Episodes
-
John is joined by Darius J. Khambata, SC, a barrister in the Mumbai office of One Essex Court. They discuss the civil justice system in India, including the absence of a standing requirement to bring public interest litigation, the burden on the judiciary of handling millions of cases, and the emphasis on oral argument rather than written submissions. They also discuss how, for many cases, the decision on interim relief is effectively determinative, how arbitration is becoming increasingly prevalent, and the prospect that technology and a new influx of highly skilled young lawyers may dramatically improve the efficiency of the Indian civil justice system.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
One of the most difficult tasks facing our legal system is determining the compensation to provide individual victims of many of the large-scale tragic events that our country has faced in recent years. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by attorney Kenneth (Ken) Feinberg, a mediator extraordinaire who has settled some of the most high-profile mass tort and disaster disputes the US legal system has ever seen as well as managing the claims administration programs for terrible events that did not result in litigation. He has managed the victim compensation funds in high-profile tragedies including the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP oil spill fund, and the victim assistance funds established in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook shooting. Mr. Feinberg also resolved victim compensation issues in the General Motors ignition switch cases, the VW diesel emissions cases, the Boeing 737 MAX crash cases, the Eli Little DES cases, the Shoreham Nuclear Plant cases, Agent Orange, asbestos, among many others.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
Episodes manquant?
-
John Quinn is joined by Karl Hennessee, Senior Vice President and Head of Litigation, Investigations, and Regulatory Affairs at Airbus. Karl supervises Airbus’s criminal investigations, regulatory cases, product liability cases, and commercial arbitration disputes, covering incidents as significant as air crashes, as well as other disputes. He discusses the importance of maintaining a "hundred-year view" of issues that includes overseeing issues that arose 50 years in the past while preparing for regulatory challenges 50 years in the future. His team includes specialists in AI, aircraft certification, and arbitration, all of whom share a "democracy of ideas" approach to developing case strategies. Karl identifies three core principles that guide Airbus's dispute management: viewing disputes as tools for managing risk rather than ends in themselves; "strategic empathy" — understanding opposing interests and perspectives to improve outcomes; and humility in handling high-stakes, high-profile cases. In house lawyers need to earn trust by translating legal issues into actionable insights for business leaders, often by first understanding the technical aspects of Airbus’s products. Public relations play a critical role in managing disputes, especially for a company under constant public scrutiny. There must be close collaboration with communications teams to present balanced narratives and build public trust even in adverse situations. John and Karl also discusses emerging areas of concern such as ESG regulations and the recent breakdown of international norms of comity and deference to foreign judicial decisions, especially with respect to the effect of international sanctions. Karl has extensive experience in international arbitration and is the former Chairman of the Governing Body of the ICC Court of International Arbitration. He offers his insights about potential improvements in arbitration, particularly requiring shorter case timelines, having early case assessments to weed out hopeless frivolous cases and other suggestions summarized in a recent paper published by the London Court of International Arbitration. Finally, he shares advice on work-life balance, emphasizing the importance of dedicating time to personal interests and preserving a sense of fulfillment in both professional and personal life.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
Guests: Luke Nikas, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and Quinn Emanuel associates Sara Clark, Jennifer Stern, and Stephanie Kelemen
John is joined by four members of the trial team that obtained a dismissal of all charges in the recent New Mexico manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin was charged by the State of New Mexico with involuntary manslaughter following the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film Rust when a prop gun Mr. Baldwin was holding accidentally discharged. They discuss the events of the tragic accident and the initial investigation by the District Attorney’s office, which did not suggest any intent to charge Mr. Baldwin with a crime until about ten minutes before the press release announcing the manslaughter charges. They also discuss the resignation and replacement of the first Special Prosecutor, the FBI’s destruction of the gun while testing it and the prosecution’s subsequent dismissal of charges without prejudice, only to suddenly refile the charges later. Luke describes the team’s pretrial motions to dismiss based upon the destruction of the gun, the withholding of evidence from the defense, and improper conduct by the prosecution before the grand jury. On the question of why there was live ammunition on a movie set, a critical breakthrough came during trial when witnesses testified that a former law enforcement officer had informed the prosecution that he had stored live ammunition for the film’s prop supplier. The testimony revealed that these live rounds were potentially mixed in with dummy rounds used to train actors on other movie sets, offering a plausible alternative explanation for the live bullets found on the Rust set. The prosecution withheld this information from the defense before trial even though it cast doubt on the prosecution’s theory that the film’s young armorer was responsible for introducing live rounds to the set. The judge, after learning that the concealed bullets matched the type used in the fatal shooting, ruled that the prosecution had failed to disclose critical evidence and dismissed the charges mid-trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Philippe Pinsolle, Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Geneva office, and Simon Vorburger, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Zurich office. They discuss the €14 billion international arbitration award, one of the largest arbitration awards ever, that Philippe and Simon obtained for Quinn Emanuel client, Uniper, a German gas supplier, against Gazprom Export, a Russian gas company. The case began in mid-2022 when Gazprom unexpectedly halted gas supplies to Uniper, which severely impacted the German energy market, as Gazprom had been supplying 40% of Germany's gas. Uniper then had to purchase gas at prices as high as ten times the previous price to fulfill its obligations, leading the company to the verge of bankruptcy. Gazprom's justification for stopping the gas was based on force majeure, claiming that unforeseen events, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine and damage to the Nord Stream pipeline, made it impossible for Gazprom to deliver the gas. These justifications lacked credibility because, for among other reasons, some of the claimed force majeure events occurred after Gazprom stopped delivering the gas. Philippe explains that the arbitration process moved quickly with the arbitration beginning in November 2022. The arbitration hearings were held in The Hague, but Gazprom did not participate directly, opting to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction from a Russian court. Despite Gazprom's absence, the team had to rigorously prove up their case, because default judgments are not permitted in international arbitration. This made the Uniper claimant’s burden more challenging in some ways in that without an opponent making specific claims, the Quinn Emanuel team had to convince the arbitrators that there were no plausible defenses to Uniper’s claims, and despite every force majeure event, Gazprom had asserted, it still could have fulfilled the contract at issue. Another key legal challenge was Uniper’s "take-or-pay" contracts, which required Uniper to pay for gas whether it was delivered or not. The team convinced the tribunal to allow Uniper to terminate these contracts. Philippe addresses the challenge of staying focused on the contractual claim at issue despite the broader geopolitical context of the arbitration, including the 2022 European energy crisis and Russia's role in manipulating gas supplies to Europe. The podcast concludes with a discussion about the German government’s bailout of Uniper and that the proceeds of the arbitration will benefit the German state.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John Quinn is joined by Alex Spiro, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York and Miami offices and one of the best-known trial lawyers in the U.S. Alex explains that his approach to trial preparation is to immerse himself into the evidence as trial approaches. He reads every relevant document to understand even tangential details, rather than just looking for "hot docs." This deep dive helps him construct a narrative that, if all goes well, leads the jury to a collective “Eureka” moment, where the verdict becomes clear. Alex also explains that he does not rely on mock juries and external validation because his themes must resonate with his own beliefs to be compelling. Instead, he prefers to bounce ideas off colleagues who may suggest course corrections. Alex says that understanding human psychology is crucial because the motivations behind actions often matter more than the actions themselves. The discussion turns to how Alex balances the demands of multiple cases while remaining completely focused on the next upcoming trial. He credits his ability to compartmentalize and work long hours, as well as strong support from trial teams. He also explains to clients from the outset that during their “moment of truth,” he will prioritize their case entirely, but before then, he might be prioritizing the impending trials of other clients. The discussion then turns to criminal justice reform, a subject Alex is passionate about. He describes the criminal justice system as structurally biased, especially against marginalized communities. He identifies the most urgent priorities for reform as bail reform, sentencing disparities, and changing the current system's backward-looking nature, which he believes perpetuates outdated and discriminatory standards. When asked about AI’s role in sentencing, Alex expresses concerns that AI could reinforce existing biases by relying on historical data, potentially leading to harsher outcomes, particularly for first-time offenders. Finally, John and Alex discuss that it has become harder for lawyers to represent controversial clients but emphasize the importance of doing so.