Podcast
Law, disrupted
Hosted by Law, disrupted · EN
Law, disrupted is a podcast that dives into the legal issues emerging from cutting-edge and innovative subjects such as SPACs, NFTs, litigation finance, ransomware, streaming, and much, much more! Your host is John B. Quinn, founder and chairman of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, a 900+ attorney business litigation firm with 29 offices around the globe, each devoted solely to business litigation. John is regarded as one of the top trial lawyers in the world, who, along with his partners, has built an institution that has consistently been listed among the “Most Feared” litigation firms in the world (BTI Consulting Group), and was called a “global litigation powerhouse” by The Wall Street Journal. In his podcast, John is joined by industry professionals as they examine and debate legal issues concerning the newest technologies, innovations, and current events—and ask what’s next?
11episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Rare Federal White Collar Acquittal
3d ago00:45:22Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Avi Perry, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C., office, and Brett Raffish, an associate in the same office. They discuss how the Quinn Emanuel team, led by Bill Burck and Avi Perry, achieved a rare federal white collar criminal defense victory on behalf of technology executive Charlie Kim.The prosecution alleged that Mr. Kim and his co-CEO bribed four-star Admiral Robert Burke by offering him a lucrative post-retirement job at their company in exchange for using his position to help secure a multimillion-dollar Navy contract. They argued that the employment discussions and contract negotiations constituted an unlawful quid pro quo rather than legitimate, independent business conversations.Avi and Brett explain the history of the case, from the initial whistleblower complaint through the indictment, pretrial strategy, two lengthy jury trials, and Mr. Kim’s ultimate acquittal. From the beginning, one of their central themes was that the parallel discussions about the Navy contract and the admiral’s post-retirement employment were conducted openly, not secretly. Mr. Kim repeatedly disclosed the conversations to investors, colleagues, family members, and others, demonstrating that he had no criminal intent, one of the essential elements of the charges. The trial team also showed that the job offer and the contract were not linked. Although the proposed multimillion-dollar contract never materialized, Mr. Kim still hired the admiral at Next Jump because the job offer was never contingent on the admiral securing the contract.Before trial, the team moved to sever Mr. Kim’s trial from the admiral’s case because evidence against the admiral, including incriminating statements and unrelated misconduct, threatened to unfairly prejudice Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim also intended to, and ultimately did, present a defense that the admiral had lied to him during their relationship. After obtaining the rare severance, the admiral was tried, convicted, and sentenced to six years in prison. Mr. Kim’s first trial ended with a hung jury.Using insights from juror interviews, the team refined its defense for the retrial, focusing on the absence of any true quid pro quo, Mr. Kim’s reliance on the admiral’s assurances that the discussions were ethically appropriate, and evidence showing that the admiral was hired despite the failure to secure the anticipated contract. The team also used the record from the first trial to sharpen its cross-examinations of the government’s witnesses.Seven months later, the case was retried. At the second trial, the government repeatedly emphasized a statement in a text message that the deal was “no contract, no job.” However, the quote was taken out of context. During Avi’s cross-examination of the government’s case agent, he elicited an admission that the deal ultimately became “no contract, yes job.”After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for just one day before returning a verdict acquitting Mr. Kim on all charges.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Re-release: Managing the Legal Department of the World’s Most Profitable Hedge Fund
2w ago00:45:48Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Shawn Fagan, the Chief Legal Officer of Citadel LLC and a key legal figure at Citadel Securities. Citadel is the most profitable hedge fund globally, while Citadel Securities is a leading market maker, processing nearly one-third of U.S. equities and options trades. They discuss Shawn’s insights into the unique legal challenges of these rapidly growing organizations.Shawn has essentially four clients: Citadel, Citadel Securities, founder Ken Griffin, and Griffin’s family office. His responsibilities extend beyond legal oversight to include regulatory affairs and compliance, reflecting the complexities of modern finance.Shawn’s journey to Citadel was unconventional. He started as a litigator at Bartlit Beck, a boutique trial firm, where he spent nearly half his time in trial. He participated in high-profile cases, including Bush v. Gore, but ultimately realized that trial work was not his passion. A chance meeting with Ken Griffin led to an in-house opportunity at Citadel, where he has now been for 20 years.During that time, Citadel has grown from 1,000 employees and $12 billion in assets under management to 4,900 employees and $65 billion in assets under management. The focus of Shawn’s role at Citadel is building the right teams to meet the demands of rapidly growing markets around the world, developing technology to ensure regulatory compliance across billions of transactions every day, and maintaining consistent standards in an organization that continues to grow at an extraordinary pace.Citadel has engaged in several high-profile legal battles, including lawsuits against the SEC and IRS, reflecting the firm’s willingness to challenge regulations it views as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. When retaining outside counsel, Shawn looks for lawyers with strategic vision who can articulate a clear path to winning cases.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Wildfire Litigation
2w ago00:41:19Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Jeffrey N. Boozell and Christopher Tayback, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss wildfire litigation as a specialized and rapidly growing area of law, driven by increasingly destructive fires in California and other western states. What began as a relatively limited practice in the 1990s evolved into a major practice area after large California wildfires generated thousands of property loss claims and billions of dollars in damages. Jeff and Chris explain how these cases are structured, the legal theories involved, and the challenges of compensating victims.Wildfire cases are generally mass torts rather than class actions. Because each homeowner suffers different losses and faces unique causation issues, claims are coordinated before a single judge but remain individual lawsuits.These cases are typically brought against utilities, governments, and private entities that plaintiffs allege bear some responsibility for the disaster. One of the most important legal doctrines in California is inverse condemnation, which imposes liability on public utilities when infrastructure serving the public causes property damage. Under this doctrine, utilities may be responsible for property losses even without proof of negligence, distinguishing California wildfire litigation from cases in many other states.Utilities are also frequently defendants because fires are often linked to power lines, equipment failures, vegetation management issues, or other infrastructure-related problems. Various ignition scenarios may occur, including power lines striking each other in high winds, trees coming into contact with power lines, and improperly maintained equipment. For example, in the Eaton Fire, evidence shows that an old, unused power line was not properly grounded, leading to sparks that ignited the fire. In the Palisades Fire, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power emptied the Santa Ynez Reservoir to carry out repairs and left it empty for an extended period. As a result, firefighting helicopters were unable to collect and drop water from the reservoir, and eventually, fire hydrants in the area ran dry. Utilities understand these risks but often fail to implement adequate preventive measures.Despite involving enormous losses and thousands of claimants, major California wildfire cases rarely reach trial. Instead, courts establish coordinated proceedings, identify bellwether cases, and encourage settlement through mediation programs or compensation funds. Insurance payments often cover only part of a homeowner’s losses, leaving substantial uninsured damages and emotional distress claims to be pursued through litigation.The scale of the 2025 Los Angeles-area fires is unprecedented. Estimated damages exceed $200 billion, underscoring why wildfire litigation is likely to remain a significant area of legal practice for years to come.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Inside QE’s Remarkable UK Class Action Trial Win for Qualcomm
4w ago00:25:33Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Brussels office. They discuss a major antitrust and competition law class action brought in the United Kingdom against Qualcomm, a leading developer of mobile communications technology.The case was filed as an opt-out class action on behalf of consumers and alleged that Qualcomm had abused a dominant market position by charging excessive patent royalties to smartphone manufacturers, particularly Apple and Samsung. The plaintiff claimed that Qualcomm used its strength as a supplier of mobile chipsets to pressure manufacturers into accepting licensing terms that allegedly resulted in inflated consumer prices. Remarkably, the plaintiff class withdrew the case at the end of the first phase of the trial.European competition law differs from U.S. antitrust law in that it permits claims based not only on the exclusion of rivals, but also on the alleged exploitation of customers through excessive pricing. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that Qualcomm leveraged its market power in chipsets to impose unfair licensing terms. Qualcomm maintained that its licensing model reflected legitimate compensation for decades of innovation and intellectual property development.The trial focused in detail on Qualcomm’s relationships with Apple and Samsung. Evidence showed that key licensing arrangements were entered into at times when the manufacturers were not dependent on Qualcomm chipsets, undermining the claim that Qualcomm used chipset supply as leverage. Additional evidence demonstrated that royalty levels did not vary according to the volume of chipset purchases and that customers could obtain licenses independently of chipset transactions. Economic analysis likewise failed to reveal any connection between alleged dependence on Qualcomm products and the royalties ultimately negotiated.The case proceeded to a five-week trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. The first phase addressed market definition, dominance, liability, and whether the allegedly excessive royalties could nevertheless be justified as reasonable. Before the tribunal issued its ruling on the first phase, the class representative agreed to withdraw the case entirely. Qualcomm paid nothing, each side bore its own costs, and the litigation ended without a judgment.A judge reviewing the withdrawal concluded that the claim had no realistic prospect of success, making the case a rare instance in which a plaintiff abandons a major class action after trial, but before a decision was rendered.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →The Antitrust Lawyer Who Parachuted Into Trial and Beat Live Nation and Ticketmaster for 33 States
May 2800:32:49Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Co-Executive Chairman of Winston & Strawn LLP. They discuss the remarkable antitrust trial Jeff won involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster.In that case, the Department of Justice, 33 states, and the District of Columbia sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster, only for the DOJ to settle and withdraw from the case one week into the trial. The remaining states continued litigating and brought in Jeff as their new lead trial lawyer midway through the proceedings, an unprecedented action in major antitrust litigation. This required Jeff’s team to enter a complex jury trial with almost no preparation time, review a massive evidentiary record with the assistance of AI, coordinate with dozens of state attorneys general, and quickly reorganize witness presentations and trial themes.The case centered on allegations that Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power through long-term exclusive agreements, threats to withhold concert talent from venues using rival ticketing companies, and other conduct designed to block competition in ticket sales. The plaintiffs highlighted damaging internal company documents, including references to “boiling the frogs,” “digging a moat around the castle,” and using a “velvet hammer” to pressure venues, all of which became powerful evidence supporting claims of anti-competitive intent. The plaintiffs also relied on economic testimony and evidence showing that the companies internally acknowledged serious service and quality problems while publicly claiming their products were superior.Jeff’s trial strategy included simplifying complicated antitrust theories for jurors, narrowing claims, reducing witnesses, and using AI tools to rapidly analyze deposition transcripts and evidence. After a lengthy trial and four days of jury deliberations, the plaintiffs secured a major verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, with further proceedings still pending regarding damages and possible structural remedies, including the separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Re-release: Renowned Criminal Defense Lawyer Ben Brafman on Trial Practice
May 2200:43:03Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by renowned criminal defense attorney Ben Brafman, Founder of Brafman & Associates. They discuss Ben’s 45-year career, trial strategies, and reflections on the criminal justice system. Ben, who has tried more than 75 cases, gained prominence in the 1980s and 90s defending major criminal trials, particularly organized crime and white-collar cases. He was in trial almost continuously for 11 years. He attributes his success to meticulous preparation and emphasizes that there are no shortcuts in trial practice.Ben describes the evolution of criminal trials over the last 40 years, noting that trials are shorter and less frequent today due to the rise in plea deals. John and Ben also discuss trial strategy, particularly the importance of cross-examination. Many cases are won on cross. A successful cross requires deep knowledge of every piece of evidence in the case. Ben describes one case in which he essentially memorized months of taped conversations to dismantle a key witness’s credibility.Ben often uses cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses to establish elements of the defense and contradict the testimony of other witnesses. Most cases today are won or lost on emails or texts because they are so prevalent, and an incriminating email or text from a defendant cannot easily be discredited on cross-examination.Ben also reflects on some of his most notable cases, including the acquittal of Sean “Diddy” Combs on gun and bribery charges in 2001 and the acquittal of nightclub mogul Peter Gatien after an eight-week racketeering trial.Criminal defense work often takes an emotional toll on defense attorneys, who witness the devastating impact criminal prosecutions can have on families and personal reputations. Finally, John and Ben discuss criminal justice reform. Ben criticizes mandatory minimum sentencing laws and advocates for greater judicial discretion to prevent unjustly harsh sentences.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Inside QE'S $440 Million Win Against Credit Suisse For SoftBank
May 1500:33:33Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Richard East, Senior Partner of Quinn Emanuel’s London office, and Nikolas Bruce-Smith, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s London office. They discuss a major London commercial trial arising from the collapse of Greensill Capital and the resulting litigation between Credit Suisse and SoftBank. The plaintiff alleged that SoftBank sought to orchestrate, for its own ends, a complex restructuring involving the Greensill Group in late 2020, through which approximately US$440 million worth of assets were allegedly placed improperly beyond the reach of creditors while Greensill was in severe financial distress.Following a five-week trial in 2025, and one of the first major trial conclusions arising from the widely publicised Greensill collapse, Credit Suisse’s claim failed. SoftBank’s conduct was vindicated by the English High Court, which found that SoftBank had acted “in good faith” and “did not know or suspect” that Greensill intended to prejudice its creditors.The trial was especially unique and notable, garnering extensive press attention, because Greensill founder Lex Greensill voluntarily agreed, on the eve of trial, to appear and testify despite not being called by either side and while facing separate legal and regulatory proceedings. A development like this is almost unheard of in complex, high-stakes commercial litigation and required all parties to adapt at the last minute in response to such an extraordinary turn of events as the trial commenced.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Re-release: The Evolution of Legal Assets as an Investment Class
May 700:41:31Tap to summarizeJohn Quinn is joined by Jack Neumark, Managing Partner and Co-Head of Specialty Finance of Fortress Investment Group and Founder of its Legal Assets Group. They discuss the emergence of legal assets as a distinct investment class. Fortress is a leading player in litigation finance with over $6.5 billion deployed in legal assets and a current portfolio of approximately $3 billion. While most litigation funders typically invest in individual cases, Fortress invests in diversified portfolios of litigation claims and contingent fee receivables. Fortress underwrites and finances these portfolios the same way it does other specialty finance products. To underwrite a portfolio, Fortress has lawyers examine the cases in the portfolio to determine how strong and likely to settle they are. They consider factors including the defendants and how creditworthy they are, the damage theories asserted, how far the case has progressed, what motion practice has revealed, and whether related criminal charges have been filed. They also consider the law firms involved, the judge, and the venue. Fortress also conducts quantitative analyses of the historical results of similar cases based on publicly available data and proprietary data it has accumulated in the 15 years it has invested in legal assets. Legal asset portfolios are attractive to many investors because the results of lawsuits are less subject to the performance of the economy in general than many other classes of assets. Also, because the market for legal assets is still developing, sophisticated investors can often obtain better returns than in more mature markets. Jack believes that as the industry matures, especially with potential regulatory changes around law firm ownership, litigation finance will become more mainstream and integrated into broader investment strategies.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Tax on Billionaires
May 100:21:03Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans. The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind. The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive.Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →Private Rights in Public Data?
Apr 2400:33:29Tap to summarizeJohn is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk.One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection.A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company’s financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records.The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company’s digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry’s work directed at one state’s archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company’s value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure.A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages.While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Transcribe →