Law, disrupted｜法律访谈 - 节目列表

In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John B. Quinn chats with Kathleen Sullivan, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Los Angeles and New York offices, and founding chair of the firm's national appellate practice. He also joins John Bash, a partner at Quinn Emanuel's Austin and Washington offices. Between the two of them, Kathleen and John have argued over 20 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. The conversation begins by reflecting on 2016’s Apple v Samsung lawsuit, unpacking how the design patent war between the two tech giants made its way to the Supreme Court. John and his guests then take a closer look at how a legal conflict can reach the nation’s highest court. Given that over 7,000 cases are submitted to the Supreme Court to review each year, they explain why the Justices choose to decide well fewer than 100 cases each year. As experienced Supreme Court practitioners, Kathleen and John share what’s involved in drafting written arguments and preparing for oral arguments before the Supreme Court—one of the most “challenging intellectual experiences” a lawyer can face. They also discuss the impact of media coverage on the public’s perceptions of the decision-making process. Lastly, John and his guests cover the value of moot courts for lawyers to practice and hone their arguments, discuss the impact of Covid on the courts, and consider how amicus briefs—briefs by “friends of the court”—can increase a party’s chance of legal success. 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 Christopher Bogart, CEO, Director and Co-Founder of Burford Capital, the largest litigation funding firm in the world. They discuss the use of AI and data science in litigation funding decisions. Chris explains that while AI is currently not advanced enough to make decisions on whether to fund a case, advances in data science now allow litigation funders to improve their decisions by examining enormous amounts of public data to find meaningful facts such as accurate damage ranges that are often buried deep in individual case dockets. Chris also identifies the key data points used to evaluate whether to fund a case, including the legal theory of the case, the counsel representing the parties, the judge or arbitrator presiding over the case, and the likely time to reach an outcome. Finally, John and Chris also discuss other ways that AI is impacting the legal profession including the use of AI to provide real time assistance in cross examination, the use of AI by courts in Singapore and Connecticut to adjudicate low value routine matters and traffic violations, and how AI has enabled smaller firms to expand into areas of litigation they previously could not handle such as large antitrust cases by automating the review and processing of millions of pages of documents.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Sarah Heaton Concannon, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington D.C office and Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s SEC Enforcement Defense practice, and Xiao Liu, Co-Managing Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Shanghai office and Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s China Practice. Currently, 200 Chinese companies are publicly listed in the U.S. Those firms face the prospect of being delisted under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act due to a disagreement between American and Chinese authorities on the ability to conduct investigations and access audit work papers in China. John, Xiao and Sarah discuss the terms of the China-United States agreement whereby Chinese accounting firms can share certain information with American regulators about the finances of Chinese listed companies. Is it a done deal? John opens the conversation by asking Sarah what exactly has been agreed to by U.S. and Chinese officials. She talks about how the agreement gives them the ability to conduct on-site inspections in Hong Kong and touches on how Chinese privacy and security statutes have made it impossible for the SEC and the PCAOB to conduct their routine examinations of auditors. Sarah notes how this new agreement enables the PCAOB to have its inspectors on the ground as early as mid-September, seemingly giving the auditors free reign over which audits to inspect and unfettered access to audit work papers. John then asks Xiao why this deal and special rules are needed and queries whether it could be construed as an example of the U.S. picking on China. Xiao talks about how the history of the relationship between the two nations is an important factor to consider in understanding the relationship between the PCAOB, USA and China. He dives into how, on the one hand, there is Chinese law supposedly prohibiting these audit firms from scrutinizing these materials, and on the other hand, U.S. law, which states these audit firms do have the obligation to turn over papers. Xiao highlights how Chinese authorities have a strong interest in enforcing state secrets laws and personal privacy protection laws. However, at the same time, they care about public statements regarding agreements with U.S. authorities, especially those impacting the Chinese state-owned companies whose shares are listed in the U.S. Together, John, Sarah and Xiao dive deeper into how Chinese issuers have typically tapped the Hong Kong-based affiliates of the Big Four companies, granting the PCAOB access to working papers and the right to take testimony from audit company staff in China. Sarah talks through her predictions on the future timeline of events, noting that she expects the PCAOB to draft a shortlist of companies that were already front of mind in the enforcement space and that they will quickly try to move through those audit records. The conversation shifts to a more financial perspective of the issue with John asking Xiao whether these Chinese companies will continue to want the ability to be listed in the U.S. Xiao explains how China is now comfortable with allowing PCAOB access to Chinese companies’ audit papers as China has strengthened its own state secrets laws, personal privacy laws, and cybersecurity laws. China has taken the necessary steps to protect itself from issues that they have encountered in the past with the U.S. before reaching the agreement. Finally, John asks what's next and what the future holds. Sarah believes that there will be some caution to see if the PCAOB is satisfied, but only time will tell how this agreement will play out. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Dr. Marcus Grosch, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s German offices. Together, they discuss German patent law. Marcus is regularly awarded top ratings in leading international and German-ranking publications, and both Chambers Europe and Chambers Global have listed him as a “highly regarded patent litigator.” The conversation begins with John noting how Germany is arguably the world’s second most important patent litigation jurisdiction after the U.S. They highlight how major technology disputes in the U.S. district courts are often seen in parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus notes that Germany is integral to the patent litigation world due to the sheer number of cases it receives, as the German economy is far more resilient and bigger relative to its other European counterparts. He touches on how Germany’s significance in the field of patent litigation can be traced back as far as the 1950s. Marcus explains how Germany’s time to trial is also far quicker than in other major European nations, with the fastest trials taking place in Munich and Mannheim, which only take twelve months. He highlights how at least 50% of the patents, whose validity is challenged, are either entirely revoked or significantly amended. Marcus argues that district courts have to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions, therefore, they have to be more prudent and look more closely into the validity issues, which they are generally ready to do. Then, John asks Marcus for advice for other lawyers involved in patent litigation in the U.S. and parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus highlights how in the U.S., the work has to be done ahead of the filing, which is very different from Germany – most of the cases in America need a notice pleading in the first step, whereas Germany requires a case to be complete from the outset. He also points out how different cases are in Germany compared to the ones in the U.S. The most significant difference is that Germany, like all continental European jurisdictions, does not have a trial-based system, so the parties’ arguments are not exclusively presented to the trier of fact through evidence, like witness examinations. Rather, more like in an appellate hearing, the lead counsel, guided by questions and introductory remarks from the bench, has to address all relevant issues of law and fact in the main hearing. The taking of evidence is limited to specific instances, in which contested issues of fact are directly relevant for the court’s decision. However, many factual issues are not in dispute at the end of the process, which is the result of specific pleading standards and flexibly shifting the burden of proof. This is also important since all continental European jurisdictions have no general pre-trial discovery system. All issues of law and fact are addressed in the main hearing, with no separate motions to dismiss or claim construction decisions ahead of the main hearing. This requires significant preparation and time in court, which Marcus highlights vary depending on the case, with the average patent case being four hours. He notes how sometimes the preparation can take significantly longer than the actual hearing. In addition, he explains how he deals with a ‘hot bench’ over 90% of the time, as judges are very ambitious, prepared and equipped with all of the information and specific details. Finally, John and Marcus discuss European law and how there is no civil litigation at the European level, so patents need to be litigated in national courts. This will now be fundamentally changed with the Unified P Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Bethany W. Kristovich, Partner and Co-Chair of the Professional Liability Defense Group at Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP. They discuss some of the unique aspects of legal malpractice cases, including how often they arise from collection cases, how a plaintiff must prove not only malpractice but that without the malpractice, the case would have had a different result, the importance of expert testimony in malpractice cases, and the difficulty of mastering damages theories from both the underlying case and the malpractice action. Bethany explains some of the worst things that can happen in a malpractice case, including the lawyer criticizing the former client so much it provokes a backlash by the jury, internal emails in which lawyers on the same team criticize each other’s work, and lawyers who appear arrogant because they don’t know their own rates. Finally, Bethany explains several ways lawyers can protect themselves from malpractice claims, including making sure the client is worthy of the firm before taking their case, getting a retainer and staying current on billing and collections, creating short agendas for telephone conversations to document the topics being discussed, and including the client in all decisions about the case.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Júlio César Bueno, Partner and Head of Litigation at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, one of the most highly regarded law firms in Brazil. Júlio explains some of the unique characteristics of the Brazilian civil justice system, including the ability of lawyers to have ex parte communications with the judge and the severe limits on pretrial discovery. They discuss the burdens imposed by Brazil’s enormous docket (over 83 million pending cases) on the system, including the lengthy delays, the extremely short time allocated for oral argument or witness examination and the resulting importance of winning cases through written submissions. They also discuss how these burdens have led to an increase in arbitration, particularly in infrastructure and merger and acquisition disputes, as well as the increasing digitalization of the entire court system. Finally, Júlio explains that disputes over mergers and acquisitions, corporate shareholder disputes and environmental litigation are the most rapidly growing areas in Brazilian civil disputes.

John is joined by Dr. Ron A. Dolin, Lecturer at Harvard Law School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law’s Center on the Legal Profession and co-author of the textbook, Legal Informatics. Together they discuss how recent advances in technology will impact the law and the practice of law. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Guests: Robert Zink, former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Steve Madison, former federal prosecutor and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. John, Robert, and Steve follow up on their August 2023 podcast about the four pending criminal actions against former President Donald Tr*mp. They discuss how events might play out if , as seems likely, Tr*mp is convicted in one or more of the cases. They discuss the current timeline of each case and which will likely go to trial before the November election. They also discuss the consequences of possible convictions in each case, including the range of potential sentences, the procedures involved in sentencing, and the likelihood that he would remain free on bond. They also discuss the impact any potential convictions would have on his ability to remain on the ballot, possible challenges to enforcing any sentences should he win the election, and the possibility of obtaining pardons, whether by himself or President Biden for the potential federal convictions or by the Governors of New York or Georgia in the state cases. They also discuss a potential Constitutional crisis if he were to refuse to report to prison and potential solutions such as a special sentencing to home detention or delayed prison time until after election.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Dr. Marcus Grosch, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s German offices. Together, they discuss German patent law. Marcus is regularly awarded top ratings in leading international and German-ranking publications, and both Chambers Europe and Chambers Global have listed him as a “highly regarded patent litigator.” The conversation begins with John noting how Germany is arguably the world’s second most important patent litigation jurisdiction after the U.S. They highlight how major technology disputes in the U.S. district courts are often seen in parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus notes that Germany is integral to the patent litigation world due to the sheer number of cases it receives, as the German economy is far more resilient and bigger relative to its other European counterparts. He touches on how Germany’s significance in the field of patent litigation can be traced back as far as the 1950s. Marcus explains how Germany’s time to trial is also far quicker than in other major European nations, with the fastest trials taking place in Munich and Mannheim, which only take twelve months. He highlights how at least 50% of the patents, whose validity is challenged, are either entirely revoked or significantly amended. Marcus argues that district courts have to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions, therefore, they have to be more prudent and look more closely into the validity issues, which they are generally ready to do. Then, John asks Marcus for advice for other lawyers involved in patent litigation in the U.S. and parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus highlights how in the U.S., the work has to be done ahead of the filing, which is very different from Germany – most of the cases in America need a notice pleading in the first step, whereas Germany requires a case to be complete from the outset. He also points out how different cases are in Germany compared to the ones in the U.S. The most significant difference is that Germany, like all continental European jurisdictions, does not have a trial-based system, so the parties’ arguments are not exclusively presented to the trier of fact through evidence, like witness examinations. Rather, more like in an appellate hearing, the lead counsel, guided by questions and introductory remarks from the bench, has to address all relevant issues of law and fact in the main hearing. The taking of evidence is limited to specific instances, in which contested issues of fact are directly relevant for the court’s decision. However, many factual issues are not in dispute at the end of the process, which is the result of specific pleading standards and flexibly shifting the burden of proof. This is also important since all continental European jurisdictions have no general pre-trial discovery system. All issues of law and fact are addressed in the main hearing, with no separate motions to dismiss or claim construction decisions ahead of the main hearing. This requires significant preparation and time in court, which Marcus highlights vary depending on the case, with the average patent case being four hours. He notes how sometimes the preparation can take significantly longer than the actual hearing. In addition, he explains how he deals with a ‘hot bench’ over 90% of the time, as judges are very ambitious, prepared and equipped with all of the information and specific details. Finally, John and Marcus discuss European law and how there is no civil litigation at the European level, so patents need to be litigated in national courts. This will now be fundamentally changed with the Unified P Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City, New York and London Offices, Head of the firm’s Sovereign Litigation practice and Co-Head of the firm’s Global Asset Recovery Practice. They discuss various kinds of litigation, arbitration and collection actions against sovereign states. They discuss collection cases against sovereign states resulting from those states’ default on debt instruments, the challenges faced by creditors who hold out after most creditors agree to a debt restructuring arrangement with the sovereign, recent proposed legislation any other government actions favoring sovereigns, the current sovereign debt crisis, and concerns about opportunistic funds who seek profit by collecting on devalued sovereign debt. They also discuss investor state arbitration generally, for example, after a company has invested in a project in a country and the country fundamentally changes the terms under which the investment was made, such as radically raising taxes as Spain did with respect to renewable energy projects after 2008. They discuss the position taken by the EU that EU courts cannot enforce arbitration awards against EU nations even when the nation entered voluntarily into an arbitration treaty and recent indications that the United States government supports the position of the EU. Finally, they discuss litigation against sovereigns unrelated to sovereign debt, such as litigation against state sponsors of terrorism including the lawsuit Quinn Emanuel recently filed against Iran on behalf of victims of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi