Law School

The Law School of America
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Courses
  • Updated daily

The Law School of America podcast is designed for listeners who what to expand and enhance their understanding of the American legal system. It provides you with legal principles in small digestible bites to make learning easy. If you're willing to put in the time, The Law School of America podcasts can take you from novice to knowledgeable in a reasonable amount of time.

  1. 6 hr ago

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: Pleadings and Rule 12: Complaints, Answers, Plausibility, Affirmative Defenses, Rule 11, Amendments, and Relation Back

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧 Pleadings define claims and defenses in federal cases; they are not evidence. Complaints require subject-matter jurisdiction, a plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for relief. Plaintiffs must allege plausible facts permitting a reasonable inference of liability, not merely speculative claims or legal conclusions. Plausibility does not require proof. Matters like fraud require heightened particularity, though mental states like intent may be alleged generally. Defendants respond via a Rule 12 motion, an answer, or both. The seven Rule 12(b) defenses are lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, insufficient service, failure to state a claim, and failure to join a required party. Personal jurisdiction, venue, process, and service are waived if omitted from the initial Rule 12 response. Failure to state a claim and failure to join a required party can be raised later. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests legal sufficiency using the complaint, incorporated materials, and judicially noticed facts; considering outside evidence converts it to summary judgment. Answers contain admissions, denials, or statements of insufficient information, along with affirmative defenses like limitations or release, which may be forfeited if omitted. Counterclaims are asserted against opposing parties. Rule 11 mandates reasonable prefiling inquiry, certifying that papers are not presented for improper purposes and that contentions have legal and factual support. Focused on deterrence, sanctions include nonmonetary orders, fines, and fees. Sanction motions require serving the opposing party first under a safe-harbor provision. Rule 11 does not govern discovery. Pleadings may be amended once as a matter of course during set early windows, and otherwise require consent or leave of court, which is freely given absent delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. After a statute of limitations expires, new claims relate back if based on the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. Adding defendants requires showing the same transaction, timely notice, lack of prejudice, and that the omission resulted from a mistake regarding identity rather than a strategic choice. Supplemental pleadings address post-filing events, whereas amendments cover pre-filing events. The central takeaway is that procedural rights can be lost through timing. Success requires recognizing litigation stages, identifying defenses early, knowing acceptable materials, and asserting rights promptly. ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website PurposeThe Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational DisclaimerContent is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of UseBy using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: Pleadings and Rule 12: Complaints, Answers, Plausibility, Affirmative Defenses, Rule 11, Amendments, and Relation Back

  2. 1 day ago

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: Erie and the Law Applied in Federal Court: Federal Procedure, State Substantive Law, Choice of Law, and Constitutional Structure

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan.🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧Impact of Federal Rules and Law Selection Procedural rules in federal court hold significant weight: they dictate whether claims endure, which evidence is uncovered, and if a case goes to trial. Nevertheless, practical impact alone does not transform a procedural standard into substantive law. Choice-of-law framework adds a critical step: Standard Rule: When exercising diversity jurisdiction, a federal court applies the choice-of-law principles of the state where it sits. Students need to evaluate two key points: which state's choice-of-law framework governs, and which substantive law that framework ultimately dictates. Transfer for Convenience (Proper Venue): If a suit is transferred for convenience from a proper federal venue, the transferee court retains and applies the choice-of-law rules of the original transferor court. Transfer to Cure Defect (Improper Venue): If transfer occurs because initial venue was improper, the receiving court uses the choice-of-law rules of the new, proper forum. Contractual Clauses: Forum-selection provisions can alter transfer dynamics and must be distinguished from distinct choice-of-law clauses. Although general federal common law was abolished under Erie, specialized federal common law persists in narrow domains. These include matters involving unique federal interests, federal governmental affairs, foreign relations, interstate disagreements, and federal proprietary concerns. To conduct a thorough Erie examination, follow these steps in order: Establish the basis for federal court jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Pinpoint the specific state rule in dispute. Check if a federal constitutional provision, federal statute, or Federal Rule directly addresses the issue. If a controlling federal directive exists, verify that it validly applies. In the absence of a federal directive, evaluate potential forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law. Assess whether the state provision is tightly bound to substantive rights or remedies. Weigh any competing federal procedural considerations. Clearly conclude which body of law applies and detail the justification. The central lesson for Wednesday is that federal courts can utilize federal procedural rules while simultaneously enforcing state-created substantive rights. Erie problems become straightforward when students systematically follow the source-of-law analysis rather than relying on intuitive labeling.

