Illinois MCLE Podcast

In the volatile conflict between Israel and Gaza, the line between legitimate military action and war crimes is often blurred. Professor Michael Newton, an expert in the laws of war, begins with a brief history of war crimes and how these international laws were codified. He then turns to the violence in Gaza and Israel, using real life examples from bombings to kidnapping to better understand what differentiates a legitimate act of war from a war crime.(Credits: 1.25 General MCLE)

When you die without a will, the default rules of inheritance law kick in, allocating assets based on established formulas and hierarchies. In this conversation, Prof. John Morley (Yale Law School) explains basic inheritance law and delves into the default rules that come into play when a person dies without a will (“intestate”) and how these rules both vary significantly from state to state and are often at odds with common expectations when it comes to an individual’s legacy. Through his recent survey, Prof. Morley has uncovered differences in inheritance expectations across various demographic groups. For instance, women are notably less likely than men to intentionally leave money to their spouses. Additionally, the conversation explores discrepancies by race and sexual orientation as well as some notable surprises pertaining to less traditional family structures.Prof. Morley's insights not only underscore the importance of having a will that accurately reflects one's wishes but also suggest that intestacy laws across the nation may be out of step with modern expectations and in need of revision. (0.75hr MCLE Credit)

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College signals a radical shift in how the Supreme Court views favoring racial diversity and affirmative action in higher education. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion in SFFA v. Harvard, rejects the use of race as a factor in college admissions, asserting that this practice, previously accepted under prior cases such as Bakke and Fisher (see additional resources), is no longer permissible. Professor Theodore Shaw of UNC Law School explains the evolution of affirmative action and racial diversity programs and the impact of this decision on our understanding of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Law firm failures do not merely fall off into bankruptcy - they are spectacles of grand implosions. American law firms suffer from unique structural risks that can drive these formidable institutions to not just falter, but to rapidly collapse even when their balance sheets and profitability would suggest more durability in another industry. This phenomenon, far from random, stems from the fragile ownership structure unique to the legal industry. In an interview with Yale Law Professor John Morley (https://www.talksonlaw.com/speakers/john-morley), we take a deep dive into the inherent risks and dramatic consequences of law firm failures, and why this topic should command our attention.

Police commands are the cornerstone of law enforcement, at once projecting the authority of the state and instantly creating legal obligations for which the failure to comply can result in arrest, detention, or even the use of deadly force. But what are the limits of police commands? When are they lawful and what rights do we have to disobey them when they are unlawful? Professor Rachel Harmon (https://www.talksonlaw.com/speakers/rachel-harmon), a leading scholar on police law explains how police commands are the building blocks of police authority and can serve as the foundation upon which a peaceful resolution to a crisis is built. On the other hand, bad commands can create confusion, escalate tensions, and result in unnecessary use of force. Prof Harmon explains the legal limits of police commands and how regulating them can play a critical role in reducing police abuse and unnecessary force.

Diversity and inclusion are laudable goals, but how can change be created in an industry driven by tradition and financial return? This interview explores the concept of using economic incentives and data to encourage diversity within the legal profession. The conversation also explores controversial topics such as diversity spin, partner compensation, and the impact on the legal profession of changes to affirmative action law currently being considered at the Supreme Court.  Aviva Will is the Co-Chief Operating Officer at Burford Capital and one of the architects behind Burford’s Equity Project (a $150,000,000 fund allocated exclusively for women and minority litigators). Keith Harrison is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Litigation Group and a member of the firm's Diversity Council. Aviva and Keith sit down with Joel to discuss putting money on the line to overcome inherent biases and structural disadvantages and to encourage, maintain, and grow diversity in the profession of law. (Diversity and Inclusion / Implicit Bias & Bias Reducing Strategies MCLE)

The role of women in the legal profession is more bigger than a statistic, or headcount. Journalist Dahlia Lithwick shares insights from her beat (American courts and the law) about the insurgent role women are on the cutting edge of developing law. In an interview that reflects upon her recent book, Lady Justice (Penguin Press, 2022), Dahlia explains how gender diversity is also about women sharing the stage at the very highest levels of the profession.The interview explores the role of women in the most high-pressure and high-profile positions in the legal world – from Supreme Court justices to Supreme Court advocates, to the fight against white nationalism, to the battle to reform gerrymandering. Finally, Dahlia speaks to host Joel Cohen about the treatment of women in federal clerkships. She shares observations, instances of abuse, and explains how the hierarchical nature of clerkships can permit bullying, harassment, and sexually improper conduct to go unchecked.  Finally, Dahlia leaves listeners with an encouraging message that while injustice and disparity persist, prominent women are driving change on many of the most important issues of our time, inspiring the next generation of women attorneys. 1.5 Hrs (Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession)

How are cryptocurrencies treated by the U.S. government? Former Chairman of the CFTC and a pioneer of crypto regulation, Christopher Giancarlo (https://www.talksonlaw.com/speakers/christopher-giancarlo) breaks down the crypto-regulatory landscape. Giancarlo explains why some crypto is treated as a commodity, others as a security, while others may not be regulated at all (yet). In a time of extreme volatility in the crypto markets, Giancarlo explores FTX, Bitcoin, stablecoins, DAO's, enforcement actions by the CFTC, the SEC under Chairman Gary Gensler, and the future of crypto regulation. Finally, Giancarlo looks at the "digital dollar" and discusses with Joel how issues such as privacy and the 4th Amendment would apply to U.S. fiat cryptocurrency.

In the religious freedom case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), the Supreme Court weighed in on the role of God in football in American public schools. Prof. Sarah Barringer Gorden (https://www.talksonlaw.com/speakers/prof-sarah-barringer-gorden-df1ee503-9390-45b8-9dd0-9b048503e816) (UPenn Law) explains the case, its impact on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause separating church and state, and the unusual history of religion and football at the Supreme Court.In Bremerton, the Court decided whether a public school football coach named Joseph Kennedy violated the Establishment Clause by prominently praying at midfield after each game. The Court found in favor of the coach and determined that his actions were protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise protections of the First Amendment. Finally, Prof. Gordon explains the historical ebb and flow of Establishment Clause power and lays out the Court’s new test for evaluating potential violations of church and state after Kennedy v Bremerton.

With incredible powers to make life-changing decisions involving liberty and fortune, judges are expected to make decisions with a threshold level of neutrality. In this conversation, we explore the limits of that threshold. When does judicial bias legally or ethically preclude a judge from hearing a case? Alicia Bannon (https://www.talksonlaw.com/speakers/alicia-bannon) (director of the Judiciary Project at the Brennan Center for Justice) explains the laws and limits on judicial recusal and where gray areas remain. Bannon draws on contentious contemporary examples such as cases involving Justice Thomas and his wife’s connection to cases involving January 6th as well as cases relating to former President Trump. Bannon explains that the constitutional test for recusal (under the Due Process protections) is “serious risk of actual bias.” The conversation goes on to explore the limits of that test and potential reforms to improve the integrity of U.S. courts.