Law, disrupted

Law, disrupted
  • 5.0 (19)
  • BUSINESS NEWS
  • UPDATED WEEKLY

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?

  1. 1 HR AGO

    Unlocking Law Firm Equity

    John is joined by Christopher Bogart, CEO and co-founder of Burford Capital. They discuss the evolving landscape of capital investment in law firms, focusing on the emergence of non-lawyer equity participation and managed service organization structures as potential solutions to long-standing financing constraints within the legal industry. Traditionally, U.S. law firms have been prohibited from allowing non-lawyer ownership, a rule rooted in the belief that outside investors could compromise lawyers’ undivided duty of loyalty to clients. Because of this restriction, firms have largely been limited to partner capital and debt financing, preventing them from accessing equity markets or monetizing the enterprise value they build over time. This limitation affects not only firm expansion and technology investment, but also partner retirement, succession planning, and talent retention. Other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom and Australia, have relaxed these restrictions, permitting outside investment and even public listings. Still, large elite firms have been slow to adopt such models, due in part to risk aversion and concerns about partner compensation. In the United States, regulatory change has been fragmented because lawyer governance operates state by state. Arizona and Utah have experimented with loosening ownership rules, but geographic limits and regulatory pushback have constrained broader adoption of looser ownership rules. Recently, attention has shifted to alternative structures, particularly managed service organizations. These arrangements divide a law firm into two entities: one engaged in practicing law and a separate services company handling operational functions that can be outsourced such as litigation support, staffing, technology, and trial logistics. While non-lawyer investors could not own the legal practice, they could invest in the services entity, creating a vehicle for external capital, equity incentives, and infrastructure funding. However, implementing such structures within established firms would be complex from operational, management, and tax perspectives. Despite the slow pace, external capital is widely viewed as inevitable given the legal industry’s scale, profitability, and growing technological demands. Meaningful acceleration across the market will likely require several major firms to demonstrate workable models that others can follow. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    27 min

  2. 6 DAYS AGO

    Getting Free Speech Right

    John is joined by Christopher L. Eisgruber, President of Princeton University and author of Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. They discuss the state of free speech on university campuses. While public perception often emphasizes crisis and failure, many institutions are upholding speech rights more effectively than they are credited for. The broad constitutional principles of free expression, protecting even offensive or unsettling speech, are a good starting place for academic environments. However, these principles alone are insufficient. Universities must also foster a culture of mutual respect, encouraging civil discourse and meaningful dialogue even amid disagreement. Some of the specific challenges universities face in the current polarized political climate include the impact of the Israel–Gaza conflict, protests, donor pressures, and calls for institutional statements. Institutions must balance their commitment to free expression with efforts to elevate discourse and promote inclusive learning environments. Chris believes that university leaders should not use censorship as a tool to enforce civility. Instead, they should model and promote norms of respectful engagement. Online culture has intensified the scrutiny of campus speech. Events that once remained local can now gain global attention instantly, raising the stakes for how universities manage protests and controversy. Students today often self-censor due to fears of online backlash, which complicates efforts to foster open exchanges of ideas. A tension exists between scholarly standards and political identity in faculty hiring. While Chris acknowledges there is an ideological imbalance in American universities, he believes that hiring decisions should prioritize scholarly excellence and viewpoint diversity within academic norms, rather than political quotas. John and Chris also discuss how and when university leaders should speak publicly on societal issues. While university presidents should not weigh in on every political controversy, there are moments, particularly when institutional values are at stake, when silence is not tenable. The goal is to preserve the university as a space for rigorous, inclusive, and respectful exploration of ideas. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    31 min

  3. 6 FEB

    Inside the Elon Musk Pay Package Victory

    John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss Michel’s team’s recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court, reinstating Elon Musk’s Tesla compensation package, now valued at $139 billion, the largest compensation dispute in corporate history. The 2018 pay package required Musk to meet extremely ambitious growth milestones, including doubling Tesla’s size over a ten-year period, before receiving any compensation. After that, there were a series of 12 levels of compensation corresponding to 12 further growth milestones. The Tesla Board approved the package, as did the shareholders with 70% support. He ultimately achieved all the required milestones, growing the company from $50 billion to over $1 trillion in four years.  Despite that, a Tesla shareholder owning just nine shares brought a derivative suit, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the package. The Delaware Chancery Court found Musk to be a “controlling stockholder” due to his 21% ownership, close relationships with directors, and status as a “superstar CEO.”  As a result, the court applied the “entire fairness” standard, under which defendants must prove that a transaction was entirely fair to the shareholders, and found the package did not meet that standard. The court reasoned that Tesla could have obtained Musk’s services for less or even for free, citing other CEOs who had worked without compensation. It also ruled that shareholder approval was invalid due to inadequate proxy disclosures, including the omission of details about Musk’s social ties with board members. The court rescinded the entire compensation package and awarded the plaintiff’s counsel $345 million in attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the defense team focused on three main arguments: Musk was not a controlling stockholder, the package met the entire fairness standard, and even if there was a violation, rescission was not an appropriate remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that rescission was unwarranted and awarding nominal damages of $1. It reinstated the pay package, now valued at $139 billion. It also reduced the attorneys’ fee award to $54 million. The case has influenced legislative changes in Delaware corporate law regarding the definition of controlling shareholders and shareholder ratification. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    38 min

  4. 29 JAN

    A $1.6 Billion Public Market Clawback Case

    John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher and Peter H. Fountain, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss their recent representation of Citadel Securities, one of the world’s largest market makers, in connection with a case concerning Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical company forced into bankruptcy due to opioid litigation. The central issue was whether $1.6 billion in stock share buybacks conducted between 2015 and 2018 could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate as fraudulent transfers. The legal theory advanced by a litigation trust formed during the bankruptcy was unprecedented, as it sought to void Mallinckrodt's share repurchases on the open market, which were made in the ordinary course of business. The trust contended that, under Irish law (Mallinckrodt was an Irish corporation), these repurchases were void because Mallinckrodt should have recognized that it was insolvent due to substantial opioid-related tort liabilities that were not reflected on its balance sheet. The litigation trust characterized these sales as constructive fraudulent conveyances, asserting that Mallinckrodt lacked adequate capital when executing the buybacks. The trust sought to claw back the full $1.6 billion from ordinary market participants who had sold shares years prior, basing their argument on limited precedent from Enron-related cases from the 1980s. The defense successfully challenged these claims by invoking the Section 546(e) bankruptcy safe harbor provision. This provision is intended to preserve finality in financial markets and protect legitimate securities transactions. The defense emphasized that Citadel and similar market makers qualified as financial participants and that the share repurchases constituted protected settlement payments and transfers pursuant to securities contracts under the safe harbor provision. Accepting the litigation trust’s theory would require market makers to investigate not only the published financial statements of every traded company, but also hidden tort liabilities and the corporate laws of each jurisdiction of incorporation, before facilitating any transactions. Both the bankruptcy and district courts recognized that imposing such obligations would paralyze financial markets and defeat the purpose of the safe harbor provision, and rejected the trust's novel claims. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    16 min

  5. 22 JAN

    Re-release: A Conversation with David Boies

    John is joined by one of the most famous litigators in the world, David Boies, Chairman and Founding Partner of Boies Schiller Flexner.  They discuss David’s career, unique aspects of trial work, and the challenges of transitioning leadership in law firms.  David describes his early years at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, where he became a partner in 1972, and his founding of Boies Schiller in 1997.  He candidly discusses the aging process, especially the balance that exists between somewhat diminishing memory and the ever-improving judgment that comes with experience.  Despite plans to step down as Chairman of his firm at the end of the year, David remains engaged in high-stakes litigation, particularly cases which may improve society, such as marriage equality and sex trafficking litigation.   John and David also discuss trial advocacy.  David believes that trials are both morality plays and peculiar searches for truth, shaped by a unique decision-making process that excludes jurors with specialized knowledge and forbids them from seeking knowledge in the ways they are accustomed to.  They also discuss the unique pressures on courtroom lawyers, including the need to say everything right in real time, having a professional constantly trying to make you look bad, a jury that studies everything you say or do, and clients watching whose fortune or liberty depends on your performance.  John and David also discuss the business of law, critiquing the hourly billing model and reflecting on the challenges of aligning client and firm interests in alternative fee arrangements.  They agree that legal practice, while demanding, remains intellectually and personally rewarding.  David also offers his thoughts on his late friend and sometimes adversary Ted Olson, whose integrity, warmth, and professionalism left a lasting impact.  Finally, John and David discuss the possibility of a follow-up to David’s book Courting Justice, which chronicled significant cases from his career in light of the major cases he has had in the years since the book was published. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    43 min

  6. 15 JAN

    Avoiding Nuclear Verdicts

    John is joined by Robert Tyson and Cayce E. Lynch, both partners at Tyson & Mendes and Co-Founders of Apex Defense Consulting. They discuss how defense lawyers can counter the recent rise in “nuclear verdicts.” Nuclear verdicts are extremely large jury awards, often in personal injury cases, in which pain and suffering or emotional distress awards are vastly disproportionate to economic damages.  These verdicts are a key factor behind the recent, dramatic rise in insurance costs.  Over the past 15 years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have shifted tactics. While plaintiffs’ attorneys used to appeal to jurors’ sympathy for the plaintiff, they now focus on inciting juror anger against the defendant. Robert and Cayce obtained the trial transcripts from 100 nuclear verdict cases and carefully analyzed each case. They tracked 60 data points per case and concluded that defense lawyers frequently failed to respond effectively to plaintiffs’ shift to inciting anger in the jury.    Their research identified four strategies which, when used together, greatly reduce the risk of a nuclear verdict. First, defense counsel must personalize the defendant to create a connection between the people on the jury and the people working for the defendant.    Second, defense counsel must accept responsibility for some issue in every single case. Accepting responsibility helps take the anger out of the jury.   Third, counsel must give an alternative damages number to the plaintiff’s claim in every case. When defense counsel fails to give an alternative number, the jury will often award significantly more than the plaintiff asked for. A University of Iowa study also found that when the defense provides its own damages number, the likelihood of obtaining a defense verdict increases.   Finally, defense counsel must address the plaintiff’s non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. This should be done by presenting a message emphasizing the joys that remain in the plaintiff’s life. They should also emphasize the impact their alternative damages number could have on the plaintiff’s life.   None of the 100 nuclear verdict cases Robert and Cayce reviewed involved defense lawyers who employed all four of these strategies. Robert and Cayce conclude by advocating for a broader sharing of best practices among defense counsel, noting that the plaintiffs’ bar has traditionally excelled in coordinating and sharing information and best practices. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    31 min

  7. 9 JAN

    Winning and the Art of Connection

    John is joined by Jennifer Prosek, Founder and Managing Partner of Prosek Partners, one of the world’s leading integrated marketing and communications firms. They discuss effective reputation and crisis management in high-stakes corporate and financial legal matters. Success in such matters often depends on maintaining a disciplined alignment between legal and communications teams. Despite today’s fast-paced media environment, both teams must develop a strategic plan and resist the pressure to react impulsively. Saying less can often be more effective, as premature or excessive public comments may create lasting reputational harm, even when the legal outcomes are ultimately favorable. The output of large language models bearing on reputation can be shaped by proactively feeding the digital landscape, especially large language model AI systems, with positive, relevant content, particularly third-party media coverage. By doing so, companies can shape the narrative these systems generate. While influencing large language models is not fully understood, the importance of establishing ongoing, high-quality positive public engagement is clear. In one case, Bridgewater’s controversial hedge fund culture was proactively reframed into a compelling public story. Rather than hiding or ignoring critical media narratives, the firm opted to control and shape its own messaging, resulting in a broader cultural conversation and the creation of a best-selling book. This example demonstrates how taking the “front foot” in communications may often transform perception and build long-term reputational value.  To “nail the narrative,” communications teams must distill a company’s essence into a concise and compelling story that resonates with customers, investors, and the media. Differentiating oneself from competitors, even if polarizing, is essential in today’s crowded communications landscape. Finally, John and Jennifer discuss entrepreneurship, including the value of taking initiative, the power of simply asking for what you want, and the importance of connection and authentic human relationships in business.  Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    29 min

  8. 18/12/2025

    A Chinese Client’s Fight for Corporate Control Across Delaware, Texas and Nevada

    John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss a complex cross-border dispute involving a Chinese public company listed on the Shanghai Exchange. The company, which owned oil assets in Texas and was one of the largest private oil producers in the U.S., faced a governance crisis after an investor took over the company and elected a new board in China. When the new board attempted to gain control over the company’s U.S. subsidiaries, it discovered that the company’s former management had implemented mechanisms at the subsidiaries’ holding companies that blocked the election of new directors. This control deadlock posed an existential threat, as Chinese regulators warned the company it could be delisted if control was not reestablished by the end of the year.  The urgency of the situation demanded a rapid litigation strategy across three U.S. jurisdictions: Texas, Nevada, and Delaware. The client’s initial effort, led by another firm, to resolve the matter in Texas failed because of the “internal affairs doctrine,” which required adjudication in Delaware, where the entities were incorporated. Fortunately, the other side initiated a Delaware proceeding allowing the Chinese parent to counterclaim and consolidate all issues under a highly expedited schedule. A key early win was securing a “status quo” order in Delaware, which froze major corporate actions and gave the new board veto power over decisions exceeding $100,000, effectively halting adverse moves by the former management.  The case involved extensive discovery, much of it in Mandarin, and included WhatsApp, WeChat, and other messaging platforms. Advanced AI tools played a crucial role in accelerating document review, translating materials, and aiding strategy development. Cultural sensitivity and coordination with Chinese counsel were also essential to preparing the case. As trial approached, the opposing side sought settlement, likely due to being overwhelmed by the pace and depth of the litigation.   Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    27 min
See All (198)

5
out of 5
19 Ratings

About

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?

Information

  • Creator
    Law, disrupted
  • Years Active
    2022 - 2026
  • Episodes
    198
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Law, disrupted
  • Show Website
    Law, disrupted

You Might Also Like