1
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:15,760
Speaker 1: Jury selection continues in the trial of former Minneapolis police

3
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:19,600
Speaker 1: officer Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd, despite

4
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:23,720
Speaker 1: concerns that the unprecedented twenty seven million dollars settlement with

5
00:00:23,800 --> 00:00:28,520
Speaker 1: Floyd's family would taint the jurisperceptions. The defense attorney argued

6
00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 1: that the city's unusual decision to announce the settlement just

7
00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:35,479
Speaker 1: as the criminal trial begins could prevent Chauvin from receiving

8
00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:38,559
Speaker 1: a fair trial. The judge has yet to decide on

9
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 1: the defense attorney's renewed motion to move the trial out

10
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:45,280
Speaker 1: of Minneapolis, and both sides clashed today over how much

11
00:00:45,320 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: the jury should hear of Floyd's own actions during a

12
00:00:48,360 --> 00:00:52,840
Speaker 1: drug arrest. In joining me is Krista Groshek, a former

13
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:57,640
Speaker 1: public defender and managing attorney of Groshek Law in Minneapolis, Christa.

14
00:00:57,680 --> 00:01:01,360
Speaker 1: How unusual is it to have a civil settlement before

15
00:01:01,360 --> 00:01:05,119
Speaker 1: a criminal trial. It's extraordinarily unusual. In fact, I don't

16
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,000
Speaker 1: think it's ever happened in Minnesota. The cases that I

17
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:10,959
Speaker 1: am familiar with and some other ones that I um

18
00:01:10,959 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 1: looked up all perceived in the same way. The criminal

19
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:16,959
Speaker 1: case goes to trial first and then the civil case

20
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:22,640
Speaker 1: gets judicated. So this is extraordinarily strange. And you know,

21
00:01:23,319 --> 00:01:25,440
Speaker 1: it's been sort of postulated that there's a fair amount

22
00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:28,680
Speaker 1: of manipulation and maneuvering with some of these things, and

23
00:01:28,720 --> 00:01:31,760
Speaker 1: I don't know how one gets past that idea when

24
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:36,319
Speaker 1: you see this settlement occurring. In jury selection now on

25
00:01:36,319 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: one hand, at least to the curred in jury selection

26
00:01:39,040 --> 00:01:41,640
Speaker 1: right for sure. If it hadn't, I don't know how

27
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: they could move forward. I think a mistrial motion would

28
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,039
Speaker 1: have been granted. But this has never happened before, and

29
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 1: we've never had a settlement of this size before. I

30
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:53,800
Speaker 1: mean this, this is an astronomical settlement. Explain why the

31
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:59,080
Speaker 1: news of the settlement might prejudice the jury. It is

32
00:01:59,120 --> 00:02:02,760
Speaker 1: a very very difficult things to get jurors to understand

33
00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:06,040
Speaker 1: the difference between you know, different kinds of litigation in cases,

34
00:02:06,120 --> 00:02:09,160
Speaker 1: especially what it involves the same set of facts. I think,

35
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:11,399
Speaker 1: for example, with the O J. Case, Ray was acquitted

36
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:14,000
Speaker 1: but then later paid the family a large civil settlement.

37
00:02:14,200 --> 00:02:16,800
Speaker 1: There was a number of people who once they saw

38
00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 1: that went oh well of course, because he was guilty, right,

39
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:21,200
Speaker 1: So so the same inference flies there that I think

40
00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:23,520
Speaker 1: is likely to apply here. I don't know how a

41
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:27,200
Speaker 1: jury can conceptually wrap their head around that, especially because

42
00:02:27,600 --> 00:02:29,520
Speaker 1: the most information they're going to be given about the

43
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:32,240
Speaker 1: civil case is in jury selection, and the courts like

44
00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:36,639
Speaker 1: it's civil, different standards of proof, different lawyers write, different

45
00:02:36,639 --> 00:02:40,080
Speaker 1: courts state versus federal. Don't worry yourself about that. I

46
00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:43,200
Speaker 1: don't think that is enough of an explanation for them

47
00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 1: to hang their hats on to go, yeah, you're right,

48
00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:48,280
Speaker 1: I'm just going to disregard the fact that that happened

49
00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:51,359
Speaker 1: is hugely prejudicial to the defense, and in fact, it's

50
00:02:51,400 --> 00:02:54,639
Speaker 1: kind of ridiculous. Um, I think at best, if you're responsible.

51
00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:58,359
Speaker 1: What's interesting is Keith Ellison as our Minnesota Attorney General,

52
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:02,200
Speaker 1: and his office is executing Derek Chauvin. His son is

53
00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:06,400
Speaker 1: on the Minneapolis City Council that awarded this large civil settlement.

54
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:09,840
Speaker 1: When Keith Ellison was asked if he knew about the

55
00:03:09,880 --> 00:03:13,280
Speaker 1: settlement prior to it being announced, his answer was no comment.

