Law, disrupted

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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Norman (Norm) E. Siegel, partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City, Missouri. He is the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the $450 million settlement of a data breach class action against T-Mobile. Norm has been involved in many high-profile data breach cases, and served as lead counsel in the three largest data breach settlements reached to date: cases against T-Mobile, Equifax, and Capital One. Together, these settlements totaled over $2 billion in cash and other relief. Norm was recently named by Law360 as a “Titan of the Plaintiff’s Bar” for his work in class action litigation.The conversation begins by discussing how data breach litigation has evolved in the past 10 years. John asks about the type of claims that are typically asserted in these nationwide class actions. Norm explains that plaintiffs typically assert common law tort claims in these cases, especially negligence, breach of confidence and invasion of privacy. He adds that when the plaintiffs have an express contract with the defendant, such as when they have accounts with the defendant, they will often assert claims for breach of an express or implied contract that the defendant would keep the plaintiff’s information confidential. John and Norm turn their focus to recent California legislation establishing statutory damages for data breaches in general, as well as for breaches involving medical information. Because both acts are relatively new, the case law interpreting them is still developing. John and Norm discuss the role that expert testimony, California Attorney General’s Guidelines, and FTC recommendations play in determining what data security measures the defendant should have implemented in these cases.  They also discuss how to navigate the complexities of having both a nationwide class and a subclass of California plaintiffs who have recourse under these statutes in the same case.The conversation then moves to legislation in other states, as well as the prospects for federal legislation establishing uniform national standards regarding data security similar to the standards in Europe under the GDPR. John and Norm discuss recent attempts at such legislation and the obstacles that have prevented it from passing this far.They then discuss standing issues in data breach cases, and the key decisions, including Spokeo and TransUnion, that have recently clarified how standing may be established. They also discuss the issue of whether a defendant owes a duty to protect confidential information if it has no contract with a plaintiff and how that issue impacted the Equifax and Capital One cases.  John moves the conversation to the issues that discovery tends to focus on in data breach cases. Norm explains that defendants’ discovery has evolved from focusing on the measures they took to guard data to deposing plaintiffs about what damage they did or did not suffer because of a data breach. Norm adds that the plaintiffs’ discovery focuses primarily on their damages, but also on the defendant’s history of previous security breaches.This leads to a discussion of damages theories and how they have evolved in the past five years. John and Norm discuss alternatives to just compensating for out-of-pocket losses, including damages for the lost benefit of the bargain in contract cases, unjust enrichment, the time and effort spent to repair the breach, and nominal damages. They also explore the benefits to the plaintiff class of requiring the defendant to take specific measures to prevent future security breaches and to help plaintiffs to protect themsPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael A. Barlow, partner at Abrams & Bayliss LLP, and Silpa Maruri, partner at Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Together, they discuss litigation in Delaware, which John briefly highlights as the epicenter of both corporate America and high-end corporate litigation.The conversation begins with John asking Michael how Delaware managed to stake out a unique position of being the jurisdiction of choice for corporations, which has led to high-end and high-stakes litigation in Delaware courts. Michael notes the answer is two-fold. The first answer is former President Woodrow Wilson. He explains that Delaware largely adopted the same revolutionary law of New Jersey by the then Governor Wilson. The second answer is that Delaware has worked hard since to stay at the forefront by annually updating its laws and court system. They touch on how Nevada is trying to mimic Delaware but, unfortunately, is proving to be unsuccessful so far.Silpa explains the difference between the two types of courts in Delaware: the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court. Silpa highlights how the former is a court of equity; therefore, it hears matters sounding in equity, whereas the latter is a court of law. Together, John, Michael, and Silpa chew over the role of the Delaware Court of Chancery, analyzing the history of the courts as a foundation for understanding the wider role of the courts.John asks Silpa what lawyers and litigants should expect when they're litigating cases in Chancery Court, with Silpa noting that all trials are bench trials. She highlights how the Court of Chancery is especially bespoke in that not only is it the case that you're going to have the fact-finder be the judge, but that judge is going to be actively involved in deciding even minor things like motions to compel.The conversation is then steered towards what a trial is like in the Court of Chancery. In many jurisdictions, the date set for a trial is often moved and shifted, but Silpa notes that this specific court respects set trial dates. In addition, she notes that the Vice Chancellors are proactive during the trial.Finally, John, Michael & Silpa discuss the importance of certainty and predictability on matters of Delaware corporate law. Michael briefly notes how Delaware handles a significant number of sophisticated corporate transactions in the Court of Chancery. However, he notes that the court has a much broader role as a court of equity. Michael notes that there's a pretty broad set of cases that the court handles with the same attention to detail and focus that it brings to these corporate disputes.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic 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 PPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Tom Clare, founder of Clare Locke LLP. Clare Locke specializes in defamation cases and was recently in the news for representing Daniel Michalow in his claim against Wall Street hedge fund, D.E. Shaw & Co. This episode delves into Mr. Michalow’s case in which Mr. Michalow was accused of sexual harassment. The case resulted in a $52 million FINRA award against de Shaw and Co. John starts the conversation by asking why more claims similar to Mr. Michalow’s aren’t asserted. When Tom responds, he explains in detail the burdens an individual plaintiff faces in bringing such a claim, including protracted litigation (in this case, four years) and enormous costs that most individuals cannot afford. Tom also provides the listener with a background to FINRA and arbitration under FINRA’s rules.John and Tom then dive deep into the case, first discussing the factual background, with Tom noting how D.E Shaw terminated Mr. Michalow’s contract at the hedge-fund firm citing allegations of inappropriate conduct in the workplace. Tom notes that this was not an employment case; Mr. Michalow did not dispute his termination. Rather, Mr. Michalow objected to the hedge fund’s statements to Business Insider that Mr. Michalow had engaged in gross violations of the firm's standards and values and that his employment was swiftly terminated as a result. These statements were made after Mr. Michalow had written to the head of the firm and asked that the firm tell the truth about his situation. John and Tom discuss that while the firm’s statements did not explicitly say that Mr. Michalow engaged in sexual misconduct, that is what the public understood the statements to mean.The discussion turns to the arbitration process itself, including the 25 days of hearings and extensive discovery conducted by the parties. Tom describes the burden of proving that his client did not engage in sexual misconduct as well as the differences in proving defamation claims for public figures as opposed to private figures. He also explores the importance of suggesting why a defendant was motivated to act as it did, even when that is not strictly an element the plaintiff must prove to make a claim.John and Tom turn to the role expert witnesses play in defamation cases. They explore the interplay between experts who testify to the linguistic history of the words at issue and those who testify to the real-world interpretation of words and how the latter now use social media comments to show the way people in the real world react to certain terms. They then turn to the results of the arbitration including the $52.1 million award and the findings posted on FINRA’s website.John and Tom then engage in a conversation about the role of reputation in today’s society in the workplace, within a professional community, at church, at home and in neighborhoods. They also discuss the legal obstacles to bringing a defamation claim, including that name calling, hyperbole and opinions are not actionable. Finally, the two discuss Tom’s decision to found his own firm devoted to bringing defamation claims, other high profile cases his firm is handling and his recommendations to individuals who find themselves facing defamatory statements.  Tom explains the importance of creating a written record, warning the defaming party of the consequences of its actions and promptly demanding retractions of defamatory statements.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Robert Charles O'Brien, the 27th National Security Advisor for the United States. He is also Partner Emeritus at Larson LLP and the Founder of the consulting firm, American Global Strategies. Together, they talk about the intersection between law and national security. John and Robert begin the conversation by outlining what the office of National Security Advisor does: act as the primary advisor to the President on all foreign policy and security issues.  Robert explains his role in pulling together a wide range of views on global issues, including divergent views throughout the federal government and making sure the President always had the best options and counsel possible to make informed decisions as well as ensuring those decisions are implemented.John and Robert discuss the degree to which the President faces potential legal issues surrounding foreign policy matters. Robert touches on how every department within the government has its own specialized legal team and how all policy decisions are vetted by a myriad of lawyers.  The two explore the various sources of law influencing foreign policy decisions, including Constitutional law, treaty obligations, federal statutes and regulations, as well as the wide latitude the Constitution grants the President in matters of foreign affairs. The conversation then moves to an in-depth discussion of China and the legal issues surrounding US-China trade disputes, with Robert noting how one of the great achievements of the Trump administration was raising the alarm on China. He touches on how turning a blind eye for the previous 40 years to important issues, such as China’s intellectual property theft, failed to achieve the desired results.Later, they discuss China’s occupation of the South China Sea, specifically its claim to islands it created in the sea, which has led to international arbitration. Robert describes China’s approach as drawing an imaginary border in the sea and asserting its authority over this body of water, where 50% of the world's trade flows. Robert dives deeper into the 2016 international case between China and the Philippines as an example of how China’s approach to the South China Sea violated the rights of other nations in the region, as well as constituting a series of environmental crimes. John then steers the conversation toward the sanctions that were put against PRC officials as a result of the end of democracy in Hong Kong, with Robert explaining the history of Hong Kong, and then directing the topic toward Hong Kong and China’s relationship shifting dramatically in 2020. He outlines how 2020 legislation and executive orders have reshaped the relationship between the US and Hong Kong and how Hong Kong will be treated going forward. Robert discusses what the change in the relationship between China and Hong Kong means for the shape of future trade, collaboration, and partnership between the US and Hong Kong.John and Robert then shift to discussing the importance of the actions taken by the US government in the world being seen as being consistent with the rule of law, including sanctions recently imposed on Russia.  They explore the seizures of property belonging to sanctioned individuals and the need to reconcile immediate foreign policy goals with the long-term interests of maintaining the strength of the economy and the strength of the legal system.  They expand upon the need for appropriate procedures to determine when seizures are necessary and how individuals can apply to regain their property when that is appropriate.The two end the podcast by dPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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’ aPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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 performanPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by a professor of Ethics and Finance at NYU’s Stern School of Business and a director of the Center for Business and Human Rights, Michael Posner. He is also joined by Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Head of Quinn Emanuel’s ESG practice and experienced litigator of business and human rights issues. Together, they discuss what we really understand the term “human rights” to mean for business and the current challenges regarding human rights implementation across the business world.The three begin by delving into the meaning of “human rights” and their legal ramifications for business, including whether “human rights” means different things in different jurisdictions.Michael moves the conversation towards due diligence in relation to human rights and enforcement of human rights in connection with business, noting recent legislative examples, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was created to make sure the US doesn’t support forced labor among ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region. Julianne picks up with recent EU developments, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and legislation such as the Failure to Prevent Act in France. She also posits whether the UK Bribery Act’s section 7, failure to prevent offense, could be a model for a provision for a mechanism for a failure to prevent human rights impact by the business. This could bring greater legal certainty for businesses and victims, alike.Finally, the trio mulls over the meaning of ESG and how it has evolved since its creation around 20 years ago. Michael notes that companies often heed such guidelines cynically in the name of ROI. He also emphasizes the financial implications of social issues related to labor supply chains.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi