Law, disrupted

Law, disrupted
  • 5.0 (1)
  • NOTICIAS DE NEGOCIOS
  • CADA SEMANA

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. HACE 1 DÍA

    Re-release: Renowned Criminal Defense Lawyer Ben Brafman on Trial Practice

    John is joined by renowned criminal defense lawyer 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 when he defended 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 an increase in plea deals. John and Ben also discuss trial strategies. Many cases are won on cross. A successful cross requires deep knowledge of every piece of evidence in the case. He 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 parts 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 by a defendant cannot 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 Gation after an eight-week racketeering trial. Criminal defense often takes an emotional toll on the criminal defense lawyer, who is witness to the devastating impact criminal prosecutions have on families and personal reputations. Finally, John and Ben discuss criminal justice reform. Ben criticizes mandatory sentencing minimums laws and advocates for judicial discretion to prevent unjustly harsh sentences.  Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    43 min

  2. 15 MAY

    Inside QE'S $440 Million Win Against Credit Suisse For SoftBank

    John 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.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    34 min

  3. 7 MAY

    Re-release: The Evolution of Legal Assets as an Investment Class

    John 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.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    42 min

  4. 1 MAY

    Tax on Billionaires

    John 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.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    21 min

  5. 24 ABR

    Private Rights in Public Data?

    John 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.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    33 min

  6. 16 ABR

    Trump Tariffs 2.0

    John is joined by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School. They discuss the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape surrounding U.S. tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the President’s reliance on emergency economic powers to impose broad tariffs. That ruling removed a significant set of tariffs but did not eliminate the overall tariff regime. Instead, the administration quickly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, particularly Section 122, which permits temporary tariffs for up to 150 days, as well as longer-term mechanisms such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. These alternative mechanisms allow the executive branch to impose targeted tariffs based on findings related to unfair trade practices or national security concerns, with less immediate need for congressional approval. As a result, the tariff environment has shifted from sweeping, across-the-board measures to a more fragmented and dynamic system, requiring analysis on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Ongoing investigations into issues such as excess capacity and forced labor are likely to produce additional tariffs that may persist longer than the temporary measures currently in place. Meanwhile, legal challenges continue, including lawsuits by states arguing that the executive branch has exceeded delegated authority and violated statutory constraints. These challenges may be overtaken by the expiration of temporary tariffs and the emergence of new ones. One major issue involves refunds for tariffs previously collected under the invalidated emergency economic powers authority. Courts have indicated that refunds are warranted and administratively feasible, even at large scale, although timing remains uncertain due to potential appeals and implementation delays. Importers’ entitlement to refunds from the government does not depend on whether they passed tariff costs on to customers, as the focus is on the legality of the government’s action rather than downstream economic effects. Downstream purchasers who claim that invalidated tariffs were passed on to them must pursue contractual remedies rather than recovery from the government. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    37 min

  7. 10 ABR

    An AI System Built by Litigators, for Litigators

    John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a proprietary litigation intelligence system developed inside Quinn Emanuel — built from a practicing litigator's perspective and designed to give case teams a decisive advantage from day one. The system, known internally as a "kerchbench," works by taking a case team's documents, filings, and materials and distilling them into a structured knowledge base that mirrors how experienced litigators understand and manage cases — organized around the chronology of events, key actors, claims and defenses, and critical evidence. The result is an AI that already understands the case before anyone asks it a question, so every interaction starts from genuine case knowledge rather than from scratch. By progressively building out the system's understanding as a matter develops, the AI functions as a true thought partner rather than a passive tool. Lawyers can refine strategies, identify gaps in their knowledge, and surface non-obvious connections across the record. The system doesn't just answer questions about what is known — it serves as a thought partner, flagging what additional information the team may need and what the lawyer may be overlooking. One key innovation is the creation of structured workflows and reusable "skills" that break complex legal tasks into component steps — issue identification, organization, drafting, and refinement. These routines accelerate the production of high-quality work while preserving lawyer oversight at every stage. The system also supports early case assessment: a fast-turnaround engagement that synthesizes initial case materials into a structured snapshot of claims and defenses, key risks, and strategic priorities — giving partners a clear picture of a case within 48 hours. The result is a shift in legal work from labor-intensive context assembly toward higher-value analytical thinking. By providing relevant case information on demand and reducing the cognitive burden of tracking specific evidence across a large record, the system enhances both the speed and quality of legal reasoning. This is not merely an efficiency gain — it is a meaningful improvement in lawyers' ability to think, strategize, and advocate effectively in complex litigation. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    43 min

  8. 2 ABR

    Enjoining Excessive Force at ICE Protests

    John is joined by Matthew Borden, partner and co-founder of BraunHagey & Borden, and Kory DeClark, partner at BraunHagey & Borden. They discuss litigation challenging federal law enforcement responses to protests, focusing on the Dickinson case in Portland, Oregon, that resulted in an injunction restricting how government agents may use force against demonstrators. The case arose from a series of protests against immigration enforcement policies. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of excessive and indiscriminate force by federal agents at these protests that chilled lawful First Amendment activity. The legal team assembled extensive evidence, including 62 sworn declarations and video footage, documenting incidents such as using pepper spray on an 82-year-old woman and firing tear gas and projectiles at peaceful protesters. The effort to gather evidence was intense, involving rapid coordination among attorneys, staff, and volunteers to identify witnesses, collect recordings, and conduct expedited discovery in only 28 days. The discovery included depositions of federal personnel and testimony from experts and local law enforcement officials, who contrasted federal tactics with established crowd-control practices. The evidence demonstrated a broad pattern amounting to an informal policy inconsistent with constitutional protections rather than a series of isolated incidents. One powerful piece of evidence, in addition to the limited training that is much inferior to what police receive, was that the government conducted no investigations of and imposed no disciplinary measures on the officers involved in these incidents.    At the preliminary injunction hearing, the government largely relied on general assertions that protests were dangerous and that restrictions on force would compromise officer safety, while offering no direct rebuttal to specific incidents. In contrast, the plaintiffs emphasized that targeted, proportional policing methods were available and commonly used by trained local agencies, and that indiscriminate tactics such as tear gas often escalated tensions rather than restoring order. The resulting injunction limits the use of force to situations involving imminent threats and active resistance. It restricts the deployment of crowd-control weapons against passive or non-threatening individuals. These constraints align with existing use-of-force standards and have not been shown to endanger officers when implemented. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. Finally, they discuss BraunHagey & Borden’s “impact” practice of focusing almost 20% of its work on pro bono activities on cases that could have the maximum impact for a broad group of people or change the law to benefit a large group of people. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn  Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

    38 min
Ver todo (211)

Acerca de

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?

Información

  • Creador
    Law, disrupted
  • Años de actividad
    2022 - 2026
  • Episodios
    211
  • Clasificación
    Apto
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Law, disrupted
  • Mostrar sitio web
    Law, disrupted

También te podría interesar