56
00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,680
Speaker 1: Benjamin Crump, the family's attorney, has said, well, it's the

57
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:22,079
Speaker 1: family's Seventh Amendment right and also that the publicity about

58
00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:26,600
Speaker 1: the settlement is slight compared to the publicity about George

59
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:31,440
Speaker 1: Floyd's death. I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Let's see

60
00:03:31,560 --> 00:03:33,799
Speaker 1: it in the Seventh Amendment. So people have a right

61
00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:39,080
Speaker 1: to you know, have their controversies examined in court and settled. Okay,

62
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:42,760
Speaker 1: we know that. But you know certainly that talks about

63
00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 1: dollar settlements. Right, this is about money. This is about

64
00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:50,320
Speaker 1: Savin's fighting for his liberty, his life, his reputation. And

65
00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:52,560
Speaker 1: you know, I don't so much just blame the family,

66
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:54,800
Speaker 1: and I don't blame Crump. Fine, you know, he's going

67
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:57,080
Speaker 1: to push for whatever leverage he can get at whatever

68
00:03:57,080 --> 00:03:59,000
Speaker 1: time he can get it. He can do that. There's

69
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,400
Speaker 1: something wrong with him doing out. Lawyers positioned themselves all

70
00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:03,080
Speaker 1: the time, right, it's our job to do that. He

71
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 1: positioned his clients well, and he got, you know, a

72
00:04:06,360 --> 00:04:08,760
Speaker 1: great settlement to them. So I don't think the family

73
00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:11,400
Speaker 1: is doing anything wrong. I think the city was irresponsible.

74
00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:15,320
Speaker 1: I mean, the city, you know, in theory to want

75
00:04:15,400 --> 00:04:17,280
Speaker 1: all of its citizens to have a fair trial. I

76
00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:19,520
Speaker 1: understand they also want their citizens not to be victims

77
00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:21,919
Speaker 1: of what they believe was police brutality, et cetera. But

78
00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:24,000
Speaker 1: there's a time and a place to figure that out

79
00:04:24,480 --> 00:04:27,320
Speaker 1: and still afford the person on trial of fair trial.

80
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:30,320
Speaker 1: I think the city government is to blame, and Jacob

81
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:32,520
Speaker 1: Fry is that's part of it. He's our mayor. And

82
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:36,400
Speaker 1: he opened his huge mouth shortly after this video footage

83
00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:38,640
Speaker 1: came out and he said he think said Derek Scholwen

84
00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:42,600
Speaker 1: and his cap you know colleagues are all guilty. And

85
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:45,680
Speaker 1: he fired him without pay, you know or whatever. His

86
00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:48,680
Speaker 1: police aren't fired him without pay, and he publicized it

87
00:04:48,760 --> 00:04:51,240
Speaker 1: then so did our governor, so the chief of police.

88
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:54,120
Speaker 1: I mean, these guys have engaged in this pattern of

89
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:57,720
Speaker 1: irresponsibility since the beginning, and frankly, my opinion, they should

90
00:04:57,720 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: be ashamed. When this was first brought up by the defense,

91
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:05,240
Speaker 1: the judge seemed to indicate that, yes, you know, this

92
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:08,520
Speaker 1: was a concern that there might be a problem. He

93
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:12,279
Speaker 1: called back some of the jurors and requestioned them and

94
00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:16,039
Speaker 1: got rid of two. But it seems as if it's

95
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:18,960
Speaker 1: going to be very hard to move the trial, to

96
00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:23,200
Speaker 1: get him to move the trial out of Minneapolis once

97
00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 1: jury selections already started. So this judge is a guy

98
00:05:27,800 --> 00:05:30,400
Speaker 1: on a mission. And he approaches all of his cases

99
00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 1: the way I've I've tried cases in front of him.

100
00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:34,679
Speaker 1: When you're set for trial, you go trial. He keeps

101
00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:37,640
Speaker 1: cases moving. He doesn't allow for a lot of what

102
00:05:37,680 --> 00:05:41,360
Speaker 1: I would call d aliensis or timely thing in jury selection.

103
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:43,240
Speaker 1: Some judges are more liberal about it. You can really

104
00:05:43,279 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 1: get to know your jury is more. He doesn't really

105
00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:47,520
Speaker 1: allow for a lot of that. He takes the reins

106
00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:49,520
Speaker 1: like he did when he brought the seven jurors back,

107
00:05:49,920 --> 00:05:52,559
Speaker 1: so frequently asked questions, so kind of hurry lawyers along.

108
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:55,279
Speaker 1: He wants cases to move. And you know the city

109
00:05:55,279 --> 00:05:58,799
Speaker 1: has spent millions of dollars and getting this case ready

110
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:03,400
Speaker 1: to try. From your additional officers, snipers that sit on

111
00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 1: the roof, you know, there's no court trials and jury

112
00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:08,800
Speaker 1: trials happening in Hennison County. Yellow. They might add one

113
00:06:08,839 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 1: more for some reason, but that was the plan. The

114
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:15,919
Speaker 1: Chauvin trial gets the whole courthouse, twenty six floors and

115
00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:19,600
Speaker 1: twenty six things for courtrooms a piece. Hundreds of court

116
00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:22,680
Speaker 1: hearings are shut down because of Chauvin. And so I

117
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:24,720
Speaker 1: think he's on a mission. He's gonna try to make

118
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:26,960
Speaker 1: that happen, and you know, he's kind of in a pickle.

