Law, disrupted｜法律访谈 - 节目列表

John is joined again by producer Alexis Hyde for a second mailbag episode of Law Disrupted. In it, John responds to questions submitted by listeners rather than conducting a traditional interview. Topics include the future demand for lawyers, artificial intelligence, international legal practice, career development, and the experiences that shape effective litigators. Despite AI’s growing ability to draft documents, analyze discovery, and perform other legal tasks, John expects the number of lawyers to increase over the next three years. Although AI might someday reduce human involvement in less complex legal fields, demand for junior lawyers has not yet declined at sophisticated litigation firms. At the highest levels of the profession, highly skilled lawyers remain essential. A law firm founded today should integrate an AI platform throughout its practice, with lawyers trained to become sophisticated users. Because existing legal technology does not always fit specialized litigation workflows, firms have an incentive to develop proprietary systems tailored to their work. Geopolitical tensions have also transformed international legal practice. Work in China has moved away from advising Western companies investing there and toward representing Chinese companies in disputes around the world. As the domestic Chinese economy has faced challenges, Chinese companies have increasingly looked outside China for growth. As Chinese companies expand their operations internationally, they encounter the same contractual, regulatory, and intellectual-property disputes faced by other global companies. Meanwhile, India and Japan have become major destinations for extensive private-equity investments, driven respectively by economic growth in India and undervalued assets in Japan. To be successful, a young lawyer does not need a single defining mentor. Young lawyers learn by observing talented colleagues and adversaries and by doing the work themselves. Remaining focused and competitive is key to a highly successful career. Litigation is an especially exciting field for young attorneys because every case requires learning about new industries, facts, personalities, and legal issues. John has had a wide variety of experiences outside of practicing law, including competing in the Ironman World Championship in Hawaii multiple times, owning a Michelin-starred restaurant and a museum, collecting art, and creating an artist residency program. Experiences from these activities have strengthened his litigation skills by expanding his knowledge, enhancing his ability to develop effective analogies and metaphors, and helping him connect with people. Finally, settlement decisions often reflect considerations beyond the legal merits. Reputational damage, adverse publicity, embarrassing disclosures, and the possibility that serious allegations will receive attention even if later dismissed can create substantial leverage and motivate parties to resolve otherwise defensible claims.

John is joined by Susheel Kirpalani, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, Head of Special Situations, and founder of the firm’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring Group. They discuss the increasingly important role of liability management exercises, or LMEs, as tools that financially distressed companies use to raise capital and avoid bankruptcy. These transactions frequently involve granting favorable treatment to certain creditors in connection with new financing, often at the expense of other creditors. Although such arrangements may preserve companies through periods of severe distress, they also generate disputes over whether the underlying loan agreements permit unequal treatment. Susheel explains the landmark Serta Simmons Bedding litigation, which arose after the company undertook an LME during the COVID-19 pandemic. Serta wanted to raise additional capital and capture discount from its lenders. A majority of lenders participated in the transaction and received new, higher-priority debt, while a minority of lenders received nothing. The excluded lenders, represented by a QE team headed by Susheel, argued that the transaction violated the longstanding principle that the same class of lenders must be treated the same, or “ratably.” The case proceeded through years of state and federal litigation, bankruptcy proceedings, an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and a remand to the Southern District of Texas. After the Fifth Circuit held Serta’s purchase of the majority group’s loans was not a permissible open-market purchase, the bankruptcy court held a five-day trial to decide whether the transaction breached the credit agreement and, if so, what damages flowed from that breach. The court ultimately concluded that the disproportionate payoff breached the governing credit agreement and exposed the majority to $400M in damages. After accounting for recent settlements and other adjustments, the court then awarded $160M+ to QE’s clients based upon the requirement of equal treatment among lenders. The decision has broad implications. The ruling highlights the growing importance of litigation risk in restructuring transactions, encourages parties to scrutinize contractual language more carefully, and will likely influence the drafting of future credit agreements. It also demonstrates how traditional principles of contract law continue to govern even highly sophisticated financial transactions and underscores the increasingly central role of litigation in modern restructuring practice.

John is joined by Rebecca Zung, a 23-year trial attorney and the creator of SLAY AI™, a patented AI platform for navigating high-conflict litigation and negotiation situations. They discuss how Rebecca created a groundbreaking business centered on negotiation training, artificial intelligence, and litigation strategy. After years of handling high-net-worth divorce cases, Rebecca decided to stop trading time for money. She began creating educational content on effective negotiation strategies shortly before the pandemic and discovered an overwhelming demand for advice on negotiating with high-conflict personalities. That success led her to write several books, create online courses, develop a large social media following, and create an AI platform designed to help lawyers and clients prepare cases more efficiently. Success in negotiation generally depends on leverage, preparation, and mindset. Effective negotiators define the outcome they want, understand the other side’s incentives, identify risks, and create meaningful consequences—or downside—if settlement fails. Negotiation should be approached proactively by controlling the narrative, anticipating conflicts, gathering complete facts before negotiating, and preparing for mediation as thoroughly as for trial. Mediations often require both sides to adjust unrealistic expectations before meaningful progress becomes possible. Rebecca also believes that confidence begins with identity. Rather than believing success creates confidence, people must first adopt the mindset of the person they intend to become, then consistently act in ways that reinforce that identity. Internal narratives, disciplined thinking, and careful decision-making are essential tools for professional growth. Rebecca also describes SLAY AI™, the patented platform she created to organize documents, create timelines, identify supporting evidence, generate exhibits, and help lawyers and clients collaborate more effectively. Attorneys subscribe to the platform, then allow clients access to folders related to their case. Clients may then upload their documents in bulk. SLAY AI™ then organizes the materials in response to the attorney’s prompts. This allows the attorney to review key documents organized by the legal and factual issues in the particular case. The platform is private and walled off from outside observers. Because all communications are confidential between attorneys and clients, and all data is organized by attorney prompts, the data is protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. By reducing time spent organizing information, the system lowers costs, improves case preparation, and gives legal teams more leverage throughout litigation and settlement negotiations.

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.

John is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans. The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind. The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive. Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.

John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk. One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection. A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company’s financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records. The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company’s digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry’s work directed at one state’s archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company’s value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure. A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages. While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.

John is joined by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School. They discuss the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape surrounding U.S. tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the President’s reliance on emergency economic powers to impose broad tariffs. That ruling removed a significant set of tariffs but did not eliminate the overall tariff regime. Instead, the administration quickly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, particularly Section 122, which permits temporary tariffs for up to 150 days, as well as longer-term mechanisms such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. These alternative mechanisms allow the executive branch to impose targeted tariffs based on findings related to unfair trade practices or national security concerns, with less immediate need for congressional approval. As a result, the tariff environment has shifted from sweeping, across-the-board measures to a more fragmented and dynamic system, requiring analysis on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Ongoing investigations into issues such as excess capacity and forced labor are likely to produce additional tariffs that may persist longer than the temporary measures currently in place. Meanwhile, legal challenges continue, including lawsuits by states arguing that the executive branch has exceeded delegated authority and violated statutory constraints. These challenges may be overtaken by the expiration of temporary tariffs and the emergence of new ones. One major issue involves refunds for tariffs previously collected under the invalidated emergency economic powers authority. Courts have indicated that refunds are warranted and administratively feasible, even at large scale, although timing remains uncertain due to potential appeals and implementation delays. Importers’ entitlement to refunds from the government does not depend on whether they passed tariff costs on to customers, as the focus is on the legality of the government’s action rather than downstream economic effects. Downstream purchasers who claim that invalidated tariffs were passed on to them must pursue contractual remedies rather than recovery from the government.

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 involving 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 that 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 incorporating the plaintiffs’ music without 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 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, although 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 on 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 the courts.

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 was not an embezzler. In another case, 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 provided warnings about limitations and potential errors. That reasoning may 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 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 may eventually require a different legal framework, such as product liability law.