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: Erie and the Law Applied in Federal Court: Federal Procedure, State Substantive Law, Choice of Law, and Constitutional Structure

  3. 2 days ago

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: Personal Jurisdiction, Service, Constitutional Notice, Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧 Personal jurisdiction requires statutory authorization and compliance with due process, establishing authority via domicile, physical presence with service, consent, or waiver. General jurisdiction applies where individuals are domiciled, or where corporations are incorporated and maintain their principal place of business. Substantial business activity alone is insufficient. Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment—deliberately creating forum ties—and relatedness between the claim and the defendant's forum contacts. Neither unilateral plaintiff activity nor mere forum resident contracts or internet accessibility automatically create jurisdiction. Distributing products through intermediaries requires intentional forum targeting. Once minimum contacts and relatedness exist, fairness considerations rarely defeat jurisdiction. Service of process formally provides notice and invokes court authority. Individuals and corporations are served via personal, dwelling, or agent delivery, or permitted state methods. Waiving service extends response time without waiving jurisdictional defenses. Constitutional notice requires methods reasonably calculated to inform defendants, though actual receipt is not always required. Objections to personal jurisdiction, venue, process, and service are waived if omitted from the initial Rule 12 response. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Venue sets statutory geographic placement based on defendant residence, key events, or property locations. Proper venues can be transferred for convenience and justice, weighing factors like party convenience, evidence, public interest, and valid forum-selection clauses. Improper venue leads to dismissal or transfer. Forum non conveniens applies when an adequate alternative forum exists outside the federal system. Ultimately, Civil Procedure demands independent evaluation of personal jurisdiction, service, constitutional notice, venue, transfer, and forum non conveniens to ensure proper lawful authority and geographic placement. ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website PurposeThe Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational DisclaimerContent is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of UseBy using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction.

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: Personal Jurisdiction, Service, Constitutional Notice, Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens

  4. 3 days ago

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: The Federal Court System: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Federal Questions, Diversity, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Removal, and Remand

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧Subject-matter jurisdiction is a federal court's statutory and constitutional authority over a dispute category. It cannot be created by party agreement or waiver. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal issue in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint, not merely in a defense or counterclaim. Certain state-law claims with substantial federal issues may also qualify. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity (no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant) and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Citizenship depends on domicile for individuals, state of incorporation and principal place of business for corporations, and all members' citizenship for LLCs and partnerships. The amount in controversy is based on good-faith allegations. A single plaintiff can aggregate claims against a single defendant, but multiple parties generally cannot aggregate separate claims. Supplemental jurisdiction permits related claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact, though restrictions apply in diversity cases and courts may decline jurisdiction for compelling reasons. Removal transfers a case from state to federal court if subject-matter jurisdiction exists. It requires unanimous consent of all defendants and is subject to statutory deadlines and the forum-defendant rule in diversity cases. Remand sends a case back to state court. While procedural removal defects can be waived if not timely challenged, a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived. Ultimately, federal jurisdiction must be evaluated claim by claim and party by party alongside applicable supplemental, removal, and remand rules. ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website PurposeThe Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational DisclaimerContent is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of UseBy using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction.

    Civil Procedure Fall Launch: The Federal Court System: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Federal Questions, Diversity, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Removal, and Remand

  5. 4 days ago

    Torts Fall Launch: Defamation, Privacy, Economic Torts, Nuisance, Damages, and the Complete Torts Examination System

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧 Defamation protects reputation. A typical claim requires a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, publication to a third person, the required fault, and damages where necessary. Constitutional law may add falsity, public-concern, public-figure, and actual-malice requirements. Truth is generally a complete defense. Substantial truth is sufficient. Pure opinion is generally protected, but statements framed as opinion may remain actionable when they imply undisclosed defamatory facts. Public officials and public figures generally must prove constitutional actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Private plaintiffs ordinarily receive a lower constitutional fault threshold. Absolute and qualified privileges may protect defamatory communications. Qualified privilege may be lost through abuse, improper purpose, excessive publication, or fault concerning truth. Traditional privacy law includes appropriation, intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, and false light. Each protects a different privacy interest. Fraudulent misrepresentation protects against intentional economic deception. Negligent misrepresentation protects a more limited class of persons who reasonably rely on business or professional information supplied without reasonable care. Intentional interference with contract protects existing contractual relationships. Interference with prospective economic advantage protects expected future relationships but often requires more clearly improper conduct because competition is generally privileged. Private nuisance protects use and enjoyment of land against substantial and unreasonable interference. Public nuisance concerns unreasonable interference with public rights and ordinarily requires special injury before a private person may sue individually. Compensatory damages seek to make the plaintiff whole. Nominal damages vindicate certain rights even without substantial injury. Punitive damages punish especially blameworthy conduct. Injunctions prevent continuing or threatened tortious conduct when monetary damages are inadequate. A complete Torts examination analysis should proceed through plaintiffs and defendants, intentional torts, privileges, negligence, special negligence doctrines, defenses and allocation, strict liability, products liability, other torts, derivative liability, and remedies. The key lesson for Sunday is organizational. Torts contains many doctrines, but a complicated problem becomes manageable when every relationship is analyzed separately and every fact is assigned to the doctrinal category it actually tests. ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website PurposeThe Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational DisclaimerContent is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of UseBy using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction.

