Podcasts about wilmer cutler pickering hale

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln Signs the Second Confiscation ActOn July 17, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act into law, marking a significant legal development during the Civil War. This act allowed for the seizure of property owned by individuals engaged in rebellion against the Union. Unlike previous measures, it did not require due process or provide an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. The act targeted Confederate supporters, intending to weaken the rebellion by stripping resources from those aiding the Confederate cause. The legislation also declared that enslaved people who escaped from rebel owners or were captured by Union forces would be considered free. This move was a precursor to the Emancipation Proclamation and signaled a shift in Union policy towards a more aggressive stance against slavery. The Second Confiscation Act was controversial, as it raised significant legal and constitutional questions regarding property rights and due process. Critics argued it overstepped executive powers and violated the Fifth Amendment.Despite these concerns, the act was a critical step in undermining the Confederate war effort and advancing the Union's moral and strategic objectives. It reflected the growing commitment of the Lincoln administration to not only preserve the Union but also to end slavery. The Second Confiscation Act thus played a pivotal role in the broader legal and political landscape of the Civil War.President Joe Biden is preparing to introduce proposals for significant Supreme Court reforms, including imposing term limits on justices, who currently serve for life. This marks a notable shift for Biden, who has previously resisted such reforms despite pressure from within his party. The proposals also include an enforceable ethics code for justices and a constitutional amendment to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision granting broad immunity to presidents for official actions.However, these changes are expected to face considerable challenges in becoming law, especially with Congress unlikely to address major legislation before the upcoming election. Biden's proposals come amidst a tight race against former President Donald Trump, who leads in public opinion polls. Congressional Republicans are expected to oppose the reforms, viewing the current conservative Supreme Court as a significant political achievement.The White House has yet to consult with key lawmakers about the plans, and Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has declined to comment. Biden hinted at these proposals in a recent call with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, aiming to garner support after a poor performance in a presidential debate. The Democratic push for Supreme Court reform has grown following several controversial rulings, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the rejection of Biden's student loan cancellation plan. Justice Clarence Thomas has also faced scrutiny for not disclosing expensive gifts from conservative donors. The court's decision granting presidential immunity for official acts has further complicated efforts to prosecute Trump. Biden criticized this decision, arguing it contradicts the founders' intentions. In response, Trump accused Democrats of undermining the Supreme Court and interfering in the presidential election. Biden to Propose Supreme Court Reforms, Including Term LimitsBiden seriously considering proposals on Supreme Court term limits, ethics code, AP sources sayFederal prosecutors in Alaska have identified 23 criminal cases with potential conflicts of interest involving former U.S. District Judge Joshua Kindred, who resigned following sexual misconduct allegations. The 9th Circuit Judicial Council reprimanded Kindred for creating a hostile work environment and engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a law clerk. Although the clerk did not work on cases before Kindred, potential conflicts existed in other cases.Bryan Wilson, head of the U.S. Attorney's Office's criminal division, detailed the conflicts in an email to Alaska's federal public defender. These conflicts included interactions between Kindred and several attorneys, such as a senior prosecutor who sent him nude photos and another attorney who exchanged flirtatious texts. These undisclosed conflicts could lead defense lawyers to challenge convictions or sentences from cases Kindred oversaw.The U.S. Attorney's Office had taken steps to mitigate conflicts since late 2022 by notifying the district's chief judge and reassigning cases from Kindred. However, Federal Public Defender Jamie McGrady criticized the office for not disclosing the conflicts sooner and noted that the recusal of Kindred did not eliminate prejudice against defendants. Her office plans to investigate all cases involving attorneys who interacted with Kindred to ensure justice.Former Alaska judge had potential conflicts in 23 cases, prosecutors say | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled that Minnesota's law requiring individuals to be at least 21 to obtain a permit to carry a handgun in public for self-defense is unconstitutional. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law violated the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing for the panel, emphasized that the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit.The court upheld a previous ruling in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which had challenged the law. The decision referenced the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a new standard for evaluating firearm regulations, stating they must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.Judge Benton noted that Minnesota failed to show that 18- to 20-year-olds posed specific risks that justified the age restriction. Despite this, the Supreme Court had recently upheld a federal ban on gun possession for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, indicating that certain modern firearm restrictions could be valid without historical precedent.Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison expressed disappointment with the ruling, arguing it complicates efforts to reduce shootings and enhance public safety. This decision is part of a broader trend of gun rights groups challenging age-based firearm restrictions in various states.Minnesota cannot bar adults under 21 from carrying guns, court rules | ReutersTesla has replaced its long-time law firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in a California class action antitrust case. This change, noted in court records, comes as Tesla faces allegations of monopolizing the market for vehicle parts and services, which has purportedly led to consumers paying higher prices. The reason for the switch was not disclosed, and neither Tesla nor the involved law firms commented.The class action case saw a significant development in June when a judge refused to dismiss the claims against Tesla. Shortly thereafter, Wilmer attorneys made their debut appearance for Tesla, continuing to deny the plaintiffs' allegations. Tesla and Musk have a history of legal representation by both Cravath and Wilmer in various high-profile cases.Musk is also represented by Cravath in a Delaware lawsuit challenging his $56 billion pay package, a case that faced a setback in January when a judge invalidated the compensation. Despite a shareholder vote in favor of Musk's pay in June, the Delaware litigation continues, with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan recently joining the defense team.Wilmer is defending Tesla in another antitrust lawsuit in New Orleans, where it seeks to overturn a ban on direct-to-consumer car sales. The new Wilmer team for the California case includes partners David Gringer and Ari Holtzblatt, while the departing Cravath team comprised David Marriott and Vanessa Lavely.Tesla swaps law firms in antitrust case as Cravath exits | ReutersThe questioning of former bankruptcy judge David R. Jones, who resigned after revealing a secret relationship with a partner at Texas law firm Jackson Walker, has been postponed. The US Trustee's office is investigating to recover over $13 million in fees Jones approved for Jackson Walker without disclosing the relationship. Chief Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez of the Houston bankruptcy court is deliberating on whether the questions about Jones' recusal decisions and his relationship with the attorney violate judiciary policy.Jones, who resigned last year, had a relationship with Elizabeth Freeman, who left Jackson Walker in late 2022. The deposition, originally set for July 18, is on hold until Judge Rodriguez determines the appropriateness of the questions. Jones' attorney, Benjamin I. Finestone, argues that questions about Jones' conduct are a distraction and that the focus should be on what Jackson Walker knew about the relationship.Jackson Walker's attorney, Jason Lee Boland, asserts that understanding the timeline of Jones and Freeman's relationship is crucial for defending against the US Trustee's efforts to reclaim the fees. Judge Rodriguez emphasized the complexity of addressing questions about judges' recusal decisions, stating that such decisions should not be publicly questioned. US Trustee attorney Laura Steele argued that Jones' public statements about his recusals allow for relevant inquiries.The case, known as Professional Fee Matters Concerning the Jackson Walker Law Firm, continues as the court navigates the boundaries of questioning a judge's conduct and recusal decisions.Bankruptcy Court Likely to Pare Back Probe into Ex-Judge Romance This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Jessica Lisak of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston breaks down ethics, attorney-client privilege, and work product in this podcast, excerpted from MCLE's 6/28/23 live webcast: Dissecting Attorney-Client Privilege & the Work Product Doctrine. The full program is available as an on demand webcast or an MP3 here.  Get 24/7 instant access to hundreds of related eLectures like this one—and more—with a subscription to the MCLE OnlinePass. Learn more at www.mcle.org/onlinepass and start your free trial today! Connect with us on socials!Instagram: mcle.newenglandX (Formerly Twitter): MCLENewEnglandLinkedIn: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE│New England)Facebook: MCLE New EngalndThreads: mcle.newnengland

EPISODE 1508: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to the CEO and President of Democracy Forward, Skye Perryman, about the existential crisis of American Democracy and what we can do to save it Skye Perryman is a lawyer, advocate, and leader with a track record of taking on and winning critical fights that advance democratic values, stop abuses of power, and improve the wellbeing of people and communities. She was named President and CEO of Democracy Forward Foundation in June 2021, returning to the organization where she was on the founding litigation team. She most recently served as the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where she oversaw its broad portfolio of legal, policy, and public affairs work and led a number of groundbreaking initiatives that enhanced access and equity in health care. Prior to ACOG, Skye was a Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward Foundation where, as one of the organization's founding litigators, she developed and filed some of the first cases challenging unprecedented and unlawful executive action in the post-2016 era. Skye began her legal career at Covington & Burling LLP and later practiced at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr (WilmerHale). In private practice, she handled complex and high-stakes matters at the intersection of law and policy for clients across industries, while maintaining a robust pro bono practice dedicated to vindicating the civil and constitutional rights of people. Earlier in her career, Skye coordinated programs for underserved youth in Central Texas public schools. She was also part of early efforts to build coalitions between labor and environmental stakeholders supporting investment in renewable energy infrastructure and good jobs. Skye volunteers her time as a mentor and serves on the boards of several organizations, including the First Shift Justice Project, the Atlas Performing Arts Center, and the Interfaith Alliance. She teaches courses at American University and is an active alumna of Baylor University, where she helped to initiate a thousands-strong alumni movement calling on the University to change its restrictive policies regarding LGBTQ+ student organizations. Skye grew up in Texas and is a proud product of its public schools. She holds a Juris Doctor with honors from the Georgetown University Law Center and a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude from Baylor University where she is a member of the Board of Advocates for the College of Arts and Sciences. She has received numerous accolades, including being named a four-time Washington Rising Star by SuperLawyers, a Top 40 Under 40 Trailblazer by the Leadership Center for Excellence, the Baylor Line Foundation's Outstanding Young Alumna, a Harry S. Truman Scholar, and a Chuck F. C. Ruff Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year. Her work has been covered in outlets such as The New York Times, National Public Radio, NBC News, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, and Teen Vogue. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In our final podcast of 2022, we're going to take a bit of a different look at the global fight between tyranny and democracy by focusing on our internal struggle. The health of American democracy is critical to the global fight for freedom. As America, so the world. With this in mind, I wanted to dive into the conversation around the January 6th report and get a sense of how we got here and the impact the committee will have as Republicans get ready to take the House. Former Senator Heidi Heitkamp and former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara join me for this special episode of Winter is Here. We discuss the findings of the committee's final report, the distinctions between free speech, political speech, and criminal culpability, Trump's path to an indictment, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.Heitkamp served as North Dakota's Attorney General from 1992 to 2000, and as a US Senator from 2013 to 2019. She currently serves on the boards of the McCain Institute, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and the German Marshall Fund. Recently, Heitkamp was named director of the University of Chicago's Institute of World Politics. She is also a frequent contributor to politics and public affairs for ABC News and CNBC.  Preet was the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2009 to 2017. As US Attorney, he oversaw the investigation and litigation of all criminal and civil cases brought on behalf of the United States in the Southern District of New York. Currently, he is a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit renewdemocracy.substack.com

Synopsis: Luba Greenwood is the CEO of Kojin Therapeutics and Managing Partner of Dana Farber Cancer Institute Venture Fund. Kojin Therapeutics harnesses groundbreaking discoveries in cell state and ferroptosis biology to create novel therapies and cures for diseases traditionally considered intractable. The Dana Farber Cancer Institute Venture Fund accelerates the development of new research and technologies to treat incurable diseases, particularly in oncology and immunology. Luba discusses the early years of her career as a lawyer and how her legal experience relates to running a biotech company, her background in big pharma at Pfizer and Roche, and the work Kojin is doing in novel biology. She also dives into the qualities that she values in a board member, the importance of company culture, and her perspective on what good leadership looks like. Biography: Luba Greenwood is a leading figure in the biotech and digital health world with vast experience as an executive, investor, and company builder in the biotech, life sciences, diagnostics, and tech sectors. Luba is the Chief Executive Officer of Kojin Therapeutics, a world leader in ferroptosis, pioneering breakthrough medicines in oncology, immunology, neuro, metabolism, and inflammation. Most recently, Luba has served as the Managing Partner of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute Venture Fund, Binney Street Capital, which she has built and launched. She has also taught at Harvard University at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Previously, Ms. Greenwood served in leadership roles at Google Life Sciences, Verily, and was a VP Global Business Development and Mergers & Acquisitions at Roche, where she also established and led the East Coast Innovation Hub. Ms. Greenwood has led $5B+ in deals and investments across multiple therapeutic areas and life sciences globally. She has also co-founded companies in the oncology, AI/ML, women's health and microbiome space. Luba began her career as a lawyer, practicing at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. She is a recipient of several awards and honors for her work in the community, including the Science Club for Girls Catalyst Award for her commitment to advocating for women in science and technology.

What you'll learn in this episode: Why Amy onboards new law firms with a day of learning, and why familiarity with the business is crucial for long-term relationships with law firms  Why it is beneficial to have parallel relationships between the level of law firm associates and the level of in-house counsel Why law firms that are passed over by in-house counsel in the first round shouldn't give up on forging a relationship How junior attorneys can build relationships with in-house counsel without overstepping boundaries Why diversity and inclusion is more than just a buzzword About Amy Yeung Amy Yeung is General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer, for Lotame, the world's leading unstacked data solutions company. Recognized as an expert in digital data and privacy, Yeung was previously Deputy General Counsel at Comscore, which she successfully helped guide through a corporate crisis. She also served as Vice President of Legal at Dataminr and Assistant General Counsel for ZeniMax. Yeung earned a J.D. from Duke University School of Law and a B.A. in political science from the University of Chicago. Additional resources: Amy Yeung's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-yeung-0518883/ Lotame - Website: https://www.lotame.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LotameSolutions LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lotame/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/lotame Law Firm Marketing Catalyst Podcast The relationship between law firms and in-house counsel is complex, but it boils down to one thing: how well each party understands the other. That's a lesson Amy Yeung, General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer at Lotame, has learned all too well during her time as in-house counsel. She joined the Law Firm Marketing Catalyst Podcast to talk about how she selects the law firms she works with, how junior attorneys can prepare for partnership, and why diversity and inclusion isn't just a fad. Read the episode transcript here. Sharon: Welcome to the Law Firm Marketing Catalyst Podcast. Today, my guest is Amy Yeung, General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer at Lotame Data Management. The Lotame Data Management platform is a data collection application that gathers and unifies audience data from a plethora of sources such as blogs and websites as well as offline information. Today, we'll hear more about that as well as how Amy evaluates and selects outside counsel. Amy, welcome to the program. Amy: Thank you so much. I'm delighted to be here. Sharon: Thank you so much. It's great for you to talk with us. Give us an overview of your career path. You're quite accomplished. Amy: You've very kind and generous, thank you. I went to law school, and from that, I clerked in the Delaware Court of Chancery under Vice-Chancellor Parsons, which was a phenomenal experience and gave me a chance to look at corporate law and corporate law litigation. After that, I joined the wonderful firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, where I was in a very broad securities group that included regulatory litigation enforcement as well as some corporate work. It was from that point in time that I took, let's call it, an early detour.  These days it's a little different, but at that time, going in-house was not expected, certainly not at those mid-level years. I spent nearly seven years at my first in-house counsel role. They were a publisher, and I helped them expand it for print and software across to a global platform. It was a phenomenal experience. I really enjoyed it. I think for all the lawyers and law firm individuals in the audience, it was a great way to get your chops and have an opportunity to work through a variety of issues, for me, squarely in the software and data space. During that time, I became a subject matter expert in data privacy and product counsel, which I mentioned. These days it has a name and phrase; back then, not so much. I also gained understanding of hardware, software, intellectual property and a lot of those issues. It's from that experience that I became general counsel for the then-unicorn in New York. There was another company that had already gone public, and this company, Dataminr, focused on social media and big data in the software and data space. In that regard, I helped them scale and easily pivot in significant ways. My work for Dataminr included things like getting certain tweets better geolocated and specific to subject matter that is an interest and for organizations like, say, the Orlando Pulse nightclub.  At that point in time, when there was a shooting in a gay nightclub, it provided media opportunities, like there were eyeballs inside the club just because of the number of people that were tweeting about the situation indoors. It really has made and continues to make such an impact on how we think about tweets, how tweets can be used in the broader public policy and global arena. These days when we get news, there's a reason why there are now tweets incorporated in stories about Pulse. Otherwise a journalist would have to go and search for them instead of tweets just being provided and shared by somebody.  From there, I went to Comscore, which was going through a corporate crisis. Two public companies merged, and then weeks later, an SEC investigation was announced for corporate recognition. So, I was comprehensively redoing business development with clients and redoing data privacy in light of the impending GDPR requirements. They were going through a lot of financial and other considerations. Where I am today is Lotame, which is still in the space which focuses on advertising technology, and in that regard, continues to do a lot of data collection. I continue to stay in software and data, but I'm particularly in this area. I help companies and organizations get to audiences and bridge the gap and encourage the sale of the products that we sell.  Sharon: It seems like an amazing application and platform, to be able to gather all this data from different sources and build a picture of who you're targeting or where they are. Amy: That's absolutely right. Certainly, many of the companies I've been involved with have a component of that. At ZeniMax, they started, frankly, in the digital age and did digital advertising when very few people were focused on that, not knowing, of course, that there would be a big pivot in the coming years. They do have a platform to be able to incorporate advertising data themselves. Dataminr had a slightly different use scenario, especially when it comes to where the true value is in the company, but being familiar with how one uses those platforms to derive those insights is very much fundamental to Comscore.  What we want to focus on, which is to your point, Sharon, is really understanding who your audience is, trying to drill down and get that full picture. Also, as we all realize, we have a laptop for work; we have a different laptop for personal use; there's a phone. What we do on each of these devices is very different, and it's also very different from how we watch TV or use Roku. These days, as I know we all realize as marketers ourselves, are trying to get that singular picture, which is very complex. We're not trying to bombard you across all the platforms, in most instances anyway. We're trying to get a personal product directed to you when you're using your personal device, as compared to a work-related product when you're using a work-related device. Sharon: It sounds like as you've been building your career, you've had to learn about marketing, or get more into marketing. How has that been for you, as somebody who didn't study that in school? All lawyers have to be marketers, yes, but— Amy: That's absolutely right. You're so on point. I'll say one thing here is knowing what your core products are at the heart. I serve as strategic advisor to these companies. Of course, there are certain areas in the law, in data privacy, in intellectual property, that could put me in a much larger position or disproportionate position to be able to serve as a strategic advisor as the companies themselves pivot what they're trying to sell. That's certainly one of the key areas, but to your point, other things I didn't study in school include the business of the business itself, as well as the marketing. I am grateful to have individuals who are generous with their time to help me understand what they do, which gives me the opportunity to think about how I can service them and service their needs. Also, frankly, I'm a consumer just like everybody else. There are lots of things I like buying. In that vein, perhaps different from some of the other areas of my practice, it is intuitively helpful to have those analogies, because I'm a consumer just like anybody and everybody else. Keeping my finger on the pulse of how marketing turns and what those initiatives are helps me round out the picture, which in turn helps me become the best strategic advisor I can be. Sharon: I would imagine that when you're evaluating outside counsel, or when a lawyer's trying to get to know you, that demonstrating that understanding would be very important to you. Amy: It's essential for every company I work with. I will say that, especially when it comes to law firms, one of my expectations—and I know this is not typical, although perhaps it may not be far off the standard—is that I always expect our new law firms to onboard with a day of learning with us. I say that because I have been counseling disruptive companies across all life cycles, so many of these companies are going through a significant change. It's not standard work, and I'm not looking for a standard law firm; I'm looking a partner in the long run. In order for you to best serve me, and for me to be able to best serve my clients, it means understanding what the business does, understanding where the asks are coming from in the big picture. It also relates to the level of risk, because in each of these companies there has been a different risk. There have been different short-term and long-term risks that we know and need to balance. That is the explanation to how there have been some wonderfully successful law firms I've worked with in the past. I think we all recognize and agree that the legal answer needs to be massaged in shape for the client, but it's really difficult, I think, for the law firms and partners and teams to give unqualified advice if you don't have familiarity with the types of choices and operational work the company is going through. Some of that is default. For a large, multinational public company, you can probably guess what that risk is going to be, or for a public company in a corporate turnaround. That probably gives you some ideas you can guess at, but there's still a wide variety. The day of learning is very much an investment with both parties, both the partners and anticipated staff on my side, individuals and executive leadership—who also have busy days—to share in terms of understanding what everybody does.  Sharon: When you select outside counsel, are you looking at it for your clients or for your company, or for both? Who are you choosing for? It sounds like you're advising your clients as to who would be a good firm to talk to. Amy: Yeah, there's a little bit of that. Obviously, when I say client, I mean the people in the company I service. Some of it's a little bit of both of those pockets. As general counsel, I'm looking at their whole company's profile and what the risk is. There's certainly a level of understanding what we can do on the legal side to make sure we've got a well-rounded team, which includes reaching out to outside counsel and drawing the line between what's in and out based on experiences with what the company's gone through and the current legal team. After that, selecting a law firm and understanding their expertise and niche is, perhaps to your quite astute point, Sharon, a little bit of magic as well as a science, in that you are looking for the right fit, the right team with the leader, what their fundamental goals and purposes are. That can significantly narrow or generally broaden the number of law firms that are in that pipeline. I will say for me, the best practice, both normatively as well as philosophically, is that I will ask for multiple RFPs from different law firms. I want to give everybody a shot. I also want to give many individuals an opportunity to get to know us, because even if this time it doesn't work out, it still gives us exposure and a learning opportunity. I think fundamentally, that's important. Sharon: Have you ever gone back to a firm when you initially selected a different firm, but the other firm stuck in your mind? Something came up and you went back to them and said, “This would be great for you,” or “I'd like to work with you on this.” Amy: Yeah, I think that goes along with the philosophical approach of a long-term partner. It doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to spend that much time thinking about an isolated circumstance. I think there's a lot to be learned. Frankly, I wouldn't be doing an RFP if the team wouldn't be learning something new. To your point, there are several times I can think of off the top of my mind. I might not have any doubt, but either we learn something new, or, frankly, it comes down to the way the firm continues to build and maintain their relationship. They've already given more reason to take a look at them a second time. Sharon: How have they continued to build? How would you suggest somebody continue to build on that initial contact of presenting an RFP? How do they build and maintain that relationship and demonstrate that they would be the firm for you the next time around? Amy: There are any number of ways a firm can do this. I'm thinking about discrete examples that can be useful. I think it's fair to say we all get hundreds of emails a day, so adding a line to a newsletter, while it may be on point, doesn't actually help me winnow down what's useful. There are a number of partners, for example—and not even partners, associates—who will add another line or two as they forward, to say specifically, “Take a look at X, because I think X would be applicable.” By definition, if they catch my eye, it gives me the opportunity to examine a lending opportunity and say, “Yes, that was very much on point,” or “No, it wasn't.” It's a next step which in and of itself I see as a learning opportunity.  There are events, for example. I know it is frequent that people want to send those along. It's often useful for the contextualization, such as, “This event might be of use in particular. When we talked about X, I thought the panel at Y would be really useful to you.” Again, it's an opportunity to learn more about us. It's an opportunity for them to respond and think about somebody on the team, if not myself, to join. There are a number of conferences and events that law firms have and host. You can see where I'm going with this item. Knowledge about that for in-house counsel, especially when compared to my law firm experience, resources are far fewer. Being able to quantify that, especially in a discrete way for my team, is helpful. We've all got so many virtual panels right now, so having a virtual panel, a virtual conference alone, is not necessarily going to move the needle. But again, being tactful about it paves the way for that type of relationship, because I know you're not going to inundate me; I know you're already working hard to understand the business in different ways. That is a distinguishing factor, in my opinion, with a number of law firms and individuals who reach out.  Sharon: I think it's important for lawyers and marketers to hear the fact that you do consider firms you passed over the first time around. I'm sure a lot of lawyers say, “Well, that was a waste of time,” and put the RFP on the shelf and never look at it or think about you or your needs again, whereas it sounds like it would be worth it for them to build on what they've already invested. Amy: I think that's right.  