Episodes

  • AI in the Judiciary: Power, Limits, and the Social Contract | Judge Scott Schlegel

    AI in the Judiciary: Power, Limits, and the Social Contract | Judge Scott Schlegel
    Mar 31 2026
    When a lawyer messes up by using an AI platform that produces mistakes, they might get sanctioned by a judge. When a judge messes up using an AI platform, “it could become precedent. So, it’s a much different conversation.” Judge Scott Schlegel, of Louisiana's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, speaks from his experience as an early leader in courtroom efficiency. Today, he supports a measured judicial approach to AI with this guiding principle: “It's not our job to be first. It's our job to get it right.” Tune in to this conversation with hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders to hear about his newer project: the Judicial AI Consortium (JAIC), which he is developing with U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell of Colorado and Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the Western District of Texas. The consortium is designed to be a simple forum where judges can “ask stupid questions, talk to each other about how you're using it, what you're seeing out there. Is it helpful? Is it useful? How far should we go?” About 200 judges around the country have signed up so far.Connect and Learn More☑️ Judge Scott Schlegel | LinkedIn☑️ United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Proceed.
    Show more Show less
    54 mins
  • The New Rule 166a: What Texas Lawyers Need to Know | Michael Duncan

    The New Rule 166a: What Texas Lawyers Need to Know | Michael Duncan
    Mar 12 2026
    The final version of rewritten Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a—the summary judgment rule—became effective March 1, 2026. In this episode, Michael Duncan, an appellate and motions practitioner in Austin who clerked for a Texas Supreme Court justice, unpacks the updated rule with hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders. Together, they examine what the Supreme Court changed for the better from the proposed amendment—clarifying the burden of proof for traditional motions, allowing parties to extend response deadlines by agreement, and explicitly requiring evidence with a traditional motion. They also flag new and unresolved concerns, such as the removal of "promptly" from the court's hearing-setting obligation and the potential for abuse of the filing-triggered response deadline. Michael also shares his comparison chart that untangles the four sets of standards governing motions filed during the transition period.Connect and Learn More☑️ Michael Duncan | LinkedIn☑️ Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Proceed.
    Show more Show less
    55 mins
  • Flipping the Script: How Texas Courts Can Improve Appellate Practice

    Flipping the Script: How Texas Courts Can Improve Appellate Practice
    Feb 26 2026
    In this episode, hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders share their list of crowdsourced “pet issues” that appellate courts could address to make practitioners' lives easier. Their goals, Todd explains, are to both identify areas for improvement and also to give them an opportunity to flesh out those topics in later episodes. If you’re a practitioner with thoughts about everything from modernizing the outdated civil docketing statement to standardizing sealed record procedures to adding a cross-appeal rule, chances are that Todd and Jody have thoughts, too. Tune in as they break down issues and suggest possible solutions. “If any judges, rules committee people, anybody ever wants to come on and talk about these, please let us know,” Jody says. “We would love to have other perspectives on it.” Connect and Learn More☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTubeProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Proceed (formerly Counsel Press).
    Show more Show less
    54 mins
  • Permissive Appeals, SCAC, and the Reality of Texas Rulemaking | Rich Phillips

    Permissive Appeals, SCAC, and the Reality of Texas Rulemaking | Rich Phillips
    Feb 12 2026
    In this episode, we examine Texas’s permissive appeals statute and the rulemaking process that shapes how it operates in practice. To guide the discussion, hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders welcome Rich Phillips of Holland & Knight, who serves on the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee and recently presented a paper on permissive appeals. Rich pulls back the curtain on how procedural rules are developed and revised, then walks through the statute’s requirements and explains why permissive appeals are so often denied. The conversation also explores how courts interpret key statutory terms, how courts of appeals exercise their discretion, and what practitioners can learn from recent decisions in permissive appeals.Connect and Learn More☑️ Rich Phillips | LinkedIn☑️ Holland & Knight on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe
    Show more Show less
    55 mins
  • A Complete Rewrite: What the New Summary Judgment Rule Means for Trial Lawyers and Judges

