Law, disrupted

John Quinn is joined by Karl Hennessee, Senior Vice President and Head of Litigation, Investigations, and Regulatory Affairs at Airbus.  Karl supervises Airbus’s criminal investigations, regulatory cases, product liability cases, and commercial arbitration disputes, covering incidents as significant as air crashes, as well as other disputes.  He discusses the importance of maintaining a "hundred-year view" of issues that includes overseeing issues that arose 50 years in the past while preparing for regulatory challenges 50 years in the future.  His team includes specialists in AI, aircraft certification, and arbitration, all of whom share a "democracy of ideas" approach to developing case strategies.  Karl identifies three core principles that guide Airbus's dispute management: viewing disputes as tools for managing risk rather than ends in themselves; "strategic empathy" — understanding opposing interests and perspectives to improve outcomes; and humility in handling high-stakes, high-profile cases. In house lawyers need to earn trust by translating legal issues into actionable insights for business leaders, often by first understanding the technical aspects of Airbus’s products.  Public relations play a critical role in managing disputes, especially for a company under constant public scrutiny.  There must be close collaboration with communications teams to present balanced narratives and build public trust even in adverse situations.  John and Karl also discusses emerging areas of concern such as ESG regulations and the recent breakdown of international norms of comity and deference to foreign judicial decisions, especially with respect to the effect of international sanctions.  Karl has extensive experience in international arbitration and is the former Chairman of the Governing Body of the ICC Court of International Arbitration.  He offers his insights about potential improvements in arbitration, particularly requiring shorter case timelines, having early case assessments to weed out hopeless frivolous  cases and other suggestions summarized in a recent paper published by the London Court of International Arbitration.  Finally, he shares advice on work-life balance, emphasizing the importance of dedicating time to personal interests and preserving a sense of fulfillment in both professional and personal life.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Guests:  Luke Nikas, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and Quinn Emanuel associates Sara Clark, Jennifer Stern, and Stephanie KelemenJohn is joined by four members of the trial team that obtained a dismissal of all charges in the recent New Mexico manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin.  Mr. Baldwin was charged by the State of New Mexico with involuntary manslaughter following the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film Rust when a prop gun Mr. Baldwin was holding accidentally discharged.  They discuss the events of the tragic accident and the initial investigation by the District Attorney’s office, which did not suggest any intent to charge Mr. Baldwin with a crime until about ten minutes before the press release announcing the manslaughter charges.  They also discuss the resignation and replacement of the first Special Prosecutor, the FBI’s destruction of the gun while testing it and the prosecution’s subsequent dismissal of charges without prejudice, only to suddenly refile the charges later.  Luke describes the team’s pretrial motions to dismiss based upon the destruction of the gun, the withholding of evidence from the defense, and improper conduct by the prosecution before the grand jury.  On the question of why there was live ammunition on a movie set, a critical breakthrough came during trial when witnesses testified that a former law enforcement officer had informed the prosecution that he had stored live ammunition for the film’s prop supplier. The testimony revealed that these live rounds were potentially mixed in with dummy rounds used to train actors on other movie sets, offering a plausible alternative explanation for the live bullets found on the Rust set.  The prosecution withheld this information from the defense before trial even though it cast doubt on the prosecution’s theory that the film’s young armorer was responsible for introducing live rounds to the set.  The judge, after learning that the concealed bullets matched the type used in the fatal shooting, ruled that the prosecution had failed to disclose critical evidence and dismissed the charges mid-trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Philippe Pinsolle and Simon Vorburger, partners at Quinn Emanuel, played pivotal roles in securing a historic €14 billion arbitration award for Uniper against Gazprom. They unravel the dramatic halt of gas supplies by Gazprom, which sent shockwaves through the German energy market. The discussion highlights the questionable force majeure claims made by Gazprom, revealing inconsistencies that shaped the case. The arbitration process, conducted without Gazprom's direct participation, showcased both the complexities and urgency of navigating legal challenges amidst an energy crisis.

In this engaging discussion, Alex Spiro, a leading trial lawyer at Quinn Emanuel, shares his tactics for trial preparation, emphasizing the importance of immersing oneself in every detail. He explores the influence of human psychology in crafting compelling narratives for juries. Balancing multiple cases while prioritizing client needs is another focal point, alongside a heartfelt discussion on criminal justice reform, advocating for changes to address systemic biases and improve fairness. Alex's insights blend legal expertise with a passion for justice.

John is joined by Mark J. Sundahl, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University College of Law and the Director of the Global Space Law Center. They discuss the evolving law governing activities in outer space. Prof. Sundahl explains that space law originated from concerns during the Cold War when Sputnik, the first Soviet satellite, flew over the U.S., raising fears that nations could potentially place nuclear weapons in space, hovering over and ready to drop on other nations. This led to the creation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, establishing fundamental principles such as "free use of outer space," the prohibition of nuclear weapons and claims of sovereignty on celestial bodies, and the ability of private companies to operate in space under the authorization and supervision of their countries’ governments. Prof. Sundahl also explains the international treaties on the rescue of astronauts, liability for space activities and for registration of objects sent to space. They then discuss how liability for damages caused by space objects is becoming increasingly pressing due to the rapidly increasing congestion of satellites and the aging of equipment that has been in orbit for decades. One example Prof. Sundahl discusses is a recent case where a falling piece of an American company’s capsule being operated by NASA damaged a house in Florida. He explains that, normally, international treaties impose strict liability on states for surface damage, but incidents within a country are governed by domestic law. He also explains that for damages that occur in orbit, liability issues become complex due to the lack of established norms. Prof. Sundahl then observes that although the United States heavily regulates private companies’ activities in space, new challenges have arisen, such as resource extraction on celestial bodies. He explains that although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over the Moon, the U.S. allows companies to own resources extracted from the Moon, a stance that is not universally accepted. Professor Sundahl also describes the legal uncertainty surrounding suborbital and orbital space tourism. He explains that currently, suborbital flights require minimal safety disclosures, and orbital tourism lacks regulation entirely, raising concerns as private companies expand their operations. Finally, Prof. Sundahl explains the growing threat of militarization in space and that, with countries developing military capabilities and the U.S. establishing a Space Force, there is a real risk of conflicts extending beyond Earth.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Patrick D. Curran, a partner at Quinn Emanuel specializing in AI legal issues, discusses critical topics surrounding artificial intelligence in this engaging conversation. He highlights the inadequacies of patent law in protecting AI innovations, especially around algorithms and prior art. Curran reveals how companies are increasingly leaning on trade secrets for protection, despite enforcement challenges. The conversation touches on AI's role in invention and the intricate legal battles over copyright and data scraping in rapidly evolving tech landscapes.

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

In a captivating discussion, Richard East, founder of Quinn Emanuel’s London office, brings his extensive legal expertise to the table. He dives into the stark contrasts between the U.S. and U.K. legal systems, such as the mandatory pre-action protocols in the U.K. and the unique division of solicitors and barristers. Richard highlights the implications of differing discovery procedures and the rarity of jury trials in civil cases across the pond. The conversation also touches on witness preparation limitations and the complexities of interim relief, offering insights for navigating these legal landscapes.

John is joined by Zina Bash and Ashley Keller, both Partners at Keller Postman, LLC which, with the Texas Attorney General, represented the State of Texas in an enforcement action against Meta Platforms for violations of Texas's biometric privacy law.  They discuss the landmark $1.4 billion settlement they obtained from Meta for capturing and using biometric identifiers like face geometry without consent, the largest settlement ever by a single state.  They explain how Texas’s biometric privacy law differs from the better-known Illinois biometric privacy act because in Texas, there is no private right of action;  only the state attorney general can bring lawsuits.  Ashley explains that the claims against Meta concerned capturing biometric identifiers, such as the face geometry, of millions of Texas residents without informed consent, disclosing this data without permission, and failing to delete it after use.  Among other defenses, Meta argued that because Facebook is a free service, it did not collect this information for commercial purposes.  The State argued that Meta’s actions were clearly tied to its business model.  Meta also argued that it should not be penalized for scanning the faces of non-Facebook users because Meta could not obtain informed consent from non-users.  The court rejected this argument, ruling that this was still a violation of the Texas law.  They then discuss how the settlement followed a fast-track 18-month litigation process, a stark contrast to a similar Illinois case against Meta, which lasted five and a half years. Zina attributed the speed of this case to the aggressive approach of the Texas attorney general's office, which had been investigating Meta for over a year before the suit was filed.  She explains that a major turning point was the Texas court’s decision requiring Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to sit for deposition. Zina explains that Meta faced potentially ruinous damages of $25,000 per photograph that appeared on Facebook or Instagram.  The discussion then turns to broader privacy concerns.  Ashley and John note that Americans' attitudes towards privacy seems to have evolved, particularly regarding the intrusive data collection practices of tech giants like Meta. In the past,  people might be willing to trade personal data for free services like social media, but more recently people are increasingly wary of how their information is being used without consent, especially as companies like Meta monetize that data.  Finally, they note that most users don't fully read or understand the terms of consent they agree to in user agreements, raising questions about how genuinely informed their consent truly is.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jon Ballis, Chairman of Kirkland & Ellis, shares his journey from M&A lawyer to leading one of the world's top law firms. He discusses the firm's unique flat organizational structure, fostering organic leadership. The conversation touches on Kirkland's client-driven strategy, adapting to market needs, and the expansion into private equity and energy sectors. Jon also highlights the importance of embracing calculated risks and innovation in legal markets, alongside the complexities of partnership structures and the growing role of litigation in the firm’s revenue.