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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

 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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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

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

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

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

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 partecommunications 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

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

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

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

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

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

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