Podcasts about Westlaw

Each episode on Unstoppable Mindset I ask all of you and my guests to feel free to introduce me to others who would be good guests on our podcast. Our guest this time, Erin Edgar, is a guest introduced to me by a past podcast guest, Rob Wentz. Rob told me that Erin is inspirational and would be interesting and that she would have a lot to offer you, our audience. Rob was right on all counts. Erin Edgar was born blind. Her parents adopted an attitude that would raise their daughter with a positive attitude about herself. She was encouraged and when barriers were put in her way as a youth, her parents helped her fight to be able to participate and thrive. For a time, she attended the Indiana School for the Blind. Her family moved to Georgia where Erin attended high school. After high school, Erin wanted to go to college where she felt there would be a supportive program that would welcome her on campus. She attended the University of North Carolina at Chapple Hill. After graduating she decided to continue at UNC where she wanted to study law. The same program that gave her so much assistance during her undergraduate days was not able to provide the same services to Erin the graduate student. Even so, Erin had learned how to live, survive and obtain what she needed to go through the law program. After she received her law degree Erin began to do what she always wanted to do: She wanted to use the law to help people. So, she worked in programs such as Legal Aid in North Carolina and she also spent time as a mediator. She will describe all that for us. Like a number of people, when the pandemic began, she decided to pivot and start her own law firm. She focuses on estate planning. We have a good discussion about topics such as the differences between a will and a living trust. Erin offers many relevant and poignant thoughts and words of advice we all can find helpful. Erin is unstoppable by any standard as you will see. About the Guest: Erin Edgar, Esq., is a caring, heart-centered attorney, inspirational speaker and vocal artist. She loves helping clients: -- Plan for the future of their lives and businesses, ensuring that they have the support they need and helping them find ways to provide for their loved ones upon death. --Ensure that the leave a legacy of love and reflect client values -- Find creative ways that allow them to impact the world with a lasting legacy. She is passionate about connecting with clients on a heart level. She loves witnessing her clients as she guides them to transform their intentions for their loved ones into a lasting legacy through the estate planning process. Erin speaks about ways to meld proven legal tools, strategies, and customization with the creative process to design legal solutions that give people peace of mind, clarity, and the assurance that their loved ones will be taken care of, and the world will be left a better place Ways to connect with Erin: Facebook: https://facebook.com/erin-edgar-legal LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/erinedgar About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson ** 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us.   Michael Hingson ** 01:21 Hi everyone, and welcome to another edition of unstoppable mindset. We're glad that you're here with us, wherever you may be. Hope the day is going well, and we have Erin Edgar on our episode today. Edgar is a very interesting person in a lot of ways. She's a caring, heart centered attorney. She is also an inspirational speaker and a vocal artist. I'm not sure whether vocal artistry comes into play when she's in the courtroom, but we won't worry about that too much. I assume that you don't sing to your judges when you're trying to deal with something. But anyway, I'll let her answer that. I'm just trying to cause trouble, but Erin again. We're really glad you're with us. We really appreciate you being here, and I know you do a lot with estate planning and other kinds of things that'll be fun to talk about. So welcome to unstoppable mindset.   Erin Edgar ** 02:14 Thank you, Michael. It's great to be here, and I haven't sung in a courtroom or a courthouse yet, but I wouldn't rule it out.   Michael Hingson ** 02:23 I have someone who I know who also has a guide dog and his diet. His guide dog, it's been a while since I've seen him, but his guide dog tended to be very vocal, especially at unexpected times, and he said that occasionally happened in the courtroom, which really busted up the place. Oh, dear.   Erin Edgar ** 02:45 I imagine that would draw some smiles, hopefully, smiles.   Michael Hingson ** 02:48 Well, they were, yeah, do you, do you appear in court much?   Erin Edgar ** 02:53 Um, no, the type of law that I practice, I'm usually, I don't think I've ever appeared in court after I've written people's wills, but I have done previous things where I was in court mediating disputes, which is a kind of a separate thing that I used to do, so I've been in court just not recently. Yeah.   Michael Hingson ** 03:17 Well, that's understandable. Well, let's start a little bit with the early Erin and growing up and all that sort of stuff. Tell us about that? Sure.   Erin Edgar ** 03:26 So I was born in cold, gray Indiana, and, yeah, chilly in the wintertime, and I started out I was blind from birth, so my parents thought it would be a good idea to send me to the school for the blind for a while. And back when I was born, um, teen years ago, they did not mainstream visually impaired and disabled students in that state, so you went where you could, and I was at the blind school for until I reached third grade, and then we moved to Georgia, and I've been in the south ever since I live in North Carolina now, and I started going to public schools in fourth grade, and continued on that route all the way up through high school.   Michael Hingson ** 04:21 Oh, okay. And so then, what did you do?   Erin Edgar ** 04:29 So after, after that, I, you know, I was one of those high school students. I really wanted to get out of dodge and leave my high school behind. I went visiting a couple of colleges in Georgia, and I said to my parents, I said, I really don't like this. It's like going to high school again. Literally, I was meeting people I had been in high school with, and I decided, and was very grateful that my parents. Were able to rig it some way so that I could go to an out of state school. And I went to UNC Chapel Hill here in North Carolina, Tar Heels all the way. And I was there for undergrad. And then I got into law school there as well, which I was very excited about, because I didn't have to go anywhere, and graduated from law school again a while ago in the early 2000s   Michael Hingson ** 05:31 Okay, and so then you went straight into law from that.   Erin Edgar ** 05:37 I didn't I did some other things before I actually went into law itself. I worked with some local advocacy organizations, and I also mediated, as I said earlier, I did mediations with the county court, helping mediate criminal disputes. And we're talking about like things with you get in a dispute with your neighbor and you yell at each other, those kind of People's Court type things. They were fun and interesting. And then I did go into law. After that, I started working with Legal Aid of North Carolina, which is a an organization that helps people in poverty who cannot afford a lawyer to go and have have their options communicated to them and some help given to them regarding their public benefits or certain other, you know, public things that we could help with we weren't able to help with any personal injury, or, you know, any of the fun stuff you see on TV. So and then, when the pandemic hit, I started my own law practice and completely changed gears and went into writing estate plans and wills for a living.   Michael Hingson ** 07:07 Do you think that your time doing mediation work and so on taught you a lot about humanity and human nature and people?   