Sharon: You've been involved in several attorney organizations. Can you tell us about which ones, attorney or personal, that have been most beneficial? Maybe you've identified lawyers there at times because you've gotten to know them. Amy: I'll say as somebody who builds teams, I'm always on the lookout. When I think back to any of the organizations where I haven't otherwise met someone connected with somebody or hired in some capacity—I'm not sure I can think of one where I haven't had that situation. As we all know, talent comes in all shapes and forms, so it's my role to keep my eyes open in that regard. To your first question, Sharon, I certainly had a wonderful and many years with the D.C. Bar and the ADA, both being elected in initial polls with the D.C. Bar as well as some of those roles overlapping with the American Bar Association. I found that organization to be and continues to be wonderful and a great source of broad legal networking and the like. It was great, especially for me in understanding contextually the variety of things that somebody, even in the business law section or another section, could still be involved in. With that said, since then, I've also been very active and involved in other groups, which might arguably be a little smaller in nature. That includes, for example, NAPABA and other voluntary bar organizations. Sharon: NAPABA? I'm not familiar with that one.  Amy: Sure. NAPABA is the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. It's a great group of individuals. Ultimately, we are not only serving our leadership on the local level with NAPABA D.C., but also on the national level, culminating with my last role as the Chair of Diversity and Inclusion in that committee. I am also serving in leadership as the char elect for the Association of Corporate Counsel, ACC. It provides an opportunity for in-house counsel to come together and share their experiences in a way that, as some would say, avoids the law firm “sharks in water” situation and permits individuals to speak frankly about their experiences. I think the ACC, under this leadership, does a wonderful job of being able to balance that. We all realize it's a full life cycle in terms of needs between companies as well as law firms and law organizations in order for all of us to be successful in our careers. That's been a wonderful set of experiences with law.  Sharon: You mentioned diversity and inclusion. Has that grown in importance? Have you ever experienced that a law firm has brought in a team to meet you, and they had their token Asian, let's say, or their token ethnicity to prove diversity and inclusion? How has that been for you? Amy: I have to say it's been a bumpy road. I'd like to think the issue is much more prominent on its face, and in particular much deeper and richer conversations are happening. To your point, I do still have experiences where individuals will pull together a team and think that's the right message to send to me, but ultimately that message is short-lived and doesn't actually prove itself out in the way the work is done and the way in which the individuals themselves are being paid and compensated. Those are issues and concerns that I have always been of the mind to note. I would be surprised if there's any in-house counsel in a position to hire where that isn't a competitive factor. That's the case, at least for me, in software data, because all of my companies and teams have been global in nature. The reason for that is because from my perspective, it is impossible for me in my role to be able provide the appropriate guidance to a company that has so many points of view. So, I need my teams, whether or not they're inside the four walls of the company, to be able to provide the creative guidance and global perspective in order to advise the business. If they're not able to do that, I'm not doing my job, and if I'm not doing my job, you know what needs to happen.  I've had a lot of success in that. Maybe one can say, “Well, she's in software; she's in data and a lot of things.” I admit that things like pivots of a company, disruptive business ideas, these are all traits that can only encourage a diverse team to be able to come up with creative solutions. I also admit that, at least for a while there, this industry probably entertains larger, greater ideas in that scenario than perhaps a traditional company, but you can't tell me, especially in the days of Covid, that there isn't a company that isn't otherwise struggling for better places broadly in our ecosystem. If I don't have these few clients, I simply don't do enough of a good job for my company. My team is encouraged to think outside of the box, in alignment with the legal requirements of what needs to happen. Where we end up ultimately is another thing, but I want to make sure my team is supportive of the company leads, and in order to do that, we need global views, whether or not that's in data privacy, whether or not that's in intellectual property. We need to be able to see and peer around the corner. The only way we are able to do that is when there are fresh perspectives and multiple perspectives, when we discuss and debate, and then ultimately align with the course of action that comes with the next steps.  Sharon: Do you see things outside of your firm? Do you see things changing in the world of diversity and inclusion, things that are going to stick? Maybe people are saying, “Well, that's the buzzword of today,” like Earth Day was the buzzword decades ago and then it popped up again. At least, that's my interpretation. Amy: Yeah, it's a great question, Sharon, and I thank you for asking it, because it's a very important topic. I mentioned earlier that the conversations these days are richer. By that, I not only mean total conversations and the transparency with which these conversations happen, but also in terms of the metrics that I and a number of other general counsel and chief legal officers expect. We anticipate a more fulsome picture, especially from law firms, in their data. I was just having a conversation last week with a global law firm. They had identified mutual stacks in terms of initial hiring and the like. We all know and recognize that we need to invite diversity of all sorts. It continues to be a work in progress, but is perhaps the easiest of all of the steps to achieve, to be able to then build that in your attention and create that pipeline is something I think all companies or organizations continue to struggle with. This is what I would expect to be the next steps in this dialogue. How has your firm retained diverse individuals moving up? How has your firm been able to elevate? I've worked with partners in law firms to be able to ensure that potential elevations are getting the substantive work that puts individuals in a position to be partner ready. We need that. That, to me, is a full cycle of success for all lawyers. That is the business model that I not only believe in, but I actually put the investment in. That is how this conversation is richer, but we need more people in the conversation, and we need more transparency with respect to how we can advance the profession overall. Sharon: What would your advice be to emerging attorneys or those that want to rise up the ladder, who don't have the sponsorship or patronage you're talking about? I think it's fabulous to be able to say to a partner, “This is a person we need to groom.” How would you suggest that lawyers pierce the corporate veil, in a sense, to get to you? That's my vision of it. Amy: Yeah, that's a great question. I'll add to your good observations what I've described as a dialogue. It happens over the course of a few years, so it's not just me who might say, “You've got an excellent attorney for these following reasons.” It's a way for us to get that full cycle of improving the next generation of attorneys coming in, which is what I hope all juniors in our space want to do. With that said, there are a number of things a junior attorney can do to put themselves on the radar. I know from a law firm perspective, the one thing that is often said is do the best you can do. Always say yes, all of those good things that I don't need to go over in our interview today. But certainly make a mark on the people for whom you work.  These days, more junior attorneys are getting mentorship with their counterparts, which is amazing and certainly didn't exist when I was on the law firm side or when we went to in-house counsel. I think there are more people on the in-house counsel side that create the opportunity for those parallels. I think that would be another thing I would tell junior attorneys to ask, which is to say—at least in my book, I make sure all of my attorneys start getting early exposure with law firm colleagues. It's important not only to understand the cadence and the business model, but also to build upon the ways in which one can create a relationship. If I'm expecting you on my side, that's an opportunity attorneys can ask for on the other side, which is to say, “Look, I'm not going to bill for my time, but it goes without saying there cannot always be a fly on the wall. I'd love to hear that early exposure about the way in which you, senior counsel or partner, are able to manage the client. Help me understand the political dynamic on this case. What's the risk profile?” Being curious and thoughtful about the group picture is something that a decade ago, I don't know that law firms were necessarily thinking about in terms of giving the right answer. That's a terrible generalization. I don't mean it to be quite literal, but what I mean to say is that these days, there are so many more opportunities. It's so much better for senior attorneys to bring in their junior attorneys to have that experience and start giving attorneys earlier opportunities for that exposure to be thinking about as they rise. I'm pretty positive that a lot of junior law firm attorneys I speak with or mentor are looking for that. It's a huge benefit to them in so many different ways.  Sharon: I could see how it would be a tremendous benefit in having the people within the firm know who you are and what you can do, but I'm saying, “Hey, I don't want to wait around for that,” or “Yes, I do that, but I want to get to know you better,” or “I want you to see what I'm learning here.” Basically, how do I get to you without having to wait for the partner to make the introduction or do whatever he or she has to do to get me to you? What's the best way to do that? Speak at conferences? Publish? What are you looking at?  Amy: That's a really great question. Let me see if I can't break it down, because you raise what is, at the essence, a complication of human dynamics. I don't mean that to be so philosophical, but I think that's true, because there's no one way that's going to catch my eye or catch somebody's eye. When you accurately identify, for example, writing an article, that is bound to catch somebody's eye. I don't know if it's going to catch my eye or somebody else's, but you got to put yourself out there. That's the number one rule in marketing, they say. You can't get the business unless you're at least trying to do that. There is some nuance in the other suggestions I raised, which is to say I'm not sure. I wouldn't necessary be advocating for a junior attorney who's on an account to directly reach out to the general counsel without having connected with the relationship partner. Sharon: I understand, but what if the relationship partner—if they don't feel threatened, let's say—says to the junior attorney, “You've got to figure out how we're going to build this relationship with Amy. We have our foot in the door. Where do we go from here? I'm too busy to think about it. You come up with a plan.” What would you say? What would your advice be? You've given us ideas, but how would you help advise him to expand the relationship? Amy: For a junior attorney? Sharon: To maybe go to the relationship partner or one of the partners and say, “Hey, I have Amy's ear. Let's do something with it.” Amy: Yeah, it's a great question. I would hope that all junior attorneys are thinking about how the state of relationship is more than just doing the work and thinking about the bigger picture. Maybe one way I would respond to this—again, this really does boil down to human relations—is that if this individual is involved in other types of organizations, such as the voluntary bar, it's a good opportunity. To answer your question, Sharon, which I think gets to the heart of human dynamics, I would hope that every junior attorney is thinking more broadly than just, “Let me do the work that's being asked of me,” and they are learning more about the client; they're thinking about the business relationship and, in particular for those who want to help develop the business, are taking all of the experiences they're learning from in each of their client matters and understanding where the core of that relationship is. That relationship can change quite drastically, whether it's a core corporate client of the law firm versus somebody who's smaller.  To answer your question more specifically how a junior attorney might be able to help expand, I think this is also where things like bar associations or just your knowledge on the street might be helpful. There might be something that comes in over email that they can forward on to the partner to say, “Hey, the law firm is doing this, and I think it would be great to forward for X client. I'm happy to do it unless you prefer to do it.” This is also where having parallel relationships between the level of the law firm associate and the level of in-house counsel can be helpful, because now you're not having to go up and down the ladder, so to speak, but rather you can just forward that on to the mid-level, and it's probably something you are both interested in, in terms of expertise or takeaways. Another way to do it is if you are learning about something yourself, bullet point three to five takeaways and share them with the partner for the panel. The recording might be of interest to the associates you're generally working with at that company, or it could be something you send directly to your midlevel. Again, if it's something new you've learned, I suspect it might be something your counterpart in the company might also be interested in, or at least it's an opportunity for you guys to be able to synch on knowledge. Sharon: I think that's wise. What you said is almost the essence of this whole conversation. First of all, I want to make it clear: I'm not advocating for anybody to go jump over their senior professional, their partner, whoever, even though I've seen that. The relationship doesn't end up very well. That's not what I'm advocating for. I do think what you're talking about is level-to-level, in a sense that the rising professional, the rising outside in private practice, if they are building that relationship with somebody around the same level in-house, how that could work in the long run very well, if one assumes they are providing value. Maybe I'm naïve, but some of the things you're talking about, I don't have to bring them up because—doesn't everybody say, “O.K., the bottom line is you've got to do good work, and you got to let everybody else know you're doing that good work”? I guess I skip over that because, to me, it's a given. Maybe it isn't. Amy: No, I wish it were a given. It wasn't in my life. I'm still struggling with that. I think studies show, actually, that is not a given with cultural considerations. Some assume that the work speaks for itself, so it is a plea to them to acknowledge, in a tactful way, what you're doing and elevate that. That's an art, and we all have to practice it. To your point, I'd love to think it's a given, but I don't think it is. Doing good work is also contextualized. I've said for many years, for myself as well as from others when listening to them identify, that you have to do the best work you can do, but what exactly does that mean? I think in this day and age, what it means to do good work is to understand what your fundamental client needs are, and that oftentimes isn't information you necessarily get from the first round. You have to be proactive about understanding that. That goes not just for the junior attorneys, but also for the relationship partners and the individuals who are working on the matters. Sharon: I think that's very sound advice, sound thoughts. We could have a whole conversation about what doing good work is. Amy: We certainly could. Sharon: Amy, thank you so much for being here today. Amy: Thank you so much. I really appreciate the invitation, Sharon.

This week we catch up with Matthew Ferraro an attorney at the international law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and former intelligence officer. He has written extensively on national security and legal issues and most recently authored the CNN opinion piece “Ransomware attacks are about to get worse. But there are ways to stop them”. He shares with us perspective on the role of governance in the continued pursuit to thwart ransomware groups which can feel like a “whack a mole” battle. He also dives into the growing deepfakes as a service business and the differences between “the liar's dividend” and “the zealot's dividend”. Be sure to read his CNN op-ed on the growing ransomware threat here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/perspectives/ransomware-attacks-cybersecurity/index.html For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e156        

Link to Article: https://bit.ly/3i2T1VWUnion Busting Is A Bigger Problem Than We All Really KnowIn a public statement addressed to employees earlier this week, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said the company was reviewing policies and procedures to help promote a more respectful and inclusive workplace. To help accomplish that, the company has retained the services of prestigious law firm WilmerHale, which is the same law firm with ties to Amazon and a history of helping other companies from unionizing. Considering ongoing efforts to unionize game workers, the partnership is a little concerning.In an industry that's constantly under fire for discriminatory practices, sexual harassment, grueling crunch conditions, and frequent mass layoffs, unionizing is a hot-button issue. As the state of California's lawsuit against Activision Blizzard demonstrates, video game companies have a well-earned reputation for creating work environments that are at best uncomfortable, at worst downright hostile. That's exactly why the game workers unionization movement has been gaining traction over the past several years.So when Activision Blizzard, a company currently under fire for its discriminatory practices and rampant sexual harassment issues, hires WilmerHale, a law firm with a reputation for union-busting, heads turn and brows furrow.WilmerHale is one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. It's actually a combination of two law firms. There's Boston's Hale and Dorr, founded in 1918, known for representing the U.S. Army pro-bono in the Army-McCarthy hearings in the 1950s as well as President Richard Nixon in 1974's United States v. Nixon. Then there's Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, founded in D.C. in 1962. Founding partner Lloyd Cutler served as an advisor to Presidents Jimmy Carter and William Clinton, and founded the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy. The two storied firms combined to form Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, known as WilmerHale, in 2004. The combined entity is co-headquartered in D.C. and Boston, with offices across the U.S., Europe, and Asia.Support the show (https://bit.ly/2XdAlJC)

