Podcast appearances and mentions of quinn emanuel

This Day in Legal History: John Locke BornOn August 29, 1632, John Locke was born in Wrington, England. A foundational figure in political philosophy, Locke's ideas on government, natural rights, and property would come to shape the ideological core of liberal democracies. His “Two Treatises of Government” advanced the notion that legitimate governments are founded on the consent of the governed and exist to protect life, liberty, and property. Locke's theory of property, rooted in the idea that individuals gain ownership by mixing their labor with natural resources, would have lasting effects not only in political theory but also in legal frameworks—particularly intellectual property law.Locke argued that since individuals own their labor, they also own the results of that labor. This labor-based theory of property acquisition later served as a philosophical underpinning for intellectual property rights, especially in Anglo-American legal systems. The notion that creators have a natural right to control and benefit from their intellectual creations echoes Locke's broader views on property. His influence is visible in early American legal thought, including the U.S. Constitution's provision empowering Congress to secure authors' and inventors' exclusive rights.Locke's work also fueled the American Revolution and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, with Thomas Jefferson borrowing heavily from Locke's formulations on natural rights. Likewise, his theories permeated the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Beyond constitutional law, his legacy persists in modern debates about the balance between public access and private rights in intellectual property regimes. Locke's vision of a just legal order grounded in individual rights, voluntary association, and property remains central to contemporary legal theory.A federal judge will hold a hearing on whether to temporarily block President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her removal in court. Cook argues that Trump lacks legal grounds for firing her, alleging that the justification—claims of past mortgage fraud—is a pretext tied to her refusal to lower interest rates. The Federal Reserve Act permits governors to be removed only “for cause,” though that term is undefined and has never been tested in court. Cook denies the fraud allegations and says even if true, the conduct occurred before she took office and should not qualify as cause for removal.Trump's administration argues that the allegations are sufficient to justify her dismissal and may also claim that legal limits on removing Fed governors infringe on the president's executive authority. The outcome of this case could significantly impact the perceived independence of the Fed and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. A Biden-appointed judge, Jia Cobb, will first determine if Cook is likely to succeed on the merits and if her removal would cause irreparable harm. The decision could lead to a preliminary injunction, subject to appeal.Trump has already clashed with the Fed, particularly with Chair Jerome Powell, over interest rate policies and management decisions. Removing Cook would allow Trump to install a fourth member on the seven-seat board, potentially shifting its direction.Trump's firing of Fed Governor Cook could be blocked by US judge | ReutersThe national average score on the July 2025 Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) was the highest in over a decade, reaching 142.4—the best performance since 2013, excluding pandemic-altered years. The MBE, which accounts for half of a bar taker's score in most states, is a key component of the U.S. bar exam. The National Conference of Bar Examiners expects the slight uptick in scores to translate into modestly higher pass rates across jurisdictions.This marks the third consecutive year of improvement for July test-takers, in contrast to the February bar exam, which continues to show declining performance. February 2025 saw a record low MBE average of 130.8, partly due to California's decision to use its own bar exam for that session—a move that backfired due to widespread logistical issues. The California Supreme Court has since ordered the state to resume using the MBE starting in July.As states begin releasing July results, optimism is growing among recent law graduates. However, the disparity between February and July results highlights persistent challenges for repeat test-takers and bar exam policy shifts across jurisdictions.US national bar exam scores hit 12-year high | ReutersMajor U.S. law firms saw strong revenue and profit growth in the first half of 2025, fueled by a sharp rise in billing rates—up 9.2% on average. This surge helped offset rapidly increasing expenses, particularly those tied to attorney compensation and the adoption of artificial intelligence tools. Overhead costs excluding lawyer pay rose by 8.6%, while total expenses, including compensation, were up 9.5%. Despite heavy investment in generative AI, firms haven't realized cost savings yet, as they're still maintaining full legal staffing alongside the new technology.Top partners at elite firms, such as Milbank and Quinn Emanuel, are now charging more than $3,000 per hour, with Milbank's Neal Katyal commanding $3,250. Experts note that while AI may one day disrupt the traditional billable hour model, that shift hasn't materialized yet—echoing past predictions during earlier tech changes that never fully played out. Still, some consultants believe AI may eventually push firms toward flat-fee or project-based pricing, especially as AI becomes capable of completing tasks in minutes that previously took hours.Meanwhile, law firm expenses are also climbing due to higher real estate costs and professional liability insurance. The legal talent pipeline remains strong, with law school applicants up 18% year-over-year and recent graduates enjoying a record-high 93.4% employment rate.Law firm rates, revenues soar but costs pile up in AI era | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax's lawsuit claiming racial discrimination in response to university sanctions against her. Wax, who is white, alleged that UPenn treated her unfairly based on race when it suspended her for a year with half pay over a pattern of controversial public comments about minority groups. Judge Timothy Savage ruled that her claims were “implausible,” noting that she failed to show how her race influenced the disciplinary process or the charges brought against her.Wax argued the university disproportionately disciplines white faculty for speech-related conduct while overlooking similar actions by faculty of color. However, the court found her comparisons to other UPenn speakers flawed, as those individuals had not repeatedly made derogatory remarks about minorities. The ruling follows an earlier denial of Wax's request for a preliminary injunction, where the court found she hadn't proven that the suspension would cause her lasting professional harm.Wax has long been a polarizing figure at Penn Law. Her 2017 op-ed favoring Anglo-Protestant cultural norms and later remarks about Black and Asian students drew widespread criticism. In 2018, she was barred from teaching required first-year courses, and in 2022, a faculty complaint sought a major sanction after she suggested the U.S. would be better off with fewer Asian immigrants.Judge tosses law professor Amy Wax's bias lawsuit over UPenn sanctions | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, a work that showcases the clarity, grace, and inventiveness that define Mozart's style. Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata is one of Mozart's most beloved keyboard pieces, notable for its departure from traditional sonata form. Instead of the expected fast-paced opening movement, Mozart begins with a theme and variations—a gentle, lilting Andante grazioso that unfolds with elegance and wit.Each variation adds a new layer of texture and character, giving performers the opportunity to explore contrasting articulations, ornamentation, and moods. The charm of the movement lies in its simplicity and restraint, traits Mozart uses not as limitations but as a foundation for subtle playfulness and sophistication. The theme itself is dance-like, with a lightly flowing triple meter that invites the listener in rather than demanding attention.While the final movement of this sonata—the famous "Rondo alla Turca"—often steals the spotlight, the opening movement contains just as much ingenuity and expressive depth. It's a window into Mozart's ability to transform formal conventions into personal, lyrical statements. This sonata was likely intended for his students or amateur musicians, yet it retains the masterful balance of accessibility and complexity that only Mozart could achieve.As we close this week, the Andante grazioso reminds us that refinement doesn't require grandeur, and that musical beauty often lies in the quiet unfolding of a well-turned phrase.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity ActOn August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government's efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson's "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states' rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state's independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | ReutersA federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk's SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president's authority over the executive branch.This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB's structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court's panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | ReutersNevada's Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware's Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission's work would serve as an interim step.This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware's procedures.Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.Nevada's Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court RulesInvestors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.They've asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk's defense in both cases.Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to To the Extent That, presented by the ABA. Today's From Boardroom to Courtroom features Kurt Wolfe—a Partner in Quinn Emanuel's SEC Enforcement group, former in Securities co-host, and adjunct securities law professor at the University of Richmond. We'll discuss the SEC's landmark Stable Road / Momentus enforcement, examine newly minted SPAC accounting and disclosure reforms, and explore the surprising 2025 SPAC resurgence.

In this week's episode, Quinn Emanuel partner Christopher D. Kercher reveals why he's been coined his firm's "AI evangelist." In addition to sharing how he has helped colleagues implement AI into their current workloads and the steps they take to mitigate hallucination risks, the New York City-based litigator sat down with Legal Speak co-host Cedra Mayfield to discuss what he predicts is next for AI use in the legal industry.   Hosts - Cedra Mayfield & Patrick Smith Guest: Christopher Kercher Producer: Charles Garnar

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

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

In December 2024, attorney Tony Buzbee filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z's entertainment company, Roc Nation, alleging that its agents engaged in illegal solicitation and impersonation to undermine his legal practice. Buzbee claims that individuals associated with Roc Nation, including attorney Marcy Croft and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, posed as Texas state officials, complete with fake badges, to coerce his former clients into filing false claims against him and his firm. He asserts that these operatives offered financial incentives, up to $10,000, to entice clients to sue his firm, aiming to intimidate and discredit him, particularly concerning his involvement in litigation against Sean "Diddy" Combs.Roc Nation has denied the allegations, dismissing Buzbee's lawsuit as a baseless attempt to distract from ongoing legal matters. A representative from Roc Nation labeled the claims as "another sham" and expressed intent to cooperate with authorities to ensure any wrongdoing is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This legal confrontation adds another layer to the complex disputes involving high-profile figures in the entertainment industry, with Buzbee also representing clients in cases alleging sexual misconduct against both Sean "Diddy" Combs and Jay-Z.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:buzbee-lawsuit-against-roc-nation-croft-emanuel.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Quinn Emanuel partner Manisha Sheth has moved twice between elite private practice and high-stakes public enforcement. In this wide-ranging conversation we discuss:how to bet on yourself to cultivate new skillshow she ran 250 lawyers at the N.Y. Attorney General's office and sped up investigations with two simple process tweaksthe hottest state-level enforcement trends in climate, consumer finance, and AIdangling from an ice face at 19,000 ftListen for practical insights on career strategy, process and delegation as competitive advantages, and a couple mountaineering stories that will make your palms sweat.