119
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:29,919
Speaker 1: This is out there now, right, and so it's time

120
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:31,600
Speaker 1: going to cure it and people really going to forget

121
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:34,080
Speaker 1: about it. I don't know. I think that's unlikely. So

122
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:37,039
Speaker 1: I don't think it continue would really helps. Maybe it's

123
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:39,760
Speaker 1: a greater likelihood that people outstate, you know, living in

124
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:42,440
Speaker 1: rural areas are less engaged and I'm not watching the

125
00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:44,760
Speaker 1: trial every day like we are here in Minneapolis. I

126
00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:46,919
Speaker 1: personally thought from the beginning that would have been the

127
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:49,479
Speaker 1: right move, you know, moved this trial out states. But

128
00:06:49,640 --> 00:06:52,200
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of advantages that come to

129
00:06:52,640 --> 00:06:54,599
Speaker 1: the defense if you move without state. It tends to

130
00:06:54,640 --> 00:06:56,920
Speaker 1: be that people who live in rural areas. I'm more

131
00:06:56,920 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 1: pro police, so I think the other thing the court

132
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:02,960
Speaker 1: thought and of security. I mean, Henneton County has state

133
00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:04,719
Speaker 1: of the art everything, and so they'd be in a

134
00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:09,440
Speaker 1: better position people wise, and security from electronics, you know,

135
00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:12,280
Speaker 1: contraptions that they used to monitor and watch people. He

136
00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:15,080
Speaker 1: thought that could do it better there. But he's in

137
00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:16,680
Speaker 1: a bad spot. What do you do? It's out there,

138
00:07:16,960 --> 00:07:19,360
Speaker 1: and so now he's got to determine if the lawyers

139
00:07:19,520 --> 00:07:22,240
Speaker 1: can answers questions to get to the heart of but

140
00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:24,520
Speaker 1: not they're biased. And whether or not he's got a

141
00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:26,960
Speaker 1: bias or poison pool, that's what he's got to figure out,

142
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:28,920
Speaker 1: and that's going to take time. So I wouldn't say

143
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:30,840
Speaker 1: it's out of the question, but it does seem like

144
00:07:30,880 --> 00:07:32,920
Speaker 1: if he can push through, he will, and that's consistent

145
00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:35,400
Speaker 1: with what I know of Judge k. Hill. Let's talk

146
00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:38,520
Speaker 1: about some of the motions that are pending. The defense

147
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:41,760
Speaker 1: wants to tell the jury about Floyd's arrest for drugs

148
00:07:41,840 --> 00:07:45,720
Speaker 1: in how likely is it that the judge will allow

149
00:07:45,760 --> 00:07:48,920
Speaker 1: that evidence? In the difference between the defense bringing the

150
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:51,280
Speaker 1: motion in the past and now is that. It's my

151
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 1: understanding that the defense was recently disclosed about a thousand

152
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:59,160
Speaker 1: pages of additional information, some of which included details about

153
00:07:59,360 --> 00:08:04,080
Speaker 1: that arrest and in particular what Mr Floyd was told

154
00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:07,720
Speaker 1: about his use of opioids at that arrest, and I

155
00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:10,200
Speaker 1: think jud Candle is really interested in it. The new

156
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 1: information showed that he behaved almost identically to how he

157
00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 1: did in the case that's being tried, you know, saying

158
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,640
Speaker 1: he couldn't breathe calling out for his mama, claiming to

159
00:08:19,680 --> 00:08:22,840
Speaker 1: be disabled. What they saw was, you know, he was

160
00:08:22,880 --> 00:08:25,640
Speaker 1: literally eating chewing drugs in front of them because they

161
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:27,960
Speaker 1: I guess, I've made an arrest for possession or styles

162
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:31,280
Speaker 1: of controlled substances, and so he's shotting, you know, handfuls

163
00:08:31,320 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 1: of sentinel pills into his mouth. What they found when

164
00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:37,120
Speaker 1: they took him to the hospital later to claiming again

165
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:40,640
Speaker 1: of having troubled breathing, is that he hadn't ingested so

166
00:08:40,720 --> 00:08:42,720
Speaker 1: much opioid that he was at risk then for a

167
00:08:42,720 --> 00:08:44,920
Speaker 1: heart attack, and he was told that then, and so

168
00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:49,120
Speaker 1: this becomes evidence that particularly relevant to the defenses theory

169
00:08:49,559 --> 00:08:51,960
Speaker 1: of causation, right that it was the drugs, or it

170
00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:55,240
Speaker 1: was the covid, or it was other health condition like

171
00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:58,760
Speaker 1: you know, being prone to heart disease, whatever that caused

172
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:01,080
Speaker 1: his death, not the the knee on the neck. And

173
00:09:01,160 --> 00:09:04,560
Speaker 1: so typically speaking, this kind of evidence is called alternative

174
00:09:04,559 --> 00:09:08,160
Speaker 1: perpetrator evidence. Judge keeps calling it reverse fregal. So that's

175
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:10,800
Speaker 1: where a defense attorney would say, hey, you know, my

176
00:09:10,840 --> 00:09:12,800
Speaker 1: clients didn't shoot him, this other guy did. Well, we

177
00:09:12,800 --> 00:09:15,200
Speaker 1: know nobody else had their knee on neck. And so

178
00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:19,080
Speaker 1: what it is is this is an alternative cause type argument.

179
00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:20,959
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a creative way to look at

180
00:09:21,040 --> 00:09:24,800
Speaker 1: that legal tool, if you will, or theory. And I

181
00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:27,200
Speaker 1: think the judge is really interested in letting the defense

182
00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:29,559
Speaker 1: introduce at least a part of that because it bolsters

183
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:32,240
Speaker 1: their causation theory. And it sounds to me if he

184
00:09:32,280 --> 00:09:34,680
Speaker 1: does let it in, he'll create a very nuanced order

185
00:09:34,720 --> 00:09:36,400
Speaker 1: that says you can let this in but not that in.

