Podcast appearances and mentions of williams connolly

As Elon Musk continues to plot, with Trumpian glee, against the American Federal government, it is important to remind ourselves of the essential value of this state bureaucracy. As the founding president and CEO of the Washington DC based Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier has spent the last quarter century focused on making American government more efficient and accountable. And Stier's warning about the incoming administration is critically important. Yes, he acknowledges, some of Musk's misgivings about the inefficiencies of the Federal bureaucracy are fair, but that isn't an excuse for a descent into what Stier describes as the patrimonial politics of MAGA in which the interests of Trump and of the American state are treated identically. The American Republic was founded against the 18th century absolutist conceit that L'État, c'est moi. So all Max Stier is doing, at the Partnership for Public Service, is defending the values of the Founders who, wanted to protect the Republic from a patrimonial state.Max Stier is the founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Under his leadership, the Partnership has been widely praised as a first-class nonprofit organization and thought leader on federal government management issues. Max has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Max clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Max served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice. In 1995, Max joined the law firm of Williams & Connolly where he practiced primarily in the area of white collar defense. Max comes most recently from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, having served as the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, Max is a member of the Inaugural Advisory Council of the National Institute of Social Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Advisory Board for Public Service at Harvard College.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Today we are celebrating our 200th Episode with the return of a special friend of the podcast, Judge Tanya Acker. Acker serves as one of three judges on Amazon Freevee's Tribunal Justice, created by Judge Judy Sheindlin. Acker also hosts "The Tanya Acker Show" podcast on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Overcast, and Pocketcasts. Most recently, Acker was a judge on the Emmy-nominated series, "Hot Bench." Acker is also the author of "Make Your Case: Finding Your Win in Civil Court," published by Diversion Books. In the book, Acker provides readers with curated, targeted information about what people want to know: what happens during court proceedings and why, how to best prepare for it — and how to avoid court entirely and find out if there is a better way. Acker is an experienced civil litigator who has represented a wide array of clients, from major automobile manufacturers in high-stakes product liability litigation to media companies in hotly contested trade secret disputes. She has been a featured commentator on "Good Morning America," "The View," "Entertainment Tonight," "Wendy Williams," "The Talk," "Inside Edition," "Banfield," "The O'Reilly Factor," "Larry King Live," "CNN Reports," "Anderson Cooper 360," "Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell," "Extra," "Your World With Neil Cavuto," "HLN's Special Report," "CNBC Reports," Great Britain's "GMTV" and Sky News, and various other broadcasts. She also guest co-hosted CNBC's "Power Lunch," and "C Magazine" included her in an election season profile on noteworthy California women in politics. Acker also has contributed to the Huffington Post and served as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Temporary Judge Program. While a student at Yale Law School, Acker represented low-income women in family law cases and served as a teaching assistant in Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure courses. She also worked at the Office of White House Counsel, the Civil Rights Division in the United States Department of Justice and the private law firms Irell & Manella, O'Melveny & Myers and Williams & Connolly. At Williams & Connolly, she assisted President Clinton's personal lawyers with press interviews, worked on the preparation of Congressional testimony for pending product liability legislation and researched First Amendment issues. After graduating from Yale, Acker served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Dorothy Wright Nelson on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After her clerkship, the Office of the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice awarded Acker a Bristow Fellowship. While working as a Bristow Fellow, Acker drafted Supreme Court briefs and helped prepare the Solicitor General for oral argument before the High Court. Among the cases on which Acker worked was Clinton v Jones, where she assisted both the Solicitor General and President Clinton's personal attorneys in preparing for oral argument. In private practice, Acker's legal work spanned a broad variety of matters, from civil litigation involving public and private entities, to various constitutional cases, to providing constitutional cases, to the provision of business counseling and advice. She also maintained a commitment to pro bono work, receiving the ACLU's First Amendment Award for her successful representation of a group of homeless individuals against the City of Santa Barbara. Acker later worked in entertainment industry outreach for the Kerry/Edwards presidential campaign and as Deputy Campaign Manager for the Los Angeles mayoral campaign of City Councilman Bernard C. Parks. After that, she worked as the General Counsel of a company that manufactured emissions control products. Acker received her B.A. degree at Howard University in 1992, where she graduated summa cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She was awarded a Luard Scholarship for study at St. Anne's College at Oxford University and served there as the co-editor-in-chief of the Oxford University Women's Magazine. At Yale Law School, she was awarded an Earl Warren Scholarship by the NAACP and a Coker Fellowship by the Yale faculty. Acker maintains an active involvement in various philanthropic, civic and business organizations. A volunteer with Love Takes Root, she has traveled to Haiti to work in a clinic and orphanage founded by that organization. She is a member of the Beverly Hills West (CA) chapter of The Links, Incorporated, and additionally serves on the boards of Public Counsel, the Western Justice Center, the Boy Scouts of America (the National and Western Los Angeles County Council Boards); PacWest Bancorp; and as trustee of the Pacific Battleship Center, which operates the Battleship USS Iowa Museum. She is also a member of the Yale Law School Executive Committee and the Yale Law School Fund Board. ON THE KNOWS with Randall Kenneth Jones is a podcast featuring host Randall Kenneth Jones (bestselling author, speaker & creative communications consultant) and Susan C. Bennett (the original voice of Siri). ON THE KNOWS is produced and edited by Kevin Randall Jones. TANYA ACKER Online: Web: www.TribunalJustice.TV  Web: www.TanyaAckerShow.com ON THE KNOWS Online:    Join us in the Podcast Lounge on Facebook. X (Randy): https://twitter.com/randallkjones  Instagram (Randy): https://www.instagram.com/randallkennethjones/ Facebook (Randy): https://www.facebook.com/mindzoo/ Web:  RandallKennethJones.com  X (Susan): https://twitter.com/SiriouslySusan Instagram (Susan): https://www.instagram.com/siriouslysusan/ Facebook (Susan): https://www.facebook.com/siriouslysusan/ Web: SusanCBennett.com LinkedIn (Kevin): https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-randall-jones/  Web: www.KevinRandallJones.com    www.OnTheKnows.com