    Torts Fall Launch: Defamation, Privacy, Economic Torts, Nuisance, Damages, and the Complete Torts Examination System

  6. 5 days ago

    Torts Fall Launch: Strict Liability and Products Liability: Animals, Abnormally Dangerous Activities, Manufacturing Defects, Design Defects, Warning Defects, and Defenses

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧 Strict liability does not mean absolute liability. The plaintiff must still prove that a recognized strict-liability doctrine applies, that the relevant danger or defect caused the injury, that the injury falls within the appropriate scope of risk, and that legally compensable harm occurred. Possessors of wild animals are generally strictly liable for harm resulting from dangerous characteristics typical of the animal. Reasonable care does not ordinarily eliminate liability for those characteristic risks. Domestic animals ordinarily create strict liability only when the owner knows or has reason to know of a dangerous tendency abnormal for that type of animal. The traditional “one-bite rule” does not literally require a prior bite. Abnormally dangerous activities may produce strict liability when they create a high risk of severe harm, reasonable care cannot eliminate the danger, the activity is uncommon, the location is inappropriate, and the dangerous attributes outweigh community value. Classification is context-specific. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities extends only to the type of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous. Defective products may create liability under strict products liability, negligence, warranty, and misrepresentation theories. Strict products liability generally requires a defective product supplied by a commercial seller, a defect existing when the product left the defendant’s control, no substantial relevant alteration before injury, causation, and legally cognizable harm. A manufacturing defect exists when a particular unit departs from its intended design. The plaintiff compares the individual product with properly manufactured units. A design defect concerns the product line as designed. Courts may use consumer expectations, risk-utility balancing, or a reasonable-alternative-design requirement. The consumer-expectation test asks whether the product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer reasonably expects. Risk-utility analysis compares the probability and severity of harm with product utility, alternative designs, cost, consumer knowledge, and ability to avoid danger. Some modern approaches require proof of a technologically and economically feasible alternative design that would reduce foreseeable harm without destroying reasonable product utility. A warning defect may exist when a product lacks adequate instructions or warnings concerning foreseeable nonobvious risks. Adequate warnings should be understandable, visible, specific, prominent, and appropriately directed. Warning causation must also be shown. The key lesson for Saturday is that strict liability removes the ordinary requirement of proving unreasonable conduct, but it does not remove disciplined analysis. The student must still identify the precise source of strict liability, the relevant defect or abnormal risk, causation, damages, and any applicable defense.ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website PurposeThe Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational DisclaimerContent is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of UseBy using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction.

    Torts Fall Launch: Strict Liability and Products Liability: Animals, Abnormally Dangerous Activities, Manufacturing Defects, Design Defects, Warning Defects, and Defenses

  7. 6 days ago

    Torts Fall Launch: Negligence Defenses, Multiple Defendants, Vicarious Liability, and Allocation of Responsibility

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧 After the plaintiff establishes negligence, tort law must determine how responsibility is allocated. Traditional contributory negligence completely bars a plaintiff whose own negligence contributed to the injury. Last clear chance historically permitted recovery when the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the accident despite the plaintiff’s prior negligence. Comparative negligence reduces recovery according to plaintiff responsibility. Pure comparative negligence permits recovery even when the plaintiff is mostly at fault. Modified systems bar recovery at a specified threshold. Students must distinguish systems barring plaintiffs at 50 percent from systems barring plaintiffs only when fault exceeds 50 percent. Assumption of risk appears in several forms. Express assumption involves waivers, releases, exculpatory clauses, or contractual allocations. Enforceability depends on clarity, public policy, scope, and the nature of defendant misconduct. Traditional implied assumption requires knowledge, appreciation, and voluntary encounter with a particular risk. Many comparative-fault systems merge this doctrine into comparative negligence. Primary assumption of risk concerns whether the defendant owed a duty regarding risks inherent in an activity. It should be distinguished from unreasonable plaintiff risk-taking and contractual waiver. Mitigation applies after injury. The plaintiff must take reasonable steps to avoid additional loss. Comparative negligence concerns conduct contributing to the initial injury; mitigation concerns later conduct increasing damages. Multiple defendants may combine to produce indivisible harm. Traditional joint and several liability allows the plaintiff to collect the entire judgment from any jointly responsible defendant. Modern statutes may instead use several liability or hybrid systems. Contribution allows a tortfeasor who pays more than an appropriate share to obtain reimbursement from other responsible tortfeasors. Indemnity shifts the entire loss from one responsible party to another. Vicarious liability imposes responsibility for another person’s tort based on a legal relationship. Under respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for an employee’s tort committed within the scope of employment. A minor personal detour may remain within the scope of employment, while a substantial personal frolic may fall outside it. Liability can resume when the employee returns to the employer’s business. The key lesson for Friday is that establishing negligence does not determine who ultimately bears the loss. Tort law separately allocates responsibility among plaintiffs, multiple defendants, employers, employees, contractors, and other responsible actors. ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website PurposeThe Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational DisclaimerContent is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of UseBy using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction.

