In this episode, John talks with Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties Engineering at Palantir Technologies, about the challenges of regulating AI technology. They discuss the need for regulatory regimes to address the different types of AI technologies in use today, including facial recognition, lending and insurance decision-making, healthcare tracking, and genetic sequencing, among other applications. They also discuss the different approaches to AI regulation in the US and the EU and whether the law should be all-encompassing or targeted to specific technological contexts. Finally, they discuss how businesses should proceed now before future AI regulations have taken their final form. #lawdisrupted

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Bill Price, the founder and co-chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s National Trial Practice Group and a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Bill could lay claim (though he never would, being very modest) to be possibly the greatest business jury trial lawyer of his generation. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and lost only two of them. Representing plaintiffs, he has won five 9-figure verdicts, as well as one ten-figure verdict. He has obtained equally remarkable results representing defendants. He is a master of all aspects of trial practice but is best known as a brilliant cross-examiner. This episode, therefore, focuses on the art of cross-examination. John begins the conversation by asking Bill what he tries to accomplish during cross-examination. Bill explains that his goal is to have the witness either tell the same story Bill told in his opening statement or look foolish or dishonest not telling that story. Bill and John agree that this is a big ask, and they break down Bill’s methods for achieving it. John and Bill discuss how Bill first makes a list of all the things he wants the witness to say. Then he asks what controls he has for those things, such as documents or prior testimony. The two then delve into how Bill analyzes the potential off-ramps the witness has – for each topic, how could the witness hurt Bill’s case, or what to do if the witness says something detrimental? Bill explains how crucial it is to be prepared for every possibility. The two discuss how to get the most out of impeachment. Bill emphasizes that he structures each examination so the jury knows exactly why the subject that he impeaches a witness on is important to the case. This relates to Bill’s belief that collectively, the jury will have the common sense to understand a clear presentation, even if individually, some jurors might not follow every nuance. Along the way, John and Bill examine why Bill does not subscribe to several common adages about cross-examination, including “never ask a question that you don’t know the answer to,” “don’t ask the one question too many times,” and “only ask leading questions.” Throughout this discussion, Bill provides vivid examples from crosses he has taken throughout his career to illustrate his points. John steers the conversation towards the kind of persona and demeanor Bill tries to project during cross-examinations. Bill describes how he is very polite to start and then moves to building the case against the witness, ensuring the jury is always in sync with where he is. He notes that lawyers must be careful during cross-examinations to build their credibility to the point where the jury wants to listen to the examiner rather than the witness before they can start to act “a little testy” with the witness. John and Bill go on to discuss how to handle witnesses who won’t answer Bill’s questions directly or who insist on adding their own themes again and again. Bill provides examples of turning this behavior against the witness, as well as getting the judge to intervene to question the witness in front of the jury personally. Finally, John and Bill end their conversation by touching on their experiences working together previously, with John joking about coming up with ideas for Bill, only for Bill to quickly reject them. Bill touches on some of his favorite sources from which he developed his craft, including Herbert Stern’s ‘Trying Cases to Win,’ the transcripts of cross-examinations by great lawyers of the past, and trials within movies, including ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ and ‘My Cousin Vinny.’ Bill explains how these sources helped him to craft cross-examinations that obtain valuable admissions and make a difference in winning a case.

John is joined by two experts in international arbitration, Philippe Pinsolle, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Geneva office and Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe, and Stephen Jagusch KC, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office and Global Chair of the firm’s International Arbitration Practice. Together, they discuss the specialized field of international arbitration, including factors to consider when opting for arbitration, strategies for crafting arbitration provisions, how to select the best arbitrators, challenges to final judgments, and issues regarding the subsequent enforcement of awards.

For Camille Vasquez’s first ever podcast, John Quinn interviews her about her high-profile work representing actor Johnny Depp in his defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, which has dominated headlines during this past year. A key member of Depp’s litigation team, Camille was recently elevated to partner at Brown Rudnick, where she works in the firm’s Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group. John and Camille begin by discussing her background and early life growing up in Orange County, California, as well as the steps she took to get to her current position. Camille talks about earning her degree in Political Science & Communications, while focusing on her future legal career. Camille and John explore how she became the first lawyer in her family, tracing the steps she has taken throughout her career, from insurance defense law to trial work—something she loves most. The conversation then turns to how Camille came to represent actor Johnny Depp in his defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard. They begin with Camille’s first impressions—she notes how shy, soft-spoken, and thoughtful Johnny was as a client, which surprised her. Then, they walk through the professional relationship Camille and Johnny have built, discussing litigation against his former entertainment lawyer, two former bodyguards, and several other matters. John and Camille then move on to discuss the Depp v. Heard dispute itself, providing background details on the claims made against Johnny. They explore the defamation case Johnny brought in the United Kingdom against a tabloid publication there which published an article calling Johnny “a wife-beater.” The two delve into the differences between evidentiary rules in the UK and the United States, and how those differences dramatically altered what evidence was admitted in the UK trial, to Johnny’s ultimate disadvantage in that case. The discussion then turns to the impact of the allegations against Johnny and the UK decision had on his life and career, including his legacy and the impact on his children. From there, the discussion moves to the counterclaims Amber brought against Johnny based on statements released by Johnny’s previous counsel and a discussion of the recent highly publicized trial. The discussion of the trial begins with Camille describing the biggest challenge she saw going into the trial: convincing the jury that Amber’s testimony was not credible. Camille compares Amber’s performance over her three days of deposition with her less convincing performance at trial. She explains how she tied every question at the trial to previous statements Amber had made, especially audio recordings the couple had made of their arguments, at the advice of a therapist. Camille spells out how she used those recordings to let the jury hear how the couple were in private. Elsewhere in the interview, Camille goes into more detail about Amber’s cross-examination, including how her habit of turning to the jury when she responded to Camille’s questions made her testimony seem unnatural and manufactured. Camille also explains the legal team’s differing views on who their ideal juror would be and compares those views with the jury they ultimately got. John and Camille delve into Camille’s tactical decision to lead off her case with Johnny’s sister as well as several of his long-time employees to allow the jury to hear what kind of person Johnny was like in private, before Johnny himself took the stand. The two then analyze why the cross-examination of these witnesses failed to undermine their credibility with the jury. Camille goes on to describe Johnny’s performance on the stand where he was able to describe in his own words, and his own pace, his relationship with Amber, and why he was bringing the lawsuit. John and Camille then discuss Johnny’s performance during cross-examination, and how Camille supported him, ensuring that his authenticity and true character would come through. Camille tells how Johnny took her advice to take his time, carefully listening to each and responding accordingly. Interestingly, his relatively unknown stutter actually helped him slow down and relax. Finally, John and Camille wrap up the episode by discussing some of the aspects of the trial that were fun for Camille and her plans to help future clients defend themselves against untrue allegations or assist them out of complex problems.