Law, disrupted｜法律访谈

John is joined by Avi Perry, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C., office, and Brett Raffish, an associate in the same office. They discuss how the Quinn Emanuel team, led by Bill Burck and Avi Perry, achieved a rare federal white collar criminal defense victory on behalf of technology executive Charlie Kim. The prosecution alleged that Mr. Kim and his co-CEO bribed four-star Admiral Robert Burke by offering him a lucrative post-retirement job at their company in exchange for using his position to help secure a multimillion-dollar Navy contract. They argued that the employment discussions and contract negotiations constituted an unlawful quid pro quo rather than legitimate, independent business conversations. Avi and Brett explain the history of the case, from the initial whistleblower complaint through the indictment, pretrial strategy, two lengthy jury trials, and Mr. Kim’s ultimate acquittal. From the beginning, one of their central themes was that the parallel discussions about the Navy contract and the admiral’s post-retirement employment were conducted openly, not secretly. Mr. Kim repeatedly disclosed the conversations to investors, colleagues, family members, and others, demonstrating that he had no criminal intent, one of the essential elements of the charges. The trial team also showed that the job offer and the contract were not linked. Although the proposed multimillion-dollar contract never materialized, Mr. Kim still hired the admiral at Next Jump because the job offer was never contingent on the admiral securing the contract. Before trial, the team moved to sever Mr. Kim’s trial from the admiral’s case because evidence against the admiral, including incriminating statements and unrelated misconduct, threatened to unfairly prejudice Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim also intended to, and ultimately did, present a defense that the admiral had lied to him during their relationship. After obtaining the rare severance, the admiral was tried, convicted, and sentenced to six years in prison. Mr. Kim’s first trial ended with a hung jury. Using insights from juror interviews, the team refined its defense for the retrial, focusing on the absence of any true quid pro quo, Mr. Kim’s reliance on the admiral’s assurances that the discussions were ethically appropriate, and evidence showing that the admiral was hired despite the failure to secure the anticipated contract. The team also used the record from the first trial to sharpen its cross-examinations of the government’s witnesses. Seven months later, the case was retried. At the second trial, the government repeatedly emphasized a statement in a text message that the deal was “no contract, no job.” However, the quote was taken out of context. During Avi’s cross-examination of the government’s case agent, he elicited an admission that the deal ultimately became “no contract, yes job.” After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for just one day before returning a verdict acquitting Mr. Kim on all charges.

John is joined by Jeffrey N. Boozell and Christopher Tayback, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss wildfire litigation as a specialized and rapidly growing area of law, driven by increasingly destructive fires in California and other western states. What began as a relatively limited practice in the 1990s evolved into a major practice area after large California wildfires generated thousands of property loss claims and billions of dollars in damages. Jeff and Chris explain how these cases are structured, the legal theories involved, and the challenges of compensating victims. Wildfire cases are generally mass torts rather than class actions. Because each homeowner suffers different losses and faces unique causation issues, claims are coordinated before a single judge but remain individual lawsuits. These cases are typically brought against utilities, governments, and private entities that plaintiffs allege bear some responsibility for the disaster. One of the most important legal doctrines in California is inverse condemnation, which imposes liability on public utilities when infrastructure serving the public causes property damage. Under this doctrine, utilities may be responsible for property losses even without proof of negligence, distinguishing California wildfire litigation from cases in many other states. Utilities are also frequently defendants because fires are often linked to power lines, equipment failures, vegetation management issues, or other infrastructure-related problems. Various ignition scenarios may occur, including power lines striking each other in high winds, trees coming into contact with power lines, and improperly maintained equipment. For example, in the Eaton Fire, evidence shows that an old, unused power line was not properly grounded, leading to sparks that ignited the fire. In the Palisades Fire, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power emptied the Santa Ynez Reservoir to carry out repairs and left it empty for an extended period. As a result, firefighting helicopters were unable to collect and drop water from the reservoir, and eventually, fire hydrants in the area ran dry. Utilities understand these risks but often fail to implement adequate preventive measures. Despite involving enormous losses and thousands of claimants, major California wildfire cases rarely reach trial. Instead, courts establish coordinated proceedings, identify bellwether cases, and encourage settlement through mediation programs or compensation funds. Insurance payments often cover only part of a homeowner’s losses, leaving substantial uninsured damages and emotional distress claims to be pursued through litigation. The scale of the 2025 Los Angeles-area fires is unprecedented. Estimated damages exceed $200 billion, underscoring why wildfire litigation is likely to remain a significant area of legal practice for years to come.

John is joined by Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Brussels office. They discuss a major antitrust and competition law class action brought in the United Kingdom against Qualcomm, a leading developer of mobile communications technology. The case was filed as an opt-out class action on behalf of consumers and alleged that Qualcomm had abused a dominant market position by charging excessive patent royalties to smartphone manufacturers, particularly Apple and Samsung. The plaintiff claimed that Qualcomm used its strength as a supplier of mobile chipsets to pressure manufacturers into accepting licensing terms that allegedly resulted in inflated consumer prices. Remarkably, the plaintiff class withdrew the case at the end of the first phase of the trial. European competition law differs from U.S. antitrust law in that it permits claims based not only on the exclusion of rivals, but also on the alleged exploitation of customers through excessive pricing. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that Qualcomm leveraged its market power in chipsets to impose unfair licensing terms. Qualcomm maintained that its licensing model reflected legitimate compensation for decades of innovation and intellectual property development. The trial focused in detail on Qualcomm’s relationships with Apple and Samsung. Evidence showed that key licensing arrangements were entered into at times when the manufacturers were not dependent on Qualcomm chipsets, undermining the claim that Qualcomm used chipset supply as leverage. Additional evidence demonstrated that royalty levels did not vary according to the volume of chipset purchases and that customers could obtain licenses independently of chipset transactions. Economic analysis likewise failed to reveal any connection between alleged dependence on Qualcomm products and the royalties ultimately negotiated. The case proceeded to a five-week trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. The first phase addressed market definition, dominance, liability, and whether the allegedly excessive royalties could nevertheless be justified as reasonable. Before the tribunal issued its ruling on the first phase, the class representative agreed to withdraw the case entirely. Qualcomm paid nothing, each side bore its own costs, and the litigation ended without a judgment. A judge reviewing the withdrawal concluded that the claim had no realistic prospect of success, making the case a rare instance in which a plaintiff abandons a major class action after trial, but before a decision was rendered.

John is joined by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Co-Executive Chairman of Winston & Strawn LLP. They discuss the remarkable antitrust trial Jeff won involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster. In that case, the Department of Justice, 33 states, and the District of Columbia sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster, only for the DOJ to settle and withdraw from the case one week into the trial. The remaining states continued litigating and brought in Jeff as their new lead trial lawyer midway through the proceedings, an unprecedented action in major antitrust litigation. This required Jeff’s team to enter a complex jury trial with almost no preparation time, review a massive evidentiary record with the assistance of AI, coordinate with dozens of state attorneys general, and quickly reorganize witness presentations and trial themes. The case centered on allegations that Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power through long-term exclusive agreements, threats to withhold concert talent from venues using rival ticketing companies, and other conduct designed to block competition in ticket sales. The plaintiffs highlighted damaging internal company documents, including references to “boiling the frogs,” “digging a moat around the castle,” and using a “velvet hammer” to pressure venues, all of which became powerful evidence supporting claims of anti-competitive intent. The plaintiffs also relied on economic testimony and evidence showing that the companies internally acknowledged serious service and quality problems while publicly claiming their products were superior. Jeff’s trial strategy included simplifying complicated antitrust theories for jurors, narrowing claims, reducing witnesses, and using AI tools to rapidly analyze deposition transcripts and evidence. After a lengthy trial and four days of jury deliberations, the plaintiffs secured a major verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, with further proceedings still pending regarding damages and possible structural remedies, including the separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation.