Law, disrupted｜法律访谈 - 节目列表

John is joined by Michael K. Young, Professor of Law and Former President of Texas A&M University, the University of Washington and the University of Utah. They discuss Michael’s career in higher education, starting with his years at Columbia Law School, including the two and a half years that he was a visiting Professor at the University of Tokyo, his establishment of the East Asian Legal Studies Center at Columbia and continuing through his service at the State Department where he negotiated treaties involving trade, international environmental law, human rights, and the terms under which Germany was unified. They then discuss Michael’s tenure as Dean of George Washington Law School and the University of Utah and, later, President of the University of Utah, the University of Washington, and Texas A&M University. Michael describes his current role at a research center that is preparing the entire educational system, from primary school through university, for the futuristic megacity project in Saudi Arabia called NEOM. Michael explains how his training as a lawyer helped him perform in these leadership positions by always maintaining his focus on the ends he is trying to achieve, the purpose of the institution and seeing both sides of each issue. Michael also explains several leadership lessons he has learned including that leaders need to genuinely listen and convey that they have listened, keep everyone focused on the institution’s mission, spread credit generously and take blame when thing go wrong. Finally, John and Michael discuss the current controversies over free speech at American campuses. Michael shares his approach to handling volatile situations with controversial speakers

John is joined by Christine Lehman, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and an accomplished trial attorney focusing on patent litigation. They discuss the $525 million verdict Christine and her team recently won against Amazon Web Services (AWS) for infringing tech company Kove’s patent rights in data-storage technology. Christine describes how she presented to the jury the journey of the inventor, John Overton, from his troubled youth in Kentucky, to majoring in religion in college, to developing a method to efficiently organize and index all the photographs he took on a yearlong bicycle trip across the country. He and co-inventor Stephen Bailey ultimately implemented this method in a way that allowed users to search millions of data items quickly and formed the basis for Kove’s patented technology. Christine also describes the extensive pretrial proceedings that occurred over the six years that the lawsuit against AWS was pending. John and Christine then discuss the ten-day trial itself, including the defendant’s last-minute decision to abandon its invalidity defense, the judge’s procedure for allowing jurors to submit questions to each witness, and how those questions informed her team about how well the jury understood the technical issues in the case. Finally, they discuss the different approaches taken by the two sides in presenting their experts and how Christine presented her client’s damages case leading to the $525 million verdict.

In this episode of “Law, disrupted," host John B. Quinn joins Christopher Bogart, CEO, Director, and Co-Founder of Burford Capital. Burford is the largest litigation finance firm in the world and is publicly traded on the New York and London Stock Exchanges In this conversation, Christopher drills down on what litigation funding is and explains how it can be a cost-effective financing tool for claimants and law firms by assuming the cost and risk of litigation. Together, Christopher and John explore what litigation finance deals look like, and what makes them an attractive investment proposition. They also consider whether litigation finance is more important outside the US, potential barriers to entry in this space, and the types of innovative litigation products in the pipeline, which could transform the legal industry.

In this episode of “Law, disrupted”, host John B. Quinn joins David Hobbs, Security Engineering Manager at Check Point Software Technologies. David has over two decades of experience in the security field, working with law enforcement agencies and training intelligence organizations in cyberwar and cyber defense technologies. The discussion begins by explaining what ransomware is and how the software spreads “like a virus” to corrupt systems and encrypt sensitive data. David outlines an increasing threat to public and private companies, drawing attention to a 68% share of US organizations who paid a ransom after experiencing an attack. (Statista 2020) The conversation moves on to dig deeper into who the hackers are, and to understand why a company may get targeted. They highlight noteworthy cyber incidents, and reflect on the 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, which saw more than 200,000 computers become infected within three days. Together, David and John acknowledge an escalation in Russia-Ukraine cyber activity, and talk through the important steps that can be taken upon noticing—as well as preventing—future ransomware attacks. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice. Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others. He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements). They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements. Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private. He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory. Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases.

One of the most difficult tasks facing our legal system is determining the compensation to provide individual victims of many of the large-scale tragic events that our country has faced in recent years. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by attorney Kenneth (Ken) Feinberg, a mediator extraordinaire who has settled some of the most high-profile mass tort and disaster disputes the US legal system has ever seen as well as managing the claims administration programs for terrible events that did not result in litigation. He has managed the victim compensation funds in high-profile tragedies including the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP oil spill fund, and the victim assistance funds established in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook shooting. Mr. Feinberg also resolved victim compensation issues in the General Motors ignition switch cases, the VW diesel emissions cases, the Boeing 737 MAX crash cases, the Eli Little DES cases, the Shoreham Nuclear Plant cases, Agent Orange, asbestos, among many others. The conversation begins with exploring the ways that cases come to Mr. Feinberg, including defendants who realize they need to resolve a situation but first have to resolve how to divide the money they have available, plaintiffs who wish to avoid years of uncertain, costly litigation or when the government allocates money to compensate victims of a tragedy without any adversarial proceedings at all. The two then discuss the need to establish consensus on clear procedures for the mediation before turning to the merits of the dispute and why 90 percent of cases settle on the second day of mediation. Mr. Feinberg and John then explore the extremely emotional and complicated problem of allocating the money among hundreds or thousands of claimants in these cases. In particular, they explain the crucial role that transparency of the process plays in assuring claimants that there is no hidden agenda in how the proceeds will be divided up. They detail how issues of criteria of eligibility, the methodology for calculating damages, proof requirements, and the right to a hearing all must be established at the outset for a settlement to succeed. They then turn to objective ways to calculate damages for the death of a loved one and injury damages for large numbers of claimants without evaluating medical charts for every claimant. The two men then explore how these principles played out in high profile cases including the Boston Marathon bombings, the Pulse Nightclub attack, the Virginia Tech shootings, the 9/11 fund and the BP oil spill. They explain how, in some cases, the number of potential cases might require hiring thousands of claims adjusters to determine which claimants are eligible for compensation and to screen for fraud as well as the need for a procedure to hear the appeals of those who believe their compensation under the process is not adequate. Mr. Feinberg also explores in detail why, despite the magnitude of the disaster, the speed at which the families of the affected would receive the payment is vital in maintaining trust and belief in the entire process. Together, Mr. Feinberg and John examine potential court oversight to the process including situations such as 9/11 where there was no such oversight, identifying comparisons with the examples of the BP oil spill and the General Motors car recall. Throughout the podcast and especially at the end, Mr. Feinberg provides specific examples of the devastating personal stories he has heard from the victims of these horrific events and they discuss the emotional toll claims can and have had on Ken. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

John is joined by Dr. Hamed Merah, Chief Executive Officer of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) and Nasser Alrubayyi, Managing Partner of Quinn Emanuel office Riyadh. They discuss commercial arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the recent impact of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration. Dr. Hamed explains SCCA’s mission to establish a world class center with full case management services where foreign parties will feel comfortable submitting their disputes to a diverse roster of accomplished, impartial independent arbitrators. Although almost half of the SCCA’s caseload is construction related, it also adjudicates cases involving banking, capital markets, intellectual property, media, and the pharmaceutical industry. They discuss how legislation in the last five years has removed restrictions on Saudi governmental entities submitting disputes to arbitration to the point that arbitration with the SCCA is now the default option in contracts between governmental entities and foreign parties. Nasser explains that parties are increasingly moving from ad hoc stand-alone arbitration procedures to institutional arbitration through the SCCA because the SCCA is the quicker and more cost efficient option. Dr Hamed also describes a recent study concluding that more than 90% of the SCCA’s awards have been upheld when challenged in annulment proceedings. Finally, they discuss how arbitration with the SCCA is becoming more popular in technical cases, IP cases and construction disputes.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, as well as the Mayor of Miami and Counsel to Quinn Emanuel, Francis Suarez. Together, they discuss legal issues in crypto-currencies, low-income housing, and homelessness. The conversation begins with Mayor Suarez touching on the legal issues related to receiving compensation in crypto rather than legal tender, and discussing the use of applications that have the option to automatically or periodically convert money into crypto. Mayor Suarez also explains how SEC oversight requires that public officials avoid advocating for the use of crypto in any way, shape, or form. Mayor Adams provides the perspective of New York City, which states that people cannot be compensated directly in crypto, but allows them to convert to crypto after receiving the actual paycheck. He adds that his goal is to get to the point where city employees can be paid directly in crypto. John and both mayors then discuss the legal offices that serve their respective cities, including the size of the offices, the complexity of the issues they face, and their use of outside counsel. They then focus on the challenging legal issues involved in creating low-income housing. Mayor Adams notes that zoning changes and location are the biggest challenges faced by the department for housing and other government departments, with many people not wanting new developments in their community. He observes that all of these issues must be navigated in the context of New York’s Uniform Land Use process. Mayor Suarez talks about a housing boom in Miami, which comes with its own legal issues, such as increased rental prices and Community Benefits Agreements, which allow developers to increase their zoning if they give back to the community. This raises constitutional issues involving property rights if the government tells a developer that the only way they can get more favorable zoning is if they make more of the building income accessible. The discussion then turns to the issue of rent control, which is prohibited in Florida, but long-established in New York. The two mayors discuss the pros and cons of rent control as a policy matter and the procedures New York City has in place to help it run properly. Finally, the episode turns to legal issues surrounding homelessness. Mayor Adams begins the conversation by touching on the fact that homelessness has unfortunately been a problem that New York City has faced for many years, which has only worsened due to COVID-19. Together, they chew over the legal process surrounding improving conditions for the homeless, with Mayor Adams highlighting the issue of how much say those homeless people who suffer from serious mental illnesses should have in determining where they live. He notes that there is a vocal minority who believe that the government should have no input in these decisions. Mayor Suarez then talks about the Miami city perspective where the local government was sued by the ACLU in the Pottinger case with the result that the police cannot arrest a person for being homeless. Mayor Suarez details how Miami is trying to adjust to the Pottinger decision through a new homelessness policy, which created a decentralized set of homeless assistance centers where people could be housed, receive drug and mental health treatment, and receive vocational training to be reintegrated into society. Mayor Suarez goes on to explain how this policy resulted in the federal court lifting the injunction that had been in place as a result of the Pottinger case. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Professor Song Sang-Hyun, retired Professor of Law at Seoul National University and former President of the International Criminal Court. Professor Song explains the origins of the Korean civil justice system which is based upon the German system by way of Japan. He discusses how after World War II, American Army officers drafted many of Korea’s statutes and, in the past two decades, American law in fields such as corporate law, shipping and aviation law, antitrust law, securities regulations, intellectual property, and class action lawsuits have increasingly influenced Korean law. They then discuss Korean pretrial practice which does not involve voluminous document discovery or any depositions and often involves the trial judge also acting as a mediator. Professor Song explains some of the unique aspects of Korean trial practice including Korea’s recent adoption of juries that render advisory decisions on disputed facts and that cases average less than a year from filing through trial. They also discuss that the loser must pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees, although, in practice, courts tend to award less than all the fees incurred. Finally, they discuss some of the emerging issues in Korean law including labor, environmental and privacy law as well as the protection of personal information.

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn joins Haiyang Tang and Xiao Liu, the Co-Managing Partners of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Shanghai office. The firm’s China practice focuses on advising multinational companies in their global government enforcement, investigation, and compliance matters, and advising China-based companies in sensitive cross-border litigation and arbitration. The conversation begins with the participants analyzing how the government in China has cracked down on its largest tech companies, wiping out more than a trillion dollars in market value, and asking the question: is China still investible? The discussion will address a series of legislative, administrative, and enforcement actions by the Chinese government, examining efforts to tighten up data security laws and regulations. Is this consistent with global trends, or will these new regulations hinder greater investment from the West? Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Eytan Liraz, the Principal of Eytan Liraz & Co. Law Offices, one of the foremost business litigation firms in Israel. Eytan explains some of the unique aspects of business litigation in Israel, including that Israel has more lawyers per capita than any other country on earth, that aggressive litigation is a common and accepted business strategy, and that Israel has far more class action lawsuits than other countries, including lawsuits where the complaints are literally copies of class action complaints that have been filed in the U.S. He also explains the three phases that each lawsuit goes through: (1) the initial phase in which the claimant files a statement of claim raising its main arguments and elements of proof and the defendant files a statement of defense containing its arguments and proof, (2) the pretrial phase in which limited discovery and any preliminary motions take place and all evidence and expert opinions are filed with the court, and (3) the interrogation phase in which the parties are allowed to conduct cross-examinations of the adversary’s witnesses. Cases are usually decided within one year and four months of the first filing. Finally, they discuss the impact the events of October 7 have had on litigation in Israel including the number of lawyers who are not available due to military service, the entire court system shutting down for two months and the general effect, now dissipating, of people being unusually reluctant to litigate.

John is joined by Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, one of the foremost companies in the world specializing in software platforms for big data analytics. They discuss the emerging trends in AI regulation. Courtney explains the AI Act recently passed by the EU Parliament, including the four levels of risk it assesses for different AI systems and the different regulatory obligations imposed on each risk level, how the Act treats general purpose AI systems and how the final Act evolved in response to lobbying by emerging European companies in the AI space. They discuss whether the EU AI Act will become the global standard international companies default to because the European market is too large to abandon. Corey also explains recent federal regulatory developments in the U.S. including the framework for AI put out by the National Institute of Science and Technology, the AI Bill of Rights announced by the White House which calls for voluntary compliance to certain principles by industry and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which requires each department of the federal government to develop its own plan for the use and deployment of AI. They also discuss the wide range of state level AI legislative initiatives and the leading role California has played in this process. Finally, they discuss the upcoming issues legislatures will need to address including translating principles like accountability, fairness and transparency into concrete best practices, instituting testing, evaluation and validation methodologies to ensure that AI systems are doing what they're supposed to do in a reliable and trustworthy way, and addressing concerns around maintaining AI systems over time as the data used by the system continuously evolves over time until it no longer accurately represents the world that it was originally designed to represent.