Matthew F. Ferraro is an attorney and former intelligence officer who writes widely on national security and legal issues. Matt is currently a counsel at the international law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and a visiting fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University. (The views Matt expressed here are his own.) In this episode of the podcast we discuss the development of deep fake technology from a policy and legal standpoint. What impact does deepfake technology have on the spread of disinformation and misinformation? What are the implications of this new technology for the balance of global power? Does manipulated media only have malicious uses or might it be used as a tool for good? What policy and legal frameworks are being implemented to ensure a positive outcome? ►Watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/RwVMo7wwZUU ►Information about Matt's work can be found here: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/matthew-ferraro ►Matt's personal website can be found here: http://matthewfferraro.com/ ►At 0:36:20 Matt discusses a news story which can be found here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/syrian-electronic-army-hackers-attack-guardian-twitter-accounts-8597629.html

In June, China enacted the PRC Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law (中华人民共和国反外国制裁法) following an expedited drafting process, the country's first national statute specifically combating foreign sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals. The law states that companies in China may not implement or enforce foreign sanctions against Chinese entities, and that Chinese entities can file lawsuits against those companies that do. Lester Ross and Kenneth Zhou discuss the primary concerns among multinationals about the new anti-sanctions law, and the potential impact on contractual clauses and global compliance strategies. Lester Ross is the partner-in-charge at global law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Beijing office. He is a former vice-chair of the board of governors, former general counsel and current chair of the policy committee and of the insurance forum of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. Kenneth Zhou is a partner at WilmerHale's Beijing office. He is a former general counsel and former member of the board of governors of AmCham China. The China Law Podcast is a weekly podcast exploring China's business and financial sectors from a legal perspective. Get in touch at vchow@alm.com with any feedback and ideas for future episodes. Episode Outline 00:58 Anti-sanctions law's relationship with Unreliable Entity List, "blocking statute" 07:07 Ability of foreign companies to choose their business 11:29 What constitutes "discriminatory restrictive measures" 15:03 China subsidiaries of global companies and compliance challenges 18:56 Possibility that contractual clauses will be flagged as sanctions implementation 24:46 Potential risk exposure of law firms Related Content PRC Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law (中华人民共和国反外国制裁法) Ministry of Commerce, Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures (商务部阻断外国法律与措施不当域外适用办法)