This Day in Legal History: First Union FormedOn May 1, 1794, a pivotal development in labor rights history occurred in Philadelphia with the formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers. This organization, consisting of skilled shoemakers, marks the establishment of the first trade union in the United States. The union was created as a response to the increasingly difficult economic conditions that tradesmen faced, including low wages and long working hours.The Cordwainers, recognizing the strength in numbers, aimed to leverage their collective bargaining power to negotiate better wages and working conditions. This was a significant step forward in the labor movement, as it introduced the concept of organized labor in America. The formation of this union was not just about improving pay; it was also about dignifying the labor force and providing workers a platform to voice their concerns.Philadelphia, being a hub of commerce and trade in the late 18th century, provided the perfect setting for such an organization. The city's workshops and bustling markets meant that there was a significant demand for skilled labor, which the Cordwainers could supply. However, with industrialization beginning to take root, these skilled workers found themselves under threat from cheaper, mass-produced goods.The Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers set a precedent that would be followed by other trades across the country. Their actions led to the establishment of similar societies and unions, which eventually contributed to the broader national labor movement. The Cordwainers themselves faced legal challenges, particularly in 1806, when they were involved in a landmark legal case concerning the rights of workers to organize, known as Commonwealth v. Pullis. In this case, the court ruled against the union, marking one of the first legal battles over the legitimacy of trade union activities in the United States.Despite the legal setbacks, the resilience and pioneering spirit of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers inspired subsequent generations of workers to fight for their rights. Their legacy is a testament to the enduring struggle for fair labor practices and workers' rights. This day in legal history not only marks the formation of America's first trade union but also celebrates the long journey towards justice and equity in the workplace.The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently proposed a rule that would require pharmaceutical companies to submit unredacted settlement agreements involving patent challenges to a new repository. This rule is aimed to assist the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in detecting antitrust violations. The proposal arose from concerns that these settlements, often reached in administrative tribunals like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), could be used to delay cheaper biosimilar drugs from entering the market.Evan Diamond, special counsel, noted that the PTO has not clearly defined "good cause" for accessing these agreements, which might increase third-party access and create confidentiality concerns. The fear is that the database could enable federal agencies to easily assess the frequency of potentially anticompetitive pay-for-delay settlements—a practice scrutinized under the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, which ruled such deals could be illegal.The proposal aligns with an executive order from President Joe Biden encouraging interagency cooperation to prevent practices that unjustifiably delay generic and biosimilar competition. This move has heightened the pharmaceutical industry's fears of increased antitrust enforcement, particularly as the FTC has been actively challenging questionable patent listings that could hinder the approval of generic drugs.Agencies like the FTC and DOJ already have certain reporting requirements under the Medicare Modernization Act for pharmaceutical companies, but the PTO's rule could capture additional agreements that do not meet existing criteria. This has sparked debate over the necessity and potential overlap of the new rule.The pharmaceutical industry, represented by major lobbyist groups like Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, has expressed strong opposition, citing concerns over the scope of PTO's authority and the ambiguity around the "good cause" criterion.This development highlights a broader regulatory push against anti-competitive practices not only in pharmaceuticals but also in other sectors like technology, where companies like Apple and Google are frequently involved in patent litigation.In summary, the PTO's proposed rule could significantly impact how pharmaceutical settlements are handled, potentially exposing companies to greater antitrust scrutiny. This measure reflects a governmental shift towards stricter oversight of patent practices to foster competition and reduce drug prices.Drug Makers Exposed to Antitrust Probes if Patent Cache AdoptedThis term, Jones Day had the highest number of attorneys—five in total—arguing cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other firm. Among them, John Gore and C. Kevin Marshall presented for the first time at the high court. Other experienced attorneys like former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and partners Hashim Mooppan and Traci Lovitt also argued cases, contributing to the firm's visibility.In comparison, other leading law firms such as Gibson Dunn, Hogan Lovells, and Williams & Connolly had slightly fewer representatives. Gibson Dunn introduced three new attorneys to the Supreme Court lectern, including Theane Evangelis, D. Nick Harper, and Eugene Scalia, who is a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Hogan Lovells' Jessica Ellsworth argued for the first time, including in a significant case regarding the abortion drug mifepristone. Williams & Connolly had Lisa Blatt argue all four of their cases, marking her 50th Supreme Court appearance.Overall, the season saw a mix of seasoned veterans and newcomers. Of the total 152 arguments made, over half were by attorneys who had appeared at least five times before, while a quarter were by first-time arguers. This highlights both the depth of experience and the ongoing introduction of new talent in the legal field's highest echelons.Jones Day Leads in Supreme Court Arguments With New FacesJohnson & Johnson (J&J) is currently seeking approval for an $11 billion settlement to resolve ongoing litigation concerning its talc-based baby powder, which has been alleged to cause ovarian cancer. This amount is a significant increase from a previous offer of $8.9 billion. J&J's strategy involves a third attempt at a bankruptcy filing, specifically a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which allows for faster processing if they secure enough creditor support—in this case, needing the approval of 75% of the talc plaintiffs.The company proposes to pay $6.48 billion over 25 years to settle ovarian cancer claims, but it has not specified how funds will be divided between existing and future claims. Additionally, J&J has nearly settled all claims regarding mesothelioma believed to be caused by asbestos in the powder. This settlement approach follows multiple failed attempts to use Chapter 11 to manage these lawsuits, which now number almost 60,000.These lawsuits have been a significant factor depressing J&J's stock price, according to analysts. Despite the legal challenges, J&J maintains that its talc products do not cause cancer and asserts that it has marketed its baby powder responsibly for over a century. A recent verdict, however, led to a $45 million payout to a family, implicating J&J and its spinoff Kenvue in the ongoing litigation.The company's persistence in seeking a bankruptcy-based settlement reflects its strategic approach to managing a complex legal challenge that impacts thousands of plaintiffs and could potentially set a precedent in how large corporations handle mass tort liabilities through bankruptcy court.J&J Seeks Backing for $11 Billion Baby Powder Cancer SettlementIn President Joe Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, a notable change is the suggestion to tax unrealized gains—value increases in assets not yet converted into cash through a sale. This marks a significant shift from traditional tax frameworks, which typically avoid taxing unrealized gains due to their complexity, potential liquidity issues, and difficulties in implementation.The rationale behind this proposal is to ensure tax fairness by capturing increases in wealth that currently escape taxation. For example, if a billionaire's stock appreciates significantly without being sold, they realize no taxable gain. However, if they borrow against these increased values, they effectively use this appreciation as a means to generate wealth without incurring tax liabilities. This situation presents a loophole where wealth can grow and be leveraged without contributing to the tax base.The FY2025 budget aims to address these disparities by proposing a tax on unrealized gains for very high-net-worth individuals and entities that have not been subject to a tax event in the last 90 years. This approach seeks to broaden the tax base without raising rates, aiming to increase tax revenue from the wealthy without additional burdens on middle and lower-income individuals.This policy shift acknowledges the need to adapt tax strategies to a changing economic environment where traditional taxation methods no longer capture all forms of wealth accumulation. The proposal suggests that a more equitable tax system requires taxing wealth as it grows, even if it is not realized through a sale. By proposing to tax unrealized gains, the administration intends to correct imbalances allowing substantial wealth to accumulate tax-free, signaling a significant potential change in how wealth is taxed in the U.S.Unrealized Gain Tax—A Coming Sea Change in FY2025 Budget Proposal? Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We have an important “this day in legal history” entry for today. On this day in 1954 the Supreme Court held, in Brown v. Board of Education, that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. The case overturned the previous doctrine of “separate but equal” that had been established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The case was brought by Oliver Brown, whose daughter was denied entrance to a then-white school in Topeka, Kansas. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities were inherently unequal. The decision paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.Briefly, without too much soapboxing, I think right thinking people everywhere would like to imagine the era of segregation as being a distant memory. An unfortunate period of history that is now so sufficiently obscured by time so as to render it devoid of the pain and damage it caused. It simply isn't. I'm an “elder millennial,” whatever that means, born in 1985, 31 years after the decision in Brown was handed down. 31 years from 2023 was 1992 – the first Clinton administration. History it is, ancient history it is not. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has submitted a report to Congress, as directed by the Inflation Reduction Act, evaluating the feasibility of a Direct File option for taxpayers. Direct File is a free, voluntary electronic filing system run by the IRS. The report concludes that many taxpayers are interested in using such a tool and that the IRS has the technical capability to deliver a Direct File program. However, it also highlights the need for sustained budget investment and careful management of the program's operational complexity.The report focuses on taxpayer opinions, cost, and feasibility, and includes an analysis conducted by an independent third party. It outlines the potential benefits and challenges associated with implementing a Direct File program. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel states that the agency is committed to improving services for taxpayers and acknowledges the interest in an optional Direct File program.In response to the Treasury Department's directive, the IRS will initiate a scaled Direct File pilot in the 2024 filing season to gather further information. This pilot aims to assess customer support, technology needs, and overcome potential operational challenges identified in the report. Specific details about the pilot will be announced in the future.The IRS report relied on data from the agency's Taxpayer Experience Survey, which surveyed thousands of taxpayers, as well as an independent survey conducted by the MITRE Corporation. User research and usability testing using an internal prototype were also conducted to gain firsthand taxpayer perspectives. The report includes a separate independent analysis by New America and Professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman on the Direct File concept.The IRS is looking forward to engaging with stakeholders in the upcoming months to discuss this important topic. Commissioner Danny Werfel's letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, accompanying the Direct File report, can be accessed for further information.IRS submits Direct File report to Congress; Treasury Department directs pilot to evaluate key issues | Internal Revenue ServiceHILL TAX BRIEFING: IRS Launching Pilot of Its Own E-File ProgramNew documents from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reveal that Judge Pauline Newman, the court's oldest and longest-serving member, must release her medical records as part of an investigation into her fitness to remain on the bench. Concerns have been raised about observed changes in her behavior, including difficulties with basic tasks, paranoia about being hacked or spied on, and engaging in nonsensical conversations. The court staff reported her agitation and described her behavior as bizarre. Two of her staff members resigned and requested no further contact with her. Judge Newman also failed a mandatory security compliance training and made inaccurate statements about the court's leadership.The Federal Circuit panel ordered Judge Newman to undergo evaluations by a neurologist and neuropsychologist. They demanded that she respond to the committee's examination request and release records of her mental acuity, attention, memory, and other related areas of treatment within 30 days. Judge Newman's request to transfer the judicial complaint to a different circuit was denied.The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing Judge Newman in her lawsuit. The NCLA is a public interest law firm ostensibly dedicated to fighting administrative state overreach. Prominent donors to the alliance include the surviving Koch brother, Charles Koch. Judge Newman's counsel has not yet responded to requests for comment.‘Paranoid' Incidents Necessitate Newman Exam, Fed. Cir. SaysRecent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of federal fraud statutes, raising concerns about ambiguity in their application. Over the past 15 years, decisions such as Skilling, McDonnell, Kelly, Percoco, and Ciminelli have rejected expansive interpretations of these laws. The court's concern is that prosecutors may use the statutes to impose federal ethical standards on state and local governments. Percoco v. United States limited the circumstances in which a private citizen might have a fiduciary duty to the public for "honest services" fraud, while Ciminelli v. United States rejected the "right-to-control" theory of wire fraud. These decisions are seen as steps toward limiting prosecutorial overreach.However, despite these rulings, uncertainty remains regarding the potential applications of fraud statutes. Skilling narrowed the honest services wire fraud statute to bribery and kickback schemes, while McDonnell limited the definition of an "official act" subject to the law. Kelly held that political retribution schemes targeting toll lanes did not constitute wire and federal program fraud. Percoco and Ciminelli further refined the interpretation of the fraud statutes but left some issues unresolved.Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in a concurrence for Percoco, called on Congress to provide clarity in defining "honest services." The court expressed its responsibility in ensuring that the government does not exploit the statutes' broad reach. In Ciminelli, the court rejected the notion that "potentially valuable economic information" constitutes a traditional property interest under the wire fraud statute. The court highlighted that Congress did not explicitly include other intangible interests beyond "honest services" in the statutes.Although the court has consistently narrowed the fraud statutes, many questions about their scope remain unanswered. Percoco and Ciminelli were fact-specific, and the definition of a traditional property interest has yet to be fully explored. The intent to inflict financial harm and the requirement of economic loss in property fraud cases are still being actively litigated in lower courts. The lack of clarity in the fraud statutes raises concerns about separation of powers, due process, and vagueness in their application. It is crucial that courts ensure that ordinary individuals have advance notice of what is prohibited under these criminal statutes. At the same time it is instructive to illustrate how even a concept such as fraud which at first blush may seem relatively straightforward can raise thorny legal questions. SCOTUS Scales Back Fraud Statutes' Reach, but Ambiguity PersistsTheranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and former CEO Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani have been ordered to pay $452 million in restitution to victims of the blood-testing startup's fraud. Holmes, who was convicted last year of misrepresenting Theranos' technology and finances, had also requested to remain out of prison while challenging her conviction but was denied by an appeals court. Judge Edward Davila, who oversaw Holmes' trial and sentencing, held both Holmes and Balwani equally responsible for the restitution amount, rejecting their argument that intervening events contributed to investors' losses. Holmes will now have to report to prison as a new date is set. Included among the investors that Holmes will need to make whole is none other than Rupert Murdoch – defrauding people is never defensible, but sometimes …Theranos founder Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison, hit with huge restitution bill | ReutersLaw firm Proskauer Rose has been ordered by a Massachusetts judge to face trial in a $636 million legal malpractice case. The ruling by Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Kenneth Salinger allows a jury to determine whether the firm's alleged mishandling cost former client Robert Adelman his stake in a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. Adelman sued Proskauer in March 2020, claiming that attorneys from the firm included a provision in a partnership agreement that allowed the fund's manager to remove him. Adelman presented handwritten notes from a Proskauer partner that indicated a mistake in the agreement. Proskauer, represented by lawyers from Williams & Connolly, argued that it shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of Adelman's former colleague. The manager accused of ousting Adelman, is not involved in the lawsuit. A final pre-trial conference is scheduled for July 25.Law firm Proskauer must face trial in $636 million legal malpractice case | ReutersThe Oakland Athletics baseball team is seeking to move to Las Vegas and is requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to finance the relocation. Critics argue that this is a bad tax deal for Las Vegas and Nevada, as it sets a precedent of using public money to benefit private sports team owners. Nevada's lower tax burden compared to California is cited as a positive aspect of the deal, but overall, there are few advantages. The Athletics have a relatively low payroll compared to other teams, so players would benefit little, comparatively, from the lack of income tax in Nevada. However, studies have shown that stadium building has limited positive economic effects, and the revenue generated from player salaries would not benefit Nevada due to the aforementioned absence of income tax. The revised funding plan reduces the amount sought from public funds, but it still puts a financial burden on taxpayers. Critics argue that public funding for sports stadiums would be better spent on projects that directly improve residents' quality of life. The deal also marks the end of the Oakland Coliseum, which is widely regarded as an unattractive venue by just about everyone save for perhaps the opossums that live in the walls.Oakland A's Move to Vegas Is Costly Gamble for Nevada Taxpayers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Fox News has reached a $787.5 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, following accusations that the network had ruined Dominion's business by airing claims that its machines were used to rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden and against Republican Donald Trump. Fox still faces a $2.7 billion lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting technology company, over its coverage of debunked election-rigging claims. Smartmatic is seeking damages from Fox and five individuals, including former Trump lawyers and hosts, alleging that they knowingly spread false claims that its software was used to flip votes. While the Dominion settlement is half of the $1.6 billion Dominion sought, it is the largest ever defamation settlement publicly announced by an American media company, according to legal experts. Fox denies the allegations in both cases.Fox resolves Dominion case, but a bigger election defamation lawsuit looms | ReutersThe Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) has claimed the rights to $2bn that Silicon Valley Bank's former parent company, SVB Financial Group, believes is theirs. The $2bn deposit could provide potential cash recovery for the bankrupt parent company and its bondholders, which are owed $3.3bn, but the FDIC has laid claim to the money to offset claims relating to Silicon Valley Bank that are believed to have cost the FDIC's deposit insurance fund an estimated $20bn. The ensuing litigation could test the FDIC's power over the costs of failed banks. While SVB may get some of the cash back, it is likely to be on the FDIC's timetable. The FDIC has previously been blocked from retrieving nearly $905m against a bankrupt holding company in 2010. A New York bankruptcy judge will have to address whether the FDIC has a valid claim against the bankrupt company and whether the FDIC should be first in line to be paid back.SVB Parent's Fight for Seized Deposits Will Test FDIC AuthorityContingency Capital has filed a lawsuit against ACAP Litigation Fund seeking the return of more than $8.8m it says it loaned to the Houston-based Dunken Law Firm, alleging ACAP and Dunken defrauded the company into lending money to the firm to pay off its debts to ACAP. Contingency claims ACAP lied to it that the loan would cover Dunken's debt to ACAP. ACAP allegedly later declared Dunken in default of a new loan that it had agreed not to extend, according to the complaint. Litigation funders are increasingly providing more general loans to lawyers and firms, often used to pay off existing debts, as the popularity of mass torts has grown. Dunken is facing accusations of fraud and breach of contract over its handling of transvaginal mesh and talcum powder cases. The case highlights the risks litigation funders face in any deal, even when they do their due diligence. Further, and as we've discussed at length in previous episodes, it highlights the potential pitfalls and working at cross purposes of the entire litigation funding industry. Litigation Funders Fight Over Loans to Houston Injury Law FirmWilliams & Connolly law firm partner Robert Shaughnessy and Susan Shaughnessy have agreed to pay nearly $7.3 million to resolve a U.S. civil lawsuit alleging unpaid federal income taxes. The U.S. Justice Department filed the lawsuit against the Shaughnessys in September, seeking unpaid taxes from 2001 to 2006 and other years. Litigation-focused Williams & Connolly, a 300-plus lawyer firm based in D.C., was not named in the lawsuit. Shaughnessy joined Williams & Connolly in 1988 and became a partner in 1996. The settlement was reached after months of negotiations, according to court filings. The Shaughnessys were due to respond to the lawsuit by May 5.Williams & Connolly law firm partner to settle U.S. tax case for $7.3 mln | ReutersThe US Supreme Court is considering an appeal by three whistleblowers to revive lawsuits accusing pharmacy operators of overbilling government health insurance programs for prescription drugs. The whistleblowers accused Safeway Inc and SuperValu Inc of offering prescription drugs at discounted prices to most customers, while improperly charging higher rates to the government. The litigation was filed under a law called the False Claims Act that lets individuals sue on behalf of the US government when they have evidence of fraud against federal programs. The issue at hand is whether companies can avoid liability for fraud by showing that an "objectively reasonable" reading of the law supported their conduct, regardless of whether they truly believed that interpretation at the time of their alleged wrongdoing. The Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals previously sided with the companies. President Joe Biden's administration backed the whistleblowers, arguing that the 7th Circuit's ruling undermined the False Claims Act. A ruling is due by the end of June.US Supreme Court weighs key standard in whistleblower fraud cases | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

GUEST OVERVIEW: Mary Beth Albright is a food expert with broad experience, from food attorney to finalist on Food Network Star, where she competed on Iron Chef America. Her passion for good food grew from her mentor, the legendary Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. After 15 years of working with Dr. Koop on health and food issues, and attending Georgetown Law School (graduating cum laude), Mary Beth advised on food systems and managed a White House initiative. She also worked at the D.Cc law firm of Williams & Connolly and Roll Call, the oldest Capitol Hill newspaper. As an undergraduate, Albright attended The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. She completed L'Academie de Cuisine's two-semester culinary course in Bethesda, Md. She is the Author of EAT & FLOURISH: How Food Supports Emotional Well-Being (Countryman Press; 11/29).

If you enjoyed my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes (2004-2006)—which I wrote under a pseudonym while working as a federal prosecutor, pretending to be a female associate in Biglaw obsessed with federal judges and fashion—then you'll enjoy this latest podcast episode. How many podcasts combine analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments with discussion of pumps versus cowboy boots versus Mary Janes? (For the record, my guest made the first reference to shoes; I didn't go there unprompted.)My latest guest is—of course—the inimitable Lisa Blatt, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Williams & Connolly, the legendary litigation firm. Lisa needs no introduction to Original Jurisdiction devotees, so I'll mention just two distinctions. First, Lisa has argued 43 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. Second, she has won 37 of those 43 cases (86 percent), which makes her one of the most consistently victorious SCOTUS advocates. (Trivia question: is there a Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing who has argued that many cases before the high court with that high a win percentage?)In our ebullient and enjoyable interview, Lisa and I covered her special relationship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; how she rose to the top of the male-dominated Supreme Court bar, as a woman from Texas who “didn't go to a fancy law school”; how she developed her distinctive, famously unfiltered style of oral argument; and why she prefers cowboy boots over stiletto heels. I hope you have as much fun listening to this episode as Lisa and I had recording it.Show Notes:* Lisa Blatt bio, Williams & Connolly LLP* Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, Texas Law Review* Lisa S. Blatt: Cases argued, OyezPrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below (although you really should listen to this one, since as is the case with her SCOTUS arguments, a transcript doesn't do Lisa justice).Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning, e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning (although I've done less clean-up than usual to better preserve the flavor of our fabulous and freewheeling conversation).* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Wednesday, November 30. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.I must confess, with all due respect to my past guests, that this episode might be the most fun one yet—and I owe it all to my guest. Lawyers are known for being risk-averse and many carry that over into their interviews, not wanting to say anything that might get them in trouble or rub someone the wrong way. That's definitely not true of my latest guest, who's known for her refreshing candor, whether you're chatting with her at a cocktail party or whether she's arguing before the United States Supreme Court.Lisa Blatt serves as Chair of Williams & Connolly's Supreme Court and appellate practice. She has argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. And she has prevailed in 37 of those 43 cases, giving her a win percentage of 86 percent—which has to be one of the highest around, at least among advocates who have argued before the Court as often as she has. She has won numerous awards, including Litigator of the Year from the American Lawyer in 2021.Lisa graduated from the University of Texas for both college and law school, summa cum laude both times. She clerked for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit and then joined Williams & Connolly as an associate. After government service, at the Department of Energy and then the Office of the Solicitor General, where she worked for 13 years, Lisa returned to private practice, and in 2019, she came full circle by returning to Williams & Connolly.In our lively and wide-ranging conversation, Lisa and I discussed her unique relationship with the late Justice Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; her distinctive approach to Supreme Court oral advocacy, including her thoughts on trying humor with the justices; why she loves coaching debate; and why she thinks lawyers should not be passionate about their work.Without further ado, here's my interview of Lisa Blatt.DL: Lisa, thank you so much for joining me. I'm honored to have you on the podcast.Lisa Blatt: Well, thank you. I am honored to be here.DL: So if I had to guess where you're from based on meeting you at a cocktail party or hearing you argue before the Court, I would've guessed you're one of us, a New Yorker or a Northeasterner. But you're from Texas.LB: That's right. Both of my parents are from New York, and I grew up listening to the word “y'all” with a very thick New York accent, so everyone assumes I'm from New York. But no, I was born and raised in Texas, West Texas. I moved all over Texas, UT for undergrad and law school, and a lot of my personality is because I'm from Texas. And I think I'm on my 12th pair of cowboy boots?DL: Oh wow, okay!LB: I'm definitely a Texan. Part of the way I talk just is because my parents are both from New York.DL: That makes sense. And you have a kind of candor, although I guess Texans are pretty candid too, aren't they?LB: I don't think my candor comes from being from Texas! I don't know where that comes from, actually—no one in my family's like that.DL: Fair enough. So going to your upbringing in Texas, were there any hints that you might become a lawyer? I believe your parents were not lawyers.LB: Right. Dad was a software engineer, Mom a stay-home mom until she became a psychologist. But no, I think it was Thurgood Marshall, something about his story of Brown—I still get sort of teary when I think about it—something about his story of what he did in Brown v. Board of Education, being the lawyer, the advocate, not the justice. I just wanted to be a lawyer and I did debate, speech and debate starting maybe in seventh grade, I was always very into debate and just knew that I wanted to go to law school.DL: What events did you do in speech and debate?LB: Now it's embarrassing, but policy debate, which is all that fast talking, and I had to unlearn that many years later. But yeah, I did policy debate and I spent many years coaching debate, so I do love the art of advocacy and argumentation and trying to persuade someone.DL: I read in one of your profiles or interviews that you do coach or did coach debate. What was that like for you? It seems like you're very competitive about coaching debate?LB: No, actually that's not right. I'm very passionate about coaching debate, and I feel very strongly about coaching; it's what I would definitely do if I wasn't a lawyer, and I feel very passionate about helping children and kids. But I don't think it's about winning—and that's one of the things you have to teach kids, because they just want a trophy. So much in life when it comes to competition and jobs is arbitrary and capricious. One of the things that is so important for us, even adults, to understand is that some stuff is out of our control. If I can just teach one child how to stand up straight and feel good about an argument, then that's a home run. So I love everything about coaching debate.Also, the different perspective was just a huge thing, getting a bunch of kids in a room. I've taught middle-school debate and high-school debate, and I would say my favorite was middle school because they're not yet completely sold on their politics and ideology, and trying to just get them to open up about things like background checks or hate speech or should dodgeball be banned in schools because it's violent. Just anything, any topic—nowadays not all topics are as safe as others, but just lots of fun topics—which tastes better, Coke or Pepsi, anything that you can just form an argument about and how to organize your responses.Look how excited I get! Just the notion of being able to teach this in a way that is helpful, especially for women, and a lot of kids are very insecure at this age, and everything about trying to show them that they can be confident is just the best thing in the whole world.DL: Speech and debate was huge for me in that respect. I was a very nerdy kid, very insecure, but when I found something and I enjoyed it, and I was good at it, it was a big boost for my confidence. So your husband's a lawyer, you're a lawyer, I believe you have two kids—are either of them into speech and debate?LB: One's in law school, they both did debate, and the other one's just applying and now getting into law school. So we're going to be Blatt & Associates, or Blatt Blatt Blatt & Blatt. David, my husband, no debate, he finds it completely foreign, but both Daniel and Rachel did debate.DL: Excellent. So in doing my research, I did come across your wedding announcement when you and David got married. I'm curious: did you give much thought to the whole “take his name or not take his name” thing?LB: My maiden name is Schiavo, so I was so eager, I would've married anybody with any last name—as soon as somebody gave me a proposal, the answer was yes. So yes, I gave a lot of thought to taking his last name. Everyone mispronounced Schiavo. Actually its direct translation is “slave” in Italian. So I was happy to [take his name], I happen to love Blatt, which rhymes with your last name. It's so great.DL: It's very easy to spell. The only issue is one or two t's, but absolutely.LB: I'm actually fine with people—a lot of people still know me as Lisa Schiavo, and that's fine too—but I like being Lisa Blatt.DL: So as we talked about, you went to UT for college and law school, summa cum laude, did super well. And in some ways your first big break, I would say, was clerking for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit. She was a great advocate and a great justice, but some say she wasn't warm and fuzzy with her clerks. But based on your great piece for the Texas Law Review—Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, which I'm going to put in the show notes—it sounds like you had a fairly close relationship with her?LB: Extremely, because I couldn't talk about the law with her! I'm being completely serious. Both my co-clerks were absolutely brilliant people from Harvard, on the Harvard Law Review, but that was just never going to go anywhere with me, to talk with her about the law. And so I'm probably one of her few clerks where it was shoes, jewelry, or clothes. I could not keep up with her, and we talked about fashion.When it was one of her huge anniversaries, it may have been her tenth year on the Court, twenty years on the bench, there were only two people, maybe three people who gave a toast, and I was one of them. And everyone talked about all her this, that, and the other thing, legal giant—and I spent the whole time roasting her about how skinny she was and all her jewelry and how she was an airhead, and she was cracking up. But she liked people who made her laugh, and I think I made her laugh.DL: That makes perfect sense. Look at [her late husband] Marty, look at [her good friend] Justice Scalia, and you. She was somewhat reserved or introverted, but she was drawn to people who could bring her out.LB: She's so hard to talk to about… I just couldn't talk to her about the law, and I was probably her least productive and least intelligent clerk. I remembered at this toast I did for her, I showed everyone the bench memo I did for her, it was a made-up thing, but she took only the caption—a draft opinion, I drafted the opinion, and she cut out the caption and used that for the opinion. It's true, it was a true story, but I did it on a big blowup poster and it was very funny. And I was also her first and last clerk from University of Texas, because she's such a snob, a super school snob….DL: That is true. Yeah….LB: Some of them are very, very specific about their Ivy League schools. But I loved her, and I do think it was a different relationship than she had with other clerks. Very different.DL: That makes perfect sense. You mentioned you both were into or bonded over fashion. Did you have similar or different styles?LB: No, she was so weird! She would just—come on, she wore all those caftans, at least back in when she was on the D.C. Circuit. Actually, now I think I dress like her because I love bright colors, and she definitely is where I got my “you know what, just wear it, own it.” Because she would show up in the strangest outfits and she just like looked very happy and I thought, “Wow, I wanna be her, she's beautiful.” She just loved life and travel and clothes. She definitely had a unique clothing style. I have a bunch of Mary Jane shoes that I have now after she passed away that I call my “RBG shoes.”DL: Oh, interesting…. Mary Janes, and cowboy boots. I would've thought you would go for some pumps, with three- or four-inch heels or something?LB: I'm so tall, I can't do it. No, I can't do heels, really. Cowboy boots are my thing.DL: Okay, fair enough. So turning to what you're most well-known for, arguing before the Supreme Court, I believe you have argued more Supreme Court cases than any woman in history. You noted that in your Texas Law Review piece, but I noticed that on your Williams and Connolly bio, it doesn't say that. Was that intentional? Do you want to be known as a Supreme Court advocate and not a female Supreme Court advocate?LB: Uh, no. How about a “female Jewish funny old-lady Supreme Court advocate”? No, I didn't even know that, David. I guess I could put [it] on my website. I don't know if anyone cares, so, no intentionality, no, no intentionality at all. I am very proud of the fact that I have more arguments than any woman in history, but I expect and hope to see other women pass me up very shortly, and I assume they will.DL: Do you happen to know who would be number two?LB: Well, I'm hoping it'll be Elizabeth Prelogar when she gets out of the SG's office.DL: That's right, that's right. She is racking up a lot of arguments.LB: And she's gloriously fantastic.DL: She's amazing.LB: She's amazing. But there are plenty of women out there. Well, [my partner] Sarah Harris, my right-hand person, she's far more talented than I am. Because I'm a little bit different than other people, I hope that my style doesn't necessarily rub off, but I hope that what rubs off on people is that somebody who didn't go to Yale or Harvard and who lacked a lot of self-confidence and wasn't really groomed for anything can just do well. I was incredibly insecure for so much of my professional life. And so I very much want to be a model for people.DL: And you write about that very eloquently in your Texas Law Review essay, which again, I really commend to people.I'm curious, your Williams & Connolly bio does note that you've argued 43 cases before the Court, and you've won 37. And as I recall, didn't you have a very long win streak before you notched that first loss?LB: Yeah, I was in the twenties, and Ted Olson gave me a case to lose. Yeah!DL: And let me ask—are you the “winningest” Supreme Court advocate with a certain number of arguments below your belt, like 25 or 30 or 40? Your win percentage is something like 90 percent, 88 percent, something like that.LB: I don't know….DL: One thing that's interesting about the Supreme Court, and I think you alluded to this earlier—you said so much of life is arbitrary and capricious and luck, and I would argue that despite your amazing talents as a Supreme Court litigator, so many Supreme Court cases are decided based on political or jurisprudential or other factors independent of the argument style. How important would you say briefing and argument are? I know this is a very vague question….LB: I'll break it down two ways. I disagree on the jurisprudential [point], except for abortion, guns, race, and religion. Everything else, I think, is open to grab, although you could make some points about statutory construction and administrative law—so you're increasingly more correct, but I still think that there are plenty of cases that are completely up for grabs on bankruptcy or even arbitration these days. Just random commercial cases or civil cases, I don't think it's that ideological. I will give you on—I don't think the Court needs to be briefed on how to rule in an abortion case, you're just completely right.Then there's oral argument, and whether that matters, and a lot of us who argue like to say it matters. At a minimum, I would say it matters in that you can lose a case at argument and you can go backwards. It's much harder to win a case at argument, but it's pretty easy to lose a lot of ground and lose a case at argument. And as you can tell now from the current format, the justices are just bursting with stamina in terms of how much they want to argue. It's like the cage has been opened, and I think they're going to go back to all-day argument soon.DL: Do you like the new approach?LB: How can you not?DL: I do, as a listener….LB: Because there's no time limit for them in the lightning round or whatever they call it—round robin, Justice Sotomayor just called it—and you can tell they're all sort of looking at each other like, “How much longer can I get away with?” The worst thing about the old style, where it was rapid fire and Justice Thomas was silent, is you just didn't learn that much about what their concerns were because it was so hard to get your point out, it was so hard to hear what every justice thinks. Now Justice Thomas is free and is so involved in argument, and all of them are, so you're just getting all of them now. The only problem with that is you're having nine conversations, so it's just turning into very long arguments. But the parties, who aren't lawyers, it's helpful for them to see the Court in action, so I like that, and for the public to see how hard they're working through the issues.DL: Absolutely—and I know this is a pending case, so we won't delve into the merits—but I would commend people to the argument in the Warhol case [Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith], which you and Roman Martinez and Yaira Dubin recently argued. It's a great case. It's super-interesting. The argument went on for quite some time, but you really do see the justices grappling with the issues in a very earnest and non-ideological way. It's a great argument.LB: One of the things I don't like talking about in argument is the law, so to me, those cases are the most fun, because you can talk about how the case matters in the real world, what it means to people, the public, the parties, and you're not so much talking about what some word in the U.S. Code means.DL: Exactly. That case covered everything from Darth Vader to Mondrian to The Jeffersons, and so it was a really fun case for folks to listen to.Turning to advocacy and your style of arguing before the Court, which we alluded to, Sarah Isgur of the Advisory Opinions podcast said that nobody should try to imitate Lisa Blatt, even though Sarah thinks you're an amazing advocate, nobody should try to imitate Lisa. And I agree that there's a sort of “don't try this at home, kids” quality to your argument. Would you say you have a distinct style of argument, and if so, how is it?LB: Well, it upsets me that so many people say don't try to emulate her because… it just upsets me to hear that. I'd like….DL: I would be flattered! I'd be like, I'm inimitable, I'm sui generis, you can't imitate me!LB: One of the things that you have to do when you're a Supreme Court advocate or any advocate is make sure everything you say you can back up. If somebody wants to say, “wait a minute, did you just say what you said,” you're going to go, “I absolutely said what I said, and I'll repeat it again,” and that has always been my philosophy.It's true I think some people think I maybe go right up to the edge, but I'm okay with that. Sometimes I say things and I'm like, oh my God, why did I say that? In the Romag case with Neal Katyal, that was definitely one of my more notable ones, where I said, “I think you might have to cut me off.” The Chief just looked at me like, “Are you crazy?”So I say things like that and I'm like, what? Or “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” and I'm like, well, why did I say that? So things like that, I'll regret saying, and you shouldn't say things like “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” so I would never recommend people repeat that. But I would think that lots of people make statements and arguments that they're like, I should have said it differently, so I don't know why I should be any different.What I guess is upsetting to me is my style, if it's unique, it's that I have this very strong view that truth is the best form of advocacy and for someone to have a different view—it's disturbing to me. Why would you not be incredibly honest and direct with the Court? That's all I have to say, and I think everyone would agree. I don't know whether it was Irv Gornstein or Michael Dreeben [who said it], but Paul Clement and I often talk about this, that oral argument is truth serum, so whatever someone tells you to do, what you think is really going to come out. I've tried to change my style, I would like to be different, but it's very hard for me to not be the way I am.DL: Well, let me give you some examples. I totally agree with you on the point about fidelity to the law and the facts, and I think that if someone were to compare you to Paul Clement, your former colleague in the SG's office, who would also be identified as one of the best Supreme Court litigators of all time….LB: Paul is the best. Let's just be clear.DL: Okay, well, fair enough….LB: Paul is magical in a completely different way. His magic is the way he engages with cases and doctrine, and I've never seen anything like itDL: What would you say is your special sauce or superpower?LB: I don't think I have one! I think, I'm not trying to be funny, but I think that they sometimes are laughing, like a fair amount of times are laughing. And so I don't know why that is, that they think it's funny, the things I say.DL: I think this is another aspect of your argument that I think people say don't try to imitate. Usually when people say, well, what are the rules of appellate or Supreme Court advocacy, they say, well, listen to the judges or justices, don't talk over them, really try to be responsive, [and] people also say generally don't try humor. But you do try humor, and it almost always works.LB: No, I don't try it, I don't try it! That's, no, you never should try humor! Absolutely. Never. Try. Humor. It would be a disaster. And can you imagine making a bad joke? That is the worst thing to do. Don't try humor. I think sometimes I say things…. I remember the first time I said something that got a hysterical laugh, it was an argument in the gas tank case [United States v. Flores-Montano], which is mentioned in the Guide for Counsel. Definitely considered, I know at least by Justice Ginsburg, it was one of her favorite arguments, and it was a glorious argument, but in the course of the argument, Justice Scalia said, I said something and he goes, “Is that public?” And I said, “I just made it public.” And they all just broke out laughing. And I'm like, I'm not trying to be funny, but sometimes that bluntness and directness, it's funny, but I'm not trying to be funny. Does that make sense?DL: Well, so when you made the funny quip in the Warhol argument about the airbrushed photos of Lisa Blatt, you were not trying to be funny? Because it was funny.LB: Nor was I trying to be funny when I said the court was “yakking.”DL: Yes. That was also great!LB: The minute that came out, I was like, ah, how do I take that back? And they thought it was hysterical, but I wasn't trying to be funny. Why would anybody say that? Intentionally?DL: Okay, okay, fair enough.LB: But, so, I think it's just quirky. I don't, maybe, I don't know what the word is. I don't know.DL: When people say, don't try to imitate you, I don't think they're saying anything about your fidelity to the facts or the law or the record. I think you and Paul are pretty much toe to toe on that. But you have very different styles. He's conversational and you are conversational, but you're much more… lively, no offense to Paul, you're more sort of… in your face, I guess? I don't know how to put it….LB: Oh, I don't know what I think of that. Paul is definitely just more eloquent and elegant and intellectual, and I'm just more, let's talk, let's roll up our sleeves.DL: And I think that would be your superpower. I think you have a way to just cut to the heart of the case, in a way, and to also play out the consequences. I know that we're deciding cases on the law, precedent, not policy, blah blah blah, but I think you're really great at unfolding [consequences]. I love the line you had in the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case about the cursing cheerleader, where you're saying near the end in your rebuttal, like, “judges, justices, don't do this!” in terms of setting forth a bad rule.LB: I said, “please don't do this to courts,” or “please don't do this to schools.” Yes, I said “please.” Okay. The minute I said “please,” it's like, I would highly recommend never saying, in any oral argument, “please.” But it did come out that way.DL: It was great!LB: Maybe it's just refreshing because nobody says “please.” Or I referred to North Korea and Russia. And so, but trust me, I am not trying to be entertaining because I strongly think that that is a disastrous move. You should never try to be that or try to be—you just can only be yourself.DL: Yes.LB: And so what you see at argument, I think with a lot of people is just someone's true self. And maybe it's because I didn't go to a fancy law school.DL: You mentioned in your Texas Law Review piece that it took you a while to learn to be yourself, that you tried on a couple of styles before settling on your current one?LB: Absolutely. Yes. That's why I feel the modeling and supporting younger people are extremely important. But how are you supposed to know this in your thirties? I didn't have the confidence and I hated everything about myself, so, yeah, I thought I would look at other, I guess, women and men and want to be like them. Maureen Mahoney, one of the best all-time advocates, everything about her is to die for. I couldn't be her if my life depended on it. And it was very hard for me to just accept the fact that I was never going to be that kind of lawyer or just always be a little different and not ever feel comfortable like in a suit, and just really…. I'm sure a lot of people feel this way, where