This week's episode, which was intended to a brief discussion on Hughes v. U.S. to compensate for Brett's lost voice, quickly turned into a more substantive discussion on plurality opinions, sentencing guidelines and actual buffets.  So the title isn't really a joke, cuz like the last ten minutes is legit all about buffets.  The law starts at (03:36), but if you hate food talk, feel free to bail around the time Brett talks about eating oysters at the Chinese buffet.

<p>This week's episode, which was intended to a brief discussion on <em>Hughes v. U.S.</em> to compensate for Brett's lost voice, quickly turned into a more substantive discussion on plurality opinions, sentencing guidelines and actual buffets.  So the title isn't really a joke, cuz like the last ten minutes is legit all about buffets.  The law starts at (03:36), but if you hate food talk, feel free to bail around the time Brett talks about eating oysters at the Chinese buffet.</p>

This week's episode, which was intended to a brief discussion on Hughes v. U.S. to compensate for Brett's lost voice, quickly turned into a more substantive discussion on plurality opinions, sentencing guidelines and actual buffets.  So the title isn't really a joke, cuz like the last ten minutes is legit all about buffets.  The law starts at

Family Court War Stories

Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys.  Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting.  This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only.  If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately