pick barbecue. I'll eat it all day, every day, as it shows how about you, how about you? Chris: I think it's a tough one, so I've had some guests. You know, it depends on the day. I probably lean Tex-Mex more than barbecue. But I love the restaurants now that are combining the two, so brisket tacos or brisket nachos or something like that. It's a great combination. Brian: Yeah, there should be an answer all of the above there. Chris: So we're getting close to the rodeo time in Houston, so I have to go with barbecue for now and then back to Tex-Mex, I guess. Brian: Well, I look forward to seeing you at the kickoff event, where we get to go sample a little everything. Deal, that sounds good. Well, I look forward to seeing you at the kickoff event, where we get to go sample a little everything. Chris: Deal. That sounds good. Brian, thanks again for taking the time. Really appreciate your friendship and definitely appreciate what you and your team are doing for all the things business down in the Bay Area. Brian: Well, right back at you, Chris. Thanks for your leadership and all the great work you're doing with your team. Appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today. Thank you. Special Guest: Brian Freedman.

This Day in Legal History: West Law Reports PublishedOn October 21, 1876, the West Publishing Company, founded by John B. West, published its first legal reporter, The Syllabi. This marked the beginning of a transformation in how American legal professionals accessed and utilized case law. The Syllabi aimed to provide Minnesota lawyers with timely, accurate, and reliable legal information, distinguishing itself through its promise to be "prompt, interesting, full, and at all times thoroughly reliable." Over time, The Syllabi evolved into the Northwestern Reporter, which played a significant role in shaping the broader National Reporter System. West's innovation was groundbreaking because it standardized the reporting of judicial decisions across multiple jurisdictions, creating a centralized, accessible body of case law. The National Reporter System expanded to cover decisions from various courts in different regions, making it easier for lawyers to research case law beyond state boundaries. This system eventually became the foundation for modern legal research and was essential for the creation of tools like Westlaw, which revolutionized legal research with digital access in the 20th century. It is worth noting, the development of a centralized legal reporting system, while transformative, also raises important access to justice issues. West Publishing's dominance in legal reporting and the eventual emergence of paid research platforms like Westlaw created barriers for individuals and smaller firms with limited financial resources. The high cost of accessing comprehensive legal databases places those without the means at a significant disadvantage, potentially hindering their ability to conduct thorough legal research or build strong cases. This disparity underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring equal access to legal resources, a critical factor in promoting fairness within the justice system.China-based drone manufacturer DJI has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Defense Department, challenging its inclusion on a list of companies allegedly linked to Beijing's military. DJI claims the designation is inaccurate and has caused substantial financial harm, including lost business deals and a tarnished reputation. The company, which controls over half of the U.S. commercial drone market, argues it is neither owned nor controlled by the Chinese military and seeks removal from the list. DJI alleges that the Pentagon did not engage with the company for over 16 months regarding the designation, leaving it no choice but to pursue legal action. The Pentagon has not commented on the suit. DJI is also facing increasing scrutiny in the U.S., with concerns raised about potential security risks from its drones. Earlier this week, U.S. Customs stopped some DJI imports under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, though DJI denies any involvement with forced labor. Meanwhile, the U.S. House has passed a bill to ban new DJI drones, pending Senate action.Drone maker DJI sues Pentagon over Chinese military listing | ReutersEli Lilly has filed lawsuits against three medical spas and online vendors—Pivotal Peptides, MangoRx, and Genesis Lifestyle Medicine—over selling unauthorized versions of its weight-loss drug, Zepbound, which contains tirzepatide. These lawsuits, filed in federal and state courts, accuse the companies of false advertising and promotion, including selling products without medical prescriptions and making unverified claims about the drug's safety and efficacy. Pivotal Peptides allegedly marketed tirzepatide for research but sold it directly to consumers, while MangoRx offered an unapproved oral version of the drug. Genesis was accused of selling compounded tirzepatide with vitamin B12, a combination that Lilly says is unsafe and untested. Lilly's lawsuits follow earlier legal actions against other companies for similar offenses. The drugmaker aims to protect consumers from potential health risks and seeks to stop the defendants from selling these products, as well as pursuing monetary damages.Lilly sues online vendors, medical spa over copycat weight-loss drugs | ReutersFour prominent labor lawyers from Baker McKenzie's New York employment practice—Paul Evans, Krissy Katzenstein, Blair Robinson, and Jeffrey Sturgeon—have moved to Paul Hastings, leaving Baker McKenzie short one-third of its employment lawyers. The team has represented Fox News in several high-profile employment disputes, including defending the network in cases involving former host Britt McHenry and a COVID-19 workplace exposure claim. The team has also worked with clients like CBS Broadcasting, Paramount Global, and Panda Express. Their move to Paul Hastings follows collaborations with the firm's employment lawyers, and they plan to continue growing Paul Hastings' client relationships. The transition strengthens Paul Hastings' East Coast employment practice, enhancing its capacity in complex employment matters, including Title VII representation, pay equity, and class actions. Paul Hastings' leadership sees this as a significant boost, especially ahead of regulatory shifts tied to the 2024 presidential election.Fox News Employment Defense Team Moves Over to Paul HastingsNew Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ Transit) is facing a patent infringement lawsuit from Railware Inc., which claims NJ Transit is using its railworker-safety technology without permission. NJ Transit is seeking to dismiss the case, asserting sovereign immunity as an "arm of the State of New Jersey." The issue is complicated by the fact that NJ Transit operates in both New Jersey and New York. While the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, has previously ruled that NJ Transit qualifies for immunity, the Second Circuit, which covers New York, uses a stricter test to determine state immunity. This case is significant because it could set a precedent for how sovereign immunity is applied across jurisdictions.Railware argues that NJ Transit's immunity claim is invalid, citing the agency's independent operation and non-state funding. The case also touches on broader legal debates about when state agencies can claim immunity in patent cases. NJ Transit is awaiting a key ruling from the New York Court of Appeals on whether it is immune from another lawsuit, which could influence this case. If conflicting rulings emerge from different courts, the matter may be escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.NJ Transit Patent Immunity Claim Crosses Circuit-Court Divide 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

I talked with an expert in the space about how to utilize and implement AI to use more effectively generate and manage law firm documents. Episode Highlights 10:55 - AI-related skills for lawyers. 13:30 - Importance of prompt building. 16:15 - Comparison to Lexis and Westlaw innovations. 19:45 - Necessity of AI usage policies in law firms. 24:05 - Security protocols for AI use in law firms. 28:00 - Client-driven demand for AI. 32:15 - AI's potential impact on legal professionals' workload and efficiency. 36:50 - Document management systems' role in AI integration. 38:00 - Benefits of a metadata-enriched environment. 43:20 - Workflow automation for repetitive tasks. 46:00 - Positive outcomes from AI adoption in legal fields. Episode Resources Connect with Jared Correia jared@redcavelegal.com https://redcavelegal.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaredcorreia https://twitter.com/RedCaveLegal www.linkedin.com/in/jaredcorreia/ Connect with Jennifer Poon https://www.netdocuments.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifer-poon-4638392a/  

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing the importance and challenges of first-year Legal Research and Writing projects in law school. We share tips on how to break down LRW projects into manageable subparts, revise drafts, and proofread to ensure successful completion of the assignment. In this episode we discuss: Time-management schedule for your LRW assignment Starting with understanding the instructions Tips for researching, writing, and editing your assignment Asking your professor for feedback Final proofreading and citations Resources: Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) Westlaw (https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw) LexisNexis (https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/home.page) Podcast Episode 68: Top 10 Legal Research and Writing Disasters to Avoid (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-68-legal-writing-disasters/) Podcast Episode 409: Start Law School Right – Legal Research and Writing (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-409-start-law-school-right-legal-research-and-writing/) First-Hand Guide to 1L Courses – Legal Research & Writing (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/first-hand-guide-to-1l-courses-legal-research-writing/) Writing a Legal Memo – Things to Keep in Mind (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/writing-a-legal-memo-things-to-keep-in-mind/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-463-quick-tips-organizing-your-lrw-assignments/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Roger Martin is one of the world's leading experts on strategy and the author of Playing to Win, one of the most beloved books on strategy. He's written extensively for the Harvard Business Review; consulted for dozens of Fortune 500 companies, including P&G, Lego, and Ford; and written 11 other books. In our conversation, we discuss:• The five key questions you need to answer to develop an effective strategy• Why most companies get strategy wrong• How to avoid “playing to play” instead of playing to win• Real-world strategy examples from Procter & Gamble, Southwest Airlines, Lego, and Figma• How to think about differentiation vs. low cost• Shortcomings of current strategy education• Much more—Brought to you by:• Webflow—The web experience platform• WorkOS—Modern identity platform for B2B SaaS, free up to 1 million MAUs• Cycle—Your feedback hub, on autopilot—Find the transcript at: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/the-ultimate-guide-to-strategy-roger-martin—Where to find Roger Martin:• X: https://x.com/RogerLMartin• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/roger-martin-9916911a9/• Website: https://rogerlmartin.com/—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Roger's background(02:20) The importance of strategy(07:00) Challenges in developing strategy(08:30) Critique of modern strategy education(14:00) Hamilton Helmer and Richard Rumelt(17:40) Defining strategy(19:12) The Strategy Choice Cascade(23:20) Playing to win vs. playing to play(24:57) Examples of strategic success(30:49) Differentiation and moats(40:23) Applying strategy to real-world scenarios(43:47) Customer-centric strategy(44:45) Defining the market and product(45:59) Value chain and distribution(48:28) Cost leadership vs. differentiation(53:16) Capabilities and management systems(57:14) Competitive advantage and market positioning(01:02:41) Counterpositioning and fault lines(01:05:53) Adapting to AI and market changes(01:14:11) Betterment over perfection(01:18:42) Final thoughts on strategy—Referenced:• Nearly 10% of S&P 500 CEOs are alumni of Procter & Gamble: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/02/06/10-of-s-p-500-ceos-pg.html• FigJam: https://www.figma.com/figjam/• Figma: https://www.figma.com/• What Is Resource-Based Theory?: https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/the-impact-of-technological-governance-and-political-capabilities-on-firms-performances-under-economic-turbulence/67915• Michael Porter on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/professorporter/• Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors: https://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Strategy-Techniques-Industries-Competitors/dp/0684841487• VRIO Framework Explained: https://strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/vrio/• Business strategy with Hamilton Helmer (author of 7 Powers): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/business-strategy-with-hamilton-helmer• Good Strategy, Bad Strategy | Richard Rumelt: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/good-strategy-bad-strategy-richard• 7 Powers: The Foundations of Business Strategy: https://www.amazon.com/7-Powers-Foundations-Business-Strategy/dp/0998116319• Boston Consulting Group: https://www.bcg.com/• Bruce Henderson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Henderson• Lego: https://www.lego.com• Vanguard: https://investor.vanguard.com/• Southwest Airlines: https://www.southwest.com/• How Amazon Managed to Dethrone Walmart: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/20/technology/how-amazon-beat-walmart.html• GM Lost a 10-Year Battle with Tesla, Pulling the Plug on a Long Line of EVs: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2023/07/09/gm-killed-its-electric-cars-and-lost-a-10-year-battle-with-tesla/• Westlaw: https://www.westlawinternational.com/• What Is an Economic Moat? Why Warren Buffett Says It Matters for Investors: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-moat-why-warren-buffett-160046125.html• Salomon Brothers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Brothers• US Airways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways• Four Seasons: https://www.fourseasons.com/• Michael Dell on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mdell/• Bill Gates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/williamhgates/• Mandarin Oriental: https://www.mandarinoriental.com/en/• Continental Lite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Lite• Ted (airline): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_(airline)• Case Study: Oil of Olay: https://www.studocu.com/es/document/universidad-de-murcia/estrategia-de-marketing/case-study-old-of-olay/95079369• AG Lafley on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ag-lafley-2381b3201/• Jack Bogle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Bogle• Seven Ways Windows 95 Changed the World: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2015/08/24/windows-95-changed-the-world/• Where to Start with Strategy? Focus on Betterment: https://rogermartin.medium.com/where-to-start-with-strategy-bae40506304c• Brick by brick: The man who rebuilt the house of Lego shares his leadership secrets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/12/08/brick-by-brick-the-man-who-rebuilt-the-house-of-lego-shares-his-leadership-secrets/• A New Way to Think: Your Guide to Superior Management Effectiveness: https://www.amazon.com/New-Way-Think-Management-Effectiveness/dp/164782351X/• Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works: https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Win-Strategy-Really-Works/dp/142218739X• The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage: https://www.amazon.com/Design-Business-Thinking-Competitive-Advantage/dp/1422177807• The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking: https://www.amazon.com/Opposable-Mind-Successful-Integrative-Thinking/dp/1422118924• When More Is Not Better: Overcoming America's Obsession with Economic Efficiency: https://www.amazon.com/When-More-Not-Better-Overcoming/dp/1647820065—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. Get full access to Lenny's Newsletter at www.lennysnewsletter.com/subscribe

Kevin Szczepanski welcomes Jessica Copeland of Bond, Schoeneck & King back for a lively discussion on why (and whether) attorneys and firms of all sizes should use artificial intelligence. As a refresher, they remind listeners of the definition of AI and some of its uses. As with many things lawyer related, the answers come down to “it depends.” Law firms need to look at their priorities, capabilities, and needs. Other areas to consider are policies, compliance, indemnification, employee training, security, and clients' expectations. Kevin and Jessica also discuss AI tools' wide availability, noting that familiar companies like Lexis, Westlaw, and Microsoft Office have all rolled out internal AI features. Listen in for more.