186
00:09:36,480 --> 00:09:38,240
Speaker 1: If you step over here, then that's going to be

187
00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:40,400
Speaker 1: a problem because the other side can introduce that. But

188
00:09:40,480 --> 00:09:43,360
Speaker 1: I think he's particularly interested in giving the defense at

189
00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 1: least an opportunity to present some of that. The prosecutor

190
00:09:47,120 --> 00:09:49,880
Speaker 1: said that the defense is doing a full on trial

191
00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:53,600
Speaker 1: of George Floyd who's not on trial. Doesn't that happen

192
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:57,520
Speaker 1: frequently in criminal cases the defense tries to bring in

193
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:02,360
Speaker 1: information that may not be helpful to the victim. You're

194
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: exactly right. You know, there's limits to when and how

195
00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:08,360
Speaker 1: we do that, for example, in a rape case as

196
00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:10,760
Speaker 1: the rape shield. So you know, if my theory of

197
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:14,240
Speaker 1: the cases, she was you know, or he was quote

198
00:10:14,320 --> 00:10:17,960
Speaker 1: unquote consenting, or the one who invited the encounter. And

199
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:19,400
Speaker 1: I want to point to the fact that they do

200
00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:21,800
Speaker 1: this on a regular basis this is a pattern. I

201
00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:24,640
Speaker 1: might have difficulty doing that. But if I want to

202
00:10:24,679 --> 00:10:29,120
Speaker 1: introduce evidence that my client was setting this person up,

203
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:32,120
Speaker 1: because when they claimed right before and they set somebody

204
00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:35,800
Speaker 1: else up with fault allegations, you know, this becomes that

205
00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:38,679
Speaker 1: victim's modus operandi and it supports my claim that the

206
00:10:38,760 --> 00:10:42,240
Speaker 1: charges are fault. So character evidence isn't typically admitted, but

207
00:10:42,240 --> 00:10:44,840
Speaker 1: if you can fit it into an exception like modus

208
00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:47,680
Speaker 1: operandi appsence of mistake, right, you can get it in

209
00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:50,880
Speaker 1: typically speaking, And this is where this trial has sort

210
00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:54,199
Speaker 1: of turned on its head. Is that productive trying to

211
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:57,240
Speaker 1: introduce this stuff on defense? They try to dirty up

212
00:10:57,240 --> 00:10:59,240
Speaker 1: the defendant by saying, well, this is what he always does,

213
00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: right know. Reverse freetel allows the defense to introduce this

214
00:11:04,720 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 1: as to alternative perpetrators, and now this judge is saying

215
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:11,960
Speaker 1: it also applies to alternative causes. You know, I don't

216
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:14,800
Speaker 1: know how much we're really dirtying up George Floyd's character

217
00:11:15,480 --> 00:11:18,960
Speaker 1: with regard to allege drug use, because we know from

218
00:11:19,160 --> 00:11:21,480
Speaker 1: the incident, you know, in the case that we're trying,

219
00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:23,760
Speaker 1: he had enough sent and on a system you know,

220
00:11:24,120 --> 00:11:26,600
Speaker 1: I could kill him. That's already out there, it is

221
00:11:26,640 --> 00:11:29,120
Speaker 1: what it is. Do you think that in the end

222
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:31,960
Speaker 1: that it's going to be the jurors looking at that

223
00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:34,920
Speaker 1: video for nine minutes and how hard is it to

224
00:11:35,000 --> 00:11:39,199
Speaker 1: overcome that? In some ways as good that that video

225
00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:41,920
Speaker 1: went viral when it did, because everybody's seen it were

226
00:11:41,960 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 1: sort of desensitized to it right to a degree, you know.

227
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:48,640
Speaker 1: I mean the first time I watched it, you know, uh,

228
00:11:48,800 --> 00:11:50,480
Speaker 1: it made me tear up, you know, the second or

229
00:11:50,520 --> 00:11:53,840
Speaker 1: third time, right, you just get more used to the

230
00:11:53,880 --> 00:11:57,360
Speaker 1: fact that that's what happened. I think, um, what the

231
00:11:57,400 --> 00:11:59,240
Speaker 1: defense will try to do is place a lot of

232
00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:02,720
Speaker 1: emphasis on their experts, who are going to say, yeah,

233
00:12:02,840 --> 00:12:06,280
Speaker 1: I you know, I see the video, but when I

234
00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:09,839
Speaker 1: look at the forensic evidence, there is no merit to

235
00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:12,320
Speaker 1: the contention that the knee on the neck is what

236
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:15,600
Speaker 1: killed him. And so you know, really working hard to

237
00:12:15,640 --> 00:12:18,480
Speaker 1: take emotion out of that. And I think the defense

238
00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:21,200
Speaker 1: will be sensible and argue, look, we're not saying this

239
00:12:21,320 --> 00:12:24,240
Speaker 1: is like great police behavior. We're not even saying that,

240
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:27,280
Speaker 1: you know, this was probably the best choice to make,

241
00:12:27,520 --> 00:12:29,959
Speaker 1: but it's not criminal, right, we can we we cannot

242
00:12:30,000 --> 00:12:32,600
Speaker 1: like this, we can you know, want things to be

243
00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:35,400
Speaker 1: different in the future. Right. We know there's some laws

244
00:12:35,440 --> 00:12:39,480
Speaker 1: pass will address that, but this isn't criminal because remember,

245
00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:41,560
Speaker 1: in order for Chauvin to be guilty, he had to

246
00:12:41,559 --> 00:12:44,440
Speaker 1: have caused the death, and in light of everything else

247
00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:47,400
Speaker 1: that Floyd had going on, you know, in his body literally,

248
00:12:48,280 --> 00:12:51,080
Speaker 1: the state just can't prove that. So we cannot like this,

249
00:12:51,280 --> 00:12:53,840
Speaker 1: and we can believe that change is warranted, right and

250
00:12:53,960 --> 00:12:58,280
Speaker 1: rules and regulations, um, But that doesn't mean that Chauvin's guilty.

251
00:12:58,640 --> 00:13:03,360
Speaker 1: Thanks Krista. That's Krista Grosscheck, managing attorney of gros Check Law.

252
00:13:04,760 --> 00:13:07,800
Speaker 1: There are some surprising results in the latest jobs data

253
00:13:07,960 --> 00:13:11,800
Speaker 1: concerning men who have graduate and professional credentials. Joining me

254
00:13:11,840 --> 00:13:16,280
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg opinion columnist Justin Fox. Justin people usually think

255
00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:19,440
Speaker 1: the more education you have, the better your job is.

256
00:13:20,040 --> 00:13:23,520
Speaker 1: What do the stats show? They show that that's generally true.

257
00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:27,000
Speaker 1: I mean pretty much across the board, if you have

258
00:13:27,280 --> 00:13:31,400
Speaker 1: more education, you're both more likely to be employed and

259
00:13:31,800 --> 00:13:35,440
Speaker 1: your wages are higher. But I was looking at the

260
00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:40,640
Speaker 1: February job data for various things, especially comparing men and

261
00:13:40,679 --> 00:13:43,280
Speaker 1: women in different categories and how they have fared over

262
00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:46,040
Speaker 1: the past here, and I noticed, I mean, it's been

263
00:13:46,080 --> 00:13:48,560
Speaker 1: happening for a few years. It turned out that men

264
00:13:48,880 --> 00:13:52,800
Speaker 1: who just have a bachelor's degree have a higher employment rate,

265
00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:55,560
Speaker 1: a higher percentage of all of them have jobs than

266
00:13:55,640 --> 00:13:59,000
Speaker 1: men who have an advanced degree. And that's nothing like

267
00:13:59,040 --> 00:14:01,640
Speaker 1: that that I know of anywhere else in the statistics

268
00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:05,200
Speaker 1: where more education results in less employment. They've only been

269
00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:08,840
Speaker 1: releasing those statistics in two thousand fifteen, and it's been

270
00:14:08,880 --> 00:14:12,600
Speaker 1: true almost every month since then. Just to clarify, it's

271
00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 1: not true with women. Correct, Women who um have advanced

272
00:14:17,760 --> 00:14:20,760
Speaker 1: degrees are more likely to have jobs than women with

273
00:14:20,920 --> 00:14:24,440
Speaker 1: just a bachelor's degree. What's the percentage of men in

274
00:14:24,520 --> 00:14:31,720
Speaker 1: the population who have graduate or professional degrees. Researchers looked

275
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:35,000
Speaker 1: into this. I can't say for certain not, but I

276
00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:37,680
Speaker 1: checked in with a couple of people who've done work

277
00:14:37,880 --> 00:14:42,360
Speaker 1: on both sociologists actually have done work on gender and

278
00:14:42,560 --> 00:14:47,480
Speaker 1: education and employment, and neither of them had ever noticed

279
00:14:47,480 --> 00:14:49,520
Speaker 1: this before, although one of them now wants to look

280
00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:53,840
Speaker 1: into it. And what can we attribute this to, I mean,

281
00:14:54,320 --> 00:14:58,280
Speaker 1: possibly nothing at all. It's just it's a pretty small difference,

282
00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:01,480
Speaker 1: and you know, it might not be any big deal.

283
00:15:01,600 --> 00:15:05,440
Speaker 1: I guess the things that sort of we're going around

284
00:15:05,480 --> 00:15:07,600
Speaker 1: in my head and with a couple of people I

285
00:15:07,680 --> 00:15:12,560
Speaker 1: talked to were One possibility is because in the pay data,

286
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:16,040
Speaker 1: which doesn't come out quite as frequently, but men with

287
00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:20,800
Speaker 1: advanced degrees, especially professional degrees like MBAs, they make more

288
00:15:20,840 --> 00:15:25,480
Speaker 1: money than anybody else, and so it's not like this

289
00:15:25,640 --> 00:15:30,160
Speaker 1: is some disadvantaged, struggling group. So it might be that

290
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 1: a bunch of them just quit their job made so

291
00:15:32,840 --> 00:15:34,880
Speaker 1: much money that they've dropped out of the labor force.