In most episodes of the How I Lawyer Podcast I interview individual lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. This special episode is a little bit different. It is the first in a new, occasional series called "Panel Opinion," where I host a panel of experts about a discreet topic as opposed to sharing the story of a single lawyer. In this episode, we tackle the question that is on the minds of many as we head into the summer: how can a law student succeed as a legal intern or summer associate especially in a remote or hybrid world? The panelists include: Natasha Zech who is the Director of Attorney Recruiting, Diversity, and Development at my old law firm, Williams & Connolly LLP here in Washington, D.C. In that role, Natasha wears a number of hats, but most important for today's episode she is the coordinator of hiring and the summer associate program--which as I can attest as both a former summer associate and firm lawyer are absolutely stellar. Natasha has been at Williams & Connolly for the past eleven years and before that was a litigator at several firms in the D.C. area and was a law clerk on the D.C. Superior Court. She is a graduate of UVA (Go Cavaliers) and the Georgetown University Law Center (Go Hoyas). Professor Rachel Gurvich who is a clinical associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Professor Gurvich teaches legal research and writing and has also served as the co-chair of the Clerkship Committee. She is well known on social media for her work supporting law students not just at UNC but across the country, often under the Twitter hashtag #PracticeTuesday. Before UNC, she clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and practiced for seven years at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Boston, where she specialized in patent and appellate litigation and helped coordinate that office's summer associate program. She is a graduate of UNC (Go Heels) and Harvard Law (Go Crimson). Jean Yin Crews who is a counsel at Venable LLP in Washington, D.C. where she practices real estate law. Jean started at Venable as a summer associate a decade ago and has been practicing there since graduation! Jean also spent two years co-running the office's summer program and has served on the firm's hiring committee. She is a graduate of Princeton (Go Tigers) and Penn Law (Go Quakers). One final programming note: traditional interviews will return on Thursday. In the meantime, if you have any feedback or suggestions for this new occasional episode format or ideas for "Panel Opinion" episodes please let me know at howilawyer@gmail.com or @JonahPerlin on Twitter. Finally if you are interested in listening to previous episodes they are all available at www.howilawyer.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Episode Topic: Fake News, Real Costs: How Disinformation and Deep Fakes Impact BusinessIn the wake of the Capitol riot and Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, many of us are aware of the threat that disinformation can pose to democracy. Less explored but equally troubling is the threat that it can pose to the private sector, a topic which Matthew Ferraro, Counsel at Wilmer Hale LLP, speaks to students, alumni, and other members of the Notre Dame community about in the first lecture of 2021's Ten Years Hence series.Featured Speakers: James S. O'Rourke, Teaching Professor of Management, University of Notre DameMatthew F. Ferraro, Counsel, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, Washington, D.C. Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: go.nd.edu/aa6fef. This podcast is a part of the Ten Years Hence ThinkND Series titled “News, Fake News, and Deep Fakes. How Do We Know What's True?”.

Activists have called for the city to scrap its plan to hire a law firm to review Rochester Police Department policies, procedures, and training. City Council will vote on Tuesday whether to hire the firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr — WilmerHale for short — to perform an in-depth analysis of RPD policies, procedures, and practices related to use of force, de-escalation, body-worn cameras, and how officers respond to mental health-related calls for assistance. The Washington-based firm would be paid $250,000 for the work, with the money coming from federal forfeiture funds.

What are the SEC enforcement stories behind major cases of fraud such as the Fyre Festival and Elizabeth Holmes’s Theranos, or famous settlements such as with Elon Musk and Wells Fargo? Stephanie Avakian is the Co-Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. She has worked on some of the most complex and intriguing investigations, settlements, and financial regulations in recent years. 
In this interview, we discuss how the SEC and the greater financial regulatory community handle complex fraud cases while putting forth policy innovations for the fintech space. We first touch on the technical aspects for judging when a virtual currency is a security and when it’s not. It has been a poignant point of debate whether the SEC should treat cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin as financial securities and thus directly regulate them. It has also become more and more difficult to regulate the cyber space at large, such as when celebrities from DJ Khalid to Floyd Mayweather touted cryptocurrencies on social media. It’s been a long-time debate in the law community what the point of punishment is. When a financial institution commits fraud or crime, what level of punishment should the regulators seek? Do we want to hurt them, cripple them, or merely warn them? In the case of Wells Fargo’s settlement with the SEC, for example, the $500 million fine announced in Feb. 2020 was more about warning and deterring the company from further fraudulent practices than for the purpose of crippling it. Bio: Stephanie Avakian was named Co-Director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement in June 2017, after serving as Acting Director since December 2016. She was previously the Division of Enforcement’s Deputy Director, serving from June 2014 to December 2016. Before being named Deputy Director, Ms. Avakian was a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where she served as a vice chair of the firm’s securities practice and focused on representing financial institutions, public companies, boards, and individuals in a broad range of investigations and other matters before the SEC and other agencies. Ms. Avakian previously worked in the Division of Enforcement as a branch chief in the SEC’s New York Regional Office, and later served as counsel to former SEC Commissioner Paul Carey. Ms. Avakian received her bachelors degree from the College of New Jersey and a law degree from Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, both with high honors.