Erin Edgar ** 07:16 It did. I bet it did. It was invaluable, actually, in that area taught me a lot about, I don't know necessarily, about human nature. However, it did teach me a lot about how to talk to people who were on different pages. You know, they had, perhaps, values and principles that weren't quite the same, where they had a different way of looking at the same exact situation, and how to bring those those people together and allow them to connect on a deeper level, rather than the argument we're able to get them to agree to kind of move forward from that, so nobody has to be found guilty, right? And you know a judge doesn't have and you don't have to drag a criminal conviction around with you. I think the most rewarding cases that I had, by far were the education cases. Because I don't know if anyone knows this, but in most states, in the United States, if you don't send your kids to school, you are guilty of a crime. It's called truancy, and you can be arrested. Well, the county that I live in was very forward thinking, and the school system and the court said, that's kind of dumb. We don't want to arrest parents if their kids aren't going to school, there's something behind it. You know, there the school is not providing what the child needs. The child's acting out for some reason, and we need to get to the bottom of it. So what they did was they set up a process whereby we come in as neutral observers. We did not work for the court. We were part of a separate organization, and have a school social worker there or counselor, and also have a parent there, and they could talk through the issues. And in a lot of cases, if the children were old enough, they were teenagers, they were there, and they could talk about it from their perspective. And truly amazing things came out of those situations. We could just we would discover that the children had a behavioral issue or even a disability that had not been recognized, and were able to come up with plans to address that with you know, or the school was with our help,   Michael Hingson ** 09:42 going back a little bit, how did your parents deal with the fact that you were blind? I gather it was a fairly positive experience   Erin Edgar ** 09:50 for me. It was positive. I was so fortunate, and I'm still so grateful to this day for having parents who you. I were very forward thinking, and advocated for me to have and do whatever, not whatever I wanted, because I was far from spoiled, but, you know, whatever, yeah, yeah, you know. But whatever, however I wanted to be successful, they advocated for me. And so my mother actually told me, you know, when I was born, they went through all the parent things like, oh, gosh, what did we do wrong? You know, why is God punishing us? You know, all that. And they, very early on, found support groups for, you know, parents with children with either blindness or disabilities of some sort, and that was a great source of help to them. And as I grew up, they made every effort to ensure that I had people who could teach me, if they couldn't, you know, how to interact with other children. I think, for a while when I was very little, and I actually kind of remember this, they hired an occupational therapist to come and teach me how to play with kids, because not only was I blind, but I was an only child, so I didn't have brothers and sisters to interact with, and that whole play thing was kind of a mystery to me, and I remember it sort of vaguely, but that's just A demonstration that they wanted me to have the best life possible and to be fully integrated into the sighted world as much as possible. So when I was at the blind school, and I was in this residential environment, and there was an added bonus that my parents didn't really weren't happy in their jobs either, and they weren't happy with the education I was getting, that they decided, well, we're just going to pick up and move and that was, quite frankly, as I look back on it now, a huge risk for them. And they did it, you know, 50% for me and 50% for them, maybe even 6040, but as I look back on it now, it's another demonstration of how supportive they were, and all the way through my school age years, were very active in ensuring that I had everything that I needed and that I had the support that I needed.   Michael Hingson ** 12:19 That's cool. How did it go when you went to college at UNC?   Erin Edgar ** 12:25 Yeah, that's an interesting question, a very good question.   Michael Hingson ** 12:29 You didn't play basketball, I assume? Oh no, I figured you had other things to do.   Erin Edgar ** 12:33 Yeah, I had other stuff to do. I sang in the choir and sang with the medieval chorus group, and, you know, all this other, like, musical geek, geeky stuff. But, or, and when we were looking for colleges and universities, one of the criteria was they had to have a solid kind of, like disability, slash visually impaired center, or, you know, support staff that would help in, you know, allow people with disabilities to go through the university. So at UNC Chapel Hill, the they had as part of their student affairs department Disability Services, and it just so happened that they were very aware of accommodations that blind people needed. I wasn't the first blind student to go through undergrad there. That's not law school, that's undergrad. And so you know, how much was it? Time and a half on on tests if I was doing them on the computer, double time if I was doing them in Braille. A lot of the tests were in Braille because they had the technology to do it. And also the gentleman who ran the Disability Services Department, I think, knew Braille, if I'm not mistaken, and could transcribe if necessary. But I was at the stage at that point where I was typing most of my exams anyway, and didn't need much that was in Braille, because I had books either electronically or they had a network of folks in the community that would volunteer to read if there was not, you know, available textbooks from RFD, and what is it, RFP and D? Now was at the time, yeah, now Learning Ally, there wasn't a Bookshare at that time, so we couldn't use Bookshare, but if there weren't textbooks available, they would have people in the community who would read them for them, and they would get paid a little bit. Now, when I went to law school, it was a totally different ball game, because I was the first law student who was blind, that UNC Chapel Hill had had, and it was a different school within the school, so that student affairs department was not part of law school anymore, and we had quite a time the first semester getting my book. Works in a format that I could read them in. They did eventually, kind of broker a deal, if you will, with the publishers who were either Thompson Reuters or Westlaw at the time to get electronic versions. They were floppy disks. This is how old I am. Floppy disks. They were in this weird format. I think it was word perfect or something. Usually it was, and they   Michael Hingson ** 15:27 didn't really have a lot of them new or no, they didn't know now, newer publishing system,   Erin Edgar ** 15:32 yeah, there wasn't PDF even, I don't think, at the time. And the agreement was I could get those, and I actually had to buy the print textbooks as well. So I have this whole bookcase of law books that are virgin, unopened, almost. And they are, you know, some of them almost 25 years old, never been opened and of no use to anyone. But I have them, and they look nice sitting down there in that bookshelf antiques books. They're antiques. So the first year was a little rough, because for a while I didn't have books, and we were able to make arrangements so that I could kind of make up some classes on a later year and switch things around a little bit. And it ended up all working out really well once we got started.   Michael Hingson ** 16:16 Yeah, I remember when I was going through getting my bachelor's and master's in physics, I needed the books in braille because, well, it's the only way to be able to really deal with the subject. You can't do it nearly as well from recordings, although now there's a little bit better capability through recording, because we have the DayZ format and so on. But still, it's not the same as reading it in Braille and for mathematics and physics and so on. I think that the only way to really do it is in Braille. And we had challenges because professors didn't want to decide what books to use until the last minute, because then, oh, a new book might be coming out and we want to get the latest book, and that didn't work for me, right? Because I had a network that I, in part, I developed with the Department of Rehabilitation out here, helped our office for disabled students didn't really have the resources to know it. They were very supportive. They just didn't really deal with it. But the bottom line is that we had to develop, I had to develop the network of transcribers, but they needed three to six months to do the books, at least three months and and sometimes I would get them one or two volumes at a time, and they barely kept ahead of the class. But, you know, it worked, but professors resisted it. And my the person who ran the Office for Students with Disabilities, said, Look, you have to work on these things, but if you're not getting cooperation from professors, and you come and tell me, and I will use the power of this office to get you what you need, there's another thing you might consider doing, she said. And I said, What's that? And Jan said, Go meet the chancellor. Make friends, yeah, friends in high places. And so I did. And Dan, oh, there you go. Became pretty good friends over the years, which was pretty cool,   Erin Edgar ** 18:15 you know, it was weird because we didn't, I didn't have that problem with the professors. They were, you know, I had a couple of old codgers, but they weren't really worried about the books. They were fine with me having the books, but it was the publishers. The publishers were irritated that that I needed them, and, you know, in an alternative format. And I didn't really, I was not. I was one of those people that if someone said they were going to do something for me, I kind of let people do it. And at the time, I was really not an advocate, advocator for myself, at that time, a very good self advocate. And so I kind of let the school interface with that. I think it would have been really interesting, if I look back on it, for me to have taken a hand in that. And I wonder what would have happened well, and at this point, you know, it's neither here nor there, but that's really fascinating. Making Friends with the chancellor, sometimes you have to do stuff like that   Michael Hingson ** 19:15 well. And the idea was really to get to know Him. And what there was, well, obviously other motivations, like, if we needed to go to a higher court to get help, we could go to the chancellor. I never had to do that, but, but the reason for meeting him and getting to know him was really just to do it and to have fun doing it. So we did,   Erin Edgar ** 19:36 yeah, and I kind of had a comparable experience. I met the Dean of the Law School for that very reason. And he said, you know, if you've got trouble, come to me, my parents got involved a little bit. And we all, you know, met together and maybe even separately at some points just to make sure that I had everything that I needed at various times. Mm. Yeah, and I made friends with the some of the assistant deans at the law school, in particular because of the situation, and one of whom was the Dean of the Law School Student Affairs, who was helping me to get what I needed. And for a while, when I was in law school and beyond. He was like, We lent books to each other. It was very funny. We found out we had the same reading tastes beyond law books. It wasn't, you know, legal at all, but we were like, trading books and things. So a lot of really good relationships came out of that.   Michael Hingson ** 20:37 And I think that's extremely important to to do. And I think that's one of the things that that offices for students with disabilities that tend to want to do everything for you. I think that's one of the things that it's a problem with those offices, because if you don't learn to do them, and if you don't learn to do them in college, how are you going to be able to be able to really act independently and as an advocate after college, so you have to learn that stuff   Erin Edgar ** 21:05 Absolutely. That's a very good point.   Michael Hingson ** 21:09 So I, I think it was extremely important to do it, and we did, and had a lot of fun doing it. So it was, was good. What are some of the biggest misconceptions you think that people had about you as a blind child growing up?   Erin Edgar ** 21:25 Oh yeah, that's a great question. I think that one of the biggest misconceptions that people had about me, especially when I was younger, is that I would know I would be sort of relegated to staying at home with parents all of my life, or being a stay at home parent and not able to be kind of professionally employed and earning, you know, earning a living wage. Now, I have my own business, and that's where most of my money goes at the same at this point. So, you know, earning a living wage might be up in the air at the moment. Ha, ha. But the the one thing I think that the biggest misconception that people had, and this is even like teachers at the blind school, it was very rare for blind children of my age to grow up and be, you know, professionals in, I don't want to say high places, but like people able to support themselves without a government benefit backing them up. And it was kind of always assumed that we would be in that category, that we would be less able than our sighted peers to do that. And so that was a huge misconception, even you know, in the school that I was attending. I think that was the, really the main one and one misconception that I had then and still have today, is that if I'm blind, I can't speak for myself. This still happens today. For instance, if I'm if I want, if I'm going somewhere and I just happen to be with someone sighted, they will talk whoever I'm, wherever I'm at, they will talk to the sighted person, right? They won't talk to you. They won't talk to me. And so, for instance, simple example, if I'm somewhere with my husband, and we happen to be walking together and we go somewhere that I need to go, they will talk to him because he's guiding me, and they won't talk. And he's like, don't talk to me. I have no idea, you know, talk to her, and part of that is I'm half a step behind him. People naturally gravitate to the people that are leading. However, I noticed, even when I was a young adult, and I would go, you know, to the doctor, and I would be with my my parents, like, maybe I'm visiting them, and I need to go to the doctor, they would talk to them and not me, yeah, which is kind of sad. And I think it happens a lot, a lot more than people realize.   Michael Hingson ** 24:10 Yeah, it does. And one of my favorite stories is, is this, I got married in 1982 and my wife has always been, or had always been. She passed away in 2022 but she was always in a wheelchair. And we went to a restaurant one Saturday for breakfast. We were standing at the counter waiting to be seated, and the hostess was behind the counter, and nothing was happening. And finally, Karen said to me, she doesn't know who to talk to, you know? Because Karen, of course, is, is in a wheelchair, so actually, she's clearly shorter than this, this person behind the counter, and then there's me and and, of course, I'm not making eye contact, and so Karen just said she doesn't know who to talk to. I said, you know? All she's gotta do is ask us where we would like to sit or if we'd like to have breakfast, and we can make it work. Well, she she got the message, and she did, and the rest of the the day went fine, but that was really kind of funny, that we had two of us, and she just didn't know how to deal with either of us, which was kind of cute. Mm, hmm. Well, you know, it brings up another question. You use the term earlier, visually impaired. There's been a lot of effort over the years. A lot of the professionals, if you will, created this whole terminology of visually impaired, and they say, well, you're blind or you're visually impaired. And visually impaired means you're not totally blind, but, but you're still visually impaired. And finally, blind people, I think, are starting to realize what people who are deaf learned a long time ago, and that is that if you take take a deaf person and you refer to them as hearing impaired, there's no telling what they might do to you, because they recognize that impaired is not true and they shouldn't be equated with people who have all of their hearing. So it's deaf or hard of hearing, which is a whole lot less of an antagonistic sort of concept than hearing impaired. We're starting to get blind people, and not everyone's there yet, and we're starting to get agencies, and not every agency is there yet, to recognize that it's blind or low vision, as opposed to blind or here or visually impaired, visually impaired. What do you think about that? How does and how does that contribute to the attitudes that people had toward you?   Erin Edgar ** 26:38 Yeah, so when I was growing up, I was handicapped, yeah, there was that too, yeah, yeah, that I was never fond of that, and my mother softened it for me, saying, well, we all have our handicaps or shortcomings, you know, and but it was really, what was meant was you had Something that really held you back. I actually, I say, this is so odd. I always, I usually say I'm totally blind. Because when I say blind, the immediate question people have is, how blind are you? Yeah, which gets back to stuff, yeah, yeah. If you're blind, my opinion, if you're blind, you're you're blind, and if you have low vision, you have partial sight. And visually impaired used to be the term, you know, when I was younger, that people use, and that's still a lot. It's still used a lot, and I will use it occasionally, generally. I think that partially sighted, I have partial vision is, is what I've heard people use. That's what, how my husband refers to himself. Low Vision is also, you know, all those terms are much less pejorative than actually being impaired,   Michael Hingson ** 27:56 right? That's kind of really the issue, yeah. My, my favorite example of all of this is a past president of the National Federation of the Blind, Ken Jernigan, you've heard of him, I assume, Oh, sure. He created a document once called a definition of blindness, and his definition, he goes through and discusses various conditions, and he asks people if, if you meet these conditions, are you blind or not? But then what he eventually does is he comes up with a definition, and his definition, which I really like, is you are blind if your eyesight has decreased to the point where you have to use alternatives to full eyesight in order to function, which takes into account totally blind and partially blind people. Because the reality is that most of those people who are low vision will probably, or they may probably, lose the rest of their eyesight. And the agencies have worked so hard to tell them, just use your eyesight as best you can. And you know you may need to use a cane, but use your eyesight as best you can, and if you go blind, then we're going to have to teach you all over again, rather than starting by saying blindness is really okay. And the reality is that if you learn the techniques now, then you can use the best of all worlds.   Erin Edgar ** 29:26 I would agree with that. I would also say you should, you know, people should use what they have. Yeah, using everything you have is okay. And I think there's a lot of a lot of good to be said for learning the alternatives while you're still able to rely on something else.   Michael Hingson ** 29:49 Point taken exactly you know, because   Erin Edgar ** 29:53 as you age, you get more and more in the habit of doing things one way, and it's. Very hard to break out of that. And if you haven't learned an alternative, there's nothing you feel like. There's nothing to fall back on, right? And it's even harder because now you're in the situation of urgency where you feel like you're missing something and you're having to learn something new, whereas if you already knew it and knew different ways to rely on things you would be just like picking a memory back up, rather than having to learn something new. Well, I've never been in that position, so I can't say, but in the abstract, I think that's a good definition.   Michael Hingson ** 30:34 Well, there are a lot of examples, like, take a person who has some eyesight, and they're not encouraged to use a cane. And I know someone who was in this situation. I think I've told the story on this podcast, but he lived in New Jersey and was travel. And traveled every day from New Jersey into Philadelphia to work, and he was on a reasonably cloudy day, was walking along. He had been given a cane by the New Jersey Commission for the Blind, but he they didn't really stress the value of using it. And so he was walking along the train to go in, and he came to the place where he could turn in and go into the car. And he did, and promptly fell between two cars because he wasn't at the right place. And then the train actually started to move, but they got it stopped, and so he was okay, but as as he tells the story, he certainly used his cane from then on. Because if he had been using the cane, even though he couldn't see it well because it was dark, or not dark, cloudy, he would have been able to see that he was not at the place where the car entrance was, but rather he was at the junction between two cars. And there's so many examples of that. There's so many reasons why it's important to learn the skills. Should a partially blind or a low vision person learn to read Braille? Well, depends on circumstances, of course, I think, to a degree, but the value of learning Braille is that you have an alternative to full print, especially if there's a likelihood that you're going to lose the rest of your eyesight. If you psychologically do it now, that's also going to psychologically help you prepare better for not having any eyesight later.   Erin Edgar ** 32:20 And of course, that leads to to blind children these days learn how to read, yeah, which is another issue.   Michael Hingson ** 32:28 Which is another issue because educators are not teaching Braille nearly as much as they should, and the literacy rate is so low. And the fact of the matter is even with George Kircher, who invented the whole DAISY format and and all the things that you can do with the published books and so on. The reality is there is still something to be said for learning braille. You don't have sighted children just watching television all the time, although sometimes my parents think they do, but, but the point is that they learn to read, and there's a value of really learning to read. I've been in an audience where a blind speaker was delivering a speech, and he didn't know or use Braille. He had a device that was, I think what he actually used was a, was, it was a Victor Reader Stream, which is   Erin Edgar ** 33:24 one of those, right?   Michael Hingson ** 33:25 I think it was that it may have been something else, but the bottom line is, he had his speech written out, and he would play it through earphones, and then he would verbalize his speech. Oh, no, that's just mess me up. Oh, it would. It was very disjointed and and I think that for me, personally, I read Braille pretty well, but I don't like to read speeches at all. I want to engage the audience, and so it's really important to truly speak with the audience and not read or do any of those other kinds of things.   Erin Edgar ** 33:57 I would agree. Now I do have a Braille display that I, I use, and, you know, I do use it for speeches. However, I don't put the whole speech on   Michael Hingson ** 34:10 there that I me too. I have one, and I use it for, I know, I have notes. Mm, hmm,   Erin Edgar ** 34:16 notes, yeah. And so I feel like Braille, especially for math. You know, when you said math and physics, like, Yeah, I can't imagine doing math without Braille. That just doesn't, you know, I can't imagine it, and especially in, you know, geometry and trigonometry with those diagrams. I don't know how you would do it without a Braille textbook, but yeah, there. There's certainly something to be said for for the the wonderful navigation abilities with, you know, e published audio DAISY books. However, it's not a substitute for knowing how to   Michael Hingson ** 34:55 read. Well, how are you going to learn to spell? How are you going to really learn sit? Structure, how are you going to learn any of those basic skills that sighted kids get if you don't use Braille? Absolutely, I think that that's one of the arenas where the educational system, to a large degree, does such a great disservice to blind kids because it won't teach them Braille.   Erin Edgar ** 35:16 Agreed, agreed. Well, thank you for this wonderful spin down Braille, Braille reading lane here. That was fun.   Michael Hingson ** 35:27 Well, so getting back to you a little bit, you must have thought or realized that probably when you went into law, you were going to face some challenges. But what was the defining moment that made you decide you're going to go into law, and what kind of challenges have you faced? If you face challenges, my making an assumption, but you know what?   Erin Edgar ** 35:45 Oh, sure. So the defining moment when I decided I wanted to go into law. It was a very interesting time for me. I was teenager. Don't know exactly how old I was, but I think I was in high school, and I had gone through a long period where I wanted to, like, be a music major and go into piano and voice and be a performer in those arenas, and get a, you know, high level degree whatnot. And then I began having this began becoming very interested in watching the Star Trek television series. Primarily I was out at the time the next generation, and I was always fascinated by the way that these people would find these civilizations on these planets, and they would be at odds in the beginning, and they would be at each other's throats, and then by the end of the day, they were all kind of   Michael Hingson ** 36:43 liking each other. And John Luke Picard didn't play a flute,   Erin Edgar ** 36:47 yes, and he also turned into a Borg, which was traumatic for me. I had to rate local summer to figure out what would happen. I was in I was in trauma. Anyway, my my father and I bonded over that show. It was, it was a wonderful sort of father daughter thing. We did it every weekend. And I was always fascinated by, like, the whole, the whole aspect of different ideologies coming together. And it always seemed to me that that's what human humanity should be about. As I, you know, got older, I thought, how could I be involved in helping people come together? Oh, let's go into law. Because, you know, our government's really good at that. That was the high school student in me. And I thought at the time, I wanted to go into the Foreign Service and work in the international field and help, you know, on a net, on a you know, foreign policy level. I quickly got into law school and realized two things simultaneously in my second year, international law was very boring, and there were plenty of problems in my local community that I could help solve, like, why work on the international stage when people in my local community are suffering in some degree with something and so I completely changed my focus to wanting to work in an area where I could bring people together and work for, you know, work on an individualized level. And as I went into the legal field, that was, it was part of the reason I went into the mediation, because that was one of the things that we did, was helping people come together. I realized, though, as I became a lawyer and actually started working in the field, most of the legal system is not based on that. It's based on who has the best argument. I wanted no part of that. Yeah, I want no part of that at all. I want to bring people together. Still, the Star Trek mentality is working here, and so when I when I started my own law firm, my immediate question to myself was, how can I now that I'm out doing my own thing, actually bring people together? And the answer that I got was help families come together, especially people thinking about their end of life decisions and gathering their support team around them. Who they want to help them? If they are ever in a situation where they become ill and they can't manage their affairs, or if you know upon their death, who do they want to help them and support them. And how can I use the law to allow that to happen? And so that's how I am working, to use the law for healing and bringing people together, rather than rather than winning an argument.   Michael Hingson ** 39:59 Yeah. Yeah, well, and I think there's a lot of merit to that. I I value the law a great deal, and I I am not an attorney or anything like that, but I have worked in the world of legislation, and I've worked in the world of dealing with helping to get legislation passed and and interacting with lawyers. And my wife and I worked with an attorney to set up our our trust, and then couple of years ago, I redid it after she passed away. And so I think that there was a lot of a lot of work that attorneys do that is extremely important. Yeah, there are, there are attorneys that were always dealing with the best arguments, and probably for me, the most vivid example of that, because it was so captivating when it happened, was the whole OJ trial back in the 1990s we were at a county fair, and we had left going home and turned on the radio, only To hear that the police were following OJ, and they finally arrested him. And then when the trial occurred, we while I was working at a company, and had a radio, and people would would come around, and we just had the radio on, and followed the whole trial. And it was interesting to see all the manipulation and all the movement, and you're right. It came down to who had the best argument, right or wrong?   Erin Edgar ** 41:25 The bloody glove. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Yeah, yep, I remember that. I remember where I was when they arrested him, too. I was at my grandparents house, and we were watching it on TV. My grandfather was captivated by the whole thing. But yes, there's certainly, you know, some manipulation. There's also, there are also lawyers who do a lot of good and a lot of wonderful things. And in reality, you know, most cases don't go to trial. They're settled in some way. And so, you know, there isn't always, you know, who has the best argument. It's not always about that, right? And at the same time, that is, you know, what the system is based on, to some extent. And really, when our country was founded, our founding fathers were a bunch of, like, acted in a lot of ways, like a bunch of children. If you read books on, you know, the Constitution, it was, it was all about, you know, I want this in here, and I want that in here. And, you know, a lot of argument around that, which, of course, is to be expected. And many of them did not expect our country's government to last beyond their lifetimes. Uh, James Madison was the exception, but all the others were like, Ed's going to fail. And yet, I am very, very proud to be a lawyer in this country, because while it's not perfect, our founding documents actually have a lot of flexibility and how and can be interpreted to fit modern times, which is, I think the beauty of them and exactly what the Founders intended for.   Michael Hingson ** 43:15 Yeah, and I do think that some people are taking advantage of that and causing some challenges, but that's also part of our country and part of our government. I like something Jimmy Carter once said, which was, we must adjust to changing times while holding to unwavering principles. And I think absolutely that's the part that I think sometimes is occasionally being lost, that we forget those principles, or we want to manipulate the principles and make them something that they're not. But he was absolutely right. That is what we need to do, and we can adjust to changing times without sacrificing principles. Absolutely.   Erin Edgar ** 43:55 I firmly believe that, and I would like to kind of turn it back to what we were talking about before, because you actually asked me, What are some challenges that I have faced, and if it's okay with you, I would like to get back to that. Oh, sure. Okay. Well, so I have faced some challenges for you know, to a large extent, though I was very well accommodated. I mean, the one challenge with the books that was challenging when I took the bar exam, oh, horror of horrors. It was a multiple, multiple shot deal, but it finally got done. However, it was not, you know, my failing to pass the first time or times was not the fault of the actual board of law examiners. They were very accommodating. I had to advocate for myself a little bit, and I also had to jump through some hoops. For example, I had to bring my own person to bubble in my responses on the multiple choice part, it. And bring my own person in to kind of monitor me while I did the essay portion. But they allowed me to have a computer, they allowed me to have, you know, the screen reader. They allowed me to have time and a half to do the the exam. And so we're accommodating in that way. And so no real challenges there. You know, some hoops to jump through. But it got all worked out.   Michael Hingson ** 45:23 And even so, some of that came about because blind people actually had to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Yes, the bar to the Bar Association to recognize that those things needed to be that way,   Erin Edgar ** 45:37 absolutely. And so, you know, I was lucky to come into this at a time where that had already been kind of like pre done for me. I didn't have to deal with that as a challenge. And so the only other challenges I had, some of them, were mine, like, you know, who's going to want to hire this blind person? Had a little bit of, you know, kind of challenge there, with that mindset issue for a while there, and I did have some challenges when I was looking for employment after I'd worked for legal aid for a while, and I wanted to move on and do something else. And I knew I didn't want to work for a big, big firm, and I would, I was talking to some small law firms about hiring me, small to mid size firms. And I would get the question of, well, you're blind, so what kind of accommodations do you need? And we would talk about, you know, computer, special software to make a talk, you know, those kinds of things. And it always ended up that, you know, someone else was hired. And I can, you know, I don't have proof that the blindness and the hesitancy around