    Torts Fall Launch: Negligence Defenses, Multiple Defendants, Vicarious Liability, and Allocation of Responsibility

  8. 20 Aug

    Torts Fall Launch: Negligence Part Two: Actual Cause, Proximate Cause, Intervening Forces, Emotional Harm, and Damages

    📘 FREE COMPANION STUDY GUIDE 📘 👉 CLICK HERE TO OPEN YOUR FREE STUDY GUIDE 👈 Turn this episode into an exam-ready study plan. 🎧 EPISODE SUMMARY 🎧Negligence requires more than careless conduct. The plaintiff must establish actual causation, proximate causation, and actual damages. Actual causation ordinarily uses the but-for test: but for the defendant’s breach, would the injury have occurred? If the answer is no, factual causation is established. Multiple sufficient causes require special treatment when several independent acts were each sufficient to cause the same harm. Alternative liability may shift the causal burden when multiple defendants acted negligently but uncertainty prevents identification of the actual wrongdoer. Loss-of-chance doctrine may address medical negligence that reduces a patient’s probability of survival or recovery. Proximate cause limits liability to injuries within the scope of the risks that made the defendant’s conduct negligent. The exact mechanism and extent of harm need not always be foreseeable, but the general type of injury ordinarily must fall within the relevant risk. An intervening event does not automatically cut off liability. Ordinary medical negligence, reasonable rescue, reactions to danger, normal natural forces, and foreseeable negligent conduct often remain within the scope of responsibility. A superseding cause is sufficiently extraordinary or outside the original risk to cut off liability. Intentional and criminal acts are not automatically superseding when the defendant’s negligence increased the risk that those acts would occur. The rescue doctrine recognizes that danger invites rescue and generally treats reasonable rescue attempts as foreseeable. The eggshell-plaintiff rule requires the defendant to take the plaintiff as found. Once the defendant is responsible for the relevant type of physical harm, the unforeseeable severity caused by the plaintiff’s vulnerability generally does not reduce liability. Negligent infliction of emotional distress varies among jurisdictions. Major approaches include zone-of-danger recovery, bystander recovery, and special-relationship situations in which emotional well-being is central to the undertaking. Negligence requires actual compensable injury. Damages may include medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, property damage, pain and suffering, emotional distress, disability, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment, and reasonably certain future losses. The traditional collateral-source rule generally prevents a tortfeasor from reducing liability because the plaintiff received compensation from an independent source, although statutory modifications vary. Wrongful-death actions compensate designated survivors for losses resulting from death. Survival actions preserve claims the decedent could have asserted had death not occurred. The key lesson for Thursday is that causation is a two-stage inquiry: did the defendant actually contribute to the harm, and is the resulting harm within the scope of the defendant’s legal responsibility? ℹ️ INFORMATION, PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS OF USE ℹ️ The Podcast and Website Purpose The Law School Podcast and 1L Study Aide webpage supplements law-school and Bar Exam study with strategies, condensed rules, quizzes, and flashcards. Educational Disclaimer Content is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and does not guarantee law-school or Bar Exam success. Privacy Policy No account or login is required.This webpage uses no forms or analytics to collect personal information.Quiz and flashcard activity stays in your browser and may clear when local site data is removed.Terms of Use By using this webpage, you agree to use its content only for lawful, personal, noncommercial educational purposes. It supplements—not replaces—courses, textbooks, official materials, or qualified instruction.

    Torts Fall Launch: Negligence Part Two: Actual Cause, Proximate Cause, Intervening Forces, Emotional Harm, and Damages
See All (1.9k)

Trailers

About

The Law School of America podcast is designed for listeners who what to expand and enhance their understanding of the American legal system. It provides you with legal principles in small digestible bites to make learning easy. If you're willing to put in the time, The Law School of America podcasts can take you from novice to knowledgeable in a reasonable amount of time.

Information

  • Creator
    The Law School of America
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    1.9k
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © The Law School of America
  • Show Website
    Law School

You Might Also Like