Waiting for lawsuits to present themselves is the worst growth strategy a litigator can have. 

In this episode, I get to speak with John Reed, founder and chief relationship builder at Rain BDM and host of Sticky Lawyers, to rethink business development from the ground up. His most popular episodes was about Bob Mionske, an Olympic road racing cyclist turned "bicycle lawyer." Give it a listen.  

With a background spanning law, marketing, and sales, John helps attorneys translate the language of business development into practical strategies that work even within law firm cultures. Can you imagine? Known for blending creativity, emotional intelligence, and big-picture thinking, he brings a unique perspective on how lawyers can stand out authentically and effectively in a crowded market.

John shares how traditional litigator traits—decisive, fast, commanding—can win in court but backfire with clients who value collaboration and reflection. He outlines a practical model for defining your professional brand through role, skill, context, and style—and explains why style may be your strongest differentiator.

We also dig into how introverted lawyers can grow client relationships through substance, not small talk, and how remote mentoring can actually strengthen early-career development with the right habits and feedback.

Whether you’re an associate building visibility or a partner looking to expand trusted relationships, this conversation will help you make your practice more resilient, referral-ready, and strategically aligned with how clients actually buy legal services.

Thanks to John for sharing his insight, humor, and practical wisdom on how to turn authentic connection into lasting business growth.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

What happens when the traditional understanding of workplace discrimination is turned on its head? Will the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services change how discrimination cases are evaluated when brought by members of majority groups?

Attorney Leah Stiegler of Woods Rogers joins us to examine this decision that rejected the "background circumstances rule" -- a standard that previously imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on white, heterosexual, or male plaintiffs claiming discrimination. As Leah explains, "There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination." This simple yet insightful statement captures the essence of the Court's reasoning that Title VII protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of their demographic status.

Leah shares results from mock trials conducted with identical facts in different Virginia jurisdictions. A conservative Lynchburg jury awarded a white male plaintiff $600,000, while a more liberal Richmond jury found no discrimination whatsoever with the exact same evidence. This highlights how geography and community values dramatically influence discrimination case outcomes, sometimes more than the legal standards themselves.

We also explore the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that remains the analytical backbone of discrimination cases, the emerging concept of intersectional discrimination, and recent executive orders concerning religious expression in the workplace. Throughout our discussion, Leah offers practical insights for employers navigating these evolving issues, emphasizing that while the political discourse around DEI initiatives may be contentious, the fundamental prohibition against discrimination remains unchanged.

Whether you're an employer developing workplace policies, an HR professional conducting training, or an employee trying to understand your rights, this episode provides essential context for understanding how discrimination law is evolving in unexpected ways. Subscribe to the Emerging Litigation Podcast for more in-depth analysis of the legal issues shaping our workplaces and society.

This is Leah's second appearance on the podcast and I appreciate it! 

Tom Hagy
Host | The Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

What if business insiders could accelerate antitrust enforcement as they have done with other corporate misconduct, like fraud? That’s exactly what the Department of Justice is hoping for.

In this special episode* of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I’m joined by Julie Keeton Bracker of Bracker & Marcus and Dan Mogin of Mogin Law to dig into a new program designed to motivate antitrust whistleblowers.

They trace the roots of qui tam cases—laws that let private citizens, called relators, bring suits on behalf of the government—and why they remain one of the most powerful tools for uncovering corporate fraud and misconduct. Julie explains historical and modern False Claims Act litigation, and Dan walks us through the machinations of private and public enforcement of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act being the big dog in this fight. Together they describe the Department of Justice's aspirations to bring individuals into the antitrust enforcement game.

Along the way, Julie and Dan share lessons from their practices and insights on where whistleblower and antitrust enforcement may be headed next.

If you’ve ever wondered how whistleblowers drive billion-dollar recoveries, or what the rise of antitrust whistleblowing means for businesses and enforcers alike, this episode is worth a listen.

Thanks to Julie and Dan for sharing their insights based on decades of practice in two challenging and important areas of law. 

Tom Hagy
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

P.S. You can also watch this podcast and slide presentation on the HB Litigation News YouTube Channel. 

*We produced this simultaneously as a CLE webinar, because we're just that clever. Look for it on the CeriFi LegalEdge CLE platform. 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

When it comes to business disputes -- despite the urge by some litigants to want to defeat the other side (even destroy them) -- the relationship between parties can be more valuable and lucrative than "winning" the conflict. 

