Law, disrupted｜法律访谈

John is joined by Christopher P. 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 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.

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 per cent 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 for 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.

John is joined by Christopher L. 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 a 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.

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.