they don't feel like they belong. This is not some great revelation. And so the sooner you can accept your weaknesses and lean into your strengths, the better off you are. So the more I can try to tell people that wherever that leads you, the better. It just took me a while, probably late thirties, early forties.DL: What were some of the styles you tried on before settling into your current one?LB: I grew up in the eighties, seventies and eighties. It was the suits, the, like, really uncomfortable suits, pantyhose, all that stuff, like uncomfortable shoes, not bright colors, or not speaking up, or worrying about how it comes out. I think the biggest thing that a lot of people won't do is admit they don't understand something. And I do that all the time at the meeting, I'm like, I have no idea what you're talking about, I literally have no clue what you just said. And a lot of people would never do that. And I think I sat through so many meetings where I would just go, I have no idea what those people are talking about. And now I'll say it and maybe people think I'm dumb, but I don't care. I'd rather—I'm positive that there's probably someone in the room that didn't follow it either.DL: Yes, exactly. I think that's so true.LB: But you know what? Shame and humiliation drive so many people and the way they conduct themselves, and the sooner you can sort of laugh at yourself, the better off the world would be.DL: That's very true, very true. I'm curious, over your 40-plus arguments, is there a win that you're most proud of? You have won a lot of really interesting cases, but is there one, maybe one that we haven't heard of or have not heard as much about?LB: Yes, and it'll be probably, you know, a lot of people will get mad at this, and please don't hate me on social media, but the [Adoptive Couple v.] Baby Girl case.DL: Ah yes….LB: With the Adoptive Couple [case] that I did with Paul, it just took, you know, like two years into my life and it was just a long, long struggle. And so I am proud that we won that case. It was just involved, a child, a family, and so it was just, to me, a meaningful case. It was also, you know, definitely one of my more memorable oral arguments.DL: I remember that case. I re-listened to that one recently, and this was a case that was interpreting the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, which is now back before the Court. And you just had a really powerful line in there where you said something like, “Look, we're talking about children, we're not talking about property or something.” You had a really resonant line in that argument.LB: Yeah, so I think in that case, I think it's fair to say that I know this from inside sources that, you know, you could see that case in two ways: it was one about the law and one about the facts. Then you can take it from there, and I chose to argue the case about the facts. I think the ICWA case now before the Court is very much about the law.DL: Interesting.LB: It's just so—some cases are more about the facts than the law.DL: I think you won that case on the facts as well. There were a lot of facts, I think, that were not great for the other side.LB: It was a 5-4 case. It was just tough, and the argument was very tough. It was also just very meaningful for me because I did it with Paul who was, you know, such an inspiration, and I basically give Paul credit for my entire career. So it was just a huge deal to me to have him up there arguing with me.I also blame Paul because I was really restrained in the whole beginning of the argument and it looked like we were losing. And Paul is like, you know, you gotta keep, keep it under control. And right before I went up for rebuttal, I said, “Can I just let loose?” And he said, “Yeah, just do it.” So I don't know if he remembers it that way, but I always say, Paul told me just to let loose, so that's what I did.DL: I would say another one of your superpowers is you really bring it in the rebuttal. Rebuttal is sometimes kind of an afterthought, but your rebuttal in that case, your rebuttal in the BL v. Mahanoy Area School District Case….LB: No, Oklahoma [Carpenter v. Murphy] was the worst.DL: What do you mean by the worst?LB: Well, because I basically said, this will stimulate you, and then repeated about rapists and molesters and murderers. It was, it was epic. And then everybody blamed me for going hysterical, and then everything I predicted happened in Oklahoma [after McGirt v. Oklahoma, which addressed the same issue after the Court deadlocked in Carpenter]. But yeah, no, the Oklahoma rebuttal was definitely one that was probably a little over the top.DL: Well look, sometimes you go a little over the top, but I think you also just bring a—I know you don't like this word as applied to argument—but I do think people would say you're a passionate advocate, or you're….LB: Ugh!!!DL: I know, I know, I've read your pieces saying don't use the P word, save it for your, save it for your hobbies, or…LB: Save it for sex.DL: Ha!LB: I'm not a big fan of “passion.” Do you really want a passionate surgeon? No.DL: Well, I guess maybe….LB: I just want someone who's good. Do you want a passionate architect? No. Do you want a passionate airline pilot? No. Just get me somebody who can get the job done and not mess up my face, or my house, or my plumbing. I mean, just get the job done. I do not want a passionate professional, period.DL: Okay, so well…..LB: I would say I'm extremely high-energy.DL: Yes, yes. And I think you just have a sort of sincerity, I think, [so] that nobody feels they're ever getting a snow job from you. It's like very, very honest, very unfiltered. And I think that that candor, that uber-compliance with the duty of candor to the court, I think is very appreciated by the judges.LB: Again, think of a surgeon. Seriously. When you're out and under their knife, you need them doing a good job with whatever they're repairing. Your life is in their hands and you need to take care of them. And that is in addition to putting myself in the role of a mother, I also think of a surgeon. I mean, you do everything you can for your kids. And if you're a surgeon, you know you got a job to do and you just, you gotta get it done. And so, I don't like that word “passion.” It sounds like it interferes with judgment. That's why I don't like that word. And maybe I am passionate, but I don't like to be called that.DL: So what are you passionate about then? What do you like to do outside of work? I see you, the listeners can't, but we're on Zoom, I see you're wearing a Peloton sweatshirt. Are you passionate about exercise? I know you mentioned you're not passionate about cooking or baking because you tried that on and that didn't work. So what do you like to do when you're not arguing before the Court?LB: I love to play with my dog, I love to exercise, I love music, and I love children.DL: Okay. Those are all worthy interests.So this is the lightning round, [since] I see our time is almost elapsed. Let me ask you my final four questions, which are standardized for all guests.The first is, what do you like the least about the law? And that can either be the practice of law or it can be law as that system that governs all of us.LB: The stereotypical male ego.DL: Fair enough. That is a good point and a very concise one. What would you be if you were not a lawyer?LB: Debate coach.DL: Oh, there are a lot of similarities there.LB: I would coach. I would be involved with children in some way, teacher, coaching, whatever I could do with kids.DL: Wonderful, wonderful.LB: I think everything that you think is different about me as an advocate is why I really come alive with children, because they're so not used to adults that are normal. They're so used to adults kind of doing weird stuff with kids and they're like, they just flip out when an adult is like, just tells it to them straight. They just, there's some way, just so much fun. I love kids.DL: Well, it's funny, I think in your Texas piece you had a line about how, well, the kids know that you're different from the other parents because….LB: I swear with them. I can't tell you how much I love kids. I mean, I love dogs too, but I love children.DL: Oh, that's great. Well, I'm sure that if you ever retire from Supreme Court advocacy, I'm sure a school or debate camp would love to have you.Question number three, how much sleep do you get each night?LB: I sleep all the time, in the middle of the day, in the morning, I just sleep. I love to sleep, so I don't know, seven, eight hours. I would sleep for 12 if I could. I really like to sleep.DL: I am so glad to hear that.LB: Naps are the best.DL: I agree with you on that. I have a great ability to nap. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and some people have trouble sleeping, but it sounds like you're not one of them.LB: I've had trouble since the pandemic. I've had trouble sleeping, but I still, then I'll just sleep in the daytime. But I do like to sleep, so I definitely get enough sleep.DL: Oh, good, good. And I guess my final question: any words of wisdom, especially for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Lisa Blatt?LB: Maybe it's two things that are similar. The hardest lessons are how to deal with failure, and you just can't let failure define you. It is inevitable. Setbacks are so inevitable, and so is embarrassment, shame, and humiliation. And so the sooner you can adapt to that, the better. Jeff Wall once gave me the best advice of my entire life: with every door that closes, the window opens. And the other thing that Jeff Wall told me that was sort of foundational was when you look back upon your life, will you be thinking about how much money you have or how many arguments you have? And the answer is no. You're not gonna be thinking, if I'd only had one more argument or gotten one more award, you'll be thinking about the relationships you've made along the way, that those are the most important. Now, I remember telling this to Judge [Pamela] Harris, who's an amazing Fourth Circuit judge, and she said, “No, that's not what I'll be thinking about, I'll be thinking about what good I did for the world.” And I was like, “Ah, I can't win for losing!” So if you don't think about your relationships, at least think about what good you did for the world.And then the other piece of advice, which is along [the lines of] don't let failure define you, is just don't let other people's view of you define you just because someone doesn't respect you. Okay. You need to define who you are for yourself, and it is so easy to see yourself through other people's eyes, and it's just something you need to fight if you're insecure, like I was.DL: Again, very, very true, and I think you have managed to succeed and define yourself in a really unique way. And again, I have such admiration for you, Lisa, and I'm so grateful to have you on the show.LB: Yeah. And David, let me just plug you. You're a god and my family loves you. My husband loves you. We always read you. You're just amazing. My husband follows everything you say about Yale.DL: Well, there's a lot to say, and I think I'm gonna be hopping on a train soon to head up there for an event. But, again, thank you so much….LB: We are avid, avid followers of you.DL: Thank you again, Lisa. This was so much fun and best of luck in the arguments you have stacked up for the rest of this Term.LB: Thank you. And thank you for inviting me!DL: Thanks again to Lisa for joining me. I'm always inspired by people like Lisa who can reach the pinnacle of the legal profession while remaining true to themselves. She's a unique advocate and personality, and I mean that in the very best sense.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is relatively new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 28. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Jonah Perlin teaches legal practice and advanced legal writing courses at Georgetown Law as a full-time Associate Professor of Law, Legal Practice. Before teaching at Georgetown Law, Jonah worked at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C. where he specialized in complex civil litigation in the United States and abroad. While at Williams & Connolly he also taught advanced legal writing at the Law Center as an Adjunct Professor. Professor Perlin clerked for Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.He received his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown in 2012, where he was an Articles Editor for the Georgetown Law Journal and a law fellow in the Legal Research and Writing Program. He received his A.B., magna cum laude, from Princeton University and his A.M. in Religious Studies from the University of Chicago Divinity School where he studied contemporary Jewish and Christian ethics.Jonah started the How I Lawyer Podcast in January 2021 in order to share the stories from lawyers across the profession about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. The goal of the podcast is to create permissionless networking opportunities at scale for the benefit of future law students, current law students, new lawyers, and seasoned practitioners.He lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife Debra and two young daughters. Learn more about Every Night is Pizza Night, the children's book by J. Kenji López-Alt that Jonah mentioned during the episode.Connect with Jonah on LinkedIn.Follow Jonah on Twitter.Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comFind us on Twitter @PersonalJxPodPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Personal Jurisdiction is edited by Scott Donnell at Run and Drum Media https://www.runanddrummedia.comOur Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

