Episodes

4d ago

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss a complex cross-border dispute involving a Chinese public company listed on the Shanghai Exchange. The company, which owned oil assets in Texas and was one of the largest private oil producers in the U.S., faced a governance crisis after an investor took over the company and elected a new board in China. When the new board attempted to gain control over the company’s U.S. subsidiaries, it discovered that the company’s former management had implemented mechanisms at the subsidiaries’ holding companies that blocked the election of new directors. This control deadlock posed an existential threat, as Chinese regulators warned the company it could be delisted if control was not reestablished by the end of the year. The urgency of the situation demanded a rapid litigation strategy across three U.S. jurisdictions: Texas, Nevada, and Delaware. The client’s initial effort, led by another firm, to resolve the matter in Texas failed because of the “internal affairs doctrine,” which required adjudication in Delaware, where the entities were incorporated. Fortunately, the other side initiated a Delaware proceeding allowing the Chinese parent to counterclaim and consolidate all issues under a highly expedited schedule. A key early win was securing a “status quo” order in Delaware, which froze major corporate actions and gave the new board veto power over decisions exceeding $100,000, effectively halting adverse moves by the former management. The case involved extensive discovery, much of it in Mandarin, and included WhatsApp, WeChat, and other messaging platforms. Advanced AI tools played a crucial role in accelerating document review, translating materials, and aiding strategy development. Cultural sensitivity and coordination with Chinese counsel were also essential to preparing the case. As trial approached, the opposing side sought settlement, likely due to being overwhelmed by the pace and depth of the litigation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 11

John is joined by David Proman, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Atlas Grove Partners and long-time Quinn Emanuel client. They discuss David’s extensive experience working with elite law firms, including Quinn Emanuel, on high stakes matters involving structured finance, digital assets, and complex bankruptcies. At Atlas Grove and its subsidiary, GXD Labs, David has built an investment platform that identifies legal claims as investment opportunities. One example of such an opportunity was David’s early and aggressive pursuit of RMBS claims. In 2010, David was at a fund called Fir Tree Partners that was the most activist fund manager in the RMBS space. They pursued cases against the world's largest banks for breaches of warranties, which led to recovering almost $4 billion for Fir Tree Partners’ investors. David worked with Quinn Emanuel partner Sascha Rand on many of these cases, adding “we have great thanks and gratitude to Quinn Emanuel for working on this with us for over a decade against some of the world's most significant counterparties". Another example was the Celsius bankruptcy. Celsius was a crypto lending platform with 600,000 customers. At its peak, it had almost $20 billion in liabilities. Celsius’s customers stored their Bitcoin, their Ethereum, or their digital tokens using deposits, similar to bank deposits. When Bitcoin dropped dramatically in 2022, the company became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy proceedings revealed numerous legal issues, including fraud. David’s Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC) won the role of litigation administrator and crafted a plan focused on returning value to defrauded customers. Working closely with Quinn Emanuel partner Ben Finestone, BRIC’s strategy involved bringing claims against counterparties across the world who had harmed Celsius before it went bankrupt. One of BRIC’s biggest recoveries resulted from a $300 million settlement with Tether. David credits Ben with bringing strong legal claims and strategies to defeat “issues that I don't think have ever been litigated before in crypto.” When working with law firms, success depends on aligning the incentives of the firm and the client, maintaining open communication, and active client involvement in developing legal strategies, especially in complex or novel sectors like cryptocurrencies. Counsel should be both strategically creative and brutally honest about risks. As David said, “that's part of the reason why I love you guys: because you always give me honest feedback.” David also believes that fee structures should prioritize results over billable hours. After the case, all parties should reflect on both wins and losses to continuously improve decision-making. Finally, David and John discuss the evolving legal risk in AI infrastructure, where opaque contracts and fast-changing technology may spark future waves of litigation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 4

John is joined by Richard East and Karabeth Ovenden, partners in Quinn Emanuel’s London Office. They discuss the unprecedented bankruptcy and restructuring of NMC, the largest healthcare provider in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Initially listed on the London Stock Exchange and heavily favored by the market, NMC collapsed precipitated by a report by short-seller Muddy Waters raising significant questions about the audited accounts of the company. Ultimately it was revealed that NMC had approximately $6.5 billion in debt, rather than the $2.5 billion that had been disclosed to the market. Over 100 creditors rushed to seize NMC’s assets across the UAE. The absence of a compreheånsive UAE bankruptcy framework posed an existential threat to the company, especially because the crisis occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when NMC facilities were treating a significant portion of the country’s COVID hospitalizations. To address this crisis, a team of QE insolvency litigators initiated administration proceedings first in the UK for NMC’s parent company. However, this did not protect NMC’s UAE-based operating entities. To protect those assets and preserve continuity of care, the QE team adopted the novel strategy of moving 36 NMC operating companies into the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), a common-law “free zone” jurisdiction within the UAE. This required a sovereign executive order to release existing asset attachments and allow for insolvency proceedings in the ADGM—an unprecedented step in UAE restructuring history. The move faced significant jurisdictional and legal resistance across the various Emirates. Recognition of the ADGM orders in onshore courts was difficult, requiring extensive legal argumentation and government coordination. Once inside the ADGM, the companies could proceed with a complex reorganization plan, culminating in a successful arrangement which obtained support from over 90% of the creditors. The team also navigated criminal investigations, litigated against dissenting creditors, and pursued claims against parties potentially complicit in the fraud. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 20

John Quinn is joined by Alex Spiro, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York and Miami offices and one of the best-known trial lawyers in the U.S. Alex explains that his approach to trial preparation is to immerse himself into the evidence as trial approaches. He reads every relevant document to understand even tangential details, rather than just looking for "hot docs." This deep dive helps him construct a narrative that, if all goes well, leads the jury to a collective “Eureka” moment, where the verdict becomes clear. Alex also explains that he does not rely on mock juries and external validation because his themes must resonate with his own beliefs to be compelling. Instead, he prefers to bounce ideas off colleagues who may suggest course corrections. Alex says that understanding human psychology is crucial because the motivations behind actions often matter more than the actions themselves. The discussion turns to how Alex balances the demands of multiple cases while remaining completely focused on the next upcoming trial. He credits his ability to compartmentalize and work long hours, as well as strong support from trial teams. He also explains to clients from the outset that during their “moment of truth,” he will prioritize their case entirely, but before then, he might be prioritizing the impending trials of other clients. The discussion then turns to criminal justice reform, a subject Alex is passionate about. He describes the criminal justice system as structurally biased, especially against marginalized communities. He identifies the most urgent priorities for reform as bail reform, sentencing disparities, and changing the current system's backward-looking nature, which he believes perpetuates outdated and discriminatory standards. When asked about AI’s role in sentencing, Alex expresses concerns that AI could reinforce existing biases by relying on historical data, potentially leading to harsher outcomes, particularly for first-time offenders. Finally, John and Alex discuss that it has become harder for lawyers to represent controversial clients but emphasize the importance of doing so. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 13

John Quinn is joined by Essam Al Tamimi, Founder and Chairman of Al Tamimi & Company, the leading law firm in the UAE and the broader Middle East and Africa region. Founded in 1989 in Sharjah, UAE, the firm has grown to encompass 17 offices across 10 countries with 420 lawyers, dominating the legal landscape in the UAE. Mr. Al Tamimi explains his firm's origins and his vision of creating a leading regional law firm, inspired by international models like Clifford Chance and Kim & Chang. John and Mr. Tamimi discuss the UAE's legal evolution, starting from scratch with the UAE’s independence in 1971 to its current sophisticated blend of common and civil law. This transformation is supported by specialized jurisdictions like the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which offer international standards in arbitration and legal proceedings. Mr. Al Tamimi notes how these developments have fostered competition and elevated local legal standards. He also describes the UAE's rapid economic and social development, emphasizing its visionary leadership, diversification, and commitment to tolerance and innovation. He explains how the UAE has addressed negative stereotypes about its business environment, emphasizing the UAE’s stringent new money-laundering regulations and its open approach to foreign investment. The nation’s inclusive ethos, welcoming diverse expatriates and fostering collaboration, has been key to its success. Looking ahead, Mr. Al Tamimi underscores the importance of focusing on future-facing sectors like AI, renewable energy, healthcare, and education. He believes these fields will drive growth and advises young lawyers to align with emerging global trends. Mr. Al Tamimi's passion for mentorship and his disciplined lifestyle reflect his commitment to sustaining the firm's legacy in the UAE’s evolving legal and economic landscape. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 6

John is joined by Leslie Zhang Weihua, Vice President and General Counsel of United Energy Group, China, one of the largest independent oil and gas companies in the world. They discuss Leslie’s extensive experience in international legal affairs, including his experience as general counsel for both large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies in China. They discuss the differences between providing legal services for SOEs and private companies, including the additional procedures SOEs must follow in making business decisions, the strategic issues in addition to return on investment that SOEs must consider and how rate sensitive SOE’s procurement procedures are and how that applies to hiring counsel. They also discuss the expectations that Chinese clients have with respect to counsel finding creative solutions to regulatory issues, the rates paid for unsuccessful legal projects, and responsiveness in providing legal analysis. They also compare Chinese and Western law firms with respect to training, expertise, and specialization while noting the ongoing expansion of Chinese firms into international work and the Chinese government’s policy of encouraging the continued development of international arbitration centers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Finally, they discuss the role lawyers can play in improving relations between the United States and China including the importance of recognizing the risks and costs of decoupling. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 30

John is joined by Jeffrey Toobin, celebrated author and legal analyst, who reflects on his extensive career in law and legal journalism. First, Jeffrey describes his legal background, including his clerkship on the Second Circuit which led to his years working for the Independent Counsel investigating the Iran Contra scandal (which led to his first book, Opening Arguments) and his years as an Assistant US Attorney. He also describes his years writing for the New Yorker and covering the OJ Simpson trial which led to his second book, The Run of His Life. Jeffrey then explains the writing process that has allowed him to complete nine books so far, including his strategy of writing about topics that have not been covered extensively by other authors, his absolute commitment to write 1,250 words per day for the project he is working on, and his habit of beginning to write each chapter in the middle and only writing the opening of the chapter later. John and Jeffrey then discuss why books on trials are so popular, including how trials are “perfect dramatic stages” and good trial lawyers are experts in both emphasizing the dramatic elements in stories and making issues interesting and meaningful to non-lawyers. Finally, John and Jeffrey discuss their favorite books about trial lawyers and personal insights into the most unforgettable lawyers Jeffrey has met including Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 23

John is joined by the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Lucien Wong, SC. Attorney-General Wong explains that under Singapore’s constitution, his office is an independent organ of the state which does not answer to either the cabinet or the legislature. His office includes four divisions: the criminal division which conducts all prosecutions in Singapore, the civil division which advises government ministries and agencies as well as representing the government in civil court cases and arbitrations, the legislative drafting division which drafts all legislation in Singapore, and the international affairs division which protects Singapore's interests on the international legal stage. Attorney-General Wong also explains that he is the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission which employs all lawyers working in his office and is independent from the Public Service Commission, which employs all other civil servants in Singapore. They discuss the case where, less than a month after he became Attorney-General, Malaysia brought an action against Singapore in the International Court of Justice to reclaim an island off the coast of Singapore, requiring Attorney-General Wong to become an international lawyer overnight. Finally, they discuss Singapore’s use of caning as a criminal punishment, including how the practice originated in India’s penal code which Singapore inherited upon achieving independence, its value as a deterrent, and that Singapore’s reputation as a clean, efficient, civil society might be attributable in part to the deterrent effects of its criminal punishments. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 16

John is joined by Rachel Geman, partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Justin A. Nelson, and Rohit Nath, both partners at Susman Godfrey. They discuss the groundbreaking $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement Rachel, Justin, and Rohit reached with AI company Anthropic on behalf of the authors of copyrighted materials —the largest copyright recovery in history. The case involved Anthropic’s use of over 450,000 copyrighted works—mostly books—sourced from pirated sites like Library Genesis and Z-Library. These works were used to train large language models (LLMs). The case centered on infringing conduct stemming from the download and use of pirated copies of copyrighted works. Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case, found that Anthropic’s downloading of pirated works was “irredeemably wrong” and constituted infringement. He also ruled that using legitimately obtained books to train AI was transformative and, therefore, fair use—a finding the plaintiffs disagreed with. A trial was scheduled but avoided when the parties reached a $1.5 billion settlement shortly after fact discovery closed. The settlement compensates authors and publishers at an average rate of approximately $3,000 per work. The settlement also reflects contractual author-publisher splits and employs a structured claims process overseen by a special master. Under the agreement, Anthropic must also destroy the infringing copies and certify they were not used to train its commercial models. This resolution, the largest known copyright recovery to date, was approved after detailed scrutiny of its fairness and administration. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 9

John is joined by Carolynn Levy, Chief Legal Officer of Y Combinator (YC). They discuss YC’s evolution into the world’s most prominent startup accelerator. Some of the famous startups to come out of YC include DoorDash, Airbnb, Stripe, and Coinbase. Carolynn joined YC in 2012. Since then, the organization has grown from a small early-stage investor to a robust platform funding approximately 600 startups annually. In 2012, companies were evaluated in two seasonal “batches,” but YC’s growth now requires having four seasonal batches every year. Each batch now includes approximately 150 startups. Each startup receives $500,000 in seed funding and gains access to a network of alumni, ongoing mentorship, and lifetime support through YC’s internal platform, Bookface. To select the startups, YC evaluates up to 20,000 applications per batch, relying on human review and in-person interviews, where selected applicants receive immediate decisions on whether they will be included in the next batch. The startups included in a batch work on their product for three months. Then, on Demo Day, the founders are given the opportunity to pitch their companies to a room full of investors. That room is now supplemented by online participation for broader reach. In Carolynn’s opinion, strong, resilient, and flexible founders are the most crucial ingredient for a start-up’s success and more important than the idea for the project itself. YC favors entrepreneurs who are focused on product-market fit and is cautious about early-stage founders who are overly preoccupied with legal formalities. Optimism is crucial in the startup world. This has caused Carolynn to shift her mindset from risk-averse legal training to embracing bold innovation. As the Chief Legal Officer of YC, Carolynn leads a team of seven lawyers that handle everything from entity formation and investment paperwork to founder breakups and brand protection. Recently, immigration issues have posed additional challenges due to the global nature of YC’s business. The episode offers a rare inside look at how YC balances legal oversight with startup culture, emphasizing practicality and a deep respect for entrepreneurial vision. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 2

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City, New York, and London Offices, Head of the firm’s Sovereign Litigation practice, and Co-Head of the firm’s Global Asset Recovery Practice. They discuss various kinds of litigation, arbitration, and collection actions against sovereign states. They discuss collection cases against sovereign states resulting from those states’ default on debt instruments, the challenges faced by creditors who hold out after most creditors agree to a debt restructuring arrangement with the sovereign, recent proposed legislation, and any other government actions favoring sovereigns, the current sovereign debt crisis, and concerns about opportunistic funds that seek profit by collecting on devalued sovereign debt. They also discuss investor-state arbitration generally, for example, after a company has invested in a project in a country and the country fundamentally changes the terms under which the investment was made, such as radically raising taxes as Spain did with respect to renewable energy projects after 2008. They discuss the position taken by the EU that EU courts cannot enforce arbitration awards against EU nations even when the nation entered voluntarily into an arbitration treaty, and recent indications that the United States government supports the position of the EU. Finally, they discuss litigation against sovereigns unrelated to sovereign debt, such as litigation against state sponsors of terrorism, including the lawsuit Quinn Emanuel recently filed against Iran on behalf of victims of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 26

John is joined by Quinn Emanuel partners Dave Nelson and Alex Lasher. They discuss the landmark victory Dave and Alex’s team won for Samsung Display before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in a trade secrets case against Chinese competitor, BOE Technology Group. The ITC is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of the federal government that, among other duties, adjudicates claims regarding unfair trade practices, including intellectual property infringement. Monetary damages are not available in ITC proceedings. However, the ITC can provide powerful injunctive relief by issuing exclusion orders that stop all infringing products from entering the U.S. at the border. These exclusion orders make the ITC a strategic venue for intellectual property disputes involving imported goods. Although trade secret cases at the ITC are not new, they have become more prominent in the last decade. The ITC process differs significantly from federal court litigation. Proceedings are accelerated and are led by an administrative law judge and a third-party staff attorney who acts as a neutral participant. ITC staff may conduct discovery, cross-examine witnesses, and submit their own briefs, making trial preparation especially complex. There are no juries. This case involved accusations that BOE misappropriated dozens of trade secrets related to OLED display technologies used in phones, TVs, and microdisplays. BOE used these stolen trade secrets to manufacture competing products and import them into the U.S. for several years. Discovery in the case was complicated by both the legal obstacles to taking discovery of a Chinese company and language barriers, with Samsung’s internal documents largely in Korean and BOE’s in Chinese. The team faced additional challenges defining the trade secrets at issue with sufficient specificity early in the case—a prerequisite for discovery. Another major hurdle was proving that Samsung maintained a “domestic industry” in the U.S. worthy of protection under ITC rules—a jurisdictional requirement. Despite these difficulties, the administrative law judge issued a 15-year exclusion order covering all BOE OLED display products, effectively barring them from the U.S. market. The team’s trial efforts were bolstered by a pre-trial sanctions order against BOE for discovery misconduct. The case demonstrates how IP litigation at the ITC can create enormous commercial leverage and underscores the critical role expert testimony and meticulous trial preparation play in high-stakes trade secret disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 18

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff’s Law . They discuss Bill’s view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs’ work. The impetus for Bill’s book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths. The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students’ first year—rather than the fall of the students’ second year. This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights. The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction. Bill’s book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs’ practice. He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation. This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work. He argues that plaintiffs’ lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act. While not every case—or plaintiff’s lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law. Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid. These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 11

John is joined by Bethany W. Kristovich, Partner and Co-Chair of the Professional Liability Defense Group at Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP. They discuss some of the unique aspects of legal malpractice cases, including how often they arise from collection cases, how a plaintiff must prove not only malpractice but that without the malpractice, the case would have had a different result, the importance of expert testimony in malpractice cases, and the difficulty of mastering damages theories from both the underlying case and the malpractice action. Bethany explains some of the worst things that can happen in a malpractice case, including the lawyer criticizing the former client so much it provokes a backlash by the jury, internal emails in which lawyers on the same team criticize each other’s work, and lawyers who appear arrogant because they don’t know their own rates. Finally, Bethany explains several ways lawyers can protect themselves from malpractice claims, including making sure the client is worthy of the firm before taking their case, getting a retainer and staying current on billing and collections, creating short agendas for telephone conversations to document the topics being discussed, and including the client in all decisions about the case. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 4

John is joined by Hidetaka Mihara, Senior Counsel at Tokyo International Law Office. They discuss three major legal developments in Japan: (1) the criminal and civil litigation arising from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, (2) the rise of shareholder activism, and (3) Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Executives at the company that ran the nuclear power plant had been warned of tsunami risks years before the event, but did not report the risk to the government until days before the earthquake. The trial court found the executives not guilty of criminal negligence reasoning that tsunamis of this size were so rare and the cost of addressing the risk, cutting off electricity to the region while repairs were made, was so high that the company’s delayed report did not amount to negligence. Related civil claims against the government and management were also dismissed, with courts holding that neither breached their obligations under Japanese law. Despite some public criticism, most Japanese have moved on from the tragedy, focusing on rebuilding rather than retribution. The recent rise of shareholder activism in Japan is a notable shift in a culture traditionally averse to corporate confrontation. This rise follows reforms in Tokyo Stock Exchange rules, greater emphasis on corporate governance, and changes in ownership thresholds that empower minority shareholders to propose changes. One example is the Seven & i Holdings case, in which activists pushed for a corporate restructuring. While their proposal failed, their recommendations for improving the company were eventually adopted by management. Although shareholder litigation remains rare in Japan, shareholder proposals and negotiations have become increasingly effective, aided by the gradual unwinding of entrenched cross-shareholding relationships. Finally, Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel which has been politically controversial in the U.S., is widely seen in Japan as a strategic and mutually beneficial partnership. Japan views the acquisition as a way to strengthen both nations’ competitiveness against Chinese and Indian steelmakers. Ultimately, the U.S. government approved the acquisition based, in part, on obtaining “golden share” rights, including the right to block certain potential managerial changes at the company. The conversation reflects how Japan’s legal and corporate culture is gradually adapting to global norms while maintaining its distinct approach to risk, accountability, and trust. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 28

John is joined by Avichal Garg, Managing Partner of Electric Capital and Chairman of the Crypto Council for Innovation, and Emily Kapur, Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s Blockchain & Digital Asset Litigation Practice and partner in the firm’s Silicon Valley office. They discuss the complex legal and regulatory landscape surrounding cryptocurrency, digital assets, and the intersection with emerging technologies like AI. The decentralization and autonomy of crypto systems challenges traditional legal concepts. Crypto technology—ranging from permissionless innovation to autonomous systems—raises foundational legal questions about jurisdiction, liability, and personhood, especially when code may function as both speech and money. While early legal battles focused on whether tokens are securities, today’s disputes often focus on jurisdictional issues and cross-border liability for autonomous systems with governance distributed around the world. U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins, while posing regulatory and competitive challenges, may also be an unparalleled tool for promoting U.S. soft power and economic influence. They can bypass traditional banking systems and reach global users, reinforcing the dollar’s dominance. The recently enacted GENIUS Act provides a framework for regulating stablecoins in the U.S. without imposing restrictive reserve requirements, in contrast to European approaches. The rapid evolution of crypto trading venues—centralized exchanges like Coinbase, decentralized protocols like Uniswap, and traditional financial instruments such as ETFs and digital asset treasuries—highlight the legal uncertainty about which regulatory entities have jurisdiction. The increasing use of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) poses additional challenges under theories that all participants in a DAO are potentially liable as partners in a joint venture. More legal innovation is needed, perhaps even entirely new legal entities or frameworks, to accommodate a future in which autonomous code can hold assets, transact, and potentially commit fraud. Courts may begin to shape precedent in the absence of legislation, but a proactive regulatory approach or legal sandbox might be the key to responsibly managing these potentially disruptive forces. Ultimately, the question is whether the law will domesticate crypto or will crypto force legal innovation? Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 21

John is joined by Andrew Berdon, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office, and Joe Paunovich, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office. They discuss the $300 million victory Andrew and Joe’s team recently won in Delaware Chancery Court in an earnout dispute arising from a pharmaceutical merger. The dispute involved the acquisition of Syntimmune, a biotech company founded around a promising antibody drug—Alexion 1830—designed to treat rare autoimmune diseases by reducing levels of IgG. The drug was initially developed from academic research at Harvard and advanced by a venture-backed startup that invested over $75 million before selling the company to Alexion, now a division of AstraZeneca. The acquisition included an upfront payment of $400 million, plus up to $800 million in earnout payments tied to eight developmental milestones, most of which were based on progress during pre-approval clinical trials. The dispute arose when Alexion, shortly after the acquisition, deprioritized and ultimately terminated the drug’s development, citing safety concerns and a perceived loss of first-mover advantage. No earnout payments were made. The court found that Alexion breached its obligation to use "commercially reasonable efforts"—defined in the agreement as those a similarly situated biotech company would use—to develop the drug. Evidence at trial showed Alexion made no attempt to benchmark its efforts against peer companies developing similar drugs. Instead, internal shifts in corporate priorities and the subsequent acquisition by AstraZeneca led to the program’s quiet abandonment, despite a highly promising therapeutic profile and a still viable market opportunity. The episode concludes with reflections on the broader pharmaceutical industry, the strategic use (and misuse) of earnout structures, and the importance of precisely drafted effort clauses to protect sellers when control shifts post-acquisition. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 14

John is joined by Professor Mark Wu, the Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School, an expert in international trade and international economic law. They discuss the legal and geopolitical implications of President Trump’s tariff strategy. The President’s approach is rooted in a belief that the post-1970s international trade regime, which the U.S. helped build, has been exploited by foreign powers to the detriment of American interests, particularly the manufacturing sector and working-class communities. The administration intends to leverage America’s market dominance and security alliances to pressure trading partners into more favorable terms, including opening their markets to exports and investing in America. To legally impose many of these tariffs, the President has relied on statutory authorities that Congress delegated to the executive branch, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (covering national security issues from the importation of goods), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (covering unfair trade practices by foreign countries), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which permits regulation of imports during a declared national emergency. Unlike prior administrations, Trump has used IEEPA not only to declare national emergencies—such as the opioid crisis and trade deficits—but also to impose sweeping tariffs in response. These actions have sparked a series of legal challenges. Several importers and states have filed suits arguing that the president overstepped his authority under IEEPA. Courts are now scrutinizing whether this use of IEEPA constitutes an overly broad delegation of congressional power and whether the tariffs align with the IEEPA’s statutory language. The Court of International Trade ruled against the administration on this issue. That case is now before the Federal Circuit, which heard the appeal en banc . Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in. Even if tariffs under the IEEPA are barred by the courts, the administration has other tools at its disposal to achieve the same outcome, including imposing tariffs under Section 232, imposing tariffs under Section 301, and seeking additional legislation from Congress authorizing tariffs against specific countries. Regardless of legal outcomes, the global trade regime has fundamentally changed. There will be no going back to the pre-Trump regime. Traditional alliances have been strained, other countries are adapting to long-term U.S. unpredictability, and legal precedents set here could impact more than trade law. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 7

John Quinn is joined by Mohammed Rashik, Founder and CEO of Rain Intelligence, a legal technology company that helps lawyers identify emerging legal needs and find potential clients—to make rain. Rain Intelligence provides AI-powered analysis of data from social media, government filings, e-commerce platforms, and other sources to detect patterns and events that could signal potential class action cases, regulatory issues, or other complex litigation opportunities. The goal is to make business development for lawyers more systematic and data-driven than more traditional, reactive methods. The idea for Rain Intelligence was born from Mohammed’s frustration with the lack of tools to help generate clients when starting a solo practice. He began identifying legal issues proactively—such as discovering that a warehouse fire had likely been caused by a neighboring property’s code violations—and found this approach led naturally to client engagement. The core insight was that legal needs often follow predictable patterns triggered by real-world events, and those patterns can be identified and scaled using data science. Rain Intelligence delivers daily personalized reports tailored to each attorney’s practice areas, clients, and litigation history. These updates synthesize signals from a wide range of data pipelines—such as product labels, product recalls, consumer complaints, Substack articles, government announcements, and class action advertising—to identify high-potential legal opportunities. The opportunities are analyzed to assess the prospects for proving liability, the amount of damages, and the collectability of judgments. The service is subscription-based and is currently used by roughly half of the Am Law Top 10 firms and 20% of the top 200. Mohammed explains how Rain Intelligence pieces together disparate data sets to uncover legal risks that may not be obvious in isolation. For example, labeling a food item “preservative free” while including citric acid, which regulators consider a preservative, could be the basis for a lawsuit when combined with regulatory guidance and recent litigation trends. The technology is built to integrate seamlessly into legal workflows, helping lawyers generate business by doing what they do best—spotting legal issues and advising clients. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 31

John is joined by Renny Hwang, Deputy General Counsel and Head of Litigation at OpenAI and former Head of Litigation at Google. They discuss the legal issues surrounding AI technology. Renny explains that he believes that existing law is well equipped to deal with copyright, fair use and product liability issues raised by AI, but the challenge the industry faces is that most people do not understand how AI works. He also explains that he believes other legal issues, such as corporate transparency and governance, might require new regulations. John and Renny discuss the likely impact of patent and trade secret law on the AI industry in light of the industry’s tendency to publish significant research and findings. They also discuss the effect of the absence of comprehensive federal AI regulation, including the difficulty companies have in to implementing different compliance regimes for different jurisdictions and the possibility that the European AI Act will become the de facto default standard for AI regulation globally. Finally, Renny explains that OpenAI is a mission-driven company focused on building safe and beneficial AI and that commitment is reflected in OpenAI’s Board-level Safety Committee. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 24

John is joined by Brad Karp, Chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Brad explains how he led Paul Weiss to diversify its business beginning in the financial crisis of 2008, when its core business of litigation was still highly profitable, to become a global leader in private equity transactions, mergers and acquisitions and financial restructuring as well. He describes how he approached leading lawyers in these fields and convinced them to join the firm by emphasizing the firm’s profitability, reputation, culture, and client base and how each individual would fit into the firm’s existing business. Brad also explains the firm’s dramatic expansion in London in the summer of 2023 and why he does not foresee further significant international expansion in the future. John and Brad then discuss the recent trends in large law firms towards recruiting highly paid superstar lawyers and the growth of salaried or nonequity partners. They also discuss the major trends they expect to see in the future, including the increasing use of AI within the legal industry, the dramatic rise of litigation and regulatory investigations over the use of AI and the influence of climate change on every area of law practice. Finally, Brad describes his firm’s longtime commitment to actively taking on social justice and pro bono representations and the challenges of handling these engagements in today’s increasingly politicized environment. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 17

