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

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

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

Haven’t listened in a while, but thought I’d check out the SCOTUS abortion episode. It’s just two lawyers agreeing based on superficial logic. Bring back a lawyer with an opposing view. Argue. Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do?

This is an incredibly biased, one-sided take on legal topics. A good lawyer understands that there’s more than one side to an issue and explores both sides to build a stronger case. Unfortunately, this podcast presents the law as though the progressive view is the only legitimate position.

I picked up this podcast when I began my law school application process and have listened to all available episodes. If you have no other legal news, it is a down and dirty intro into the legal world. If you know a little more, the “debate” pitch given for the show at its inception seems dubious. More of a lefty lawyer interview show, which, to be fair, is a great way to see how the legal left is thinking and what the next big political battles may be.

So shocked it’s a salty liberal who doesn’t do his homework. If you want to hear a snowflake cry listen to this show.

What did you expect? Lawyers in this day and age are an intellectual embarrassment. This program is no exception. Morons marching to socialism - I don’t a single guest could pass a calculus test. Intellectual deadwood in leftist lockstep - don’t waste your time.

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

This show is one of the longest running podcasts out there and continues to deliver year after year. If you want a deep dive on the legality of current events, this is definitely your show.

Boring

Mostly political commentary as opposed to analysis of the law.

Very factual, thought provoking, and engaging content.

I read some of the other reviews before posting this. Everything has some sort of bias and that needs to be expected. If the law didn't have a bias, and it was always black and white, we wouldn't need lawyers! That said, I think it is a great show and they do seem to try and present both sides as well as they can. As a non-lawyer i enjoy listening to it and then deciding if I want to do more research. No one will become an expert via a 30-45 minute podcast. Keep up the great show guys and definitely don't let any of these low scores bother you.

This podcast is not hopelessly biased, but it is biased enough that you cannot trust any of the rest. "Debaters" always represent only one side of the issue. On the odd chance they accidentally bring in a contrary opinion, he is invariably outnumbered and outclassed (and frequently wins the debate anyway). I really wanted to like this podcast. In the end, they make that impossible.

A great podcast for lawyers. Good format - makes you want more!

Really like the show and hearing about the interesting legal cases and what is happening in the law.

I have been listening to this podcast since I discovered it in 2012. It is engaging, interesting and my favorite legal podcast out there!

Content that you’d expect to be on a major news network. These guys pull in some great guests and discuss current topics that impact law and the general public.

I wanted to get some fair perspective about the voter ID laws. These guys only gave examples of cases that worked against Dems and for Repubs. I know there have also been many cases of voter fraud, but that was never mentioned. Therefore, I am still looking for an objective argument for & against the issue.

The description encapsulates the podcast: Two lines spent on the topic of the podcast, five lines spent promoting the hosts and their guests. The guests often have impressive credentials which were not matched by their insights in discussion. The hosts seem like nice guys, but I wonder how much time is spent researching versus booking guests and promoting the podcast. Perhaps I expected too much after seeing the logo and hearing the highly produced introduction, but I was disappointed by the content of Lawyer2Lawyer. I listened to four episodes at work to give this podcast a chance. I did not think it was interesting, and I am a lawyer who has actually worked in areas of episodes I listened to. The podcast is neither good at reporting the news, nor providing the angle that I would hope legal experts would bring to the table. On top of all that, guests and hosts are sometimes recorded at telephone-quality audio.

I've only been listening for about a year but I've caught up and listened to all of the older podcasts. This show is pretty good. They usually have the right people on to provide a balanced discussion and it's just the right length. Kudos to the producers. Bravo to Messrs Ambrogi and Williams.