We had our first law school professor join the podcast as a guest, and Jay was worried that he was going to get subjected to the Socratic Method. In this week's episode, Jonah Perlin, former Williams & Connolly associate and now Georgetown Law professor, talks with Jay and Tom about Twitter, podcasting, and what it takes to become a law professor.

Roger Goodell on behalf of the NFL said the findings of the Beth Wilkenson report would not be released and stated that Dan Snyder "has been held accountable". Kevin welcomed long-time Williams-Connolly attorney and former US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman on the show today to discuss/recap the comments yesterday from Goodell about the many Washington Football Team situation(s). Also, Kevin on one of the biggest regular season games in Washington history 30 yrs ago tonight against the Giants.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Heels of Justice; these are the stories of women lawyers who are trailblazers in their field and paved the way for the rest of us.   Karyn A. Temple, Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel for the Motion Picture Association joins the Heels of Justice to share her steadfast journey into copyright law.   Tune in for a fascinating discussion about the journey in and out of governmental and private law practice as well as the evolution of work conditions for a woman of color in a largely white-male-dominated profession.   Key Takeaways [:47] Katherine welcomes Karyn A. Temple and asks her to share the story of how she found her way into law school as well as how she found out the practice of law was her calling.   [4:00] Karyn shares how enjoyable law school was for her in both the differences and similarities to her expectations as well as seeing a path to copyright law.   [8:35] From clerking on the Sixth Circuit to working at the Department of Justice (for a short time, alongside her mother!) and joining Williams & Connolly, Karyn shares her formidable private and government experience.   [14:53] Karyn speaks to her first in-house role at the Recording Industry Association, and how her proactive interest in entertainment cases at Williams & Connolly helped her in that role. She shares one particular case she had to tackle there.   [18:59] Looping back into the DoJ! Karyn shares what brought her back on the policy side — hint, it was a specific administration. She shares her roles and responsibilities as the Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General of the United-States.   [21:55] Joining the Copyright Office was a full-circle experience and Karyn takes a moment to explain how copyright operates and how it affects so many aspects of our lives.   [26:21] Karyn shares two wonderful experiences where she was asked to go to Beijing and Marrakesh and negotiate treaties on the behalf of the United-States and explains what a copyright treaty is.   [28:47] So beyond being very cool, what does the title of United States Register of Copyrights, Karyn breaks down what the position entails and the teams that rely on its leadership.   [30:27] Reaching the pinnacle of copyright law was a huge pride point for someone as steadfastly focused on copyright law for her entire career! Karyn shares her most memorable achievement in the role.   [31:19] General Counsel of the Motion Picture Association is Karyn’s current role; she touches on what it is they do — you know those ratings? It’s them!   [30:32] Being a black woman in a notoriously undiverse profession, Karyn shares her daily experience of discrimination in its various forms, as well as her hope for the future and the conversation we need to have as a society. She also touches on how the current trend to speak openly about these issues is affecting the way she chooses to lead.   [34:39] Failure is part of how we learn; Karyn shares her perspective on what that means for lawyers and how you can move forward from your mistakes. She shares a moment when she advocated for herself in her career.   [49:31] Katherine thanks Karyn A. Temple for all of her insight and openness to share her experience and signs off until next time.   That’s it for this episode of Heels of Justice; if you like the stories we’re telling, please visit our website. You can join our mailing list, learn more about our guests, and see what we have planned for the future.   You can also follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.   Disclaimer: The opinions you have heard are ours or our guests’ alone. They’re not the opinions of our employers, or our clients, or our bosses, and not our husbands, kids, or pets, or anyone else’s.   More about the Heels of Justice hosts Sarita Venkat, and Katherine Minarik Heels of Justice on the Web Heels of Justice on Twitter Heels of Justice on Instagram Heels of Justice on Facebook   Sarita Venkat on LinkedIn Katherine Minarik on LinkedIn Katherine Minarik on Twitter Katherine Minarik at cleverbridge   More about our guest Karyn A. Temple is Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel for the Motion Picture Association. One of the world’s leading authorities on copyright, Ms. Temple will oversee all of the Association’s legal affairs and content protection efforts around the world.   Prior to joining the Motion Picture Association, Ms. Temple served more than eight years in the U.S. Copyright Office, most recently as the Register of Copyrights, where she led the 400-person agency and its eight divisions representing law, policy, international affairs, financial operations, registration practice, public records, and outreach and education. In this role, she testified multiple times before both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate and oversaw the Office’s policy and legal activities among others.   Find out more about Karyn A. Temple at the Motion Picture Association   Mentioned in this episode Williams & Connolly LLP Recording Industry Association U.S. Copyright Office   Personal stories (edited) “The fact that we're all copyright owners and copyright creators and generators is something that we often don't realize, but every time we take a picture, that’s a copyright that we own. Every time we decide to write a poem or create a new song to sing to our children to go to sleep, that’s another copyright. Often in the press, you see a lot just about big companies being copyright owners, but the fact that is that all of us as individuals are also creators in almost every aspect of our lives and have ownership of our work and rights under copyright law to be able to decide how that work should be distributed. We can also make money off that work if we so choose and I think it’s great to emphasize: all of us are creators in our own right.”   “I’m very proud that we got rid of our backlog of registration claims. We get hundreds of thousands of individual claims every year, and we have limited resources. We were able to secure some additional funds to hire more staff and work really closely with the head of the registration program — and all of the wonderful staff that we have in registration on developing ideas — to try to address our backlog so we can more quickly get those registration certificates out to people.”

In this episode I speak with Nick Boyle who is a litigation partner at Latham & Watkin’s Washington D.C. Office. Before that he was a litigator at Williams & Connolly for almost twenty years.  Nick hails from Scotland and came to America after completing degrees at King's College and Cambridge to study at Harvard for an LLM. His international practice focuses on commercial litigation where he has represented business to business data providers, software companies, movie studios, investment banks, private equity funds, and even a Hall of Fame NBA basketball coach. In an age of specialization and silos, Nick has done it all: corporate work, arbitrations, trials, appeals, and strategic advising for individuals and institutions. But what makes Nick standout in a world of excellent civil litigators is not just the breadth and depth of his practice but also his focus on mentoring and developing junior associates. In our conversation we talk about the nature of his Big Law civil litigation practice, how a kid from Scotland became an American litigator, the importance of learning from experience, the central role of networking and getting to know people as a lawyer, best practices for how to mentor younger lawyers, how younger lawyers can stand out by taking ownership of their cases, and the importance of law at this moment of national challenges. (Seriously don’t miss the end of this episode.)

Kristin Shapiro joins to discuss this month's IWF's policy focus: paid leave and the pandemic. As more lawmakers argue that a paid leave entitlement will help “workplaces and communities respond more effectively and equitably” to a pandemic, we discuss whether or not that's true and also what some of the unintended consequences may be. Kristin is a Senior Fellow with Independent Women's Forum. Kristin clerked for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following her clerkship, Kristin practiced law as an associate at Williams & Connolly where she litigated numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court. Kristin then served as Assistant General Counsel in the Office of General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives for three years, and is now an attorney for the federal government.She Thinks is a podcast for women (and men) who are sick of the spin in today's news cycle and are seeking the truth. Once a week, every week, She Thinks host Beverly Hallberg is joined by guests who cut through the clutter and bring you the facts.You don't have to keep up with policy and politics to understand how issues will impact you and the people you care about most. You just have to keep up with us.We make sure you have the information you need to come to your own conclusions. Because, let's face it, you're in control of your own life and can think for yourself.You can listen to the latest She Thinks episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community.Sign up for our emails here: http://iwf.org/sign-upIndependent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day.Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org.Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most: https://iwf.org/sign-up. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/IWF06.Follow IWF on social media:- https://twitter.com/iwf on Twitter- https://www.facebook.com/independentwomensforum on Facebook- https://instagram.com/independentwomensforum on Instagram#IWF #SheThinks #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This has been a landmark year for Supreme Court rulings already. In one week we got the protections of LGBT people at work and a rejection of Trump desire to end DACA, protecting immigrants!! What other decisions were made by the court this year and what do they mean for future jurisprudence? What do the majority opinions of the two stellar judgments teach us about Chief Justice John Roberts? Is he the new Justice Kennedy? Do we have cause to be optimistic about the future of the court? Ben Feuer, famed appellate lawyer and legal scholar, is coming to Manny's to discuss and lay it all out for us. About Ben Feuer: Ben Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group. Deemed one of the “top appellate litigators in California” by a national news network, Ben regularly represents large and small businesses in bet-the-company commercial appeals in the California appellate courts and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He also represents individuals involved in prosecuting and defending civil appeals ranging from major real estate controversies to multimillion-dollar tort actions to high-net worth family law disputes to novel questions of constitutional law. Ben has been called an “Elite Boutique Trailblazer” by the National Law Journal, named one of the “Top 40 Lawyers Under 40” in California by the Daily Journal, included on Benchmark Litigation‘s “40 & Under Hot List,” and awarded the “Outstanding Barrister” prize by the Bar Association of San Francisco. He has been chosen as a SuperLawyer “Rising Star” for the field of appellate law nine times. Ben is co-chair of the Appellate Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and has moderated and spoken on dozens of panels with appellate judges, practitioners, and professors on topics related to appellate law and practice. He is also a frequent author of articles on appellate practice and constitutional law topics, and his writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the National Law Journal, as well as The Recorder, The Daily Journal, and Corporate Counsel. He also often appears on KGO Radio, Voice of America, and in the Daily Journal‘s podcasts to discuss upcoming appellate issues, Supreme Court cases, and constitutional law. You can read most of Ben's articles and listen to recordings of many of his broadcasts by clicking here. Ben previously served as an Appellate Lawyer Representative to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of a handful of attorneys from across the court's 11-state jurisdiction personally selected for the role by the court's judges. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Barristers Club and on the advisory board to OneJustice, an organization that supports California legal nonprofit groups. In 2016, the Minority Bar Council of San Francisco presented Ben with its “Unity Award,” for “outstanding commitment to diversity in the legal profession.” Before joining the California Appellate Law Group, Ben served as a law clerk to Judge Carlos Bea of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He also served as of counsel to the San Francisco appellate boutique Eisenberg & Hancock, and practiced with top litigators at the national firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Williams & Connolly. Ben graduated in the top of his class from the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, where he was an editor of the Law Review, argued for the national moot court team, and published an article in the Northwestern Law Review on free speech and election law. He has a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Trinity College in Connecticut.

Today I’m speaking with Helen Dooley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Tandem Sports & Entertainment in Arlington, Virginia. Helen graduated from Duke University where she obtained both a history degree and her law degree. She spoke about her informative years clerking for federal judges in the 10th Circuit, including Judge Tacha, who taught her the importance of being yourself. It was there that she learned, among other things, how to obtain and maintain the respect of your colleagues. From her clerkships, she went to Williams & Connolly in D.C., where she would spend the next 16 years of practice. While there, Helen’s practice evolved and almost by happenstance, she was asked to help offer real estate advice to Duke alum and basketball superstar, Grant Hill. After spending several years advising sports clients, Helen left the firm to help start Tandem Sports & Entertainment with her long-time colleague, Jim Tanner. Tandem is a full-service sports and entertainment agency with expertise in athlete management, talent representation, marketing, communications and publicity services. Now a Senior VP and General Counsel, Helen serves the agency in a multitude of ways. She spoke about how she has been able to establish such a successful career for herself all while helping home school her three children. Helen has ensured her clients know her level of dedication to her work and has made herself an integral part of any team that she is a part of. Her story is a reminder that so often, we are more capable than what we give ourselves credit for. And with all the challenges we are facing today with coronavirus, Helen’s reminder is nothing short of serendipitous. I think you’ll find her spirit is assuring and her story interesting.

‘Communications Policy in the COVID-19 Era’ with Geoffrey Starks (Ep. 225)     FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks joined Joe Miller to discuss the communications priorities his office is focused on amidst the coronavirus pandemic.     Bio     Geoffrey Starks (@geoffreystarks) was nominated to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission by the President and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on January 2, 2019. He was sworn into office on January 30, 2019. Previously, Commissioner Starks served as Assistant Bureau Chief in the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, Senior Counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he received the Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service—the highest award a DOJ employee can receive. Prior to his entry into federal public service, Commissioner Starks was an attorney at the law firm Williams & Connolly, clerked for the Honorable Judge Duane Benton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, served as a legislative staffer in the Illinois State Senate, and worked as a financial analyst.     Commissioner Starks is a native of Kansas and was born in Kansas City, Missouri. Commissioner Starks earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard College with high honors and a law degree from Yale Law School. He lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Lauren, and their two children.     Resources     Starks, G. (2020). To Fight Coronavirus, Millions More Americans Need Internet Access. The New York Times available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/opinion/internet-broadband-coronavirus.html.     Miriam's Kitchen     Larkin Street Youth Services Center     Lifeline Support for Affordable Communications (FCC)   News Roundup         Zoom under fire for privacy breaches   Zoom, which has been the darling of remote workers in recent weeks, is under fire for privacy violations. A Zoom user in California sued the company, claiming it improperly shared their data with Facebook. Also, So-called Zoom-bombers have been interrupting meetings breaching Zoom’s security systems. In one incident, black students at the University of Texas at Austin were conducting a meeting on the platform, only to be interrupted by someone making racial slurs. The FBI has reported “Zoombombing” incidents nationwide and New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote to Zoom leadership requesting a faster response to these and other security breaches.   Remote learning challenges special education students and those without internet   School systems across the country have launched remote learning platforms for their students in response to coronavirus-related school closures. But remote learning poses unique challenges for those without internet access at home. And the $2 trillion stimulus empowered Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to cut funding and support for accommodations for special education students.   NY State Court of Appeals: Postmates workers are entitled to unemployment benefits   The New York Court of Appeals, the State of New York’s highest court, has ruled that Postmates delivery workers are entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The decision has implications for gig workers throughout New York, including Uber and Lyft drivers. New York State Attorney General Letitia James applauded the decision.   How much access to data should the government have to respond to COVID-19   Multiple reports found last week that federal officials are prying into cellphone tracking data to assess how the coronavirus is spreading. Advocates argue that data collection is necessary, but guardrails should be established to ensure that federal officials don’t use the data as a backdoor to conduct warrantless surveillance, which they have been angling to do for some time.   Tech companies struggle to keep up with more sophisticated tactics to undermine elections   Tech companies are scrambling to respond to ever-evolving risks to the electoral system. The New York Times reports that a number of tactics that Facebook, Twitter, and Google began implementing to defend against misinformation online, are being tested by politicians themselves, with Michael Bloomberg’s campaign investing directly in Instagram meme accounts promoting his campaign, for example. The companies spent billions to deal with threats happening in plain sight, the most well-known examples being those conducted by Russia with the assistance of Cambridge Analytica and prominent Republicans. But the stealthier approaches taken by bad actors 4 years later underscores the need to invest even more resources to address the newest attacks.   FCC approves $300 million telehealth initiative The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved a $300 million telehealth initiative designed to ensure that folks in remote areas can access telehealth applications while they’re stuck at home. But the funding is directed toward providers themselves. And most grants will be for less than $1 million. Part of the money will also be used to address remote access issues that have plagued the country for decades.   DC District Court: Journalists and investigators can legally probe sites for algorithmic bias   The US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled last week that journalists and others are free to investigate platforms for signs of algorithmic bias, even if it means submitting false information to the site that would violate the site’s terms of service. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the pre-enforcement lawsuit on behalf of two Northeastern University computer science professors, to prevent the Department of Justice from attempting to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prevent investigators from using evasive tactics to assess the extent to which a platform engages in algorithmic bias. The Department of Justice argued that such violations would violate a platform’s First Amendment Rights. But the decision turned on whether the site had set up adequate permissions such that an investigator, scholar, or journalist could be found to have exceeded the granted permission level. The Court found that breaching terms of service agreements doesn’t rise to the high level of permission granted by, say, an authentication gate, which adds another level of permission by requiring a password.        

"Why do mothers have to say out loud that they enjoy every single moment of being a mother? Because we don’t. There are times when you have these thoughts of escape." - Angie Kim Angie Kim moved as a preteen from Seoul, South Korea, to the suburbs of Baltimore. She attended Stanford University and Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, then practiced as a trial lawyer at Williams & Connolly. Her stories have won the Glamour Essay Contest and the Wabash Prize in Fiction, and appeared in numerous publications including Vogue, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Salon, Slate, The Southern Review, Sycamore Review, The Asian American Literary Review, and PANK. She lives in northern Virginia with her husband and three sons. Miracle Creek is her first novel. Connect with Angie on her website, Instagram or Twitter.   Angie's book recommendation: The Age of Light by Whitney Scharer   ENTER TO WIN A COPY OF MIRACLE CREEK BY ANGIE KIM   -- Website: http://www.feministbookclub.com Instagram: @feministbookclubbox Twitter: @fmnstbookclub Facebook: /feministbookclubbox Email newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dINNkn   -- Logo and web design by Shatterboxx  Editing support from Phalin Oliver Original music by @iam.onyxrose Transcript for this episode: bit.ly/FBCtranscript36   Get $5 off your Feminist Book Club Box with the code PODCAST at feministbookclub.com/shop.  

On this Legal Speak episode, Law.com Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro and attorney Kannon Shanmugam break down the big developments at the Supreme Court during its recent term. Shanmugam, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and one of the country’s most distinguished Supreme Court advocates, describes the cases he’s watching and what it’s like to argue before the court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Shanmugam also talks about his decision earlier this year to leave the law firm Williams & Connolly for a new perch at Paul Weiss. Legal Speak is brought to you by Econ One, offering economic expertise, consulting and dispute resolution, and data analytics.