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Mark J. Sundahl, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University College of Law and the Director of the Global Space Law Center. They discuss the evolving law governing activities in outer space. Prof. Sundahl explains that space law originated from concerns during the Cold War when Sputnik, the first Soviet satellite, flew over the U.S., raising fears that nations could potentially place nuclear weapons in space, hovering over and ready to drop on other nations. This led to the creation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, establishing fundamental principles such as "free use of outer space," the prohibition of nuclear weapons and claims of sovereignty on celestial bodies, and the ability of private companies to operate in space under the authorization and supervision of their countries’ governments. Prof. Sundahl also explains the international treaties on the rescue of astronauts, liability for space activities and for registration of objects sent to space. They then discuss how liability for damages caused by space objects is becoming increasingly pressing due to the rapidly increasing congestion of satellites and the aging of equipment that has been in orbit for decades. One example Prof. Sundahl discusses is a recent case where a falling piece of an American company’s capsule being operated by NASA damaged a house in Florida. He explains that, normally, international treaties impose strict liability on states for surface damage, but incidents within a country are governed by domestic law. He also explains that for damages that occur in orbit, liability issues become complex due to the lack of established norms. Prof. Sundahl then observes that although the United States heavily regulates private companies’ activities in space, new challenges have arisen, such as resource extraction on celestial bodies. He explains that although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over the Moon, the U.S. allows companies to own resources extracted from the Moon, a stance that is not universally accepted. Professor Sundahl also describes the legal uncertainty surrounding suborbital and orbital space tourism. He explains that currently, suborbital flights require minimal safety disclosures, and orbital tourism lacks regulation entirely, raising concerns as private companies expand their operations. Finally, Prof. Sundahl explains the growing threat of militarization in space and that, with countries developing military capabilities and the U.S. establishing a Space Force, there is a real risk of conflicts extending beyond Earth.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Patrick D. Curran, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston and New York offices. They discuss the emerging issues regarding artificial intelligence currently before the courts, legislatures and government regulators and that, while many critical questions are pending before courts and regulators, clear answers are still few and far between. First, they discuss how despite the billions of dollars being invested in developing large language AI models, patent law often does not protect those investments because patents generally do not cover general ideas, mathematical concepts, or algorithms. They also discuss the question of whether an AI generated invention may be cited as prior art that would invalidate a human-generated invention. Patrick then explains that companies are increasingly relying on trade secret protections to safeguard their AI innovations, even though this approach comes with challenges. Patrick further explains that trade secret protection may extend indefinitely, unlike patents which expire after a defined term, but notes the difficulty inherent in detecting when competitors might be using proprietary models, making trade secrets harder to enforce. They also discuss AI's role in invention, noting that while AI may create invent things, such as new molecules, if there is no human involvement in the process, the discovery cannot be patented. They then examine the legal challenges regarding the use of copyrighted material in training AI models, including whether using copyrighted material for AI training constitutes fair use, the degree to which companies can limit data scraping through their terms of service, and the role that technical safeguards against scraping might play in future disputes. They also discuss recent defamation claims based upon AI generated content and the difficulties of proving intent when human input to the content is minimal. The discussion then turns to recent regulatory developments, including recent legislation in US cities such as cities like New York City and Portland, Oregon, states including Colorado and California and international efforts like the European AI Act and the “Brusselization” of GDPR requirements. Patrick describes the industry's divided stance on regulation, with some companies calling for stricter oversight while others fearing that regulation will stifle innovation. Finally, both John and Patrick agree that as courts and regulators tackle these complex issues, the legal landscape surrounding AI will continue to evolve rapidly.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by a professor of Ethics and Finance at NYU’s Stern School of Business and a director of the Center for Business and Human Rights, Michael Posner. He is also joined by Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Head of Quinn Emanuel’s ESG practice and experienced litigator of business and human rights issues. Together, they discuss what we really understand the term “human rights” to mean for business and the current challenges regarding human rights implementation across the business world.