Advertise on podcast: Legal Judg(e)ments

Oklahoma made history by approving the nation’s first openly religious public charter school, sparking a constitutional clash that ended in a Supreme Court deadlock and left the broader questions about the constitutional validity of religious charter schools up in the air. The central issue: are charter schools truly public schools that need to remain secular under the Establishment Clause, or are they privately run entities entitled to equal protection under the Free Exercise Clause? In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson sits down with Christopher Schandevel, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and one of the attorneys representing the charter school. They break down the high-stakes legal battle of Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, discussing how the case tested the boundaries of church-state law, the role of religious freedom in publicly funded education, and the questions it leaves open for future courts to address.

Does the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment include a stable climate system? In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, "Climate Change on Trial", host Bob Stetson is joined by Roger Sullivan of McGarvey Law as they analyze the landmark case of Held v. Montana, where Roger represented the plaintiffs. This legal battle involved a group of young Montanans challenging the state’s Montana Energy Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when reviewing energy and infrastructure projects. Bob and Roger explore the trial proceedings, including key expert testimony connecting rising carbon levels to local environmental harms. They also provide insights into what this decision could mean for the future of similar constitutional and public interest environmental cases across the country, including questions of standing, the scope of environmental rights, and how state policies may be evaluated in light of climate impacts.

Legal Judg(e)ments returns with a new season examining how the law influences policy, politics, and everyday life. Hosted by Bob Stetson, a Boston-based trial lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience, this legal podcast features in-depth conversations with litigators about cases and strategies that shape the law. Season Five tackles timely issues including immigration enforcement, climate change litigation, offshore wind regulation, laws affecting homelessness, and more. Tune in as Legal Judg(e)ments delivers practical insight into how the law works in practice—and why it matters now. Listen to the season trailer now and join us for the first episode on Thursday, January 15, 2026.

In this special episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson finds himself in the hot seat as guest host, and seasoned real estate attorney Eric Allon takes over the interviewer’s mic. Together, they dissect a real estate dispute with far-reaching implications: McCarthy v. Young. The case asks a pivotal question—when is an offer to purchase a binding contract? Drawing on precedent from McCarthy v. Tobin and the twists of a modern-day easement dispute, Bob walks us through the litigation strategy that led to an appeals court victory and reshapes how Massachusetts courts may view these standard forms. Whether you’re a lawyer, broker, buyer, or seller, this episode is a must-listen. Discover why a simple form might be the most legally dangerous piece of paper in your real estate deal—and what you can do to protect yourself.

The Massachusetts housing crisis has spotlighted local zoning laws. With housing costs soaring, the state legislature enacted the MBTA Communities Act, requiring towns to allow higher-density housing by right. But when the Attorney General tried to enforce the law, the town of Milton pushed back, leading to a major showdown in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson is joined by appellate attorney Kevin Martin, who represented Milton in this high-profile case. They discuss the constitutional and legal arguments at play, the court’s ruling, and what the decision means for local governance, zoning, and housing policy going forward.

Host Bob Stetson and guest trial lawyer Stephanie Taverna-Siden explore the landmark Massachusetts case Johnson v. Settino, which reshaped the legal landscape of engagement ring disputes. For decades, courts have treated engagement rings as conditional gifts, requiring marriage to finalize ownership. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently struck down the fault-based standard, adopting a no-fault approach: if the wedding is canceled, the ring goes back—no blame needed. Bob and Stephanie discuss the legal history of engagement rings, the shift away from antiquated heartbalm laws, and how this ruling modernizes the law. Download a fascinating conversation on the intersection of love, contracts, and the courts.

In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson sits down with Andrew Dennington, a seasoned trial lawyer and partner at Conn Kavanaugh, to explore the landmark Massachusetts case Business Interiors vs. Graycor Construction. The case centers on the Prompt Pay Act, a law designed to ensure timely payments for contractors and subcontractors in large construction projects.

Tenure is under scrutiny in one of the most significant cases in higher education. In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson discusses the landmark case Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts University with guest Kevin Petrs, Senior Partner at Fox Rothschild, and the attorney representing a group of Tufts professors challenging the university's compensation and lab policies. Bob and Kevin discuss the origins of academic freedom, the evolution of tenure, and the clash between the principles of economic security and the financial realities facing modern universities. Kevin shares his courtroom strategies, insights on judicial independence, and the broader implications of this pivotal case for the future of academia.

In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson is joined by attorney Christian Kiely to talk about a groundbreaking defamation case that explores the murky intersection of true crime storytelling and legal accountability. When Netflix’s documentary on the college admissions scandal painted an allegedly misleading portrait of John and Johnny Wilson, the family fought back, suing the media giant for defamation. Christian Kiely, who represents the Wilsons, discusses this high-stakes litigation’s legal strategies and implications. From the role of selective editing to the responsibilities of filmmakers in portraying real-life events, Bob and Christian discuss how the portrayal of facts can shape public perception and potentially harm reputations. 

In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson sits down with attorney Pat Tinsley to discuss the complexities of federalism and local governance through the lens of a landmark tobacco regulation case in Massachusetts. Pat, who represented the retailers challenging Brookline, MA’s unique tobacco law, shares insights into the statutory interpretation and the ongoing debate over local versus state authority. From the philosophical underpinnings of federalism to the practical implications for businesses and communities, this episode explores how one town’s attempt to phase out tobacco sales has sparked a broader conversation about the limits of local power and the role of the courts in navigating these contentious issues. Download this episode to learn about a case that could shape the future of public health regulations in the Commonwealth and beyond.

In this episode of Legal Judg(e)ments, host Bob Stetson talks to Jeremy Cohen, a pioneer in pet litigation, about the unique pet case of *Lyman v. Lancer. When Brett Lyman and Sasha Lancer’s relationship ended, a custody battle erupted—not over children, but their beloved Pomeranian, Teddy Bear. This episode explores how courts treat pets as property and family members, the implications of this case for pet owners nationwide, and what it means for future legal disputes over our furry companions.

 What is the law? How does it work? What role do lawyers, litigants, and judges play in the law's development? In sum, what moves the law in American society? I'm Bob Stetson, a Boston-based trial lawyer and the host of the podcast Legal Judg(e)ments. After 17 years in private legal practice, I still don't have a perfect answer to these important societal questions. Is it politics? Judicial philosophy? The advocacy and skill of the lawyers involved? The likability or lack thereof of their clients? Is it something else entirely? I started this podcast to find out what other lawyers think about these issues. By talking about specific cases, strategies, verdicts, and court decisions, I hope to answer these important questions. Or, at the least, understand the issues a bit better. If we, as lawyers and as a society, understand how the law really works, maybe we can predict the results more accurately. Or as lawyers, give our clients better legal advice. Let's figure these issues out together. Come listen to Season 4 of Legal Judgements, starting on November 15th.

In the famous American comic strip, The Wizard of Id, the Golden Rule means “Whoever has the gold makes the rules!” And so it’s been in the construction industry time immemorial. In this episode, Bob and Brad Croft discuss Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners and how the Golden Rule shaped recent statutory enactments in the construction industry and judicial interpretations of them.

Guest Paul Edelstein joins Bob Stetson to explore the critical issue of self-help evictions and the fight for housing justice. This episode centers on the Solis family from Brooklyn, New York, who faced a harrowing eviction attempt by their landlord, employing tactics like utility shutoffs, demolition work, and false legal notices. Their subsequent ten-year legal journey highlights the stark realities of informal evictions and their impact on society's most vulnerable. Through the case of Solis vs. Aguilar, Bob and Paul examine the balance between tenants' rights and landlords' actions, emphasizing the importance of due process as a cornerstone of liberty and dignity.

Listen to Bob Stetson and returning guest Ben Robbins from the New England Legal Foundation explore the separation of powers in the context of federal administrative agencies, the historical expansion of the administrative state, the Supreme Court's 1984 Chevron decision, and its implications for the separation of powers through the lens of a new rule by the National Marine Fisheries Council.