The Jabot

Hosted by Kathryn Rubino at Above the Law

Business Careers Society Culture PhilosophyInterviews guests

Website RSS feed

Episodes

236

Latest episode

Oct 2026

Language

About the show

We are an offshoot of the Above the Law legal blog. But we are focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Let's be real -- it can suck out there. So we want to create a space where our community can come together share stories, find support and devise strategies. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It's a reminder that --even when we aren't winning, we're still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Listen to episodes

60 recent

October 30, 2026Episode 23528 min

Just How Bad Can It Get On Election Day?

Days before the 2026 midterms, voting rights attorney and author David Walbert joins Kathryn Rubino to size up the real risk heading into Election Day. It is not the vote count he worries about, it is what happens after a close result: a congressional election contest, the same playbook Trump tried with electoral votes in 2020, now aimed at the House. Walbert also walks through live legal fights in Alaska and California, and traces today's fights over the Voting Rights Act back to the Supreme Court decisions that enabled Jim Crow a century ago. Key Takeaways A close election, not a landslide, is what opens the door to a congressional election contest over House seats. The Ninth Circuit's split ruling on California's non-citizen voter list shows how little room frivolous election cases now get from this Supreme Court. Alaska's ballot fight, where the GOP's own filing argues a loss would make the election invalid, is a preview of post-election litigation tactics. Gutting federal agencies now, as with DOGE's cuts to the CDC, has consequences that outlast the people who get rehired later. Walbert reads the Supreme Court's rollback of the Voting Rights Act as the modern echo of the Reconstruction-era rulings that helped entrench Jim Crow. Links and Resources David Walbert's book, Stealing Elections American Style: https://www.bloomsbury.com/ca/stealing-elections-american-style-9798216391999/ David Walbert's piece for The Guardian on the electoral vote playbook: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/17/trump-voting-rights-midterms Keywords David Walbert, voting rights attorney, election law, Stealing Elections American Style, Kathryn Rubino, The Jabot, Above the Law, election integrity, voter suppression, gerrymandering, congressional election contest, Alaska ballot case, Ninth Circuit, Bush v. Gore, Voting Rights Act, civil rights law, Jim Crow history, Supreme Court, Georgia elections, Jon Ossoff Episode Highlights [00:04:00 - 00:09:00] Walbert explains why the 2020 electoral vote playbook, not the count itself, worries him most about 2026. [00:05:00 - 00:06:00] He calls the DOJ under Trump the private law firm of the Republican National Committee. [00:09:00 - 00:11:00] Georgia's early voting is outpacing 2022, with Jon Ossoff as a major driver. [00:11:00 - 00:14:00] A divided Ninth Circuit panel rules on a last-minute attempt to segregate California ballots. [00:14:00 - 00:16:00] Walbert breaks down Alaska's ballot fight between two candidates named Dan Sullivan. [00:16:00 - 00:19:00] Why gutting agencies like the CDC under DOGE carries consequences that outlast a single administration. [00:20:00 - 00:26:00] Walbert traces today's Voting Rights Act fights back to Reconstruction-era Supreme Court rulings. [00:26:00 - 00:29:00] What could actually right the ship, and what still worries him about this Supreme Court.

October 16, 2026Episode 23437 min

Why Reproductive Justice Needs Queer Analysis

Professor Carly Thomsen of Rice University, author of Reproductive Justice, Queerly, joins Kathryn Rubino to explain why reproductive justice scholarship and queer theory have historically talked past each other, what that gap misses, and why culture work, not just law and policy, is essential to building reproductive and queer justice in a post-Dobbs world. Key Takeaways Reproductive justice, a framework developed by Black feminists in the 1990s, is broader than abortion rights: access matters as much as legality, and reproductive justice also covers parenting, housing, and economic security. Thomsen argues that culture work, art, public humanities, media, everyday conversation, is essential alongside law and policy, since many people don't feel they have real access to lawmakers or courts. Queer theorists use "queer" to describe a relationship to normativity, not as a synonym for LGBTQ+ identity: someone can be LGBTQ+ without being queer, and someone heterosexual can live queerly. In her research on surrogacy campaigns, Thomsen found that centering gay men's family-building stories often sidelined both surrogates themselves and longstanding feminist critiques of the surrogacy industry. Thomsen sees sports culture as a real, if imperfect, site of cultural change, and pushes back on the recent politicization of trans athletes as a stand-in for "fairness" debates that ignore how unequal sports already are. Links and Resources Carly Thomsen: http://carlythomsen.com/ Q&A with Carly Thomsen (UC Press): https://www.ucpress.edu/blog-posts/q-a-with-carly-thomsen-author-of-reproductive-justice-queerly LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carly-thomsen-616632124/ Contact: thomsen.carly@gmail.com Keywords Carly Thomsen, Reproductive Justice Queerly, reproductive justice, queer theory, Rice University, gender studies, feminist scholarship, Dobbs decision, abortion access, surrogacy, LGBTQ, culture work, academia careers, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, reproductive rights, women gender sexuality studies, feminist legal scholarship, post-Dobbs, sports and gender Episode Highlights [00:09:00 - 00:11:00] Carly Thomsen describes the moment a college gender studies class and a Monday Night Football watch party converged into a lasting realization about structural sexism. [00:20:00 - 00:21:00] Thomsen explains why reproductive justice requires more than legal rights, and how access shapes whether a right means anything. [00:22:00 - 00:24:00] Thomsen describes building a $100,000 reproductive justice mini golf installation to make the issue's reach visible. [00:31:00 - 00:34:00] How surrogacy advocacy campaigns centered gay men's stories while leaving out surrogates and feminist critique.

October 9, 2026Episode 23323 min

From Biglaw To TV Judge

Rachel Juarez, one of the judges on the syndicated court show Hot Bench, joins Kathryn Rubino to trace her path from Quinn Emanuel to a solo family law practice to national television, and to explain what it actually takes to run an unscripted courtroom show, including the AI-fueled lawsuits she's starting to see on set. Key Takeaways Rachel Juarez loved big law. She left Quinn Emanuel not because of the culture but for a lifestyle change after having her first child, and says she'd go back if she ever returned to that kind of practice. Family law was one of the few practice areas where Juarez could realistically source her own clients as a new solo attorney, since her big law litigation clients weren't hers to take with her. Running even a small firm meant learning an entirely new skill set overnight: billing software, malpractice insurance, IT, and bar compliance, none of which law school teaches. Juarez got her Hot Bench audition through a client's connection while she was four to five weeks postpartum, and had six days to accept the job once it was offered. The judge's role is more nuanced than an advocate's: Juarez describes learning to stop "winning" admissions and instead check whether a litigant understood what they'd just conceded. Litigants are increasingly showing up with AI-generated legal theories, including one who sued because ChatGPT told her, after a leading question, that she was being scammed. Links and Resources Hot Bench: https://www.hotbench.tv/ Contact: Hayley.Strichman@paramount.com Keywords Hot Bench, Rachel Juarez, TV judge, syndicated court show, big law, Quinn Emanuel, family law, solo practice, law firm administration, judicial temperament, courtroom television, legal career change, AI in litigation, ChatGPT legal advice, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, small claims court, legal edutainment, women lawyers, career trajectory Episode Highlights [00:10:00 - 00:12:00] Rachel Juarez explains how a chance client referral led to her Hot Bench audition, and how fast the process moved from there. [00:15:00 - 00:16:00] Juarez describes the moment she realized the judge's job is to check understanding, not win admissions. [00:20:00 - 00:21:00] The wildest case on Hot Bench: a woman sues the man who let her live in his trailer after it crashed while she was moving it. [00:21:00 - 00:22:00] A litigant's entire case rested on a leading question she'd asked ChatGPT.

October 2, 2026Episode 23228 min

Everything You Don't Know About The First Woman Judge

Professor Tracy Thomas, the CyberLink Chair of Constitutional Law at the University of Akron and author of The First Woman Judge: The Life and Legacy of Florence Allen, joins Kathryn Rubino to tell the story of Florence Allen, the first woman on a federal appellate court, a state supreme court, and a common pleas court in the country, and to explain why a judge considered for the U.S. Supreme Court a dozen times has largely disappeared from legal history. Key Takeaways Florence Allen was a trailblazer many times over: first woman common pleas judge in the country, first woman on a state supreme court, and the first woman federal appellate judge. Allen wasn't a straightforward rights crusader. She was a careful, moderate judge who used long, precedent-heavy opinions to disprove assumptions that women couldn't handle complex legal issues. She was on the shortlist for the U.S. Supreme Court 12 times across multiple presidents, but never appointed, largely because presidents wanted political loyalists, not judges with her level of judicial experience. Allen faced constant microaggressions and outright hostility, from being shunned in conference to being denied equal pay, and pushed back deliberately and strategically when it mattered. Her legacy faded partly because of a decades-long gap before the next woman reached similar positions, and because women's legal history has historically been under-preserved and under-studied. Links and Resources Author Site, Professor Tracy Thomas: https://www.proftracythomas.com/ The First Woman Judge (Amazon): https://www.amazon.com/First-Woman-Judge-Legacy-Florence/dp/0520399609 University of Akron Center for Constitutional Law: https://www.uakron.edu/law/ccl/ Prof Tracy Thomas, Linktree: https://linktr.ee/ProfTThomas Contact: thomast@uakron.edu Keywords Florence Allen, first woman judge, Tracy Thomas, University of Akron, legal history, women in law, women's legal history, Supreme Court shortlist, federal appellate judge, state supreme court, judicial history, constitutional law, women judges, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, judicial biography, suffrage movement, New Deal jurisprudence, legal academia, women's rights lawyer Episode Highlights [00:06:00 - 00:07:00] Tracy Thomas describes discovering Florence Allen was the first woman federal appellate judge, state supreme court justice, and common pleas judge in the country. [00:12:00 - 00:16:00] Thomas explains why Allen was shortlisted for the Supreme Court 12 times, and why sexism and political calculation kept her off it. [00:17:00 - 00:20:00] Allen's day-to-day experience of being shunned, mocked, and underpaid as the first woman in every room she entered. [00:25:00 - 00:27:00] Why Allen's legacy is more than a "first woman" footnote, and how it reshaped representation on the bench.

September 25, 2026Episode 23123 min

If You Can Imagine It, The Supreme Court Used To Be Even More Political

Historian Rachel Shelden, author of The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History, joins Kathryn Rubino to unpack how deeply political the Supreme Court actually was for its first century, why the Court's modern claim to be apolitical is a relatively recent invention, and why understanding that history matters for today's debates over court reform and legitimacy. Key Takeaways The Supreme Court was designed to be a political institution: 19th-century justices rode circuit, participated in state and local politics, ran for office, and even wrote legislation and presidential addresses. Lifetime tenure didn't always mean staying on the Court. Many justices left for other roles they saw as equal or better, including David Davis, who left the Court to become a U.S. Senator from Illinois in 1877. The Court's image as an apolitical, isolated institution developed largely at the end of the 19th century and through the 20th, driven in part by the professionalization of lawyers and a reframing of the Constitution as a legal rather than political document. Marbury v. Madison's reputation as the moment the Court became apolitical is, according to Shelden, more myth than history, a narrative that took hold around the Court's 1890 centennial. Originalism claims historical grounding, but Shelden argues it often isn't doing rigorous history. It selectively cites the past rather than engaging with the full, contested range of 19th-century constitutional debate. Links and Resources The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History: https://uncpress.org/9781469697130/the-political-supreme-court/ Rachel Shelden: https://rachelshelden.com/ Contact: rshelden@psu.edu Keywords Supreme Court, legal history, constitutional history, originalism, judicial legitimacy, Marbury v. Madison, court reform, jurisdiction stripping, court packing, term limits, Rachel Shelden, Penn State, political history, legal historian, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, judicial politics, circuit riding, John Roberts, constitutional interpretation Episode Highlights [00:02:00 - 00:04:00] Rachel Shelden details how 19th-century justices rode circuit, ran for office, and were deeply embedded in politics. [00:09:30 - 00:11:00] Shelden unpacks the irony of John Roberts's "balls and strikes" framing given the Court's political origins. [00:13:00 - 00:15:00] Why Marbury v. Madison's status as the birth of an apolitical Court is more myth than history. [00:17:00 - 00:19:00] Shelden explains the rhetorical sleight of hand behind originalism's selective use of history.

September 18, 2026Episode 23028 min

DEI Efforts On The Non-Lawyer Side Of The Legal Industry

Legal marketing veterans John Byrne (Gould & Ratner) and Toni Wells (Bespoke Marketing Partners) join Kathryn Rubino to trace how legal marketing evolved from an afterthought into a real career path, why "outcomes" is replacing "value" as AI reshapes the billable hour, and why DEI progress for business professionals inside law firms still lags behind the progress made for attorneys. Key Takeaways Legal marketing has shifted from something people fell into to a career path people choose intentionally, driven in large part by the growth of the Legal Marketing Association (LMA). Services marketing, and legal marketing especially, is about selling an experience and a relationship, not a product you can hand someone. AI and the shakiness of the billable hour are pushing firms toward marketing outcomes instead of vague "value," a shift John Byrne calls overdue and still far from complete. Strong client service, not just new business, is the real driver of law firm revenue: at Byrne's firm, 80% of income is recurring business from existing clients. Business professionals in law firms, especially those from underrepresented groups, often have less access to mentorship and informal "on-the-job" knowledge than attorneys do, leaving a real gap in advancement opportunities. Links and Resources Toni Wells, Bespoke Marketing Partners: https://www.bespokemarketingpartners.com/about John Byrne, Gould & Ratner: https://www.gouldratner.com/bio/john-m-byrne Keywords legal marketing, Legal Marketing Association, LMA, DEI, legal industry, law firm business development, chief business development officer, Above the Law, billable hour, value versus outcomes, AI in law firms, client service, services marketing, professional development, law firm mentorship, legal industry diversity, business professionals in law firms, law firm leadership, Gould & Ratner, Bespoke Marketing Partners Episode Highlights [00:08:00 - 00:09:00] John Byrne argues the industry is finally shifting from selling "value" to selling outcomes, thanks to AI and pressure on the billable hour. [00:12:00 - 00:13:00] John Byrne explains why client service, not new business, is the real engine of law firm revenue. [00:14:00 - 00:16:00] John Byrne breaks down how risk-averse lawyers can talk about outcomes without overpromising results. [00:22:00 - 00:24:00] Toni Wells on why mentorship gaps hit business professionals from underrepresented groups especially hard.

September 11, 2026Episode 22930 min

Giving Voice to the Voiceless

Kathryn Rubino sits down with Amos Guiora, law professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law and director of the Bystander Initiative, to talk about his forthcoming book, Enablers: Normalizing the Unimaginable. The conversation traces his path from an IDF JAG Corps officer to a legal scholar building a case for criminalizing the people who knew about harm, had the power to stop it, and chose not to. KEY TAKEAWAYS An enabler is legally distinct from a perpetrator. Guiora defines the enabler as someone who knows of harm because of their position or authority, is able to prevent it, and instead protects the institution or the leader over the vulnerable person. Bystander law has a gap. Legal systems have criminalized the bystander who witnesses harm and does nothing, but not the enabler who actively protects the person or institution causing it. Guiora's work is aimed at closing that gap. Institutions rarely pay a real price. When a university settles for hundreds of millions of dollars, insurance covers it, not individuals. Guiora argues that until specific people face criminal accountability, mandatory-reporter training and bystander videos stay performative. The pattern repeats across very different settings. From Larry Nassar at Michigan State to the Catholic Church to Jeffrey Epstein's circle to Israel's handling of the October 7th hostages, Guiora sees the same structure: a perpetrator who could only act because an ecosystem of enablers let him. His new book names names. Drawing on off-the-record access to former senior Israeli officials, Guiora documents specific people in Netanyahu's inner circle and the political calculations behind their decisions not to push for a hostage deal. LINKS AND RESOURCES Bystander Initiative - S.J. Quinney College of Law Enablers: Normalizing the Unimaginable (forthcoming) - Amos Guiora The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander and the Holocaust - Amos Guiora Armies of Enablers - Amos Guiora Above the Law tips line: tips@abovethelaw.com, subject line "The Jabot" KEYWORDS Amos Guiora, Bystander Initiative, enablers, bystander law, campus sexual abuse, Larry Nassar, Catholic Church abuse, Jeffrey Epstein enablers, Epstein files, October 7th, Israeli hostages, Netanyahu, hostage endangerment law, mandatory reporter training, institutional accountability, Above the Law, The Jabot podcast, Kathryn Rubino, legal academia, IDF JAG Corps, Holocaust bystander EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS [00:00:37 - 00:01:59] Guiora on the blue pamphlet his mother brought home and the fate of his career being sealed at age 11 [00:04:00 - 00:04:59] The origin of the Bystander Initiative: a marathon-training question about the Holocaust [00:09:11 - 00:10:00] Guiora explains why the initiative targets criminalizing enablers, not just bystanders [00:13:05 - 00:14:00] Guiora's working definition of an enabler [00:15:00 - 00:16:00] Why bystander training videos are "check the box" and performative [00:20:52 - 00:21:30] Why Guiora decided to name enablers by name in the new book [00:23:56 - 00:24:40] The political calculation behind enablers protecting Netanyahu [00:29:00 - 00:29:40] The Holocaust survivor's letter: "You give voice to the voiceless"

September 4, 2026Episode 22827 min

What It's Really Like To Be General Counsel

Summary Chaka Patterson, founder and CEO of Chaka Strategy and author of The Hot Seat: Mastering the Public Company General Counsel Role, joins Kathryn Rubino to unpack what actually separates a successful general counsel from one who's gone within five years. His answer has almost nothing to do with legal skill and everything to do with becoming the quarterback the C-suite calls first. Key Takeaways Legal expertise is table stakes, not a differentiator. Every lawyer in the building is technically proficient. What sets a GC apart is emotional intelligence, executive presence, and the ability to translate legal ideas for a non-lawyer audience. A crisis is never just a legal problem. When the stock drops or an activist investor sends a letter, the GC has to think PR, markets, employee communications, and legal all at once, not wait for someone else to own the rest. The GC is the quarterback, not a specialist with "their piece." New in-house lawyers often assume the CFO owns markets and comms owns PR. In reality, the general counsel is expected to coordinate all of it, holistically. The biggest mistake new GCs make is treating themselves as the final word on legal issues, and treating business colleagues the way they treated outside clients, or worse, the way they treated targets in government work. Turnover in the GC seat is steep, over 40% within five years, because "last call" lawyers who just dispense legal advice get replaced. "First call" lawyers, the ones the CEO trusts as an advisor on everything, tend to stay. Links and Resources Chaka Patterson on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/chaka-patterson Chaka Strategy: chakastrategy.com The Hot Seat: Mastering the Public Company General Counsel Role by Chaka Patterson Above the Law: abovethelaw.com Follow Kathryn Rubino: @Kathrynone Send tips or guest suggestions: tips@abovethelaw.com (subject line: The Jabot) Keywords general counsel, in-house counsel, GC turnover, public company GC, legal leadership, C-suite, business acumen, emotional intelligence, executive presence, trusted advisor, law firm to in-house transition, crisis management, corporate legal department, chief legal officer, legal operations, The Hot Seat, Chaka Strategy, Above the Law, The Jabot Episode Highlights Episode Highlights Timestamps Highlight [00:03:53 - 00:05:00] Chaka on the biggest surprise of going in-house: legal expertise is just table stakes. [00:07:50 - 00:08:53] Why the GC has to be the one coordinating PR, markets, and legal, not hoping someone else has it covered. [00:08:53 - 00:10:57] Chaka's "controversial take": why he'd be reluctant to hand a first-time GC role to a law firm partner with no in-house experience. [00:12:09 - 00:14:39] What Chaka would look for as a CEO hiring a general counsel: a business person first. [00:14:39 - 00:16:00] The two mistakes new GCs make most often, and why they frustrate the business. [00:16:53 - 00:17:56] What Chaka learned about his own legal department once he became a consumer of legal services as Exelon's treasurer. [00:21:35 - 00:23:23] Why over 40% of general counsel are gone within five years. [00:23:23 - 00:23:53] The line between the "first call" lawyer and the "last call" lawyer. [00:23:53 - 00:26:53] Chaka's three-part advice for lawyers building toward the GC seat: high EQ, learn the business, and find non-lawyer audiences to practice on.

July 27, 2026Episode 22723 min

Building A Legal Practice That Fits Your Life

Summary Kara Maciel always knew she wanted to be a lawyer, and a high school trip to Washington, DC sealed the deal. What she didn't plan for was building her own firm. In this episode, the Conn, Maciel & Carey co-founder talks with Kathryn Rubino about the years she spent paying off law school loans early to buy herself flexibility, and how that discipline let her take a real risk later: leaving a comfortable partnership to start something new. The decision crystallized during back-to-back parental leaves, when Kara and her future co-founder each returned from leave with the same idea. Twelve years later, the firm has offices across the country, and Kara talks through what she wishes she'd known about the business side of running a firm, how she's used technology to standardize billing across offices, and why she believes boutique practice offers something Big Law structurally can't. Key Takeaways Paying down law school loans aggressively in your early career years buys flexibility later, not just debt relief. Opening a firm requires business skills most lawyers never learn in practice; hire for that gap or plan to learn it fast. Complementary practice areas and complementary skill sets among co-founders matter as much as shared values. Firm growth can be organic and still be strategic: expand where clients and trusted partners already are. Boutique firms compete on relationship and rate transparency, not just lower prices. Links and Resources [Above the Law](https://abovethelaw.com/) [The Jabot Podcast](https://abovethelaw.com/tag/the-jabot-podcast/) Keywords boutique law firm, starting a law firm, employment law, labor law, law firm founder, women law firm owners, legal entrepreneurship, law school loans, law firm culture, law firm growth, big law versus boutique, workplace safety law, law firm billing, legal technology, AI in law firms, law firm partnership, career advice for lawyers, women in law, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast Episode Highlights [00:01:15 - 00:02:00] Kara traces her decision to become a lawyer back to a high school trip to Washington, DC. [00:04:15 - 00:05:00] Why she saved aggressively in her first years of practice instead of spending like a typical young associate. [00:08:00 - 00:09:30] The maternity leave story behind founding Conn, Maciel & Carey. [00:10:30 - 00:11:30] "You're a lawyer, you know how to make rain, but you don't know how to run a business." [00:13:15 - 00:14:45] How the firm's California and Midwest offices came together through existing relationships, not a strategic plan. [00:17:00 - 00:18:30] Why the firm runs a deliberately long hiring process to protect its culture. [00:19:15 - 00:20:15] What boutique practice offers that Big Law structurally can't: rate control and direct client relationships. [00:21:00 - 00:22:00] How the firm is using AI to standardize timekeeping and billing across offices.

July 24, 2026Episode 22628 min

The Battle To Protect Ethical Prosecutors

Summary Iris Eytan didn't set out to become a criminal defense lawyer. She went to law school to help people as a mental health advocate, then followed her clients from shuttered psychiatric institutions into the jails and prisons where many of them ended up. What started as constitutional work in its most human form eventually became decades of criminal defense, including two cases she calls her bookends: a jail deputy wrongfully accused of murdering his wife, and Barry Morphew, a case that exposed how far some prosecutors will go to protect a conviction. Those cases pushed Iris to found Protect Ethical Prosecutors, a reform campaign aimed at ending prosecutorial misconduct. In this conversation, she and Kathryn Rubino talk through the scale of the problem, why prosecutors are effectively immune from civil suits, and why the legal profession's self-policing system keeps failing the people it's supposed to protect. Key Takeaways Nearly 4,000 documented exonerations exist in the US, and more than one in three involved prosecutorial misconduct like hiding evidence of innocence. A 1976 Supreme Court case, Imbler v. Pachtman, gave prosecutors absolute immunity from civil lawsuits, even for intentional or reckless misconduct. Fewer than 2% of prosecutors tied to wrongful convictions have ever faced employment discipline or bar sanctions, and almost none have faced criminal charges. Self-policing fails because judges, defense lawyers, and even fellow prosecutors are reluctant to report misconduct within a system they all depend on. Iris founded PEP to push for an independent oversight commission with real enforcement power, not just recommendations. Links and Resources [Above the Law](https://abovethelaw.com/) [The Jabot Podcast](https://abovethelaw.com/tag/the-jabot-podcast/) Keywords prosecutorial misconduct, Protect Ethical Prosecutors, PEP, Iris Eytan, prosecutorial immunity, Imbler v. Pachtman, wrongful conviction, exonerations, Brady violation, criminal defense lawyer, public defender, Barry Morphew, criminal justice reform, attorney regulation, legal ethics, civil rights law, ADA, mental health law, accountability in prosecution, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast Episode Highlights [00:00:35 - 00:01:45] Iris describes seeing a young lawyer advocate for a psychiatric patient, the moment that redirected her career. [00:03:30 - 00:04:15] Why the closure of mental health institutions pushed her clients into jails and prisons, and pushed her into public defense. [00:07:30 - 00:08:30] "I was shocked when I encountered prosecutors who wanted to win more than do the right thing and broke the law." [00:10:00 - 00:11:30] The email that proved a DA knew a death was a suicide, filed years after clearing it, then charged the husband with murder anyway. [00:13:00 - 00:14:15] How prosecutors in the Morphew case hid DNA evidence pointing to other suspects. [00:16:45 - 00:17:30] Nearly 4,000 documented exonerations, with an estimated 100,000 more innocent people still in prison. [00:19:15 - 00:20:15] How the Imbler decision made prosecutors the only legal professionals who cannot be sued for misconduct. [00:21:30 - 00:22:45] The Deb Nichols case: a 17-year-old murder conviction unraveling over a hidden arson report. [00:25:45 - 00:26:45] Why an independent commission, not more reminders to follow the rules, is the fix Iris is pushing for