Emerging Litigation Podcast
Persuasion as Direct and Honest Trial Advocacy with Jack Siegal
Persuasion as Direct and Honest Advocacy with Jack Siegal The relevance to jury trials and jury persuasion is obvious. According to studies cited in a 2019 article in Business Insider, people develop first impressions of you “even before you open your mouth.” That means your mere appearance “affects how trustworthy, promiscuous, and powerful people think you are.” It’s the trustworthy part that attorneys need to pay attention to. Regardless of the strength of their case or whether the law is on their side, an attorney still must be persuasive. And, unless the audience – whether it is a judge, a panel of judges, a regulatory body, or a jury – sees you as credible, the rest will likely not matter. But what makes an attorney, or anyone for that matter, credible? Is this something you’re born with or is it something you can develop over time? Is it true, as some studies suggest, that you can change some first impressions by making some changes in how you present yourself, or are you just stuck with a less than trustworthy vibe? Interested in upping your jury persuasion game? A Good Place to Start Listen to my interview with attorney Jack I. Siegal, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP in Boston. Jack believes we can all make positive adjustments in the nuanced practice of achieving credibility. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. P.S. Toward the end I could barely manager my ADHD and took the conversation into a chat that [...]
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin Grifters, scammers, con artists Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who championed the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calls the Zelle digital payments network a “preferred tool for grifters like romance scammers, cryptocurrency con artists, and those who prowl social media sites advertising concert tickets and purebred puppies — only to disappear with buyers’ cash after they pay.” 18 million Americans defrauded Scams and fraud committed via the Zelle platform and other peer-to-peer services are surging. According to one lawsuit 18 million Americans were defrauded by schemes perpetrated via apps like Zelle in 2020. Some 1,500 member banks and credit unions participate in the Zelle service. People sent $490 billion via the app in 2021. But Zelle owner, Early Warning, and its consortium comprising Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo, have refused to refund customers for most of their losses. Sen. Warren issued a report that the claims for fraud received by just four banks will likely exceed $255 million by the end of 2022 – a $165 million increase over 2020. The senator and consumers say Zelle is violating federal consumer protection law. What is fraud? The heart of the problem is this: banks and consumers do not agree on the definition of “fraud.” For clarity on issues surrounding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation—Regulation E—listen to my interview with fintech attorney Brad Rustin of Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and [...]
Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks with Bryce McColskey and Sandra Cianflone
Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks It's apparently (and hopefully) on its last legs. The Covid-19 pandemic was the most recent health issue to raise questions around government’s involvement (or interference) in an individual’s control over their own medical treatment. In their article – Government Involvement in Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far is Too Far? – our guests wrote about the intersection of law and medicine. They reviewed medical mandates, implications brought about by the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. They focused is on governmental responses to the pandemic, that is, what the government can mandate in the spirit of public health, and not on the separate issue of abortion, which is a “choice” subject for another day. How much authority do government agencies or even the courts have over a person’s healthcare decisions? People often assume the practice of medicine and the enactment and enforcement of laws are separate and independent enterprises; that they remain fixed in their respective corners. However, they wrote, after a deeper dive into history and precedent, it’s evident that the tension between individual rights and health-related mandates has existed for some time. Listen to my interview with the authors, Bryce McCloskey and Sandra M. Cianflone with Hall Booth Smith, P.C. Bryce is based in Jacksonville, Fla., where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandie is a partner in the firm’s Atlanta office where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense She chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force and is a member of the firm's National Trial Counsel team. She is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. *********** This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on [...]
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act
Traditional antitrust economics face significant challenges grappling with the relatively new digital economy. The author, Jonathan Rubin examines these and other issues raised in the case of FTC v. Amazon, which he anticipates will be a crucial test for antitrust and the FTC Act.
PFAS Regulation: EPA Ushers in Next Era of Mass Tort and Environmental Litigation
PFAS claims are the next frontier of mass tort and environmental litigation. With the EPA poised to finally enact the first regulation of these chemicals, that frontier is ripe for exploration. This article explores PFAS and the origin of litigation around the substances as well as the state of PFAS litigation and regulation today. It concludes with some thoughts on what to expect when it comes to PFAS litigation going forward.
TVPRA, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-Trafficking Victims
Since 2003, when Congress opened the door for human-trafficking victims to sue for civil damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA), the TVPRA and similarly drafted state statutes have allowed for human-trafficking victims to seek civil damages against any party that has benefited from their trafficking. Given this expansive inclusion of third-party liability, more and more businesses, especially those in the hospitality industry, are ultimately the ones left to pay for the criminal acts of human traffickers. In this article, the authors, Coryne Leyendecker and Pamela Lee discuss the evolving litigation around human-trafficking claims and offer guidance on how businesses can build a foundation for their own defense while simultaneously helping prevent human-trafficking crimes from occurring in the first place.
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