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 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

The legal conflict between attorneys Alex Spiro and Tony Buzbee has intensified amid the high-profile lawsuits involving Sean "Diddy" Combs and Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter. Buzbee, representing numerous plaintiffs alleging sexual misconduct by Combs, filed a lawsuit implicating Jay-Z in a 2000 incident where a 13-year-old girl was allegedly raped at an afterparty. Jay-Z, denying the allegations, accused Buzbee of extortion, asserting that Buzbee attempted to coerce a settlement by threatening to publicize the claims. Spiro, Jay-Z's attorney, emphasized that the accuser admitted inconsistencies in her story and suggested that Buzbee influenced her to include Jay-Z in the lawsuit. Consequently, Jay-Z filed a defamation and civil extortion lawsuit against Buzbee and his client, seeking to clear his name and address the purported misuse of the legal systemIn response, Buzbee contended that his actions were standard legal procedures, denying any extortion attempts. He further alleged that Jay-Z and his legal team, including Spiro, engaged in efforts to discredit him by filing grievances that led to his withdrawal from over a dozen federal cases due to admission issues in the Southern District of New York. Buzbee claimed that these actions were part of a broader strategy to undermine his credibility and deter him from pursuing cases against high-profile individuals. He also filed a lawsuit against Roc Nation and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, accusing them of conspiring to have his clients file frivolous lawsuits against him. This escalating legal battle underscores the complex interplay between legal ethics, high-stakes litigation, and the influence of powerful figures in the entertainment industry.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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 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 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

This Day in Legal History: 11th Amendment RatifiedOn February 7, 1795, the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, restricting federal judicial power over lawsuits against states. The amendment was a direct response to the Supreme Court's 1793 decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, which held that a private citizen of one state could sue another state in federal court. This ruling alarmed many states, as it threatened their sovereign immunity and exposed them to lawsuits from individuals. In reaction, Congress swiftly proposed the 11th Amendment, which was ratified by North Carolina on this day, completing the necessary approvals. The amendment states that federal courts cannot hear cases against a state brought by citizens of another state or a foreign country. This reinforced the principle of state sovereignty and limited the reach of the federal judiciary. The amendment effectively overturned Chisholm and set a precedent for later expansions of state immunity. Over time, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment broadly, extending protections to cases brought by a state's own citizens as well. The 11th Amendment remains a cornerstone of federalism, shaping the balance of power between states and the national government.Federal agencies have pulled out of law school recruiting events following President Donald Trump's executive order freezing hiring across the government. More than a dozen agencies withdrew from NYU's public interest career fair, and others skipped a similar event hosted by Georgetown and George Washington University. The freeze, which affects federal legal jobs and prestigious honors programs at agencies like the DOJ and IRS, has left many law students scrambling for alternatives. While some large law firms are looking to hire displaced junior lawyers, there are limited openings, especially for first- and second-year students whose summer jobs were canceled. Firms like Morgan Lewis, Quinn Emanuel, and Elsberg Baker & Maruri are among those actively considering affected candidates. However, with most Big Law summer associate spots already filled, many students may struggle to secure positions. The freeze, which could last up to 90 days, is part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce through attrition and “efficiency” measures.Trump Hiring Freeze Has Agencies Ditching Law School RecruitingFor decades, the Justice Department has prided itself on independence, with attorneys expected to uphold the law "without fear or favor," as former Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized. This principle, strengthened after Watergate, has long guided DOJ lawyers in their duty to serve the nation rather than any single president. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi's new memo marks a stark departure from that tradition, warning DOJ lawyers against refusing to advance legal arguments they disagree with and referring to them as the president's lawyers. The memo threatens disciplinary action, including termination, for attorneys who decline to sign briefs or appear in court due to personal objections. Critics argue that this undermines legal ethics and pressures attorneys to prioritize loyalty to Trump over their professional responsibilities. Historically, DOJ lawyers who found themselves in ethical conflicts could ask to be reassigned or resign, but Bondi's directive appears designed to force them into compliance or out of the department entirely. The memo is particularly concerning as Trump's DOJ aggressively defends controversial executive actions, making it harder for lawyers to voice concerns about weak or legally questionable cases. Legal experts worry that a mass exodus of experienced attorneys could damage the department's credibility, further eroding trust in the rule of law.Bondi Raises Independence Concerns with Attorney Advocacy MemoThe Trump administration is facing a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association over its rapid dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The suit, filed in federal court, argues that President Trump's foreign aid freeze and subsequent orders to halt USAID projects were unconstitutional and have caused a global humanitarian crisis. Since Trump's executive order on January 20, USAID staff have been laid off or placed on leave, and key aid programs combating malaria, HIV, and global hunger have been suspended. The shutdown, largely overseen by Elon Musk, has left food aid worth $340 million stranded and led to worsening health crises, according to the lawsuit. Critics argue that since Congress created USAID by statute, Trump lacks the legal authority to dismantle it. The lawsuit seeks an emergency court order to restore funding, reopen offices, and prevent further agency cuts.Trump administration sued by government workers over cuts to USAID | ReutersCompanies are rushing to file merger notifications before a new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule takes effect after 5 p.m. on Friday, significantly expanding reporting requirements for deals over $126.4 million. The rule, introduced under President Biden and set to take effect under President Trump, is expected to triple the workload for companies seeking regulatory clearance. Businesses are scrambling to file under the old rules to avoid higher compliance costs and navigate a familiar system rather than being among the first to test the new requirements. While attorneys don't see the rush as an attempt to evade scrutiny, some worry that the surge in filings—combined with Trump's push to shrink the federal workforce—could result in inadequate review of certain deals. The private equity industry has strongly opposed the rule, arguing it places unnecessary burdens on firms, and has filed a lawsuit to block it, though no ruling is expected this week. Some lawmakers are considering legislative action, and attorneys are closely watching for any last-minute delays, though chances of a suspension are diminishing.Companies wary of new US rule scramble to file mergers by Friday, lawyers say | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.Gustav Mahler, one of the most influential late-Romantic composers, was known for his expansive symphonies that bridged the worlds of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in 1860, Mahler's music often grappled with deep philosophical and existential themes, blending moments of beauty, nostalgia, and turmoil. His Symphony No. 4, completed in 1900, is one of his most accessible works, offering a lighter, more lyrical approach compared to his more intense symphonies. On February 7, 1904, Mahler himself conducted a performance of this symphony in Berlin, reinforcing its place in the concert repertoire.The fourth movement, "Das himmlische Leben" (The Heavenly Life), is the symphony's heart and soul, featuring a soprano voice describing a child's vision of heaven. Unlike the grandeur of Mahler's other finales, this movement is delicate and dreamlike, with folk-like melodies and a sense of innocence. The lyrics, drawn from the Des Knaben Wunderhorn (The Boy's Magic Horn) collection, depict a paradise filled with music, dancing, and endless feasting, all with a touch of Mahler's characteristic irony. The orchestration remains light and transparent, with delicate bells and strings giving the music an ethereal quality.As this week's closing theme, "Das himmlische Leben" serves as a gentle farewell, offering a moment of reflection and tranquility. Its serene and almost childlike optimism provides a perfect contrast to the weightier legal discussions, reminding us that even in complex times, beauty and simplicity endure.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 4, the fourth movement, “Das himmlische Leben” – enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The legal clash between Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal team revolves around a dispute that has captured significant public attention. Tony Buzbee, a prominent attorney, is representing clients who have raised allegations of misconduct involving Jay-Z or his business ventures. Buzbee has publicly criticized Jay-Z and his legal team for what he describes as attempts to intimidate or discredit his clients, alleging a pattern of leveraging wealth and influence to suppress the truth. Buzbee's approach, often marked by sharp rhetoric and public statements, suggests his intent to bring the case into the spotlight, possibly to apply pressure on Jay-Z and his team to address the allegations.Jay-Z's legal team has pushed back against Buzbee's claims, accusing him of sensationalizing the legal process for media attention. They argue that his public statements are inflammatory and undermine the integrity of the legal proceedings. The back-and-forth has escalated with Jay-Z's lawyers filing motions to dismiss or limit certain claims, citing insufficient evidence or procedural grounds. Meanwhile, they maintain that the allegations are baseless and are part of a broader campaign to tarnish Jay-Z's reputation. This dispute highlights the high-stakes nature of celebrity litigation, where legal strategies often intertwine with public narratives.The legal confrontation between attorney Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z has intensified with recent developments. Buzbee, representing a woman alleging that Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulted her when she was 13 at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards after-party, has faced strong rebuttals from Jay-Z's legal team. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, has labeled the claims as false and part of an extortion attempt, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accuser's account. Jay-Z has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel the accuser to reveal her identity, arguing that the allegations are baseless and damaging to his reputation.In a further escalation, Buzbee filed a lawsuit on December 18, 2024, against Jay-Z's company, Roc Nation, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleging that they attempted to influence his former clients to file frivolous lawsuits against him and his firm. Buzbee claims to possess audio evidence supporting these allegations and has vowed to present it in court. This countersuit adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle, highlighting the contentious and complex nature of the dispute between Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal representatives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail OnlineInside the insane battle now exploding between Jay-Z and cigar-smoking lawyer who's accusing him of rape | Daily Mail Onlineshow less

The legal clash between Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal team revolves around a dispute that has captured significant public attention. Tony Buzbee, a prominent attorney, is representing clients who have raised allegations of misconduct involving Jay-Z or his business ventures. Buzbee has publicly criticized Jay-Z and his legal team for what he describes as attempts to intimidate or discredit his clients, alleging a pattern of leveraging wealth and influence to suppress the truth. Buzbee's approach, often marked by sharp rhetoric and public statements, suggests his intent to bring the case into the spotlight, possibly to apply pressure on Jay-Z and his team to address the allegations.Jay-Z's legal team has pushed back against Buzbee's claims, accusing him of sensationalizing the legal process for media attention. They argue that his public statements are inflammatory and undermine the integrity of the legal proceedings. The back-and-forth has escalated with Jay-Z's lawyers filing motions to dismiss or limit certain claims, citing insufficient evidence or procedural grounds. Meanwhile, they maintain that the allegations are baseless and are part of a broader campaign to tarnish Jay-Z's reputation. This dispute highlights the high-stakes nature of celebrity litigation, where legal strategies often intertwine with public narratives.The legal confrontation between attorney Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z has intensified with recent developments. Buzbee, representing a woman alleging that Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulted her when she was 13 at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards after-party, has faced strong rebuttals from Jay-Z's legal team. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, has labeled the claims as false and part of an extortion attempt, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accuser's account. Jay-Z has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel the accuser to reveal her identity, arguing that the allegations are baseless and damaging to his reputation.In a further escalation, Buzbee filed a lawsuit on December 18, 2024, against Jay-Z's company, Roc Nation, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleging that they attempted to influence his former clients to file frivolous lawsuits against him and his firm. Buzbee claims to possess audio evidence supporting these allegations and has vowed to present it in court. This countersuit adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle, highlighting the contentious and complex nature of the dispute between Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal representatives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail OnlineInside the insane battle now exploding between Jay-Z and cigar-smoking lawyer who's accusing him of rape | Daily Mail Onlineshow less

The legal clash between Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal team revolves around a dispute that has captured significant public attention. Tony Buzbee, a prominent attorney, is representing clients who have raised allegations of misconduct involving Jay-Z or his business ventures. Buzbee has publicly criticized Jay-Z and his legal team for what he describes as attempts to intimidate or discredit his clients, alleging a pattern of leveraging wealth and influence to suppress the truth. Buzbee's approach, often marked by sharp rhetoric and public statements, suggests his intent to bring the case into the spotlight, possibly to apply pressure on Jay-Z and his team to address the allegations.Jay-Z's legal team has pushed back against Buzbee's claims, accusing him of sensationalizing the legal process for media attention. They argue that his public statements are inflammatory and undermine the integrity of the legal proceedings. The back-and-forth has escalated with Jay-Z's lawyers filing motions to dismiss or limit certain claims, citing insufficient evidence or procedural grounds. Meanwhile, they maintain that the allegations are baseless and are part of a broader campaign to tarnish Jay-Z's reputation. This dispute highlights the high-stakes nature of celebrity litigation, where legal strategies often intertwine with public narratives.The legal confrontation between attorney Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z has intensified with recent developments. Buzbee, representing a woman alleging that Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulted her when she was 13 at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards after-party, has faced strong rebuttals from Jay-Z's legal team. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, has labeled the claims as false and part of an extortion attempt, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accuser's account. Jay-Z has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel the accuser to reveal her identity, arguing that the allegations are baseless and damaging to his reputation.In a further escalation, Buzbee filed a lawsuit on December 18, 2024, against Jay-Z's company, Roc Nation, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleging that they attempted to influence his former clients to file frivolous lawsuits against him and his firm. Buzbee claims to possess audio evidence supporting these allegations and has vowed to present it in court. This countersuit adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle, highlighting the contentious and complex nature of the dispute between Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal representatives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail OnlineInside the insane battle now exploding between Jay-Z and cigar-smoking lawyer who's accusing him of rape | Daily Mail Onlineshow lessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2024, attorney Tony Buzbee filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z's entertainment company, Roc Nation, alleging that its agents engaged in illegal solicitation and impersonation to undermine his legal practice. Buzbee claims that individuals associated with Roc Nation, including attorney Marcy Croft and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, posed as Texas state officials, complete with fake badges, to coerce his former clients into filing false claims against him and his firm. He asserts that these operatives offered financial incentives, up to $10,000, to entice clients to sue his firm, aiming to intimidate and discredit him, particularly concerning his involvement in litigation against Sean "Diddy" Combs.Roc Nation has denied the allegations, dismissing Buzbee's lawsuit as a baseless attempt to distract from ongoing legal matters. A representative from Roc Nation labeled the claims as "another sham" and expressed intent to cooperate with authorities to ensure any wrongdoing is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This legal confrontation adds another layer to the complex disputes involving high-profile figures in the entertainment industry, with Buzbee also representing clients in cases alleging sexual misconduct against both Sean "Diddy" Combs and Jay-Z.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:buzbee-lawsuit-against-roc-nation-croft-emanuel.pdf

In December 2024, attorney Tony Buzbee filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z's entertainment company, Roc Nation, alleging that its agents engaged in illegal solicitation and impersonation to undermine his legal practice. Buzbee claims that individuals associated with Roc Nation, including attorney Marcy Croft and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, posed as Texas state officials, complete with fake badges, to coerce his former clients into filing false claims against him and his firm. He asserts that these operatives offered financial incentives, up to $10,000, to entice clients to sue his firm, aiming to intimidate and discredit him, particularly concerning his involvement in litigation against Sean "Diddy" Combs.Roc Nation has denied the allegations, dismissing Buzbee's lawsuit as a baseless attempt to distract from ongoing legal matters. A representative from Roc Nation labeled the claims as "another sham" and expressed intent to cooperate with authorities to ensure any wrongdoing is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This legal confrontation adds another layer to the complex disputes involving high-profile figures in the entertainment industry, with Buzbee also representing clients in cases alleging sexual misconduct against both Sean "Diddy" Combs and Jay-Z.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:buzbee-lawsuit-against-roc-nation-croft-emanuel.pdf

In December 2024, attorney Tony Buzbee filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z's entertainment company, Roc Nation, alleging that its agents engaged in illegal solicitation and impersonation to undermine his legal practice. Buzbee claims that individuals associated with Roc Nation, including attorney Marcy Croft and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, posed as Texas state officials, complete with fake badges, to coerce his former clients into filing false claims against him and his firm. He asserts that these operatives offered financial incentives, up to $10,000, to entice clients to sue his firm, aiming to intimidate and discredit him, particularly concerning his involvement in litigation against Sean "Diddy" Combs.Roc Nation has denied the allegations, dismissing Buzbee's lawsuit as a baseless attempt to distract from ongoing legal matters. A representative from Roc Nation labeled the claims as "another sham" and expressed intent to cooperate with authorities to ensure any wrongdoing is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This legal confrontation adds another layer to the complex disputes involving high-profile figures in the entertainment industry, with Buzbee also representing clients in cases alleging sexual misconduct against both Sean "Diddy" Combs and Jay-Z.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:buzbee-lawsuit-against-roc-nation-croft-emanuel.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The legal confrontation between attorney Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z has intensified with recent developments. Buzbee, representing a woman alleging that Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulted her when she was 13 at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards after-party, has faced strong rebuttals from Jay-Z's legal team. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, has labeled the claims as false and part of an extortion attempt, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accuser's account. Jay-Z has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel the accuser to reveal her identity, arguing that the allegations are baseless and damaging to his reputation.In a further escalation, Buzbee filed a lawsuit on December 18, 2024, against Jay-Z's company, Roc Nation, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleging that they attempted to influence his former clients to file frivolous lawsuits against him and his firm. Buzbee claims to possess audio evidence supporting these allegations and has vowed to present it in court. This countersuit adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle, highlighting the contentious and complex nature of the dispute between Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal representatives.(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail Online

The legal confrontation between attorney Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z has intensified with recent developments. Buzbee, representing a woman alleging that Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulted her when she was 13 at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards after-party, has faced strong rebuttals from Jay-Z's legal team. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, has labeled the claims as false and part of an extortion attempt, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accuser's account. Jay-Z has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel the accuser to reveal her identity, arguing that the allegations are baseless and damaging to his reputation.In a further escalation, Buzbee filed a lawsuit on December 18, 2024, against Jay-Z's company, Roc Nation, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleging that they attempted to influence his former clients to file frivolous lawsuits against him and his firm. Buzbee claims to possess audio evidence supporting these allegations and has vowed to present it in court. This countersuit adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle, highlighting the contentious and complex nature of the dispute between Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal representatives.(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adOver 2 Million Butts Love TUSHY. Save BIG at 10% off TUSHY with the code LAWNERD at https://hellotushy.com/LAWNERD #tushypod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Jay-Z has been identified as Celebrity A, who participated with Diddy in sexually assaulting a 13 year old Jane Doe back in 2000. Jay-Z's attorney requested the court have the plaintiff refile the case without anonymity. Jay-Z also filed a lawsuit against The Buzzbee Firm as a John Doe, claiming he is being extorted.Buzzbee explained on social media that requesting to mediate a lawsuit is not extortion. Tony Buzzbee was Denied a Restraining Order against the Quinn Emanuel Firm. The firms are accusing each other of legal gamesmanship, filing lawsuits in bad faith and malpractice. We have seen Diddy's lawyers attack other plaintiff's attorney's before.Tony Buzzbee went to social media to claim that one of his clients recorded a call they had with an investigator offering to pay them to sue Buzzbee.Do you want me to continue to follow this mud slinging saga between the attorneys?RESOURCESLatest Quick Bits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbz89hq64cDonna Adelson's Status Conference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRHNjlNen60This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

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 Quinn is the founder and Chairman of Quinn Emanuel, the largest law firm in the world focused on business litigation, with more than $2 billion in revenue last year. John joins Adam to share his journey and his best lessons and advice. John and Adam discuss a wide range of topics: leadership, business development, building winning teams and cultures, negotiation, persuasion, and more.

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

Generative AI has promised to reshape the practice of law ever since ChatGPT emerged. However, it's been unclear just how large law firms are using AI. Has it changed how practitioners do their jobs on a daily basis? Are we witnessing the emergence of a revolution in how lawyers do their work? Uncommon Law's Matthew Schwartz sits in as guest host on this episode of On the Merits. He talks with John Quinn, founder and chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as they discuss his firm's stance on artificial intelligence and the future of the billable hour.

Generative AI has promised to reshape the practice of law ever since ChatGPT emerged. However, it's been unclear just how large law firms are using AI. Has it changed how practitioners do their jobs on a daily basis? Are we witnessing the emergence of a revolution in how lawyers do their work? Uncommon Law's Matthew Schwartz sits in as guest host on this episode of On the Merits. He talks with John Quinn, founder and chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. They discuss Quinns' firm's stance on artificial intelligence and the future of the billable hour. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

In the season finale of UnCommon Law, we explore the power of AI to transform legal practice. Featuring insights from top law professors, a federal judge, and industry leaders like John Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel, we ask: Can AI's promise of efficiency overcome its risks—and redefine the future of law? Guests: John Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Daniel Ho, professor of law and computer science at Stanford University David Hoffman, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Isabel Gottlieb, reporter for Bloomberg Law covering AI and issues impacting corporate legal departments UnCommon Law is hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz.