In Episode 22, Angie Kim (author of Miracle Creek) talks about how her background influenced her novel and shares her literary mystery recommendations. This post contains affiliate links, through which I make a small commission when you make a purchase (at no cost to you!). Highlights Angie’s journey from trial attorney to novelist. How Angie’s own children’s medical problems when they were young inspired the submarine children in Miracle Creek. Angie’s child’s real life experience with HBOT treatment (the submarine treatment featured in Miracle Creek) and her real-life experience as the parent of an HBOT patient. Why society shames people for expressing dark thoughts about the hard parts of parenting and caregiving. How Angie’s own experience immigrating to the U.S. from South Korea as a teen influenced Mary’s character in the book. The theme Angie is considering exploring in her second novel…and a teaser for the beginning of her second novel. How Angie figures out how her novels will end. How Angie found out Miracle Creek was going to be a Book of the Month pick (April). Why Angie can’t share a book she didn’t love…which led to a discussion about DNF’ing books. What Angie (as an author) thinks of bloggers/podcasters/bookstagrammers publicly sharing books they DNF. The original title of Miracle Creek and how/why it got changed after printed ARCs were sent out. Angie’s (Mostly) Literary Mystery Recommendations Two OLD Books She Loves Mystic River by Dennis Lehane | Buy from Amazon [25:40] A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan | Buy from Amazon [26:27] Two NEW Books She Loves The Night Tiger by Yangsze Choo | Buy from Amazon [28:04] Disappearing Earth by Julia Phillips | Buy from Amazon [29:21] One Book She Didn’t Love A quick discussion on DNF’ing books you don’t like [31:23] One Upcoming Release She’s Excited About Searching for Sylvie Lee by Jean Kwok (Publication Date: June 4) | Buy from Amazon [34:40] Other Books Mentioned Miracle Creek by Angie Kim (My Review) | Buy from Amazon [0:49] The Winter Sister by Megan Collins | Buy from Amazon [22:01] The Age of Light by Whitney Scharer (My Review) | Buy from Amazon [22:01] Since We Fellby Dennis Lehane (My Review) | Buy from Amazon [25:51] Manhattan Beach by Jennifer Egan | Buy from Amazon [26:38] Girl in Translation by Jean Kwok | Buy from Amazon [34:56] Other Links Sarah’s Book of the Month April Commentary “I Felt Like An Incompetent Mother. Then I Learned How Not to Feel So Alone.” – Essay in The Washington Post by Angie Kim “With Her Son Suffering from a Mysterious Illness, One Mother Finds Hope in an Experimental Treatment” – Essay in Vogue by Angie Kim Angie Kim interview with Ari Shapiro on NPR Other essays by Angie Kim Book of the Month Jordy’s Book Club (#miraclecreekarmy) Spring 2019 Book Preview podcast episode Liberty Hardy (@franzencomesalive) About Angie Author Website | Instagram |Facebook | Twitter |  Angie moved as a preteen from Seoul, South Korea, to the suburbs of Baltimore. She attended Stanford University and Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, then practiced as a trial lawyer at Williams & Connolly. Her stories have won the GlamourEssay Contest and the Wabash Prize in Fiction, and appeared in numerous publications including Vogue, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Salon, Slate, The Southern Review, Sycamore Review, The Asian American Literary Review, and PANK. She lives in northern Virginia with her husband and three sons. Miracle Creek is her first novel.

This week, I invited my friend and business colleague, the former U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, into the studio to talk about what every CEO needs to know about the world right now. I know I say this a lot, but it’s really true this time around: We covered a lot of ground in this conversation. Howard provides his perspective on what to pay attention to with regard to Brexit, energy policy, climate change, trade, the globalized economy, and the 2020 presidential election. Ambassador Gutman also provides advice on how to manage business perception, create opportunities from regulatory changes, and even shares some helpful thoughts on how to fill board seats to be more innovative. Howard’s resume is, well, extraordinary. He is a Harvard educated lawyer, who clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He worked for Cravath Swaine, left its employment to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, then worked for the celebrated Washington D.C. powerhouse litigation firm, Williams & Connolly, which is where Howard and I became friends, as he counselled Bergeson & Campbell. Howard went on to become Special Assistant to FBI Director Bill Webster, and then rejoined Williams & Connolly. Throughout his legal career, politics was always part of Howard’s DNA. Howard has worked with Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, who named Howard U.S. Ambassador to Belgium in 2009, a post he served until 2013. Howard is also an actor -- he is a card carrying member of the Screen Actors Guild and has appeared in the HBO series K Street, Tim Robbins’ Film Noise, and the 2009 film Fame. Howard’s consulting firm, The Gutman Group, focuses on a broad array of cross-border investment, market access, venture capital, and international relations issues. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW.

    Clayton Banks: 5G Comes to Harlem (Ep. 140) Bio Clayton Banks (@embertime) is the Co-Founder and CEO of Silicon Harlem.  The mission of Silicon Harlem is to transform Harlem and other urban markets into Innovation and Technology Hubs. Under his leadership, Silicon Harlem has partnered with the Department of Education for New York City to establish an after school STEM based startup accelerator, collaborate with the NYC Mayor’s office to assess wireless broadband in upper Manhattan, and coordinate a virtual startup incubator for tech based entrepreneurs. Banks has established and produces the only comprehensive technology conference in Harlem, the Silicon Harlem tech conference is focused on next generation internet and its impact on urban markets economic development. Prior to Silicon Harlem, Banks has been a pioneer in the cable and communications industry for over two decades. He set the vision for Ember Media, a development group that builds digital solutions and interactive applications for top brands and non-profit organizations, across multiple platforms. Known as a pragmatic visionary, Banks has developed and deployed leading edge technology and applications for network cloud, gaming consoles, social media, augmented reality, interactive TV, tablets, mobile apps and over 400 interactive properties. Banks has implemented multi-platform strategies for MTV, ESPN, Budweiser, Essence Music Festival, Urban Latino, Prudential, New York Institute of Technology, United Technologies, National Urban League, Denny’s, Scholastic, and other top brands. He has produced multimedia and broadband content for Discovery Networks, HBO, Pepsi, Bloomberg TV, Showtime Networks, Bermuda Tourism, British Tourist Authority, Monaco Tourism, and countless other companies and organizations around the world. Banks has worked with former President of the United States Bill Clinton to publish a first-of-its-kind interactive college guide series called “The Key”, that targets underserved communities and features Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions. The Key was featured on CNN, NY1, Univision, and several other media outlets around the country. Banks served as Vice President of Affiliate Relations for Comedy Central. While at Comedy Central, he was part of the launch of South Park, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and the Upright Citizens Brigade.  Banks established the New York and Chicago Affiliate Relations offices, recruited, hired, and managed a senior affiliate relations team. Prior to Comedy Central, Banks served as Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing to launch Sega Channel. Sega Channel was the first interactive cable service available to US subscribers.  In his capacity at Sega Channel, Banks collaborated with all aspects of the product including technical infrastructure, product content, and distribution.  Banks negotiated affiliation agreements for distribution of the service with the top cable companies in the US. Including Comcast, Cablevision Systems, Time Warner, and Charter Communications. Sega Channel has been credited by many media experts for moving the cable industry toward interactivity. Prior to Sega Channel, Banks served as Regional Director at Showtime Networks, where he was responsible for launching The Movie Channel in New York City and overseeing overall growth of Showtime Networks among assigned multiple system operators. Banks currently serves on the Commission on Public Information and Communication for the city of New York, appointed by and representing the 5 Borough Presidents.  He serves as a Board of Director for the Armory Track and Field Foundation, a Board member for the Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce and is an active participant in the Principal for a Day program in New York City.   He has published several white papers on the interactive experience and participates as a moderator and speaker at several industry events. Banks served as the President of the National Association for Multi-Ethnicity in Communications (NAMIC) from 1996-1998 and was instrumental in working with the FCC to include Minority owned business incentives in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.  As NAMIC’s President he championed programs to increase the number of minorities in senior management in the Cable and network television business. Banks has received many awards for outstanding creative and corporate awards including an I.D. Magazine Award, a Davey Award, Promax, @dtech award, Creativity Award, Astrid Award, Ten Awards, the Communicator Award, a Boli Award, the Harlem Business Alliance Business Person of the Year, inducted as a History Maker in the United States Library of Congress, the recipient of the Trailblazer award from Rainbow Push and most recently received a proclamation from New York City as a Technology Leader. Banks attended California State University at Fullerton, where he received degrees in Business Administration and Communications. Banks also completed a Cable Industry sponsored Executive Management program at Harvard Business School. Resources Silicon Harlem A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership by James Comey News Roundup Trump nominates Geoffrey Starks to fill Democratic FCC Seat President Trump has nominated Geoffrey Starks to fill the Democratic seat at the FCC seat that Mignon Clyburn left vacant when she stepped down from the Commission at the end of her term last month. The distinguished Harvard and Yale Law School grad is currently an Assistant Chief in the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. Previously, he worked at the Department of Justice where he helped successfully secure a hate crimes conviction for a former D.C. neighborhood advisory commissioner for DuPont Circle—Robert Dwyer. Dwyer was convicted for, in the wee-hours of the night back in 2014, going over to 17th and Corcoran NW where homeless people sleep and proceeding to toss their belongings into the street, yell racial slurs, and spray one of the homeless men with cleaning solution. Previously, Starks worked at the law firm of Williams & Connolly and as an aide to state senators in Illinois including Barack Obama. Facebook under fire again Facebook is under fire again by both Republicans and Democrats after the New York Times ran a story Sunday night saying the company shared user data with device makers.  The article alleges that Facebook entered into data-sharing agreements with companies like Apple, Amazon, Blackberry and Samsung without users’ consent, reinforcing accusations that began to arise last month, during the ongoing Cambridge Analytica debacle, that Facebook violated a 2011 Federal Trade Commission consent decree to protect user data. Keith Ellison calls for FTC investigation of Google In a letter on Friday, Keith Ellison, vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, followed up on a call he made back in October for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google parent company Alphabet’s market dominance.  He says the FTC should undertake a similar investigation to the one recently conducted by the European Union which resulted in a record $2.7 billion fine against the tech giant for unfairly highlighting its own search results. Facebook and Twitter address political ad transparency Facebook and Twitter have announced measures to address ad transparency. Facebook will now include a “paid for” label atop political ads, and also keep an archive of political ad data for seven years—the length of a congressional election cycle. Twitter will ban foreign-based advertisers from placing political ads on its platform -- it will also clearly identify and include disclaimers on political ads, as well as require political advertisers to use photos in the advertiser profiles as well as provide contact information. The two companies follow efforts by Google to improve its political ad transparency. The Internet Association is urging the Federal Election Commission to keep political ad regulations flexible. Homeland detected surveillance activity near “sensitive facilities” The Department of Homeland security reported suspicious surveillance activity near what it termed as “sensitive facilities”. In a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, Senior Homeland Security Official Chris Krebs wrote that the Department detected an “anomalous” use of Stingray devices—a device that law enforcement officers use to mimic cell towers in order to obtain device data. The problem is that Homeland doesn’t know or isn’t disclosing where the suspicious activity is coming from. Apple reports sharp increase in national security requests Reporting on national security requests it received in the second half of 2017, Apple reported that it received 20% more such requests than it did in the first half of that year. The company reports that it received 16,249 requests regarding 8,249 accounts between July 1 and December 31 of 2017. Google nixes plans to work with Pentagon Finally ,After receiving pressure from thousands of employees, some of which resigned, Google has announced that it will no longer seek government contracting funding to support the Pentagon in its quest to use Artificial Intelligence for drone warfare. The current contract is set to expire in 2019 and Google won’t seek to renew it, according to Gizmodo.