The Compliance Life details the journey to and in the role of a Chief Compliance Officer. How does one come to sit in the CCO chair? What are some of the skills a CCO needs to success navigate the compliance waters in any company? What are some of the top challenges CCOs have faced and how did they meet them? These questions and many others will be explored in this new podcast series. Over four episodes each month on The Compliance Life, I visit with one current or former CCO to explore their journey to the CCO chair. This month, my guest is Louis Sapirman, Vice President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer and Chief Compliance Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of North America, the principal North American subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. He oversees the company's regulatory and compliance function, maintaining a culture of ethics, and ensuring all employees are upholding Panasonic's longstanding values in their work.   Louis previously served as Associate General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer for the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. During his tenure as CCO, the company was recognized as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute. Prior to moving in-house, Louis worked in private practice with several law firms including Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Buchanan Ingersoll. Throughout his career, Louis has been recognized for his work. In both 2015 and 2016, the Ethisphere Institute named him to their list of Attorneys Who Matter in Compliance and Ethics, and in 2010 he was named International Employment Lawyer of the Year by the Association of Corporate Counsel. In this final episode, going forward Sapirman says it will all be about the data, data and more data and the metrics to go along with it. However, it is not enough to simply track data, both from the government's perspective and from the business case, your business unit folks need actionable insights. There will be greater scrutiny of both CSR and the Supply Chain and that 3rd party compliance is not just about due diligence on your suppliers and finally the role of procurement in compliance. Sapirman believes there will be more professional in the field of compliance with schools having Ethics & Compliance. Compliance professionals will be more challenged with privacy issues, trade control challenges and economic sanctions as well the cultural realities of movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. We concluded with thoughts on the convergence of compliance and risk – the importance of compliance professionals understanding their position in an organization's risk universe. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Compliance Life details the journey to and in the role of a Chief Compliance Officer. How does one come to sit in the CCO chair? What are some of the skills a CCO needs to success navigate the compliance waters in any company? What are some of the top challenges CCOs have faced and how did they meet them? These questions and many others will be explored in this new podcast series. Over four episodes each month on The Compliance Life, I visit with one current or former CCO to explore their journey to the CCO chair. This month, my guest is Louis Sapirman, Vice President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer and Chief Compliance Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of North America, the principal North American subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. He oversees the company's regulatory and compliance function, maintaining a culture of ethics, and ensuring all employees are upholding Panasonic's longstanding values in their work.    Louis previously served as Associate General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer for the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. During his tenure as CCO, the company was recognized as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute. Prior to moving in-house, Louis worked in private practice with several law firms including Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Buchanan Ingersoll. Throughout his career, Louis has been recognized for his work. In both 2015 and 2016, the Ethisphere Institute named him to their list of Attorneys Who Matter in Compliance and Ethics, and in 2010 he was named International Employment Lawyer of the Year by the Association of Corporate Counsel. In this Episode 3, Sapirman discusses how communications can be used to help drive a more ethical culture. Sapirman believes that communication as a driver of culture. But more than simply being a great communicator, a compliance practitioner must use skill to help others communicate the messages of ethics and compliance. He discusses the concept of 360-degree communications. He is a big fan of social media and the power of non-verbal communications. He concludes with an example of how he used training as an effective tool of communications. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Compliance Life details the journey to and in the role of a Chief Compliance Officer. How does one come to sit in the CCO chair? What are some of the skills a CCO needs to success navigate the compliance waters in any company? What are some of the top challenges CCOs have faced and how did they meet them? These questions and many others will be explored in this new podcast series. Over four episodes each month on The Compliance Life, I visit with one current or former CCO to explore their journey to the CCO chair. This month, my guest is Louis Sapirman, Vice President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer and Chief Compliance Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of North America, the principal North American subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. He oversees the company's regulatory and compliance function, maintaining a culture of ethics, and ensuring all employees are upholding Panasonic's longstanding values in their work.    Louis previously served as Associate General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer for the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. During his tenure as CCO, the company was recognized as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute. Prior to moving in-house, Louis worked in private practice with several law firms including Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Buchanan Ingersoll. Throughout his career, Louis has been recognized for his work. In both 2015 and 2016, the Ethisphere Institute named him to their list of Attorneys Who Matter in Compliance and Ethics, and in 2010 he was named International Employment Lawyer of the Year by the Association of Corporate Counsel. In this Episode 2, we explore the qualities of thesuccessful CECO. Some of the key leadership attributes Sapirman sees as critical are Great Communication, a skill that should be practiced constantly, to ensure you remain successful. You should engage in Servant Leadership and your success lies solely in the success of others. Why you need to be flexible and even be a Chameleon. You must be innovative because if you keep doing the same thing over and over, eventually it becomes stale and is destined to fail. Success in E&C requires the ability to be creative and see the novel solutions and change necessary to keep your program successful. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Compliance Life details the journey to and in the role of a Chief Compliance Officer. How does one come to sit in the CCO chair? What are some of the skills a CCO needs to success navigate the compliance waters in any company? What are some of the top challenges CCOs have faced and how did they meet them? These questions and many others will be explored in this new podcast series. Over four episodes each month on The Compliance Life, I visit with one current or former CCO to explore their journey to the CCO chair. This month, my guest is Louis Sapirman, Vice President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer and Chief Compliance Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of North America, the principal North American subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation. He oversees the company's regulatory and compliance function, maintaining a culture of ethics, and ensuring all employees are upholding Panasonic's longstanding values in their work.    Louis previously served as Associate General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer for the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. During his tenure as CCO, the company was recognized as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute. Prior to moving in-house, Louis worked in private practice with several law firms including Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Buchanan Ingersoll. Throughout his career, Louis has been recognized for his work. In both 2015 and 2016, the Ethisphere Institute named him to their list of Attorneys Who Matter in Compliance and Ethics, and in 2010 he was named International Employment Lawyer of the Year by the Association of Corporate Counsel.  In this first episode, we consider Louis' personal and professional journey into the field of compliance. We get to know Sapirman through his family and why he is so passionate about compliance, institutional justice and institutional fairness. We learn about two experiences growing up that helped informed his views on diversity and the wider world. He talks about his experience as a member of a service fraternity in college and then moves into his professional career. His legal work as a Generalist into Employment Attorney, moving to Employment and Litigation work at D&B and then revamping the investigations process at D&B. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Almost every religious institution closed its doors in mid-March in response to requests and then order from various levels of government in the name of slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19. Many religious institutions responded to the shutdowns with ingenuity by finding ways to meet and still remain in compliance with the CDC’s recommendations of physical distancing and limits on meeting sizes. One of those solutions – drive-in services – became the target of growing government restrictions in parts of the country. Matt Martens and Hiram Sasser will discuss what is a drive-in religious service and the constitutionality of prohibiting such services during the current pandemic. Featuring: -- Matthew T. Martens, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP-- Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Almost every religious institution closed its doors in mid-March in response to requests and then order from various levels of government in the name of slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19. Many religious institutions responded to the shutdowns with ingenuity by finding ways to meet and still remain in compliance with the CDC’s recommendations of physical distancing and limits on meeting sizes. One of those solutions – drive-in services – became the target of growing government restrictions in parts of the country. Matt Martens and Hiram Sasser will discuss what is a drive-in religious service and the constitutionality of prohibiting such services during the current pandemic. Featuring: -- Matthew T. Martens, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP-- Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

On this Legal Speak podcast, Supreme Court correspondent Marcia Coyle checks in with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner David Bowker, whose May 5 argument in USAID v Alliance for Open Society International was one of the first Supreme Court sessions to proceed by telephone. Bowker discusses the unexpected challenges and shares his advice for lawyers with cases on the docket.

During the presidential campaign, there were calls for changes to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a federal agency created in response to the events of 9/11 to ensure that the seventeen organizations that make up the intelligence community act in a coordinated fashion. Following President Trump’s inauguration, former Senator Dan Coats was appointed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). There has also been significant media coverage around the relationship between the intelligence community and the President. During this Teleforum, we were joined by intelligence experts to discuss the relationship between the President and the intelligence community, whether the ODNI is in need of reform, and the top priorities of DNI Coats. -- Featuring: Benjamin Powell, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and David Shedd, Advisory Board Member, Beacon Global Strategies LLC. Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Vice President, Corporate Secretary & Associate General Counsel, Johnson Controls.

Andrew Vollmer, director of the John W. Glynn, Jr. Law & Business Program, speaks to admitted students about business law studies, practical experiences and extracurricular activities at the Law School. Vollmer most recently served as a partner in the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Practice Group of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, where his practice concentrated on securities enforcement, private securities litigation and internal investigations. Prior to that, Vollmer served as deputy general counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2006 to early 2009. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 18, 2016)

IDN Episode No. 99, featuring Gary Born, a partner and chairman of the International Arbitration Group at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in London, discussing a pledge that would make arbitration the default dispute resolution process in international commercial matters.

Why not a broader commitment to making international commercial arbitration the default rule--not the exceptional rule but the default rule--for resolving an important category of . . . international commercial disputes between an important category of players? Well, why not? International Dispute Negotiation host Michael McIlwrath's guest in this new IDN episode, No. 98, is Gary Born, a partner and chairman of the International Arbitration Group at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. He is based in London. They discuss pledging to arbitrate, similar to the CPR Institute's mediation-centric Corporate Policy Statement on Alternatives to Litigation.