Lawyer 2 Lawyer

This is a must-listen for lawyers and paralegals interested in current events!

This is meat & potatoes. Topics are driven by the news cycle, but the discussion focuses on legal analysis instead of politics or the horse race. Come prepared and you won't be disappointed.

I subscribed during law school (circa 2018) and found the discussions highly relevant to my studies and conversations in class and with classmates; the guests were civil, highly knowledgeable, and represented both sides of the aisle well on issues that divide our country and the hosts guided the discussions well. However, in the last year or two, the exchange between what used to be two opposing guest lawyers has dwindled to barely a whisper with generally only one viewpoint shared these days. If anything, it now is a bullhorn for hard left activists who throw scorn and disdain on fellow lawyers and the rest of the country who do not drink the koolaid. That can certainly have a place, but this show is the worse off for it. It has lost the thrill of what Lawyer 2 Lawyer used to be; and believe me, at one time, this podcast was truly thrilling and evoked palpable excitement at each drop of a new episode. Shows that will air and civilly discuss modern legal and political controversies with equally balanced opposing viewpoints are few and far between. This was once a shining jewel, but it has lost its luster.

Subject: Review of "Lawyer 2 Lawyer" Podcast: A Call for Balanced Discourse In today's world, political discourse is notably polarized. Yet, within the legal community, which is perceived to have a liberal inclination, I have often admired the majority of attorneys for their commitment to maintaining objectivity in discussions. This dedication to impartiality generally extends to legal podcasts, which typically strive to present a balanced exploration of diverse viewpoints. However, "Lawyer 2 Lawyer" stands as an exception to this trend. The hosts of this podcast seem to have a definitive vision of what they believe the United States should and should not be, and they present their perspectives as if they were the definitive interpretation of the law—no pun intended. This approach is disappointing. Engaging in a genuine dialogue about the complex issues facing our courts and nation is essential. Yet, presenting one's opinions as the authoritative voice on such matters comes across as disingenuous. Take, for example, the episode titled "The Presidential Election