John is joined by Andrew Frank, Founder and President of KARV. They discuss the evolving role of strategic communications in legal and other public relations “crisis” situations. KARV focuses on strategic advisory services, particularly in high-stakes litigation, crisis response, and public policy matters. Roughly half of the firm's work involves law-related matters, including disputes, investigations, and regulatory issues. KARV operates internationally, with offices in major U.S. cities and partnerships around the globe. Early engagement is crucial in crisis communication planning. Ideally, engagement begins before a crisis breaks. However, most companies fail to prepare for crises in advance, and communications professionals are typically brought in after legal action has begun. Once engaged, the primary goal of KARV is to support the legal team while minimizing risk. This support includes preparing official statements, crafting consistent messaging, and developing media strategies aligned with legal objectives. The legal and communications teams must collaborate closely to avoid missteps and ensure a unified public-facing narrative. Clients need to understand the mechanics of media engagement, including the distinctions between on-the-record, off-the-record, and background communications. In crisis situations, clients must also understand the expectations of different media outlets, along with the challenges of working with internal PR teams that may lack experience in crisis or litigation matters. Common mistakes include saying too much, failing to coordinate messaging, and ignoring broader reputational concerns. Finally, Andrew explains how artificial intelligence is affecting the communications landscape. On the one hand, AI offers useful tools for drafting and analysis. However, AI also raises new challenges by accelerating the spread of misinformation. For example, a news broadcast may be assembled by an AI aggregator and delivered to the audience through an AI generated avatar without any of the content being confirmed as true. Social media posts now appear and receive more than a thousand comments in 15 minutes; that many comments must be generated by AI and both the comments and the original post may be fake. The need to correct such misinformation means that human judgment and experience in managing complex communications environments will remain central, especially in high-stakes legal disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 10

John is joined by Cassandra “Sandi” Knight, Vice President of Litigation and Discovery at Google. Sandi oversees a global team of over 200 in house legal professionals and a host of law firms around the world. The case load she oversees varies from patent disputes to content moderation, to AI, and privacy issues, among many other types of disputes. Sandi’s department focuses on three functions: litigation, discovery, and support for investigations. Cases rise to the level of Sandi’s attention based on the legal issues involved, the amounts at stake, and the reputational risk and the potential for press attention. One challenge of managing such a wide variety of matters lies in balancing the daily influx of urgent unpredicted matters with the need to intentionally carve out time for deeper strategic reflection. Much of Google's litigation docket includes cutting-edge disputes in areas like AI and content moderation where there is often little clear legal precedent. In recent years, tech companies have experienced a shift in public perception—from celebrated innovators to targets of public skepticism. This shift has affected Google’s approach to jury trials and litigation in general. Sandi underscores the importance of building trust between the legal team and the business side of the company. This requires lawyers to take clear, actionable positions on legal matters, rather than simply explaining the competing legal risks and leaving the business team to weigh those risks and develop future plans on their own. Collaboration between outside counsel and internal product lawyers is critical to shaping legal strategy in the evolving tech landscape. Counsel who conduct careful mock argument sessions, particularly in Supreme Court litigation, have helped significantly shaped Google’s litigation strategy and contributed to positive outcomes. In general, Google values outside counsel who provide early engagement, strategic foresight, efficiency, and the ability to make legal recommendations rather than hedging every opinion. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 3

John Quinn is joined by Robert Loigman, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Eric Winston, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss the extensive litigation that has followed the 2008 collapse of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The litigation stems from a liquidation by a court-appointed trustee under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). The primary goal of the liquidation was to recover assets for Madoff’s victims. The litigation has continued for 17 years, so far, because of the number of parties involved and the multitude of proceedings and appeals in both the U.S. and foreign courts. The trustee has pursued clawback claims against “feeder funds” under fraudulent transfer theories, targeting both “net winners” who withdrew more than they invested and “net losers” who withdrew less than they invested. After the estate recovered $7 billion recovery from one feeder fund, investors began to anticipate higher recoveries than normally occur in SIPA proceedings. Over time, a secondary market in Madoff claims developed, with distressed asset investors buying claims at steep discounts and profiting when recoveries exceeded expectations. The Madoff litigation has led to several significant legal developments. One key issue involved included the safe harbor under the Bankruptcy Code for good faith conduct. Initially, a judge in the SDNY ruled that to show a lack of good faith, a trustee must show that an investor was willfully blind to the fraud at issue. In 2021, the Second Circuit ruled that simple inquiry notice is enough, placing a greater burden on investors to investigate irregularities. Another significant legal development was the Second Circuit’s ruling that U.S. bankruptcy law could reach transfers between foreign debtors and foreign transferees, expanding the potential reach of clawback efforts. Finally, the Second Circuit ruled that in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy case, certain U.S. standards would apply to transactions between foreign entities even though the foreign courts with jurisdiction over the entities would apply different standards. The uniquely large and visible fraud in the Madoff litigation case may have led courts to expand legal doctrines in ways that affect bankruptcy and investor litigation more generally. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 27

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the recent win Chris’s team achieved in a Delaware Chancery Court trial involving a high-stakes case involving Desktop Metal and Nano Dimension. The dispute centered around a merger agreement that included a "hell or high water" clause obligating Nano, the buyer, to do whatever was necessary to secure regulatory approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), with a narrow exception if required actions would result in a loss of 10% or more of the company’s revenue. After the agreement was signed, a hedge fund replaced Nano’s board and management with personnel opposed to the deal. The new board then sought ways to back out. Although CFIUS approval was near, Nano’s new leadership began stalling, making endless counterproposals, delaying communications, and attempting to trigger the revenue-loss exception by claiming that a requirement to maintain a German facility would exceed the 10% threshold. While the buyer tried to appear compliant with the contract, the evidence—particularly a 38-day gap in responding to CFIUS—revealed a pattern of bad faith and delay. Desktop Metal, struggling financially, was meticulous in adhering to operating covenants, collecting receivables and consulting Nano on business decisions, knowing any misstep could be weaponized to kill the deal. Despite pressure, the seller never received a renegotiation offer from Nano. At trial, the team presented the buyer’s conduct as a strategic “slow-walk.” The court ultimately agreed, affirming that a hell or high water clause must be honored in both letter and spirit. The case serves as a reminder that efforts to evade deal obligations—particularly those cloaked in delay or technicalities—will be exposed under judicial scrutiny, and that Delaware courts remain committed to upholding contractual integrity in complex M&A transactions. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 19

John is joined by Spencer Collins, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of Arm Holdings, the UK-based semiconductor design firm known for powering over 99% of smartphones globally with its energy-efficient CPU designs. They discuss the legal challenges that arise from Arm’s unique position in the semiconductor industry. Arm has a unique business model, centered on licensing intellectual property rather than manufacturing processors. This model is evolving as Arm considers moving “up the stack,” potentially entering into processor production to compete more directly in the AI hardware space. Since its $31 billion acquisition by SoftBank in 2016, Arm has seen tremendous growth, culminating in an IPO in 2023 at a $54 billion valuation and its market value nearly doubling since. AI is a major strategic focus for Arm, as its CPUs are increasingly central to AI processing in cloud and edge environments. Arm’s high-profile AI projects include Nvidia’s Grace Hopper superchip and Microsoft’s new AI server chips, both of which rely heavily on Arm CPU cores. Arm is positioned to be a key infrastructure player in AI’s future based on its broad customer base, the low power consumption of its semiconductors, and their extensive security features. Nvidia’s proposed $40 billion acquisition of ARM collapsed due to regulatory pushback in the U.S., Europe, and China. This led SoftBank to pivot to taking 10% of Arm public. Arm is now aggressively strengthening its intellectual property strategy, expanding patent filings, and upgrading legal operations to better protect its innovations in the AI space. Spencer describes his own career path—from law firm M&A work to a leadership role at SoftBank’s Vision Fund, where he worked on deals like the $7.7 billion Uber investment—culminating in his current post. He suggests that general counsel for major tech firms must be intellectually agile, invest in best-in-class advisors, and maintain geopolitical awareness to navigate today’s rapidly changing legal and regulatory landscape. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 11

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation. They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts. The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently. Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available. &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes. Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output. The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace. It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence. &AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing. This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there. AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation. This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly. Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm’s proprietary data and preferred styles. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 5

John is joined by Maaren A. Shah and Luke Nikas, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Maaren and Luke have the top art disputes practice in the world. They discuss Maaren and Luke’s recent victory in the multi-front litigation concerning the legacy of American pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his iconic LOVE sculpture. The case began when Indiana’s longtime advisor, who held exclusive rights to fabricate Indiana’s works, discovered that Michael McKenzie was creating and selling unauthorized artworks. This led to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit. At the time, Indiana was elderly, isolated on an island off the coast of Maine, and physically deteriorating. Indiana’s situation was worsened by a coordinated effort by several individuals to cut him off from his longtime supporters and assume control over his name, artwork, and brand. The day after the initial lawsuit was filed, Indiana passed away, causing further complications. His estate sought to terminate contracts with the advisor and seize control of its intellectual property rights and valuable inventory of Robert Indiana artworks. The legal fight quickly expanded into multiple jurisdictions with overlapping lawsuits involving McKenzie, the advisor, the estate, and the sole beneficiary of the estate, a charitable foundation called the Star of Hope. Maaren and Luke formed an alliance with the Star of Hope and the Maine Attorney General’s office, which regulated the foundation. They secured an agreement with the foundation ensuring the advisor would retain its rights, inventory, and business role regardless of the outcome of the litigation with the estate, rendering that litigation moot. The Estate quickly buckled and ended its pursuit of the advisor. With the advisor’s rights and assets secured, the team turned back to McKenzie, who had previously misrepresented the number of Indiana works in his possession. After the team uncovered numerous hidden artworks and secured devastating testimony from McKenzie’s former associate, among others, the court imposed terminating sanctions, including dismissing McKenzie’s claims and awarding the advisor its attorney’s fees. The victory ultimately protects Indiana’s legacy and ensures stability in the market for his art. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 29

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions. Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation. The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions. However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement. The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government’s behavior toward non-parties. Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country. Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s. Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution. Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand. Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making. These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class. The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship. Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies. He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 22

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice. Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others. He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements). They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements. Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private. He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory. Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 15

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel’s Wilmington, Delaware office. They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions. Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.” Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare. In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework. The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders. Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners. Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc. In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair. Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty ( e.g ., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation. “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend. To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions. The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed. It also reforms the state’s books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands. The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world’s demand for greater legal certainty. Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 8

John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word "tariff." Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President’s authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared "emergencies" used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 1

John is joined by Christopher Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Jeffrey Chivers, co-founder of litigation AI company Syllo AI. They discuss the transformative role artificial intelligence played in a recent Quinn Emanuel trial victory in Delaware Chancery Court. The case involved Desktop Metal's attempt to force Nano Dimension to complete a $183 million merger, where Nano tried to stall the deal by slow-walking regulatory approvals by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States until the drop-dead date for the transaction had passed. Quinn Emanuel was hired to represent Desktop Metal only six weeks before trial, requiring an accelerated approach to discovery and case preparation. The team used Syllo AI, a litigation focused product that allowed them to review and organize massive volumes of documents through natural language prompts, create timelines, tag relevant material, and identify patterns much faster than traditional methods. The Syllo platform also integrates multiple AI models that cross-check each other’s outputs while following built-in mental models of legal reasoning. During the trial, Syllo customized its tools to provide rapid privilege log and document production deficiency analysis, helping to identify gaps in the opposing side’s discovery. The team also worked with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic to test ideas, explore potential legal theories, and brainstorm approaches to witness examinations. Syllo and Claude helped attorneys identify relevant evidence for use in expedited post-trial briefs and suggested potential lines of questioning for depositions. Attorneys directed all AI usage, with Claude serving as a cognitive tool that amplified the legal team’s capabilities while the attorneys maintained full responsibility for all work product. AI did not displace anyone on the trial team. Instead, it complemented the attorneys' expertise, enhancing their ability to deliver strategic insights and respond effectively to case developments. It may soon become malpractice not to use AI in trial preparation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 24

John is joined by Michael Gottlieb, partner in the Washington D.C. office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, and Nicholas Reddick, partner in the San Francisco office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. They discuss the landmark $1.1 billion judgment Michael and Nicholas obtained against the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of U.S. service members and civilians harmed by Iran-backed terrorist groups and the legal framework for suing state sponsors of terrorism and private organizations that support them. Claims against sovereign states are based upon the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). FSIA claims require plaintiffs to prove that the foreign sovereign materially supported acts of terrorism, often through militia groups operating in conflict zones. The process is complex and time-consuming. Although Iran never appears to defend these cases, plaintiffs must still prove liability and damages with admissible evidence, often obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, military reports, and expert testimony. Because such judgments are rarely enforceable against Iran’s frozen or inaccessible assets, successful plaintiffs must seek compensation through the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which draws from congressional appropriations and settlements from unrelated sanctions violations. Payments from the fund are made annually and prorated based on judgment size, but disbursements have been inconsistent. Recent developments, including circuit court rulings and a pending Supreme Court case, may reshape key legal standards for FSIA claims, such as the requirement of an actual death for certain terrorism-related claims. Several new legislative efforts seek to expand the cases that may be brought under the FSIA and increase the funds allocated for compensating victims. Claims against private entities such as banks, contractors or companies that evaded sanctions rely upon the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Many such cases are currently being litigated. ATA claims require proof of the defendant’s material support and knowledge of terrorist outcomes. The defendants in ATA cases are likely to appear to defend against the claims, but only after the plaintiffs navigate complex issues of jurisdiction and service of process. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 17

John is joined by Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, one of the foremost companies in the world specializing in software platforms for big data analytics. They discuss the emerging trends in AI regulation. Courtney explains the AI Act recently passed by the EU Parliament, including the four levels of risk it assesses for different AI systems and the different regulatory obligations imposed on each risk level, how the Act treats general purpose AI systems and how the final Act evolved in response to lobbying by emerging European companies in the AI space. They discuss whether the EU AI Act will become the global standard international companies default to because the European market is too large to abandon. Courtney also explains recent federal regulatory developments in the U.S. including the framework for AI put out by the National Institute of Science and Technology, the AI Bill of Rights announced by the White House which calls for voluntary compliance to certain principles by industry and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which requires each department of the federal government to develop its own plan for the use and deployment of AI. They also discuss the wide range of state level AI legislative initiatives and the leading role California has played in this process. Finally, they discuss the upcoming issues legislatures will need to address including translating principles like accountability, fairness and transparency into concrete best practices, instituting testing, evaluation and validation methodologies to ensure that AI systems are doing what they're supposed to do in a reliable and trustworthy way, and addressing concerns around maintaining AI systems over time as the data used by the system continuously evolves over time until it no longer accurately represents the world that it was originally designed to represent. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 10

John is joined by Ben Lee, Chief Legal Officer of Reddit. They discuss Ben’s extensive career as a senior in-house lawyer in several of the most successful tech companies in the world. After earning degrees in physics and economics, Ben worked at IBM's research lab, where he was intrigued by the way lawyers grappled with the impacts of technology on society. Ben then went to law school and began his career as a litigator at a New York law firm but left to work at the Legal Aid Society. Financial realities eventually led him back to private practice and then to a career in-house. At AT&T and NEC, Ben worked closely with pioneering computer scientists and handled complex IP matters involving emerging technologies like machine learning and AI. When he moved to Google, Ben advised on major projects like Chrome, Android, and Google Cloud at very early stages when their success was far from assured. Ben later joined Twitter during its early, fast-paced growth phase, managing litigation, IP, employment, and regulatory issues. He led Twitter’s lawsuit against the U.S. government over transparency for national security requests. Later, at Airbnb, Ben tackled challenging regulatory landscapes worldwide, and at Plaid, he advocated for consumers’ rights to financial data. At Reddit, Ben now oversees all legal functions for a vast online platform with over 100,000 user-created and moderated communities. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is vital to Reddit’s success. It provides that online users and platforms are generally not liable for content created by others. Section 230 protects Reddit’s content moderation decisions, the decisions of its volunteer community moderators and its individual users. Finally, Ben advises young in-house lawyers to remember that their job is not to just point out all potential legal risks in a project, but to help their teams manage those risks so they can build great products and move companies forward. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 3

John is joined by Susheel Kirpalani, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and founder and Chairperson of the firm’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring Group. They discuss restructuring litigation, including fraudulent transfer litigation and valuation disputes, and how it differs from commercial litigation. They also discuss the importance of building alliances with other stakeholders in the company, how much the practice is based on relationships and trust, and the opportunities that exist to design creative securities that allow a company to survive but also allow its creditors substantial recoveries. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 27

John Quinn is joined by Jack Neumark, Managing Partner and Co-Head of Specialty Finance of Fortress Investment Group and founder of its Legal Assets Group. They discuss the emergence of legal assets as a distinct investment class. Fortress is a leading player in litigation finance with over $6.5 billion deployed in legal assets and a current portfolio of approximately $3 billion. While most litigation funders typically invest in individual cases, Fortress invests in diversified portfolios of litigation claims and contingent fee receivables. Fortress underwrites and finances these portfolios the same way it does other specialty finance products. To underwrite a portfolio, Fortress has lawyers examine the cases in the portfolio to determine how strong and likely to settle they are. They consider factors including the defendants and how creditworthy they are, the damage theories asserted, how far the case has progressed, what motion practice has revealed, and whether related criminal charges have been filed. They also consider the law firms involved, the judge, and the venue. Fortress also conducts quantitative analyses of the historical results of similar cases based on publicly available data and proprietary data it has accumulated in the 15 years it has invested in legal assets. Legal asset portfolios are attractive to many investors because the results of lawsuits are less subject to the performance of the economy in general than many other classes of assets. Also, because the market for legal assets is still developing, sophisticated investors can often obtain better returns than in more mature markets. Jack believes that as the industry matures, especially with potential regulatory changes around law firm ownership, litigation finance will become more mainstream and integrated into broader investment strategies. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 20

John is joined by Christian Athanasoulas, KPMG’s Global Head of International Tax and M&A Tax and U.S. Tax Practice Leader – Services. They discuss the groundbreaking shift in the U.S. legal industry arising from Arizona’s decision to allow non-lawyers to have ownership interests in law firms. This move aligns the U.S. with countries like the U.K. and Australia, where non-lawyers have been permitted to own law firms for years. KPMG has successfully operated legal practices in over 80 countries, but U.S. regulations previously prevented it from offering legal services alongside its consulting, tax, and advisory work. Arizona’s new rules allow KPMG to offer the non-legal services it typically offers clients together with related legal services performed by the new law firm. Previously, KPMG’s clients would have to retain law firms with no formal ties to KPMG for those services. Christian led the effort to establish KPMG Law US, a wholly owned Arizona law firm under the KPMG umbrella. KPMG Law US is an independent LLC with Arizona-licensed lawyers and a compliance officer to ensure adherence to legal ethics rules. Although owned by KPMG, the law firm maintains autonomy. It can assist clients with legal matters such as contract integration and regulatory compliance. KPMG Law US leverages its parent company’s technological advancements, including AI-driven contract analysis and process automation, to improve efficiency in the provision of legal services. The new law firm will not engage in litigation. For matters outside of Arizona, it will co-counsel with lawyers admitted in the appropriate jurisdiction. While Arizona is currently the only state permitting non-lawyer ownership of law firms, other states are exploring the possibility of passing similar laws. The creation of KPMG Law US could signal broader changes in the legal profession, potentially reshaping traditional law firm structures. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 13

John is joined by John Nadolenco, Managing Partner of Mayer Brown’s Los Angeles office and Kelly Kramer, partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D.C. office. They discuss how John and Kelly won an eleven-year legal battle over the Bahia Emerald, the largest emerald in history. The 789-pound gemstone was illegally mined in Bahia, Brazil and smuggled into the U.S. The emerald first entered the U.S. in San Jose, California where the importers falsely declared it to be a piece of concrete with no value. It later surfaced in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, was transported several more times, and was eventually seized in Las Vegas by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in 2014 when one party seeking to claim the emerald reported it stolen. This led to an action in Los Angeles Superior Court to determine the rightful owner. When news accounts of the action reached Brazil, the government contacted John and Kelly to intervene. They worked with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which filed a federal case in the District of Columbia invoking a little-known provision from the Patriot Act, which allowed the emerald to be frozen pending forfeiture. Meanwhile, Brazilian courts convicted those who illegally mined and exported the gemstone and, after years of appeals, issued a final forfeiture order. The DOJ then moved to enforce the Brazilian ruling, ultimately securing the emerald. The emerald is now set to be repatriated and displayed in a museum in Rio de Janeiro, bringing an end to one of the most extraordinary asset recovery cases in modern history. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 6

John is joined by Shawn Fagan, the Chief Legal Officer of Citadel LLC, and a key legal figure at Citadel Securities. Citadel is the most profitable hedge fund globally while Citadel Securities is a leading market maker, processing nearly one-third of U.S. equities and options trades. They discuss Shawn’s insights into the unique legal challenges of these rapidly growing organizations. Shawn has essentially four clients: Citadel, Citadel Securities, founder Ken Griffin, and Griffin’s family office. His responsibilities extend beyond legal oversight to include regulatory affairs and compliance and reflect the complexities of modern finance. Shawn’s journey to Citadel was unconventional. He started as a litigator at Bartlett Beck, a boutique trial firm, where he spent nearly half his time in trial. He participated in high-profile cases, including Bush v. Gore , but ultimately realized that trial work was not his passion. A chance meeting with Ken Griffin led to an in-house opportunity at Citadel, where he has been for 20 years. In that time, Citadel has grown from 1,000 employees with $12 billion in AUM to 4,900 employees with $65 billion in AUM. The focus of his role at Citadel is building the right teams to meet the demands of rapidly growing markets around the world, developing technology to ensure regulatory compliance across billions of transactions every day, and maintaining consistent standards in an organization that is growing as rapidly as Citadel. Citadel has engaged in several high-profile legal battles, including lawsuits against the SEC and IRS, reflecting Citadel’s willingness to challenge regulations it views as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. In retaining outside counsel, Shawn looks for lawyers with a strategic vision who can articulate a clear path to winning cases. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 27

John is joined by David Elsberg, the Founding Partner of two law firms, most recently Elsberg, Baker & Maruri. They discuss the experience of starting a law firm, including the motivations, challenges, and rewards of building a law firm from the ground up. David is a former Quinn Emanuel partner. He was inspired to start his own firms by the accounts of John and other Quinn Emanuel partners of the satisfaction they felt from building something new. He wanted the challenge of starting a firm and learning the business side of legal practice. Although running a law firm requires a different skill set from practicing law, starting a law firm is not particularly difficult compared to other businesses. Success depends primarily on assembling the right people. At first, David was intimidated by the non-legal aspects of starting a business, such as setting up payroll and office infrastructure, but found that hiring skilled professionals made the process manageable. The most critical factor for success is selecting lawyers who are not only talented, but work well together. Before starting a new firm, founders should carefully disengage from their current firm. They need to walk a tightrope in how they communicate their departure to their current firm’s management, colleagues, and clients. Boutique litigation firms now attract high quality associates because they offer young lawyers more trial experience and closer client relationships. Many clients also appreciate the hands-on approach of a smaller firm without the bureaucracy of a large organization. David’s firm prioritizes trial work, handling high-stakes disputes, particularly in finance. He has found that, while it involves risk, the rewards of independence and creativity in a start-up firm are significant. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 20

In the final episode in this series recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Richard Ma, Founder of the Dahui law firm; Xiao Liu, Quinn Emanuel’s Chair of China Practice and Chief Representative of the Beijing Office; and Yixuan Zhu, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Beijing office. They discuss building their respective firms, establishing their firms’ cultures, global expansion strategies, and challenges in cross-border legal practice. Dahui was established to better serve clients, particularly in fast-evolving new economy industries like technology, media, telecommunications, and healthcare. Dahui adopted a boutique approach—being the best at what it did and providing full-service legal support to its clients. Expanding carefully, the firm analyzes whether expanding into a new city will assist its clients and whether it can attract top tier local talent. The Chinese legal market is also trending towards firms expanding into “second-tier” Chinese cities such as Wuhan, Nanjing, and Chongqing where an increasing number of disputes arise. Quinn Emanuel’s global expansion has been largely talent-driven and opportunistic, seeking exceptional lawyers to open offices rather than following a predetermined plan. In addition, the globalization of business has led to a globalization of disputes with proceedings in multiple jurisdictions and key witnesses living around the world. Firms with talented lawyers throughout the world are simply better suited to effectively represent clients in such cases. Both firms work to maintain firm cultures that emphasizes competitiveness and client service. Quinn Emanuel has a tradition of sending firm wide "victory emails" to celebrate case wins and instill a results-driven mindset. Dahui values commitment to precision and professionalism, ensuring high standards in legal work. On the evolving Chinese legal market, Dahui bridges the gap between international clients and China’s regulatory landscape, correcting misconceptions and ensuring successful investments and dispute resolutions. As Chinese companies continue to expand globally, demand for international dispute resolution will likely rise. Legal complexities stemming from U.S.-China tensions will also likely provide opportunities for experienced litigators to navigate shifting regulatory and geopolitical landscapes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 13

In the second of a series of podcasts recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by three in-house lawyers from major Chinese and multinational corporations: Victor Shen, Chief Legal Officer of Henkel China; Liu Zhen, Vice President Legal Department of Xiaomi; and Li Hua, senior legal counsel of a Fortune 500 energy company. They discuss intellectual property, regulatory and compliance issues in China as well as the evolving legal market. Non-practicing entities (NPEs) or “patent trolls”, which do not share the interests that patent owners and implementors have in maintaining a sustainable IP ecosystem, are a problem in China just as they are in the West. Building a strong legal strategy for IP involves maintaining inter-disciplinary teams that combine legal talent with key scientists within the company. IP disputes increasingly involve proceedings in both the U.S. and Europe. Antitrust issues do not arise in IP cases nearly as much in China as they do in the U.S. Regulatory compliance issues, especially regarding U.S. export controls, sanctions, and data security laws, are very hot topics in China. Foreign investment restrictions and lengthy review processes in multiple jurisdictions have forced companies to abandon deals. In-house lawyers need to be mentally agile and proactive. Effective legal teams must also develop strong internal compliance frameworks and maintain close relationships with regulators. Western law firms have withdrawn from China because of reduced foreign investment, the increasing capabilities of Chinese firms, and the need to retain local Chinese lawyers to represent clients in court or before regulatory agencies. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 6

In the first of a series of podcasts recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Professor Gao Xiqing, the former Vice Chairman, President and Chief Investment Officer of the China Investment Corporation, the largest Chinese Sovereign Wealth. They discuss Prof. Gao’s extraordinary career from his early days building a railroad in rural China during the Cultural Revolution to earning his JD at Duke and becoming one of the first Chinese lawyers to pass the New York bar and work at a major Wall Street firm. Prof. Gao’s work on Wall Street led to him explaining, as a third year associate, the causes of the Black Friday stock market crash to Chinese business and government leaders. Later he was called back to China to design its first stock exchange and the Chinese regulator equivalent to the SEC. They also discuss Prof. Gao’s role in running the China Investment Corporation (CIC), one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds. CIC invests only in private businesses outside of China, purchases less than a 10% stake in those companies, and splits its investments roughly evenly between publicly traded companies and private equity. Finally, they discuss Prof. Gao’s perspective on Sino-American relations. He believes that, viewed in perspective, the two countries have grown much closer since the days of the Cold War and that common cultural values, such as the drive to work hard and achieve, will lead to closer relations in the future. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 30

John is joined by renowned criminal defense lawyer attorney Ben Brafman, Founder of Brafman & Associates. They discuss Ben’s 45-year career, trial strategies, and reflections on the criminal justice system. Ben, who has tried more than 75 cases, gained prominence in the 1980s and 90s when he defended major criminal trials, particularly organized crime and white-collar cases. He was in trial almost continuously for 11 years. He attributes his success to meticulous preparation and emphasizes that there are no shortcuts in trial practice. Ben describes the evolution of criminal trials over the last 40 years, noting that trials are shorter and less frequent today due to an increase in plea deals. John and Ben also discuss trial strategies. Many cases are won on cross. A successful cross requires deep knowledge of every piece of evidence in the case. He describes one case in which he essentially memorized months of taped conversations to dismantle a key witness’s credibility. Ben often uses cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses to establish parts of the defense and contradict the testimony of other witnesses. Most cases today are won or lost on emails or texts because they are so prevalent and an incriminating email or text by a defendant cannot be discredited on cross-examination. Ben also reflects on some of his most notable cases, including the acquittal of Sean "Diddy" Combs on gun and bribery charges in 2001 and the acquittal of nightclub mogul Peter Gation after an eight-week racketeering trial. Criminal defense often takes an emotional toll on the criminal defense lawyer, who is witness to the devastating impact criminal prosecutions have on families and personal reputations. Finally, John and Ben discuss criminal justice reform. Ben criticizes mandatory sentencing minimums laws and advocates for judicial discretion to prevent unjustly harsh sentences. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 23

John is joined by Michael Ng, partner at Kobre & Kim. They discuss the $604 million verdict Michael recently won in a trade secrets case in Alameda County Superior Court in California. The punitive damages phase of the trial is expected to take place in the Spring. The case centered on allegations that Phillips 66 misappropriated Propel Fuels’ trade secrets while conducting due diligence for a potential acquisition that ultimately did not proceed. Michael explains that Propel Fuels, a pioneer in renewable fuels, accused Phillips 66 of using proprietary data, including financial models, market research, and operational strategies, to replicate Propel’s business. Despite Phillips 66's claims that it had no need for Propel’s information, Michael and his team demonstrated that the trade secrets were not only accessed but directly used to launch Phillips 66’s renewable fuels business. The evidence Michael’s team presented included internal Phillips 66 documents and testimony that showed the rapid deployment of Phillips 66’s business mirroring Propel’s proprietary model. Michael reviews the strategic decisions he made that led to the verdict, including choosing to proceed in state court rather than federal court, providing a detailed pretrial trade secrets disclosure, selecting jurors with technical expertise, and proactively calling a key defense witness during Propel’s case-in-chief. He also describes how the trial team effectively explained the complex market and regulatory dynamics of renewable fuels through their clients’ testimony and expert witnesses. John and Michael also discuss Propel’s damages case, which was based on an unjust enrichment theory that emphasized the head start Phillips 66 gained by leveraging Propel’s trade secrets. Michael describes internal Phillips 66 communications stating that Propel’s information gave Phillips 66 a ten year head start on entering the renewable fuels market. Finally, John and Michael also discuss broader trends in trade secrets litigation, including the growing importance of trade secret law in emerging technologies like AI and machine learning, where trade secrets often offer more protection than patents. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 16

John is joined by Catrin Griffiths and Christian Smith, the Editor-in-Chief and Litigation Editor of The Lawyer. They discuss legal journalism in the UK. John, Catrin and Christian agree that UK legal reporting is more analytical and critical of law firm strategies than U.S. legal journalism. They attribute this to the UK’s centralized legal market in London and a British journalistic culture that favors accountability and critical analysis. They explain that The Lawyer, originally a print magazine, has evolved into a digital platform combining news, data, and insight, providing in-depth analysis of law firms' performance and strategy. The publication operates like a financial news outlet dedicated to the legal sector, reflecting the industry’s significant contribution to the UK economy. It covers everything from major legal trends to firm strategies and even lighter, cultural stories within firms. They also discuss the growing dominance of U.S. law firms in London, noting that American firms often outpace UK firms, perhaps due to longer working hours and more streamlined management. Catrin explains that UK firms historically thrived with strong infrastructure and global networks, though they now face challenges adapting to market changes. They also address cultural differences, such as the early retirement age at UK firms, contrasting with U.S. firms where partners often work well into their 70s. Catrin and Christian also explain the importance of maintaining authenticity when law firms engage with journalists. They advise against corporate jargon and encourage honest dialogue. Finally, they discuss how stories about small quirky aspects of a firm’s culture can often reflect broader trends and resonate with readers. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 9

John is joined by Jacob Buchdahl, partner at Susman Godfrey. They discuss the landmark $1.6 billion judgment Jacob recently won in New York state court on behalf of BML Properties against China Construction America, Inc. (CCA). The case concerned allegations of fraud and breach of contract over the failed development of the Baha Mar Resort, a luxury property in the Bahamas. Jacob explains that BML Properties envisioned the Baha Mar Resort as a competitor to the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas. Following the 2007 financial crisis, BML secured funding from a Chinese policy bank, which required hiring CCA as the contractor as part of China’s Belt and Road initiative. CCA, a subsidiary of the state-owned China State Construction Engineering Corporation, also became an investor in the project. The relationship soured as construction delays mounted, culminating in late 2014 when CCA promised that the resort would open in March 2015. Relying on these assurances, BML incurred significant expenses to prepare for the opening. However, internal CCA documents obtained during discovery showed that CCA knew it could not meet the deadline and withheld this information. Worse, the documents suggested CCA intentionally delayed completion to maintain leverage over BML, leading to a liquidity crisis, bankruptcy, and the loss of BML’s $800 million investment. Jacob explains his legal strategy, including narrowing the case to focus on fraudulent acts at the critical late stages of the project and contractual breaches that were clearly distinguishable from the fraud allegations. He explains that the trial featured crucial evidence from internal communications and expert testimony on damages and financial mismanagement. He also explains that the judgment is nearly twice BML’s damages because of New York’s high pre-trial interest rates. Despite CCA’s appeal and potential bankruptcy, Jacob remains optimistic about enforcing the judgment and securing justice for his client. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 19, 2024

John is joined by one of the most famous litigators in the world, David Boies, Chairman and Founding Partner of Boies Schiller Flexner. They discuss David’s career, unique aspects of trial work, and the challenges of transitioning leadership in law firms. David describes his early years at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, where he became a partner in 1972, and his founding of Boies Schiller in 1997. He candidly discusses the aging process, especially the balance that exists between somewhat diminishing memory and the ever-improving judgment that comes with experience. Despite plans to step down as Chairman of his firm at the end of the year, David remains engaged in high-stakes litigation, particularly cases which may improve society, such as marriage equality and sex trafficking litigation. John and David also discuss trial advocacy. David believes that trials are both morality plays and peculiar searches for truth, shaped by a unique decision-making process that excludes jurors with specialized knowledge and forbids them from seeking knowledge in the ways they are accustomed to. They also discuss the unique pressures on courtroom lawyers, including the need to say everything right in real time, having a professional constantly trying to make you look bad, a jury that studies everything you say or do, and clients watching whose fortune or liberty depends on your performance. John and David also discuss the business of law, critiquing the hourly billing model and reflecting on the challenges of aligning client and firm interests in alternative fee arrangements. They agree that legal practice, while demanding, remains intellectually and personally rewarding. David also offers his thoughts on his late friend and sometimes adversary Ted Olson, whose integrity, warmth, and professionalism left a lasting impact. Finally, John and David discuss the possibility of a follow-up to David’s book Courting Justice , which chronicled significant cases from his career in light of the major cases he has had in the years since the book was published. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 11, 2024

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and Head of the firm’s Sovereign Litigation Practice; Alex Loomis, senior associate in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston office; and John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss sovereign debt litigation, particularly the challenges of enforcing judgments against sovereign entities, and the team’s recent success executing on over $310 million in assets to enforce in judgments against Argentina. Dennis describes his decades-long history of enforcing judgments against Argentina, starting with a case for Elliott Management in 2002, where strategies like freezing Argentina out of capital markets and exposing corruption were key to recovery. The team’s recent case focused on the collateral for Argentina's “Brady” bonds, instruments from the 1990s designed to make sovereign debt more tradable. The enforcement litigation was not over the collateral itself, but on Argentina’s "reversionary interest" in the collateral. Alex explains how the team discovered and leveraged admissions from Argentina's SEC filings to identify attachable assets, including Argentina’s reversionary interest in zero-coupon bonds held in New York and Germany. The legal arguments involved nuanced interpretations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, including whether the reversionary interest qualified as commercial property subject to attachment and whether its situs (location) was in New York or Germany. John Bash describes the appellate process, in which the Second Circuit upheld the attachment, agreeing that Argentina’s reversionary interest was a commercial asset located in New York. The discussion highlights the intellectual rigor required in such cases, involving intricate property law and sovereign immunity issues. The podcast concludes with reflections on Argentina’s expected attempt to obtain review by the U.S. Supreme Court and the professional satisfaction the team derived from winning such a unique and challenging case. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 5, 2024

John is joined by Robert Giuffra, Co-Chair of Sullivan & Cromwell. They discuss key challenges and strategies in the law firm industry. Robert highlights the evolving dynamics of law firms, noting that while traditional litigation practices are shrinking at some major firms, Sullivan & Cromwell has maintained and grown its litigation practice. This balanced approach has helped ensure consistent profits, even during economic downturns like 2008, by leveraging the firm’s strengths in financial, regulatory, and litigation work. They also discuss the complexities of managing equity partnerships and maintaining profitability amid changes in client-law firm relationships structures and the consolidation in the client marketplace. It is important to adapt to new market demands, such as expanding tech-related work and diversifying international outreach to include regions like Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East. John and Robert emphasize that it is also necessary to maintain a consistent firm culture that delivers high-quality legal services, noting that clients value creativity, cohesion, and competence. Robert shares anecdotes of being called in to resolve issues mishandled by other firms, attributing Sullivan & Cromwell’s success to the exceptional quality of its attorneys. They also discuss recruitment strategies, emphasizing the importance of attracting top talent and mentoring that talent as it develops, as well as carefully evaluating potential lateral hires to ensure they fit within the firm’s culture. The discussion concludes with reflections on leadership and the critical role of teamwork in professional services organizations. Robert references Harvard professor Jay Lorsch’s book Aligning the Stars and discusses its insights to managing talented individuals with strong egos. Ultimately, both John and Robert agree that a firm’s reputation rests on the quality of its people and their ability to consistently deliver superior results for clients. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 28, 2024

John is joined by Bill Price, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Steig Olson, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the landmark $110 million jury verdict, trebled to $330 million under antitrust law, Bill and Steig recently won in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The award will be increased to compensate for the costs and attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiff. The dispute arose when Commercial Metals, a Texas-based competitor of Pacific Steel, purchased and shut down California’s only rebar mill, creating a regional monopoly in the rebar market—a critical component in construction. Pacific Steel planned to disrupt this monopoly by building a state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly steel mill using advanced Italian technology. However, Commercial Metals allegedly pressured the Italian supplier to block plaintiff Pacific Steel from accessing the necessary technology by creating a 500-mile radius “exclusivity” zone for the Italian technology around the steel mill they bought and shut down. Victory at trial hinged on simplifying a complex antitrust narrative into a clear, compelling story. Bill and Steig narrowed their case by focusing on the core issues, cutting extraneous expert testimony to streamline the presentation. They used an adverse witness, the former CEO of Commercial Metals, to expose the company's internal communications, which highlighted its intent to maintain market dominance by obstructing Pacific Steel's plans. Bill’s cross-examinations proved pivotal in exposing contradictions and discrediting the defendants’ narrative. The defendants primarily argued that the relevant market extended beyond California and that their exclusivity agreements were standard competitive practices. However, the jury found these defenses unconvincing, especially in light of evidence of deliberate efforts to suppress local competition and inflate prices. They also discuss the skillful collaboration between Steig, a rising young trial attorney, and Bill, a seasoned litigator renowned for his many trial victories. This case underscores the importance of strategic focus, persuasive storytelling, and adaptability in high-stakes litigation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 21, 2024

John Quinn is joined by Essam Al Tamimi, Founder and Chairman of Al Tamimi & Company, the leading law firm in the UAE and the broader Middle East and Africa region. Founded in 1989 in Sharjah, UAE, the firm has grown to encompass 17 offices across 10 countries with 420 lawyers, dominating the legal landscape in the UAE. Mr. Al Tamimi explains his firm's origins and his vision of creating a leading regional law firm, inspired by international models like Clifford Chance and Kim & Chang. John and Mr. Tamimi discuss the UAE's legal evolution, starting from scratch with the UAE’s independence in 1971 to its current sophisticated blend of common and civil law. This transformation is supported by specialized jurisdictions like the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which offer international standards in arbitration and legal proceedings. Mr. Al Tamimi notes how these developments have fostered competition and elevated local legal standards. He also describes the UAE's rapid economic and social development, emphasizing its visionary leadership, diversification, and commitment to tolerance and innovation. He explains how the UAE has addressed negative stereotypes about its business environment, emphasizing the UAE’s stringent new money-laundering regulations and its open approach to foreign investment. The nation’s inclusive ethos, welcoming diverse expatriates and fostering collaboration, has been key to its success. Looking ahead, Mr. Al Tamimi underscores the importance of focusing on future-facing sectors like AI, renewable energy, healthcare, and education. He believes these fields will drive growth and advises young lawyers to align with emerging global trends. Mr. Al Tamimi's passion for mentorship and his disciplined lifestyle reflect his commitment to sustaining the firm's legacy in the UAE’s evolving legal and economic landscape. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 15, 2024

John is joined by Darius J. Khambata, SC, a barrister in the Mumbai office of One Essex Court. They discuss the civil justice system in India, including the absence of a standing requirement to bring public interest litigation, the burden on the judiciary of handling millions of cases, and the emphasis on oral argument rather than written submissions. They also discuss how, for many cases, the decision on interim relief is effectively determinative, how arbitration is becoming increasingly prevalent, and the prospect that technology and a new influx of highly skilled young lawyers may dramatically improve the efficiency of the Indian civil justice system. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 7, 2024

One of the most difficult tasks facing our legal system is determining the compensation to provide individual victims of many of the large-scale tragic events that our country has faced in recent years. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by attorney Kenneth (Ken) Feinberg, a mediator extraordinaire who has settled some of the most high-profile mass tort and disaster disputes the US legal system has ever seen as well as managing the claims administration programs for terrible events that did not result in litigation. He has managed the victim compensation funds in high-profile tragedies including the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP oil spill fund, and the victim assistance funds established in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook shooting. Mr. Feinberg also resolved victim compensation issues in the General Motors ignition switch cases, the VW diesel emissions cases, the Boeing 737 MAX crash cases, the Eli Little DES cases, the Shoreham Nuclear Plant cases, Agent Orange, asbestos, among many others. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 31, 2024

John Quinn is joined by Karl Hennessee, Senior Vice President and Head of Litigation, Investigations, and Regulatory Affairs at Airbus. Karl supervises Airbus’s criminal investigations, regulatory cases, product liability cases, and commercial arbitration disputes, covering incidents as significant as air crashes, as well as other disputes. He discusses the importance of maintaining a "hundred-year view" of issues that includes overseeing issues that arose 50 years in the past while preparing for regulatory challenges 50 years in the future. His team includes specialists in AI, aircraft certification, and arbitration, all of whom share a "democracy of ideas" approach to developing case strategies. Karl identifies three core principles that guide Airbus's dispute management: viewing disputes as tools for managing risk rather than ends in themselves; "strategic empathy" — understanding opposing interests and perspectives to improve outcomes; and humility in handling high-stakes, high-profile cases. In house lawyers need to earn trust by translating legal issues into actionable insights for business leaders, often by first understanding the technical aspects of Airbus’s products. Public relations play a critical role in managing disputes, especially for a company under constant public scrutiny. There must be close collaboration with communications teams to present balanced narratives and build public trust even in adverse situations. John and Karl also discusses emerging areas of concern such as ESG regulations and the recent breakdown of international norms of comity and deference to foreign judicial decisions, especially with respect to the effect of international sanctions. Karl has extensive experience in international arbitration and is the former Chairman of the Governing Body of the ICC Court of International Arbitration. He offers his insights about potential improvements in arbitration, particularly requiring shorter case timelines, having early case assessments to weed out hopeless frivolous cases and other suggestions summarized in a recent paper published by the London Court of International Arbitration. Finally, he shares advice on work-life balance, emphasizing the importance of dedicating time to personal interests and preserving a sense of fulfillment in both professional and personal life. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 24, 2024

Guests : Luke Nikas, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and Quinn Emanuel associates Sara Clark, Jennifer Stern, and Stephanie Kelemen John is joined by four members of the trial team that obtained a dismissal of all charges in the recent New Mexico manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin was charged by the State of New Mexico with involuntary manslaughter following the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film Rust when a prop gun Mr. Baldwin was holding accidentally discharged. They discuss the events of the tragic accident and the initial investigation by the District Attorney’s office, which did not suggest any intent to charge Mr. Baldwin with a crime until about ten minutes before the press release announcing the manslaughter charges. They also discuss the resignation and replacement of the first Special Prosecutor, the FBI’s destruction of the gun while testing it and the prosecution’s subsequent dismissal of charges without prejudice, only to suddenly refile the charges later. Luke describes the team’s pretrial motions to dismiss based upon the destruction of the gun, the withholding of evidence from the defense, and improper conduct by the prosecution before the grand jury. On the question of why there was live ammunition on a movie set, a critical breakthrough came during trial when witnesses testified that a former law enforcement officer had informed the prosecution that he had stored live ammunition for the film’s prop supplier. The testimony revealed that these live rounds were potentially mixed in with dummy rounds used to train actors on other movie sets, offering a plausible alternative explanation for the live bullets found on the Rust set. The prosecution withheld this information from the defense before trial even though it cast doubt on the prosecution’s theory that the film’s young armorer was responsible for introducing live rounds to the set. The judge, after learning that the concealed bullets matched the type used in the fatal shooting, ruled that the prosecution had failed to disclose critical evidence and dismissed the charges mid-trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 17, 2024

John is joined by Philippe Pinsolle, Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Geneva office, and Simon Vorburger, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Zurich office. They discuss the €14 billion international arbitration award, one of the largest arbitration awards ever, that Philippe and Simon obtained for Quinn Emanuel client, Uniper, a German gas supplier, against Gazprom Export, a Russian gas company. The case began in mid-2022 when Gazprom unexpectedly halted gas supplies to Uniper, which severely impacted the German energy market, as Gazprom had been supplying 40% of Germany's gas. Uniper then had to purchase gas at prices as high as ten times the previous price to fulfill its obligations, leading the company to the verge of bankruptcy. Gazprom's justification for stopping the gas was based on force majeure, claiming that unforeseen events, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine and damage to the Nord Stream pipeline, made it impossible for Gazprom to deliver the gas. These justifications lacked credibility because, for among other reasons, some of the claimed force majeure events occurred after Gazprom stopped delivering the gas. Philippe explains that the arbitration process moved quickly with the arbitration beginning in November 2022. The arbitration hearings were held in The Hague, but Gazprom did not participate directly, opting to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction from a Russian court. Despite Gazprom's absence, the team had to rigorously prove up their case, because default judgments are not permitted in international arbitration. This made the Uniper claimant’s burden more challenging in some ways in that without an opponent making specific claims, the Quinn Emanuel team had to convince the arbitrators that there were no plausible defenses to Uniper’s claims, and despite every force majeure event, Gazprom had asserted, it still could have fulfilled the contract at issue. Another key legal challenge was Uniper’s "take-or-pay" contracts, which required Uniper to pay for gas whether it was delivered or not. The team convinced the tribunal to allow Uniper to terminate these contracts. Philippe addresses the challenge of staying focused on the contractual claim at issue despite the broader geopolitical context of the arbitration, including the 2022 European energy crisis and Russia's role in manipulating gas supplies to Europe. The podcast concludes with a discussion about the German government’s bailout of Uniper and that the proceeds of the arbitration will benefit the German state. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 10, 2024

John Quinn is joined by Alex Spiro, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York and Miami offices and one of the best-known trial lawyers in the U.S. Alex explains that his approach to trial preparation is to immerse himself into the evidence as trial approaches. He reads every relevant document to understand even tangential details, rather than just looking for "hot docs." This deep dive helps him construct a narrative that, if all goes well, leads the jury to a collective “Eureka” moment, where the verdict becomes clear. Alex also explains that he does not rely on mock juries and external validation because his themes must resonate with his own beliefs to be compelling. Instead, he prefers to bounce ideas off colleagues who may suggest course corrections. Alex says that understanding human psychology is crucial because the motivations behind actions often matter more than the actions themselves. The discussion turns to how Alex balances the demands of multiple cases while remaining completely focused on the next upcoming trial. He credits his ability to compartmentalize and work long hours, as well as strong support from trial teams. He also explains to clients from the outset that during their “moment of truth,” he will prioritize their case entirely, but before then, he might be prioritizing the impending trials of other clients. The discussion then turns to criminal justice reform, a subject Alex is passionate about. He describes the criminal justice system as structurally biased, especially against marginalized communities. He identifies the most urgent priorities for reform as bail reform, sentencing disparities, and changing the current system's backward-looking nature, which he believes perpetuates outdated and discriminatory standards. When asked about AI’s role in sentencing, Alex expresses concerns that AI could reinforce existing biases by relying on historical data, potentially leading to harsher outcomes, particularly for first-time offenders. Finally, John and Alex discuss that it has become harder for lawyers to represent controversial clients but emphasize the importance of doing so. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 3, 2024

John is joined by Mark J. Sundahl, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University College of Law and the Director of the Global Space Law Center. They discuss the evolving law governing activities in outer space. Prof. Sundahl explains that space law originated from concerns during the Cold War when Sputnik, the first Soviet satellite, flew over the U.S., raising fears that nations could potentially place nuclear weapons in space, hovering over and ready to drop on other nations. This led to the creation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, establishing fundamental principles such as "free use of outer space," the prohibition of nuclear weapons and claims of sovereignty on celestial bodies, and the ability of private companies to operate in space under the authorization and supervision of their countries’ governments. Prof. Sundahl also explains the international treaties on the rescue of astronauts, liability for space activities and for registration of objects sent to space. They then discuss how liability for damages caused by space objects is becoming increasingly pressing due to the rapidly increasing congestion of satellites and the aging of equipment that has been in orbit for decades. One example Prof. Sundahl discusses is a recent case where a falling piece of an American company’s capsule being operated by NASA damaged a house in Florida. He explains that, normally, international treaties impose strict liability on states for surface damage, but incidents within a country are governed by domestic law. He also explains that for damages that occur in orbit, liability issues become complex due to the lack of established norms. Prof. Sundahl then observes that although the United States heavily regulates private companies’ activities in space, new challenges have arisen, such as resource extraction on celestial bodies. He explains that although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over the Moon, the U.S. allows companies to own resources extracted from the Moon, a stance that is not universally accepted. Professor Sundahl also describes the legal uncertainty surrounding suborbital and orbital space tourism. He explains that currently, suborbital flights require minimal safety disclosures, and orbital tourism lacks regulation entirely, raising concerns as private companies expand their operations. Finally, Prof. Sundahl explains the growing threat of militarization in space and that, with countries developing military capabilities and the U.S. establishing a Space Force, there is a real risk of conflicts extending beyond Earth. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 26, 2024

John is joined by Patrick D. Curran, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston and New York offices. They discuss the emerging issues regarding artificial intelligence currently before the courts, legislatures and government regulators and that, while many critical questions are pending before courts and regulators, clear answers are still few and far between. First, they discuss how despite the billions of dollars being invested in developing large language AI models, patent law often does not protect those investments because patents generally do not cover general ideas, mathematical concepts, or algorithms. They also discuss the question of whether an AI generated invention may be cited as prior art that would invalidate a human-generated invention. Patrick then explains that companies are increasingly relying on trade secret protections to safeguard their AI innovations, even though this approach comes with challenges. Patrick further explains that trade secret protection may extend indefinitely, unlike patents which expire after a defined term, but notes the difficulty inherent in detecting when competitors might be using proprietary models, making trade secrets harder to enforce. They also discuss AI's role in invention, noting that while AI may create invent things, such as new molecules, if there is no human involvement in the process, the discovery cannot be patented. They then examine the legal challenges regarding the use of copyrighted material in training AI models, including whether using copyrighted material for AI training constitutes fair use, the degree to which companies can limit data scraping through their terms of service, and the role that technical safeguards against scraping might play in future disputes. They also discuss recent defamation claims based upon AI generated content and the difficulties of proving intent when human input to the content is minimal. The discussion then turns to recent regulatory developments, including recent legislation in US cities such as cities like New York City and Portland, Oregon, states including Colorado and California and international efforts like the European AI Act and the “Brusselization” of GDPR requirements. Patrick describes the industry's divided stance on regulation, with some companies calling for stricter oversight while others fearing that regulation will stifle innovation. Finally, both John and Patrick agree that as courts and regulators tackle these complex issues, the legal landscape surrounding AI will continue to evolve rapidly. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 19, 2024

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by a professor of Ethics and Finance at NYU’s Stern School of Business and a director of the Center for Business and Human Rights, Michael Posner. He is also joined by Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Head of Quinn Emanuel’s ESG practice and experienced litigator of business and human rights issues. Together, they discuss what we really understand the term “human rights” to mean for business and the current challenges regarding human rights implementation across the business world. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 12, 2024

John is joined by Richard East, founder and senior partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office. They discuss the key differences between litigating in the US and the UK, including the pre-action protocols that are mandatory in the UK before initiating a lawsuit, the UK presumption that the loser will pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees, and the differences between the broad discovery procedures in the US and the more narrow disclosure rules in the UK. They also discuss the inability to prepare witnesses before testifying in the UK, the division of UK bar into solicitors and barristers, and the restrictions on public access to court records in the UK. Finally, they discuss the comparative rarity of jury trials in civil cases in the UK and the differences in the types of interim relief available in the UK, including powerful asset freezing injunctions which are recognized by jurisdictions around the world. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 5, 2024

John is joined by Zina Bash and Ashley Keller, both Partners at Keller Postman, LLC which, with the Texas Attorney General, represented the State of Texas in an enforcement action against Meta Platforms for violations of Texas's biometric privacy law. They discuss the landmark $1.4 billion settlement they obtained from Meta for capturing and using biometric identifiers like face geometry without consent, the largest settlement ever by a single state. They explain how Texas’s biometric privacy law differs from the better-known Illinois biometric privacy act because in Texas, there is no private right of action; only the state attorney general can bring lawsuits. Ashley explains that the claims against Meta concerned capturing biometric identifiers, such as the face geometry, of millions of Texas residents without informed consent, disclosing this data without permission, and failing to delete it after use. Among other defenses, Meta argued that because Facebook is a free service, it did not collect this information for commercial purposes. The State argued that Meta’s actions were clearly tied to its business model. Meta also argued that it should not be penalized for scanning the faces of non-Facebook users because Meta could not obtain informed consent from non-users. The court rejected this argument, ruling that this was still a violation of the Texas law. They then discuss how the settlement followed a fast-track 18-month litigation process, a stark contrast to a similar Illinois case against Meta, which lasted five and a half years. Zina attributed the speed of this case to the aggressive approach of the Texas attorney general's office, which had been investigating Meta for over a year before the suit was filed. She explains that a major turning point was the Texas court’s decision requiring Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to sit for deposition. Zina explains that Meta faced potentially ruinous damages of $25,000 per photograph that appeared on Facebook or Instagram. The discussion then turns to broader privacy concerns. Ashley and John note that Americans' attitudes towards privacy seems to have evolved, particularly regarding the intrusive data collection practices of tech giants like Meta. In the past, people might be willing to trade personal data for free services like social media, but more recently people are increasingly wary of how their information is being used without consent, especially as companies like Meta monetize that data. Finally, they note that most users don't fully read or understand the terms of consent they agree to in user agreements, raising questions about how genuinely informed their consent truly is. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 29, 2024

John is joined by Jon Ballis, the Chairman of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, one of the world’s leading law firms with approximately 3,500 attorneys around the world. Jon describes his path to leadership at the firm, from joining Kirkland in 2005 from another firm as an M&A lawyer without aspirations for management, to his election to the Management Committee and his elevation to Chairman in January 2020. Jon explains Kirkland’s governance, emphasizing the firm’s flat organizational structure and the absence of many formal titles which he believes encourages organic leadership development. He also explains Kirkland’s unique Nominating Committee system, which seeks to avoid entrenchment and favoritism by allowing members to serve on the Nominating Committee only once in their careers. They also discuss Kirkland’s strategic focus, particularly its approach to talent management and strategy. Jon says that the firm’s strategy is client-driven, evolving organically based on where its clients are heading, rather than adhering to a rigid, top-down plan and how this client-focused approach has led to Kirkland expanding its private equity practice to include areas like energy, infrastructure, and private equity credit. Jon then explains Kirkland’s approach to compensation and lateral hiring, dismissing the idea that Kirkland "buys business" through offering high compensation for laterals based on their “book of business.” He says that the firm focuses on hiring talent to meet growing client demand. He says that Kirkland’s litigation business grossed almost $2 billion last year and operates at close to the same margins as its transactional business. Jon then discusses the merit-based compensation system at Kirkland, which is subjective and not formulaic. Every two years, the firm conducts a review and assigns each partner a set number of points that determine that partner’s compensation for the next two years. Jon explains Kirkland has two classes of nonequity or income partners, one class that are on track to either become equity partners or move on and a second class of permanent income partners. Finally, John and Jon discuss the challenges of maintaining leadership in the legal industry, including the importance of continuous improvement, innovation, and a willingness to take risks to maintain excellence. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 22, 2024

John is joined by three of Quinn Emanuel’s newest partners, K. McKenzie Anderson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office; Jodie Cheng, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco office; and Ryan Rakower, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the very different paths they took to becoming partners at the firm. Ryan grew up and went to law school in New York City where, after clerking for a judge, he joined Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. His practice centers on civil commercial disputes representing private investment firms and insurance companies and he has spent his entire career at the firm. McKenzie grew up in Oklahoma, the latest in a long line of lawyers in her family, swearing that she would never become a lawyer. She worked in Moscow, Russia, for several years before eventually going to law school and starting her legal career at Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. She became a prosecutor with the U.S. DOJ for several years before returning to Quinn Emanuel where she practices in white collar criminal defense work and investigations as well as regulatory matters while working remotely from her home in Oklahoma. Finally, Jodie grew up in San Francisco in a family of engineers and became intrigued with intellectual property litigation. She spent the first four to five years of her legal career at one of the largest law firms in the world then pivoted to become a solo practitioner for four years before joining Quinn Emanuel where she does intellectual property litigation in the semiconductor and chip design, AI and machine learning, and medical device industries. They also discuss their motivations to be the best at what they do and the importance to them of working in a collaborative environment. Finally, they discuss the inherent anxieties of life as an associate and offer their suggestions to younger lawyers on how to succeed despite those anxieties. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 15, 2024

John is joined by the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Lucien Wong, SC. Attorney-General Wong explains that under Singapore’s constitution, his office is an independent organ of the state which does not answer to either the cabinet or the legislature. His office includes four divisions: the criminal division which conducts all prosecutions in Singapore, the civil division which advises government ministries and agencies as well as representing the government in civil court cases and arbitrations, the legislative drafting division which drafts all legislation in Singapore, and the international affairs division which protects Singapore's interests on the international legal stage. Attorney-General Wong also explains that he is the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission which employs all lawyers working in his office and is independent from the Public Service Commission, which employs all other civil servants in Singapore. They discuss the case where, less than a month after he became Attorney-General, Malaysia brought an action against Singapore in the International Court of Justice to reclaim an island off the coast of Singapore, requiring Attorney-General Wong to become an international lawyer overnight. Finally, they discuss Singapore’s use of caning as a criminal punishment, including how the practice originated in India’s penal code which Singapore inherited upon achieving independence, its value as a deterrent, and that Singapore’s reputation as a clean, efficient, civil society might be attributable in part to the deterrent effects of its criminal punishments. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 8, 2024

John is joined by Michael A. (Mike) Brown, partner at Nelson Mullins and founder of the firm’s Baltimore office. Together, John and Mike discuss the process of successfully selecting a jury, including the importance of getting the jury to open up about their biases by disclosing some of your background or opinions and encouraging those jurors who voice biases against your client to speak freely. In addition, they discuss some of their favorite questions to ask to elicit biases from jurors who are reluctant to disclose them. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 31, 2024

John is joined by two experts in international arbitration, Philippe Pinsolle, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Geneva office and Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe, and Stephen Jagusch KC, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office and Global Chair of the firm’s International Arbitration Practice. Together, they discuss the specialized field of international arbitration, including factors to consider when opting for arbitration, strategies for crafting arbitration provisions, how to select the best arbitrators, challenges to final judgments, and issues regarding the subsequent enforcement of awards. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 25, 2024

John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and John Bash, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin Office, the two Co-Chairs of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss several far-reaching decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its most recent term that significantly affect how the federal government will be able to regulate businesses. First, John Bash explains the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , in which the Court over-turned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous statutes adopted by the administrative agencies that implement those statutes. He also explains the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors , in which the Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for a plaintiff to challenge federal regulations runs from when the regulation first affects the plaintiff, not from when the regulation is promulgated. They then discuss how Corner Post and Loper Bright together will potentially allow businesses to overturn agency interpretations of statutes that were established decades ago. Chris explains the decision in SEC v. Jarkesy that when an agency brings a case that would typically require a jury at common law, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a federal court rather than a trial before one of the agency’s administrative law judges. Chris also explains the Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P ., which held that a bankruptcy court may not grant a release of claims against non-parties to a bankruptcy unless the alleged victims consent to the release, and how the decision will affect large bankruptcy proceedings going forward. They then discuss Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, in which the Court expressed skepticism about state laws in Texas and Florida that prohibited social media companies from engaging in certain forms of content moderation, but remanded the case for further proceedings. Finally, they discuss Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners , in which the Court ruled that “pure omissions” are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b-5 and a Rule 10b-5 claim must always be based on a statement that is either false or misleading on its own or rendered misleading by a material omission. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 19, 2024

John is joined by Renny Hwang, Deputy General Counsel and Head of Litigation at OpenAI and former Head of Litigation at Google. They discuss the legal issues surrounding AI technology. Renny explains that he believes that existing law is well equipped to deal with copyright, fair use and product liability issues raised by AI, but the challenge the industry faces is that most people do not understand how AI works. He also explains that he believes other legal issues, such as corporate transparency and governance, might require new regulations. John and Renny discuss the likely impact of patent and trade secret law on the AI industry in light of the industry’s tendency to publish significant research and findings. They also discuss the effect of the absence of comprehensive federal AI regulation, including the difficulty companies have in to implementing different compliance regimes for different jurisdictions and the possibility that the European AI Act will become the de facto default standard for AI regulation globally. Finally, Renny explains that OpenAI is a mission-driven company focused on building safe and beneficial AI and that commitment is reflected in OpenAI’s Board-level Safety Committee. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 11, 2024

John is joined by Brad Karp, Chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Brad explains how he led Paul Weiss to diversify its business beginning in the financial crisis of 2008, when its core business of litigation was still highly profitable, to become a global leader in private equity transactions, mergers and acquisitions and financial restructuring as well. He describes how he approached leading lawyers in these fields and convinced them to join the firm by emphasizing the firm’s profitability, reputation, culture, and client base and how each individual would fit into the firm’s existing business. Brad also explains the firm’s dramatic expansion in London in the summer of 2023 and why he does not foresee further significant international expansion in the future. John and Brad then discuss the recent trends in large law firms towards recruiting highly paid superstar lawyers and the growth of salaried or nonequity partners. They also discuss the major trends they expect to see in the future, including the increasing use of AI within the legal industry, the dramatic rise of litigation and regulatory investigations over the use of AI and the influence of climate change on every area of law practice. Finally, Brad describes his firm’s longtime commitment to actively taking on social justice and pro bono representations and the challenges of handling these engagements in today’s increasingly politicized environment. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 28, 2024

John is joined by Marc E. Kasowitz, Founder and Managing Partner of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP. They discuss the increasing mobility of law firm partners, the rise of superstar lawyers with multi-year mega compensation deals and the growing number of salaried partners in large law firms and how those trends have changed compensation strategies and firm dynamics. The discussion then shifts to the cases Marc’s firm has brought on behalf of Jewish students and an organization of Jewish students against NYU, Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania for failing to protect Jewish students from the recent upsurge in anti-Semitic activity on those campuses. Marc explains the legal basis of the lawsuits in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the allegations that the universities have been deliberately indifferent to anti-Semitic conduct and attacks, and that the remedies sought are injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Marc also explains his view that the universities’ behavior stems from a shared woke ideology that the world is divided into oppressors and oppressed and all actions, including violence, taken by the oppressed is allegedly justified. Finally, they discuss how the responses of many universities to these protests have resulted in silencing legitimate speech and the cancellation of many graduations. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 20, 2024

John is joined by Jeffrey Toobin, celebrated author and legal analyst, who reflects on his extensive career in law and legal journalism. First, Jeffrey describes his legal background, including his clerkship on the Second Circuit which led to his years working for the Independent Counsel investigating the Iran Contra scandal (which led to his first book, Opening Arguments) and his years as an Assistant US Attorney. He also describes his years writing for the New Yorker and covering the OJ Simpson trial which led to his second book, The Run of His Life. Jeffrey then explains the writing process that has allowed him to complete nine books so far, including his strategy of writing about topics that have not been covered extensively by other authors, his absolute commitment to write 1,250 words per day for the project he is working on, and his habit of beginning to write each chapter in the middle and only writing the opening of the chapter later. John and Jeffrey then discuss why books on trials are so popular, including how trials are “perfect dramatic stages” and good trial lawyers are experts in both emphasizing the dramatic elements in stories and making issues interesting and meaningful to non-lawyers. Finally, John and Jeffrey discuss their favorite books about trial lawyers and personal insights into the most unforgettable lawyers Jeffrey has met including Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 12, 2024

John is joined by Kathleen M. Sullivan, senior counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Founding Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice, and Derek L. Shaffer, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, DC office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice. Together, they discuss what appellate lawyers do: how they reverse bad trial outcomes, preserve good trial outcomes and help trial teams to make sure the trial record includes everything necessary for a successful appeal. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 3, 2024

John is joined by Kevin Teruya, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition Practice and Adam Wolfson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco and Los Angeles offices who specializes in antitrust law. They discuss the recent antitrust case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. Kevin and Adam explain how Live Nation provides nationwide concert promotion services while its subsidiary Ticketmaster sells concert tickets on both the primary and on the secondary markets and secures multi-year exclusive arrangements with a large percentage of the concert venues in the U.S. They also explain the companies’ history with the DOJ, including the consent decree entered into in 2010, the conditions and independent monitor imposed in that decree, and the decree’s extension for five more years in 2020. They then discuss the DOJ’s newly filed case alleging that the companies failed to comply with the decree and also created anti-competitive effects in the market resulting in higher fees for consumers. The DOJ alleges that the companies monopolized: (1) the market for primary ticketing services, (2) the market for large amphitheaters, and (3) the concert promotion business. The DOJ also alleges that the companies engaged in “exclusive dealing” arrangements through long term exclusive contracts with venues, and illegally tied concert promotion services to the use of venues with exclusive contracts with the companies. Kevin and Adam also explain the defenses Ticketmaster/Live Nation are likely to assert including that the concert promotion business is local, so market power in one location does not flow to others, that venues ask for exclusive arrangements, and that there is sufficient competition whenever these exclusive deals come up for renewal. They also discuss the likely testimony from industry competitors, venue operators and any performing artists who are willing to risk their income by challenging Ticketmaster/Live Nation. Finally, they discuss the pending consumer class action case against Ticketmaster/Live Nation that the firm filed before the new DOJ case and the likelihood that the DOJ case will trigger additional piggyback private antitrust cases against the companies. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 29, 2024

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782) , the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 22, 2024

John is joined by Kimberly Carson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office. They discuss the FTC’s recent rule banning contractual noncompete provisions in employment agreements nationwide. Kimberly explains that the new rule bans employers from enforcing existing noncompete provisions, entering new noncompete provisions, and representing that workers are subject to noncompete provisions. She also explains the exceptions to the new rule for existing noncompete provisions with senior executives who have final authority to make significant policy decisions, non-competes connected to the bona fide sale of a business, claims that have already accrued, and good faith mistakes about the applicability of the new rule. John and Kimberly also discuss the lawsuits that have been filed challenging the FTC’s new rule contending that the ban exceeds the FTC’s statutory authority, is impermissibly retroactive, and is supported by limited evidence and a flawed cost/benefit analysis. The court hearing these challenges has indicated it intends to rule on a preliminary injunction motion on July 3, 2024, before the rule would go into effect on September 3, 2024. Finally, they discuss some other avenues, other than non-competes, that companies have to protect their goodwill, trade secrets and investments including trade secret litigation, fixed duration contracts, provisions requiring employees to repay bonuses if they leave a company within a certain time, and “garden leave” provisions under which employees stay on the company payroll and are still subject to contractual and fiduciary duties for a time period after they are fired or resign. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 15, 2024

John is joined by Michael K. Young, Professor of Law and Former President of Texas A&M University, the University of Washington and the University of Utah. They discuss Michael’s career in higher education, starting with his years at Columbia Law School, including the two and a half years that he was a visiting Professor at the University of Tokyo, his establishment of the East Asian Legal Studies Center at Columbia and continuing through his service at the State Department where he negotiated treaties involving trade, international environmental law, human rights, and the terms under which Germany was unified. They then discuss Michael’s tenure as Dean of George Washington Law School and the University of Utah and, later, President of the University of Utah, the University of Washington, and Texas A&M University. Michael describes his current role at a research center that is preparing the entire educational system, from primary school through university, for the futuristic megacity project in Saudi Arabia called NEOM. Michael explains how his training as a lawyer helped him perform in these leadership positions by always maintaining his focus on the ends he is trying to achieve, the purpose of the institution and seeing both sides of each issue. Michael also explains several leadership lessons he has learned including that leaders need to genuinely listen and convey that they have listened, keep everyone focused on the institution’s mission, spread credit generously and take blame when thing go wrong. Finally, John and Michael discuss the current controversies over free speech at American campuses. Michael shares his approach to handling volatile situations with controversial speakers. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 8, 2024

John is joined by Christine Lehman, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and an accomplished trial attorney focusing on patent litigation. They discuss the $525 million verdict Christine and her team recently won against Amazon Web Services (AWS) for infringing tech company Kove’s patent rights in data-storage technology. Christine describes how she presented to the jury the journey of the inventor, John Overton, from his troubled youth in Kentucky, to majoring in religion in college, to developing a method to efficiently organize and index all the photographs he took on a yearlong bicycle trip across the country. He and co-inventor Stephen Bailey ultimately implemented this method in a way that allowed users to search millions of data items quickly and formed the basis for Kove’s patented technology. Christine also describes the extensive pretrial proceedings that occurred over the six years that the lawsuit against AWS was pending. John and Christine then discuss the ten-day trial itself, including the defendant’s last-minute decision to abandon its invalidity defense, the judge’s procedure for allowing jurors to submit questions to each witness, and how those questions informed her team about how well the jury understood the technical issues in the case. Finally, they discuss the different approaches taken by the two sides in presenting their experts and how Christine presented her client’s damages case leading to the $525 million verdict. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 2, 2024

John is joined by C. Dabney O'Riordan, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles and DC offices and longest-serving leader of the SEC's Asset Management Unit, who left the agency last year. They discuss the actions an asset manager can take if it identifies a potential issue to minimize its risk of an SEC investigation or enforcement action. Among the actions they discuss for consideration include stopping the conduct and implementing remedial measures such as updating internal policies and procedures, providing additional training to staff, considering hiring a compliance consultant, and making remedial payments if appropriate. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 24, 2024

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice. Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others. He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements). They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements. Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private. He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory. Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 18, 2024

John is joined by Dr. Hamed Merah, Chief Executive Officer of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) and Nasser Alrubayyi, Managing Partner (KSA), Co-Chair Middle East & North Africa Practice . They discuss commercial arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the recent impact of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration. Dr. Hamed explains SCCA’s mission to establish a world class center with full case management services where foreign parties will feel comfortable submitting their disputes to a diverse roster of accomplished, impartial independent arbitrators. Although almost half of the SCCA’s caseload is construction related, it also adjudicates cases involving banking, capital markets, intellectual property, media, and the pharmaceutical industry. They discuss how legislation in the last five years has removed restrictions on Saudi governmental entities submitting disputes to arbitration to the point that arbitration with the SCCA is now the default option in contracts between governmental entities and foreign parties. Nasser explains that parties are increasingly moving from ad hoc stand-alone arbitration procedures to institutional arbitration through the SCCA because the SCCA is the quicker and more cost efficient option. Dr Hamed also describes a recent study concluding that more than 90% of the SCCA’s awards have been upheld when challenged in annulment proceedings. Finally, they discuss how arbitration with the SCCA is becoming more popular in technical cases, IP cases and construction disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 10, 2024

John is joined by Professor Song Sang-Hyun, retired Professor of Law at Seoul National University and former President of the International Criminal Court. Professor Song explains the origins of the Korean civil justice system which is based upon the German system by way of Japan. He discusses how after World War II, American Army officers drafted many of Korea’s statutes and, in the past two decades, American law in fields such as corporate law, shipping and aviation law, antitrust law, securities regulations, intellectual property, and class action lawsuits have increasingly influenced Korean law. They then discuss Korean pretrial practice which does not involve voluminous document discovery or any depositions and often involves the trial judge also acting as a mediator. Professor Song explains some of the unique aspects of Korean trial practice including Korea’s recent adoption of juries that render advisory decisions on disputed facts and that cases average less than a year from filing through trial. They also discuss that the loser must pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees, although, in practice, courts tend to award less than all the fees incurred. Finally, they discuss some of the emerging issues in Korean law including labor, environmental and privacy law as well as the protection of personal information. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 3, 2024

John is joined by Eytan Liraz, the Principal of Eytan Liraz & Co. Law Offices, one of the foremost business litigation firms in Israel. Eytan explains some of the unique aspects of business litigation in Israel, including that Israel has more lawyers per capita than any other country on earth, that aggressive litigation is a common and accepted business strategy, and that Israel has far more class action lawsuits than other countries, including lawsuits where the complaints are literally copies of class action complaints that have been filed in the U.S. He also explains the three phases that each lawsuit goes through: (1) the initial phase in which the claimant files a statement of claim raising its main arguments and elements of proof and the defendant files a statement of defense containing its arguments and proof, (2) the pretrial phase in which limited discovery and any preliminary motions take place and all evidence and expert opinions are filed with the court, and (3) the interrogation phase in which the parties are allowed to conduct cross-examinations of the adversary’s witnesses. Cases are usually decided within one year and four months of the first filing. Finally, they discuss the impact the events of October 7 have had on litigation in Israel including the number of lawyers who are not available due to military service, the entire court system shutting down for two months and the general effect, now dissipating, of people being unusually reluctant to litigate. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 27, 2024

John is joined by Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, one of the foremost companies in the world specializing in software platforms for big data analytics. They discuss the emerging trends in AI regulation. Courtney explains the AI Act recently passed by the EU Parliament, including the four levels of risk it assesses for different AI systems and the different regulatory obligations imposed on each risk level, how the Act treats general purpose AI systems and how the final Act evolved in response to lobbying by emerging European companies in the AI space. They discuss whether the EU AI Act will become the global standard international companies default to because the European market is too large to abandon. Courtney also explains recent federal regulatory developments in the U.S. including the framework for AI put out by the National Institute of Science and Technology, the AI Bill of Rights announced by the White House which calls for voluntary compliance to certain principles by industry and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which requires each department of the federal government to develop its own plan for the use and deployment of AI. They also discuss the wide range of state level AI legislative initiatives and the leading role California has played in this process. Finally, they discuss the upcoming issues legislatures will need to address including translating principles like accountability, fairness and transparency into concrete best practices, instituting testing, evaluation and validation methodologies to ensure that AI systems are doing what they're supposed to do in a reliable and trustworthy way, and addressing concerns around maintaining AI systems over time as the data used by the system continuously evolves over time until it no longer accurately represents the world that it was originally designed to represent. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 20, 2024

John is joined by Christopher Bogart, CEO, Director and Co-Founder of Burford Capital, the largest litigation funding firm in the world. They discuss the use of AI and data science in litigation funding decisions. Chris explains that while AI is currently not advanced enough to make decisions on whether to fund a case, advances in data science now allow litigation funders to improve their decisions by examining enormous amounts of public data to find meaningful facts such as accurate damage ranges that are often buried deep in individual case dockets. Chris also identifies the key data points used to evaluate whether to fund a case, including the legal theory of the case, the counsel representing the parties, the judge or arbitrator presiding over the case, and the likely time to reach an outcome. Finally, John and Chris also discuss other ways that AI is impacting the legal profession including the use of AI to provide real time assistance in cross examination, the use of AI by courts in Singapore and Connecticut to adjudicate low value routine matters and traffic violations, and how AI has enabled smaller firms to expand into areas of litigation they previously could not handle such as large antitrust cases by automating the review and processing of millions of pages of documents. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 13, 2024

John is joined by Bethany W. Kristovich, Partner and Co-Chair of the Professional Liability Defense Group at Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP. They discuss some of the unique aspects of legal malpractice cases, including how often they arise from collection cases, how a plaintiff must prove not only malpractice but that without the malpractice, the case would have had a different result, the importance of expert testimony in malpractice cases, and the difficulty of mastering damages theories from both the underlying case and the malpractice action. Bethany explains some of the worst things that can happen in a malpractice case, including the lawyer criticizing the former client so much it provokes a backlash by the jury, internal emails in which lawyers on the same team criticize each other’s work, and lawyers who appear arrogant because they don’t know their own rates. Finally, Bethany explains several ways lawyers can protect themselves from malpractice claims, including making sure the client is worthy of the firm before taking their case, getting a retainer and staying current on billing and collections, creating short agendas for telephone conversations to document the topics being discussed, and including the client in all decisions about the case. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 6, 2024

John is joined by Júlio César Bueno, Partner and Head of Litigation at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, one of the most highly regarded law firms in Brazil. Júlio explains some of the unique characteristics of the Brazilian civil justice system, including the ability of lawyers to have ex parte communications with the judge and the severe limits on pretrial discovery. They discuss the burdens imposed by Brazil’s enormous docket (over 83 million pending cases) on the system, including the lengthy delays, the extremely short time allocated for oral argument or witness examination and the resulting importance of winning cases through written submissions. They also discuss how these burdens have led to an increase in arbitration, particularly in infrastructure and merger and acquisition disputes, as well as the increasing digitalization of the entire court system. Finally, Júlio explains that disputes over mergers and acquisitions, corporate shareholder disputes and environmental litigation are the most rapidly growing areas in Brazilian civil disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 28, 2024

Guests : Robert Zink, former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Steve Madison, former federal prosecutor and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. John, Robert, and Steve follow up on their August 2023 podcast about the four pending criminal actions against former President Donald Trump. They discuss how events might play out if , as seems likely, Trump is convicted in one or more of the cases. They discuss the current timeline of each case and which will likely go to trial before the November election. They also discuss the consequences of possible convictions in each case, including the range of potential sentences, the procedures involved in sentencing, and the likelihood that he would remain free on bond. They also discuss the impact any potential convictions would have on his ability to remain on the ballot, possible challenges to enforcing any sentences should he win the election, and the possibility of obtaining pardons, whether by himself or President Biden for the potential federal convictions or by the Governors of New York or Georgia in the state cases. They also discuss a potential Constitutional crisis if he were to refuse to report to prison and potential solutions such as a special sentencing to home detention or delayed prison time until after presidential term. . Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 21, 2024

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City, New York and London Offices, Head of the firm’s Sovereign Litigation practice and Co-Head of the firm’s Global Asset Recovery Practice. They discuss various kinds of litigation, arbitration and collection actions against sovereign states. They discuss collection cases against sovereign states resulting from those states’ default on debt instruments, the challenges faced by creditors who hold out after most creditors agree to a debt restructuring arrangement with the sovereign, recent proposed legislation any other government actionsfavoring sovereigns, the current sovereign debt crisis, and concerns about opportunistic funds who seek profit by collecting on devalued sovereign debt. They also discuss investor state arbitration generally, for example, after a company has invested in a project in a country and the country fundamentally changes the terms under which the investment was made, such as radically raising taxes as Spain did with respect to renewable energy projects after 2008. They discuss the position taken by the EU that EU courts cannot enforce arbitration awards against EU nations even when the nation entered voluntarily into an arbitration treaty and recent indications that the United States government supports the position of the EU. Finally, they discuss litigation against sovereigns unrelated to sovereign debt, such as litigation against state sponsors of terrorism including the lawsuit Quinn Emanuel recently filed against Iran on behalf of victims of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 15, 2024

John is joined by David A. Nelson, a partner in the Chicago office of Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the firm’s National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. David is widely recognized as one of the most successful patent trial lawyers in the United States. They discuss how trying patent cases is different than trying other commercial cases. They also discuss how to win patent cases at trial including the importance of developing common sense explanations for technical arguments, developing a consistent narrative from the beginning, and using fact witnesses to bring life to your technical arguments. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 7, 2024

John is joined by Jim Wilkinson, Executive Chairman of TrailRunner International and Former White House Director of Communications. They discuss the art of preparing witnesses to testify before congressional committees which is very different than testifying in court. This includes the importance of researching the members of Congress who will question the witness, knowing the discussions occurring in online forums each member frequents, and the four to six categories of questions they are likely to ask. Using specific examples, they also discuss the importance of knowing and using “megatrends” in public opinion, the advantages of having a few key metaphors or “haymakers,” and the importance of preparing three or four “pivot points” to turn the force of an aggressive question away from the witness. Finally, they discuss the role counsel can play in preparing the witness including researching evidence that makes the witness’s points, helping the witness to make their key arguments cogently, and providing confidence that their testimony will not create any legal jeopardy. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 31, 2024

John is joined by Major Ben Wahlhaus who serves in the International Law Department of the Israel Defense Forces. They discuss the application of the international law of armed conflict to the current operations in the Gaza Strip, including the sources of that law and the role that the International Law Department of the IDF plays in trying to assure compliance. They also discuss the three cardinal principles of targeting: distinction (which prohibits intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects), precautions (which requires taking all feasible measures to mitigate civilian harm), and proportionality (which for each individual attack requires balancing the anticipated military advantage against the expected civilian harm) and the rules, procedures, and policies the IDF has in place to follow these principles in every attack. They also discuss the distinction between war crimes and crimes against humanity and apply both legal standards to the actions of Hamas and the IDF after October 7. They discuss Major Wahlhaus’ day to day activities as a lawyer adviser to the IDF. Finally, they discuss the action South Africa brought before the World Court alleging that Israel is currently engaged in war crimes as well as genocide, including the Major’s role as part of Israel’s defense team and the evidence presented concerning Israel’s efforts to mitigate civilian harm. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 23, 2024

John is joined by Hisaya Kimura, Senior Counsel in the Tokyo office of Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. They discuss aspects of the Japanese legal system, including Japan’s historical adoption of the German civil procedure system and subsequent incorporation of elements, such as cross-examination, of the American system. They also discuss how Japanese litigants typically exchange multiple detailed briefs covering both factual and legal issues in detail for years before trial followed by trials that last less than a day with only one witness testifying for each side. They also discuss key differences between Japanese and American litigation, including the absence of discovery, juries, and punitive damages in Japan as well as the application of the beyond reasonable doubt standard in civil litigation. Finally, they discuss recent changes to the legal profession in Japan, including the expansion of Japanese law firms beyond litigation to include advice on regulatory, M&A and competition issues, the expansion of leading Japanese firms into international markets and the impact foreign firms have had by opening Japanese offices. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 18, 2024

John is joined by Temi Omilabu, an associate in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss her remarkable journey from her childhood in Lagos, Nigeria, to becoming a trial lawyer at Quinn Emanuel, including the adjustments she had to make moving from Lagos to first Florida then Texas, her years at Case Western University where she earned her Master’s degree in Bioethics and her work after graduating for two global health-focused nonprofits. They also discuss her love of advocacy and storytelling that led her to law school, her internship in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and her post-law school fellowship in the General Counsel’s Office at Yale. Finally, they discuss how Temi’s interest in litigation lead her to Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, where she immediately started working on depositions and on multi-district litigation and went to trial in a pro bono case within her first year with the firm. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 11, 2024

John is joined by Emmanuel Givanakis, the CEO of Abu Dhabi Global Markets Financial Services Authority (ADGM). They discuss the growth of the ADGM as a leading international financial center based on its unique structure as an independent free zone within Abu Dhabi in which English common law directly applies and judges from the UK and other common law countries hear cases in an independent common law court. They discuss the role the ADGM plays in diversifying Abu Dhabi’s economy away from the oil and gas industry, the importance of providing legal certainty to attract investors, and how the ADGM chose aspects of corporate, insolvency and financial services legislation from the UK, Australia and international financial regulatory groups to craft its own financial legislation that reflected international “best practices” that would be familiar to investors from any continent. They also discuss how the ADGM has implemented legislation regarding FinTech, digital assets and carbon markets and how AI can promote regulatory compliance. Finally, they discuss challenges the ADGM may face in the future including the possibility of a global recession, geopolitical issues in the region, as well as the importance of allowing capital to move freely into and out of the region. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 4, 2024

John is joined by Leslie Zhang Weihua, Vice President and General Counsel of United Energy Group, China, one of the largest independent oil and gas companies in the world. They discuss Leslie’s extensive experience in international legal affairs, including his experience as general counsel for both large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies in China. They discuss the differences between providing legal services for SOEs and private companies, including the additional procedures SOEs must follow in making business decisions, the strategic issues in addition to return on investment that SOEs must consider and how rate sensitive SOE’s procurement procedures are and how that applies to hiring counsel. They also discuss the expectations that Chinese clients have with respect to counsel finding creative solutions to regulatory issues, the rates paid for unsuccessful legal projects, and responsiveness in providing legal analysis. They also compare Chinese and Western law firms with respect to training, expertise, and specialization while noting the ongoing expansion of Chinese firms into international work and the Chinese government’s policy of encouraging the continued development of international arbitration centers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Finally, they discuss the role lawyers can play in improving relations between the United States and China including the importance of recognizing the risks and costs of decoupling. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 22, 2023

John is joined by Sean Grimsley, Partner at Olson, Grimsley, Kawanabe, Hinchcliff & Murray LLC, one of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in the case in which the Colorado Supreme Court made the historic ruling that former President Donald Trump is not eligible to be elected President in 2024. They discuss how Sean became involved in the case which his firm filed the day after it first opened its doors, how the case progressed rapidly as a special expedited state court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, and the bench trial that concluded less than two and a half months after the case was filed. They also discuss the fact witness who testified about the events of January 6, 2021 and the battle of historical legal experts on the original meaning of Section Three of the 14th Amendment which provides that no person may hold federal office if they previously took an oath of loyalty to the United States and later engaged in insurrection against it. They also discuss the defenses asserted that the Colorado Election Code did not apply, that the Presidency is not an “office” within the meaning of the 14thAmendment, that this was a political question under federal constitutional law, that the only actions complained of consisted of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the events of January 6 did not amount to an insurrection. Finally, they discuss the expedited appeal of the trial court’s decision before the Colorado Supreme Court, the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the case and the status of similar 14th amendment suits in other states Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 19, 2023

John is joined by Michael Nosanchuk, an associate in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss Michael’s unique journey from studying screenwriting, to driving a taxi in New York City, to his time in sustainable farming to ultimately becoming a successful lawyer working in the premier art disputes practice in the world. They also discuss how these experiences prepared him for his career in law, including how driving a cab taught him cultural fluency, farming taught him patience and perseverance, and screenwriting taught him the importance of carefully crafting an emotionally moving story and telling the story in limited time. Finally, they discuss what led him to join Quinn Emanuel, including its heterogeneous collection of driven people and Michael’s observations of how art disputes differ from other kinds of litigation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 13, 2023

John is joined by Yixuan Zhu, an Associate in Quinn Emanuel’s Beijing office with a unique expertise in both Chinese and American law. They discuss Yixuan's background studying law and passing the bar in both China and the U.S., including her experience conducting high stakes investigations in China for multinational companies involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-bribery laws, her decision to join Quinn Emanuel’s Shanghai office, and her studies at both Harvard and the University of Indiana. They also discuss Yixuan's experience in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office including representing KKR in a trial over an important real estate transaction and her role in expedited multi-billion dollar litigation in Delaware Chancery Court in the first busted deal case of the Covid era, including her cross-examination of the other side’s expert at trial. Finally, they discuss her experience helping Quinn Emanuel open both its Shanghai and Beijing offices, her status as probably the only Chinese lawyer to have cross-examined a witness in a Delaware Chancery Court trial, and her suggestions to leaders in both countries on how to better understand the other. After this podcast was recorded (but not because of it!), Yixuan was elected to partnership in the firm Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 5, 2023

John is joined by Eric F. Grossman, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of Morgan Stanley. They discuss the current legal issues facing General Counsel at major international institutions including how generative AI and machine learning will impact legal services and how companies interact with their clients; when companies should speak out on social issues; and the current regulatory push regarding financial disclosures, antitrust concerns and climate related issues. They also discuss ESG efforts including the impact of such efforts on employee morale, the capital commitments necessary to transition to sustainability and the importance of accuracy in disclosing ESG commitments. They also discuss cryptocurrencies, including building the infrastructure and trading and the relatively slow adoption of blockchain. Finally, they discuss areas of increasing legal risk, including risks facing businesses built on business models that assumed low interest rates and the opportunities for distressed asset investors and bankruptcy practitioners. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 29, 2023

John is joined by Tom Montagu-Smith, KC, with 3 Verulam Buildings. They discuss practicing in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court, including the rationale for creating the unusual DIFC court system where the United Arab Emirates allow foreign lawyers and judges to decide disputes on its sovereign territory, Tom’s experience writing the rules for the Court which are modeled on the rules for the English Commercial Court, and the very recent growth of similar financial free zones and court systems in other jurisdictions. They also discuss the backgrounds of the judges, the Court’s jurisdictional rules and the mix of cases that are generally brought before the Court. Finally, they discuss some of the interesting issues that have recently arisen in the DIFC Court including whether to allow malicious prosecution actions, the extent to which principles like Sovereign Immunity and the Act of State Doctrine will apply in the DIFC, where to draw jurisdictional lines between the DIFC Court and local courts, and the possible extension of the jurisdiction of the DIFC Court to other economic free zones in the UAE Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 15, 2023

John is joined by Cyril Shroff, Managing Partner of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, India's largest full-service law firm. They discuss the unique characteristics of the Indian judicial system, including the broad jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the overwhelming backlog of cases, the need to improve the infrastructure of the judiciary, and the importance for litigants to obtain interim relief. They also discuss the increasing role arbitration plays in resolving significant business disputes, particularly arbitration in Singapore, London and the UAE. Finally, they discuss the key growth areas for business litigation in India, including environmental litigation, data disputes, including generative AI and privacy cases, and corporate governance disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 8, 2023

John is joined by Richard East, Founder and Senior Partner in Quinn Emanuel's London office. They discuss Richard’s extensive experience litigating in the Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) court, including Richard’s experience winning the only case that has gone all the way from beginning through trial and judgment in the ADGM. They discuss the ADGM Court’s unique features as a common law English court within the Abu Dhabi court system, the broad jurisdiction rules, which allow companies present in the ADGM to sue and be sued by foreign defendants, and the extremely modern digitized court facilities that allow parties to present their case efficiently through electronic transmissions. They also discuss the NMC Healthcare case, where Quinn Emanuel’s actions in the ADGM Court played a crucial role in protecting the company from creditor claims and facilitating a restructuring that allowed the company to emerge and trade as a solvent group. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 1, 2023

John is joined by Luke Nikas, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and Co-Chair of the firm's Art Litigation and Disputes Practice. They discuss the intersection between art, the law and art disputes more generally. The also discuss the Knoedler Art Gallery case, where Luke represented the President of the Gallery, and the legal and factual issues that surround authenticity disputes. They also discuss the relationship between collectors, dealers, gallerists and art advisors. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 25, 2023

John is joined by James Bremen, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office and Chair of the firm’s Construction and Engineering Practice. They discuss the complexities of construction litigation and arbitration, including the difficulty of litigating hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged breaches or deviations from the original contract, the ripple effect one change can have on a project’s schedule, and the issues a party must consider when deciding whether to terminate a contract. They also discuss the multiple parties and jurisdictions that may be involved in a dispute, the wide variety of experts who often testify, and the importance of selecting attorneys, mediators, arbitrators, and, when possible, judges who are familiar with this practice area, including the language and the specialized contracts involved. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 18, 2023

John is joined by Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer, Director and Co-Founder of Burford Capital and Derek T. Ho, Partner at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. They discuss how Derek obtained a $16 billion judgment, the largest ever in the United States that has not been overturned on appeal, against Argentina on a claim for breach of contract. They also discuss the role Burford played in financing the litigation. In the 1990s, when Argentina wanted to privatize its nationally owned oil company YPF, it faced investor skepticism due to its troubled history of nationalizing private companies. To address those concerns, it structured the YPF offering to include a right of shareholders to have their shares repurchased by Argentina at an agreed upon price if Argentina ever retook control of YPF. In 2012, Argentina retook control of YPF, but refused to repurchase the remaining public shares at the agreed upon price. John, Christopher and Derek discuss the role Burford played from the outset of the case, Argentina’s assertion of foreign sovereign immunity, and Argentina’s other defenses. They also discuss the summary judgment process and ruling, the three day bench trial composed entirely of expert witnesses, and the status of post-trial motions and appeal. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 11, 2023

John is joined by Richard V. Sandler, partner at Maron & Sandler and author of Witness to a Prosecution: The Myth of Michael Milken. Richard is the personal attorney and life-long friend of Michael Milken. He represented Michael in the 1986 federal investigation and prosecution off Drexel Burnham Lambert, and its High Yield and Convertible Bond Department, a department Michael created and was head of. Michael was the most successful and innovative financier of his time and Drexel, an upstart investment bank, was the most successful securities firm on Wall Street, thanks to Michael. Led by Drexel, the high yield bond market grew rapidly from the end of the 1970’s from $70 billion to over $2.2 trillion dollars in 2022. John and Richard discuss the highlights of what happened in the case, the tactical decisions and key turning points, and the lessons to be drawn from this historic prosecution. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 5, 2023

John is joined by Christopher A. Seeger, founding partner of Seeger Weiss, LLP, one of the preeminent mass tort class action lawyers in the United States. They discuss some of the major class action cases Chris has handled including the NFL concussions case, the Volkswagen clean diesel case, the 3M combat earplugs case, the CPAP machines case against Phillips, as well as the opioid cases. They also discuss Chris’s background, including how he started his career as a corporate transactional lawyer and transitioned to litigation and plaintiffs’ work, made a name for himself to the point where he was invited to join plaintiffs’ Steering Committees, and established good relationships with a wide network of firms. Finally, they discuss how young lawyers can get noticed, how to settle difficult cases, and the role of bellwether trials. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 27, 2023

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Norman (Norm) E. Siegel, partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City, Missouri. He is the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the $450 million settlement of a data breach class action against T-Mobile. They discuss how data breach litigation has evolved in the past 10 years. They discuss recent California legislation establishing statutory damages for data breaches in general, as well as for breaches involving medical information. They discuss legislation in other states, as well as the prospects for federal legislation establishing uniform national standards regarding data security similar to the standards in Europe under the GDPR. Finally, they discuss damages theories and how they have evolved in the past five years. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 20, 2023

John is joined by Dan Brockett, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and Chair of the firm’s Financial Institution Litigation practice. They discuss how Dan and his team recently recovered over $581 million from JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, UBS, and Credit Suisse, as well as significant injunctive relief, in one of the largest antitrust class action settlements in history. They discuss how these large banks act as brokers profiting with little to no risk in $1.7 trillion stock loan market and how they allegedly agreed to boycott new technologies, particularly new electronic platforms, which posed a threat to the banks’ lucrative position. They also discuss how the case developed as a result of years of research by a Quinn Emanuel team at the firm’s expense, the five and a half year history of the litigation, and how a settlement was achieved in mediation after a Magistrate Judge recommended that the class be certified. Finally, they discuss the injunctive relief reforming the market that the Quinn Emanuel team was able to obtain. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 11, 2023

John is joined by Richard East, founder and senior partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office. They discuss the key differences between litigating in the US and the UK, including the pre-action protocols that are mandatory in the UK before initiating a lawsuit, the UK presumption that the loser will pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees, and the differences between the broad discovery procedures in the US and the more narrow disclosure rules in the UK. They also discuss the inability to prepare witnesses before testifying in the UK, the division of UK bar into solicitors and barristers, and the restrictions on public access to court records in the UK. Finally, they discuss the comparative rarity of jury trials in civil cases in the UK and the differences in the types of interim relief available in the UK, including powerful asset freezing injunctions which are recognized by jurisdictions around the world. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 29, 2023

John is joined by Robert Zink, former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Steve Madison, former federal prosecutor and a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss the four pending indictments against former President Donald Trump, including, for each indictment, what the government must prove, what former President Trump's defenses likely will be, and the potential impact of the different judges’ backgrounds and jury pools in each case. They also handicap the likelihood of President Trump prevailing in each case. Finally, they also discuss the potential impact of these cases on public discourse and political life. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 21, 2023

John is joined by Francis X. Suarez, Presidential Candidate, Mayor of Miami and Of Counsel (on Leave of Absence) in Quinn Emanuel’s Miami office. They discuss Mayor Suarez’s personal experience running for President as an underdog candidate, including how he adjusts to the demands of constant travel without the advantage of private jets, what it is like to read the “opposition research” his opponent’s consultants have prepared about him, and how his years as a practicing lawyer have prepared him for this campaign. They also discuss his personal relationships with the other candidates, the current prosecutions of former President Trump, and what he has learned about the country, the process and himself as a result of this campaign. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 15, 2023

John is joined by Bill Price, the founder and co-chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's National Trial Practice Group and a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Bill could lay claim (though he never would, being very modest) to be possibly the greatest business jury trial lawyer of his generation. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and lost only two of them. Representing plaintiffs, he has won five 9-figure verdicts, as well as one ten-figure verdict. He has obtained equally remarkable results representing defendants. He is a master of all aspects of trial practice but is best known as a brilliant cross-examiner. This episode, therefore, focuses on the art of cross-examination. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 7, 2023

John is joined by Susheel Kirpalani, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and founder and Chairperson of the firm’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring Group. They discuss restructuring litigation, including fraudulent transfer litigation and valuation disputes, and how it differs from commercial litigation. They also discuss the importance of building alliances with other stakeholders in the company, how much the practice is based on relationships and trust, and the opportunities that exist to design creative securities that allow a company to survive but also allow its creditors substantial recoveries. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 31, 2023

John is joined by Pablo Arredondo, the Co-Founder & Chief Innovation Officer of Casetext CoCounsel. They discuss how Casetext’s AI tools, based on large language models such as those employed by GPT-4, can be used by litigators to quickly review enormous databases using natural language, full sentence searches and identify relevant evidence even when the words used in the evidence are completely different from the words used in the search. They also discuss how this technology can assist in deposition preparation and expert cross-examination as well as likely applications for transactional legal work. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 25, 2023

John Quinn is joined by Daniel Posner, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Asher B. Griffin, Co-Managing Partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Austin, Texas office. They discuss how Dan and Asher’s Quinn Emanuel team was brought in to retry the damages award in a race discrimination case against Tesla and reduced the $136.9 million verdict another firm gave up in the first trial to only $175,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. They discuss the unique challenges of a retrial on damages only, including how the jury in the retrial was instructed that Tesla was liable for both compensatory and punitive damages, how the judge limited the parties in the retrial to the documents and witnesses presented at the first trial and how they were still able to use the latitude allowed in cross-examination to challenge the credibility of each instance of alleged discrimination and achieve this outstanding result. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 18, 2023

John is joined by Darius J. Khambata, SC, a barrister in the Mumbai office of One Essex Court. They discuss the civil justice system in India, including the absence of a standing requirement to bring public interest litigation, the burden on the judiciary of handling millions of cases, and the emphasis on oral argument rather than written submissions. They also discuss how, for many cases, the decision on interim relief is effectively determinative, how arbitration is becoming increasingly prevalent, and the prospect that technology and a new influx of highly skilled young lawyers may dramatically improve the efficiency of the Indian civil justice system. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 11, 2023

John is joined by Dan Rabinowitz, founder and CEO of Pre/Dicta Litigation Prediction Software. They discuss how, given only a case number, Pre/Dicta uses data points, already in its database, such as the gender, location, political affiliation, ethnicity, education, and the work experience of judges, parties, and lawyers to accurately predict the outcome of motions to dismiss 85% of the time. This prediction is made without knowing the nature of the case, the claims or the legal arguments. They also discuss the potential applications of this technology to litigation, including assessing the best forum to bring claims and understanding the impact of litigation events on publicly traded companies. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 5, 2023

John is joined by Robert M. (“Bobby”) Schwartz, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Andrew Brayton, an associate in that office. They discuss how Bobby and Andrew won a settlement on behalf of the State of California against Polymer 80, the largest manufacturer and distributor of ghost guns, in which Polymer agreed to a permanent injunction barring it from selling ghost guns in California and to pay $5 million in penalties. They also discuss their legal strategies, the discovery process, and the importance of the case in terms of protecting both law enforcement officers and the public. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 28, 2023

John is joined by C. Dabney O'Riordan, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles and DC offices and longest-serving leader of the SEC's Asset Management Unit, who left the agency last year. They discuss the actions an asset manager can take if it identifies a potential issue to minimize its risk of an SEC investigation or enforcement action. Among the actions they discuss for consideration include stopping the conduct and implementing remedial measures such as updating internal policies and procedures, providing additional training to staff, considering hiring a compliance consultant, and making remedial payments if appropriate. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 21, 2023

John is joined by Chelsea Murtha, the Director of Sustainability at the American Apparel & Footwear Association; Jessica K. Ferrell, a partner at Marten Law LLP; and Joseph Paunovich, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles and Salt Lake City offices. They discuss the legal challenges surrounding PFOS chemicals, also known as forever chemicals, including the impact of federal and state regulations, the history of PFOS litigation, and the difficulties of proving harm from their use in consumer products. They also discuss the need for companies to be proactive in managing these chemicals and claims, engage with policymakers, and ensure bulletproof marketing. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 15, 2023

John is joined by Aidan O'Rourke, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London Office. John and Aidan discuss how, after a five week in London Commercial Court, Aidan won a €1.5 billion judgment against Argentina on behalf of a large group of holders of sovereign bonds. They discuss the background of the case, the trial itself and how the team adjusted to an entirely new theory of the case that Argentina advanced shortly before the trial started. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 31, 2023

John is joined by Dan Webb, the Co-Executive Chairman of Winston & Strawn, LLP and one of the most distinguished trial lawyers in the United States. John and Dan discuss how Dan recently won a $104.6 million verdict against Ford Motors in a trade secret case in Detroit. They discuss how Dan selected a jury in a city where the most of the jury pool has a direct connection to the other side and how he made complex technical issues simple for a jury through careful storytelling and visual aids. They also discuss how to stay on top of the trial lawyer game even after several decades of unparalleled success. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 24, 2023

In the last episode of the series “The Career Path of a Large Law Firm Associate,” John is joined by Jack Baumann, who was elected a partner in the firm in 2022. John and Jack discuss his progression from associate to partner. Jack takes us through his transition from his 9th Circuit clerkship to joining the firm. They discuss Jack’s initial expectations as a new associate and his many firsts, including depositions, hearings, trials and other stand up opportunities and the mentorship he received along the way. Jack offers tips for managing stress and workload. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 18, 2023

In the third installment of the series "The Career Path of a Large Firm Associate," John is joined by Mari Henderson, an associate at Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. Mari has been with the firm for eight years. She left for three years to work as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office. Mari talks about her goal, when she started with the firm, of becoming a trial lawyer and how she has achieved that goal by trying cases at the firm and in the district attorney’s office. She discusses the support she has received at the firm and the firm’s flexibility that has made it possible for her to become a trial lawyer and her goals now for the future. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 10, 2023

In the second episode of the series “The Career Path of a Large Firm Associate,” John is joined by Matt Arrow, a mid-level associate at Quinn Emanuel who joined the firm in 2021. They discuss life as a young associate, his progression into a mid-level role, and the support he received along the way. Matt discusses the impact of remote work on young associates and the adaptations he and the firm have made. Matt discusses his work experiences in just over a year at the firm, including his first deposition experiences, an upcoming arbitration, and some of the opportunities provided to him as early as day one at the firm. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 4, 2023

In the first episode of the series “The Career Path of a Large Firm Associate,” John is joined by Homin Ban, a first-year associate in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office. Together, they talk about Homin’s first sixth months at the firm. Homin shares with John his journey from law school to Quinn Emanuel, including Homin’s unique summer associate experience working remotely in South Korea as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. They then discuss Homin’s time as a first-year associate, including navigating Quinn Emanuel’s “Work From Anywhere” policy, Homin’s first interactions with clients and partners, and the different types of cases and opportunities he has had thus far. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 26, 2023

In this mini-series of one-to-one interviews, John invites associates of Quinn Emanuel at different stages of their careers to discuss their experiences, what they have learned, and their expectations for the future. Check out the trailer, and look out for upcoming episodes soon. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 19, 2023

John is joined by Alex Bäcker, the founder of Lawbotics, who was named IT Executive of the Year by the International Business Awards, and Ryan Landes, a partner at Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss generative AI and its impact on litigation. In particular, they discuss the impact generative AI will have on factual discovery, including document and deposition review and analysis, as well as legal research and writing. They also discuss current limitations of generative AI, including limitations on material available to train the AI or for the AI to reference, fictional answers AI can generate, the lack of citations, and AI’s tendency to generate the most common responses rather than the best responses. For more information on Lawbotics AI: https://www.lawbotics.ai/ visit their website! If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 11, 2023

John is joined by two experts in international arbitration, Philippe Pinsolle, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Geneva office and Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe, and Stephen Jagusch KC, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office and Global Chair of the firm’s International Arbitration Practice. Together, they discuss the specialized field of international arbitration, including factors to consider when opting for arbitration, strategies for crafting arbitration provisions, how to select the best arbitrators, challenges to final judgments, and issues regarding the subsequent enforcement of awards. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 5, 2023

In this episode, John talks with Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties Engineering at Palantir Technologies, about the challenges of regulating AI technology. They discuss the need for regulatory regimes to address the different types of AI technologies in use today including facial recognition, lending and insurance decision-making, healthcare tracking, and genetic sequencing, among other applications. They also discuss the different approaches to AI regulation in the US and the EU, and whether regulation should be all-encompassing or targeted to specific technological contexts. Finally, they discuss how businesses should proceed now before future AI regulations have taken their final form. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 29, 2023

John is joined by William A. (Bill) Burck, Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s Investigations, Government Enforcement and White Collar Criminal Defense Group. Bill is one of the leading practitioners of what might be called “DC Law.” He has been referred to by the New York Times as the “new Edward Bennett Williams” -- the man to see in D.C. Together, they discuss the unique aspects of “inside the beltway” practice including persuading prosecutors and regulators of the policy merits of your clients’ positions, representing witnesses in congressional investigations and hearings, and some of the challenges of working in a highly partisan environment. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 22, 2023

John is joined by Michael A. (Mike) Brown, partner at Nelson Mullins and founder of the firm’s Baltimore office. Together, John and Mike discuss the process of successfully selecting a jury, including the importance of getting the jury to open up about their biases by disclosing some of your background or opinions and encouraging those jurors who voice biases against your client to speak freely. In addition, they discuss some of their favorite questions to ask to elicit biases from jurors who are reluctant to disclose them. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 15, 2023

John is joined by Kathleen M. Sullivan, senior counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Founding Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice, and Derek L. Shaffer, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, DC office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice. Together, they discuss what appellate lawyers do: how they reverse bad trial outcomes, preserve good trial outcomes and help trial teams to make sure the trial record includes everything necessary for a successful appeal. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 8, 2023

Last year, John B. Quinn was joined by Christopher Tayback, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office. John served as General Counsel of the Academy for over 30 years, and both Chris and John have represented the Academy in various legal matters for decades. In this podcast, they share details of some well-known legal issues the Academy has faced, exploring the uniquely important intellectual property issues and, more generally, the fundamental problems the Academy faces since motion pictures are increasingly viewed and premiered on television as opposed to in theaters. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 28, 2023

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Michael T. Lifrak, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Ellyde R. Thompson, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Together, John, Michael and Ellyde discuss the recent class action securities suit against Elon Musk, based on his August 7th, 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private. They discuss how Michael and Ellyde’s team obtained a complete jury verdict in Mr. Musk’s favor that denied the plaintiffs any recovery for their $12 billion in alleged market losses. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 8, 2023

John is joined by David A. Nelson, a partner in the Chicago office of Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the firm’s National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. David is widely recognized as one of the most successful patent trial lawyers in the United States. They discuss how trying patent cases is different than trying other commercial cases. They also discuss how to win patent cases at trial including the importance of developing common sense explanations for technical arguments, developing a consistent narrative from the beginning, and using fact witnesses to bring life to your technical arguments. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Feb 1, 2023

John is joined by Dr. Ron A. Dolin, Lecturer at Harvard Law School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law’s Center on the Legal Profession and co-author of the textbook, Legal Informatics . Together they discuss how recent advances in technology will impact the law and the practice of law. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 25, 2023

John is joined by Michael Packard, federal prosecutor and civil litigator at the Boston office of Quinn Emanuel, and Bill Weinreb, an expert in white-collar criminal defense and complex litigation. Together, John, Bill and Michael discuss the recent acquittal Bill and Michael obtained for Jie “Jack” Zhao, the CEO of iTalk Global Communications Inc. in a high-profile “Varsity Blues” prosecution. Prosecutors claimed Zhao paid $1.5 million in bribes to obtain admission for his two sons to attend Harvard. Zhao was one of only four, out of roughly 60 defendants, who did not plead guilty and one of only two who were acquitted at trial. They explain the honest services fraud statute at issue, the preparation for trial, and the specific tactics and evidence Bill and Michael used to win the acquittal. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a rating, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 18, 2023

John is joined by Thomas Krueger, the Former Director of Strategic Trade and Nonproliferation for the National Security Council and current Senior Policy Advisor at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Together, they discuss the latest regulatory controls on hi-tech exports to both Russia and China, explaining the legal basis for these restrictions, the specific technologies involved and the efforts made to get European and Asian allies to join in these restrictions. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jan 11, 2023

John is joined by one of the most successful trial lawyers in the US, Jon Loevy, co-founder of Loevy & Loevy. Together, they discuss the $228 million jury verdict Jon won in the first trial brought for violations of Illinois’ unique Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). They explain the BIPA statute, focusing on the landmark suit Jon brought against BNSF Railway Co., including the history of the litigation, the trial itself, the course of settlement negotiations, and the implications of the case for the future of privacy litigation. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. To find out more about the podcast and sign up to our newsletter, visit: www.law-disrupted.fm Keep up to date with John on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 20, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Paul Schwartz, Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law and Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Viola Trebicka, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and the Co-Chair of the firm's Data Privacy and Security Practice, and Stephen Broome, partner in the firm’s Los Angeles and New York offices and the Co-Chair of the firm's Data Privacy and Security Practice. Together they discuss the explosion of data privacy claims on court dockets across the United States. The conversation begins with John asking what developments the panel is seeing right now with data privacy claims. Stephen highlights how more cases are being filed daily, particularly under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), as well federal and state wiretapping laws and new novel theories of recovery that were not previously plead in privacy cases. Viola then explains the two categories of claims plaintiffs have been filing recently. The first category are common law invasion of privacy claims that are now being applied to modern data privacy issues. The second category consists of claims based on repurposing statutes that did not contemplate modern data gathering over the internet. One example of these statutes is the Federal Wire Tap Act of 1968 which was intended to prohibit people from physically connecting to a landline telephone without permission. Today, on the internet, when someone goes to the website for a company, they know they are communicating with that company, but that company will often send the person’s data off to a third party which tracks ads or pages the person visits clicks on. Plaintiffs are now alleging that those third parties are eavesdroppers violating the Wire Tap Act. Another statute plaintiffs increasingly use is the Video Privacy Protection Act which was passed in the late 1980s to prevent reporters from learning what videos a person rented at a video store. Now, many websites have embedded videos. Plaintiffs are now alleging that websites that share information about what embedded videos a person has watched, they have violated the VPPA. John moves the conversation to why the US does not have comprehensive national legislation addressing data privacy. Paul explains that while Europe as well as states such as California, Nevada, and Virginia have passed statutes governing data privacy, the proposed federal statute, the American Data Privacy Protection Act (ADPPA) has not yet been brought to a vote in Congress. The discussion then turns to how plaintiffs build large damage claims. Viola explains that plaintiffs focus on unjust enrichment and restitution theories. Unjust enrichment theories are usually asserted when the case centers on advertising data. The panel then discusses how these theories when applied to classes that include tens of millions of plaintiffs can easily lead to total damages figures in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The discussion then turns to what companies can do to avoid these huge awards. Paul emphasizes that companies need to get ahead of these issues before they get sued by seeking privacy counseling, hiring Chief Privacy Officers, and mapping where their customers’ data is and what is happening to it. Finally, the group discusses two notable issues that have come up in recent FTC enforcement actions. The first is the possibility of imposing personal liability on senior executives for data privacy violations. The second is that when it settles a case, the FTC will now spell out in extreme detail what it expects of companies who have had a cybers Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 16, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael Schachter, Partner and Co-Chair of the White-Collar Defense Practice Group at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. Michael has an unparalleled record of victories in some of the most high-profile criminal trials in the United States. Describing Michael in 2022, Chambers USA stated, "The things he can do in a courtroom are magical.” Together John and Michael discuss the high-profile defense verdict Michael obtained in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of client Tom Barrack, founder of the global investment firm Colony Capital. John opens the conversation by asking Michael about the background of the charges against Mr. Barrack. Michael explains that Mr. Barrack had served as the chair of the Inauguration Committee for former President Trump. In the course of the numerous investigations of the former president’s affairs, the Inauguration Committee was examined thoroughly with no findings of wrongdoing. However, this brought Mr. Barrack under the government’s scrutiny. The charges ultimately brought against Mr. Barrack alleged that he acted as an agent of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) without notifying the Department of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 951, obstructed justice, and made false statements to federal agents when they interviewed him. Michael explains that the allegations about acting as an agent of the UAE arose from meetings Mr. Barrack had with the UAE’s National Security Advisor and the Crown Prince. Michael explains that Section 951 prosecutions are generally reserved for espionage cases, whereas lobbying cases, such as this one, are usually prosecuted under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Prosecutions under FARA require the government to prove that the defendant knew of the registration requirement for foreign lobbyists. Michael speculates that the government proceeded under Section 951 to avoid having to prove this element. The conversation then turns to the evidence presented at trial. Michael explains that the government built its case primarily on text messages and emails taken out of context, particularly a text message in which Mr. Barrack discussed a proposal that he become a special envoy to the Middle East. In that text, Mr. Barrack suggested that if he had such a role, it would benefit the UAE. Michael explains that at trial, he has able to show that Mr. Barrack affirmatively declined the special envoy role. Michael also called former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to testify about a conversation in which Mr. Barrack spoke against the actions of the UAE in a dispute it was having with Qatar. John then moves the conversation to Michael’s use of cross-examination during the prosecution’s case to establish his own themes with the jury. Michael describes how the defense team used the cross-examination of an expert called to testify that the UAE was not a good ally to the U.S. to prove that it really was. Michael also recounts how the defense used the cross-examination of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who previously headed Exxon, to show that it made good business sense for the head of a global large global business, such as Colony Capital, to meet with members of royal families in the Middle East who are often key business decision-makers. Finally, Michael and John discuss the possible impacts this case might have on government policy. Michael suggests that the case might convince the government to return to a more restrained approach to prosecutions under Section 951, confining them to espionage cases as in the past. He also suggests that the cross-examination Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 9, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Mark Lanier, Founder of the Lanier Law Firm. Mark is consistently recognized as one of America's premier civil trial lawyers. Together John and Mark discuss the $650.6m award Mark recently won on behalf of two Ohio counties in a bellwether trial against CVS, Walgreens & Walmart for their role in the opioid crisis. John and Mark begin by discussing the basis of the claims against these pharmacies. Mark explains that because opioids are controlled substances, pharmacies must ensure that a prescription is valid and proper before filling the prescription. Further, pharmacies must notice and resolve any red flags that arise in connection with a prescription before filling it. Mark provides several examples of potential red flags, including (a) several seemingly healthy people presenting prescriptions for the same dose of the same medicine written by the same doctor, (b) a prescription from a doctor located so far away that the customer had to drive by many other pharmacies that could have filled the prescription, or (c) the customer paying for other prescriptions with insurance, but paying cash for the opioids. John then turns the discussion to how Mark proved at trial that these pharmacies violated their duties on a systemic basis. They discuss the statistical evidence that Mark presented, including the methodology Mark used to sample an appropriate number of prescriptions to see how many raised red flags and how many times the pharmacies resolved those issues before filling the prescriptions. John and Mark also discuss policies that stores adopted preventing pharmacists from investigating red flags, including requirements that prescriptions be filled in 15 minutes or less. They then discuss the defenses Walmart, Walgreens & CVS presented, that they each sold only a small percentage of the opioids sold in the two counties, so their actions could have had only a minimal effect on the opioid crisis. The conversation then moves to the damages phase of the trial, including injunctive relief. Mark explains why he focused his presentation on injunctive relief, particularly the costs of the actions the counties would have to take to control the opioid crisis over the next 15 years, rather than estimating the damages incurred to date. They discuss the remediation plan Mark first presented, the defendants’ attempts to poke holes in it, and the scaled-down plan Mark ultimately presented to the court. John and Mark then discuss what the $650.6m judgment for two small counties in one state would mean when extrapolated to the country as a whole. They also discuss the current state of opioid litigation in general, including the three buckets of plaintiffs (governmental entities affected by the crisis, opt-outs and hospitals and other healthcare institutions) as well as the three buckets of defendants (manufacturers and importers of opiates, opiate distributors, and pharmacies) and where each group currently stands in terms of litigation and settlement. John then turns the discussion to the arguments the pharmacies will raise on appeal. Mark explains the pharmacies’ arguments that the case is an unwarranted extension of the law of nuisance, their arguments against the joint and several liabilities, as well as their claim that the jury was tainted by one juror’s alleged misconduct. Finally, John and Mark discuss some of Mark’s other remarkable trial wins, including the $118m he won in a case that he had earlier offered to resolve for $10,000. This leads to a discussion of how experienced and thoughtful trial lawyers avo Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Dec 1, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by John Hueston and Moez Kaba, Co-Founders and Partners at Hueston Hennigan LLP. Chambers has described John Hueston as “one of the top trial attorneys” in the United States and Moez as “a master in the courtroom.” Together they discuss an arbitration in which they obtained both a $175 million plus 5% ongoing royalty (an estimated $50 million annually) award in arbitration – one of the largest U.S. trademark awards ever – and a federal jury trial verdict for more than $271 million (a potential record for a Lanham Act case) for clients Monster Energy and Orange Bang against Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX), the maker of Bang energy drinks. The conversation begins with John Hueston explaining the background of the dispute. He discusses how for 40 years, Orange Bang had a widely known trademark for the term “Orange Bang” as a beverage. He then explains that VPX licensed the use of the term “Orange Bang” but only in connection with creatine-based beverages in the nutrition market. The discussion turns to the rise of VPX to become the third largest competitor in the energy drink market, thanks to their product, Bang Energy. The discussion then turns to the issues in play in the arbitration, including how John and Moez had to prove both the licensing agreement's validity and that the trademark had been infringed. They explain their strategy of making the three-week arbitration about the science creatine and how they used VPX’s own documents and witnesses’ depositions to work in their favor. Moez and John discuss how they proved trademark infringement using survey evidence, historical admissions, and strong equitable stories, including how VPX signed the licensing agreement knowing confusion would ensue. They explain why they decided to take a conservative approach to monetary damages rather than asking for more than $1 billion, which expert analysis could have supported. This approach resulted in an award of $175 million plus 5% royalties going forward. John then moves the discussion to the Lanham Act jury trial. Moez begins by noting the nine-month time difference between the arbitration and the federal trial and that Monster had filed its lawsuit in California in 2018 before the arbitration proceedings began. In the lawsuit, Monster alleged that VPX advertised its product as a game-changing beverage, which was "nothing short of a miracle drink that delivers benefits and cures that have evaded scientists for decades." Monster also alleged that VPX had misappropriated Monster’s trade secrets by hiring Monster employees and telling them to bring Monster’s confidential information over with them. John Hueston and Moez then explain their unique approach to mock jury exercises in which they overweight the other side’s arguments to help develop their approach both before starting discovery and to prepare for the trial. They also discuss the strict time limits the Court placed on the trial and how they were able to present their case involving complex health, science, and legal issues. Moez explains how they developed their themes that VPX was lying to consumers about what they put in their beverages, cheating competitors by taking confidential information and stealing shelf space away from Monster Energy in supermarkets. They discuss how instead of calling VPX’s CEO to the stand first, they targeted high-level executives who could confirm VPX’s false statements. Finally, the discussion turns to the two critical points of the trial that gave John & Moez the confidence to believe the jury would rule for them: the jury’s reaction to John Hueston’s Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 18, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Nasser Alrubayyi. Nasser is a partner at Quinn Emanuel. He represents and defends international and domestic corporations in a wide assortment of litigation and arbitration cases. Together they discuss the modernization of law, the legal profession, legal process, and judiciary in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and how that relates to promoting foreign investment, including in the mining industry, tech, and life sciences. John and Nasser discuss how Saudi Arabia is currently the fastest-growing economy in the G20, which has led to significant investments in the sectors of the future such as biotech, and education logistics, in addition to oil and gas investment. They note that this growth depends upon a robust legal system that investors have started to have confidence in. Nasser explains that the legal system is not based upon either common law nor civil law; rather, it is a hybrid, drawing on traits of both. Saudi Arabia has a written constitution, drawing on Sharia sources denoted from Islam, as well as different laws issued by government bodies relating to particular issues. Nasser then explains Sharia law, more specifically, its two primary sources, the holy Qu’ran and Sunnah, referring to the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad PBUH. In addition, there are other sources, such as the consensus of the companions of Sharia scholars. He describes the laws pertaining to procedural matters, such as Saudi companies' law and legislation that discusses substantial issues like personal status laws. Together John and Nasser discuss the procedure behind a significant new law being enacted, walking through the process step-by-step from start to finish, including the role of the Council of Ministers. John then steers the conversation toward understanding the recent developments that have taken place in the Kingdom to attract greater foreign investment. Nasser describes how Saudi Vision 2030 is a key driving force in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s push to make it a more friendly destination for foreign investment. He notes that since the approval of Vision 2030, many laws have been amended, and new laws have been enacted to make the Saudi Arabian market more attractive to foreign investors. John and Nasser discuss the enactment of the new mining and investment law as an example of one such law. The law aims to accelerate foreign investment in the mining sector by adopting international best practices, including reducing administrative discretion, bureaucracy, and obstacles to obtaining required licenses. The law also establishes clear timelines for the Saudi entities to respond to requests from investors, as well as an online system that enables investors to track their license applications and know where in the process they are. Nasser notes that while great strides have been made, more work is needed to promote the Kingdom. John and Nasser discuss the Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference in Saudi Arabia, an excellent example of how the Kingdom seeks to play a crucial role in the global economy. The discussion then turns to understanding the Saudi judiciary and the importance of a fair, just, and practical system. Nasser explains the Saudi court system and how proceedings have been made more effective through the use of digital communications. He notes that the majority of cases are now heard and accessed remotely, online. John and Nasser also discuss the path to becoming a judge in Saudi’s judiciary system and recent investments to provide judges additional training as well as more assistants to help them prepare Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 9, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael D. Hausfeld. Michael is widely regarded as one of the leading plaintiffs antitrust lawyers in the world. This episode examines how he achieved a $2.67 billion settlement, as well as market-changing injunctive relief for Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) subscribers. The conversation begins with John and Michael discussing the background of the case, noting that BCBS is the single largest national provider of healthcare insurance with over a hundred million subscribers. Together, they discuss how Hausfeld LLP first came to be involved in the case more than 14 years ago, with Michael describing how a number of firms, including firms that compete with Hausfeld LLP, came to him with suspicions of anti-competitive behavior, asking if he could see whether or not there was an antitrust violation. They then discuss how BCBS structured its “Blue Network” so that each individual Blue Cross entity was considered an independent entity, yet none could compete for healthcare insurance in any state outside their designated territory. They explain how these ostensibly separate entities had essentially allocated markets between themselves and agreed not to compete with each other in violation of antitrust laws. John and Michael cover the extensive discovery taken in the case, including the numerous depositions taken and the millions of documents produced. Michael describes the privilege disputes over hundreds of thousands of documents and the mostly favorable rulings the plaintiffs obtained before a Special Master who examined every document in dispute. John and Michael then discuss the battle of experts in the case and how, unlike a traditional cartel case where the experts need only determine a “but, for” price, this case required the experts to actually model the marketplace and identify which areas within a state a competitive entity would have entered first, how that might grow, etc. The experts then modeled or extrapolated those results for all 49 other states. Michael explains the judge’s novel process for resolving expert disputes in which he had two economists educate him off the record on the factors that each side’s economists focused on in making their determinations. John and Michael then explore how the judge’s ruling on a motion to determine the applicable principle of law, later affirmed on appeal, set the stage for settlement negotiations to be productive. Michael explains how the scope of injunctive relief rather than arriving at the $2.67 billion settlement amount was the most difficult issue to negotiate. They examine how the injunctive relief obtained requires BCBS to restructure its Blue Network so that national BCBS accounts can obtain multiple bids at their choice. They also discuss how, because the national account market is the benchmark for the remaining portions of the market, that will affect competition for all insurance markets: national, regional and local. They then discuss the new cases Michael is now working on, including one involving whether or not a branded manufacturer of HIV drugs unlawfully extended the life of its patents so that it could control pricing, another involving whether or not the major rail carriers agreed not to compete on imposing a fuel surcharge, and a mass tort climate change case on behalf of a number of global south countries against major carbon emitters. Finally, John and Michael discuss Michael’s view that big tech, including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta will be a focus of a great deal of antitrust attention for some time into the future. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nov 2, 2022

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Eric Winston, a Quinn Emanuel partner in the Los Angeles office. Eric is one the firm’s insolvency and restructuring partners. He is based in Los Angeles and appears in case around the country. Together, they discuss the Aearo bankruptcy case in Indianapolis, Indiana – a case where Aearo’s (solvent) parent, 3M Company, tried (but failed) to use Aearo’s bankruptcy to enjoin the largest MDL litigation in the federal court – the Combat Arms Earplugs MDL in Pensacola, Florida. This may be the first time in the recent history of “mass tort” bankruptcy cases that tort victims were able to defeat an injunction to protect non-debtor parent companies. The conversation begins with events leading up to the bankruptcy and the MDL, comprising over 250,000 product liability claims relating to defective earplugs sold to the US military. The discussion highlights the work of Quinn Emanuel associate Matt Hosen who found, buried in a large document production in a prior (and successful) antitrust case against 3M, an internal 3M document that became known as “The Flange Report.” John explains that the report by a scientist at 3M revealed that the earplugs that 3M had been selling to the U.S. military for over 15 years were defective. The report led to the filing of a False Claims Act suit against 3M and became important evidence in the resulting lawsuits filed by a quarter million active and former US service members. John and Eric then discuss Quinn Emanuel’s role in the ensuing mass tort litigation against 3M and Aearo, consolidated in an MDL proceeding in Pensacola, Florida. They recount the jury verdicts in “bellwether trials” and the sudden bankruptcy of just Aearo, in Indianapolis, as well as Aearo’s immediate efforts to extend the “automatic stay” protections of a bankruptcy filing to 3M, even though 3M itself was not in bankruptcy. John asks Eric what 3M was trying to accomplish by the bankruptcy filing. Eric explains that 3M’s goal was to use controversial bankruptcy tools, including the automatic stay, claim estimation or channeling injunctions into a bankruptcy plan, and forcing plaintiffs to file proofs of claim. These tools have been used in other major mass tort cases, such as in the LTL/Johnson & Johnson litigation, where a subsidiary holding the mass tort liabilities files for bankruptcy, but the solvent parent does not. In these cases, the debtors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting the non-debtor parents. John and Eric discuss why this matters. As Eric explains, 3M wanted to channel the resolution of all the tort claims into bankruptcy and, in turn, force plaintiffs to take less than they would usually get in civil court litigation, resulting in 3M keeping more money. Eric and his colleagues were able to defeat this strategy. Together, John and Eric then cover the Aearo bankruptcy case, including the bankruptcy discovery, trial, and important cross-examinations, including the importance of a key funding agreement between 3M and Aearo. The discussion then turns to what happened in the MDL before and after the bankruptcy court denied the injunction Aearo sought for 3M’s benefit. This included the motions Quinn Emanuel filed in the MDL to stop 3M from arguing that it was not 100% directly and independently liable for all earplug litigation. Finally, John and Eric discuss Eric’s experience working more broadly with the plaintiff lawyers in their bankruptcy arena and their different approaches to litigation, as well as the impact the Aearo case may have in future “mass tort” bankruptcies, be Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 27, 2022

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Vinit Nijhawan, Managing Director at MassVentures – a venture capital firm focused on fueling the Massachusetts innovation economy. Vinit also runs the Mass Transfer Center, which helps universities and institutions of higher learning commercialize their unused intellectual property rights. John and Vinit begin by discussing a study that Vinit co-authored that examined how effective or ineffective universities were at commercializing their patent portfolios. One key conclusion of the study was that approximately 60% of the patents held by universities are never licensed. This can send a message to faculty members that the university will not back up their efforts to develop and obtain patents by enforcing them. John and Vinit then examine the best practices at universities that successfully commercialize their patent portfolios. They discuss the entrepreneurial systems at MIT and Stanford, where individual faculty members who develop inventions create a market for their patent either through licensing to an existing company or by creating a startup that venture capitalists invest in. They also discuss universities with activist technology transfer offices that often have funding to help advance projects towards commercialization. These technology transfer offices actively connect faculty members with entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to let them know what technologies the universities have available. The conversation moves on to the steps universities must take to understand which of the 60% of unlicensed patents they should seek to commercialize. Vinit explains that focusing on potential infringement cases helps to identify areas where there is an established market for a given patented technology. John and Vinit discuss in depth how MassVentures helps universities identify areas of their unlicensed patents they should seek to commercialize. Vinit explains that they have used over 200 analysts, primarily engineers, to review patents according to a set scoring system. They go into the elements of this scoring system and how it measures the strength of a patent’s claims, the size of the market opportunity, and how good the story on infringement appears to be. They note that the size of the market opportunity often changes over time and requires periodic re-examination to identify cases where an invention was far ahead of the market when it was first patented. Over time, though, the market may catch up, and a patent that was too early once may become timely and valuable over time. John and Vinit then explore what MassVentures does once it has identified an unlicensed patent that appears to be infringed. Vinit explains that this often involves bringing on board a litigation funder and/or a law firm willing to work on a contingency basis to help make the case for pursuing the infringer. They also discuss the importance of investing in reverse engineering the infringing product before approaching the infringer to be certain that the university has a solid case. John and Vinit explore the reluctance some universities have to initiate patent litigation. They discuss the fear some universities have of adverse publicity and particularly the fear that such publicity would impact public funding. They also examine the impact that having prominent alumni associated with an infringing company or its research grants from that company can have on the decision-making process. John and Vinit then discuss licensing negotiations between the university and the infringer prior to initiating a lawsuit. They compare the relatively low r Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 20, 2022

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Luke Nikas, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Luke is widely recognized as one of the top lawyers in the US and has been selected as a Law360 MVP, is Band 1 rated in Chambers, and has been named among Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He is also co-chair of the firm’s Art Litigation and Disputes Practice and probably has the world’s most prominent and successful art litigation practice. Together, they discuss the intersection between art, the law, and art disputes more generally. The conversation begins with John asking Luke whether there is such a thing as “art law” – Luke notes that there is such a thing—there are specific, narrow statutes that touch on art but for the most part, art law is a composite of several other areas of law that might apply to any dispute. Most art law cases concern legal principles, such as contracts, intellectual property, fiduciary duty and the like, which happen to arise in the context of a dispute involving art. Together, they discuss the Knoedler Art Gallery case that was litigated from about 2011-2018 – a lawsuit that involved what Luke describes as “one of the most prominent art galleries in the world” before it closed. Luke represented the President of the gallery, and a film was made about the episode. They emphasize the legal and factual issues that surround authenticity disputes. They move on to discuss copyright and fair use matters, including the importance of a copyright case involving Andy Warhol’s work, presently pending before the United States Supreme Court. These types of cases raise important issues about what material we’re trying to protect and why, and how we can develop judicially manageable standards to resolve fair use disputes when the decision-makers are not visual art experts. For example, when evaluating two artworks in a copyright infringement case, what weight do we place on the meaning, message, and visual appearances of the works at issue? John and Luke also examine the relationship between collectors, dealers, gallerists and art advisors. These relationships can create obligations and expectations between parties that translate into fiduciary and other legal duties that the gallery or advisor wasn’t anticipating. Luke discusses how to protect against these situations so that everyone involved has a clear understanding of the scope of the relationship. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 14, 2022

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Evyatar Ben Artzi, co-founder & CEO of Darrow – an Israel-based company that uses artificial intelligence to scan the internet and identify potential claims. Darrow does this by identifying instances where companies have broken the law or failed to comply with their own rules or policies. The conversation begins with Evyatar discussing his background prior to starting Darrow, including his years as a combat officer in the Israeli Defense Forces, his legal education including his study of Law and Cognitive Science and his tenure as a Supreme Court clerk. Evyatar explains that while at the Supreme Court, he witnessed some of the challenges plaintiffs’ firms faced, inspiring him to start working on a data-driven way to find winning cases and bring them to law firms. John and Evyatar then dive into how Darrow operates. Evyatar explains how Darrow’s “justice intelligence” helps lawyers find better cases, reducing due-diligence costs of finding those cases, and bringing them to court effectively. The process starts by studying successful cases from the past and developing a formula or algorithm to identify similar patterns from current real-world data. Darrow then searches public information, including news feeds, social media, administrative filings, environmental monitoring, HTML source codes, and legal data, including court dockets and legislation, to find other instances of the same patterns that have previously led to successful cases. The system then determines how many people were harmed and forecasts what the likely legal outcome would be to help set the value of the case. Instead of a lawyer looking to find a single “smoking gun,” the artificial intelligence system combines many data points across the internet to put together a complete claim that resembles a previous successful case. Then, Darrow finds a lawyer to examine whether the potential claim is actionable. John and Evyatar discuss how this system is applied to various types of claims. They discuss how it works in data privacy cases where data from the source code of a company's website or app can be compared to the company’s legal documents, terms of service or privacy policies. They then explore recent cases where tech companies have faced trouble for sharing data with third parties, contrary to representations they have made to users. In particular, John and Evyatar discuss a recent case in which a Special Master was appointed to interview Facebook engineers to determine exactly what data Facebook has from its users. It has become commonplace that companies simply do not know what data they collect from users, where it is stored, and what uses are made of it. They then turn to the incentives companies have to comply with data privacy requirements including California’s statute imposing set penalties per user and recent high dollar class settlements. The conversation then moves to how Darrow’s artificial intelligence can help identify environmental claims. John and Evyatar examine how complaints on social media can be matched with hard data from environmental sensors, as well as public information about factories in the area, including previous environmental claims, to develop a viable mass tort case. They also discuss how online pricing data can be evaluated together with public data about product launches and sales to identify patterns that suggest cartel activity or other antitrust claims. They emphasize the need to carefully evaluate such situations to determine if there is evidence of a conspiracy or other illegal activity associated with the patterns in the data. John Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Oct 5, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by David Bilsker, partner at Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the biotechnology practice, and Margaret Shyr, associate at Quinn Emanuel. David and Margaret represent a Chinese-based DNA sequencing company, BGI (Beijing Genomics Institute), which recently made headlines in China for winning the largest ever U.S. jury award for a Chinese-based company. In this episode, John discusses how BGI ultimately prevailed against the U.S.-based leader in the DNA sequencing field, Illumina—not only in achieving this record-breaking jury verdict but also invalidating Illumina patents that were the cornerstone of its decades-long dominance in the sequencing market. The episode begins with John exploring how Illumina gained its market reputation and power in DNA sequencing, which plays a huge role in fighting and understanding diseases like COVID-19. In the early 2000s, Illumina bought a British company, Solexa, whose patents and technology allowed the former to maintain its market leadership in DNA sequencing ever since. Next, David introduces the background of BGI, which started in China to contribute to the Human Genome Project, and BGI’s eventual acquisition of a Silicon Valley-based sequencing company, Complete Genomics. John asks how Chinese DNA sequencing companies cross paths with U.S. patent litigators. David gives an overview of how Illumina initiated a worldwide campaign against BGI to prevent it from introducing its DNA sequencers to the market –Illumina even won a preliminary injunction in California. With BGI being legally foreclosed from the U.S. market, they recognized that they needed the Quinn Emanuel team, led by David, to take over. John discusses with David and Margaret the challenges of litigating against Illumina in California, where Illumina was asserting patents that had survived numerous challenges by other would-be competitors, ending these earlier market entry attempts. David and Margaret describe the invalidity strategy and evidence unearthed during discovery that led to the invalidation of Illumina’s flagship patent at trial. John also notes the team’s successful mitigation of Illumina’s predictable attempts to appeal to anti-Chinese sentiments to members of the jury. Despite having no non-infringement defenses, BGI was found to owe $8 million to Illumina on the remaining four patents—a mere fraction of Illumina’s ask. Then John moves on to the Delaware case, tried only a few months later, in which David and Margaret turned the tables on Illumina and achieved the $333m verdict for Complete Genomics and BGI. They discuss the challenges of asserting CGI’s patents and defending against Illumina’s patents covering complex DNA sequencing technologies in a ten-day time-restricted trial. Margaret notes that Illumina’s main strategy against CGI’s patents was based on telling a “prior invention” story through an Illumina senior executive. David explains how the Quinn Emanuel team developed key infringement and validity evidence during fact discovery and its presentation at trial. John and David discuss David’s cross-examinations of Illumina’s lead expert, senior executive, and the mid-trial “surprise” from this executive that derailed Illumina’s case. They also explain the strategy to limit the precious trial time spent on Illumina’s asserted patents, but to inflict maximum surgical harm through cross-validation to invalidate all of Illumina’s patents. John also highlights the damages presented by another Quinn partner, David Perlson, who established to the jury that BGI should be awarded its full $333.8m claim. David describes the headline-making co Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 29, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782) , the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 22, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Norman (Norm) E. Siegel, partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City, Missouri. He is the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the $450 million settlement of a data breach class action against T-Mobile. Norm has been involved in many high-profile data breach cases, and served as lead counsel in the three largest data breach settlements reached to date: cases against T-Mobile, Equifax, and Capital One. Together, these settlements totaled over $2 billion in cash and other relief. Norm was recently named by Law360 as a “Titan of the Plaintiff’s Bar” for his work in class action litigation. The conversation begins by discussing how data breach litigation has evolved in the past 10 years. John asks about the type of claims that are typically asserted in these nationwide class actions. Norm explains that plaintiffs typically assert common law tort claims in these cases, especially negligence, breach of confidence and invasion of privacy. He adds that when the plaintiffs have an express contract with the defendant, such as when they have accounts with the defendant, they will often assert claims for breach of an express or implied contract that the defendant would keep the plaintiff’s information confidential. John and Norm turn their focus to recent California legislation establishing statutory damages for data breaches in general, as well as for breaches involving medical information. Because both acts are relatively new, the case law interpreting them is still developing. John and Norm discuss the role that expert testimony, California Attorney General’s Guidelines, and FTC recommendations play in determining what data security measures the defendant should have implemented in these cases. They also discuss how to navigate the complexities of having both a nationwide class and a subclass of California plaintiffs who have recourse under these statutes in the same case. The conversation then moves to legislation in other states, as well as the prospects for federal legislation establishing uniform national standards regarding data security similar to the standards in Europe under the GDPR. John and Norm discuss recent attempts at such legislation and the obstacles that have prevented it from passing this far. They then discuss standing issues in data breach cases, and the key decisions, including Spokeo and TransUnion, that have recently clarified how standing may be established. They also discuss the issue of whether a defendant owes a duty to protect confidential information if it has no contract with a plaintiff and how that issue impacted the Equifax and Capital One cases. John moves the conversation to the issues that discovery tends to focus on in data breach cases. Norm explains that defendants’ discovery has evolved from focusing on the measures they took to guard data to deposing plaintiffs about what damage they did or did not suffer because of a data breach. Norm adds that the plaintiffs’ discovery focuses primarily on their damages, but also on the defendant’s history of previous security breaches. This leads to a discussion of damages theories and how they have evolved in the past five years. John and Norm discuss alternatives to just compensating for out-of-pocket losses, including damages for the lost benefit of the bargain in contract cases, unjust enrichment, the time and effort spent to repair the breach, and nominal damages. They also explore the benefits to the plaintiff class of requiring the defendant to take specific measures to prevent future security breaches and to help plaintiffs to protect thems Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 14, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael A. Barlow, partner at Abrams & Bayliss LLP, and Silpa Maruri, partner at Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Together, they discuss litigation in Delaware, which John briefly highlights as the epicenter of both corporate America and high-end corporate litigation. The conversation begins with John asking Michael how Delaware managed to stake out a unique position of being the jurisdiction of choice for corporations, which has led to high-end and high-stakes litigation in Delaware courts. Michael notes the answer is two-fold. The first answer is former President Woodrow Wilson. He explains that Delaware largely adopted the same revolutionary law of New Jersey by the then Governor Wilson. The second answer is that Delaware has worked hard since to stay at the forefront by annually updating its laws and court system. They touch on how Nevada is trying to mimic Delaware but, unfortunately, is proving to be unsuccessful so far. Silpa explains the difference between the two types of courts in Delaware: the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court. Silpa highlights how the former is a court of equity; therefore, it hears matters sounding in equity, whereas the latter is a court of law. Together, John, Michael, and Silpa chew over the role of the Delaware Court of Chancery, analyzing the history of the courts as a foundation for understanding the wider role of the courts. John asks Silpa what lawyers and litigants should expect when they're litigating cases in Chancery Court, with Silpa noting that all trials are bench trials. She highlights how the Court of Chancery is especially bespoke in that not only is it the case that you're going to have the fact-finder be the judge, but that judge is going to be actively involved in deciding even minor things like motions to compel. The conversation is then steered towards what a trial is like in the Court of Chancery. In many jurisdictions, the date set for a trial is often moved and shifted, but Silpa notes that this specific court respects set trial dates. In addition, she notes that the Vice Chancellors are proactive during the trial. Finally, John, Michael & Silpa discuss the importance of certainty and predictability on matters of Delaware corporate law. Michael briefly notes how Delaware handles a significant number of sophisticated corporate transactions in the Court of Chancery. However, he notes that the court has a much broader role as a court of equity. Michael notes that there's a pretty broad set of cases that the court handles with the same attention to detail and focus that it brings to these corporate disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 9, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Dr. Marcus Grosch, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s German offices. Together, they discuss German patent law. Marcus is regularly awarded top ratings in leading international and German-ranking publications, and both Chambers Europe and Chambers Global have listed him as a “highly regarded patent litigator.” The conversation begins with John noting how Germany is arguably the world’s second most important patent litigation jurisdiction after the U.S. They highlight how major technology disputes in the U.S. district courts are often seen in parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus notes that Germany is integral to the patent litigation world due to the sheer number of cases it receives, as the German economy is far more resilient and bigger relative to its other European counterparts. He touches on how Germany’s significance in the field of patent litigation can be traced back as far as the 1950s. Marcus explains how Germany’s time to trial is also far quicker than in other major European nations, with the fastest trials taking place in Munich and Mannheim, which only take twelve months. He highlights how at least 50% of the patents, whose validity is challenged, are either entirely revoked or significantly amended. Marcus argues that district courts have to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions, therefore, they have to be more prudent and look more closely into the validity issues, which they are generally ready to do. Then, John asks Marcus for advice for other lawyers involved in patent litigation in the U.S. and parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus highlights how in the U.S., the work has to be done ahead of the filing, which is very different from Germany – most of the cases in America need a notice pleading in the first step, whereas Germany requires a case to be complete from the outset. He also points out how different cases are in Germany compared to the ones in the U.S. The most significant difference is that Germany, like all continental European jurisdictions, does not have a trial-based system, so the parties’ arguments are not exclusively presented to the trier of fact through evidence, like witness examinations. Rather, more like in an appellate hearing, the lead counsel, guided by questions and introductory remarks from the bench, has to address all relevant issues of law and fact in the main hearing. The taking of evidence is limited to specific instances, in which contested issues of fact are directly relevant for the court’s decision. However, many factual issues are not in dispute at the end of the process, which is the result of specific pleading standards and flexibly shifting the burden of proof. This is also important since all continental European jurisdictions have no general pre-trial discovery system. All issues of law and fact are addressed in the main hearing, with no separate motions to dismiss or claim construction decisions ahead of the main hearing. This requires significant preparation and time in court, which Marcus highlights vary depending on the case, with the average patent case being four hours. He notes how sometimes the preparation can take significantly longer than the actual hearing. In addition, he explains how he deals with a ‘hot bench’ over 90% of the time, as judges are very ambitious, prepared and equipped with all of the information and specific details. Finally, John and Marcus discuss European law and how there is no civil litigation at the European level, so patents need to be litigated in national courts. This will now be fundamentally changed with the Unified P Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sep 2, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Sarah Heaton Concannon, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington D.C office and Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s SEC Enforcement Defense practice, and Xiao Liu, Co-Managing Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Shanghai office and Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s China Practice. Currently, 200 Chinese companies are publicly listed in the U.S. Those firms face the prospect of being delisted under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act due to a disagreement between American and Chinese authorities on the ability to conduct investigations and access audit work papers in China. John, Xiao and Sarah discuss the terms of the China-United States agreement whereby Chinese accounting firms can share certain information with American regulators about the finances of Chinese listed companies. Is it a done deal? John opens the conversation by asking Sarah what exactly has been agreed to by U.S. and Chinese officials. She talks about how the agreement gives them the ability to conduct on-site inspections in Hong Kong and touches on how Chinese privacy and security statutes have made it impossible for the SEC and the PCAOB to conduct their routine examinations of auditors. Sarah notes how this new agreement enables the PCAOB to have its inspectors on the ground as early as mid-September, seemingly giving the auditors free reign over which audits to inspect and unfettered access to audit work papers. John then asks Xiao why this deal and special rules are needed and queries whether it could be construed as an example of the U.S. picking on China. Xiao talks about how the history of the relationship between the two nations is an important factor to consider in understanding the relationship between the PCAOB, USA and China. He dives into how, on the one hand, there is Chinese law supposedly prohibiting these audit firms from scrutinizing these materials, and on the other hand, U.S. law, which states these audit firms do have the obligation to turn over papers. Xiao highlights how Chinese authorities have a strong interest in enforcing state secrets laws and personal privacy protection laws. However, at the same time, they care about public statements regarding agreements with U.S. authorities, especially those impacting the Chinese state-owned companies whose shares are listed in the U.S. Together, John, Sarah and Xiao dive deeper into how Chinese issuers have typically tapped the Hong Kong-based affiliates of the Big Four companies, granting the PCAOB access to working papers and the right to take testimony from audit company staff in China. Sarah talks through her predictions on the future timeline of events, noting that she expects the PCAOB to draft a shortlist of companies that were already front of mind in the enforcement space and that they will quickly try to move through those audit records. The conversation shifts to a more financial perspective of the issue with John asking Xiao whether these Chinese companies will continue to want the ability to be listed in the U.S. Xiao explains how China is now comfortable with allowing PCAOB access to Chinese companies’ audit papers as China has strengthened its own state secrets laws, personal privacy laws, and cybersecurity laws. China has taken the necessary steps to protect itself from issues that they have encountered in the past with the U.S. before reaching the agreement. Finally, John asks what's next and what the future holds. Sarah believes that there will be some caution to see if the PCAOB is satisfied, but only time will tell how this agreement will play out. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 31, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Tom Clare, founder of Clare Locke LLP. Clare Locke specializes in defamation cases and was recently in the news for representing Daniel Michalow in his claim against Wall Street hedge fund, D.E. Shaw & Co. This episode delves into Mr. Michalow’s case in which Mr. Michalow was accused of sexual harassment. The case resulted in a $52 million FINRA award against de Shaw and Co. John starts the conversation by asking why more claims similar to Mr. Michalow’s aren’t asserted. When Tom responds, he explains in detail the burdens an individual plaintiff faces in bringing such a claim, including protracted litigation (in this case, four years) and enormous costs that most individuals cannot afford. Tom also provides the listener with a background to FINRA and arbitration under FINRA’s rules. John and Tom then dive deep into the case, first discussing the factual background, with Tom noting how D.E Shaw terminated Mr. Michalow’s contract at the hedge-fund firm citing allegations of inappropriate conduct in the workplace. Tom notes that this was not an employment case; Mr. Michalow did not dispute his termination. Rather, Mr. Michalow objected to the hedge fund’s statements to Business Insider that Mr. Michalow had engaged in gross violations of the firm's standards and values and that his employment was swiftly terminated as a result. These statements were made after Mr. Michalow had written to the head of the firm and asked that the firm tell the truth about his situation. John and Tom discuss that while the firm’s statements did not explicitly say that Mr. Michalow engaged in sexual misconduct, that is what the public understood the statements to mean. The discussion turns to the arbitration process itself, including the 25 days of hearings and extensive discovery conducted by the parties. Tom describes the burden of proving that his client did not engage in sexual misconduct as well as the differences in proving defamation claims for public figures as opposed to private figures. He also explores the importance of suggesting why a defendant was motivated to act as it did, even when that is not strictly an element the plaintiff must prove to make a claim. John and Tom turn to the role expert witnesses play in defamation cases. They explore the interplay between experts who testify to the linguistic history of the words at issue and those who testify to the real-world interpretation of words and how the latter now use social media comments to show the way people in the real world react to certain terms. They then turn to the results of the arbitration including the $52.1 million award and the findings posted on FINRA’s website. John and Tom then engage in a conversation about the role of reputation in today’s society in the workplace, within a professional community, at church, at home and in neighborhoods. They also discuss the legal obstacles to bringing a defamation claim, including that name calling, hyperbole and opinions are not actionable. Finally, the two discuss Tom’s decision to found his own firm devoted to bringing defamation claims, other high profile cases his firm is handling and his recommendations to individuals who find themselves facing defamatory statements. Tom explains the importance of creating a written record, warning the defaming party of the consequences of its actions and promptly demanding retractions of defamatory statements. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 24, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Robert Charles O'Brien, the 27th National Security Advisor for the United States. He is also Partner Emeritus at Larson LLP and the Founder of the consulting firm, American Global Strategies. Together, they talk about the intersection between law and national security. John and Robert begin the conversation by outlining what the office of National Security Advisor does: act as the primary advisor to the President on all foreign policy and security issues. Robert explains his role in pulling together a wide range of views on global issues, including divergent views throughout the federal government and making sure the President always had the best options and counsel possible to make informed decisions as well as ensuring those decisions are implemented. John and Robert discuss the degree to which the President faces potential legal issues surrounding foreign policy matters. Robert touches on how every department within the government has its own specialized legal team and how all policy decisions are vetted by a myriad of lawyers. The two explore the various sources of law influencing foreign policy decisions, including Constitutional law, treaty obligations, federal statutes and regulations, as well as the wide latitude the Constitution grants the President in matters of foreign affairs. The conversation then moves to an in-depth discussion of China and the legal issues surrounding US-China trade disputes, with Robert noting how one of the great achievements of the Trump administration was raising the alarm on China. He touches on how turning a blind eye for the previous 40 years to important issues, such as China’s intellectual property theft, failed to achieve the desired results. Later, they discuss China’s occupation of the South China Sea, specifically its claim to islands it created in the sea, which has led to international arbitration. Robert describes China’s approach as drawing an imaginary border in the sea and asserting its authority over this body of water, where 50% of the world's trade flows. Robert dives deeper into the 2016 international case between China and the Philippines as an example of how China’s approach to the South China Sea violated the rights of other nations in the region, as well as constituting a series of environmental crimes. John then steers the conversation toward the sanctions that were put against PRC officials as a result of the end of democracy in Hong Kong, with Robert explaining the history of Hong Kong, and then directing the topic toward Hong Kong and China’s relationship shifting dramatically in 2020. He outlines how 2020 legislation and executive orders have reshaped the relationship between the US and Hong Kong and how Hong Kong will be treated going forward. Robert discusses what the change in the relationship between China and Hong Kong means for the shape of future trade, collaboration, and partnership between the US and Hong Kong. John and Robert then shift to discussing the importance of the actions taken by the US government in the world being seen as being consistent with the rule of law, including sanctions recently imposed on Russia. They explore the seizures of property belonging to sanctioned individuals and the need to reconcile immediate foreign policy goals with the long-term interests of maintaining the strength of the economy and the strength of the legal system. They expand upon the need for appropriate procedures to determine when seizures are necessary and how individuals can apply to regain their property when that is appropriate. The two end the podcast by d Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 17, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Bill Price, the founder and co-chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's National Trial Practice Group and a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Bill could lay claim (though he never would, being very modest) to be possibly the greatest business jury trial lawyer of his generation. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and lost only two of them. Representing plaintiffs, he has won five 9-figure verdicts, as well as one ten-figure verdict. He has obtained equally remarkable results representing defendants. He is a master of all aspects of trial practice but is best known as a brilliant cross-examiner. This episode, therefore, focuses on the art of cross-examination. John begins the conversation by asking Bill what he tries to accomplish during cross-examination. Bill explains that his goal is to have the witness either tell the same story Bill told in his opening statement or look foolish or dishonest not telling that story. Bill and John agree that this is a big ask, and they break down Bill’s methods for achieving it. John and Bill discuss how Bill first makes a list of all the things he wants the witness to say. Then he asks what controls he has for those things, such as documents or prior testimony. The two then delve into how Bill analyzes the potential off-ramps the witness has – for each topic, how could the witness hurt Bill’s case, or what to do if the witness says something detrimental? Bill explains how crucial it is to be prepared for every possibility. The two discuss how to get the most out of impeachment. Bill emphasizes that he structures each examination so the jury knows exactly why the subject that he impeaches a witness on is important to the case. This relates to Bill’s belief that collectively, the jury will have the common sense to understand a clear presentation, even if individually, some jurors might not follow every nuance. Along the way, John and Bill examine why Bill does not subscribe to several common adages about cross-examination, including “never ask a question that you don't know the answer to,” “don't ask the one question too many times,” and “only ask leading questions.” Throughout this discussion, Bill provides vivid examples from crosses he has taken throughout his career to illustrate his points. John steers the conversation towards the kind of persona and demeanor Bill tries to project during cross-examinations. Bill describes how he is very polite to start and then moves to building the case against the witness, ensuring the jury is always in sync with where he is. He notes that lawyers must be careful during cross-examinations to build their credibility to the point where the jury wants to listen to the examiner rather than the witness before they can start to act “a little testy” with the witness. John and Bill go on to discuss how to handle witnesses who won’t answer Bill’s questions directly or who insist on adding their own themes again and again. Bill provides examples of turning this behavior against the witness, as well as getting the judge to intervene to question the witness in front of the jury personally. Finally, John and Bill end their conversation by touching on their experiences working together previously, with John joking about coming up with ideas for Bill, only for Bill to quickly reject them. Bill touches on some of his favorite sources from which he developed his craft, including Herbert Stern’s ‘ Trying Cases to Win ,’ the transcripts of cross-examinations by great lawyers of the past, and trials within movies, including ‘ Anatomy of a Murder’ a Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 10, 2022

For Camille Vasquez’s first ever podcast, John Quinn interviews her about her high-profile work representing actor Johnny Depp in his defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, which has dominated headlines during this past year. A key member of Depp’s litigation team, Camille was recently elevated to partner at Brown Rudnick, where she works in the firm's Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group. John and Camille begin by discussing her background and early life growing up in Orange County, California, as well as the steps she took to get to her current position. Camille talks about earning her degree in Political Science & Communications, while focusing on her future legal career. Camille and John explore how she became the first lawyer in her family, tracing the steps she has taken throughout her career, from insurance defense law to trial work—something she loves most. The conversation then turns to how Camille came to represent actor Johnny Depp in his defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard. They begin with Camille’s first impressions—she notes how shy, soft-spoken, and thoughtful Johnny was as a client, which surprised her. Then, they walk through the professional relationship Camille and Johnny have built, discussing litigation against his former entertainment lawyer, two former bodyguards, and several other matters. John and Camille then move on to discuss the Depp v. Heard dispute itself, providing background details on the claims made against Johnny. They explore the defamation case Johnny brought in the United Kingdom against a tabloid publication there which published an article calling Johnny “a wife-beater.” The two delve into the differences between evidentiary rules in the UK and the United States, and how those differences dramatically altered what evidence was admitted in the UK trial, to Johnny’s ultimate disadvantage in that case. The discussion then turns to the impact of the allegations against Johnny and the UK decision had on his life and career, including his legacy and the impact on his children. From there, the discussion moves to the counterclaims Amber brought against Johnny based on statements released by Johnny’s previous counsel and a discussion of the recent highly publicized trial.The discussion of the trial begins with Camille describing the biggest challenge she saw going into the trial: convincing the jury that Amber’s testimony was not credible. Camille compares Amber's performance over her three days of deposition with her less convincing performance at trial. She explains how she tied every question at the trial to previous statements Amber had made, especially audio recordings the couple had made of their arguments, at the advice of a therapist. Camille spells out how she used those recordings to let the jury hear how the couple were in private. Elsewhere in the interview, Camille goes into more detail about Amber’s cross-examination, including how her habit of turning to the jury when she responded to Camille’s questions made her testimony seem unnatural and manufactured. Camille also explains the legal team's differing views on who their ideal juror would be and compares those views with the jury they ultimately got. John and Camille delve into Camille’s tactical decision to lead off her case with Johnny’s sister as well as several of his long-time employees to allow the jury to hear what kind of person Johnny was like in private, before Johnny himself took the stand. The two then analyze why the cross-examination of these witnesses failed to undermine their credibility with the jury. Camille goes on to describe Johnny’s performan Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Aug 3, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by a professor of Ethics and Finance at NYU’s Stern School of Business and a director of the Center for Business and Human Rights, Michael Posner. He is also joined by Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Head of Quinn Emanuel’s ESG practice and experienced litigator of business and human rights issues. Together, they discuss what we really understand the term “human rights” to mean for business and the current challenges regarding human rights implementation across the business world. The three begin by delving into the meaning of “human rights” and their legal ramifications for business, including whether “human rights” means different things in different jurisdictions. Michael moves the conversation towards due diligence in relation to human rights and enforcement of human rights in connection with business, noting recent legislative examples, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was created to make sure the US doesn’t support forced labor among ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region. Julianne picks up with recent EU developments, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and legislation such as the Failure to Prevent Act in France. She also posits whether the UK Bribery Act’s section 7, failure to prevent offense, could be a model for a provision for a mechanism for a failure to prevent human rights impact by the business. This could bring greater legal certainty for businesses and victims, alike. Finally, the trio mulls over the meaning of ESG and how it has evolved since its creation around 20 years ago. Michael notes that companies often heed such guidelines cynically in the name of ROI. He also emphasizes the financial implications of social issues related to labor supply chains. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 27, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted , John is joined by Assistant Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law, Eric Ruben, Duane R. Lyons, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office, and Stacylyn Doore, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston Office. Together, they discuss three main topics surrounding guns: Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, regulation at both the state and federal levels, and pending litigation. Guns and the rights of US citizens to bear arms is a hotly contested policy issue in the USA, which has only become more relevant due to the recent mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and the recent New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision. They begin by discussing how the Supreme Court held in Bruen ruled that the New York gun safety law at issue is unconstitutional. This law required a license to carry concealed weapons in public places and provided for discretion in the state’s provision of such licenses. Eric outlines the landscape, pre-Supreme Court decision – he touches on the lay of the land, outlining the historical context, as well as explaining how firearm regulation and control have primarily been executed at a state and local level, rather than federal, and that there has been a long history of gun control at the local/state level in the US, citing to registration requirements in the 1930s and long before. There have only been a handful of significant federal laws that would count as “gun control.” The recent bipartisan federal legislation was an exception. It was several decades earlier when the last federal gun safety law was passed. The conversation moves on to discussing the Heller case, another US Supreme Court decision which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Duane notes that there are members of the courts that view guns and gun rights completely differently than people in large metropolitan areas and that many court decisions seem results driven. They move on to discuss the difference between where the focus should be and where the focus will actually be for future gun control regulation and litigation. Stacylyn moves the discussion toward future applications of Heller and Bruen , noting how we’ve seen a lot of historical analysis in the cases thus far and asking how much more there is to mine and to what extent comparable historical analogs are now required in all future gun regulation cases. Eric answers by discussing the means and scrutiny approach to Second Amendment cases, explaining that once the Second Amendment is in play, the government has to find historical analogs in order to justify modern-day gun regulation. However, Eric highlights that times have changed, noting that historical analogs may not suffice given the technological advancements in the intervening centuries. Duane moves the conversation towards whether there are any historical analogs showing that firearms were prohibited in some parts of the country. Eric notes how Britain in the 1300s had strict firearm laws, as well as other restrictions, such as Texas gun laws in 1871, which banned the public carry of pistols and public weapons. John touches on age limitations being a potential appropriate response in light of Bruen , as well as increased reliance on mandatory training and designation of sensitive areas. Finally, the conversation comes to a close, with Duane discussing ghost Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 20, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lori Odierno, the lead lawyer and business affairs negotiator across WME’s sports division, to talk about the ability of college athletes to exploit their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. The conversation begins by discussing how the phenomenon of college athletes being able to exploit NIL rights resulted from antitrust litigation against the NCAA and a Supreme Court ruling that did not address NIL rights. They explain how the Supreme Court struck down NCAA restrictions on the extent to which colleges could reimburse athletes for educational expenses, and how that decision became the impetus for the NCAA to pivot its policy on NIL rights in a sweeping and unexpected way. Together, they dive into how the business and legal framework have evolved into, as Lori described it, “a web of complicated and ambiguous rules and laws” that are very hard for student-athletes to navigate. Lori explains that when the NCAA removed its restrictions on NIL rights, it set new rules for athletes to maintain eligibility. One of those rules requires athletes to comply with state laws concerning NIL rights. However, this can be difficult, as 24 states adopted NIL legislation or executive orders, and those laws were far from uniform. The discussion moves on to examples of how law varies across states, including California and Texas, two of the richest recruiting territories in the country. They touch on how California encourages and promotes high school students engaging in NIL activity, whereas Texas prohibits them from doing so. In other states, an athlete’s NIL rights might be restricted by the state association for a given sport. In those states, if an athlete is at high school that is a member of the state association for a particular sport, the athlete may lose eligibility for engaging in NIL activity based on the state association’s rules. Lori and John also discuss the restrictions in some states that NIL contracts cannot extend past an athlete’s college eligibility. They observe that the intent behind such restrictions is likely to prevent large, powerful brands from locking young athletes into low-value long-term contracts early in their careers before they’ve established their personal brands. However, they also discuss the anomaly that these restrictions might prevent athletes from monetizing their NIL rights after their playing careers are over, but when their name, image, and likeness still have value. The discussion then turns to how agencies now analyze their potential opportunities with an athlete, by looking at NCAA rules, the laws of any states that might be involved, and the individual school’s policies. Lori and John note that despite the recent changes to NIL rights, athletes still cannot get paid to play a sport or for achieving certain benchmarks while playing. Lori and John then explore the arrangements that some booster clubs have at universities where they create collectives that provide NIL opportunities for athletes. These collectives are currently under investigation by the NCAA and vary widely in how they operate. The two compare collectives that offer the same income opportunities to every athlete and those that offer more to certain star players than to others. They also discuss the potential that these differently structured collectives have for affecting team chemistry over time. They explain that while boosters may form collectives for exploiting NIL rights, the schools the athletes attend cannot form such collectives as that would violate rules against offering students financial inducements. Finally, John asks Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jul 7, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, as well as the Mayor of Miami and Counsel to Quinn Emanuel, Francis Suarez. Together, they discuss legal issues in crypto-currencies, low-income housing, and homelessness. The conversation begins with Mayor Suarez touching on the legal issues related to receiving compensation in crypto rather than legal tender, and discussing the use of applications that have the option to automatically or periodically convert money into crypto. Mayor Suarez also explains how SEC oversight requires that public officials avoid advocating for the use of crypto in any way, shape, or form. Mayor Adams provides the perspective of New York City, which states that people cannot be compensated directly in crypto, but allows them to convert to crypto after receiving the actual paycheck. He adds that his goal is to get to the point where city employees can be paid directly in crypto. John and both mayors then discuss the legal offices that serve their respective cities, including the size of the offices, the complexity of the issues they face, and their use of outside counsel. They then focus on the challenging legal issues involved in creating low-income housing. Mayor Adams notes that zoning changes and location are the biggest challenges faced by the department for housing and other government departments, with many people not wanting new developments in their community. He observes that all of these issues must be navigated in the context of New York’s Uniform Land Use process. Mayor Suarez talks about a housing boom in Miami, which comes with its own legal issues, such as increased rental prices and Community Benefits Agreements, which allow developers to increase their zoning if they give back to the community. This raises constitutional issues involving property rights if the government tells a developer that the only way they can get more favorable zoning is if they make more of the building income accessible. The discussion then turns to the issue of rent control, which is prohibited in Florida, but long-established in New York. The two mayors discuss the pros and cons of rent control as a policy matter and the procedures New York City has in place to help it run properly. Finally, the episode turns to legal issues surrounding homelessness. Mayor Adams begins the conversation by touching on the fact that homelessness has unfortunately been a problem that New York City has faced for many years, which has only worsened due to COVID-19. Together, they chew over the legal process surrounding improving conditions for the homeless, with Mayor Adams highlighting the issue of how much say those homeless people who suffer from serious mental illnesses should have in determining where they live. He notes that there is a vocal minority who believe that the government should have no input in these decisions. Mayor Suarez then talks about the Miami city perspective where the local government was sued by the ACLU in the Pottinger case with the result that the police cannot arrest a person for being homeless. Mayor Suarez details how Miami is trying to adjust to the Pottinger decision through a new homelessness policy, which created a decentralized set of homeless assistance centers where people could be housed, receive drug and mental health treatment, and receive vocational training to be reintegrated into society. Mayor Suarez goes on to explain how this policy resulted in the federal court lifting the injunction that had been in place as a result of the Pottinger case. Created & produced b Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 29, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by distinguished lawyer, professor, author, and former partner at Quinn Emanuel, Susan Estrich. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding women’s rights, Roe v. Wade , gun rights, and the hijacking of ‘Me Too’. The podcast was recorded on the day the Supreme Court announced its decision overturning the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade and allowing individual states to determine whether abortion is legal or not. As a long-time advocate for women’s rights and veteran of many political campaigns, Susan expressed that she had seen this decision coming, but she recognized that many were surprised by the decision because in addition to overturning 50 years of precedent, she believes that roughly 60/70% of the US population supports Roe v. Wade now, as opposed to 40 years ago when the decision did not have that level of support. Together, John and Susan discuss how precedents have been overturned in the past, but human rights and individual liberty have been expanded in the process. They then contrast the current situation in which, for the first time, an older generation in the US will have more individual rights than younger generations. They then go on to discuss how access to abortion will depend on wealth, socioeconomic status, and where one lives, with the new laws ignoring the rights of lower class, vulnerable women, and teenagers, but not affecting upper-class and wealthy women. The conversation then turns to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier in the week striking down the New York law on carrying handguns in public. The two discuss how the Court’s ruling ran counter to public opinion in the wake of the horrendous events in Uvalde, Texas. Finally, John and Susan examine the rationale set forth in the Heller opinion that first recognize an individual’s right to bear arms. The conversation moves to what Susan describes as the ‘Hijacking of Me Too.’ Susan passionately argues that Amber Heard was wrong to call the verdict of the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, “a defeat for the whole Me Too movement.” She opines that the verdict in that case was a defeat for Amber Heard individually rather than for the movement as a whole. She also observes that women who claim to represent the movement, but get caught lying about their individual cases might discourage legitimate victims from coming forward with their own stories. The discussion turns to how the owner of the Washington Commanders was pilloried in the press for hiring his own private investigator to look into allegations of sexual misconduct made against him. The two discuss the dangers to the legal system that will ensue if investigating allegations is considered proof of guilt and even rumors of misconduct against a prominent figure become impossible to survive. The two discuss the role that confidentiality provisions have in settling misconduct claims and how if confidentiality provisions are not respected, defendants have little incentive to settle. They touch upon California’s recent legislation prohibiting employers from requiring employees to arbitrate harassment claims and the effects that will have on settlements. They discuss the Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein cases and the danger of the cases as precedent. In particular, they examine the dangers of admitting into evidence everything from a man’s sexual past as well as a presumption that NDAs are automatically admissible. They then speculate whether an accuser’s previous history of making accusations should also be admissible. Finally, John and Susan discuss Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 22, 2022

Major universities are essentially huge businesses with massive infrastructure and numerous employees. They are large housing, food, athletic teams, and healthcare providers and are engaged in construction projects. All public and private roles within universities that receive federal funds are subject to government regulation with the same kinds of human resources problems as regular businesses. Legal issues besiege many universities; unlike corporations, which are used to a regulatory environment, universities are often not well equipped or staffed to address the myriad of legal issues they are facing now. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by American lawyer and academic administrator Michael K. Young, and partner at Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, former Ambassador Crystal Nix-Hines. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding higher education. Firstly, they discuss issues surrounding the changing landscape of universities' role in protecting their students and what those institutions are doing to protect themselves from legal cases and liabilities they are sent. They briefly touch on the cases against Penn State regarding sexual harassment. Does the changing landscape raise questions about the fine line between universities' duty to protect students on and off-campus incidents? This issue leads to John asking whether the political sphere plays a role in this. Former Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, changed the law, shifting away from the law created by the Obama administration around sexual harassment, with universities highlighting concerns that Secretary DeVos’s standards made it more difficult for students to pursue claims against their alleged offenders. Together they touch on the issues surrounding higher education and sports teams. Athletics budgets have been reduced in recent years, paired with the question of equality of opportunity for all genders, which has made it difficult to pinpoint what equality looks like from a legal point of view. They turn to legal issues surrounding diversity in admissions, and standardized tests, with litigation on this going back a decade. They discuss why the mission of equality is so vital to modern universities and consider the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of the lawsuits brought against the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. They debate whether the Supreme Court is likely to overturn or reaffirm its prior holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Will the Court decide that race cannot be considered a factor in admissions at all? Finally, John wraps up the podcast by asking about the types of issues being litigated in universities right now, with the majority of claims coming from the COVID-19 pandemic; 370 suits against 200 universities as a result of universities shifting to remote learning during the pandemic lockdowns. Created & produced by Podcast Partners Sign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 15, 2022

One of the most difficult tasks facing our legal system is determining the compensation to provide individual victims of many of the large-scale tragic events that our country has faced in recent years. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by attorney Kenneth (Ken) Feinberg, a mediator extraordinaire who has settled some of the most high-profile mass tort and disaster disputes the US legal system has ever seen as well as managing the claims administration programs for terrible events that did not result in litigation. He has managed the victim compensation funds in high-profile tragedies including the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP oil spill fund, and the victim assistance funds established in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook shooting. Mr. Feinberg also resolved victim compensation issues in the General Motors ignition switch cases, the VW diesel emissions cases, the Boeing 737 MAX crash cases, the Eli Little DES cases, the Shoreham Nuclear Plant cases, Agent Orange, asbestos, among many others. The conversation begins with exploring the ways that cases come to Mr. Feinberg, including defendants who realize they need to resolve a situation but first have to resolve how to divide the money they have available, plaintiffs who wish to avoid years of uncertain, costly litigation or when the government allocates money to compensate victims of a tragedy without any adversarial proceedings at all. The two then discuss the need to establish consensus on clear procedures for the mediation before turning to the merits of the dispute and why 90 percent of cases settle on the second day of mediation. Mr. Feinberg and John then explore the extremely emotional and complicated problem of allocating the money among hundreds or thousands of claimants in these cases. In particular, they explain the crucial role that transparency of the process plays in assuring claimants that there is no hidden agenda in how the proceeds will be divided up. They detail how issues of criteria of eligibility, the methodology for calculating damages, proof requirements, and the right to a hearing all must be established at the outset for a settlement to succeed. They then turn to objective ways to calculate damages for the death of a loved one and injury damages for large numbers of claimants without evaluating medical charts for every claimant. The two men then explore how these principles played out in high profile cases including the Boston Marathon bombings, the Pulse Nightclub attack, the Virginia Tech shootings, the 9/11 fund and the BP oil spill. They explain how, in some cases, the number of potential cases might require hiring thousands of claims adjusters to determine which claimants are eligible for compensation and to screen for fraud as well as the need for a procedure to hear the appeals of those who believe their compensation under the process is not adequate. Mr. Feinberg also explores in detail why, despite the magnitude of the disaster, the speed at which the families of the affected would receive the payment is vital in maintaining trust and belief in the entire process. Together, Mr. Feinberg and John examine potential court oversight to the process including situations such as 9/11 where there was no such oversight, identifying comparisons with the examples of the BP oil spill and the General Motors car recall. Throughout the podcast and especially at the end, Mr. Feinberg provides specific examples of the devastating personal stories he has heard from the victims of these horrific events and they discuss the emotional toll claims can and have had on Ken. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jun 8, 2022

Cryptocurrencies are tearing up the financial and technological playbook with new projects breaking ground every day. Despite recent fluctuations, the popularity of all things crypto continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Parallel to this astronomic growth is the mounting interest in a cryptocurrency regulatory framework to curb the potential for money-laundering and other crimes in this here-to-stay financial system. This week, Law, disrupted is tackling these very issues. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn is joined by Katie Lemire, Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s New York City office, and Ellen Zimiles, partner at Guidehouse, where she heads the Financial Services Advisory and Compliance practice. Together they discuss issues surrounding the crypto industry's legal and regulatory frameworks, diving into the role of financial regulators and institutions in the crypto realm. They speak to the historically mandated role of banks in preventing money-laundering and terrorist funding, and how crypto will operate successfully if required to do the same. They analyze compliance at both federal and state levels, with the New York state regulatory framework for cryptocurrency being a leading example for the other 49 states. They chew over the legal risks from a regulatory and compliance standpoint and finish by noting how regulators can keep up with crypto's explosive growth, as well as highlighting the future of anti-money-laundering compliance tools. Created & produced by Podcast Partners Sign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 18, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted , John joins the Honorable Alan D. Albright, United States District Judge for Western District of Texas, Waco Division. After less than four years as a federal judge, Judge Albright now hears more patent cases than any other judge in the United States, with a docket that includes 25% of all patent cases in the country. Judge Albright predicts what the next big technology battleground in patent cases will be, shares advice for lawyers who are interested in practicing patent law and offers tips for attorneys who practice before him. To start the discussion, Judge Albright describes his years of experience as a patent litigator and how that experience shaped his approach to management of his patent docket. Judge Albright explains how speed in moving patent cases to trial has led his courtroom to become a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs. He and John then discuss how he has been able to attract clerks with technical backgrounds and experience with patent law and how he consulted with patent lawyers from a wide range of firms to come up with rules for litigating patent cases that he hopes are objectively fair to all sides. Judge Albright explains why he believes that it is essential to stay all discovery until after the Markman hearing. Together, Judge Albright and John dissect the factors that make Texas a fertile venue (both Eastern District and Western District) for patent litigation. Discussing the Alice test and section 101 patent eligibility issues, Judge Albright shares his thoughts on where there is adequate certainty from the federal circuit on such issues, and where further guidance and clarity is needed. He and John then discuss the circumstances when it is beneficial to appoint a technical advisor on a case and when it is less beneficial. Judge Albright also discusses his utilization of magistrate judges. The conversation turns to Judge Albright’s goals for adjudicating cases expeditiously and the changes that he has introduced to his Standard Order Governing proceedings in his Court. Judge Albright also describes the short-term and permanent changes to the litigation process resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, including his shift to using Zoom for virtually all pretrial hearings and, in some instances, for trial witnesses. John and the judge then explore Judge Albright’s “dialog” with the Federal Circuit on venue issues, including how one writ of mandamus quickly grew to eight or more. They cover Judge Albright’s approach to deciding when a case should be heard in Austin, as opposed to Waco and how Judge Albright handles cases that are transferred from Waco to Austin. They then discuss Judge Albright’s views on when a case should or should not be stayed in favor of IPR proceedings. The conversation then shifts to what Judge Albright believes will be the next big technology battleground for patent cases: electric cars and the aspects of that technology that make it ripe for patent litigation. Finally, Judge Albright gives advice to young lawyers interested in going into the patent field, including what qualities patent lawyers should have if they do not have a technical background. He also gives advice to lawyers who practice before him: learn to work with the other side. Created & produced by Podcast Partners Sign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

May 11, 2022

Nearly 300,000 United States service members and veterans are suing technology and manufacturing giant 3M over claims that their supply of military earplugs caused soldiers to suffer hearing loss, tinnitus, and other hearing difficulties. The dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs (CAEv2) were standard issue equipment for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 10 years. In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John Quinn and his guests, Matt Hosen and Bryan Alystock, discuss how this defective earplug litigation started and evolved into the largest consolidated mass tort litigation in history. To open the episode, Matt Hosen shares how, as a second year Quinn Emanuel associate, he found, buried in a large document production in an antitrust case in which the firm represented a company called Moldex-Metric, an internal 3M document which became known as “The Flange Report.” He explains that the report by a scientist at 3M revealed that the earplugs that 3M had been selling to the U.S. military for over 15 years were defective. Matt goes on to describe how Hal Barza, a former Quinn Emanuel partner, used the Flange Report in depositions of 3M laboratory employees to great effect; leading not only to the resolution of the antitrust case, but also the commencement of a whistleblower False Claims Act (Qui Tam) case brought against 3M on behalf of the U.S. government. In connection with this Qui Tam lawsuit, the Flange Report was brought to the government’s attention, leading to the United States Department of Justice’s intervention in the case. 3M entered into a settlement with the U.S. government in 2018 agreeing to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations it knowingly sold the earplugs to the U.S. military without disclosing the CAEv2 defects. The DOJ issued a public press release in July 2018 announcing the Qui Tam settlement. Bryan Aylstock, managing and founding partner of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, based in Pensacola, Florida, then joins the conversation to explain how this DOJ press release led to the plaintiffs’ mass tort bar filing cases all over the United States on behalf of U.S. service members alleging product defect, failure to warn and fraud claims. These cases were later consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Pensacola before Chief District Court Judge Casey Rodgers. Judge Rodgers appointed the Alystock firm to lead a Plaintiff Leadership Committee consisting of over three dozen law firms, including Quinn Emanuel. Judge Rodgers oversaw all aspects of discovery in the MDL, and with input from plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel, selected individual service members to serve as bellwether plaintiffs. Bellwether trials began in April, 2021. Plaintiff service members have achieved victory in 9 of the 15 bellwether trials to date, receiving over $222 million in damages. In the most recent bellwether trial, a Gainesville, Florida jury found in favor of the army veteran on all counts and awarded $2.2 million in compensatory damages. If the average awards in these bellwether cases, including the defense verdicts, are applied across the nearly 300,000 service member lawsuits currently pending, 3M’s total exposure would be over $1 trillion. With the bellwether process almost concluded, the guests explain how hundreds of individual lawsuits are now completing discovery, prior to being remanded to federal judges across the country for trial. Created & produced by Podcast Partners Sign up to receive email updates when a Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 28, 2022

Russia’s illegal military invasion of Ukraine has already cost countless lives, and forced millions of innocent people to flee their homes and the country, creating a massive humanitarian crisis both within and outside Ukraine. Many other civilians are unable to flee, being besieged by constant Russian shelling and threat, leaving them trapped in cities without access to the most basic necessities such as medicines and medical treatment, food, water and electricity. As the war goes on, the tragic toll on Ukraine and its people continues to grow. Through the legal claim it will bring before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ukraine will seek to hold Russia to account for its grave and flagrant violations of the fundamental human rights protections provided by the European Convention (the Convention) resulting from this illegal war. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan will represent Ukraine in this most important case, and in this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn joinsAlex Gerbi, a partner at Quinn Emanuel’s London office, to unpack the different aspects of this claim. The episode begins by highlighting the firm’s long-standing relationship with Ukraine, and how the illegal invasion and purported annexation of Crimea by Russia in early 2014 created a number of legal claims, including one for a state-owned bank Oschadbank, now a Quinn Emanuel client of many years. Alex shares how this significant case led the firm to grow its relationships in Ukraine, taking on other important cases along the way and ultimately leading to the firm’s instruction on this case before the ECtHR. John and Alex then shift to the current claim to be brought by Ukraine against Russia before the ECtHR as a result of Russia’s invasion of the country and the ongoing war. Together, they discuss the legal implications of Russia's breaches of human rights in the context of the Convention, and other issues relating to the conduct of the case before this European Court. With Russia having first renounced the Convention and then been expelled from the Council of Europe, how might the landscape of this claim be impacted? They discuss the nature of the Court, the make-up of the Judges, as well as the nature and timing of the proceedings. Finally, they discuss what relief Ukraine might look to obtain from the ECtHR and address the question -- will that make a difference in the face of Russia’s continued acts of aggression? Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 20, 2022

Despite the COVID-19 health crisis and extreme levels of market volatility, the private equity market has been on fire. In this episode of Law, disrupted , John Quinn joins Brad Berenson, Partner and General Counsel at TPG, and Chris Green, Managing Director and General Counsel at Bain Capital, two of the largest private equity firms in the world. Having both navigated the challenges presented by the pandemic, Brad and Chris describe how this period of time has showcased what’s valuable and differential about private equity, relative to other asset classes. They contest critics’ views that the industry operates under a model of “financial engineering and cost-cutting,” outlining how private equity has provided businesses with access to capital, job preservation and business protection through turbulent times. John and his guests discuss the new disclosure rules proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which presage sweeping regulatory and enforcement changes under the Investment Advisers Act. Aimed at increasing transparency from private companies, the SEC’s proposed rules represent an unprecedented level of scrutiny and oversight from the commission, striking at the heart of how the industry has historically done business. Together, John, Brad and Chris analyze how—if adopted—the rules will impact private fund investor reporting and documentation, evaluating whether these proposed rules miss the mark of increasing competition and reducing regulatory burdens. They then discuss a new chapter in antitrust law and the regulation of mergers and acquisitions. In particular, they discuss the apparent shift that merger control agencies seem to be taking from focusing on consumer welfare and competition towards focusing on protecting other interests, such as organized labor, small businesses or environmental concerns. They explain how this transition has led to additional scrutiny for potential deals that pose little risk under traditional antitrust analysis, which delays and injects uncertainty into commercial activity. John and his guests also examine the importance of ESG analysis when considering potential investments, and the ways ESG metrics are presently measured, such as a business's carbon footprint and climate-related risks. They also address ways in which private equity firms have been able to address ESG concerns more quickly than many public companies. The conversation turns to the potential liability of private equity firms as sponsors and the economic importance of respecting corporate forms, limiting any upward flow of liability from portfolio companies to private equity firms and their investors. This requires that private equity firms remain mindful of their governance role on their portfolio companies’ boards, avoiding actions that could support “alter ego” liability. Additionally, John and his guests discuss the dual roles of appointed directors on portfolio companies’ boards and how to prevent problems from arising, particularly in the context of protecting attorney-client privilege. They then conclude by covering some of the legal issues surrounding continuation funds, including how to protect the economic interests of limited partners when assets are rolled over into a continuation fund. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 13, 2022

ESG—or environmental, social, and governance—criteria seems to be everywhere these days. With social issues more visible than ever in our interconnected world, consumers and investors alike are paying more attention to how the businesses they support will help or hinder greater progress for society as a whole. With new metrics for assessing social and environmental impact evolving and targets being embedded into corporate strategy, ESG data is informing decision-making around the world. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John and his guests discuss navigating the evolving ESG legal landscape. This episode features Andrew Malk, the Managing Partner of Malk Partners, a consulting firm focused exclusively on advising private equity firms and investors to create, protect and monitor value through ESG management. John also welcomes Anthony Alden and Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles and London offices. During their conversation, John’s guests share insights on how we got to where we are today, what to expect in the future, and what they are seeing from a reputational, regulatory and litigation perspective. They discuss whether society is expecting more accountability from businesses, and highlight a potential shift in the way we view the social contract between businesses, corporations, and individuals. With the rise of concern over sustainability and climate change, companies are experiencing increased pressure to make “green” claims and commitments. The three explore the emergence of various ESG rating systems that aim to meet such demands for transparency and discuss the inherent challenges in simplifying and standardizing comparable metrics. They then consider the SEC’s landmark proposal, which would require public companies to disclose extensive climate-related information in their filings, and debate what matters, and what should be measured. In this conversation, John and his guests detail how ESG considerations are surfacing in the US legal landscape compared with that of the UK and Europe, and highlight an uptick in greenwashing claims as we look to the future wave of ESG litigation. Guests: Anthony Alden is a Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Los Angeles office and Chair of the firm’s Climate Change Practice. Andrew Malk is Managing Partner of Malk Partners, a consulting firm focused exclusively on advising private market participants with respect to ESG issues. Julianne Hughes-Jennett is a Partner at Quinn Emanuel’s London office and has spent the last two decades litigating ESG cases. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Apr 6, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted , host John B. Quinn joins Greg Gentile, President of Silver Spike Capital, an asset management firm focused on investment opportunities in the cannabis, hemp and psychedelic industries and Robert Becher, Partner and Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s Cannabis Litigation Practice Group. Together they discuss legal issues affecting the cannabis industry. The conversation begins with a discussion of the legal contradictions that exist in the cannabis space due to federal illegality and how Silver Spike Capital has successfully navigated this tricky legal landscape. They dig into how Silver Spike Capital launched the first publicly-listed business development company formed to invest across the cannabis ecosystem and what it took to obtain a NASDAQ listing for a cannabis business. They next explore the unique legal issues and challenges associated with investing in and lending to the cannabis industry and dispel myths about the industry. Subjects covered in this part of the conversation include banking access, whether it is possible to obtain a security interest in a cannabis license, the role of state regulators, the unavailability of federal bankruptcy protection, state receiverships and federal taxation of cannabis businesses under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. To close out the portion of the conversation focused on cannabis law, they discuss likely litigation trends resulting from industry consolidation, whether federal legalization is inevitable and how the industry would change if cannabis could be shipped legally across state lines. For the final segment of the podcast, the conversation shifts to an exploration of the law and business of psychedelics and Silver Spike Capital’s involvement in this sector. They discuss ongoing efforts to investigate the medical benefits of psychedelics through FDA-approved clinical trials, whether the psychedelic industry will follow the same trajectory as the cannabis industry and offer predictions for the future. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 30, 2022

How did one article in the newspaper turn into a $12bn case? It starts with the Affordable Care Act, the “risk corridors program” incentivized insurers to enter the new health insurance marketplace by agreeing to backstop outsized losses in the first three years of the exchange's existence. The Government was refusing to pay amounts in full, losses mounted, and bankruptcies stacked up across the health insurance industry and the country. One little article covering such a bankruptcy crossed JD Horton’s desk and…the rest (all $12 billion of it) is covered in this podcast! In this episode of Law, disrupted , John joins Quinn Emanuel partners Stephen Swedlow & J.D. Horton, who led the recovery of billions of unpaid funds owed under the program in a case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In their discussion, they describe how they developed the statutory claim against the federal government under the Tucker Act, and reveal why health insurance companies were reluctant to sue the government and “bite the hand that feeds them.” Highlighting some of the challenges and push-back that they faced along the way, Stephen talks about crisscrossing the country to get 150 entities to join the claim he and Horton were heading, despite competition from several leading healthcare specialist law firms. Tune in for a blow-by-blow description of the tactical decisions they made that led them to victory! The first to file a “risk corridors” case in the nation for reneging on Obamacare’s promise, John’s guests detail how they worked together to drive their prosecution all the way up to the highest court in the land, and win! Guests Stephen Swedlow, Trial expert & Co-Managing Partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Chicago office J.D. Horton, Trial lawyer & Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 23, 2022

Cryptocurrencies are breaking new ground constantly, as new projects are introduced every day and broader swaths of the public interact with this revolutionary technology. With increasing popularity comes a growing need to clarify the legal implications surrounding cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. This week, Law, disrupted is tackling these very issues. Appraising the surging public interest in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology – including Bitcoin and Ethereum and dozens of newer tokens and projects. John is joined by Quinn Emanuel 🇺🇸 Partners Dave Grable & Michael Liftik, and Core Scientific’s Founder Darin Feinstein, to consider the legal issues emerging in this space. They explore how smart contracts and “code is law” concepts may not provide all the answers when unintended outcomes arise, and cases that are addressing these issues. They discuss security threats, vulnerabilities, and the issue of dealing with an anonymous counterparty who may be located halfway around the globe. Together, the panel also explores liability implications associated with DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations), private property rights that digital assets represent, and issues related to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The panel also discusses regulatory issues presented by cryptocurrencies, including SEC attempts at regulation by enforcement and recent legislative activity geared towards cryptocurrencies and digital assets. Guests Dave Grable, Co-Chair of the National Trial Practice Group for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan Michael Liftik, Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s SEC Enforcement practice & Co-Managing Partner of the Washington office Darin Feinstein, Co-Founder, Co-Chairman & Chief Vision Officer at Core Scientific Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 16, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted , host John B. Quinn joins Christopher Tayback, managing partner of the Los Angeles Office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. John served as General Counsel of the Academy for over 30 years, and both Chris and John have represented the Academy in various legal matters for decades. In this podcast, they share details of some well-known legal issues the Academy has faced. Together they discuss the uniquely important intellectual property issues the Academy has addressed over the years, including the copyright and trademark protections afforded the ceremony’s famous statuettes as well as the use of the name “Oscars” and “Academy Awards.” They also cover the seminal “Creative House” litigation that established the propriety of the Academy’s intellectual property rights in the statuette itself, as well as efforts to enforce the Academy’s “right of first refusal,” which prohibits award winners and their heirs from selling their statuettes. Finally, John and Chris weigh in on the fundamental issues that the Academy faces as motion pictures are now increasingly viewed and premiered on television as opposed to in theaters Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 16, 2022

In this episode of Law, disrupted , host John B. Quinn chats with Kathleen Sullivan, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Los Angeles and New York offices, and founding chair of the firm's national appellate practice. He also joins John Bash, a partner at Quinn Emanuel's Austin and Washington offices. Between the two of them, Kathleen and John have argued over 20 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. The conversation begins by reflecting on 2016’s Apple v Samsung lawsuit , unpacking how the design patent war between the two tech giants made its way to the Supreme Court. John and his guests then take a closer look at how a legal conflict can reach the nation’s highest court. Given that over 7,000 cases are submitted to the Supreme Court to review each year, they explain why the Justices choose to decide well fewer than 100 cases each year. As experienced Supreme Court practitioners, Kathleen and John share what’s involved in drafting written arguments and preparing for oral arguments before the Supreme Court—one of the most “challenging intellectual experiences” a lawyer can face. They also discuss the impact of media coverage on the public’s perceptions of the decision-making process. Lastly, John and his guests cover the value of moot courts for lawyers to practice and hone their arguments, discuss the impact of Covid on the courts, and consider how amicus briefs—briefs by “friends of the court”—can increase a party’s chance of legal success. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 9, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn joins Haiyang Tang and Xiao Liu, the Co-Managing Partners of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Shanghai office. The firm’s China practice focuses on advising multinational companies in their global government enforcement, investigation, and compliance matters, and advising China-based companies in sensitive cross-border litigation and arbitration. The conversation begins with the participants analyzing how the government in China has cracked down on its largest tech companies, wiping out more than a trillion dollars in market value, and asking the question: is China still investible? The discussion will address a series of legislative, administrative, and enforcement actions by the Chinese government, examining efforts to tighten up data security laws and regulations. Is this consistent with global trends, or will these new regulations hinder greater investment from the West? Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 9, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn is joined by Robert Schwartz, Partner at Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Co-Chair of the Media & Entertainment Industry Practice. Bobby has a nationally recognized reputation for his work in large-stakes, high-octane, and precedent-setting cases that are notably in the entertainment and media fields. The conversation begins by analyzing the rise of Netflix and its disruption to intellectual property, distribution arrangements, and licenses. With an initial business model based around renting DVDs, they explore how it became a pioneer in streaming services by capitalizing on the desire for personalization, especially among the millennial audience. The discussion moves on to address a rise in subscriptions to paid streaming services during the pandemic, and how this has in turn affected movie theaters, attracting talent, and the theatrical exhibition business. They examine Village Roadshow’s lawsuit against Warner Bros regarding the day-and-date release strategy of ‘The Matrix Resurrections’, and debate whether hybrid releases could be the future of the movie industry. Together they talk through some of the legal challenges arising from contracts agreed prior to the integration of new streaming technology, discuss how broadcast TV is polishing up their traditional offerings with affiliated on-demand streaming services, and break down what deal-making could look like for the entertainment industry hereafter. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 9, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn joins Lee Papageorge, Head of Litigation at Cruise, a self-driving car company and subsidiary of GM, headquartered in San Francisco, and Charles K. Verhoeven, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. The conversation kicks off by covering the race to commercialize self-driving vehicles. Amid rapid advancements in technology that remove the need for human intervention, the sector faces complex challenges of introducing a vehicle that can implement these safely and legally. The participants then move on to the discussion of IP rights and protecting emerging technologies in this domain. Referencing the “ Waymo v. Uber ” settlement, John and his guests unpack why many companies opt for trade secret protection, and broach the current limitations on patents resulting from the market being in its infancy. Finally, they assess who can be held liable for accidents caused by self-driving cars, and the pivotal role engineers will play in the infrastructure needed to support adoption of autonomous vehicles. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 6, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted”, host John B. Quinn joins David Hobbs, Security Engineering Manager at Check Point Software Technologies. David has over two decades of experience in the security field, working with law enforcement agencies and training intelligence organizations in cyberwar and cyber defense technologies. The discussion begins by explaining what ransomware is and how the software spreads “like a virus” to corrupt systems and encrypt sensitive data. David outlines an increasing threat to public and private companies, drawing attention to a 68% share of US organizations who paid a ransom after experiencing an attack. (Statista 2020) The conversation moves on to dig deeper into who the hackers are, and to understand why a company may get targeted. They highlight noteworthy cyber incidents, and reflect on the 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, which saw more than 200,000 computers become infected within three days. Together, David and John acknowledge an escalation in Russia-Ukraine cyber activity, and talk through the important steps that can be taken upon noticing—as well as preventing—future ransomware attacks. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 2, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn joins Ellison Merkel, partner at Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Neil Shah, Senior Managing Director and Head of Alternative Capital at Evercore. They begin by unpacking the evolution of special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) to explain how the capital-raising alternative took 2020 by storm, and discuss the litigations risks presented by the resurgence of this investment vehicle. The conversation moves on to trends and developments in SPAC transactions, considering the advantages for companies and investors compared with traditional IPOs, as well as the potential risks, including conflicts of interest between sponsors and shareholders. Referencing the MultiPlan stockholder litigation, John and his guests bring to light the heightened scrutiny on SPAC merger disclosures, and explore the impact of increased regulation and ligation on the market’s future. Together, they also address investor concerns for a higher rate of liquidations, and share their thoughts on the recipe for long-term SPAC success. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 2, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn joins Joe Hage, a litigator and founder of HENI, an international art and technology services business based out of London. They are also joined by Luke Nikas, a partner at Quinn Emanuel’s New York office who also heads up the firm’s art litigation practice. The three unpack what a non-fungible token (NFT) is, and how traditional intellectual property principles apply to them. Referencing the legal battle between Hermes and the creator of “MetaBirkin” NFTs, they discuss issues relating to intellectual property infringement, and the sorts of questions they raise for brand owners, artists, and businesses. They then move on to discuss the potential regulatory, securities law and transparency issues that come with digital ownership, as well as the breadth of opportunity for creators to monetize NFTs beyond digital art and legal implications of those opportunities. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 2, 2022

In this episode of “Law, disrupted," host John B. Quinn joins Christopher Bogart, CEO, Director, and Co-Founder of Burford Capital. Burford is the largest litigation finance firm in the world and is publicly traded on the New York and London Stock Exchanges In this conversation, Christopher drills down on what litigation funding is and explains how it can be a cost-effective financing tool for claimants and law firms by assuming the cost and risk of litigation. Together, Christopher and John explore what litigation finance deals look like, and what makes them an attractive investment proposition. They also consider whether litigation finance is more important outside the US, potential barriers to entry in this space, and the types of innovative litigation products in the pipeline, which could transform the legal industry. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Mar 1, 2022

Law, disrupted is a new podcast which dives into the legal issues emerging from cutting-edge and innovative subjects such as SPACs, NFTs, litigation finance, ransomware, streaming, and much much more! Your host is John B. Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel & Sullivan LLP, a 900+ attorney business litigation firm with 29 offices around the globe. Each devoted solely to business litigation. John is regarded as one of the top trial lawyers in the world and one of the nations “most fearless litigators” (Lawdragon 500) who, with his partners, has built an institution which the Wall Street Journal has termed a “global litigation powerhouse.” In this podcast, John is joined by industry professionals as they examine and debate legal issues bearing on the newest technologies, innovations, and current events—and ask what’s next? Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi