Law, disrupted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark your calendars for January 5, 2025, as we bring the legal world's most exciting conversations to life in Beijing! Join John Quinn and some of China's most prominent legal figures for an exclusive live podcast series recording and fan meetup.  John and his guests will discuss the opportunities and challenges of Chinese companies going global, the evolving trends in the legal markets of China and the U.S., and John's own extraordinary journey as a leading litigator and the founder of the “Most Feared Law Firm in the World.”  Stay tuned over the next few days as we unveil a lineup of special guests! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic 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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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