292
00:15:35,320 --> 00:15:37,800
Speaker 1: Another one that has but suggested to be by a

293
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:39,960
Speaker 1: couple of people since the thing we've published, is that

294
00:15:40,080 --> 00:15:42,920
Speaker 1: men with advanced degrees are more likely to be married

295
00:15:42,960 --> 00:15:46,120
Speaker 1: to her success women, and you know, might have dropped

296
00:15:46,120 --> 00:15:48,480
Speaker 1: out of their labor force because their wife has become

297
00:15:48,520 --> 00:15:51,840
Speaker 1: a ceo UM. The only thing is that it's just

298
00:15:51,880 --> 00:15:54,680
Speaker 1: a little harder to imagine that those numbers of people

299
00:15:54,720 --> 00:15:57,360
Speaker 1: are so large that they can really affect this. It's

300
00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:00,160
Speaker 1: like that, although once again the number of men with

301
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:04,040
Speaker 1: advanced degrees is pretty large too. So basically number one

302
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:08,320
Speaker 1: answer to why this discrimancy is there is probably not

303
00:16:08,840 --> 00:16:11,400
Speaker 1: a big deal, maybe a kirk of the data, maybe

304
00:16:11,480 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 1: having to do with some risks dropping out. But the

305
00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:17,920
Speaker 1: other thing that I've watched over the last couple of

306
00:16:17,960 --> 00:16:22,600
Speaker 1: years i've looked at education data, is men really are

307
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,160
Speaker 1: becoming much less likely than women to get degrees of

308
00:16:26,240 --> 00:16:29,320
Speaker 1: pretty much any sort. I mean, it's been true for

309
00:16:29,520 --> 00:16:34,400
Speaker 1: undergraduate degrees since the seventies, graduate school enrollment overall, since

310
00:16:35,680 --> 00:16:37,800
Speaker 1: law school. It just happened a couple of years ago,

311
00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:42,680
Speaker 1: two thousand sixteen, that women became the majority of law students,

312
00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 1: And the most recent data is from the fall of

313
00:16:45,360 --> 00:16:48,520
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen, women made up fifty six percent of

314
00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:52,320
Speaker 1: undergraduate in sixty of graduate students. There are studies done

315
00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:56,200
Speaker 1: of like like the highest prestige PhD programs, they're still

316
00:16:56,200 --> 00:16:59,120
Speaker 1: dominated by men, the highest paying jobs, and laws still

317
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:02,960
Speaker 1: dominated by and but you look at the fields where

318
00:17:03,000 --> 00:17:06,399
Speaker 1: women sort of dominate the graduate degree, and a lot

319
00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:08,679
Speaker 1: of them they're not super high paid, but they're super

320
00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:14,240
Speaker 1: low unemployment rates, like nursing and education, And so maybe

321
00:17:14,280 --> 00:17:17,880
Speaker 1: there's something actually going on there where women are doing

322
00:17:17,960 --> 00:17:22,480
Speaker 1: a somewhat better job of targeting their education for employment.

323
00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:27,240
Speaker 1: Although the one caveat there is still overall, across most

324
00:17:27,880 --> 00:17:32,399
Speaker 1: different groups by education and race and a lot women

325
00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:35,520
Speaker 1: are less likely to be employed than men are partly

326
00:17:35,680 --> 00:17:39,080
Speaker 1: just because they tend to get stuck with care responsibilities

327
00:17:39,119 --> 00:17:41,920
Speaker 1: for kids and other relatives that men used to don't.

328
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:46,520
Speaker 1: What did you learn about law school and lawyers? I mean,

329
00:17:46,600 --> 00:17:50,360
Speaker 1: basically law school had sort of resisted the trend towards

330
00:17:50,440 --> 00:17:54,800
Speaker 1: being majority women that other a lot of other programs had,

331
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:59,760
Speaker 1: but it finally and and it definitely has been a

332
00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:03,600
Speaker 1: bee in some quarters that Trump getting elected, although I

333
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:05,800
Speaker 1: can't really explain why it would have happened in two

334
00:18:05,840 --> 00:18:09,520
Speaker 1: thousand sixteen, but basically a lot of women, we're sort

335
00:18:09,520 --> 00:18:13,520
Speaker 1: of strongly motivated to act and look for ways to

336
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:16,280
Speaker 1: fight for their own rights and other people's rights, and

337
00:18:16,359 --> 00:18:19,119
Speaker 1: that that had driven this bump in law school admissions,

338
00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:22,080
Speaker 1: because I mean, law school applications have been following for

339
00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:25,720
Speaker 1: a long time and they finally sort of bottomed out

340
00:18:25,760 --> 00:18:28,399
Speaker 1: and bounced back a little bit over the last five years.

341
00:18:28,800 --> 00:18:31,600
Speaker 1: It's women that are driving that, not men. And what

342
00:18:31,720 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 1: about the earnings of men and women? I mean, in general,

343
00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:39,760
Speaker 1: they're higher for men were just about everything they have

344
00:18:40,040 --> 00:18:44,280
Speaker 1: annual censusy with those annual data, and basically, you know,

345
00:18:44,280 --> 00:18:47,879
Speaker 1: the highest earnings group by education as men with professional

346
00:18:47,880 --> 00:18:51,600
Speaker 1: degrees who have median earnings of a hundred thirty six

347
00:18:51,640 --> 00:18:55,439
Speaker 1: thousand in two thousand nineteen, and women with professional degrees

348
00:18:55,480 --> 00:18:58,800
Speaker 1: have median earnings of eighty eight thousand, three one, so

349
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,640
Speaker 1: a lot different and those with just bachelor's degree. It's

350
00:19:02,640 --> 00:19:08,240
Speaker 1: actually a smaller gap for men as for women. Thanks

351
00:19:08,359 --> 00:19:14,440
Speaker 1: Justin That's Bloomberg opinion columnist Justin Fox. Jones day system

352
00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:17,600
Speaker 1: for paying attorneys is so mysterious that some have dubbed

353
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:21,000
Speaker 1: it a black box, but five lawyers who claimed the

354
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:25,320
Speaker 1: black box waters down women lawyers compensation recently dropped their

355
00:19:25,400 --> 00:19:28,520
Speaker 1: lawsuit against the firm. The women had alleged that paid

356
00:19:28,560 --> 00:19:33,200
Speaker 1: decisions are controlled exclusively by jones Day's managing partner based

357
00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:37,280
Speaker 1: on subjective factors that aren't disclosed to the firm's lawyers,

358
00:19:37,320 --> 00:19:39,440
Speaker 1: But five of the six women who brought the suit

359
00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:42,760
Speaker 1: told a federal judge on March eleven that they're withdrawing it.

360
00:19:43,200 --> 00:19:46,640
Speaker 1: Their attorneys and jones Day representatives declined to say whether

361
00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:49,600
Speaker 1: the case had been settled. The lawsuit will go forward,

362
00:19:49,640 --> 00:19:53,919
Speaker 1: with one plaintiff, former jones Day lawyer Katrina Henderson, continuing

363
00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:57,240
Speaker 1: the suit. Joining me is Aaron mulvaney, Senior legal reporter

364
00:19:57,280 --> 00:20:01,159
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg Law Aaron first of all, explain why the

365
00:20:01,240 --> 00:20:05,040
Speaker 1: compensation system at Jones's Day is referred to as a

366
00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:09,800
Speaker 1: black box. So Jones Day has been excused of having

367
00:20:09,920 --> 00:20:14,159
Speaker 1: that black box, UM because these female attorneys that sued

368
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:18,440
Speaker 1: the law firm say that the managers keep it very

369
00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:23,160
Speaker 1: secret what other partners are getting paid, and so it's

370
00:20:23,200 --> 00:20:28,200
Speaker 1: basically a matter of transparency about the compensation among lawyers

371
00:20:28,200 --> 00:20:32,440
Speaker 1: at the firm. Is a managing partner making all these

372
00:20:32,480 --> 00:20:36,560
Speaker 1: decisions without input from other partners? Is that unusual in

373
00:20:36,600 --> 00:20:40,480
Speaker 1: a law firm. I'm not sure if it's unusual, But

374
00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:44,280
Speaker 1: the female attorneys who pointed it out UM in their

375
00:20:44,359 --> 00:20:48,480
Speaker 1: lawsuits UM say that that led to that system that

376
00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:51,800
Speaker 1: kind of led that kept in secret and there was

377
00:20:51,880 --> 00:20:57,320
Speaker 1: a a possible bias coming from a top down system

378
00:20:57,720 --> 00:21:00,919
Speaker 1: that that had a preference for possibly male partners, was

379
00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:03,720
Speaker 1: the claim and the lawsuit, and they also claimed that

380
00:21:03,720 --> 00:21:06,720
Speaker 1: it was unusual among law firms UM to have that

381
00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:11,639
Speaker 1: kind of system. And as far as this lawsuit, five

382
00:21:11,680 --> 00:21:14,440
Speaker 1: of the six women are withdrawing. Tell us about that

383
00:21:14,520 --> 00:21:18,280
Speaker 1: the lawsuit is still going on but with less people. Yes,

384
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:22,560
Speaker 1: the lawsuits that was filed UM. The news last week

385
00:21:22,720 --> 00:21:26,159
Speaker 1: was that uh, five of the six women who filed

386
00:21:26,400 --> 00:21:29,600
Speaker 1: who were part of the original lawsuit UM withdrew their

387
00:21:29,640 --> 00:21:33,520
Speaker 1: claims and one of the women will be moving forward,

388
00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:36,280
Speaker 1: but the others will not be. And there are very

389
00:21:36,320 --> 00:21:40,000
Speaker 1: few details on whether there was that was because if

390
00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:44,639
Speaker 1: there was a settlement UM or something like that, what

391
00:21:44,720 --> 00:21:47,359
Speaker 1: else could it be besides a settlement. I'm trying to

392
00:21:47,400 --> 00:21:53,120
Speaker 1: imagine what else would get five people to withdraw their complaint. Well,

393
00:21:53,160 --> 00:21:56,679
Speaker 1: in a statement the women, the women said that the

394
00:21:56,920 --> 00:22:02,000
Speaker 1: paid data that was perfected by the firm UM. They

395
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:04,160
Speaker 1: said that the review of pay data that Jones Day

396
00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:08,000
Speaker 1: was forced to turn over didn't support allegations of widespread

397
00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:12,040
Speaker 1: pay disparities. So it's it's possible they didn't think they

398
00:22:12,040 --> 00:22:15,000
Speaker 1: had a case moving forward, but obviously I'm just speculating

399
00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:18,040
Speaker 1: at this At this point, I think one of the

400
00:22:18,359 --> 00:22:23,080
Speaker 1: purposes of this lawsuit was to try to UM to

401
00:22:23,320 --> 00:22:26,399
Speaker 1: have a voice for all the female lawyers at the

402
00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:30,240
Speaker 1: firm and not just a few of them, And so

403
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:34,600
Speaker 1: I think that it's unclear what happened. You know, the

404
00:22:34,680 --> 00:22:38,000
Speaker 1: lawyers on both sides are being mum about what exactly

405
00:22:38,040 --> 00:22:41,679
Speaker 1: happened in this case, is the problem with a black

406
00:22:41,760 --> 00:22:46,200
Speaker 1: box or a system with no transparency that then there

407
00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:51,040
Speaker 1: is a reason to suspect that there are disparities in compensation.