Drawing on his decade on Florida's 11th Circuit bench and nearly 30 years in commercial litigation, Judge Alan Fine (ret.) of Private Resolutions offers a refreshing perspective on resolving disputes strategically and wisely, rather than destructively and emotionally.

The distinction between dispute resolution mechanisms forms the backbone of our discussion. Judge Fine discusses options available to businesses in conflict, from traditional litigation to mediation, arbitration, and the increasingly popular "private judging" programs now available in at least 30 states. He calls that last option "concierge justice." It is where parties select their own judge, secure expedited hearings, and avoid the unpredictability and inefficiency of overcrowded court calendars.

He outlines key differences between these approaches, particularly in confidentiality, efficiency, and the appeals process. Judge Fine stresses that the choice should align with the parties' objectives—especially if preserving the business relationship is a priority.

Judge Fine shared a real-world example of two business partners who faced a multimillion-dollar disagreement but recognized their partnership's value meant more than who won in court. By choosing a streamlined arbitration process, they resolved their conflict in just eight hours spread over two days, received a prompt ruling, and continued their successful business relationship without missing a beat.

Listen now to discover how strategic conflict resolution can protect your most valuable business partnerships while still addressing legitimate disagreements effectively.

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Podcast
Contact: [email protected]
Visit LitigationConferences.com

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Insurance. It’s something we all pay for and hope we never need. But behind the scenes, it’s a world of evolving risks, high-stakes litigation, and technology that’s changing faster than the laws that govern it.

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I interview Jeremy Moseley, partner at Spencer Fane in Denver, Colorado. Jeremy defends mass and class actions involving insurance regulations, healthcare, consumer products, and more. He’s seen firsthand how automation, AI, and climate change are presenting new risks — and he’s here to share what’s coming next.

We talk about how technology that makes claims handling faster and easier is now fueling lawsuits. How customized policies, while great for consumers, can leave dangerous gaps. And how juries today are awarding damages that would’ve seemed outrageous just a few years ago.

Jeremy explains “social inflation” and the rise of thermonuclear verdicts—why $20 million doesn’t sound like much anymore, and how insurers can push back with reality-based defense strategies. He also dives into climate change, shifting storm patterns, and how unprepared infrastructure are creating new underwriting challenges.

And yes, we talk about Dr. Evil, and Ecclesiastes, and my horse Jefferson from a dude ranch vacation in Colorado.

This episode is a warning, a guide, and a conversation about the future of insurance litigation. Jeremy’s insights are sharp, timely, and grounded in real-world experience. If you work in insurance, law, or just want to understand how emerging risks are reshaping the world around us, this one’s for you.

Thanks to Jeremy Moseley for joining us.

Tom Hagy
Host, The Emerging Litigation Podcast

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: [email protected]

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

What are the implications of recent court decisions for artificial intelligence systems trained on copyrighted materials?

In this episode I get to speak with two repeat veteran guests of the podcast about two important cases dealing with fair use analysis in the context of large language model training. 

Here are a couple of highlights: 

• Courts found AI training to be "transformative use" because the process changes the works significantly through tokenization and processing.
• Judges distinguished between legally obtained training data (dismissed claims) and pirated training data (allowed claims to proceed).
• Both judges signaled that if plaintiffs had focused on AI outputs reproducing substantial portions of their works, outcomes might have been different.
• The transformative nature of AI training was deemed significant enough to qualify as fair use even for commercial enterprises
• One judge noted that if copyrighted works are essential for training models worth "billions, if not trillions," developers must find ways to compensate copyright holders.

About Our Guests

Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke are recognized thought leaders in emerging technology law and artificial intelligence. Both are partners at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP and returning guests on the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

Ryan has written extensively on digital innovation, including intellectual property issues related to cutting-edge AI systems. He is the moderator of PatentNext, a blog focused on patent and IP law for next-generation technologies. We based our discussion on his excellent article about copyright law meeting AI, titled U.S. District Court Issues First Decisions on AI Model Development and Copyright Fair Use. Ryan holds a J.D. from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and an MBA from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management.

Tiffany is known for her expertise in intellectual property and technology policy, and for advocating balanced, ethical approaches to AI regulation. She chairs Marshall Gerstein’s Trademarks and Copyrights Practice. Before entering law, she worked as a software engineer. Tiffany earned her J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Together, they bring deep practical insight and academic rigor to the evolving legal landscape surrounding artificial intelligence. 

I appreciate them returning to the podcast and sharing what they know!

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Pocast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

You say you want a deposition?

Plaintiff attorneys often request and are sometimes successful in deposing corporate CEOs and other chief executives. But there are many times when defense attorneys want to spare the C-suite from what can be high-risk and time-consuming exercises for someone whose knowledge or expertise may have little or nothing to do with the facts and issues in a case. 

In this episode, I talk with Rachel M. Lary, a litigator with a nationwide practice at Lightfoot, Franklin & White, about the Apex Doctrine—a legal principle that protects high-ranking executives from being deposed unless certain conditions are met. Rachel explains how courts weigh an executive’s actual knowledge of a case, the availability of less intrusive discovery, and how judges have ruled on the doctrine around the country. (Her firm's technologist, Sam McAllister, created an interactive map showing state-by-state treatment of the Apex Doctrine. We interviewed Sam in 2023.)

Listen in and you will see why Fortune 500 companies rely on Rachel to represent them as national litigation counsel. I appreciate her sharing her insights on the podcast. I also appreciate that Rachel agreed to give a video tour of her remarkably neat office, which is what she thought I requested. I have a degree in communication, and maybe I should brush up. Rachel is both knowledgeable and a good sport. 

As always, if you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

If you have comments or want to get involved in one of our projects, drop me a note at [email protected]. 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

How do you know if your witness is credible? Is your evidence compelling—or confusing? And will a jury really care about those bright orange socks?

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, trial attorney and focus group consultant Elizabeth Larrick joins me to explain how remote focus groups are changing the way lawyers prepare for trial. Elizabeth shares what she’s learned from conducting over 1,000 Zoom focus groups—insights on testing case narratives, assessing witness credibility, refining trial strategy, and even improving jury selection.

You’ll hear how quick, targeted virtual sessions help identify blind spots, shape more persuasive stories, and prevent courtroom surprises—while also giving lawyers valuable practice engaging with real people before trial.

Plus: What happens when jurors prefer the disheveled guy over the polished one? Why you should probably rethink those flashy shoes? And why, sometimes, less (facial expression) is more.

Thanks to Elizabeth for sharing her expertise—and her sharp eye for socks.

If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because, while the landscape has shifted, employment discrimination law has not.

Joining me on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment law attorney Patice L. Holland, a Principal at WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Va. Patice shares with me what companies need to know as they reassess their DEI initiatives in light of President Trump's recent executive orders and increasing public and political pressure. 

Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions. 

We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to be invested in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice suggests practical considerations for navigating any changes, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and careful risk assessment. 

Listen in as she explains the real impact and power of the executive orders, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: [email protected]

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Southern California’s wildfire season has turned into a year-round crisis, and with it comes a surge in litigation. On this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we explore the aftermath of the devastating January 2025 wildfires, including the high-profile Eaton and Palisades fires, and the complex legal battles now unfolding.

My guest, Ed Diab, is a founding partner of Diab Chambers LLP, a boutique law firm with a sharp focus on wildfire litigation. Ed and his team have worked alongside national firm Baron & Budd to represent over 100 public entities in wildfire cases dating back to 2015. His deep experience in this area, combined with an insider’s perspective on utility liability, makes him uniquely qualified to discuss the challenges and strategies involved in these high-stakes cases.

As of early 2025, more than 100 cases have been filed against utilities like Southern California Edison, with public entities, individuals, and insurance carriers seeking damages for widespread destruction. In this conversation, Ed breaks down the causes of these fires, the legal strategies in play, and the uphill battle plaintiffs face when going up against major power utilities.

Ed walks us through California’s unique inverse condemnation doctrine, negligence claims, and how utility companies defend themselves—challenging liability, infrastructure management, and fire prevention efforts. We also discuss the challenges of evidence preservation, particularly when transmission towers remain critical to the state’s power grid.

From the legal wrangling over the Eaton Fire to the complexities of the Palisades rekindle, Ed shares the latest developments and what litigators should expect moving forward. His insight into the coordination between local and national firms and how they’ve successfully pursued wildfire claims makes this a must-listen episode for anyone following disaster-related litigation.

🎧 Tune in for insights on:
✅ Common causes of wildfire litigation and liability determination
✅ How plaintiffs build cases against utilities through expert investigations
✅ Strategic use of inverse condemnation and negligence claims
✅ Key defenses raised by utilities and how plaintiffs respond
✅ The current status of major wildfire cases and emerging litigation trends

If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site