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

This Day in Legal History: William Rehnquist BornOn October 1, 1924, William Hubbs Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Nixon, Rehnquist became a polarizing figure, known for his staunch conservatism and originalist approach to the Constitution. His judicial philosophy often focused on restricting federal authority and bolstering states' rights, positions that critics argued rolled back civil rights protections and hindered federal progress on social justice issues. In 1986, President Reagan elevated Rehnquist to Chief Justice, a decision that pushed the Court further right. At his swearing-in, Reagan hailed him as a defender of constitutional values, but opponents viewed his appointment as the solidification of an increasingly reactionary judiciary. The same ceremony saw Antonin Scalia, another conservative, sworn in, signaling a shift that would influence rulings on affirmative action, voting rights, and church-state separation.Rehnquist's tenure included controversial rulings, notably his role in Bush v. Gore (2000), which critics argue undermined democratic principles by halting the Florida recount and effectively deciding a presidential election. His leadership on the Court was also marked by decisions that curtailed congressional power under the Commerce Clause, weakening federal authority in areas like civil rights and environmental regulation. While his supporters celebrated him as a guardian of limited government, his legacy remains contentious, with lasting impacts on the Court's direction and the balance between federal and state power.A fun Rehnquist fact is that you'll see in any official pictures or portraits of him as Chief Justice, his sleeves have yellow arm bands. Rehnquist insisted on adding four gold stripes on each sleeve to distinguish himself from the associate justices. He was inspired by the costume of the Lord Chancellor in a production of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Iolanthe. Rehnquist's addition of the stripes was an unusual departure from the traditional plain black robes worn by justices, and it became a symbol of his unique approach to the role.New York Mayor Eric Adams has brought on three high-profile litigators as he faces federal criminal charges. William Burck, a former George W. Bush White House lawyer and current Fox Corp. board member, is one of the lawyers advising Adams. Burck, known for representing figures like Stephen Bannon and Don McGahn, joins Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partners John Bash III and Avi Perry on Adams' defense team. Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel with experience defending high-profile clients like Elon Musk, is leading the defense. The charges involve allegations that Adams accepted lavish travel perks and had improper ties to the Turkish government. Adams has denied wrongdoing and vowed to continue as mayor while fighting the charges. His legal team has requested the case's dismissal.Meanwhile, a legal defense fund for Adams has paid over $877,000 to law firm WilmerHale, and several staffers have left his administration amid ongoing investigations. Additionally, Theresa Hassler was recently appointed general counsel for the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit under scrutiny for its fundraising practices.Ex-Bannon Lawyer With Fox News Ties Joins NYC Mayor Defense TeamToday, on October 1, 2024, a Georgia judge will hear a challenge from Democrats against new election rules introduced by the Republican-led Georgia Election Board. These rules, approved in August, allow county officials to investigate discrepancies in vote counts and scrutinize election-related documents before certifying results. Democrats argue that these changes, which came just before the November 5 election, are designed to erode trust in the process and could delay certification. The rules were backed by three board members who are allies of Donald Trump, who continues to challenge his 2020 loss in Georgia. Trump has praised these board members for their efforts to increase election security, though critics, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, say the changes could undermine voter confidence and strain election workers.A separate lawsuit was also filed to block a new requirement for a hand count of ballots. Democrats contend that these rules create confusion and provide too much leeway for local officials to investigate alleged fraud, potentially delaying results. The trial in Fulton County Superior Court is part of a broader national focus on battleground states like Georgia, where both Republicans and Democrats are intensely focused ahead of the upcoming presidential election.Challenge by US Democrats to Georgia election rules goes to trial | ReutersAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, more U.S. law firms are appointing executives to lead AI initiatives. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and McDermott Will & Emery both announced new AI leadership hires, with Akin appointing Jeff Westcott as director of practice technology and AI innovation, and McDermott hiring Christopher Cyrus as director of AI innovation. These moves reflect the growing belief that AI will have a permanent role in the legal profession, particularly in areas like research, drafting legal documents, and reducing administrative tasks.Law firms are responding to client expectations and the surge in AI technologies, which have expanded dramatically in the past two years. Other firms, such as Covington & Burling, Latham & Watkins, and Reed Smith, have similarly created AI and data science roles since the rise of tools like ChatGPT. Westcott will focus on how Akin Gump can strategically invest in AI technology, assessing whether to develop tools in-house, purchase products, or partner with vendors.Additionally, legal AI startup Harvey's chief strategy officer, Gordon Moodie, transitioned to Debevoise & Plimpton as a partner specializing in mergers and acquisitions. These developments underscore the legal industry's growing focus on AI integration as firms aim to remain competitive and adapt to technological advances.More US law firms turn to executives for AI leadership roles | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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 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 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

Syndicated real estate deals can be complicated and can look like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but you CAN make sense of it all with a few good pointers! And that's what you're going to get in this interview – a short-but-sweet overview of the syndicated real estate deal in language you can understand. Our guest is a syndication lawyer who will explain things like capital calls and how to deal with them, the difference between a private placement memorandum and an operating agreement, and why it's so important to look at how the syndicators are defining their terms. One of those oh-so-important terms is the “preferred return.” You definitely want to understand that one!  Attorney Bethany LaFlam describes herself as a seasoned deal lawyer, a conscious wealth creator, a real estate investor, and a mother. She has more than 20 years of experience practicing law and is currently a managing partner for the Premier Law Group, which focuses mostly on real estate syndications and funds. Among other career highlights is Bethany's first job at a prestigious Los Angeles law firm called Quinn Emanuel. She then launched a boutique law firm in Newport Beach, California, and merged that practice into a firm in Chicago. Her clients have ranged from real estate syndicators and developers to industries involving aerospace, energy, medical services, and technology. If you'd like to put Bethany's advice into practice, please check out our current syndicated deal in Ridgewater, Oregon. We are building homes there and are offering a 12% preferred return to accredited investors. You can find out more at https://growdevelopments.com Thanks for listening! Kathy Fettke LINKS ~~~ OUR GUEST

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