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Richard East, founder and senior partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office. They discuss the key differences between litigating in the US and the UK, including the pre-action protocols that are mandatory in the UK before initiating a lawsuit, the UK presumption that the loser will pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees, and the differences between the broad discovery procedures in the US and the more narrow disclosure rules in the UK. They also discuss the inability to prepare witnesses before testifying in the UK, the division of UK bar into solicitors and barristers, and the restrictions on public access to court records in the UK. Finally, they discuss the comparative rarity of jury trials in civil cases in the UK and the differences in the types of interim relief available in the UK, including powerful asset freezing injunctions which are recognized by jurisdictions around the world.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Zina Bash and Ashley Keller, both Partners at Keller Postman, LLC which, with the Texas Attorney General, represented the State of Texas in an enforcement action against Meta Platforms for violations of Texas's biometric privacy law. They discuss the landmark $1.4 billion settlement they obtained from Meta for capturing and using biometric identifiers like face geometry without consent, the largest settlement ever by a single state. They explain how Texas’s biometric privacy law differs from the better-known Illinois biometric privacy act because in Texas, there is no private right of action; only the state attorney general can bring lawsuits. Ashley explains that the claims against Meta concerned capturing biometric identifiers, such as the face geometry, of millions of Texas residents without informed consent, disclosing this data without permission, and failing to delete it after use. Among other defenses, Meta argued that because Facebook is a free service, it did not collect this information for commercial purposes. The State argued that Meta’s actions were clearly tied to its business model. Meta also argued that it should not be penalized for scanning the faces of non-Facebook users because Meta could not obtain informed consent from non-users. The court rejected this argument, ruling that this was still a violation of the Texas law. They then discuss how the settlement followed a fast-track 18-month litigation process, a stark contrast to a similar Illinois case against Meta, which lasted five and a half years. Zina attributed the speed of this case to the aggressive approach of the Texas attorney general's office, which had been investigating Meta for over a year before the suit was filed. She explains that a major turning point was the Texas court’s decision requiring Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to sit for deposition. Zina explains that Meta faced potentially ruinous damages of $25,000 per photograph that appeared on Facebook or Instagram. The discussion then turns to broader privacy concerns. Ashley and John note that Americans' attitudes towards privacy seems to have evolved, particularly regarding the intrusive data collection practices of tech giants like Meta. In the past, people might be willing to trade personal data for free services like social media, but more recently people are increasingly wary of how their information is being used without consent, especially as companies like Meta monetize that data. Finally, they note that most users don't fully read or understand the terms of consent they agree to in user agreements, raising questions about how genuinely informed their consent truly is.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Jon Ballis, the Chairman of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, one of the world’s leading law firms with approximately 3,500 attorneys around the world. Jon describes his path to leadership at the firm, from joining Kirkland in 2005 from another firm as an M&A lawyer without aspirations for management, to his election to the Management Committee and his elevation to Chairman in January 2020. Jon explains Kirkland’s governance, emphasizing the firm’s flat organizational structure and the absence of many formal titles which he believes encourages organic leadership development. He also explains Kirkland’s unique Nominating Committee system, which seeks to avoid entrenchment and favoritism by allowing members to serve on the Nominating Committee only once in their careers. They also discuss Kirkland’s strategic focus, particularly its approach to talent management and strategy. Jon says that the firm’s strategy is client-driven, evolving organically based on where its clients are heading, rather than adhering to a rigid, top-down plan and how this client-focused approach has led to Kirkland expanding its private equity practice to include areas like energy, infrastructure, and private equity credit. Jon then explains Kirkland’s approach to compensation and lateral hiring, dismissing the idea that Kirkland "buys business" through offering high compensation for laterals based on their “book of business.” He says that the firm focuses on hiring talent to meet growing client demand. He says that Kirkland’s litigation business grossed almost $2 billion last year and operates at close to the same margins as its transactional business. Jon then discusses the merit-based compensation system at Kirkland, which is subjective and not formulaic. Every two years, the firm conducts a review and assigns each partner a set number of points that determine that partner’s compensation for the next two years. Jon explains Kirkland has two classes of nonequity or income partners, one class that are on track to either become equity partners or move on and a second class of permanent income partners. Finally, John and Jon discuss the challenges of maintaining leadership in the legal industry, including the importance of continuous improvement, innovation, and a willingness to take risks to maintain excellence.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by three of Quinn Emanuel’s newest partners, K. McKenzie Anderson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office; Jodie Cheng, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco office; and Ryan Rakower, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the very different paths they took to becoming partners at the firm. Ryan grew up and went to law school in New York City where, after clerking for a judge, he joined Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. His practice centers on civil commercial disputes representing private investment firms and insurance companies and he has spent his entire career at the firm. McKenzie grew up in Oklahoma, the latest in a long line of lawyers in her family, swearing that she would never become a lawyer. She worked in Moscow, Russia, for several years before eventually going to law school and starting her legal career at Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. She became a prosecutor with the U.S. DOJ for several years before returning to Quinn Emanuel where she practices in white collar criminal defense work and investigations as well as regulatory matters while working remotely from her home in Oklahoma. Finally, Jodie grew up in San Francisco in a family of engineers and became intrigued with intellectual property litigation. She spent the first four to five years of her legal career at one of the largest law firms in the world then pivoted to become a solo practitioner for four years before joining Quinn Emanuel where she does intellectual property litigation in the semiconductor and chip design, AI and machine learning, and medical device industries. They also discuss their motivations to be the best at what they do and the importance to them of working in a collaborative environment. Finally, they discuss the inherent anxieties of life as an associate and offer their suggestions to younger lawyers on how to succeed despite those anxieties.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Lucien Wong, SC. Attorney-General Wong explains that under Singapore’s constitution, his office is an independent organ of the state which does not answer to either the cabinet or the legislature. His office includes four divisions: the criminal division which conducts all prosecutions in Singapore, the civil division which advises government ministries and agencies as well as representing the government in civil court cases and arbitrations, the legislative drafting division which drafts all legislation in Singapore, and the international affairs division which protects Singapore's interests on the international legal stage. Attorney-General Wong also explains that he is the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission which employs all lawyers working in his office and is independent from the Public Service Commission, which employs all other civil servants in Singapore. They discuss the case where, less than a month after he became Attorney-General, Malaysia brought an action against Singapore in the International Court of Justice to reclaim an island off the coast of Singapore, requiring Attorney-General Wong to become an international lawyer overnight. Finally, they discuss Singapore’s use of caning as a criminal punishment, including how the practice originated in India’s penal code which Singapore inherited upon achieving independence, its value as a deterrent, and that Singapore’s reputation as a clean, efficient, civil society might be attributable in part to the deterrent effects of its criminal punishments.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Michael A. (Mike) Brown, partner at Nelson Mullins and founder of the firm’s Baltimore office. Together, John and Mike discuss the process of successfully selecting a jury, including the importance of getting the jury to open up about their biases by disclosing some of your background or opinions and encouraging those jurors who voice biases against your client to speak freely. In addition, they discuss some of their favorite questions to ask to elicit biases from jurors who are reluctant to disclose them.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by two experts in international arbitration, Philippe Pinsolle, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Geneva office and Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe, and Stephen Jagusch KC, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office and Global Chair of the firm’s International Arbitration Practice. Together, they discuss the specialized field of international arbitration, including factors to consider when opting for arbitration, strategies for crafting arbitration provisions, how to select the best arbitrators, challenges to final judgments, and issues regarding the subsequent enforcement of awards.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and John Bash, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin Office, the two Co-Chairs of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss several far-reaching decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its most recent term that significantly affect how the federal government will be able to regulate businesses. First, John Bash explains the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court over-turned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous statutes adopted by the administrative agencies that implement those statutes. He also explains the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, in which the Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for a plaintiff to challenge federal regulations runs from when the regulation first affects the plaintiff, not from when the regulation is promulgated. They then discuss how Corner Post and Loper Bright together will potentially allow businesses to overturn agency interpretations of statutes that were established decades ago. Chris explains the decision in SEC v. Jarkesy that when an agency brings a case that would typically require a jury at common law, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a federal court rather than a trial before one of the agency’s administrative law judges. Chris also explains the Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which held that a bankruptcy court may not grant a release of claims against non-parties to a bankruptcy unless the alleged victims consent to the release, and how the decision will affect large bankruptcy proceedings going forward. They then discuss Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, in which the Court expressed skepticism about state laws in Texas and Florida that prohibited social media companies from engaging in certain forms of content moderation, but remanded the case for further proceedings. Finally, they discuss Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, in which the Court ruled that “pure omissions” are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b-5 and a Rule 10b-5 claim must always be based on a statement that is either false or misleading on its own or rendered misleading by a material omission.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Renny Hwang, Deputy General Counsel and Head of Litigation at OpenAI and former Head of Litigation at Google. They discuss the legal issues surrounding AI technology. Renny explains that he believes that existing law is well equipped to deal with copyright, fair use and product liability issues raised by AI, but the challenge the industry faces is that most people do not understand how AI works. He also explains that he believes other legal issues, such as corporate transparency and governance, might require new regulations. John and Renny discuss the likely impact of patent and trade secret law on the AI industry in light of the industry’s tendency to publish significant research and findings. They also discuss the effect of the absence of comprehensive federal AI regulation, including the difficulty companies have in to implementing different compliance regimes for different jurisdictions and the possibility that the European AI Act will become the de facto default standard for AI regulation globally. Finally, Renny explains that OpenAI is a mission-driven company focused on building safe and beneficial AI and that commitment is reflected in OpenAI’s Board-level Safety Committee.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Brad Karp, Chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Brad explains how he led Paul Weiss to diversify its business beginning in the financial crisis of 2008, when its core business of litigation was still highly profitable, to become a global leader in private equity transactions, mergers and acquisitions and financial restructuring as well. He describes how he approached leading lawyers in these fields and convinced them to join the firm by emphasizing the firm’s profitability, reputation, culture, and client base and how each individual would fit into the firm’s existing business. Brad also explains the firm’s dramatic expansion in London in the summer of 2023 and why he does not foresee further significant international expansion in the future. John and Brad then discuss the recent trends in large law firms towards recruiting highly paid superstar lawyers and the growth of salaried or nonequity partners. They also discuss the major trends they expect to see in the future, including the increasing use of AI within the legal industry, the dramatic rise of litigation and regulatory investigations over the use of AI and the influence of climate change on every area of law practice. Finally, Brad describes his firm’s longtime commitment to actively taking on social justice and pro bono representations and the challenges of handling these engagements in today’s increasingly politicized environment.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Marc E. Kasowitz, Founder and Managing Partner of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP. They discuss the increasing mobility of law firm partners, the rise of superstar lawyers with multi-year mega compensation deals and the growing number of salaried partners in large law firms and how those trends have changed compensation strategies and firm dynamics. The discussion then shifts to the cases Marc’s firm has brought on behalf of Jewish students and an organization of Jewish students against NYU, Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania for failing to protect Jewish students from the recent upsurge in anti-Semitic activity on those campuses. Marc explains the legal basis of the lawsuits in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the allegations that the universities have been deliberately indifferent to anti-Semitic conduct and attacks, and that the remedies sought are injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Marc also explains his view that the universities’ behavior stems from a shared woke ideology that the world is divided into oppressors and oppressed and all actions, including violence, taken by the oppressed is allegedly justified. Finally, they discuss how the responses of many universities to these protests have resulted in silencing legitimate speech and the cancellation of many graduations.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi - Montre plus