    A Complete Rewrite: What the New Summary Judgment Rule Means for Trial Lawyers and Judges
    Jan 22 2026
    The Texas Supreme Court is taking comments on its rewritten summary judgment Rule 166a before the rule goes into effect on March 1. To help practitioners understand its implications, hosts Jody Sanders and Todd Smith provide context for the rewrite and take a deep dive into the rule’s requirements. Tune in as they break down, among other details, how the rule defines traditional and no-evidence summary judgments, what it requires when those motions are combined, and how it changes the timing of the non-movant’s response to within 21 days after the motion is filed.As Jody explains, the Court concluded that summary judgment motions “were either sitting around too long without being heard or without being ruled upon” and set out to address that problem. Todd adds, “This is a huge change from the old rule” that will “require non-movants to be far more proactive in getting their responses done and ready than they were before.”Email your comments about Rule 166a to rulescomments@txcourts.gov by February 28.Connect and Learn More☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify |
    Show more Show less
    56 mins
  • The View from the Bench: Improving Appeals, Briefs, and Oral Argument | Justice David Gunn

    The View from the Bench: Improving Appeals, Briefs, and Oral Argument | Justice David Gunn
    Jan 8 2026
    Keep your brief to 10,000 words, and you'll get more investment from Texas appellate justices. Those are just a few words of wisdom from Justice David Gunn in this conversation with hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders. After a clerkship, where he observed lawyers making mistakes and judges making decisions, Justice Gunn spent over three decades in private practice before joining the First Court of Appeals in October 2024. Tune in as he reflects on his “accidental” path to law, explains how his court decides when cases get argued, and describes his wish for a “fast track” system for some cases. Make sure to stay for his war story about a lawyer who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.Connect and Learn More☑️ Justice David Gunn | LinkedIn☑️ Texas Courts of Appeals☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Counsel Press
    Show more Show less
    53 mins
  • Supersedeas Bonds in the Real World: Timing, Collateral, and Cost | Arturo Ayala

    Supersedeas Bonds in the Real World: Timing, Collateral, and Cost | Arturo Ayala
    Dec 24 2025
    When an appellate lawyer puts a client in touch with Court Surety Bond Agency, the client is in a tough spot. “They’re going to be facing a verdict, an adverse verdict, or it’s just entered, and they're coming to us because they need to post a bond” to stay judgment enforcement during appeal, says Arturo Ayala, the company’s vice president. In this conversation with hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders, Arturo takes a deep dive into this type of bond, starting with the initial conversation with the client. “With supersedeas bonds, the underwriting – what I tend to explain or compare it to – it's very similar to banking,” he says. “It's strictly a financial guarantee.” Arturo goes on to describe the timing necessary to put a bond in place, the factors that play into a client’s premium rate, and the pros and cons of each type of collateral. Tune in as he explains why his key tip is what not to do: “Don't wait ‘til the judgment is entered.”Connect and Learn More☑️ Arturo Ayala | LinkedIn☑️ Court Surety Bond Agency on LinkedIn | Facebook☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Counsel Press
    Show more Show less
    40 mins
  • Breaking Down the Texas Supreme Court’s Revamped Petition-for-Review System

    Breaking Down the Texas Supreme Court’s Revamped Petition-for-Review System
    Nov 26 2025
    The Texas Supreme Court is on the verge of eliminating the practice of requesting merits briefs before granting petitions for review—a change that will fundamentally reshape how the high court handles cases. In this deep dive into Misc. Docket No. 25-9092, hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders break down the proposed rule changes, which aim to make the process quicker, more efficient, and less costly for the parties. Todd takes listeners back to the era when every case bound for the Supreme Court required a full brief, a practice that ended in 1997 when the Court shifted to the petition-for-review process. Jody brings the conversation to the present by explaining the current procedure in a way that’s accessible to those who don’t regularly handle matters before the Court. Both hosts dissect the proposal to arm listeners with what they need to know before the new rules take effect in early 2026.Connect and Learn More☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram | Bluesky☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and
    Show more Show less
    45 mins