Send Judge a TextJoin Judge Rangel and Trellis Founder and CEO Nicole Clark as they discuss the revolutionary legal intelligence employed by Trellis and why it differs from traditional legal databases like Westlaw and LexisNexis.To learn more about Trellis, browse their website or search for a case about your favorite celebrity: https://trellis.law/searchSupport the Show.

Another episode in English this time … let us hope, that Michael can keep up (with his dinner quota). This time the Nerds are joined by Ben Coldron, who talks about Scotlin … which is, as far as Michael is concerned, also a verb …     Scottish Law and Innovation Network (Scotlin): https://www.scotlin.org  Scotlin Podcast: https://shows.acast.com/the-enlightening-talks   University of Stirling: https://www.stir.ac.uk   University of Nottingham: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk  IoT: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_der_Dinge  GDPR: https://dsgvo-gesetz.de  Westlaw: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw  LexisNexis: https://www.lexisnexis.at  Python (Software): https://www.python.org  Canva: https://www.canva.com/de_de/   Design(s) for Law: https://zenodo.org/records/10829515       Subscribe to the Podcast  RSS Feed https://nerdsoflaw.libsyn.com/rss   Apple Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/nerds-of-law-podcast/id1506472002   SPOTIFY https://open.spotify.com/show/12D6osXfccI1bjAzapWzI4   Google Play Store https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&apn=com.google.android.music&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Idvhwrimkmxb2phecnckyzik3qq?t%3DNerds_of_Law_Podcast%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16   YouTube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7rmwzBy-IRGh8JkLCPIjyGMA-nHMtiAC   Deezer https://www.deezer.com/de/show/1138852     Nerds of Law®   http://www.nerdsoflaw.com   https://twitter.com/NerdsOfLaw   https://www.instagram.com/nerdsoflaw/   https://www.facebook.com/NerdsOfLaw/   Music by Mick Bordet www.mickbordet.com    Nerds of Law ® ist eine in Österreich registrierte Wortmarke.   

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today we're discussing why doing the assigned reading for your law school classes is important, and we address some common questions we receive from students regarding reading cases for class. In this episode we discuss: Why it's important to spend the time to read cases, even when they seem difficult Fundamental skills developed through reading cases that will benefit you during the rest of law school How reading for class will positively impact your future legal career Tips for gradually cutting down reading time and making the work more manageable Resources: Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) Quimbee (https://www.quimbee.com/) Westlaw (https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw) LexisNexis (https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/home.page) Podcast Episode 102: How to Read Cases and Prepare for Class in Law School (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/16176-2/) Podcast Episode 309: Tips for Reading a Case (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-309-tips-for-reading-a-case/) Podcast Episode 396: Start Law School Right – Class Prep 101 (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-396-start-law-school-right-class-prep-101/) Preparing for Class as a 1L (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/preparing-for-class-as-a-1l/) Ahead of the Curve: Reading Cases: From Syllabus to Exam – Prepare the Case for Class (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/reading-cases-from-syllabus-to-exam-prepare-the-case-for-class/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-446-quick-tips-doing-the-reading-for-your-law-school-classes/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome to another episode of Category Visionaries — the show that explores GTM stories from tech's most innovative B2B founders. In today's episode, we're speaking with Jordan Domash, CEO and Co-Founder of Responsiv, a legal tech company that has raised $3 Million in funding. Here are the most interesting points from our conversation: Jordan's Journey: From starting his career in consulting to an eight-year tenure at Relativity, a leading company in legal tech, and finally founding Responsiv to address the inefficiencies in legal research. Chief of Staff Insights: Jordan's unique role as Chief of Staff at Relativity, where he gained deep insights into product development, customer needs, and the complexities of legal technology. The Genesis of Responsiv: Inspired by the challenges faced by in-house attorneys in accessing accurate legal information, Responsiv was born to offer a streamlined, AI-enhanced solution for legal research. Understanding the Market: Responsiv caters to in-house legal teams across various industries, focusing on regulated organizations and rapidly growing tech companies for its initial customer base. Disrupting Traditional Legal Research: Aiming to replace the outdated methods of legal research dominated by platforms like Westlaw and LexisNexis, Responsiv offers a modern, AI-driven alternative that's tailored for the corporate legal environment. The Future of Legal Tech: Jordan's vision for Responsiv extends beyond providing legal research tools; he aims to create a comprehensive platform that supports in-house attorneys in every aspect of their work, from accessing legal information to drafting actionable documents.

Bonus Episode: Unleashing Tech at the 2024 ABA Tech Show a Cross Podcast Examination With Mathew Kerbis and Your Tech-Savvy Lawyer In this special edition of the Tech Savvy Lawyer Podcast, I am thrilled to host a dynamic conversation between Mathew Kerbis, the distinguished “Subscription Attorney” and a recent recipient of the James Keane Award. Together, we provide a comprehensive recap and insightful analysis of the groundbreaking innovations showcased at the ABA Tech Show 2024 in Chicago. In our conversation, we cover the following: [02:14] Tech Show Takeaways: AI in Legal Innovation [07:27] Beyond Billable Hours: Alternative Fee Structures in the Legal Profession [11:45] Ethical Landscape of AI in Legal Practice [16:09] Future of Legal Tech [29:16] Hardware and Software Upgrades for Podcasting: Tips and Tricks [33:21] Portable Podcasting Setups: Tips and Tricks for On-Site Recordings [39:29] AI in Legal Practice: Leveraging Tools Responsibly [44:55] Enhancing Practice Efficiency and Accessibility [48:49] Evolution of Legal Tech: User-Friendly Solutions for Solos and Small Firms RESOURCES: Connect with Mathew: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kerbisverse/ Website: lawsubscribed.com/ Hardware mentioned in the conversation: Blue Yeti microphone logitechg.com/en-us/products/streaming-gear/yeti-premium-usb-microphone iD14: audient.com/products/audio-interfaces/id14 Shure MV7 microphone: shure.com/en-US/products/microphones Snowball microphone:logitechg.com/en-us/products/streaming-gear/snowball-ice-usb-microphone Software & Cloud Services mentioned in the conversation: Amazon Prime: amazon.com/amazonprime Clio: clio.com/ Daylight: daylightlaw.com/ Descript: descript.com/ FileVine: filevine.com/ LexisNexis: lexisnexis.com/ Paxton: paxton-access.com/ PDF deck: pdfdeck.com/ Squadcast: squadcast.fm/ Universal Migrator:universalmigrator.com/ Westlaw: legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw Zapier: zapier.com/  

On this episode of LawNext: A conversation about Thomson Reuters' strategy around generative artificial intelligence with two of the executives most directly responsible for its development and implementation.  In a year dominated by discussion of generative AI and its potential impact on the legal profession, Thomson Reuters has played a leading role. It started in June, when the company announced its $650 million acquisition of the legal research and AI company Casetext and the CoCounsel generative AI tool Casetext had developed in collaboration with OpenAI.   Then, in November, Thomson Reuters made good on its promise to integrate generative AI within its flagship legal research platform, introducing AI Assisted Research in Westlaw Precision. Soon after that, it rolled out generative AI within Practical Law, its legal know-how product. What does this all mean for legal research and legal software, now and into the future? Today we go deep into TR's AI development with two of the company's leaders in this area:  Mike Dahn, senior vice president and head of Westlaw product management.  Joel Hron, head of artificial intelligence and TR Labs. We talk about the development of AI Assisted Research in Westlaw Precision, the company's broader AI product strategy, its acquisition of CoCounsel and where that fits in its AI strategy, how the company is protecting against hallucinations and ensuring security, and the future of AI at Thomson Reuters and more broadly.    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. Noodle: automate all of your practice's admin work, while you focus on growing your business without increasing headcount. Sharefile for Legal: Securely send, store, and share files – plus discover document workflows designed to improve your client experience   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Guest Kathryn “Katie” DeBord leads product development strategy at the global firm DISCO in technological, cloud-based solutions for lawyers and law firms. Tech, from the earliest stages of every case, is no longer an option. Everything from eDiscovery – sifting through oceans of data – to analyzing witness statements to adjusting trial strategy on the fly involves today's ever-evolving technologies.  Are you keeping up? It's hard to know with so many services bursting onto the scene. Hear how DeBord scans the landscape to track what's new, what works, and what's still in the pipeline.  You've come a long way from the LexisNexis and Westlaw you met in law school. Entire suites of tech platforms, all the way up to generative AI, are on the market and getting better. If your opponent is using the latest, and you're not … well, that's not good. Autogenerate timelines, upload and organize evidence, and sift through data as today's tools accelerate your case and reveal hidden connections. Tech won't replace your creativity and skill as an attorney, but it can help you work smarter, more efficiently, and achieve better results.  (Plus, did you know the CIA has a secret museum of gadgets created by the agency's Directorate of Science and Technology? And no, you can't visit it without secret clearance). Resources: Kathyrn “Katie” DeBord's previous appearances on the Legal Talk Network include:  “Legal Innovation: Imagining Creative Solutions for Clients”  “Evolve Law: The Future and Direction of Legal Technology”  “Evolve Law: Client Driven Technology Solutions”  LexisNexis Westlaw American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section

Guest Kathryn “Katie” DeBord leads product development strategy at the global firm DISCO in technological, cloud-based solutions for lawyers and law firms. Tech, from the earliest stages of every case, is no longer an option. Everything from eDiscovery – sifting through oceans of data – to analyzing witness statements to adjusting trial strategy on the fly involves today's ever-evolving technologies.  Are you keeping up? It's hard to know with so many services bursting onto the scene. Hear how DeBord scans the landscape to track what's new, what works, and what's still in the pipeline.  You've come a long way from the LexisNexis and Westlaw you met in law school. Entire suites of tech platforms, all the way up to generative AI, are on the market and getting better. If your opponent is using the latest, and you're not … well, that's not good. Autogenerate timelines, upload and organize evidence, and sift through data as today's tools accelerate your case and reveal hidden connections. Tech won't replace your creativity and skill as an attorney, but it can help you work smarter, more efficiently, and achieve better results.  (Plus, did you know the CIA has a secret museum of gadgets created by the agency's Directorate of Science and Technology? And no, you can't visit it without secret clearance). Resources: Kathyrn “Katie” DeBord's previous appearances on the Legal Talk Network include:  “Legal Innovation: Imagining Creative Solutions for Clients”  “Evolve Law: The Future and Direction of Legal Technology”  “Evolve Law: Client Driven Technology Solutions”  LexisNexis Westlaw American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section

Show notes: thetaxprofessionalspodcast.com/TTPP89Subscribe: thetaxprofessionalspodcast.com/subscribeTake control of your career progression free course: https://documents.thetaxprofessionalspodcast.com/freecourseRough timingsCroner-I Navigate Tax (digital resource), including details about the available resources and a bit about how I use it to do tax research(12:15) Tolley Library and Guidance (digital resource), including details about the available resources and how you can use it(17:30) Westlaw (for case law), including the feature that has saved me hours of time(21:15) Tolley's Tax books(23:30) Claritax books(25:00) Bloomsbury books, including a bit about how to find what you need from a book(28:15) SummaryResourcesTax Research Masterclass (link to business case in the full details)Croner-I Navigate 7-Day Free TrialMessage me to get the 7-day free trial:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackbonehill94/ Email: jack@thetaxprofessionalspodcast.com Link to Croner-I Navigate: https://library.croneri.co.uk/ Link to gain free access to Croner-I Navigate Lite: https://documents.thetaxprofessionalspodcast.com/croner-i Other tax-research episodes:TTPP80: Best Free Resources to Find Tax Answers and Use When Undertaking Tax Research TTPP60: Improving Your Tax Research Skills – Stories and Tips of 3 Tax ProfessionalsTTPP55: How to Research a Tax Technical QueryTTPP42: Master Using HMRC Manuals for Tax ResearchTTPP37: Master Using Tax Legislation (and the Benefits this Brings) TTPP 1: How to Undertake Effective Tax Research

The City Bar's Working Group on Judicial Administration and Artificial Intelligence is back to get into a recent headline-making case of AI allegedly misused in the courtroom. Harut Minasian, Stuart Levi, Richard Hong and David Zaslowsky break down the recent news about the US v. Michel: bad use of AI, or just plain bad lawyering? They discuss how AI can be used as a valuable tool in the legal toolkit for some tasks, but highlight the need for understanding the functionality, reliability, and limitations of AI technology. But whether or not AI can be reliably used today in some limited ways, the real question is: is AI ready for primetime? Tune in to hear more about: • Is the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in US v. Michel likely to succeed? • How should lawyers disclose to clients the AI tools that they do use? • Is using AI really so different from using other ‘new' technologies like Lexis and Westlaw? Is it different from asking a Partner with specialized knowledge for input? • Will it ever be the case that NOT using AI will be grounds for professional misconduct? Access a transcript of this episode here: https://bityl.co/MfRf

Jared talked with a solo attorney about how he onboards and manages technology. Episode Highlights 04:23 Transitioning from a traditional job to operating a solo law firm 09:59 The additional features of Clio like client portal and online payments 21:16 Finding time for content marketing as a solo firm, struggles with maintaining social media and newsletter frequency 24:56 Effectiveness of Levitate as a marketing tool in improving client communication and brand visibility 25:53 The necessity and cost of legal research software like Westlaw or Lexis 27:45 The importance of learning how to use legal research tools effectively 28:01 The value of the online library resources available through the Texas State Bar   Episode Resources Connect with Jared Correia jared@redcavelegal.com https://redcavelegal.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaredcorreia https://twitter.com/RedCaveLegal Connect with Bud Glavy https://www.glavylaw.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/bernard-bud-glavy-a0913b71 

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists. This week's topics: 00:00 - Introductions 03:11 - Judge Rules Ross Intelligence Copied Westlaw's Headnotes, But Leaves for Jury to Decide if It Violated Thomson Reuters' Copyright (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 13:05 - Should a Federal Agency Govern AI? (Selected by Niki Black) Increasing Contractual Insight: AI's role in contract lifecycle management (Selected by Niki Black) 26:17 - Mark Zuckerberg can't quit the Metaverse (Selected by Victor Li) 32:52 - More in house lawyers together with better tools to get work done more efficiently impacts demand for outside lawyers and what it takes to become and stay an equity partner (Selected by Stephen Embry) Mayo Clinic to use GenAI and Microsoft CoPilot (Selected by Stephen Embry) 38:55 - RelativityFest

Welcome to the Law School Toolbox podcast for our special series on starting off on the right foot in law school! In today's episode, we're exploring the unique aspects of Legal Research and Writing, a critical first-year law school class. In this episode we discuss: The key differences between Legal Research and Writing and your other 1L classes Tips for doing well in Legal Research and Writing class The types of assignments you'll see in a typical LRW class Sources of law that you'll be using Knowing when you're finished with your legal research Looking for more personalized help as you get ready for law school? Check out our flagship Start Law School Right course at startlawschoolright.com. It provides a full overview of the skills you need in law school, along with opportunities to practice and get feedback from a Law School Toolbox tutor. Resources: "Start Law School Right" podcast series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-archive/pre-law-episodes/#start-off-right) "Start Law School Right" course (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/start-law-school-right/) Law School Toolbox (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/)  Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) Strategies for Pre-Law Students (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/strategies-new-law-students/tips-for-pre-law-students/) Podcast Episode 379: Quick Tips – Bluebooking Like a Pro (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-379-quick-tips-bluebooking-like-a-pro/) LexisNexis (https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page) Westlaw (https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-409-start-law-school-right-legal-research-and-writing/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Lawyers beware! Artificial intelligence is disrupting the legal industry, and Chat GPT is the tool leading the charge. But as consult webs CEO, Tanner Jones, reveals in this interview, this AI system is not without its flaws and ethical concerns. Will lawyers have a job in 5-10 years? Find out in this must-watch interview, but beware of the chilling reality that's left unanswered. Join Gregg and Tanner on "Cut to the Chase" as they discuss how to: Familiarize yourself with the creative ways AI is transforming the world of digital marketing. Gain insight into the potential rewards and risks of incorporating AI into legal research endeavors. Investigate the profound effects AI may have on the automation of jobs in the legal profession. Grasp the importance of a strategic digital marketing consultation for law firms to prosper. Acquire valuable tips for establishing a powerful online presence and solid reputation within the legal field. The resources mentioned in this episode are: Hire Consult Webs for comprehensive digital marketing services, including search engine optimization, paid advertising, content creation, and reputation management. Consider using Chat GPT, an artificial intelligence tool for content creation, to produce high-quality content more efficiently. Use AI-powered research tools, such as LexisNexis and Westlaw, to streamline legal research and analytics. However, exercise caution and don't rely solely on AI-generated content or research as they are not perfect and may have errors or inaccuracies. Consult with experts and run AI-generated content through plagiarism checkers and human editors to ensure accuracy and quality. Always prioritize the client's needs and focus on attracting the right types of cases for their law firm through digital marketing strategies. Tanner's website; https://www.consultwebs.com/about-us/our-team/tanner-jones  To learn more about mass tort law cases and lawyer best practices, subscribe to the Cut to the Chase: Podcast with Gregg Goldfarb. This episode was brought to you by Reignite Media.  

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast features the second half of my interview with Paul Stephan, author of The World Crisis and International Law. But it begins the way many recent episodes have begun, with the latest AI news. And, since it's so squarely in scope for a cyberlaw podcast, we devote some time to the so-appalling- you-have-to-laugh-to keep-from-crying story of the lawyer who relied on ChatGPT to write his brief. As Eugene Volokh noted in his post, the model returned exactly the case law the lawyer wanted—because it made up the cases, the citations, and even the quotes. The lawyer said he had no idea that AI would do such a thing. I cast a skeptical eye on that excuse, since when challenged by the court to produce the cases he relied on, the lawyer turned not to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw but to ChatGPT, which this time made up eight cases on point. And when the lawyer asked, “Are the other cases you provided fake,” the model denied it. Well, all right then. Who among us has not asked Westlaw, “Are the cases you provided fake?” Somehow, I can't help suspecting that the lawyer's claim to be an innocent victim of ChatGPT is going to get a closer look before this story ends. So if you're wondering whether AI poses existential risk, the answer for at least one lawyer's license is almost certainly “yes.” But the bigger story of the week was the cries from Google and Microsoft leadership for government regulation. Jeffery Atik and Richard Stiennon weigh in. Microsoft's President Brad Smith has, as usual, written a thoughtful policy paper on what AI regulation might look like. And they point out that, as usual, Smith is advocating for a process that Microsoft could master pretty easily. Google's Sundar Pichai also joins the “regulate me” party, but a bit half-heartedly. I argue that the best way to judge Silicon Valley's confidence in the accuracy of AI is by asking when Google and Apple will be willing to use AI to identify photos of gorillas as gorillas. Because if there's anything close to an extinction event for those companies it would be rolling out an AI that once again fails to differentiate between people and apes.  Moving from policy to tech, Richard and I talk about Google's integration of AI into search; I see some glimmer of explainability and accuracy in Google's willingness to provide citations (real ones, I presume) for its answers. And on the same topic, the National Academy of Sciences has posted research suggesting that explainability might not be quite as impossible as researchers once thought. Jeffery takes us through the latest chapters in the U.S.—China decoupling story. China has retaliated, surprisingly weakly, for U.S. moves to cut off high-end chip sales to China. It has banned sales of U.S. - based Micron memory chips to critical infrastructure companies. In the long run, the chip wars may be the disaster that Invidia's CEO foresees. Jeffery and I agree that Invidia has much to fear from a Chinese effort to build a national champion to compete in AI chipmaking. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is building a new model for international agreements in an age of decoupling and industrial policy. Whether its effort to build a China-free IT supply chain will succeed is an open question, but we agree that it marks an end to the old free-trade agreements rejected by both former President Trump and President Biden. China, meanwhile, is overplaying its hand in Africa. Richard notes reports that Chinese hackers attacked the Kenyan government when Kenya looked like it wouldn't be able to repay China's infrastructure loans. As Richard points out, lending money to a friend rarely works out. You are likely to lose both the friend and the money.  Finally, Richard and Jeffery both opine on Irelands imposing—under protest—of a $1.3 billion fine on Facebook for sending data to the United States despite the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) two Schrems decisions. We agree that the order simply sets a deadline for the U.S. and the EU to close their deal on a third effort to satisfy the CJEU that U.S. law is “adequate” to protect the rights of Europeans. Speaking of which, anyone who's enjoyed my rants about the EU will want to tune in for a June 15 Teleforum in which Max Schrems and I will  debate the latest privacy framework. If we can, we'll release it as a bonus episode of this podcast, but listening live should be even more fun! Download 459th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast features the second half of my interview with Paul Stephan, author of The World Crisis and International Law. But it begins the way many recent episodes have begun, with the latest AI news. And, since it's so squarely in scope for a cyberlaw podcast, we devote some time to the so-appalling- you-have-to-laugh-to keep-from-crying story of the lawyer who relied on ChatGPT to write his brief. As Eugene Volokh noted in his post, the model returned exactly the case law the lawyer wanted—because it made up the cases, the citations, and even the quotes. The lawyer said he had no idea that AI would do such a thing. I cast a skeptical eye on that excuse, since when challenged by the court to produce the cases he relied on, the lawyer turned not to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw but to ChatGPT, which this time made up eight cases on point. And when the lawyer asked, “Are the other cases you provided fake,” the model denied it. Well, all right then. Who among us has not asked Westlaw, “Are the cases you provided fake?” Somehow, I can't help suspecting that the lawyer's claim to be an innocent victim of ChatGPT is going to get a closer look before this story ends. So if you're wondering whether AI poses existential risk, the answer for at least one lawyer's license is almost certainly “yes.” But the bigger story of the week was the cries from Google and Microsoft leadership for government regulation. Jeffery Atik and Richard Stiennon weigh in. Microsoft's President Brad Smith has, as usual, written a thoughtful policy paper on what AI regulation might look like. And they point out that, as usual, Smith is advocating for a process that Microsoft could master pretty easily. Google's Sundar Pichai also joins the “regulate me” party, but a bit half-heartedly. I argue that the best way to judge Silicon Valley's confidence in the accuracy of AI is by asking when Google and Apple will be willing to use AI to identify photos of gorillas as gorillas. Because if there's anything close to an extinction event for those companies it would be rolling out an AI that once again fails to differentiate between people and apes.  Moving from policy to tech, Richard and I talk about Google's integration of AI into search; I see some glimmer of explainability and accuracy in Google's willingness to provide citations (real ones, I presume) for its answers. And on the same topic, the National Academy of Sciences has posted research suggesting that explainability might not be quite as impossible as researchers once thought. Jeffery takes us through the latest chapters in the U.S.—China decoupling story. China has retaliated, surprisingly weakly, for U.S. moves to cut off high-end chip sales to China. It has banned sales of U.S. - based Micron memory chips to critical infrastructure companies. In the long run, the chip wars may be the disaster that Invidia's CEO foresees. Jeffery and I agree that Invidia has much to fear from a Chinese effort to build a national champion to compete in AI chipmaking. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is building a new model for international agreements in an age of decoupling and industrial policy. Whether its effort to build a China-free IT supply chain will succeed is an open question, but we agree that it marks an end to the old free-trade agreements rejected by both former President Trump and President Biden. China, meanwhile, is overplaying its hand in Africa. Richard notes reports that Chinese hackers attacked the Kenyan government when Kenya looked like it wouldn't be able to repay China's infrastructure loans. As Richard points out, lending money to a friend rarely works out. You are likely to lose both the friend and the money.  Finally, Richard and Jeffery both opine on Irelands imposing—under protest—of a $1.3 billion fine on Facebook for sending data to the United States despite the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) two Schrems decisions. We agree that the order simply sets a deadline for the U.S. and the EU to close their deal on a third effort to satisfy the CJEU that U.S. law is “adequate” to protect the rights of Europeans. Speaking of which, anyone who's enjoyed my rants about the EU will want to tune in for a June 15 Teleforum in which Max Schrems and I will  debate the latest privacy framework. If we can, we'll release it as a bonus episode of this podcast, but listening live should be even more fun! Download 459th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

It was major news April 4 when the legal research and technology companies Fastcase and vLex announced their merger, creating a single entity that they say now has the world's largest subscriber base of lawyers and law firms and a legal research library of more than 1 billion documents from more than 100 countries.  It is a deal that could reshape the legal tech landscape on a global basis and potentially even threaten the longstanding legal research duopoly of Westlaw and LexisNexis. So what does it mean for the companies? What does it mean for their customers? And what does it mean for the legal market more broadly? To explore these questions and more, LawNext host Bob Ambrogi is joined by the four founders of the two companies:  Lluis Faus, cofounder and CEO of vLex and now global CEO of the combined entity, known as the vLex Group.  Angel Faus, cofounder and chief technology officer of vLex. Ed Walters, cofounder and former CEO of Fastcase and now chief strategy officer of vLex. Phil Rosenthal, cofounder and former president of Fastcase and now chief growth officer of vLex. 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. Lawmatics, providing legal client intake, law practice CRM, marketing automation, legal billing, document management, and much more, all in one easy-to-use law practice software.   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we have ex-BigLaw recruiter Sadie Jones on the podcast to talk with us about resources you can use in your job search and career planning in the legal field. In this episode we discuss: The number one place that law students should be considering for career resources Figuring out if you need to talk to a career coach about your goals Practical resources to use once you have a career path in mind Where to search for public interest/government roles Some useful general career resources targeted at law schools Honing your networking skills Resources: CareerDicta (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/careerdicta/) Westlaw (https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/westlaw) Martindale-Hubbell (https://www.martindale.com/) NALP – National Association for Law Placement (https://www.nalp.org/) NALP Career Services (https://www.nalp.org/careerservices) NALP Law Students/Graduates (https://www.nalp.org/lawstudentsgraduates) PSJD (https://www.psjd.org/) ABA Career Center (https://www.americanbar.org/careercenter/) ABA Career Resources for Law Students (https://abaforlawstudents.com/start-your-legal-career/) The American Lawyer (https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/?slreturn=20230305082619) Chambers USA Guide (https://chambers.com/legal-guide/usa-5) Symplicity (https://www.symplicity.com/) Arizona Handbooks (https://arizonahandbooks.com/about) Marquette University Law School – Online Research Resources (https://law.marquette.edu/assets/career-planning/pdf/Online-Research-Resources.pdf) University of Kentucky – Career Resource Books for Law Students (https://law.uky.edu/careers/current-students/resources/career-resource-books-law-students) Stanford Law School – Career Planning (https://guides.law.stanford.edu/libraryresources/careers) UCLA – Career Planning, Job Search and More for Law Students (https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/c.php?g=183368&p=1208641) Podcast Episode 105: OCI Basics with an ex-BigLaw Recruiter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-105-oci-basics-ex-biglaw-recruiter/) Podcast Episode 224: Taking Ownership of Your Career (w/Sadie Jones) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-224-taking-ownership-of-your-career-w-sadie-jones/) Podcast Episode 262: Researching Law Firms (w/Sadie Jones) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-262-researching-law-firms-w-sadie-jones/) Legal Networking 101: How Do You Know What to Talk About While Networking? (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/legal-networking-101-how-do-you-know-what-to-talk-about-while-networking/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-385-career-planning-resources-for-law-students-w-sadie-jones/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah's Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an exception for him? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? And that was bipartisan sentiment at the time. So Congress passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. And what RFRA did was take that compelling interest, strict scrutiny test that was used in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and say that's going to be the test for all religious freedom claims, including claims for an exception to a generally applicable law. Now, the federal RFRA only applies to federal laws, but almost half of the states enacted their own state level RFRA. That includes much of the south and also some deep blue New England states. The end result is that whether you are going to take more of a Smith approach or more of a church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye approach depends on where you live. I told you that RFRA was a bipartisan sentiment at the time. Not so much now. Over the years, increasingly high profile RFRA claims involve L G B T issues. For instance, conservative Christian florists seeking exceptions from anti-discrimination laws so that they can refuse to serve same sex weddings. RFRA itself didn't change, but it acquired this anti-gay connotation that left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths. And like so many other issues, opinions about RFRA grew more and more partisan, more and more polarized. And then the Supreme Court decided Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. This was a huge RFRA case. It was only eight years ago. It got a ton of press and I'm sure many of you already know all about it. But I'm gonna summarize it. So as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. Employers of a certain size were required to provide contraceptives — coverage for various contraceptives with no copay. Hobby lobby did not object to most of the contraceptive methods on the list, but it identified four that it said weren't really contraceptives, that that was a misnomer. These were really abortifacients. They weren't preventing conception, they were preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting. Hobby Lobby considered that to be an early abortion, and the company owners' Evangelical Christian faith would not allow them to be complicit in funding their employees abortions. Hobby Lobby brought a case under RFRA. The Supreme Court used that two part strict scrutiny test. Remember: compelling interest and narrowly tailored. The court assumed that the government does have a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. It was that second part of the test whether the law is narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests by the least restrictive means, which is where the contraceptive mandate failed. And that was largely because a religious exception already exists. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS had created an exception, had had given accommodations to churches and religious non-profits that had a problem with funding contraceptives. In those cases, the government covered the cost without the employer's involvement, thus advancing the compelling interest in contraceptive access without a religious burden. So the accommodation was obviously possible. It was being done. It's just that HHS would not extend that accommodation to Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby was a for profit company. A slim majority of the justices, five to four, said that under RFRA, that doesn't matter. For-profit or nonprofit status doesn't matter. So Hobby Lobby got its exception from the contraceptive mandate. The mandate itself was not struck down, by the way. It's still in effect, albeit with greater, broader, religious exceptions than HHS wanted. Women are still getting their pills. Sky didn't fall, but plenty of people were convinced that the sky was falling and RFRA took another hit in the court of public opinion. So the religious liberty challenges to pro-life laws that we're seeing today are largely RFRA lawsuits. When you read the press about them, the narrative is basically, Ha ha ha, conservatives we're using your religion law against you. Like it's some kind of Gotcha. Hopefully by virtue of this presentation, you understand why that take is ahistorical. But forget the press. Let's take a fair look at the lawsuits themselves, starting with the Satanists. First of all, to correct a myth, Satanists, do not literally worship Satan or even believe in the existence of Satan. Satanism is a naturalistic system, but you do not necessarily need a deity to qualify as a religion under the First Amendment. Sincerely held Moral beliefs will suffice. For purposes of today, satanism is a religion, and Satanists provide a useful public service, in my view, keeping local governments in compliance with the establishment clause. I see you've, put up a 10 Commandments monument. Where do we apply to erect our statue to Baphomet? It's those, it's those guys. You, you've seen the satanists. One of the better known Satanist communities is the Satanic Temple, which follows seven tenets. The first tenet is one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with roots, in accordance with reason. Unfortunately, that noble tenant goes straight out the window when it comes to abortion. In that case, they emphasize the third tenet: one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. Classic sovereign zone. The Satanic abortion ritual involves reciting and contemplating that third tenet while getting an abortion. For the purpose of casting off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the satanist may be experiencing about the abortion. So the argument is not that abortion is a required part of Satanic practice. It's not like making a hodge. They're not sacrificing babies to earn points. That's not what's going on here. The argument is just that if a satanist is going to have abortion, this is the ritual that goes along with it. And by restricting abortion, you're also restricting the ritual. The Jewish lawsuits, by contrast, Argue that Jewish law actually requires abortion, at least in some circumstances. For instance, the complaint brought against Florida's 15 week ban, which is still pending. That complaint asserts that late term abortion is required under Jewish law, if necessary, to promote the woman's mental wellbeing, which obviously goes far beyond Florida's normal health of the mother exception. To be abundantly clear, that is not a universal interpretation of Jewish law. Those plaintiffs do not speak for all Jews. There are pro-life jews, and Jews are welcome at this conference. Let's assume that we are in a RFRA jurisdiction. If a state wants its pro-life laws to apply universally without granting an exception to anyone who claims a religious freedom to abort, remember what the state has to. One, the law is supported by a compelling interest. And two, the law is narrowly tailored to advance that compelling interest with the least possible burden to religious exercise. We all know what the compelling interest is. It's human life. The plaintiffs will say, Not to our religion, it's not. And I say, Bring on that debate. The science of life at fertilization is settled. And when you read the Dobbs opinion, I don't think you can escape the conclusion that the government now has a legally compelling interest in preventing abortions. Is there any way to promote that compelling interest without creating a religious clash? Not that I see. One day with the development of artificial, artificial wombs? Maybe. That, that would be great. But with current technology, no. So I believe that anti-abortion laws should survive a RFRA challenge. They survive strict scrutiny. The lawsuits will fail. But Kelsey, someone asks, What about strict in theory, fatal in fact? Thank you, person who has been paying attention. You should be skeptical. Can I point to any specific legal precedent that a state's interest in, in protecting human life, and in particular young human life, and preventing human death, can trump a religiously motivated medical decision? Well, folks, I promised you Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm a woman of my word. Several bible verses prohibit eating blood and instruct Israelites to remove blood from their meat. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret those versions to prohibit not only eating blood through the mouth and digestion, but any consumption of blood, including taking blood intravenously. They oppose blood transfusions on that religious ground. This belief is very sincerely held. Many Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. Many have proved it. Normally, we trust parents to make medical decisions for their children, but when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to allow life saving blood transfusions for their kids, authorities often intervene. And when that happens, the parents go to court demanding vindication of their religious liberty. There's whole line of cases about this going back decades. And most of them cite this powerful quote from the Supreme Court case of Prince versus Massachusetts. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children. Oddly enough, Prince didn't involve blood transfusion or any other life or death issue. Prince was about a Jehovah's Witness who had her daughter, selling religious pamphlets late at night in violation of a child labor law. But the Supreme Court's rhetorical flourish about making martyrs of your children made it clear how it would come down in a blood transfusion case. And courts across the country took that unsubtle hint. For example, a Washington Court rejected a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion lawsuit on the compelling authority of Prince. An Ohio Court wrote, no longer can parents virtually exercise the power of life or death over their children. Nor may they abandon him, deny him proper parental care, neglect or refuse to provide him with proper and necessary subsistence education, medical or surgical care, or other care necessary for his health, morals, or wellbeing. And while they may, under certain circumstances, deprive him of his liberty or his property, under no circumstances, with or without due process, with or without religious sanction, are they free to deprive him of his life. That same court went on to say the parents in this case have a perfect right to worship as they please and believe what they please. They enjoy complete freedom of religion, but this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own. The right to live and grow up without disfigurement. Okay. You're thinking those were all born children. Okay. Allow me to introduce you to the New Jersey case of Hoener versus Bertinato. Mr. And Mrs. Bertinato were Jehovah's Witnesses. Mrs. Bertinato was pregnant with her fourth child. This was an issue of RH incompatibility. I am not qualified to explain that in any detail, so I'll just quote the court. Her first child was born without the necessity of blood transfusions and is a normal child. This accords with the medical testimony at the hearing that the mother's RH blood condition adversely affects the second and subsequent children, but rarely is harmful for the harmful to the first born. Second child needed a blood transfusion immediately. The parents refused and the baby's doctors filed an emergency petition. The court briefly placed that baby in state custody just long enough to accomplish the blood transfusion. The child survived, and the child was returned to the parents. I'll quote again. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who also — excuse me. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who admittedly also needed a blood transfusion to save its life, but defendants again refused to permit this on religious grounds. No legal proceedings were instituted to compel the transfusion. The infant died. For baby number four, the county would not allow that tragedy to be repeated. They were ready. Officials filed their lawsuit before the child was born, to ensure that a blood transfusion could occur. The lawsuit, quote, charges that the defendants, by their refusal to authorize the transfusions, are endangering the life of the unborn child, and are therefore neglecting to provide it with proper protection, in violation of New Jersey law. The court acknowledged that the parents' religious objections were sincere. But the parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the state to act in order to preserve the welfare of a child and its right to survive. The court cited Prince and various other Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases, and then it asked, should the outcome be any different because this child is still in the womb? And the answer was a resounding no. This was pre-roe. So the court embraced the science and stated medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception, and many branches of the law afford the unborn child protection throughout the period of gestation. Of course, in the Dobbs era, that protection is finally being restored. A pro-abortion American is free to embrace a religious belief that human life does not begin at fertilization, but she is not free to make a martyr of her child. That concludes my prepared remarks. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Um, Elizabeth asked, what was the name of this case? I don't know which case you're referring to. All of the cases are in that citation, that link I gave at the beginning. And you should be able to, hold on. Are you talking about the most recent case I was talked? The, the last case I mentioned, Hoener, H O E N E R, versus Bertinato was the case with the, the unborn child of Jehovah's Witness. Love all the jokes in geek. Thank you, . I, I know that we, we cover some dark topics at the Rehumanize Conference. I'm a big believer in, trying to lighten the mood. I don't see much in Q and A tab, so I'm just gonna scroll back through the chat tab. Let me see if there's anything here. , As a fellow lawyer, I feel that caveat to my core. Yes. Thank you, Leah. Um, Oh my God. . Sorry. The poor, poor dog. Okay. Jews have been pro-life for millennia, so Yeah. I, I agree. Joey. Thank you, joey, for rick rolling us . Okay. Um. Ben says, these seem like really strong precedents, especially because some of them are arguably about letting die rather than killing and are thus even stronger than what you'd need in the abortion case. Excellent point, Ben. Yes, I, I certainly, hope that the courts see it the same way. The, the downside to the Jehovahs Witness precedence is that they are older and they are not Supreme Court precedents. But as I mentioned, the, the Supreme Court precedent in Prince, although not about blood transfusions, has, has largely been, taken up in that line of cases. And I think it would, still function in the same way in the unlikely event that one of these religious freedom abortion cases makes its way all the way to our highest court. How would you summarize this to say 240 characters? Like to tweet at Catholics for Choice? You might need a thread , or you can just, link to the eventual video of this presentation. I believe Rehumanize is going to make this footage available, and then we'll get the closed captions going and put it up on YouTube, hopefully within the next few weeks. But yeah, more, more generally, I think, the, I don't know, maybe I should start tweeting at Catholics for Choice about this. What are you seeing in the legal field regarding RFRA changing its function post Roe? I don't know that it's really changing its function necessarily. So some of the plaintiffs, and particularly the satanist plaintiffs, I think are bringing these lawsuits, not solely because they're pro-abortion, although they are — I think they would also, as a, as a strategic matter, like to push on RFRA. I think I, and I think that's why we're seeing the press around it that we're seeing. This is like — even if they were to lose and they, they have to know that they're likely to lose, this is, this is a press thing and this is a, a matter of, trying to, get, get some more public opposition to RFRA. So. I, I don't, I haven't seen a whole lot of traction on that front. I haven't seen any legislatures, taking RFRA off their books, but you never know. . David asks, How long, how do you do your legal prep? Sorry, I'm struggling to read this because other things keep popping up. How do you do your legal research and how long does it take? Did you know most of these cases offhand or did you have to look them up? So I knew some of the big ones offhand. I knew. Employment Division v Smith. I knew Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I knew Prince vs. Massachusetts. I knew Hobby Lobby. You know, like I, I refreshed my memory by rereading those opinions, but I knew that that was where I needed to start. And then I did have to do some additional research, when it came to the, the pen — the pending lawsuits, and also the Jehovah's Witness line of cases. I, I, because I am a practicing attorney, I have access to Westlaw, which is the, legal database. That was very helpful. And, you know, also just, I, you know, I started by just doing a general search for law review articles about Jehovah's Witness of blood transfusion that compiled some of the cases. And that was, that was a good start. And I, was definitely working on this presentation as late as last night. So , I'm glad it came together. I am a better procrastinator. But that's, yeah, that's how it all happened. Let's see. Ben asks, Apart from law, what do you think about the ethical argument from religious freedom or religious pluralism, that being pro-life depends on controversial slash contested views about the grounds of personal identity and dignity. And so no one view should be legislated for by a pluralist society. The problem is that your, your law is going to pick a line. That's what laws do. If. That, that that argument, that poor pluralism argument treats birth like it's a neutral line. It's not. The, the law is gonna pick a line and every line is gonna offend somebody . That, that's just, that's just life in a democracy. So I don't, I don't find that argument particularly, persuasive from our loyal opposition. My, I would go a step farther and say that the only neutral way to go about this is to say that, you know, human rights begin when human life begins. And that that has to be defined in a scientific way, rather than a philosophical way because, there, there's, you know, you all of these, different guideposts that are being posed. Bear a lot of resemblance to ensoulment, which would be an establishment of religion. I hope that makes sense. , Given your rationale, how would any abortion be legal without demonstrating an exceptional need such as life of the mother? I, I do oppose abortion other than for the life of the mother. Mother, excuse me. Under Dobbs, the state, it, it is still a state by state thing. I'm getting into — the 14th Amendment argument is definitely beyond the scope of what I can do in the next nine minutes. But the, so, the idea is that you're, you know, the people of a state, through their legislatures, demonstrate what the interests of the state are. Right? So Florida or, you know, let's, you know, take, take like Alabama, right? Alabama has, an active, pretty, pretty strong anti-abortion legislation post Dobbs. That is an indication that the state of Alabama has a compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting human life. California obviously does not think that it has that compelling interest, so that — I, I don't know if I'm answering your question. But I, I hope, I hope that helps. How can interested people get involved with Secular Pro-life and what are your current needs? Yeah, definitely you can get involved in Secular Pro-life. We are always in need of volunteers. We, look for people to write guest pieces on our blog. We look for translators. We wanna get our message out in languages other than English. You can email me, info@secularprolife.org, or you can email our executive director Monica at Monica, secularprolife.org and, get connected to some volunteer opportunities that way. And you can also donate, via our website or our Facebook page. In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the honor killing of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter, but the majority in Canada, fortunately in the case of that issue, and unfortunately perhaps some other issues imposed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to impose views — not a question, a comment supporting something you said. I, yeah, that, that's an excellent example. I would stick with the Jehovah's witness example, just because it's a little less inflammatory. . I, I'm not in the habit of, comparing pro-choice people to supporters of honor killings if I don't have to. I think the Jehovah's Witness comparison is, more diplomatic and civil. But on principle, yes, you are correct. The the same reasons that, you shouldn't be able to, claim a religious exemption to commit an honor killing are, are the same reasons that you shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption to have abortion. Um, Yeah, neutrality just seems impossible here. No neutrality when lives are on the line. Oh. Maria wrote, We will be publishing a handful of the session recordings on our YouTube in the coming weeks, but all attendees should have immediate access to all the recordings for rewatch and hopin on Monday, and that access will last for a full year. All right. Thank you. Maria. I don't. I'm, I'm guessing that's only for people who bought a ticket, though. I don't think Catholics for Choice bought a ticket. It's their loss. It's their loss. Okay, we've got about five more minutes together and I think I went through everybody's questions we might end earlier, which is, a secular miracle for a conference like this. I see Leah is on Team Westlaw. Yes, Westlaw all the way. I don't use Lexus. Never have. Um, oh. And Herb says, Thank you. All right. Herb, did you wanna come into the presentation and say anything? I was gonna do that, and then I just realized I'm in the same room as Kane who is on a panel right now, so nevermind. I'm leaving Yes, Secular Miracle would be a great band name, absolutely Ray. Hmm. Can you maybe conscience rights for physicians? Oh, can I comment on that? It's a big problem here in Canada. I unfortunately don't know much at all about Canadian law. I don't, to my knowledge, Canada doesn't have something like RFRA. So I am unfortunately not the person to ask. But, yeah, RFRA certainly can be used, for conscience protections in, in some situations. That wasn't within the scope of what I was researching, for this presentation, but I have seen that anecdotally. Um, the danger there, of course is that, you're treating, objection to abortion as inherently religious, which it isn't , but, Okay. Anything else? Always heard Canada is pretty bad for conference rights. Yeah. Yeah. That, that's what I've heard also. Oh, something in the Q and A. Thank you. What do you think of efforts to argue for pro-life conclusions within religions on specifically religious grounds? Eg. Do you think Catholic should be arguing against Catholic for Choice? Primarily just using general moral argument. To avoid creating the impression that it's really a religious issue, or do you think there's a role for intra religious debates to be more well religious? I, I think that if you are part of a religious community, and members of your community are out doing stupid things or unethical things, you should go get your guy. That's, I, I have no problem with you using a religious argument with someone that you know to be religious. Now if you're in a public Twitter argument with Catholics for Choice, then maybe consider that you're not so much trying to persuade them. You're trying to persuade the audience. So in that case you might take a more ve route, but yeah, individually, like in a one on one or small group setting, if you are speaking with co-religionists, I don't have a problem with you, using a religious argument. That's your business. I'm, I'm an atheist. That's, that's not my realm at all. So something came up in chat. Con — that's the problem we're having. Conscience is always being framed as religious, but conscience is not itself exclusive to religion. Yeah. And so that kind of gets back to my point earlier about, satanism being considered a religion. And you, you can see that also in, consci— conscientious objector rules for military, you do not have to be, religious to, to claim, an interest in pacifism. I read about a pastor who has a ministry flying women from places where abortion is illegal to get abortions legally. That's just gross. Okay. I think we are done. Thank you all so much for your time. I am going to maybe hang out a little bit at the Secular Pro-Life Expo booth if anybody wants to continue this conversation. And, yeah. Thank, thank you so much for, for dropping in. I really, and, and for, for asking such thoughtful questions.  

Dr. Shaun Jamison is the Associate Dean of Faculty at Concord. He conceived of and created the Future of Law Practice and Cybersecurity courses and provides commentary to the media on technology and privacy issues. Jamison's academic career has focused on skills development and emerging law practice and technology issues. At the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA), he served as the chair of the Practice Management and Marketing Section, as well as co-chair for focus groups for the SAGE Report: Self-Audit for Gender Equity and Diversity. He also served on the Golden Valley, MN Human Rights Commission. Jamison has been a solo practice attorney as well as working at Westlaw, first as a reference attorney and later managing teams of Westlaw account managers and trainers.  In this episode, we discuss: - The foundation of community support through The Human Rights Commission. - Equity and diversity lessons and how to bring that to today's firms with young lawyers. - Collaboration and getting better outcomes.  - Why being in a state of learning makes someone a better lawyer. Please let me know your thoughts!  Connect with Shaun Jamison: Website: https://www.concordlawschool.edu/  Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaunjamison/  Twitter: https://twitter.com/shaunjamison  Connect with Cindy Watson: Wesbite: https://watsonlabourlaw.com/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/womenonpurposecommunity/  Twitter: https://twitter.com/WomenOnPurpose1  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/womenonpurposecoaching/  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCHOGOsk0bkijtwq8aRrtdA?view_as=subscriber  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Litigants and lawyers involved in bringing high-profile lawsuits are increasingly facing threats and harassment. That's bad enough on its own but becomes even worse when it stops people from turning to courtrooms in the first place or impacts the outcome of cases that do get filed. On this week's episode of Pro Say, Law360 senior reporter Jack Karp drops by to help us understand how harassment is damaging the legal system. Also this week, Los Angeles County settles a massive $236 million lawsuit over its handling of the city's homelessness crisis; Georgia's supreme court reopens a longstanding malpractice case against BigLaw fixture Proskauer Rose; and finally, attorneys from the Department of Labor point the finger at legal data company Westlaw after filing an incomplete court brief.

In the world of legal technology, perhaps no company looms larger than Thomson Reuters, whose products such as Westlaw, Practical Law, HighQ, Findlaw, 3E and many others span virtually every aspect of law practice and are used by legal professionals throughout the world.  Our guest this week, Kriti Sharma, is chief product officer, legal tech, at Thomson Reuters, a role she stepped into less than a year ago, in October 2021. She is an internationally recognized expert in artificial intelligence, and was formerly the VP of artificial intelligence and ethics at UK software company Sage Group. Sharma is also the founder of AI for Good UK, a foundation that works to make AI tools more ethical and equitable, and developer of rAInbow, a digital companion for women facing domestic violence in South Africa.  She has been named in the Forbes "30 Under 30" list for advancements in AI. She was appointed a United Nations Young Leader in 2018 and is an advisor to both the United Nations Technology Innovation Labs and to the UK Government's Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. Her TED talk on keeping bias out of AI has been viewed more than 2M times.  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, and MerusCase, and e-payments platform Headnote. If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

Rafi Arbel, President, Market JD (Chicago, IL)   Rafi Arbel is President at Market JD, an internet-based advertising that focuses its work on “increasing visibility” for small law firms specializing in personal injury and workers' compensation cases. With the kind of clientele the agency serves, the written content has to be extremely precise and accurate. That's why the firm currently employs 3 attorneys. Rafi is one of them.  The agency provides websites, search engine optimization, pay-per-click, reputation management, and content production. The work split is about 65% to 70% personal injury and 55% (overlapping) worker's compensation legal firms. Rafi says, “Everybody can build a website and everybody can claim they do SEO or pay-per-click well.” Because this work is so labor-intensive and the details are numerous and critical, Rafi believes that those “who do it well” are not only those with knowledge, but those who have built a process to ensure consistent, high-quality outcomes. People have to know what they are doing, set an end objective, figure out the tasks to get it done, assess and respond to feedback, and do it “consistently over and over again.  Because Rafi practiced law for 6 years, he has represented people. Following a passion for selling and “engaging people,” he worked for Thompson Reuters and spent a number of years selling for Findlaw and Westlaw. Then, he went back for his MBA and again, and decided to change course, this time to become an entrepreneur. With this varied background and because he has been promoting small law firms for over 20 years, he understands what lawyers do, “how they do it, and how to position them.”  In this interview, Rafi notes how SEO has changed over the years, that searching for broadhead terms, “Chicago injury lawyer” or “Nevada workers' compensation lawyer” renders a lot of paid ads at the top of the page so that even if a firm organically appears below that in the map section or even below that, the likelihood that SEO will produce much traffic is negligible. Or the firm's won't show well because Google's Local Service ads take up the top of the page, followed by Google Ads below that. A big portion of the top of the screen gets taken up by all those paid ads . . . especially on mobile. So, broadhead SEO is not of great benefit to lawyers. What does work are longtail searches. Rafi says the great race now is to “capture the longtail searches' to find “the corners that the big guys don't see.”  As an example, Rafi talks about a Nevada client . . . a personal injury lawyer who, unlike his big competitors, does not have$40,000 or $50,000 a month to spend on SEO. What the attorney does have is a lot of experience representing people who have suffered sepsis and whose doctors failed to treat it correctly. Medical malpractice? Not many Nevada lawyers work in that area. By building comprehensive content to cover sepsis and medical malpractice, Market JD is carving out a unique niche for the lawyer's business and building a moat around the lawyer's business as well. Few competitors in that specific area will be willing to invest the resources to match this project. Rafi says the best way to contact him is to call him at: 312.970.9353 or email him at rafi@marketjd.com. (Market JD like Juris Doctor) ROB: Welcome to the Marketing Agency Leadership Podcast. I'm your host, Rob Kischuk, and I'm joined today by Rafi Arbel, President at Market JD based in Chicago, Illinois. Welcome to the podcast, Rafi. RAFI: Thank you, Rob. Nice to be here. ROB: Excellent to have you here. Why don't you start off by telling us a little bit about Market JD, and what is the company's superpower? What is your specialty? RAFI: Market JD is an internet-based advertising firm. We only work for small law firms. People think that we work for lawyers; it's much narrower than that. We really don't work for the big firms. They have their own marketing needs that are very different. We really focus on small law firms. We do everything that they need online to increase their visibility, which means we do websites, we do search engine optimization, pay-per-click, some reputation management, and of course, the content production. Your question was what is our superpower. What I have learned over the years is that everybody can build a website and everybody can claim they do SEO or pay-per-click well. What differentiates those who do it well from those who don't is not just knowledge, but process. Because each of these things is so labor-intensive, and because there are so many details that have to get done right, you have to build a process behind every one of them. The process should really dictate the outcome. If you are making sure all of your t's are crossed and i's are dotted, then you should get a consistent, high-quality product every time, assuming you know what you're doing. Over the years we've gotten feedback, like everybody else, of what works and what doesn't work, and where Google has rewarded us and where Google hasn't rewarded us. We've taken those lessons, and those have affected what we want in the sites and what we don't want, and how our sites need to be built and the content that we need to create. Then we convert those objectives into tangible tasks that can be assigned to every person in the process. So, our superpower is our ability to take an end objective, figure out how to get it done, and then do it consistently over and over again. ROB: Got it. You mentioned smaller law firms. Are there any particular practice areas or geographies that you focus on? Are there any that you do not do from a practice area or geographic area? RAFI: Historically, we've focused primarily on workers' compensation and personal injury law firms. I'd say 65% to 70% is personal injury, and probably overlapping, I'd say 55% workers' comp, because some firms do both. But we have criminal law firms, divorce law firms, business law firms. Really, generally speaking, it's a business-to-consumer law firm – those people who don't just have a few big business clients that they get all their recurring work from. These are people that help the individual consumer, that constantly need a new flow of cases coming in. Those are the people that need us most. It's not that we can't help those that just need a law firm brochure, but what we're really good at is improving somebody's visibility, not just creating a brochure. We might be overkill if all you want is something that validates your existence. ROB: As a consumer, when you mention some of those practice areas, it certainly rings to me – my perception would be that that's largely a reflection of the marketing budget of the different types of law firms. In other words, I certainly see a lot more personal injury and workers' comp advertising than I see let's say business law. Is that some of the alignment between your focus and the market? RAFI: Absolutely. Although I do find it a little – I don't understand why some of the other practice areas don't spend more. Yes, it is true that the potential payout for a personal injury lawyer is much greater. But what I will say is that I think the estate planners and a lot of the transactional attorneys that have the potential – or even maybe especially the civil litigation lawyers, they have potential to make a huge amount of money from a civil litigation case. If they're representing the manufacturer that bet the business on litigation, the attorney's fees can easily be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So why those attorneys don't want to spend a few grand a month to promote themselves is beyond me. But that's beyond probably the scope of this conversation. At the end of the day, it's really the personal injury lawyers who are spending and who are programmed and understand the need to spend to bring in a constant flow of high value cases. ROB: As someone representing smaller firms in this space, how do you think about tactically going to war and finding the client for some of these firms? I don't even know, and you might know, what the national advertising budget is for some of the national firms, but it's got to be quite something to go up against. How do you think about giving your client the edge and the best bang for their buck on somebody who can spend almost unlimited amounts of money on out-of-home advertising, on SEO, on pay-per-click, on all of your keywords? RAFI: That's a really good question. We get this from time to time from personal injury or workers' compensation lawyers who say just that. They say, “Look, in my marketplace there are four big competitors and they're spending enormous money. They've got a 10-year lead on me. There's no way I can compete, is there?” The truth is, they can compete. But we have to be careful in what we promote. Oftentimes when you start to dig a little deeper into their practice areas, you find that not all personal injury lawyers and not all workers' compensation lawyers focus on the same things. For example, I have a client in Reno who has never really done any significant online advertising. He doesn't have much of a presence now, and he doesn't have an enormous budget to compete against the huge Nevada advertisers. And there are certainly people paying $40,000 or $50,000 a month on SEO. So, he asked me what we can do, and we had a conversation about the nature of his practice. It turns out that in Nevada, not many lawyers want medical malpractice cases. It turns out also that this particular lawyer had a lot of experience representing people who came down with sepsis where the doctors didn't treat it correctly. That's a very niche field. This is something he was very good at, had a lot of experience in, and very few people did, and cases that he wanted to attract. So, we decided to build out, and we're in the process of finishing, a lot of content around sepsis and medical malpractice. And even if others come in to compete, they're certainly not going to invest the same resources into that field as he will. We've already started to see some success with that, and leads are starting to come in the door. It's that sort of focus on the client, the real micro focus on what they're doing on a day-to-day basis. You have to understand their practice. I'm also a licensed lawyer in the state of Illinois, so I understand their practice in ways that somebody who's not a lawyer may not understand. ROB: That experience you have as a lawyer, your licensing as a lawyer, is that what has kept your focus on law? Have you ever been tempted to – there's other local advertisers, whether it's air conditioning, basements, plumbers, etc., who have I think similar battles. What has kept you in the legal lane? RAFI: That's a really good question. The truth is that I don't bring a distinct competitive advantage outside of the law. If I were to go sell to a plastic surgeon – and they certainly have a lot of money to spend on their advertising – or sell to HVAC guys or plumbers or any of them, I don't bring with me any inherent competitive advantages that my clients don't have. Obviously, I know the technical end of it, and we have the coders and the designers and everything else, but so does everybody else. Only in the law do I really bring something that few other people, few other agencies have, and that's an intimate knowledge of what they do, because I've been doing it for 20+ years. Because I'm a lawyer and I've represented people, I really understand what they do, how they do it, and how to position them. So yes, while it is tempting, and maybe I could make more money if I did websites for people other than lawyers, it's just not my comfort zone. I really understand the law so well that it doesn't make sense to do much else. ROB: Rafi, to understand a little bit – it's not entirely a typical path. Most people don't go to law school to start a digital agency. What is the origin story of Market JD? What took you out of the day to day practice of law? What made you want to learn and build a team around you that understands things like SEO and SEM and everything else you have to do to make things work? RAFI: That's a really interesting question. I didn't go directly from the practice of law into running an agency. I practiced law for about six years, and then I had a real desire to sell. I've always loved working with people, and I just love the selling process and I love engaging people. So, I took a job with Thompson Reuters and I sold for FindLaw and Westlaw for a number of years. Then I decided to go back and get my MBA, and then when I got my MBA, I decided I wanted to be an entrepreneur, and it was at that time that I started Market JD. We do largely the same things that my former employer does, FindLaw. We do the same sort of things that they do; we just like to think we do it better. ROB: Got it. So somewhere along the way, between some growing coincidence, between having practiced yourself, between competing in the market, you saw a set of ingredients, you made a little bit of a bet on yourself – and then who were your next coupe of hires? Who are the first couple of people that an attorney goes out and hires to build a firm like this? RAFI: I think if I could do it over again, the one thing that I would do differently is I would've hired more people quicker. I was a little too conservative in who I hired in the initial years, and potentially didn't grow as fast as I could've if I had hired more staff. I think I wasn't as confident as I am now in my ability to succeed. I was always worried that I would run out of money, and it never happened. I had more clients than I had necessarily people to do the work. So, I certainly would've hired people quicker. I think what happened was it was a lot of on-the-job training. I hired people as I saw the need. I knew I couldn't design, and I knew nothing about design, and I knew nothing about coding. So I surrounded myself with the best people I can and the people I need to get the job done. It was need-based hiring.  ROB: Got it. That certainly becomes an interesting path. In terms of running out of money, I have done that; I don't recommend it. It's not the most fun. We did make all the money back and then some, so it's okay. When you look at yourself now – you said you've learned a little bit about hiring more. Obviously, you can't hire unlimited, so how do you think about, now, with experience in mind, when is the right time to hire? RAFI: I think that story has changed as the labor market has changed. At this point, where I find great talent in an area that I know I'm going to need, I hire for that even if I don't necessarily have enough work to fill that person's plate. It just so happens that when you hire great people, you find work to give them, and it's often profitable work because when they're good, it enhances your service and you tend to sell more of the things that you can do better. I think the question you asked me was, how do I know who to hire. I'm always looking. We recently hired a Head of SEO. I wasn't initially planning on hiring her, but I did find an article that she had written, and I thought it was so well done and it was so technically complete that I reached out to her and I asked her if she'd be willing to do some consulting. One thing led to another, and she's now our Head of SEO. So, it's more about availability than it is about necessarily our needs. It's becoming very hard to find the right people, and I know I'm not the only employer to say that. ROB: For sure. It's hard to find the right people. It's hard to find sometimes the sorts of versatile people who can and will wear multiple hats. I think that's interesting; you've probably had some choices as you've grown. SEO probably has not been a choice. You've probably had to do that for a very long time. How have you considered, though, which service areas you should engage in? Are there some that you haven't? Are you in television? Are you in out-of-home? How deep do you go in social? How do you think about those kinds of decisions? RAFI: The traditional media is not something I had experience in or knowledge in. I've thought many times about doing it, because oftentimes the people who sell traditional media add digital services to their menu of choices. So I've often thought of adding traditional media to my set of choices, but I haven't, largely because it's out of my comfort zone. I would have to bring in people, and I would be doing it just for the sake of growing. I have enough troubles in my life without taking on something that I don't know particularly well, so I've chosen just to be a digital agency and do that better than my competitors. And I think it's that laser focus and doing one thing well that's been a great recipe for us. It's worked for us. ROB: Sure. There's a certain discipline to knowing what segment you play in. I'm sure many firms have started in the legal world, and many of them really have that appetite to go as far upmarket as they can, as fast as possible. They want to buy the side of every bus, the front of every billboard, all of those things. How do you think about what firm size is too big for Market JD right now? How do you think about that decision? RAFI: When it comes to digital advertising, I don't think there is a firm that's too big for us in our space. It's when they have needs beyond that. Now, certainly we have partners we can bring in, but I don't pretend to claim that they're part of the Market JD business. They're just our partners if they need them. But when it comes to digital advertising, this is what we do best. If the largest PI firm in America came to us, I don't see any reason why we couldn't help them with their needs. We represent people, or we do the digital advertising for solo practitioners, and we do it for 75-people personal injury firms, and everything in between. ROB: That's certainly a range. Once you have 75 attorneys, I don't want to pay those bills, I know that. That's a sizable firm there. You mentioned a little bit about perhaps a desire to have hired a little quicker. As you think about other lessons you may have learned while building the firm, what might something else be that you wish you'd done differently if you could rewind the clock a little bit? RAFI: Yeah, definitely hiring quicker. Most certainly it would be also doing more internet marketing for Market JD. It was always ironic, I thought, that I'm selling lawyers internet marketing, but I'm not promoting my own wares on the internet. We ignored it because I had such a nice base of connections from my years working as a lawyer and my years selling as a salesman at Thompson Reuters. I had such a great base of people to call on that I really didn't need to do a lot of internet advertising. In hindsight, I think that was a mistake. I probably would've more aggressively done it, and that's what we're just beginning to do now. But you know what? In some regards, I always thought it was better to have fewer clients and do a better job for fewer clients than it is to grow as fast as I can and see the quality diminish. I've seen too many of my competitors with fantastic salesforces, far better than anything I have, that win the business but don't have the resources to put into each client, and the mistakes that they made were just embarrassing. I never wanted to be that guy, so I never wanted to grow any faster than I had the capacity to do a great job for them. ROB: Your team is so focused. When you're out there marketing for these firms, you know who their ideal customer is; you're thinking about how to reach them, and to a certain extent, it sounds like you're intuitively selling to people you know, to people you know that you know, some referrals. What did it look like? Did you all actually sit down and formulate a picture of your customer and their journey separate from their customers and their journey? Or how did you get clarity on the target you are marketing to as a firm, how you reach them, and how you separate that from the everyday of working with all these other firms, knowing you're trying to reach an individual consumer? RAFI: I think for every small business, to a large extent the direction of the business is set by the needs of the clients. So, if you listen to what the clients say and you really don't just hear the words, but take it to heart, then their needs will dictate the services that you provide. We don't just sell technical expertise or a set of tools or any particular solution. What we're really trying to communicate to the lawyers we sell to is, tell us what your issues are, tell us what your end objectives are, and then let us work backwards and figure out the best way to address those and achieve those ends. I think if you listen to the client, they'll help you. They'll direct the solution because your solution will be based on their needs and their objectives. ROB: Rafi, now that you're at the level you're at, now that you're looking ahead a little bit, what's coming up for Market JD and the type of work that you do that's exciting? What's the next frontier, maybe the next place you think you might hire for that you don't know yet you're going to hire for? RAFI: I think we're just in the initial stages of really expanding and taking what we do best, but doing it in a bigger way, hiring many more SEO content writers who can really focus in on longtail search. What's happening in SEO is that when you run a search for the broadhead terms – “Chicago injury lawyer” or “Nevada workers' compensation lawyer” – the search results are so dominated by paid ads at the top that even if you appear organically in the map section or beneath that, the probability of you getting much traffic or cases from appearing well there isn't too great because you've got Google Local Service ads at the top and then you have Google Ads below it. It really takes up a significant portion of the top of the screen, especially on mobile. The SEO isn't going to be of great benefit to the lawyers. But those same ads don't always appear on the longtail searches, and there are so many of those longtail searches. So the great race right now – it's no secret, but the great race is to capture the longtail searches, and the better we are at that, the better off our clients are going to be in the end, the more benefit we're going to bring them. That's the race these days, the longtail searches. ROB: That would seem to also align with maybe the capacity of the big firms that target those searches as well. There's some stuff that's longtail, they're not going to have keywords targeted against it, they're not going to be SEOing for it either. But you mentioned some of those niches that are special to the firm, that is an individual strength, particular types of cases, that then become the opportunity. RAFI: That's exactly right. The corners that the big guys don't see. ROB: Are you the only attorney in the firm at this point? RAFI: No. Actually, there are – let me see, three of us that I can think of right away. I've got to think through it, but we have at least three attorneys here, and two of them are editors. We're very careful about what we write about on the law. We don't ever want to misrepresent or get something wrong on the law, so I thought it would be a great idea to hire lawyers as editors. So two of my editors are in fact lawyers. ROB: Certainly, you get into some of these compliance areas, it certainly makes sense to have some expertise there. I think we've heard this a few times on the podcast – when it comes around the medical space, there's a similar level of depth, attention, compliance, and danger that leads to specialization and helps keep any little upstart two-person shop in town from coming after you too hard. RAFI: That's right. Really, for me, if I was just a general web shop, I could practice law and do better financially than I could if I were just selling to the local businesses. But it's really the deep specialty that we have that allows us to serve the personal injury and workers' comp lawyers in ways others can't. ROB: Very interesting. We've been hiring in a bunch of states; I've learned a lot about workers' comp that I didn't want to know, but you might know better than that. [laughs] We use a PEO; we had the privilege of buying our own policy from the state of Ohio because they don't like the PEO's policy. Something new in every state. That's you and your clients to figure out for the most part, I think. Unless there's any other states you know we should really put our heads on the swivel for, because I'd be curious. RAFI: This is for your own company? ROB: Yeah. Are there any other states with really weird workers' comp regimes? Because Ohio seems unique in its specialness. RAFI: [laughs] Most states have their own peculiarities, and it's often changing, so I can't claim I know every state's. But yes, it's definitely an area where there are differences between the states. ROB: Fascinating. A very interesting area, and it keeps some lawyers employed, for sure. Rafi, when people want to find you and find out more about Market JD, where should they go to find and connect with you? RAFI: The easiest way is pick up the phone and call me, (312) 970-9353, or they can email me at rafi@marketjd.com. That's Market JD like Juris Doctor. ROB: Excellent. Good to have that. I encourage folks to find and connect with Rafi if you need some of their help. Other than that, Rafi, thank you so much for joining the podcast, for sharing your journey. We're very grateful. Thank you. RAFI: Rob, thanks for having me. I appreciate being on. ROB: Excellent. Be well. RAFI: You too. ROB: Thank you for listening. The Marketing Agency Leadership Podcast is presented by Converge. Converge helps digital marketing agencies and brands automate their reporting so they can be more profitable, accurate, and responsive. To learn more about how Converge can automate your marketing reporting, email info@convergehq.com, or visit us on the web at convergehq.com.

This week's episode is also sponsored by Barcast Audio. Barcast is the #1 bar exam study tool you need to make sure your first time taking the bar exam is your last.  All MBE subjects are now available and you can pre-order Barcast's Complete MEE Pack now to save $150 off your purchase. Listeners can save an extra 10% off your next Barcast purchase by using the code LADIES at checkout. This week the ladies chat with Jennifer Horn, a Penn State law school grad and female founder of Philadelphia-based law firm Horn Williamson.  The firm represents business owners, developers, homeowners, general contractors, subcontractors, construction managers, suppliers, sureties, and material suppliers, as well as property owners in construction defect disputes. Jennifer leads the firm's Construction Practice Group as well as the Real Estate & Title Practice Group. For the last five years, she has been named on the Super Lawyers list of Top Construction Attorneys.Jennifer talks about getting rejected from law review and listen to find out how she made the most of that! She also talks about calling a WestLaw (we love a WestLaw Gal) rep via a 1-800 number, where she asked the rep if there was any other type of search they recommended. That's how she knew she was getting the law right and did all the research she could as a baby attorney. Follow us on social!FacebookInstagramTwitterxoxo stay safe and healthy,The LadiesSamantha & Haylie@samanthalemke @ohh_hayls_yea

Indian property rights scholar Bethany Berger, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, joins Infrastructure Junkies! to explain the intersection between Indian rights and right of way projects and infrastructure development in the United States.  She discusses the derivation of Indian property interests, how Indian reservations were established, the laws that govern Indian property rights, the source of those laws, and the effects of burial grounds and Indian artifacts on a project. For more information on this topic, the regulation on rights of way over trust and restricted lands on reservations can be found at 25 CFR 169 (there are some older statutes that apply to reservations generally), and the best resource to find out more about Indian property rights is Cohen's Handbook on Federal Indian Law, which is available on Lexis (but not Westlaw).  Ch.15, section 15.09[4] is all about rights of way, and Ch.20 section 20.02[3] is all about the National Historic Preservation Act.  Special thanks to our sponsor, Blackbird Right of Way, a full service, DBE certified right of way company, for making this episode possible.

Every case requires some legal research, and we don't mean Google. This hard-skills episode focuses on pro tips like how to use Westlaw more efficiently, where to start your research and whether or not it's a smart move to omit case law that could be detrimental to your position. Today's strategies will help you hone your research skills and put you on a more solid foundation for your next case.

Every case requires some legal research, and we don't mean Google. This hard-skills episode focuses on pro tips like how to use Westlaw more efficiently, where to start your research and whether or not it's a smart move to omit case law that could be detrimental to your position. Today's strategies will help you hone your research skills and put you on a more solid foundation for your next case.

There were a number of SNAFUs the past couple of weeks here at The Geek in Review, but even with scheduling difficulties and personal emergencies, we wanted to get an episode out this week. In order for everyone to "get their geek on," we created an "Information Inspirations" episode. We'll be back next week with more traditional content, but we hope you enjoy our musings on news and ideas around the legal industry. Information Inspirations Bill Henderson's State supreme courts and the challenges of PeopleLaw discusses the power that state supreme courts have in the regulation and delivery of the legal industry and access to justice. These courts have the power over the market structure, dispute resolution, and licensure of the practice of law. However, the Justices are reluctant regulators and Henderson suggests that they need to shake off this reluctance and fix a system that is in serious need of change. The American Bar Association is poised to change a series of law school accreditation rules and the change could go into effect as early as this fall. This round of changes deals with anti-discrimination training that law students need to take before they can graduate. The ROSS v. Westlaw battle continues with ROSS recently crying foul that Westlaw is using copyright arguments to maintain what they claim to be a monopoly on legal information. Julie Sobowale dives a little deeper on one issue that affects both US and Canadian legal research innovators, and that is access to primary materials like case law. Law School 1Ls and 2Ls shouldn't just look at BigLaw for their summer associate work. Working with startups or venture capital firms may be another option out there. The legal industry looked to the NFL's Rooney Rule to help guide our own version through the Mansfield Rule. While the NFL gave a good blueprint for how to expand the search for minority talent, a recent lawsuit by former Miami Dolphin Head Coach, Brian Flores, alleges that it is also a blueprint for how to claim we are doing great things for minority hiring, but the reality is that it is a check-the-box and continue-as-normal process. The era of COVID produced a major shift in the concepts of virtual court proceedings. While we've had bumps in the road, it seems that virtual courts are here to stay. Bonus Inspirations (Non-Legal Podcasts That Inspire Us!!) Sacred Scandal Comic Book Couples Counseling Contact Us Twitter: @gebauerm or @glambert. Voicemail: 713-487-7270 Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. Music: Jerry David DeCicca Transcript: 3 Geeks

Hey guys, it's attorney Anthony Bandiero. Here, bring you another roadside chat. And this question comes from an officer in Nevada, and actually, he's a corrections officer in prison. And he brought a great a great scenario. Do prisoners have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phones? Right? So the scenario is an officer, you know, in prison, found a cell phone, searched it without a warrant, and, you know, saw some information that helped prove that the prisoner knew, you know, that he had it, you know, I guess he's trying to say, Oh, I have nothing to do with that cell phone. But, you know, the evidence inside the phone shows that he made calls to people associated with him and so forth. Alright. So normally, the prison would get a search warrant. But the question for us today is, do you need one? And the answer is no. Right? The answer is no. And the reason why is because the prisoner knows or should know that they cannot have that cell phone. Clearly, it's contraband, right. All the rules, say it no cell phones, they know or should know that that phone is absolutely prohibited in that facility. So, therefore, when they brought it in somehow or obtained it, they're possessing contraband. And generally speaking, a person does not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband. A good example of that is a Supreme Court case called Illinois versus Kabbalists, where the Supreme Court said that a dog sniff in and of itself is not a Fourth Amendment search if it is trained to detect contraband, right. So in that case, the canine was run around a vehicle during a traffic stop, it alerted to the presence of contraband, and a search ensued on the probable cause. And Kabbalists lost that case because again, the dog is not searching under the Fourth Amendment. Well, it's the same concept applies here. When officers in the prison facility search contraband, it's not a search because it doesn't implicate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. This is not even a search, right? Because it doesn't implicate it's not a protected item. Let me just give you an example from a case called United States versus bash. I have the Westlaw citation. It's 2021, w l 3207252. So again, 2000, what are 2021 WL that sounds for Westlaw, three to 07252. It's out of the Eastern Eastern District of California, it was decided actually very recently, July 29, 2029. So here's a case where corrections officers search a cell phone in a cell in a cell and the bash the prisoner is trying to complain about this search and saying that you guys needed a search warrant. And here's what the court said about that. It said. Moreover, it is well settled that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the belongings they keep with them. The Fourth Amendment, prescription against unreasonable searches and searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell. California prisoners are prohibited from possessing a cell phone. And thus, defendant bashe cannot claim to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the contraband cell phone, which he possessed and violation of the law. Well, I don't have the Nevada law in front of me, but I'm sure that either by regulation or directly by law, the prisoners in Nevada cannot have a cell phone that would be considered contraband. Again, the law can basically tell the Department of Corrections for you to decide what's contraband, what's not. And the DLC would then lay out that cell phones are included, you know, also found another very persuasive case. This case is called we bring it up here. It's called United States versus huart and it's huart as H.U.A.R.T let me just kind of explain what's going on here. So the citation by the way, is 735. F 3d 972. A case out of the Seventh Circuit decided in 2013 against you at unit United States versus Huart 735 f 3d 972.

On this week's episode, the ladies talk about legal research aka "Cite the case!" They cover who is going to use this, YOU obvi (AND all the other lawyers in the world). You will most likely learn ALL about legal research your 1L year. But if you're like the ladies and maybe didn't pay enough attention in your legal research class, they have you covered! Check out Westlaw's learning sourcesCheck out LexisNexis's learning sources The ladies discuss where to start when you get a research assignment #secondarysoruces, how long to spend researching before you ask for help, and how to get the search engine to work for you! Remember that legal research takes practice, so the research assignments you get throughout law school are GREAT practice! Lastly, the ladies discuss the recent oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Listen to the oral argument audio HERE and check out the ladies' Instagram post on the matter.  Follow us on social!FacebookInstagram Twitter Tik TokGive us a 5-star rating & subscribe for more!xoxo stay safe and healthy,The LadiesSamantha & Haylie@samanthalemke @ohh_hayls_yea

The Compliance Life details the journey to and in the role of a Chief Compliance Officer. How does one come to sit in the CCO chair? What are some of the skills a CCO needs to success navigate the compliance waters in any company? What are some of the top challenges CCOs have faced and how did they meet them? These questions and many others will be explored in this new podcast series. Over four episodes each month on The Compliance Life, I visit with one current or former CCO to explore their journey to the CCO chair. This month, my guest is Kortney Nordrum, Regulatory Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer at Deluxe. Back in MN, Nordrum opened her own practice focusing on animal rights, where she saved a bunch of horses and cows from starving. She next worked at Thompson Reuters, working on WestLaw. From there she went to SCCE, where she found her true calling, compliance. At SCCE, Nordrum helped pioneer many initiatives such as the conference the social media lounge/booth/wall, she founded the SCCE blog and the SCCE podcast. She became an expert in social media and compliance. One of her great joys was working with Adam Turteltaub and flying literally around the world evangelizing compliance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Erik J. Olson chatted with Adam E. Carr, the Managing Partner at Carr Law Office, LLC, which represents corporate and individual defendants throughout the State of Ohio in civil lawsuits, mostly in the defense of tort and insurance cases. In 2005, Adam wrote three chapters for the first edition of the leading treatise on Ohio tort law, published by Westlaw. He is board-certified in Civil Trial Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and he has been selected to Ohio Super Lawyers nine times for insurance law. He and his firm have been listed in the U.S. News & World Report - Best Law Firms issue for insurance law for seven consecutive years, including the most recent issue. Learn from his expertise and what trends are helping grow his firm on this episode of The Managing Partners Podcast! --- Array Law is Bold Marketing For Law Firms arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

Allison J. Bell, Psy.D. - Co-Parenting Communication with Host, Rosalind Sedacca, Divorce Coach, Divorce, Dating & Empowered Living Show. WGSN-DB Going Solo Network, Radio, TV & Podcasts - #1 Internet Singles Talk Network (www.goingsolomedia.com)A bit about Dr. Bell...ALLISON J. BELL, Psy.D. has a doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology from Yeshiva University. She also holds a Master's degree in dance/movement therapy from Hunter College. She has been in private practice in Westchester County, N.Y. since 1987, and is specialty-trained in child psychology, neuropsychological evaluation of children and marital therapy. She has an additional office in Northampton, MA. Since 1997, Dr. Bell has performed forensic custody evaluations in both Family and Supreme Courts in the southern New York State region and testified as an expert witness. She also performs parenting evaluations, bonding assessments, and testifies throughout Western Massachusetts. Dr. Bell is certified to practice EMDR with victims of trauma, and performed critical incident stress debriefings for victims of 9/11 around New York City. In her 33+ years of clinical practice, Dr. Bell has lectured widely throughout Westchester County, including teaching at the Judicial Institute in Westchester. She has been an advocate for children with special educational needs in many school districts throughout the county.Currently, Dr. Bell is a member of Collaborative Practice Associations in New York and Massachusetts: the Hudson Valley Collaborative Divorce and Dispute Resolution Association, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the Academy of Professional Family Mediators and the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council. Dr. Bell serves as both a Divorce Coach and a neutral Child Specialist on Interdisciplinary practice teams, and trains other practitioners of Collaborative Divorce. Dr. Bell is also a founding member of the New York Civil Collaborative Group. She has completed the Program for Senior Executives at the Harvard Program on Negotiation and completed her training as a Mediator through the Center for Understanding in Conflict, along with additional advanced training hours in mediation. She is a founding member of the New York Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and a charter member of the Forensic Division of the New York State Psychological Association.Dr. Bell has made television and radio appearances on local cable access networks in Westchester, Long Island, and MA, and appeared on the CBS Early Show in August of 2007 with her former husband, advocating for Collaborative Divorce on a program called “Reconcilable Differences”. She has lectured numerous times at the annual International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) Forum on child development, collaborative practice issues, gender bias in negotiation and neuroscience. In 2012, the NYCCG made a video for Westlaw continuing legal education, in which Dr. Bell is featured, depicting the use of interdisciplinary collaborative practice in settling employment cases.Dr. Bell periodically blogs about the myriad ways in which people navigate their journey through divorce. In addition, Dr. Bell has spent most of her life dancing and teaching movement to non-dancers. Her blogs about the art of movement in everyday life can be found on her website. ​Email:drallibell@gmail.com​Website: collabdivorce-ny.com (HVCDDRA)collaborativepractice.com (IACP)drallisonbell.com (Blog)

I spoke with Erik Lindberg and Tonya Custis, the senior director for Westlaw Product Management and the senior director of Research, respectively, at Thomson Reuters. We discussed the genesis of Westlaw Edge, how it differs from Westlaw, how its artificial intelligence technology differs from other tools on the market, the evolution of Westlaw, and where legal research is headed.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 250. This is the audio of my presentation to the 2018 PFS meeting on Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Also podcast at PFP195. Related material: see material linked in the above slides, including: Kinsella, On the UN, the Birchers, and International Law International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War Rubins, Papanastasiou & Kinsella's International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide, Second Edition (Oxford, 2020) KOL001 | “The (State's) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) International Law MOOC (Youtube) Sovereignty, International Law, and the Triumph of Anglo-American Cunning | Joseph R. Stromberg Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon, 1994) Mark Janis, International Law (7th Ed. 2018) Restatement (Third) of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), HeinOnline, Westlaw (not online) American Society of International Law (ASIL), Electronic Information System for International Law (EISIL) https://www.asil.org/resources/electronic-resource-guide-erg and http://www.eisil.org/ M.N. Shaw, International Law (7th Ed. 2017) Ian Brownlie (Crawford), Principles of Public International Law (1966) (8th ed., 2012) See also Neocons Hate International Law The UN, International Law, and Nuclear Weapons Nukes and International Law Update: See my International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War; see also Murray Rothbard, "Just War," in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War: Much of "classical international law" theory, developed by the Catholic Scholastics, notably the 16th-century Spanish Scholastics such as Vitoria and Suarez, and then the Dutch Protestant Scholastic Grotius and by 18th- and 19th-century jurists, was an explanation of the criteria for a just war. For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified. ... Classical international law ... should be brought back as quickly as possible.

The Answer Just Gets Us More Questions Most of us spend much of our day answering questions. It wears us out. We deeply believe that we're supposed to answer the questions. It's what we do, it's who we are, and it's the role we play. But what if that's a flawed premise? Believing that we should always have the answer is stressful. Sometimes it's more than we can bear. We're tired, nervous, distressed, and anxious. We're not always sure we can cope. We survive, but sometimes it's touch and go. It's challenging when we're the people everyone else comes to for answers. The clients ask us what to do. The employees do as well. Sometimes our vendors want our guidance on how we want “it” (the copier, the Internet, the website, the business cards, whatever) handled. Then there's our family asking us for input. The questions just keep on coming. Deep down, we know they could answer the questions themselves. We know that our answer isn't much, if any, better than their best guess. After all, our answer is merely our best guess. We don't always "know," but we always answer. But the questions keep on coming, so we keep answering. We respond, “Go ahead and call her,” “It goes over there,” “Send the money he needs,” “Tell him you did it,” “Stop doing it,” “Start doing it,” and on and on. You've got questions. We've got answers. It's hard to answer one question before the next question flies at us. Sometimes we want to hide out in the closet. We accept our role as the answerer. We buffer ourselves by regulating our e-mail, limiting our phone calls, and closing our door. But we know we've got to spend time each day answering the questions because our failure will cause progress to stop. Answering is the role we play. Is Answering Questions the Best Idea? But does it have to be this way? Is this the best way? Let's stop for a bit, spend a few extra minutes hiding in the closet, and look at the big picture. Let's take a minute to ask ourselves a question. What would happen if we stopped answering the questions? Would the world stop spinning if we stopped answering? It's valuable to acknowledge that we've created a culture, with ourselves at the center, that requires us to play our part as the answerer. The team needs us to be there leading, guiding, and answering. That's what we've built, whether we've done it consciously or accidentally. We've made a business that doesn't work well without our being central to the decision-making. Why did we build it this way? It's likely that we didn't think much about it before it evolved. We didn't mind everyone turning to us at the outset. In fact, we like knowing the answers and being able to respond. It feels good to be thought of as the person who knows what to do. We feel important and valuable. We appreciate the respect that comes from being useful at the center of the group. What Would Happen If We Stepped Away? What would happen if we stopped answering the questions? Many things would likely occur---some of them good, and some of them less good. Certainly: They'd do it differently than we'd do it. Some things would fall through the cracks (like they do now). They'd get it done eventually. They might get done better. That could feel uncomfortable for us. Some folks couldn't cope. They might leave. Some folks could cope. They might grow. Your team will change and evolve to the new culture. You'd likely end up with some new team members who better fit the new way of doing business. You might feel out of control and might react poorly to your emotional distress. You might like it. The business might grow faster. It might be more profitable. Your clients might be happier. It's likely that, at least sometimes, allowing someone else to answer the questions would result in better answers that are delivered more effectively, generating a more positive reaction. Why I Stopped Answering Questions My first experiment with not answering questions came unexpectedly. I was trying a custody case in downtown Raleigh. We settled on the second day during a mid-morning break in the hearing. The day before, I'd felt an odd pain in my arm. With my family history of heart disease, I was concerned. After the judge approved the settlement arrangement, I went to the emergency room. I waited a few hours and they gave me an EKG and a blood test. Shortly thereafter, I was admitted to the hospital. They cut open my chest, bypassed my arteries, and sent me home four days after surgery. That was quite an experience. The surgery was easy. The recovery was harder and took longer than four days. I stayed home for six weeks. I didn't make many decisions during that period. The Percocet was working. I didn't care who decided, what was decided, or what happened as a result. I watched a lot of television, but only if it wasn't too funny. Laughing hard hurt. I had to turn off Seinfeld one night. My decision-making was limited to TV channel selection. Did the wheels come off at the law firm? To the contrary. My absence gave our team room to step up, jump in, and grow. They turned it on, cranked it up, and drove to victory. It was impressive. Of course, I reacted emotionally. I felt unimportant, less valued, and out of control, and I quickly spotted the things they were doing “wrong.” Thankfully, I mostly kept my mouth shut. The increasing revenue encouraged me to keep my concerns to myself. How I Finally Adjusted to Answering Less It took me a while to adjust to the change. Once I felt better, I was tempted to step back in and start answering questions. I went back and forth with myself. I'm rarely gracious about being less than the center of attention, but something happened soon after I returned to work that slowed down my return to being the master of my universe. I made a BIG mistake. I went back to court after I recovered from the surgery. I tried a case. It went poorly. I screwed something up with regard to the financial evidence. The details don't matter. Thankfully, my malpractice carrier stepped up and hired a great lawyer who repaired the damage. The client wasn't harmed, and life went on for everyone involved---except me. I was reminded in that courtroom, and in the hearing a few months later when the motion for reconsideration was heard and granted, that I didn't have all the answers. The ordeal helped me capture and retain the lessons learned when my team stepped up during the recovery from surgery. I didn't see it clearly at the time, but I had learned that I didn't have all the answers. I'd learned that my team often had better answers. I had started down the path to letting go of some of my control and started feeling that things might actually be better for everyone involved if I stepped back some. Accepting that we don't always have the best answers is hard. It was really, really, really hard for me. Sometimes those of us who believe we have all the answers need to get kicked a time or two, or three, to get out of the way and let others contribute. It's not easy to let go. Being out of control doesn't feel good for many of us. What Does Letting Go Look Like? What happens when you stop answering all the questions? Turnover goes down. The team sticks around. Others answer the questions. Others feel valued and know that they're being heard. Team members start to trust themselves. Revenue goes up. Employees feel a sense of ownership when they see their decisions manifest as action. The business gets stronger, healthier, more intellectually diverse, and emotionally stable. When we let others take on leadership roles, they grow the business. It's good for them, it's good for the team, and it's good for you. The leadership vacuum gets filled if you endure the awkward period while the culture changes. Having more leaders creates space for more followers, more clients, more revenue, and more profit. When you're the only source of answers, you become the bottleneck. Growth depends on you. When you step to the side and give others space, some of them will pass you. Some of them will take things in different directions. Some of them will take steps to enhance the business in ways you don't expect. They'll do things you couldn't have done yourself. They'll see pathways you haven't yet seen. How do you make the shift from being the repository of all wisdom to being just one source of input? How do you stop being the solution to every problem? How do you reverse the pattern that calls for your input, answers, and decisions at the end of every discussion? Six Action Steps to Start Letting Go Here are specific action steps to step out of the role of answerer. 1. Say "I don't know." I used to feel stupid when I said it. I thought it meant I didn't know things (which I guess it does) and that not knowing would cause others to think less of me. I found that I could temper my disdain for saying it by adding "but I'll get back to you with an answer" to the end of "I don't know." Getting back to people became a nightmare. So I dropped the "getting back to you" part and was filled with a sense of relief after I used "I don't know" a few times and nothing bad happened. Try it sometime. Walk down the street and wait for someone to ask "What time is it?" Say "I don't know" and keep walking. It's weird. Nothing happens (except in New York City, she'll notice your watch and scream "asshole" at you as you walk away). Embrace it. There's no requirement that you answer the question, even if you happen to know the answer. Yes, I could have looked at my watch. Yes, you can Google their question for them. Yes, you can spend two hours on Westlaw for them. Or you can say "I don't know," and they can go find the answer elsewhere. Here's the really useful tidbit: saying "I don't know" is good for the recipients. It's better for them to reduce their dependence on you. It's better for them to learn how to find the answer on their own. It's better for them to gain confidence in their ability to believe in their own answer. It took me years to realize that saying "no" to my children was best for them. The same is true of "I don't know." 2. Answer questions with questions. "How many days do I have to give them if I request documents with my subpoena?" she asked. "What rule is that covered by?" you ask in response. She says, "I don't know." (It's fascinating that saying that doesn't stress her out, huh?) You counter with "Do we have a treatise that covers this stuff?" Just don't answer the question. There's always a question you can ask. The answer is never the only answer. Be careful, however, to answer nicely. I'm usually a snarky prick when I do it. That doesn't always have the desired outcome. 3. Develop systems documentation. Build documented systems for your practice. Most of the questions you get during each day at the office are routine. There's rarely anything new or interesting (which is part of why this is so exhausting). Everything from making a bank deposit to preparing a closing argument can be incorporated into documented systems. Once the systems are created, you can start answering, "It's in the system." Pointing people to the system documents is helpful and critical. Your systems should never sit dormant. You need your team accessing the information constantly so it stays fresh and alive. In a perfect world, they're revising and updating as they encounter new issues and questions. 4. Buy resources. Don't be frugal when it comes to information and training materials. Send your team to continuing education. Buy the books and videos. Sign them up for online training, and give them access to the databases required to find the answers. 5. Create specific training materials. Some problems/challenges/cases are more complicated and involved than that what systems documentation can cover. Sometimes you need to teach a way of thinking, a certain perspective, or an attitude for approaching particular problems. Use video or audio and create internal courses for your team. Head the questions off at the pass by teaching the team how to handle large challenges before they encounter them. 6. Stop believing that you're always right. Let it go. We're not always right. We don't always have the best answer. The way they do it is different, but it's sometimes better. It's not uncommon for our lawyers to say it far better than I would have said it, whether they're speaking to judges, opposing counsel, or clients. My way was just one way. There are many ways to get from here to there. Let it go. The bottom line is that we're not always right. It may be useful to us to believe that we're right when we're in front of judges or influencing someone to adopt our way of thinking. It's not particularly useful to believe we're always right when we're trying to grow our business. There are many ways to be right. Accept that others on your team have likely found some of them, and they will look different from your way. What Will Happen When You Stop Answering? Lots of good comes from stepping away from being the central source of answers. The stress level goes down. Team performance levels go up. The creative solutions to complicated problems get better and better. It's not an easy journey to shifting from being the only person who answers to having others answer for others and for themselves. Change is hard. Lawyers move slowly. Culture is stronger than bricks and mortar. You'll find yourself starting, backing up, pushing forward, and then finding the path. Don't push too hard, but don't fail to push. This change will be good for you, good for your team, and good for your clients.