Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers

In Episode 4 of Zone of Risk, trial lawyers Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif enter new territory, breaking down Drake’s failed lawsuit over Kendrick’s diss track and play who they may be writing their own dis tracks for.  They dissect which U.S. states actually allow cousin marriage while recounting scary dating history. Then they jump back to to Tyler Perry’s official legal response in his ongoing harassment case, and finally end with updates on the Klon vs Behringer guitar pedal lawsuit, a name battle involving Morgan & Morgan, and what happens when the EEOC shuts down due to government gridlock. Equal parts law, pop culture, and totally (in)appropriate cousin talk. CHAPTERS 00:00 – Cousin crushes & entering the Zone of Risk 00:46 – Drake vs. Universal Music: Defamation through diss tracks 03:00 – Can you say anything in a rap song legally? 05:15 – Joni & Spencer plan legal rap battles 07:00 – Cousin marriage laws in the U.S. (surprising states included) 10:00 – Genetic defects, the Habsburg jaw & royal inbreeding 13:00 – Joni’s cousin-date gone wrong + Volkswagen Rabbit drama 16:30 – Klon vs Behringer lawsuit update 20:00 – Behringer's edge-lord brand tactics and social media fans 22:30 – Morgan & Morgan name wars + Sokolov trade secret case 23:30 – Tyler Perry’s lawsuit response: “Profoundly disappointing” 26:00 – Government shutdown blocks legal actions 27:34 – Outro: London has fallen... into the Zone of Risk 🔗 Connect with the Hosts: Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Diddy got 50 months.  Smokey's allegedly got 48 counts. And Eddie Winslow… might’ve pulled a Judy Winslow and vanished. In Episode 3 of Zone of Risk, trial attorneys Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif unload more chaos, breaking down the prison sentence for Diddy, the criminal investigation into Smokey Robinson, and how Family Matters star Darius McCrary (aka Eddie Winslow) found himself locked up over child support… and was possibly trying to flee the country. If you’ve ever wondered what happens when Hollywood drama meets federal law, this is the courtroom breakdown you didn’t know you needed. 🔗 Connect with the Hosts: Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

In this episode of Zone of Risk, trial attorneys Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif unpack celebrity legal drama like no other. From Smokey Robinson’s ‘bad girls’ defense, and Tyler Perry’s helpful questioning. They break down the lawsuits, the shady legal strategies, and the pure media chaos surrounding public figures who think the courtroom is just another stage (thanks OJ). Chapters: 00:19 – You are entering the Zone of Risk 10:11 – The MAN Act, Federal Strategy & How Cases Get Moved   20:29 – Coerced Performances, Lawsuits Against Spouses & Civil Liability Explained   31:01 – Workplace Power Dynamics: When the Boss Crosses a Line   41:02 – Shannon Sharpe’s Mouth, Legal Fallout, and Control Fails   52:08 – Crying in Court & Public Reputation Damage   62:24 – Final Thoughts: Bring Your Big Boy Pants 🔗 Connect with the Hosts: Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

In the debut episode of Zone of Risk, trial attorneys Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif dive headfirst into three courtroom sagas you have to hear to believe. The Karen Read retrial: a high-profile case featuring discredited expert witnesses, alleged police cover-ups, and a prosecution theory torn apart by its own evidence. The Diddy/Cassie case: and why the defense’s strategy to flip blame on the victim could actually work. And a case from Joni and Spencer’s own war chest, involving a loaded gun used during sex... and a defense so wild, it made the judge go silent. This is where legal analysis meets raw courtroom chaos.  Welcome to the Zone of Risk. Watch the full video episode on YouTube:  https://youtu.be/I8q6xFNar-s 🔗 Connect with the Hosts: Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Hey folks. Robert here. I have decided to step away from the podcast for an indeterminate period of time. Thank you for listening and for your support. 

Melanie Kalmanson, a partner at Quarlers & Brady, joined Robert to discuss a new Florida statute that requires judges to impose the death penalty if an "unauthorized alien" commits a capital offense. Melanie and Robert examine potential constitutional issues the law faces under current Supreme Court precedent and how the law will be challenging for trial courts to implement.   921.1426 Sentence of death for capital offense committed by unauthorized alien. —Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the court shall sentence a defendant who is an unauthorized alien and who is convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital felony to a sentence of death. As used in this section, the term “unauthorized alien” has the same meaning as in s. 908.111.  Subscribe to Melanie's substack - Tracking Florida's Death Penalty. Read the full text of the statute here.  Please send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

On February 6, Robert debated Judge Adam Tanenbaum (First DCA) about whether the prior-panel rule applies in the DCAs. The rule requires 3-judge appellate panels to follow prior-panel precedent unless the court overrules the prior precedent en banc or the precedent has been overruled by the Florida Supreme Court.  Robert is a proponent of the rule, which he argues flows from Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331 (the en banc rule) and is supported by Florida Supreme Court precedent.  Judge Tanenbaum is an opponent of the rule, which he argues has no basis in law and is contrary to article V, section 4(a) of Florida's Constitution.  Robert co-authored an article in The Florida Bar Journal explaining his position. Judge Tanenbaum's position is best articulated in his concurring opinions in Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (en banc), review granted, No. SC2023-1576, 2024 WL 4449458 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2024) and BAM Trading Servs. Inc. v. Off. of Fin. Regul., 395 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (en banc). Thanks to the Hillsborough County Bar Association for hosting the event and to David Costello or the Florida Office of the Attorney General and Dimitri Peteves of Creed and Gowdy P.A. for an amazing job organizing and moderating the debate.   Please send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Aliza Shatzman joined Robert on this episode. Aliza is the President and Founder of the Legal Accountability Project. The Project’s mission is to "ensure law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not." Aliza shared her experience as a law clerk and explained the Project’s great resources for future law clerks. She and Robert also discussed the kerfuffle at a recent federalist society event where two judges from the Fifth Circuit and Professor Steve Vladeck went a few rounds on judicial independence. Follow Aliza on LinkedIn. Watch the FedSoc debate here. Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Lindsey, Joni, and Robert rundown several appellate opinions from October 2024. Contact to get on the Guardian ad Litem pro bono mailing list: Samuel Alexander samuel@alexanderappeals.com. In re: Amends. to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3, FSC (CLE credit for pro bono hours). McLane Foodservice Inc., v. Wool, 3d DCA (punitive damages). BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida, Off. Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (en banc) (prior panel rule; judicial review of emergency suspension orders).  Wheeler v. Dovey, 2d DCA (attorneys’ fees). Ragan v. State, 3d DCA (single-homicide rule; double jeopardy).  Sills v. Motor Care Concepts, II, 6th DCA (timeliness of motion for rehearing). United States v. Maher, 2d Circuit (Fourth Amendment; private search doctrine). Davis v. State, 1st DCA (competency hearings; fundamental error). Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Joni and Robert were joined by Florida Bar President Roland Sanchez-Medina, Jr. They discussed President Sanchez-Medina's path to the law, his vision for the Bar, and what he is doing to make the practice of law "kinder and gentler."  Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

On November 11, 2024, the Miami Herald reported, "Miami Judge's Venomous Texts Come Back to Bite her in Crumbling Death Penalty Case." The article leads of: "An appellate judge at the center of one of Miami’s biggest criminal cases is facing intense scrutiny after text messages were released showing her pressuring Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle about how to handle the case, denigrating defense attorneys and badmouthing local judges." Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Brittany Wellman, who co-authored the article with Charles Rabin for the Herald, joined Robert to discuss the backstory of the capital murder case and the text messages between Judge Bronwyn Miller and State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. In one text message, Judge Miller suggested to the State Attorney that she move to disqualify the trial judge handling the resentencing of the defendant, Corey Smith, so the trial judge's decision to remove two assistant state attorneys from the case for prosecutorial misconduct could be reconsidered.  Miami Gangster's Life Could be Spared After Prosecutor Misconduct Undermines Murder Case Miami Judge's Venomous Texts Come Back to Bite her in Crumbling Death Penalty Case State no Longer Seeking Death Penalty in Trial of Convicted Gang Leader and Murderer  Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Jennifer Opinion is leaving the podcast (hopefully not forever) to attend to family matters. Before she signs off, she shares her expertise about PIP and insurance law. She and Robert discusses several DCA opinions from August, September, and October. We thank Jen for her commitment to the podcast and to the members of the Florida Bar. Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Hilchey, 2d DCA (jurisdiction to decide dec actions). Fojon v. Ascendant Com. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (policy defenses vs. coverage defenses). Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Walden, 3d DCA (pre-suit notice in dec actions). United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coral Gables Chiropractic PLLC, 3d DCA (attorneys' fees). Buis v. Universal Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2d DCA (retroactivity of presuit notice). Hernandez v. Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (hearings on SMJ). Alvarez, Feltman & Da Silva, P.L. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (two-dismissal rule). Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Professor Harold Krent joined Robert to discuss major cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Garland v. VanDerStok, (ghost guns) (oral argument). E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, (burden of proof in FLSA litigation). Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., ("majority" plaintiffs burden of proof under Title VII). United States v. Skrmetti, (medical treatment for transgender children). Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Robert, Lindsey, and Joni recap several recent DCA opinions. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Walden, 3DCA (first impression, presuit under section 627.70125, certiorari). State v. Myers, 3DCA (Miranda). Pacheco v. Jinete, 3d DCA (residency requirement for elected office).  Beans v. Beans, 1st DCA (modification to alimony). Julia v. Ramos-Baez, 6DCA (attorneys’ fees under 61.16) (creating split among DCAs). Cowins v. State, 4th DCA (PTSD; self-defense). Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Adam Unikowsky is a Partner at Jenner & Block. He is at the forefront of thinking about the use of AI in the law. Adam is a graduate of MIT and Harvard Law. He focuses on appellate and Supreme Court practice in the areas of securities litigation, Indian law, patents, civil procedure, and constitutional law. Check out Adam's substack articles on AI: In AI we Trust (Part 1) & In AI we Trust (Part 2). Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co. (11th Cir.) Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Jennifer joined Robert to run throw opinions from June and July.  Health and Wellness Evolution Co. V. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 3d DCA (EUO; hearsay). Crown Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Bribiesca, 3d DCA (small-claims rules). Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., FL. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 4th DCA (reimbursement under section 627.7405). Auto Club Ins. Co. of FL. v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC (Eileen Fonti), 5th DCA; Auto Club Ins. Co. of FL. v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC (Helmut J. Meven), 5th DCA (fee schedule).  USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Emergency Res. Grp., et al., 5th DCA (deductible election). Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law sat down with Robert to discuss the Court's decisions in United States v. Rahimi and Garland v. Cargill, and how Rahimi shows the Court's current iteration of "originalism" does not constrain judges. Rather, it is used as a tool to achieve a desired outcome. Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Robert and Lindsey recap opinions from the DCAs, the Florida Supreme Court, and the 11th Circuit. In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.110. In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.440, & 1.460. In re: Amends to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 and New Rule 1.202. In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130. BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida Off. of Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (intra-district conflict); see also A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal, Robert Scavone Jr., et al.  Ripple v. CBS Corp., FSC (surviving spouse under Florida’s wrongful death act). Harrell v. Friend, 1st DCA (modification of timesharing based on substantial change in circumstances). Askew v. Fla. Dep’t Child. & Fams., FSC (misapplication jurisdiction). Fluhart v. Rasmussen, 5th DCA (preservation; failure to move to vacate magistrate's order). Pradaxay v. Kendrick, 6th DCA (med mal presuit; expert's specialty). Lange v. Houston Cnty. Ga., 11th Cir. (liability under Title VII for denying gender-affirming care). State v. Times, 1st DCA (4th Amendment; knock-and-announce). State v. Creller, FSC (Fourth Amendment; traffic stops).  This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals. SAVE $500 off your first month by using referral code Summarily. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date/time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Robert sat down with Erin Chlopak, Senior Director of Campaign Finance at the Campaign Legal Center, to set the record straight about whether Vice President Harris will be able to use funds raised by the Biden/Harris campaign. Erin also explains why republican threats to sue to prevent VP Harris from using the funds are ill-conceived. Before joining CLC, Erin spent nearly a decade working on a wide range of campaign finance issues in the Federal Election Commission’s Office of General Counsel. From 2017 to 2018, Erin led the FEC’s Policy Division, overseeing all legal recommendations regarding FEC regulations, advisory opinions, and other legal policy guidance. From 2009 to 2017, Erin served as an attorney and then as assistant general counsel in the FEC’s Litigation Division. Thank You Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Robert discussed three important Supreme Court opinions handed down in late June and early July with administrative law experts Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent College of Law, and Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennen Jr. Professor of Law at Georgetown Law. Hal and Lisa explain how Loper Bright v. Raimondo, SEC v. Jarkesy, and Corner Post v. Board of Governs are likely to change the practice of administrative law. Our Sponsors This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page. This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.