ITTC: FPPC Chair Adam Silver on money, ethics and California elections

ITTC: FPPC Chair Adam Silver on money, ethics and California elections

In this episode of In the Counsel's Chair, host Jack Needham sits down with Adam Silver, chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, California's campaign finance and ethics watchdog. Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024, Silver traces the agency's roots to Proposition 9, the post-Watergate ballot measure that created the FPPC and some of the strictest campaign finance and ethics rules in the country -- rules his office is now charged with enforcing in the age of AI. The conversation ranges from AB 2355, the surviving bill from a package of three targeting deepfakes and AI-generated campaign ads, to how the commission is exploring technology to flag potential campaign money laundering and warn public officials of conflicts before they happen. Along the way, Silver explains why the agency's priority is transparency before an election rather than penalties after it, and why the appearance of impropriety can damage public trust as much as the real thing. Highlights: • The FPPC's post-Watergate origins and its role as the state's campaign finance and ethics watchdog • AB 2355 and enforcing disclaimer rules for AI-generated or AI-modified campaign ads • Using AI to flag patterns of possible campaign money laundering • A tool to warn officials of potential conflicts between their financial disclosures and upcoming agenda items • Why transparency before the election takes priority • The legislation Silver's office sponsored to ban campaign contributions inside state buildings

ITCC: Joshua Robbins on rethinking trial advocacy

In this episode of In the Counsel's Chair, host Jack Needham sits down with Joshua Robbins, a partner in the Orange County office of Crowell & Moring, to talk about a different way of thinking about trial advocacy. A former federal prosecutor who began his career in international arbitration, Robbins explains how working in systems with limited discovery taught him to prepare for trial from day one, make more with less, and build cases around contemporaneous documents — witnesses that "don't forget and don't lie and don't have motives." The conversation ranges from the Tom Goldstein tax trial and what it reveals about juror skepticism toward polished performers, to the document-heavy Musk v. Altman verdict, to Robbins' experience teaching trial advocacy at UC Irvine School of Law. Along the way, he makes the case that the craft is less about courtroom theatrics than about narrative discipline: distilling business disputes into moral concepts jurors intuitively grasp, and knowing which evidence to leave out. Highlights: * Why early exposure to international arbitration and criminal prosecution shaped an evidence-first approach to civil litigation * The Tom Goldstein trial: how jurors' built-in skepticism punishes testimony that reads as a performance * Building cases on documents and letting witnesses narrate them — not the other way around * The Miles Davis quote he cites: five or six key documents matter more than hundreds of exhibits * The hardest skill to teach young lawyers: listening and reacting in real time instead of clinging to the script

ITCC: Learned Hand founder Shlomo Klapper on AI's role in the judge's chambers

Los Angeles County Superior Court announced Wednesday that a select group of its judges will begin using AI tools to help prepare and manage cases — a first for the largest trial court in the nation. We sat down with Shlomo Klapper, the founder and CEO of Learned Hand and the man behind that initiative, to find out what it means for judges, lawyers and the justice system when AI enters the courtroom. A former clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and litigator at Quinn Emanuel, Klapper built Learned Hand around a simple argument: courts are under-resourced, backlogs are growing, and an incoming wave of AI-generated litigation is about to make things significantly worse. In this episode, he breaks down how the technology works, why tools built for lawyers don't translate to the bench, and what it will take to deliver on the promise of equal justice. We also get into the hard questions — how Learned Hand addresses concerns about algorithmic bias, what safeguards protect the confidentiality of case materials, and what the rise of AI means for the future of lawyering itself.

ITCC: Melanie Chaney on why LCW built its own chatbot (and the future of mid-size law)

Mid-size law firms are getting squeezed from both ends. Big law has the capital to invest in AI and the salaries to attract top talent. Boutiques can specialize tightly and move fast. So where does that leave everyone in the middle? Melanie Chaney, firm-wide managing partner of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, has a front-row seat to that question. LCW has grown from 45 attorneys to 120 over the past two decades, and Chaney — just a few months into her tenure leading the firm — is candid about the challenges that come with that position in the market: recruitment, AI costs, and figuring out how junior attorneys develop their skills when the tasks they used to learn on are being automated away. In this episode of In the Counsel's Chair, she makes the case that mid-size firms still have a real value proposition — but that a long track record is no excuse to stop innovating. About Melanie: Melanie L. Chaney [https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lcwlegal.com%2Fpeople%2Fmelanie-chaney%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjack_needham%40dailyjournal.com%7C7264e5069b2441837eaf08de788f679f%7Cd7c644ef66db4e9482dafbcadfd8bc4e%7C0%7C0%7C639080754561085329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dVpxWhxGmdHClScEe2pE%2BhxXjkx8Tj%2FACubbHV%2FMM40%3D&reserved=0] is the Firm-wide Managing Partner of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, California’s leading education, public sector, nonprofit, and labor & employment law firm serving public agencies, educational institutions, and nonprofits. She brings decades of experience advising cities, school districts, and public safety departments on complex and high-stakes labor relations matters. Her practice includes collective bargaining under the MMBA and EERA, handling labor disputes before the California Public Employment Relations Board, and representing public entities in employment litigation in state and federal court. She also conducts workplace investigations, counsels agencies on personnel policies, and regularly provides training on labor and employment issues.

In the Counsel's Chair: Jason de Bretteville on the sanctions ruling that could be a game-changer

When Jason de Bretteville's client refused to take the easy off-ramp -- a dismissal that would have let everyone walk away quietly -- it set the stage for a sanctions ruling that may finally put teeth into a 30-year-old law. The court was blunt: widespread practice doesn't make a practice acceptable. Jason is a partner at Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP, Chair of the firm's Litigation Department and Co-Chair of its Enforcement Defense and Investigations Practice. In this episode of In the Counsel's Chair, he walks through the case that produced what may be the first-ever sanctions ruling against a plaintiff for filing a bare-bones placeholder complaint in a securities fraud class action -- and what it could mean for how the plaintiff's bar operates going forward. Jason also explains the structural reasons this practice has persisted for three decades despite the PSLRA, what it would take for defense lawyers to routinely push back, and how AI is shifting the calculus for smaller firms competing against larger ones. About Jason: Jason de Bretteville defends companies, financial institutions and executives in high-stakes civil and criminal litigation matters. When other legal teams see hurdles and complications or say it simply cannot be done, Jason finds the evidence and arguments that win. He is a tenacious litigator whose deep industry and regulatory experience, knowledge of the courts and ability to connect with judges and juries have earned him a reputation as a serious trial threat. Jason served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Central District of California from 2001 through 2006. As a prosecutor, he tried seven felony cases to verdict, investigated and prosecuted significant crimes of violence and fraud, supervised teams of federal agents engaged in the detection and prevention of terrorist activity, and briefed and argued numerous cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Jason has secured favorable settlements and trial and appellate victories for clients facing civil and criminal allegations relating to securities fraud, white-collar crime and abuses of the False Claims Act and the FCP. He also has represented medical device companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, investment banks, technology companies, consumer goods manufacturers, oil and gas concerns, and other companies in a wide variety of complex business disputes. When he is not litigating, he helps his clients optimize their compliance programs and navigate pre-litigation securities matters to minimize potential liability.