John is joined by Marc E. Kasowitz, Founder and Managing Partner of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.  They discuss the increasing mobility of law firm partners, the rise of superstar lawyers with multi-year mega compensation deals and the growing number of salaried partners in large law firms and how those trends have changed compensation strategies and firm dynamics.  The discussion then shifts to the cases Marc’s firm has brought on behalf of Jewish students and an organization of Jewish students against NYU, Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania for failing to protect Jewish students from the recent upsurge in anti-Semitic activity on those campuses.  Marc explains the legal basis of the lawsuits in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the allegations that the universities have been deliberately indifferent to anti-Semitic conduct and attacks, and that the remedies sought are injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.  Marc also explains his view that the universities’ behavior stems from a shared woke ideology that the world is divided into oppressors and oppressed and all actions, including violence, taken by the oppressed is allegedly justified.  Finally, they discuss how the responses of many universities to these protests have resulted in silencing legitimate speech and the cancellation of many graduations.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jeffrey Toobin, celebrated author and legal analyst, who reflects on his extensive career in law and legal journalism.  First, Jeffrey describes his legal background, including his clerkship on the Second Circuit which led to his years working for the Independent Counsel investigating the Iran Contra scandal (which led to his first book, Opening Arguments) and his years as an Assistant US Attorney.  He also describes his years writing for the New Yorker and covering the OJ Simpson trial which led to his second book, The Run of His Life.  Jeffrey then explains the writing process that has allowed him to complete nine books so far, including his strategy of writing about topics that have not been covered extensively by other authors, his absolute commitment to write 1,250 words per day for the project he is working on, and his habit of beginning to write each chapter in the middle and only writing the opening of the chapter later.  John and Jeffrey then discuss why books on trials are so popular, including how trials are “perfect dramatic stages” and good trial lawyers are experts in both emphasizing the dramatic elements in stories and making issues interesting and meaningful to non-lawyers.  Finally, John and Jeffrey discuss their favorite books about trial lawyers and personal insights into the most unforgettable lawyers Jeffrey has met including Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Kathleen M. Sullivan, senior counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Founding Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice, and Derek L. Shaffer, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, DC office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice. Together, they discuss what appellate lawyers do: how they reverse bad trial outcomes, preserve good trial outcomes and help trial teams to make sure the trial record includes everything necessary for a successful appeal.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Kevin Teruya, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition Practice and Adam Wolfson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco and Los Angeles offices who specializes in antitrust law.  They discuss the recent antitrust case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Ticketmaster and Live Nation.  Kevin and Adam explain how Live Nation provides nationwide concert promotion services while its subsidiary Ticketmaster sells concert tickets on both the primary and on the secondary markets and secures multi-year exclusive arrangements with a large percentage of the concert venues in the U.S.  They also explain the companies’ history with the DOJ, including the consent decree entered into in 2010, the conditions and independent monitor imposed in that decree, and the decree’s extension for five more years in 2020.  They then discuss the DOJ’s newly filed case alleging that the companies failed to comply with the decree and also created anti-competitive effects in the market resulting in higher  fees for consumers.  The DOJ alleges that the companies monopolized: (1) the market for primary ticketing services, (2) the market for large amphitheaters, and (3) the concert promotion business.  The DOJ also alleges that the companies engaged in “exclusive dealing” arrangements through long term exclusive contracts with venues, and illegally tied concert promotion services to the use of venues with exclusive contracts with the companies.  Kevin and Adam also explain the defenses Ticketmaster/Live Nation are likely to assert including that the concert promotion business is local, so market power in one location does not flow to others, that venues ask for exclusive arrangements, and that there is sufficient competition whenever these exclusive deals come up for renewal.  They also discuss the likely testimony from industry competitors, venue operators and any performing artists who are willing to risk their income by challenging Ticketmaster/Live Nation.  Finally, they discuss the pending consumer class action case against Ticketmaster/Live Nation that the firm filed before the new DOJ case and the likelihood that the DOJ case will trigger additional piggyback private antitrust cases against the companies.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 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

Kimberly Carson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office, discusses the FTC's nationwide ban on non-compete agreements, exceptions to the rule, legal challenges, and alternative measures for employers to protect their interests, including trade secret litigation and fixed-duration contracts.

 John is joined by Michael K. Young, Professor of Law and Former President of Texas A&M University, the University of Washington and the University of Utah.  They discuss Michael’s career in higher education, starting with his years at Columbia Law School, including the two and a half years that he was a visiting Professor at the University of Tokyo, his establishment of the East Asian Legal Studies Center at Columbia and continuing through his service at the State Department where he negotiated treaties involving trade, international environmental law, human rights, and the terms under which Germany was unified.  They then discuss Michael’s tenure as Dean of George Washington Law School and the University of Utah and, later, President of the University of Utah, the University of Washington, and Texas A&M University. Michael describes his current role at a research center that is preparing the entire educational system, from primary school through university, for the futuristic megacity project in Saudi Arabia called NEOM.  Michael explains how his training as a lawyer helped him perform in these leadership positions by always maintaining his focus on the ends he is trying to achieve, the purpose of the institution and  seeing both sides of each issue.  Michael also explains several leadership lessons he has learned including that leaders need to genuinely listen and convey that they have listened, keep everyone focused on the institution’s mission, spread credit generously and take blame when thing go wrong.  Finally, John and Michael discuss the current controversies over free speech at American campuses.  Michael shares his approach to handling volatile situations with controversial speakers.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christine Lehman, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and an accomplished trial attorney focusing on patent litigation.  They discuss the $525 million verdict Christine and her team recently won against Amazon Web Services (AWS) for infringing tech company Kove’s patent rights in data-storage technology.  Christine describes how she presented to the jury the journey of the inventor, John Overton, from his troubled youth in Kentucky, to majoring in religion in college, to developing a method to efficiently organize and index all the photographs he took on a yearlong bicycle trip across the country.  He and co-inventor Stephen Bailey ultimately implemented this method in a way that allowed users to search millions of data items quickly and formed the basis for Kove’s patented technology.  Christine also describes the extensive pretrial proceedings that occurred over the six years that the lawsuit against AWS was pending.  John and Christine then discuss the ten-day trial itself, including the defendant’s last-minute decision to abandon its invalidity defense, the judge’s procedure for allowing jurors to submit questions to each witness, and how those questions informed her team about how well the jury understood the technical issues in the case.  Finally, they discuss the different approaches taken by the two sides in presenting their experts and how Christine presented her client’s damages case leading to the $525 million verdict.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

C. Dabney O'Riordan, former leader of SEC's Asset Management Unit, discusses minimizing SEC risk for asset managers by taking proactive steps like self-identification, updating policies, providing training, hiring compliance consultants, and making remedial payments if needed.

Jesse Bernstein discusses securities law, including recent Supreme Court rulings and a victorious case involving Elon Musk's tweet. They explore the history of securities laws, the challenges of securities litigation, and upcoming issues in the field.