Law, disrupted

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a proprietary litigation intelligence system developed inside Quinn Emanuel — built from a practicing litigator's perspective and designed to give case teams a decisive advantage from day one. The system, known internally as a "kerchbench," works by taking a case team's documents, filings, and materials and distilling them into a structured knowledge base that mirrors how experienced litigators understand and manage cases — organized around the chronology of events, key actors, claims and defenses, and critical evidence. The result is an AI that already understands the case before anyone asks it a question, so every interaction starts from genuine case knowledge rather than from scratch. By progressively building out the system's understanding as a matter develops, the AI functions as a true thought partner rather than a passive tool. Lawyers can refine strategies, identify gaps in their knowledge, and surface non-obvious connections across the record. The system doesn't just answer questions about what is known — it serves as a thought partner, flagging what additional information the team may need and what the lawyer may be overlooking. One key innovation is the creation of structured workflows and reusable "skills" that break complex legal tasks into component steps — issue identification, organization, drafting, and refinement. These routines accelerate the production of high-quality work while preserving lawyer oversight at every stage. The system also supports early case assessment: a fast-turnaround engagement that synthesizes initial case materials into a structured snapshot of claims and defenses, key risks, and strategic priorities — giving partners a clear picture of a case within 48 hours. The result is a shift in legal work from labor-intensive context assembly toward higher-value analytical thinking. By providing relevant case information on demand and reducing the cognitive burden of tracking specific evidence across a large record, the system enhances both the speed and quality of legal reasoning. This is not merely an efficiency gain — it is a meaningful improvement in lawyers' ability to think, strategize, and advocate effectively in complex litigation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Matthew Borden, partner and co-founder of BraunHagey & Borden, and Kory DeClark, partner at BraunHagey & Borden. They discuss litigation challenging federal law enforcement responses to protests, focusing on the Dickenson case in Portland, Oregon that resulted in an injunction restricting how government agents may use force against demonstrators. The case arose from a series of protests against immigration enforcement policies. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of excessive and indiscriminate force by federal agents at these protests that chilled lawful First Amendment activity. The legal team assembled extensive evidence, including 62 sworn declarations and video footage, documenting incidents such as using pepper spray on an 82 year old woman and firing tear gas and projectiles at peaceful protestors. The effort to gather evidence was intense, involving rapid coordination among attorneys, staff, and volunteers to identify witnesses, collect recordings, and conduct expedited discovery in only 28 days. The discovery included depositions of federal personnel and testimony from experts and local law enforcement officials, who contrasted federal tactics with established crowd-control practices. The evidence demonstrated a broad pattern amounting to an informal policy inconsistent with constitutional protections rather than a series of isolated incidents. One powerful piece of evidence, in addition to the limited training that is much inferior to what police receive, was that the government conducted no investigations of and imposed no disciplinary measures on the officers involved in these incidents. At the preliminary injunction hearing, the government largely relied on general assertions that protests were dangerous and that restrictions on force would compromise officer safety, while offering no direct rebuttal to specific incidents. In contrast, the plaintiffs emphasized that targeted, proportional policing methods were available and commonly used by trained local agencies, and that indiscriminate tactics such as tear gas often escalated tensions rather than restoring order. The resulting injunction limits the use of force to situations involving imminent threats and active resistance. It restricts the deployment of crowd-control weapons against passive or non-threatening individuals. These constraints align with existing use-of-force standards and have not been shown to endanger officers when implemented. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. Finally, they discuss BraunHagey & Borden’s “impact” practice of focusing almost 20% of its work on pro bono activities on cases that could have the maximum impact for a broad group of people or change the law to benefit a large group of people. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss a sixteen-year copyright dispute, which involved two appeals to the Second Circuit, that centered on the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe-harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies who own the copyrights to some of the world’s most famous songs. The defendant, represented by a Quinn Emanuel team led by Todd and Owen, was Vimeo, a popular video-hosting and video-sharing platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo should be held liable for copyright infringement based on users who posted videos that incorporated the plaintiffs’ music without the plaintiffs’ permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions, which shield platforms such as Vimeo from copyright liability for the acts of their users as long as they comply with certain requirements. Among two of those requirements are that: (1) the platform does not have “the right or ability to control” allegedly infringing activity; and (2) the platform removes user-posted videos upon receiving sufficient knowledge of infringement—for example, the receipt of a DMCA notice from the copyright holder, or “red flag” knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeo’s voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled users’ infringing activity. Second, while the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staff’s awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeo’s “red flag” knowledge, imposing a duty upon Vimeo staff to remove such videos on sight. In its defense, Vimeo argued that voluntary removal of unwanted videos (for example, bullying, sexual content, or advertising) did not disqualify it from safe-harbor eligibility because it is consistent with the sort of moderation that Congress encouraged in the statute. Vimeo further argued that an ordinary Vimeo employee could not reasonably know whether a video is “obviously” infringing on sight, and that the plaintiffs were, in fact, seeking an end-run around the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime. The Second Circuit agreed with Vimeo. It first concluded in 2016 that mere awareness that a video contains a famous song is not enough to show that it is obviously infringing – it could be authorized or a fair use, which are fact-intensive determinations. As the Court noted, even judges and copyright scholars have difficulty assessing the boundaries of fair use. The Court emphasized that copyright holders were not without remedy – they could send DMCA takedown notices for expeditious removal, which is the deliberate bargain that Congress struck. In 2025, the Second Circuit further ruled that a platform does not forfeit safe harbor by voluntarily removing unwanted videos, as such activity does not rise to providing “substantial influence” in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology. These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCA’s statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holder’s desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to courts. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Robert M. (“Bobby”) Schwartz, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and co-chair of the firm’s Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, and Marie M. Hayrapetian, associate in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss recent cases testing whether large language model AI outputs may give rise to defamation claims. In one recent Georgia case, a journalist asked ChatGPT about a lawsuit and received a response stating that a company executive was an embezzler even though the lawsuit did not involve any such allegations and he wasn’t and embezzler.. In another, Google was sued after its AI overview tool incorrectly stated that a business was being sued by the Minnesota state attorney general for deceptive practices, an allegation that allegedly caused up to $200 million in lost sales. Other examples involve sexualized deepfake images allegedly generated from ordinary photos, creating reputational and privacy harms. Defamation law assumes a human speaker who publishes a false factual statement with some degree of fault. AI systems complicate that framework. In the case of LLM outputs, it is unclear who the speaker is. Is it the platform, the data scientists behind the platform, the user who created the prompt, or the model itself? It is also difficult to fit AI output into doctrines requiring intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard, especially in public figure cases that require proof of actual malice. In the Georgia case, the defense won a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the output would not reasonably be understood as stating actual facts because the system gave warnings about limitations and potential errors. That reasoning might be vulnerable on appeal, but it shows one approach courts may adopt to reject these claims. Republication may also result in liability. If someone republishes defamatory AI output as fact, ordinary defamation principles could apply. An unresolved issue is whether the Section 230 safe harbor protects platforms when the AI output is generated through interactions between user prompts and the model. Current defamation law might ultimately be a poor fit for AI-generated speech. Assessing liability for AI generated speech might eventually require a different legal framework such as, possibly, product liability law. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Rebecca Abel, Supervising Federal Public Defender, and Kyra Nickell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, both with the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender's Office. They discuss the wave of criminal cases arising from protests in Los Angeles against immigration enforcement actions. Rebecca and Kyra offer their own insights and do not speak on behalf of the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender's Office. The government has filed more than seventy criminal cases in Los Angeles against protestors, most alleging felony assault on a federal officer. The cases generally stem from confrontations during demonstrations near federal facilities, where protesters, journalists, or bystanders are accused of physical contact with officers. These cases have gone to trial or been dismissed at a much higher rate than normal for the federal criminal dockets. Remarkably, each of the first six trials handled by the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender’s Office has ended in an acquittal. One case involved a photographer who had been documenting a protest outside the Metropolitan Detention Center after photographing demonstrators at a nearby Home Depot. He was charged with felony assault on a federal officer based on allegations that he touched an officer with his camera and then pushed the officer with his hand. At trial, the government relied mainly on testimony from the complaining officer and a supervisor, along with limited video footage that was distant or incomplete. The defense located additional witnesses and videos, including independent journalists and protesters who had recorded the event from closer angles. The complaining officer testified he was trying to create space between himself and the photographer when the photographer struck him. However, the defense introduced video evidence that contradicted the complaining officer’s testimony. The video showed the officer moved rapidly toward the photographer, that any contact between the camera and the officer’s face was incidental, and that the photographer’s later hand movement came only after the officer slapped the camera and advanced on him. The defense argued that the physical contact was in self-defense rather than an assault. The jury deliberated for about five hours and asked for a reread of the defendant’s testimony that he had been frightened and confused, suggesting that they were focused on the self-defense claim. The acquittal underscored the weakness of the evidence in this case and the unusual pattern emerging in these protest prosecutions. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jonathan Graham, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Amgen, one of the world’s largest biotech companies and one of the founders of the industry. They discuss in-house legal leadership in major biotech companies and how science, intellectual property, and regulation shape strategy. Jonathan began his practice clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then BECAMEshifted to practicing as a litigator for a large firm. Later, his career shifted in house. He believes that litigation training develops useful skills, including rapid issue-spotting across unfamiliar domains, crisp written and oral advocacy, and an ability to understand stakeholders’ incentives. The biotech industry is unusually purpose-driven because the output is medicine that can extend life and restore quality of life. That mission creates urgency across functions, as delays can mean patients wait longer for needed therapies. The sector is also highly regulated and fast-moving, which elevates the importance of legal teams that operate as strategic partners rather than as a “department of no.” Intellectual property is the economic lifeblood of biological drug development. Bringing a molecule to market often costs billions of dollars and requires years of lab work, clinical trials, and manufacturing scale-up. Without enforceable patents, competitors could free-ride, undermining investment incentives. This reality drives frequent, high-stakes patent disputes that can be hard to settle because exclusivity is enormously valuable. Patent doctrines often lag behind technology, forcing courts to fit new technologies into older legal frameworks. Artificial intelligence is potentially a powerful tool for discovery and analysis of molecules, but not a substitute for wet-lab validation or human inventorship. Regulators still require clinical evidence before any medicine is approved and likely will for the foreseeable future. Biosimilars are currently a booming market with many parallels to generic drugs. A company may participate in the market as both innovator and biosimilar supplier by leveraging its research and manufacturing capabilities. Finally, government-driven drug pricing controls may slow innovation over time, even though scientific progress and therapeutic potential remain strong. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision invalidating all tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA tariffs had generated an estimated $160 billion in revenue and were central to the administration’s tariff policy. The administration justified these tariffs based on declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. The Court did not rule on whether those circumstances constituted true emergencies. Instead, the Court held that the tariffs were invalid because the Constitution assigns all taxing authority to Congress and the IEEPA did not expressly grant the President the power to impose tariffs. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the administration has now turned to other statutes, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Other tools, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permit product-specific tariffs tied to national security findings, but require administrative investigations and procedural safeguards. These mechanisms provide less unilateral flexibility than IEEPA had afforded. John, Dennis, and Fritz also discuss the prospects of companies obtaining refunds through litigation. Importers who directly paid the invalidated tariffs appear to have strong claims for reimbursement, primarily through the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. A two-year statute of limitations generally applies. While companies’ right to obtain refunds is viewed as legally solid, delays are anticipated through procedural defenses and litigation tactics. Additional complexity arises for downstream purchasers who indirectly bore tariff costs; their recovery prospects will likely depend heavily on contractual allocation of tariff liability and other fact-specific circumstances. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher Bogart, CEO and co-founder of Burford Capital. They discuss the evolving landscape of capital investment in law firms, focusing on the emergence of non-lawyer equity participation and managed service organization structures as potential solutions to long-standing financing constraints within the legal industry. Traditionally, U.S. law firms have been prohibited from allowing non-lawyer ownership, a rule rooted in the belief that outside investors could compromise lawyers’ undivided duty of loyalty to clients. Because of this restriction, firms have largely been limited to partner capital and debt financing, preventing them from accessing equity markets or monetizing the enterprise value they build over time. This limitation affects not only firm expansion and technology investment but also partner retirement, succession planning, and talent retention. Other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom and Australia, have relaxed these restrictions, permitting outside investment and even public listings. Still, large elite firms have been slow to adopt such models, due in part to risk aversion and concerns about partner compensation. In the United States, regulatory change has been fragmented because lawyer governance operates state by state. Arizona and Utah have experimented with loosening ownership rules, but their geographic limits and regulatory pushback have constrained broader adoption of looser ownership rules. Recently, attention has shifted to alternative structures, particularly managed service organizations. These arrangements divide a law firm into two entities: one engaged in practicing law and a separate services company handling operational functions that can be outsourced such as litigation support, staffing, technology, and trial logistics. While non-lawyer investors could not own the legal practice, they could invest in the services entity, creating a vehicle for external capital, equity incentives, and infrastructure funding. However, implementing such structures within established firms would be complex from operational, management, and tax perspectives. Despite the slow pace, external capital is widely viewed as inevitable given the legal industry’s scale, profitability, and growing technological demands. Meaningful acceleration across the market will likely require several major firms to demonstrate workable models that others can follow Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University and author of Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. They discuss the state of free speech on university campuses. While public perception often emphasizes crisis and failure, many institutions are upholding speech rights more effectively than they are credited for. The broad constitutional principles of free expression—protecting even offensive or unsettling speech—are good starting place for academic environments. However, these principles alone are insufficient. Universities must also foster a culture of mutual respect, encouraging civil discourse and meaningful dialogue even amid disagreement. Some of the specific challenges universities face in the current polarized political climate, include the impact of the Israel–Gaza conflict, protests, donor pressures, and calls for institutional statements. Institutions must balance their commitment to free expression with efforts to elevate discourse and promote inclusive learning environments. Chris believes that University leaders should not use censorship as a tool to enforce civility. Instead, they should model and promote norms of respectful engagement. Online culture has intensified the scrutiny of campus speech. Events that once remained local can now gain global attention instantly, raising the stakes for how universities manage protests and controversy. Students today often self-censor due to fears of online backlash, which complicates efforts to foster open exchanges of ideas. A tension exists between scholarly standards and political identity in faculty hiring. While Chris acknowledges there is an ideological imbalance in American universities, he believes that hiring decisions should prioritize scholarly excellence and viewpoint diversity within academic norms—rather than political quotas. John and Chris also discuss how and when university leaders should speak publicly on societal issues. While university presidents should not weigh in on every political controversy, there are moments—particularly when institutional values are at stake—when silence is not tenable. The goal is to preserve the university as a space for rigorous, inclusive, and respectful exploration of ideas. 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 Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss Michel’s team’s recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court, reinstating Elon Musk’s Tesla compensation package, now valued at $139 billion, the largest compensation dispute in corporate history. The 2018 pay package required Musk to meet extremely ambitious growth milestones, including doubling Tesla’s size over a ten-year period, before receiving any compensation. After that, there were a series of 12 levels of compensation corresponding to 12 further growth milestones. The Tesla Board approved the package, as did the shareholders with 70% support. He ultimately achieved all the required milestones, growing the company from $50 billion to over $1 trillion in four years. Despite that, a Tesla shareholder owning just nine shares brought a derivative suit, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the package. The Delaware Chancery Court found Musk to be a “controlling stockholder” due to his 21% ownership, close relationships with directors, and status as a “superstar CEO.” As a result, the court applied the “entire fairness” standard, under which defendants must prove that a transaction was entirely fair to the shareholders, and found the package did not meet that standard. The court reasoned that Tesla could have obtained Musk’s services for less or even for free, citing other CEOs who had worked without compensation. It also ruled that shareholder approval was invalid due to inadequate proxy disclosures, including the omission of details about Musk’s social ties with board members. The court rescinded the entire compensation package and awarded the plaintiff’s counsel $345 million in attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the defense team focused on three main arguments: Musk was not a controlling stockholder, the package met the entire fairness standard, and even if there was a violation, rescission was not an appropriate remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that rescission was unwarranted and awarding nominal damages of $1. It reinstated the pay package, now valued at $139 billion. It also reduced the attorneys’ fee award to $54 million. The case has influenced legislative changes in Delaware corporate law regarding the definition of controlling shareholders and shareholder ratification. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher and Peter H. Fountain, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss their recent representation of Citadel Securities, one of the world’s largest market makers, in connection with a case concerning Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical company forced into bankruptcy due to opioid litigation. The central issue was whether $1.6 billion in stock share buybacks conducted between 2015 and 2018 could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate as fraudulent transfers. The legal theory advanced in the case by a litigation trust formed during the bankruptcy was unprecedented in that it sought to void Mallinckrodt share repurchases on the open market that were made in the ordinary course of business. The trust contended that, under Irish law (Mallinckrodt was an Irish corporation), these repurchases were void because Mallinckrodt should have recognized that it was insolvent due to substantial opioid-related tort liabilities not reflected on its balance sheet. The litigation trust characterized these sales as constructive fraudulent conveyances, asserting that Mallinckrodt lacked adequate capital when executing the buybacks. The trust sought to claw back the full $1.6 billion from ordinary market participants who had sold shares years prior, basing their argument on limited precedent from Enron-related cases from the 1980s. The defense successfully challenged these claims by invoking the Section 546(e) bankruptcy safe harbor provision. This provision is intended to preserve finality in financial markets and protect legitimate securities transactions. The defense emphasized that Citadel and similar market makers qualified as financial participants and that the share repurchases constituted protected settlement payments and transfers pursuant to securities contracts under the safe harbor provision. Accepting the litigation trust’s theory would require market makers to investigate not only the published financial statements of every traded company, but also hidden tort liabilities and the corporate laws of each jurisdiction of incorporation before facilitating any transactions. Both the bankruptcy and district courts recognized that imposing such obligations would paralyze financial markets and defeat the purpose of the safe harbor provision and rejected the trust's novel claims. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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

John is joined by Robert Tyson and Cayce E. Lynch, both partners in Tyson & Mendes and Apex Defense Consultants. They discuss how defense lawyers can counter the recent rise in “nuclear verdicts.” Nuclear verdicts are extremely large jury awards, often in personal injury cases, in which pain and suffering or emotional distress awards are vastly disproportionate to economic damages. These verdicts are a key factor in the recent dramatic rise in insurance costs. Over the past 15 years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have shifted tactics. While plaintiffs’ attorneys used to appeal to jurors’ sympathy for the plaintiff, they now focus on inciting juror anger against the defendant. Robert and Casey obtained the trial transcripts for 100 nuclear verdict cases and carefully analyzed each case. They tracked 60 data points for each case and concluded that defense lawyers frequently failed to respond effectively to plaintiffs’ shift to inciting anger in the jury. Their research identified four strategies that, employed together, greatly reduce the risk of a nuclear verdict. First, defense counsel must personalize the defendant to create a connection between the people on the jury and the people working for the defendant. Second, defense counsel must accept responsibility for some issue in every single case. Accepting responsibility helps take the anger out of the jury. Third, counsel must give an alternative damages number to the plaintiff’s in every case. When defense counsel fails to give an alternative number, the jury will often award significantly more than the plaintiff asked for. A University of Iowa study also showed that when the defense provides its own damages number, the odds of obtaining a defense verdict increase. Finally, defense counsel must address the plaintiff’s noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. They should do so by presenting a message emphasizing the joys that remain in the plaintiff’s life. They should also emphasize the impact their alternative damages number could have on the plaintiff’s life. None of the 100 nuclear verdict cases Robert and Cayce reviewed involved defense lawyers who employed all four of these strategies. Finally, Robert and Cayce advocate for a wider sharing of best practices among defense counsel, noting that the plaintiffs’ bar has traditionally excelled in coordinating and sharing information and best practices. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jennifer Prosek, Founder and Managing Partner of Prosek Partners, one of the world’s leading integrated marketing and communications firms. They discuss effective reputation and crisis management in high-stakes corporate and financial legal matters. Success in such matters often depends on maintaining a disciplined alignment between legal and communications teams. Despite today’s fast-paced media environment, communications and legal teams must develop a strategic plan and resist the pressure to react impulsively. Saying less can often be more effective, as premature or excessive public comments may create lasting reputational harm, even when the legal outcomes are ultimately favorable. The output of large language models bearing on reputation can be shaped by proactively feeding the digital landscape, especially large language model ai systems, with positive, relevant content—particularly third-party media coverage—companies can shape the narrative these systems generate. While influencing large language models is not fully understood, the importance of establishing ongoing, high-quality positive public engagement is clear. In one case, Bridgewater’s controversial hedge fund culture was proactively reframed into a compelling public story. Rather than hiding or ignoring critical media narratives, the firm opted to control and shape its own messaging, resulting in a broader cultural conversation and the creation of a best-selling book. This example demonstrates how taking the “front foot” in communications may often transform perception and build long-term reputational value. To “nail the narrative,” communications teams must distill a company’s essence into a concise and compelling story that resonates with customers, investors, and the media. Differentiating oneself from competitors, even if polarizing, is essential in today’s crowded communications landscape. Finally, John and Jennifer discuss entrepreneurship, including the value of taking initiative, the power of simply asking for what you want, and the importance of connection and authentic human relationships in business. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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

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

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

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

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