hiring a disabled person or a blind person was in back of that decision. And at the same time, I had the sense that there was some hesitation there as well, so that, you know, was a bit of a challenge, and starting my own law firm was its own challenge, because I had to experiment with several different software systems to Find one that was accessible enough for me to use. And the system I'm thinking about in particular, I wouldn't use any other system, and yet, I'm using practically the most expensive estate planning drafting system out there, because it happens to be the most accessible. It's also the most expensive. Always that. There's always that. And what's it called? I'm curious. It's called wealth Council, okay, wealth. And then the word councils, Council, SEL, and it's wonderful. And the folks there are very responsive. If I say something's not accessible, I mean, they have fixed things for me in the past. Isn't that great? And complain, isn't that wonderful? It is wonderful. And that's, that's awesome. I had a CRM experience with a couple of different like legal CRM software. I used one for a while, and it was okay. But then, you know, everyone else said this other one was better and it was actually less accessible. So I went back to the previous one, you know. So I have to do a lot of my own testing, which is kind of a challenge in and of itself. I don't have people testing software for me. I have to experiment and test and in some cases, pay for something for a while before I realize it's not, you know, not worth it. But now I have those challenges pretty much ironed out. And I have a paralegal who helps me do some things that, like she proof reads my documents, for instance, because otherwise there may be formatting things that I'm not, that I miss. And so I have the ability to have cited assistance with things that I can't necessarily do myself, which is, you know, absolutely fine,   Michael Hingson ** 49:04 yeah. Now, do you use Lexus? Is it accessible?   Erin Edgar ** 49:08 I don't need Lexus, yeah, yeah. I mean, I have, I'm a member of the Bar Association, of my, my state bar association, which is not, not voluntary. It's mandatory. But I'm a member primarily because they have a search, a legal search engine that they work with that we get for free. I mean, with our members, there you go. So there you go. So I don't need Lexus or West Law or any of those other search engines for what I do. And if I was, like, really into litigation and going to court all time and really doing deep research, I would need that. But I don't. I can use the one that they have, that we can use so and it's, it's a entirely web based system. It's fairly accessible   Michael Hingson ** 49:58 well, and. That makes it easier to as long as you've got people's ears absolutely make it accessible, which makes a lot of sense.   Erin Edgar ** 50:08 Yeah, it certainly does well.   Michael Hingson ** 50:10 So do you regard yourself as a resilient person? Has blindness impacted that or helped make that kind of more the case for you? Do you think I do resilience is such an overused term, but it's fair. I know   Erin Edgar ** 50:24 I mean resilience is is to my mind, a resilient person is able to face uh, challenges with a relatively positive outlook in and view a challenge as something to be to be worked through rather than overcome, and so yes, I do believe that blindness, in and of itself, has allowed me to find ways to adapt to situations and pivot in cases where, you know, I need to find an alternative to using a mouse. For instance, how would I do that? And so in other areas of life, I am, you know, because I'm blind, I'm able to more easily pivot into finding alternative solutions. I do believe that that that it has made me more resilient.   Michael Hingson ** 51:25 Do you think that being blind has caused you, and this is an individual thing, because I think that there are those who don't. But do you think that it's caused you to learn to listen better?   Erin Edgar ** 51:39 That's a good question, because I actually, I have a lot of sighted friends, and one of the things that people just assume is that, wow, you must be a really good listener. Well, my husband would tell you that's not always the case. Yeah. My wife said the same thing, yeah. You know, like everyone else, sometimes I hear what I want to hear in a conversation and at the same time, one of the things that I do tell people is that, because I'm blind, I do rely on other senses more, primarily hearing, I would say, and that hearing provides a lot of cues for me about my environment, and I've learned to be more skillful at it. So I, I would say that, yes, I am a good listener in terms of my environment, very sensitive to that in in my environment, in terms of active listening to conversations and being able to listen to what's behind what people say, which is another aspect of listening. I think that that is a skill that I've developed over time with conscious effort. I don't think I'm any better of a quote, unquote listener than anybody else. If I hadn't developed that primarily in in my mediation, when I was doing that, that was a huge thing for us, was to be able to listen, not actually to what people were saying, but what was behind what people were saying, right? And so I really consciously developed that skill during those years and took it with me into my legal practice, which is why I am very, very why I very much stress that I'm not only an attorney, but I'm also a counselor at law. That doesn't mean I'm a therapist, but it does mean I listen to what people say so that and what's behind what people say, so that with the ear towards providing them the legal solution that meets their needs as they describe them in their words.   Michael Hingson ** 53:47 Well, I think for me, I learned to listen, but it but it is an exercise, and it is something that you need to practice, and maybe I learned to do it a little bit better, because I was blind. For example, I learned to ride a bike, and you have to learn to listen to what's going on around you so you don't crash into cars. Oh, but I'd fall on my face. You can do it. But what I what I really did was, when I was I was working at a company, and was told that the job was going to be phased out because I wasn't a revenue producer, and the company was an engineering startup and had to bring in more revenue producers. And I was given the choice of going away or going into sales, which I had never done. And as I love to tell people, I lowered my standards and went from science to sales. But the reality is that that I think I've always and I think we all always sell in one way or another, but I also knew what the unemployment rate among employable blind people was and is, yeah, and so I went into sales with with no qualms. But there I really learned to listen. And and it was really a matter of of learning to commit, not just listen, but really learning to communicate with the people you work with. And I think that that I won't say blindness made me better, but what it did for me was it made me use the technologies like the telephone, perhaps more than some other people. And I did learn to listen better because I worked at it, not because I was blind, although they're related   Erin Edgar ** 55:30 exactly. Yeah, and I would say, I would 100% agree I worked at it. I mean, even when I was a child, I worked at listening to to become better at, kind of like analyzing my environment based on sounds that were in it. Yeah, I wouldn't have known. I mean, it's not a natural gift, as some people assume, yeah, it's something you practice and you have to work at. You get to work at.   Michael Hingson ** 55:55 Well, as I point out, there are people like SEAL Team Six, the Navy Seals and the Army Rangers and so on, who also practice using all of their senses, and they learn, in general, to become better at listening and other and other kinds of skills, because they have to to survive, but, but that's what we all do, is if we do it, right, we're learning it. It's not something that's just naturally there, right? I agree, which I think is important. So you're working in a lot of estate planning and so on. And I mentioned earlier that we it was back in 1995 we originally got one, and then it's now been updated, but we have a trust. What's the difference between having, like a trust and a will?   Erin Edgar ** 56:40 Well, that's interesting that you should ask. So A will is the minimum that pretty much, I would say everyone needs, even though 67% of people don't have one in the US. And it is pretty much what everyone needs. And it basically says, you know, I'm a, I'm a person of sound mind, and I know who is important to me and what I have that's important to me. And I wanted to go to these people who are important to me, and by the way, I want this other person to manage things after my death. They're also important to me and a trust, basically, there are multiple different kinds of trusts, huge numbers of different kinds. And the trust that you probably are referring to takes the will to kind of another level and provides more direction about about how to handle property and how how it's to be dealt with, not only after death, but also during your lifetime. And trusts are relatively most of them, like I said, there are different kinds, but they can be relatively flexible, and you can give more direction about how to handle that property than you can in a will, like, for instance, if you made an estate plan and your kids were young, well, I don't want my children to have access to this property until they're responsible adults. So maybe saying, in a trust until they're age 25 you can do that, whereas in a will, you it's more difficult to do that.   Michael Hingson ** 58:18 And a will, as I understand it, is a lot more easily contested than than a trust.   Erin Edgar ** 58:24 You know, it does depend, but yes, it is easily contested. That's not to say that if you have a trust, you don't need a will, which is a misconception that some, yeah, we have a will in our trust, right? And so, you know, you need the will for the court. Not everyone needs a trust. I would also venture to say that if you don't have a will on your death, the law has ideas about how your property should be distributed. So if you don't have a will, you know your property is not automatically going to go to the government as unclaimed, but if you don't have powers of attorney for your health care and your finance to help you out while you're alive, you run the risk of the A judge appointing someone you would not want to make your health care and financial decisions. And so I'm going to go off on a tangent here. But I do feel very strongly about this, even blind people who and disabled people who are, what did you call it earlier, the the employable blind community, but maybe they're not employed. They don't have a lot of   Michael Hingson ** 59:34 unemployed, unemployed, the unemployable blind people, employable   Erin Edgar ** 59:38 blind people, yes, you know, maybe they're not employed, they're on a government benefit. They don't have a lot of assets. Maybe they don't necessarily need that will. They don't have to have it. And at the same time, if they don't have those, those documents that allow people to manage their affairs during their lifetime. Um, who's going to do it? Yeah, who's going to do that? Yeah, you're giving up control of your body, right, potentially, to someone you would not want, just because you're thinking to yourself, well, I don't need a will, and nothing's going to happen to me. You're giving control of your body, perhaps, to someone you don't want. You're not taking charge of your life and and you are allowing doctors and hospitals and banks to perpetuate the belief that you are not an independent person, right? I'm very passionate about it. Excuse me, I'll get off my soapbox now. That's okay. Those are and and to a large extent, those power of attorney forms are free. You can download them from your state's website. Um, they're minimalistic. They're definitely, I don't use them because I don't like them for my state. But you can get you can use them, and you can have someone help you fill them out. You could sign them, and then look, you've made a decision about who's going to help you when you're not able to help yourself,   Michael Hingson ** 1:01:07 which is extremely important to do. And as I mentioned, we went all the way and have a trust, and we funded the trust, and everything is in the trust. But I think that is a better way to keep everything protected, and it does provide so much more direction for whoever becomes involved, when, when you decide to go elsewhere, then, as they put it, this mortal coil. Yes, I assume that the coil is mortal. I don't know.   Erin Edgar ** 1:01:37 Yeah, who knows? Um, and you know trusts are good for they're not just for the Uber wealthy, which is another misconception. Trust do some really good things. They keep your situation, they keep everything more or less private, like, you know, I said you need a will for the court. Well, the court has the will, and it most of the time. If you have a trust, it just says, I want it to go, I want my stuff to go into the Michael hingson Trust. I'm making that up, by the way, and I, you know, my trust just deals with the distribution, yeah, and so stuff doesn't get held up in court. The court doesn't have to know about all the assets that you own. It's not all public record. And that's a huge, you know, some people care. They don't want everyone to know their business. And when I tell people, you know, I can go on E courts today and pull up the estate of anyone that I want in North Carolina and find out what they owned if they didn't have a will, or if they just had a will. And people like, really, you can do that? Oh, absolutely, yeah. I don't need any fancy credentials. It's all a matter of public record. And if you have a trust that does not get put into the court record unless it's litigated, which you know, it does happen, but not often,   Michael Hingson ** 1:02:56 but I but again, I think that, you know, yeah, and I'm not one of those Uber wealthy people. But I have a house. We we used to have a wheelchair accessible van for Karen. I still have a car so that when I need to be driven somewhere, rather than using somebody else's vehicle, we use this and those are probably the two biggest assets, although I have a bank account with with some in it, not a lot, not nearly as much as Jack Benny, anyway. But anyway, the bottom line is, yeah, but the bottom line is that I think that the trust keeps everything a lot cleaner. And it makes perfect sense. Yep, it does. And I didn't even have to go to my general law firm that I usually use. Do we cheat them? Good, and how so it worked out really well. Hey, I watched the Marx Brothers. What can I say?   Erin Edgar ** 1:03:45 You watch the Marx Brothers? Of course.   Michael Hingson ** 1:03:49 Well, I want to thank you for being here. This has been a lot of fun, and I'm glad that we did it and that we also got to talk about the whole issue of wills and trusts and so on, which is, I think, important. So any last things that you'd like to say to people, and also, do you work with clients across the country or just in North Carolina?   Erin Edgar ** 1:04:06 So I work with clients in North Carolina, I will say that. And one last thing that I would like to say to people is that it's really important to build your support team. Whether you're blind, you know, have another disability, you need people to help you out on a day to day basis, or you decide that you want people to help you out. If you're unable to manage your affairs at some point in your life, it's very important to build that support team around you, and there is nothing wrong. You can be self reliant and still have people on your team yes to to be there for you, and that is very important. And there's absolutely no shame, and you're not relinquishing your independence by doing that. That. So today, I encourage everyone to start thinking about who's on your team. Do you want them on your team? Do you want different people on your team? And create a support team? However that looks like, whatever that looks like for you, that has people on it that you know, love and trust,   Michael Hingson ** 1:05:18 everybody should have a support team. I think there is no question, at least in my mind, about that. So good point. Well, if people want to maybe reach out to you, how do they do that?   Erin Edgar ** 1:05:29 Sure, so I am on the interwebs at Erin Edgar legal.com that's my website where you can learn more about my law firm and all the things that I do,   Michael Hingson ** 1:05:42 and Erin is E r i n, just Yes, say that Edgar, and   Erin Edgar ** 1:05:45 Edgar is like Edgar. Allan Poe, hopefully less scary, and you can find the contact information for me on the website. By Facebook, you can find me on Facebook occasionally as Erin Baker, Edgar, three separate words, that is my personal profile, or you can and Michael will have in the show notes the company page for my welcome as   Michael Hingson ** 1:06:11 well. Yeah. Well, thank you for being here, and I want to thank all of you for listening. This has been a fun episode. It's been great to have Erin on, love to hear your thoughts out there who have been listening to this today. Please let us know what you think. You're welcome to email me at Michael H i@accessibe.com M, I, C, H, A, E, L, H i at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S, i, b, e.com, or go to our podcast page, www, dot Michael hingson.com/podcast, I wherever you're listening, please give us a five star rating. We really appreciate getting good ratings from people and reading and getting to know what you think. If you know anyone who you think might be a good guest, you know some people you think ought to come on unstoppable mindset. Erin, of course, you as well. We would appreciate it if you'd give us an introduction, because we're always looking for more people to have come on and help us show everyone that we're all more unstoppable than we think we are, and that's really what it's all about, and what we want to do on the podcast. So hope that you'll all do that, and in the meanwhile, with all that, Erin, I want to thank you once more for being here and being with us today. This has been a lot of fun. Thank you so much,   Erin Edgar ** 1:07:27 Michael. I very much enjoyed it.   Michael Hingson ** 1:07:34 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite

Daniel Lewis has witnessed legal technology's evolution from multiple vantage points that few others can claim. As a Stanford law student in 2012, he and classmate Nik Reed co-founded the legal research startup Ravel Law with the audacious goal of taking on LexisNexis and Westlaw using machine learning and data analytics – at a time when such challengers were few and far between. Not only was Ravel Law pioneering in its own right, but it also spearheaded and funded the Caselaw Access Project, an ambitious partnership with Harvard Law School's Library Innovation Lab to digitize and provide free and open access to every official court decision ever published in the United States.  After Ravel's acquisition by LexisNexis in 2017, Lewis spent the next five years leading product teams within the legal research giant, including as vice president and general manager of its Practical Guidance and analytics products. This dual perspective – startup founder turned corporate executive – helped shape his understanding of what works and what doesn't when building technology for lawyers.  Today, as CEO and global chief executive of LegalOn Technologies, Lewis leads a 600-person company that is tackling contract review with a fundamentally different approach. Rather than relying solely on tech-enabled services or raw AI that can hallucinate legal advice, LegalOn combines large language models with attorney-developed playbooks to help in-house legal teams achieve up to 85% time savings on contract review. The company just raised $50 million, for a total raise of $200 million across multiple funding rounds – which Lewis says makes it the most well-funded AI company focused on in-house contract review  – and announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI to develop AI agents for legal workflows.  In this wide-ranging conversation, Lewis shares hard-won insights about the realities of legal tech entrepreneurship, from the "deranged" confidence required to challenge industry giants as a law student to the leadership lessons learned managing teams through multiple business transformations. He discusses why the current moment represents the most significant opportunity for legal tech innovation in decades, how AI agents will reshape routine legal work, and what he's learned about building technology that lawyers don't just try once but actually integrate into their daily practices.  Related episodes: From Ravel Cofounder to Knowable CEO, Nik Reed Has Learned that Building Quality AI for Legal Takes A Lot of Hard Work.  On LawNext: The Inside Story of the Caselaw Access Project, with Three of the People Who Made It Happen.   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. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Paxton, Rapidly conduct research, accelerate drafting, and analyze documents with Paxton. What do you need to get done today?    If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Thomson Reuters just launched Deep Research—an AI system that doesn't just search legal databases, but plans and strategizes like an experienced attorney. In this episode, we explore how one of the world's largest legal research companies is using AI agents to transform how lawyers work, the challenges of building AI for high-stakes legal decisions, and what this means for the future of knowledge work. CTO Joel Hron shares insights from testing with 1,200+ customers, tackling hallucination risks in legal settings, and building professional-grade AI systems.Resources mentioned: Thomson Reuters Deep Research: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/thomson-reuters-launches-cocounsel-legal-transforming-legal-work-with-agentic-ai-and-deep-research-302521761.html Westlaw & KeyCite: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw/keycite Claude Code for development: https://www.anthropic.com/claude-code LinkedIn: Joel HronThomson Reuters Medium blog: https://medium.com/tr-labs-ml-engineering-blog Subscribe to The Neuron newsletter: https://theneuron.ai

In this episode of The Geek in Review, hosts Marlene Gebauer and Greg Lambert sit down with Otto von Zastrow, the founder and CEO of MidPage.AI, an AI-native legal research platform. With a recent $4 million seed round and an ambitious mission to rival legacy research tools, MidPage is drawing attention across the legal industry. Otto shares his unconventional journey from AI-powered lawn robotics to transforming how litigators interact with case law. His pivot into legal tech was fueled by a combination of technical curiosity, the rise of language models, and firsthand insight from his lawyer friends overwhelmed by inefficient research workflows.Otto walks listeners through the core of MidPage's offering, which includes the usual suspects—case law, statutes, regulations—but with a twist: smarter search tools, intuitive UI, and features like a proprietary citator and their newly launched Proposition Search. This feature aims to solve the long-standing “needle-in-a-haystack” problem by surfacing judicial language that matches precise arguments, accompanied by contextual metadata and filters. Otto highlights that the goal isn't just to match or mimic tools like Lexis or Westlaw, but to rethink what legal research should feel like when modern AI capabilities are built in from the ground up.One of the more unique aspects of MidPage's product development is their internal "kangaroo court"—a monthly teamwide challenge where employees, regardless of role, must conduct legal research using MidPage or traditional tools. Otto notes that this process not only improves product design but builds real empathy for the user experience. Engineers and designers are encouraged to think like litigators, helping identify pain points and close functionality gaps. As a result, the product continually evolves based on firsthand user scenarios, not just speculation.The episode also delves into the data-side challenges that have historically prevented innovation in legal research. Otto explains why now—thanks to improved AI models and open access to data—is a rare inflection point for startups. He emphasizes the strategic importance of MidPage building its own case law dataset to avoid being beholden to incumbents. This independence allows them to innovate more freely, enhance precision, and lay the groundwork for broader API access that could empower the next generation of legal tech tools.Finally, the conversation looks ahead. Otto predicts that AI will amplify the capabilities of individual lawyers, enabling them to process more data at greater depth. In a world where clients are increasingly self-educating with tools like ChatGPT, MidPage aims to provide lawyers with the means to maintain credibility and efficiency while ensuring accuracy. As AI models grow more capable and agentic, Otto sees an evolution not just in how legal research is conducted, but in how lawyers interact with knowledge, data, and ultimately their clients.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 DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript

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.

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.

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.

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.