UnCommon Law

Generative AI has promised to reshape the practice of law ever since ChatGPT emerged. However, it's been unclear just how large law firms are using AI. Has it changed how practitioners do their jobs on a daily basis? Are we witnessing the emergence of a revolution in how lawyers do their work? Uncommon Law's Matthew Schwartz sits in as guest host on this episode of On the Merits. He talks with John Quinn, founder and chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as they discuss his firm's stance on artificial intelligence and the future of the billable hour.

In the season finale of UnCommon Law, we explore the power of AI to transform legal practice. Featuring insights from top law professors, a federal judge, and industry leaders like John Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel, we ask: Can AI’s promise of efficiency overcome its risks—and redefine the future of law? Guests: John Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Daniel Ho, professor of law and computer science at Stanford University David Hoffman, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Isabel Gottlieb, reporter for Bloomberg Law covering AI and issues impacting corporate legal departments UnCommon Law is hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz.

Deepfakes. Disinformation. Algorithmic bias. Job displacement. These are just some of the harms legislators and regulators worry about when they think about how to tackle the risks posed by artificial intelligence. The first episodes of this season of UnCommon Law deal with generative AI in the copyright law context, since the technology uses massive amounts of copyright protected work. But while copyright law might be the beginning, there's so much more to the story of generative AI and the law. In this episode, we examine what the government might do to ensure that 21st century life doesn't turn into a dystopian future. Guests: Cary Coglianese, director of the Penn Program on Regulation at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Oma Seddiq, tech policy reporter for Bloomberg Government Isabel Gottlieb, reporter for Bloomberg Law covering AI and issues impacting corporate legal departments

The US copyright system encourages human creativity. So does it make sense to grant a copyright to work created by AI with the click of a button? And, if AI generated artwork is given copyright protection, how would that impact the livelihoods of creative professionals? In our last episode, we looked at Jason Allen’s AI-generated artwork, "Théatre D’opéra Spatial," and the arguments why it should have some copyright protection. This time, we examine the other side – the most powerful arguments for why AI-generated work should never be eligible for copyright. Guests: Jason M. Allen, founder of Art Incarnate Sy Damle, partner in the copyright litigation group at Latham & Watkins Karla Ortiz, artist Kelly McKernan, artist Delanie West, advocacy liaison for the Graphic Artists Guild Genel Jumalon, artist

The art world was rattled when Jason M. Allen won first place in the Colorado State Fair for "Théatre D’opéra Spatial" — digital artwork created with artificial intelligence. Allen had revised his text prompts hundreds of times before landing on the final work; Allen considers Space Opera Theater his creation. But some artists hated his victory. "They were saying I was falsely attributing authorship to something I did not create," Allen said.  After winning, he submitted the image to the US Copyright Office for a state-issued seal of approval, an official document certifying that the artwork was indeed his creation. Would the Copyright Office agree? We delved into the controversy surrounding the use of copyrighted material in training AI systems in our first two episodes of this season. Now we shift our focus to the output. Who owns artwork created using artificial intelligence? Should our legal system redefine what constitutes authorship? Or, as AI promises to redefine how we create, will the government cling to historical notions of authorship? Guests: Jason M. Allen, founder of Art Incarnate Sy Damle, partner in the copyright litigation group at Latham & Watkins Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and director of the US Copyright Office

Generative AI tools are already promising to change the world. Systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT can answer complex questions, write poems and code, and even mimic famous authors with uncanny accuracy. But in using copyrighted materials to train these powerful AI products, are AI companies infringing the rights of untold creators? This season on UnCommon Law, we'll explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and the law. On episode one, we learned about the lawsuits filed against AI companies that trained their large language models on copyrighted work without permission. Now we'll learn about the legal defense that could give the AI companies a pass to continue scraping up whatever content they want, copyright-protected or not. Guests: Matthew Butterick, founder at Butterick Law, and co-counsel with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm on class-action lawsuits against OpenAI and others Isaiah Poritz, technology reporter for Bloomberg Law Matthew Sag, professor of law and artificial intelligence, machine learning and data science at Emory University School of Law Mark Lemley, professor of law at Stanford Law School and the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, who is also representing Meta and Stability AI in the copyright cases against them James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School

Generative AI tools are already promising to change the world. Systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT can answer complex questions, write poems and code, and even mimic famous authors with uncanny accuracy. But in using copyrighted materials to train these powerful AI products, are AI companies infringing the rights of untold creators? This season on UnCommon Law, we'll explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and the law. Episode one examines how large language models actually ingest and learn from billions of online data points, including copyrighted works. And we explore the lawsuits filed by creators who claim their copyrights were exploited without permission to feed the data-hungry algorithms powering tools like ChatGPT. Guests: Matthew Butterick, founder at Butterick Law, and co-counsel with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm on class-action lawsuits against OpenAI and others Isaiah Poritz, technology reporter for Bloomberg Law James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School

In the conclusion of UnCommon Law's season-long exploration of noncompete agreements, we look at the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ban the clauses nationwide. We’ve reviewed how the ban would work and explored the policy arguments for and against it. Now we delve into a more fundamental question: Does the FTC even have the power to make a substantive rule like this one? It's been 50 years since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FTC has substantive rulemaking power. We’ll learn about that case — National Petroleum Refiners Association v. FTC — we’ll find out why it’s so important to the FTC, and we’ll hear why many believe it would not turn out the same way today. But that's not all! Even if courts follow National Petroleum, could the FTC get past the major questions doctrine? The season finale of UnCommon Law features: Richard Pierce, professor at the George Washington University Law School Dan Papscun, antitrust reporter for Bloomberg Law Sean Heather, senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the Open Markets Institute Orly Lobel, professor at the University of San Diego School of Law Matt's baby

In its proposal to ban noncompete agreements nationwide, the Federal Trade Commission has touted the potential benefits to workers and the economy. But how would a ban impact business owners? This week on UnCommon Law, part four of our series on the agency's proposal. Why are so many business owners so adamant that they need to be able to use noncompetes, even when other legal tools — like trade secret laws and nonsolicitation agreements — might protect companies without limiting employee mobility? Featuring: Russell Beck, trade secrets and employment mobility lawyer; founder at Beck Reed Riden LLP Paul Dacier, EVP and general counsel at Indigo Agriculture; formerly EVP and general counsel at EMC Corporation Syreeta Mitchell, president and CEO of MPower Logistics

California is one of just three states where noncompete agreements are almost completely banned. California is also the home of Silicon Valley, the global hub of technological innovation. Is that just a coincidence? Or would Silicon Valley be as successful even if noncompete agreements were allowed? This week on UnCommon Law, part three of our ongoing series on the Federal Trade Commission's proposal to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. Is California’s ban on noncompete agreements really a key component to Silicon Valley’s success? Guests: Evan Starr, professor at University of Maryland Margaret O'Mara, professor at the University of Washington Ronald Gilson, professor emeritus at Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School David Schultz, host of Bloomberg Law's On the Merits

This week on Uncommon Law: the second episode in our podcast series about the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed nationwide ban on noncompete agreements. We’ll look at one Minnesota hair salon and see how noncompete agreements often play out in the real world. What happens when employees leave the hair salon and try to strike out on their own? Guests: Heidi Hautala, a hair stylist in Minnesota  Evan Starr, professor at University of Maryland Emily Olson, a hair stylist in Minnesota Kylee Simonson, owner of Simonson's Salon & Spa Chris Penwell, attorney at Siegel Brill The case discussed in this episode is Simonson's Salon and Spa vs. Heidi Hautala, Docket No. 27-CV-15-5647 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Apr 03, 2015)

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring one of the most expansive Federal Trade Commission proposals of the last half century: a near-total nationwide ban on noncompete clauses. We’ll examine arguments for the ban, and talk to workers who’ve had their livelihoods crushed by oppressive covenants not to compete. We’ll look at arguments in favor of keeping noncompetes, and talk with business owners who say they’re crucial for keeping trade secrets confidential and protecting business relationships. Finally, we’ll explore a more fundamental question: Does the FTC even have the legal authority to do this? Our first episode explores how this unprecedented proposal came to be. To understand just how out-of-the-ordinary this proposal is, we'll journey into the history of the agency, whose past rulemakings got them labeled the "national nanny" by the Washington Post, and led to threats of defunding. Guests: Emily Olson, hair stylist Leah Nylen, Bloomberg News reporter Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director of the Open Markets Institute Evan Starr, professor at the University of Maryland

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring one of the most expansive Federal Trade Commission proposals in modern history: a nationwide ban on noncompete clauses. Coming May 31st.

The Supreme Court has effectively ended the use of race as a factor in college admissions. In a 6-3 ruling, along ideological lines, the divided Supreme Court struck down the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which both used race as a factor in their admissions process. Today, on this special edition of UnCommon Law, we’ll learn how the court came to its decision. And: Did the majority leave the door open for colleges to still consider race in some circumstances? We’ll learn why some supporters of affirmative action still have a glimmer of hope. Featuring: Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and past president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School Lee Bollinger — Outgoing president of Columbia University, and former president of the University of Michigan Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions

It’s been almost 20 years since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, intentionally or not, set an affirmative action countdown in motion. On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court heard arguments that Harvard and the University of North Carolina go too far in their use of race in admissions. Will the diversity rationale — the heart of affirmative action defenses since 1978 — convince this staunchly conservative court? Also, while diversity has been the reason affirmative action has survived legal tests — was it ever the best reason, under the Constitution, for affirmative action? Or have advocates been hamstrung by an argument that doesn't go far enough? Are race-conscious admissions policies about to fall? The conclusion to our four-part series on affirmative action at the Supreme Court. Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions William Lee, partner at WilmerHale Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Michelle Adams, professor at the University of Michigan Law School

For decades, over multiple decisions, the Supreme Court has been clear: The U.S. Constitution allows colleges to take race into account when they craft their incoming classes. And yet race-conscious admissions policies continue to face attacks. Today, on part three of our four-part series on affirmative action, we’ll meet the man who has perhaps done more than any other in recent memory fighting to end the use of race in America’s public policies. Will Edward Blum be successful in convincing today’s solidly conservative high court to end affirmative action in education? Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Garrett Epps, professor at the University of Oregon School of Law

In 1978, the Supreme Court allowed colleges to take race into account when crafting their incoming classes. Throughout the '80s and '90s, that’s what many schools did: To get a diverse incoming class, universities used race as one factor among many. But some schools get a lot of applicants — tens of thousands of students applying for just a few thousand spots. How do you complete an individualized review of so many people? How do you make sure you consider race consistently across those tens of thousands? Is there a way to streamline the process while still complying with what Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. said the Equal Protection Clause requires? This is the second episode of UnCommon Law's three-part series about the Supreme Court's biggest affirmative action in education cases. In the first episode we looked at the 1978 case of Allan Bakke, an applicant to medical school who was denied admission. In this episode, we explore the 2003 cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. Guests include: Diego Bernal — Texas state representative and former president of the Latino Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School Greg Stohr — Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Terence Pell — President of the Center for Individual Rights Marvin Krislov — President of Pace University, and former vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan Lee Bollinger — President of Columbia University, and former president of the University of Michigan Agnes Aleobua — Principal of Citizens Academy Glenville in Cleveland, and former student intervenor at the University of Michigan Cristina Rodríguez — Professor at Yale Law School and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

For more than 50 years, colleges and universities around the country have taken race into account as they craft their incoming classes. But now a pair of lawsuits could change the face of higher education in this country. It’s the biggest challenge to affirmative action in a generation. And, given the makeup of this Supreme Court, it is very likely affirmative action in college admissions could be found unconstitutional. Over three episodes, we will explore the legal issues around affirmative action in higher education. Does the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit all discrimination based on race? Or is benign discrimination permissible — taking race into account in order to help groups that have been marginalized? Does the constitution leave room to remedy society’s ills? In this episode, we explore the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — the first challenge to affirmative action decided by the Supreme Court. Guests include: * Robert “Bo” Links — Attorney for Allan Bakke * Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School * Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund * Garrett Epps — Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law * John Jeffries — Former dean of the University of Virginia School of Law Produced and hosted by Matthew S. Schwartz. To comment on this episode, tag @BLaw and @SchwartzReports on Twitter!

A pair of lawsuits has made its way to the Supreme Court — and just who gets into which college could change dramatically. This season on UnCommon Law, we’ll explore the arguments — and the people — driving this latest battle over affirmative action. Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibit all discrimination based on race? Can the Constitution be used to remedy society’s ills? Coming October 25th, part one of a three-part series on affirmative action, from Bloomberg Industry Group. For more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/podcasts/uncommon-law

The new era of name, image, and likeness in college sports has seen rapid change. For instance, initially athletes were signing deals directly with brands and companies. Now, so-called “NIL collectives” are amassing multi-million-dollar funds to attract star recruits. Critics say these funds are being used as back-door recruiting inducements which violate the NCAA’s interim NIL policy. Many college coaches and administrators have complained that the interim policy is vague and unenforceable. But that may be just the beginning thanks to several new cases progressing in both federal court and at the National Labor Relations Board. Either could potentially alter the landscape even further—making college sports a completely free market or redefining some college teams as employees of the schools they play for. In the final episode of our two-part series on NIL in college sports we speak with: Stewart Mandel, editor-in-chief of college football coverage at the Athletic. Jeffery Kessler, co-executive chairman at Winston and Strawn, and co-lead counsel for the athletes in NCAA vs. Alston. Ekow Yankah, professor of Law at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law and author of “Is NIL Destroying College Sports.” Audrey Anderson, chair of the higher education practice group at Bass Berry & Sims.