408
00:22:52,520 --> 00:22:54,760
Speaker 1: I think the answer to that question is that a

409
00:22:54,760 --> 00:22:57,919
Speaker 1: lot of the advocates right now who really want to

410
00:22:57,920 --> 00:23:02,199
Speaker 1: push for equal pay believe that a key to equality

411
00:23:02,320 --> 00:23:06,600
Speaker 1: is transparency and have an empowering workers with knowledge about

412
00:23:06,600 --> 00:23:10,520
Speaker 1: what their coworkers make, and so a lot of states

413
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:15,040
Speaker 1: have started pushing proposals like that. A few have um

414
00:23:15,080 --> 00:23:19,200
Speaker 1: some some transparency laws are in place, like in California, Washington,

415
00:23:19,320 --> 00:23:23,119
Speaker 1: and Maryland that allow a job applicant to ask a

416
00:23:23,200 --> 00:23:26,840
Speaker 1: salary range for a position, which is almost as far

417
00:23:26,880 --> 00:23:30,879
Speaker 1: as Colorado has gone as far as to ask employers

418
00:23:30,960 --> 00:23:35,520
Speaker 1: to post the job range for that position, um, no

419
00:23:35,560 --> 00:23:39,320
Speaker 1: matter if it's an applicant or um someone who currently

420
00:23:39,320 --> 00:23:42,120
Speaker 1: works there. I think this is kind of the next wave,

421
00:23:42,240 --> 00:23:44,680
Speaker 1: and the conversation about how to get to equal pay

422
00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:48,959
Speaker 1: is to talk about transparency and how to address disparities

423
00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:52,680
Speaker 1: by giving the workers themselves knowledge about what they make.

424
00:23:53,760 --> 00:23:58,680
Speaker 1: Several big law firms have faced discrimination claims in recent years.

425
00:23:59,240 --> 00:24:02,359
Speaker 1: Tell us about the lawsuits against Jones Day and where

426
00:24:02,359 --> 00:24:07,520
Speaker 1: they stand yes. Jones Day has been targeted by UH

427
00:24:07,760 --> 00:24:14,280
Speaker 1: several lawsuits claiming UH equal pay and promotions for female partners.

428
00:24:14,280 --> 00:24:18,040
Speaker 1: There have been settlements UM before there there have also

429
00:24:18,119 --> 00:24:22,120
Speaker 1: been and they've all had these kind of similar complaints

430
00:24:22,160 --> 00:24:25,760
Speaker 1: about lack of transparency about how attorneys are paid and

431
00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:30,919
Speaker 1: you know, even retaliation against UM women who complain about

432
00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:35,960
Speaker 1: this kind of male dominated culture at jones Day. And

433
00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:39,119
Speaker 1: then there have also been lawsuits. Jones Day is also

434
00:24:39,160 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 1: fighting a lawsuit UM from a married couple who actually

435
00:24:44,000 --> 00:24:47,679
Speaker 1: worked at jones Day and they they were accusing the

436
00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:52,159
Speaker 1: company of UM Gender and Equities for the firm for

437
00:24:52,440 --> 00:24:55,960
Speaker 1: the leave policy, which is another way that they believe

438
00:24:56,040 --> 00:24:58,479
Speaker 1: that there was an imbalance between men and women at

439
00:24:58,480 --> 00:25:01,960
Speaker 1: the firm. But jones Day is not the only law

440
00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:07,120
Speaker 1: firm to be sued by lawyers. You have Morrison and Forrester.

441
00:25:08,359 --> 00:25:12,160
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Morrison and Forrester actually has a similar lawsuit

442
00:25:12,720 --> 00:25:15,800
Speaker 1: UM filed against them by a pair of women lawyers,

443
00:25:15,920 --> 00:25:20,199
Speaker 1: also against the maternity leaves policy and alleging that they

444
00:25:20,240 --> 00:25:23,679
Speaker 1: were punished for taking off time related to pregnancies. And

445
00:25:23,840 --> 00:25:27,640
Speaker 1: that case appears to be heading to trial. And there

446
00:25:27,640 --> 00:25:30,800
Speaker 1: have been other cases against law firms UM that have

447
00:25:30,920 --> 00:25:35,720
Speaker 1: settled Like I mentioned the Jones Day lawsuit previously. Uh,

448
00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:39,919
Speaker 1: it's chad Bourne and Park which is acquired by Norton

449
00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:44,080
Speaker 1: Rose Bulbright. They settled a lawsuit in two thousand and eighteen,

450
00:25:44,640 --> 00:25:48,840
Speaker 1: and Ogletry and Deacons Um also settled similar suits and

451
00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:52,600
Speaker 1: and disclosed terms in recent years. A lot of settlements,

452
00:25:52,600 --> 00:25:56,600
Speaker 1: not too many trials. Thanks so much, Aaron. That's Aaron mulvaney,

453
00:25:56,680 --> 00:26:00,119
Speaker 1: senior legal reporter at Bloomberg Law. And that's a for

454
00:26:00,160 --> 00:26:02,960
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

455
00:26:03,000 --> 00:26:05,840
Speaker 1: always at the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

456
00:26:06,080 --> 00:26:09,000
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and at

457
00:26:09,240 --> 00:26:14,760
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm

458
00:26:14,840 --> 00:26:18,080
Speaker 1: June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening, and please tune

459
00:26:18,080 --> 00:26:20,640
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten

460
00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:23,160
Speaker 1: pm Easter right here on Bloomberg Radio