Law, disrupted

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

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Assistant Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law, Eric Ruben, Duane R. Lyons, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office, and Stacylyn Doore, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston Office. Together, they discuss three main topics surrounding guns: Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, regulation at both the state and federal levels, and pending litigation. Guns and the rights of US citizens to bear arms is a hotly contested policy issue in the USA, which has only become more relevant due to the recent mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and the recent New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision.They begin by discussing how the Supreme Court held in Bruen ruled that the New York gun safety law at issue is unconstitutional. This law required a license to carry concealed weapons in public places and provided for discretion in the state’s provision of such licenses. Eric outlines the landscape, pre-Supreme Court decision – he touches on the lay of the land, outlining the historical context, as well as explaining how firearm regulation and control have primarily been executed at a state and local level, rather than federal, and that there has been a long history of gun control at the local/state level in the US, citing to registration requirements in the 1930s and long before. There have only been a handful of significant federal laws that would count as “gun control.” The recent bipartisan federal legislation was an exception. It was several decades earlier when the last federal gun safety law was passed.The conversation moves on to discussing the Heller case, another US Supreme Court decision which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Duane notes that there are members of the courts that view guns and gun rights completely differently than people in large metropolitan areas and that many court decisions seem results driven. They move on to discuss the difference between where the focus should be and where the focus will actually be for future gun control regulation and litigation.Stacylyn moves the discussion toward future applications of Heller and Bruen, noting how we’ve seen a lot of historical analysis in the cases thus far and asking how much more there is to mine and to what extent comparable historical analogs are now required in all future gun regulation cases. Eric answers by discussing the means and scrutiny approach to Second Amendment cases, explaining that once the Second Amendment is in play, the government has to find historical analogs in order to justify modern-day gun regulation. However, Eric highlights that times have changed, noting that historical analogs may not suffice given the technological advancements in the intervening centuries.Duane moves the conversation towards whether there are any historical analogs showing that firearms were prohibited in some parts of the country. Eric notes how Britain in the 1300s had strict firearm laws, as well as other restrictions, such as Texas gun laws in 1871, which banned the public carry of pistols and public weapons. John touches on age limitations being a potential appropriate response in light of Bruen, as well as increased reliance on mandatory training and designation of sensitive areas. Finally, the conversation comes to a close, with Duane discussing ghostPodcast 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 Lori Odierno, the lead lawyer and business affairs negotiator across WME’s sports division, to talk about the ability of college athletes to exploit their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights.The conversation begins by discussing how the phenomenon of college athletes being able to exploit NIL rights resulted from antitrust litigation against the NCAA and a Supreme Court ruling that did not address NIL rights. They explain how the Supreme Court struck down NCAA restrictions on the extent to which colleges could reimburse athletes for educational expenses, and how that decision became the impetus for the NCAA to pivot its policy on NIL rights in a sweeping and unexpected way. Together, they dive into how the business and legal framework have evolved into, as Lori described it, “a web of complicated and ambiguous rules and laws” that are very hard for student-athletes to navigate. Lori explains that when the NCAA removed its restrictions on NIL rights, it set new rules for athletes to maintain eligibility. One of those rules requires athletes to comply with state laws concerning NIL rights. However, this can be difficult, as 24 states adopted NIL legislation or executive orders, and those laws were far from uniform.  The discussion moves on to examples of how law varies across states, including California and Texas, two of the richest recruiting territories in the country. They touch on how California encourages and promotes high school students engaging in NIL activity, whereas Texas prohibits them from doing so. In other states, an athlete’s NIL rights might be restricted by the state association for a given sport. In those states, if an athlete is at high school that is a member of the state association for a particular sport, the athlete may lose eligibility for engaging in NIL activity based on the state association’s rules.Lori and John also discuss the restrictions in some states that NIL contracts cannot extend past an athlete’s college eligibility. They observe that the intent behind such restrictions is likely to prevent large, powerful brands from locking young athletes into low-value long-term contracts early in their careers before they’ve established their personal brands. However, they also discuss the anomaly that these restrictions might prevent athletes from monetizing their NIL rights after their playing careers are over, but when their name, image, and likeness still have value.The discussion then turns to how agencies now analyze their potential opportunities with an athlete, by looking at NCAA rules, the laws of any states that might be involved, and the individual school’s policies. Lori and John note that despite the recent changes to NIL rights, athletes still cannot get paid to play a sport or for achieving certain benchmarks while playing.Lori and John then explore the arrangements that some booster clubs have at universities where they create collectives that provide NIL opportunities for athletes. These collectives are currently under investigation by the NCAA and vary widely in how they operate. The two compare collectives that offer the same income opportunities to every athlete and those that offer more to certain star players than to others. They also discuss the potential that these differently structured collectives have for affecting team chemistry over time. They explain that while boosters may form collectives for exploiting NIL rights, the schools the athletes attend cannot form such collectives as that would violate rules against offering students financial inducements.Finally, John asksPodcast 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 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.Created & produced bPodcast 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 distinguished lawyer, professor, author, and former partner at Quinn Emanuel, Susan Estrich. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding women’s rights, Roe v. Wade, gun rights, and the hijacking of ‘Me Too’.The podcast was recorded on the day the Supreme Court announced its decision overturning the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade and allowing individual states to determine whether abortion is legal or not. As a long-time advocate for women’s rights and veteran of many political campaigns, Susan expressed that she had seen this decision coming, but she recognized that many were surprised by the decision because in addition to overturning 50 years of precedent, she believes that roughly 60/70% of the US population supports Roe v. Wade now, as opposed to 40 years ago when the decision did not have that level of support. Together, John and Susan discuss how precedents have been overturned in the past, but human rights and individual liberty have been expanded in the process. They then contrast the current situation in which, for the first time, an older generation in the US will have more individual rights than younger generations. They then go on to discuss how access to abortion will depend on wealth, socioeconomic status, and where one lives, with the new laws ignoring the rights of lower class, vulnerable women, and teenagers, but not affecting upper-class and wealthy women.The conversation then turns to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier in the week striking down the New York law on carrying handguns in public. The two discuss how the Court’s ruling ran counter to public opinion in the wake of the horrendous events in Uvalde, Texas. Finally, John and Susan examine the rationale set forth in the Heller opinion that first recognize an individual’s right to bear arms.  The conversation moves to what Susan describes as the ‘Hijacking of Me Too.’ Susan passionately argues that Amber Heard was wrong to call the verdict of the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, “a defeat for the whole Me Too movement.” She opines that the verdict in that case was a defeat for Amber Heard individually rather than for the movement as a whole. She also observes that women who claim to represent the movement, but get caught lying about their individual cases might discourage legitimate victims from coming forward with their own stories. The discussion turns to how the owner of the Washington Commanders was pilloried in the press for hiring his own private investigator to look into allegations of sexual misconduct made against him. The two discuss the dangers to the legal system that will ensue if investigating allegations is considered proof of guilt and even rumors of misconduct against a prominent figure become impossible to survive.The two discuss the role that confidentiality provisions have in settling misconduct claims and how if confidentiality provisions are not respected, defendants have little incentive to settle. They touch upon California’s recent legislation prohibiting employers from requiring employees to arbitrate harassment claims and the effects that will have on settlements.They discuss the Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein cases and the danger of the cases as precedent. In particular, they examine the dangers of admitting into evidence everything from a man’s sexual past as well as a presumption that NDAs are automatically admissible. They then speculate whether an accuser’s previous history of making accusations should also be admissible. Finally, John and Susan discussPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi