LD_DAVID BOIES

JOHN QUINN: [00:00:00] This is John Quint, and this is Law Disrupted, and today I'm speaking with David Boies. Now David, I first met you when I was a summer associate. Out at Wayne Chapman's house in Quag. You won't remember that, but I remember that. I remember that you came. And Wayne had invited out a number of partners and the summer associate class was all there.

That's when I first met you. And I then had a fellowship. I went to study for a while and I came back to Cravath and I was there for three years. I think when I first met you, You had been a partner maybe for a year. Does that sound right back then? 

DAVID BOISE: That's about right. That's about right. 

JOHN QUINN: About 1976. 

DAVID BOISE: Yes. I became a partner at the end of 72.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. Okay. Uh, so you had been a partner for a couple of years then. Um, you know, you, you, uh, at the time, uh, I, you know, I went to law [00:01:00] school at, at, at Harvard and Wayne talked me into Becoming a corporate associate. I knew I wanted to be a litigator. I thought I wanted to be a trial lawyer But he said we really need corporate associates the 1960s were really bad for our recruiting here.

You can work for any partner you want Uh, and wayne was a very persuasive guy. So I ended up Starting out as a corporate associate at cravath where I was for three years the last six months there If I finally said look, I I really I wanted to be a litigator. I think that's what I should be. And I worked for Paul Dodick for six months and then I went to Los Angeles.

But that's why, you know, we never, uh, interacted, uh, in the litigation department because I was over working with Sam Butler and David Ormsby and Alan Finkelson and, and the like. 

DAVID BOISE: That was a good group of corporate lawyers. I, I agree with you that corporate lawyering is not. What I'm interested in, but if you're going to do it, that was a good group to do it with.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. Well, um, mostly because they really left you alone. It [00:02:00] was like join Cravath and see the world. I mean, Sam would, you know, you'd sent him a markup, but you'd send him a document and he'd find something on page 17, a typo. And that's about, that's about all you got from Sam. David, you would sit down next to him at his desk and it was a very laborious Process going word by word.

I would love to have had some experience working with you back then, but that's why that didn't happen. Um, and then our next interaction was, I don't know what year this was. I had moved to Los Angeles. We had started Quinn Emanuel and Bill Urquhart. Uh, I don't know if it's Bill's idea or both of our idea.

We thought. You know, we should really merge with the Boise Shiller firm. I don't know if you remember that. 

DAVID BOISE: I remember that. We, we had dinner in, uh, we had dinner in Washington at, uh, Prime Rib. 

JOHN QUINN: Well, we may, I, I remember the dinner at your favorite Chinese place. And we did that too. In Manhattan. Yeah. In 

DAVID BOISE: Manhattan, we had dinner at Chin Chin.[00:03:00] 

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. So that's, you know, you sometimes wonder about the road not taken, of whether, whether that would have been good or whether it had been bad. I don't know. But it was, we had an interesting conversation about combining our firms. I have no idea what year that would have been. 

DAVID BOISE: That would, that would have been, um, that would have been in the early 1990s.

JOHN QUINN: Okay. 

DAVID BOISE: Uh, no, no, no, no. It couldn't have been, it had to have been later than that. It had to be in the late 1990s. It was in the 1990s, but it, um, uh, it had to be like 97, 98. 

JOHN QUINN: And you actually, uh, sent out. Two of your young partners, Steve Neuwirth, who ultimately joined our firm and very sadly passed away. And, um, one of your partners, I've forgotten his name.

He was in your DC office. He does securities work. I think he. Left your firm to join Paul Weiss, but I'm just blanking on his name.

DAVID BOISE: I think, I think it was, um, Bill Isaacson. 

JOHN QUINN: [00:04:00] Exactly. Yeah. So Bill and Steve came out and spent a few days with us. Uh, and the message we got from you all was, well, it's an interesting idea, but it's probably too soon for us.

You, 

you broke, you, you let us down gently. 

DAVID BOISE: Well, you know, I think we would have monopolized the, uh, The high stakes litigation, if we, if we, if we'd done that, uh, I don't know, we've got so many cases now where we're on either the same side or usually the different sides that I don't know who they would have gotten if we were together.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah, I think most of the time. We've been adverse to each other, at least that I'm aware of, but sometimes we've been on the same side. And of course, uh, we know many of your partners and had great, great relations, uh, with them and have enormous respect for your firm. But you know, that's many years ago. Uh, I'm not a young myself anymore.

I guess I have to confess, uh, you've got a few years on me. [00:05:00] And one of the things that I think about, and I don't know if you think about, uh, I am always checking myself and wondering, you know, do I still have it? Have I lost the step? When the word doesn't come to me immediately, I wonder, well, that's a sign of, you know, that I'm losing.

And you hear people say sometimes that doing what we do, trial work, litigation, especially high stakes litigation with. You know, very skilled adversaries whose sole job is to beat you or make you look bad, you know, sometimes said, well, that's a young man's game. Uh, and I wanted to ask what your reaction is to that for, for my benefit as well as the audiences, you know, whether, I mean, you're, you're, you're a few years ahead of me and you still seem to be showing up everywhere.

DAVID BOISE: But, you know, I, I remember, uh, I was about, uh, 33, 34 years [00:06:00] old and my, uh, my partner, uh, longtime friend, uh, mentor, uh, Tom Barr was about 33 or 34, maybe 35, I mean 45, about 10 years older than I was. Um, and, uh, we were talking to Nick Katzenbach and we were talking about a case out in Los Angeles.

JOHN QUINN: Was that CalCom?

That was CalCom. Yeah, that was one of your very famous, uh, victories early in your career. Yeah. And, 

DAVID BOISE: and at that point, um, uh, Nick, who is the general counsel of, IBM was saying, you know, who, who ought to go out. And, um, and one of the things he said to Tom is he said, you know, Litigation is a young man's game.

And, uh, uh, you know,

JOHN QUINN: Implying that Tom at age [00:07:00] 45 was Right. Not young anymore. 

DAVID BOISE: Exactly. Exactly. Uh, and, uh, I think there's a sense in which that's true because, I mean, the kind of work that we do takes a lot of attention, a lot of precision, a lot of stamina, um, and there's no doubt that as you get older. Um, you lose a step at various things.

Um, uh, your memory, uh, is not, uh, quite as sharp. Um, uh, words may not come, uh, quite as quickly. Uh, on the other hand, um, one of the things that happens as you get older is you get a lot more experience and, uh, it improves your judgment. And you've seen a lot of things happen before. And what I have found is I think that the last, uh, 10, 15 years, um, have in some ways been my most [00:08:00] productive, uh, in the sense that, uh, I now have the judgment, uh, to go with, um, the other attributes, uh, that I've had for a long time and the experience.

Yeah. Now, there's no doubt that there's going to come a time when, uh, age catches up with you. Um, and, uh, as, as I get into my 80s now, uh, I think that time is probably closer than, uh, maybe I would like. But I think that, uh, up until now, I think you've, you've had things going in opposite directions. Uh, you've had, uh, to some extent, the aging process that has a deteriorating effect.

But you also have had the increased experience in judgment that had a positive effect. And thus far, I think the positive has, has outweighed the negative, but there's [00:09:00] no doubt that the lines are going to cross, uh, at some point. 

JOHN QUINN: You know, one thing that, uh, people have always said about you during your career is that you're amazingly quick learner, that you could pick things up very, very fast, that it didn't require you a lot of preparation time to prepare for hearing.

I remember my very good friend, Frank Barron, Yes, who, by the way, I went to 7th grade with in Greenwich, Connecticut, before my family moved to Bountiful, Utah. And then we reconnected at the Harvard Law School years and years later. And, of course, he was at Kravath and I was a partner of yours. I remember him telling me a story about.

him riding a taxi with you to court and that you, he briefed you about a hearing, important hearing in the taxi. And you told him, you know, Frank, I'm, I'm frankly behind the ball on this. I've been tied up with other things. [00:10:00] I need you to tell me about this. And you need to understand that I'm going to rely on everything that you tell me a hundred percent.

In other words, what I know about this important hearing that I'm about to argue, um, You need to tell me now, 

DAVID BOISE: right? 

JOHN QUINN: I, I, I assume I, I don't know long that, I don't know how long the taxi ride was, but , 

DAVID BOISE: but it's, uh, no and no. That, that, that is, that's a true story. And, and, um, and particularly, uh, when I was doing, uh, a number of things at the same time, uh, I would end up.

Um, being briefed relatively late. Uh, and, and at that time I always emphasize to people, don't tell me something that isn't absolutely a hundred percent true, because I'm not going to have time to figure it out. I'm going to rely on what you tell me right now, uh, when I go into court. And when I had people who were great, like, like Frank, um, [00:11:00] uh, and other people in Gravath.

Uh, and now at Boy Schiller, um, uh, I can rely, I can do that. I can rely on them. Um, but you, you can never do, I mean, you know this, you can never do what we do, uh, without tremendous, uh, support, particularly the kind of high stakes litigation you and I do, uh, is a team sport. And, uh, you can't do what we do, uh, without having the people that you can really rely on to get you the information and get you the information with, with great precision.

JOHN QUINN: I mean, how's your, as, as the years have gone by now, and as you've gotten older, has your process for preparing for hearings and trial change? Do you have, do you think you have that same facility to absorb information and put it to work? Uh, at the last minute that you did. I mean, I personally find I, I, uh, I think it takes more time for me to get up to speed.[00:12:00] 

DAVID BOISE: I think it, I think it probably takes more time, uh, to, uh, absorb, uh, a lot of data, a lot of cases. Um, uh, I, I probably take more time. I've, I've always, I'm a slow reader anyway. So I've always taken a long time to read cases, but I think I probably take a little more time now. On the other hand. Having done it as much as I've done it.

Um, I, I do find that, uh, I can prepare more quickly than people who have less experience. So, again, I think it's, um, I think it's a mixed effect. 

JOHN QUINN: I've read that you either have or shortly will give up your title of chairman in your firm, which I think I'm assuming you've had since day 1. Um, you know, I'm, I, I now have, I was managing partner, the only managing partner in my firm from 1986 up [00:13:00] until two years ago.

And now I'm chairman. We're still trying to figure out what that means exactly. Um, and that's been a change. That's been a change for me. Um, that must pose some challenges to you. I mean, this firm has been your baby. It was your firm. You founded it. You grew it. You were identified with the firm. What's that like, uh, giving up that, that role?

DAVID BOISE: It's mixed. Um, as you say, I, I was the chairman. I'm the only chairman the firm's ever had. Um, we founded in 1997 and, uh, I was the chairman from day one and, uh, I will cease being chairman, uh, at the end of this year. And, um, in one sense, um, uh, having developed the firm, grown the firm, um, been as identified with the firm as I am.

Uh, it's hard to let go. Yeah. Uh, [00:14:00] it, it's hard to, um, just like in court, um, one of the most frustrating things in court is to sometimes sit there when somebody else is doing the work and you've got the ideas that you wanna, 

JOHN QUINN: it's, it's the worst. It's the worst, you 

DAVID BOISE: know? And, uh, and, um, and I suspect it'll be a little bit like that.

Um, and, uh, I'll have to have enough discipline to, to stay out of it. Um, uh, on the other hand, I think that, uh, as you know, um, if the firms that we founded are going to continue to grow and prosper, there's got to be a transition. Um, uh, I think it is the right thing to do. To have that transition while we're still here, um, because it allows us to guide and counsel, uh, the people who are succeeding us.

Um, I also think that it's, it's wise to step down while we are [00:15:00] still active and we still are alert and before we start making mistakes. Uh, so I think all of that is positive. I also think, um. And you may have found this. Um, giving up the, uh, administrative burdens, uh, frees you, uh, to do other things. Um, uh, the time that's required, the effort that's required to, uh, lead a firm of our size, let alone a firm of your size, um, is significant.

And by giving that up, it'll give me more time to do the kind of cases that I really enjoy doing. So I think it's, it's mixed. Um, I'm, I'm sure that, um, uh, the first year in particular, uh, it's going to be difficult for me to let the new people, uh, make all the decisions without, uh, kinesin, but I'm going to do my best.

JOHN QUINN: I [00:16:00] mean, how do you decide what, what cases you're going to work on? You say allow you to do the cases you want to do. I mean, what, what are those, what are the kinds of things that you really enjoy, uh, getting involved in now? Yeah. 

DAVID BOISE: The, the, the ca the, the good thing about getting to the age where I am is that I can pretty much pick the kind of cases that I wanna do.

And, uh, the, the cases are, you know, cases that, uh, are particularly interesting, challenging, um, cases that have a potential to move the law. Um, cases that, um, involve clients, people that I enjoy working with. And in cases where I think we're, we're on the right side, um, uh, lawyers, um, uh, have an ability to choose their clients.

But once you've chosen a client, you don't always have the ability to choose what side that client gets [00:17:00] on. And, uh, I think one of the things that has, uh, you get older, you get more of an opportunity to pick and choose the kind of cases that you do. Um, um, One of the cases that, um, um, you know, I, I have with, you know, our, our mutual friend, Michael Kalinsky, um, involves, uh, the Delta CrowdStrike case.

Yeah. Which is just a very interesting case. Um, and, and, and one that I think it's, um, challenging, interesting and productive, uh, you know, to be involved in. Um, Uh, I think there will be cases like the, uh, marriage equality litigation, like the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking litigation that will come along, that have an opportunity to really make a contribution to the justice system and move the law.

[00:18:00] Um, so I, those are the kind of cases that I, you know, think going forward, I will probably be focusing on. 

JOHN QUINN: For those who don't know, uh, Mike Karlinsky, who David referred to, is one of my partners. Uh, he's one of the managing partners of our firm, and that's a case that we're on the opposite sides of right now.

But let's think, we've been doing this work for decades, David. What the hell is it that we're doing? Are we involved? Somebody said that, you know, cross examination. Cross examination. Is the greatest engine ever invented for finding truth? 

DAVID BOISE: I believe that incidentally. I have to believe that 

JOHN QUINN: Well, but I think I think cases are won and lost on cross examined often is not But is that what we're doing?

Is that what we've been doing all these years? Have we been finding truth in courtrooms? Have we been uh, or are we more like peacocks and we're performers? We're [00:19:00] like actors. We have a role Um, you know, what, what, what, what's your perspective like, 

DAVID BOISE: I think it's all of that. I think, um, a, a trial is a search for truth, uh, and the, the thing about it, it is a search for truth in a very peculiar way, uh, trial really is a morality, um, and you're searching for truth.

Um, in a way that no one would ever search for truth in any context other than a court. I mean, think about it. Um, uh, you've got difficult, complicated, uh, economic, technological, uh, problems sometimes. And, um, we bring in people to solve that problem, the jury, that are picked for their if they know too much about the subject, they're [00:20:00] excluded.

So we try to just pick ordinary people off the street and we exclude anybody who has any particular knowledge about it. We then tell them they are forbidden to use all the normal ways that they would find out information and make a decision. They can't read books. They can't watch television. They can't look it up on the Internet.

They can't talk with people. Uh, so we deprive them of all of the normal ways of which they, um, Accumulate the information that they would ordinarily have to have to make a decision, or at least a wise decision. We then say the only way that you, the only thing that you consider is what you hear inside this courtroom.

And, and then we say, except for a beginning and an end. When the lawyers can talk to you, and by the way, we're going to tell you that's not evidence that you really can't consider it. [00:21:00] Um, the only thing that you can make a decision on is based on which. You hear in this question and answer form where the questioner is trying to get the, uh, answer to say certain things.

And sometimes the answer is resisting it. And so it's an adversarial back and forth, um, uh, and, you know, whatever the merits of the Socratic dialogue is, or are, I think. Uh, it's an unusual format for people to try to make decisions. Um, uh, but it is, I think, the best, um, justice delivery system. That anyone has, uh, 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, you say it's a search for truth, but look, we have clients, we have cases.

Uh, sometimes we don't know what the truth is. 

DAVID BOISE: Right. [00:22:00] 

JOHN QUINN: You know, you, you talk to a lot of people, you can sort of reconstruct the scenario. You take depositions, you learn the personalities and somehow you sort of think, I see what went down here, but sometimes you don't really know. Uh, even at the end of the day, Absolutely right.

You really don't know. Sometimes you have a conviction about what the truth is and the truth may be actually that your client doesn't deserve to win, but our role is not to bring that forward or to expose that fact. But yet you're telling me this is a search for truth and what we're doing is involved in a search for truth, but in a way where sometimes trying to hide the truth.

DAVID BOISE: But you and I are just players. We're just participants. We're, we're not, um, the whole, 

JOHN QUINN: we're cogs in the machine. 

DAVID BOISE: We're cogs in the machine. Um, uh, it is, it's a justice system that is intended to be adversarial. It's intended to have people [00:23:00] like you and me who are going to be advocates for our clients.

We're going to go in and within the bounds of the canons and the rules of court, we're going to present the best case we can for our clients. And the idea is out of that truth will arise, not because we are, either of us is always going to be speaking the truth or even advocating. For the truth, because we'll be advocating in different ways, uh, different positions, um, but that out of that advocacy, out of that conflict, out of, out of that adversarial system, uh, justice, or at least the closest thing that you can come in this world to justice, um, will arise.

And I think that that works in a couple of ways. And fails in at least one way. How so? It works great [00:24:00] when your firm and my firm are against each other. Uh, it works, I think, great when your firm or my firm is confronting another large law firm, another large party with a lot of resources, or confronting the government.

Um, it also works okay when you have two relatively, um, low resourced parties with relatively average lawyers. Um, the time it really breaks down when you, is when you have a real disparity between the quality of the lawyers and the amount of resources that you have. Because it is an adversarial system, the better the lawyer and the more resources you have.

the more effective you're going to be. [00:25:00] And, um, uh, when you have, uh, the government confronting almost any individual or small or medium sized company, or when you have your firm or my firm against Um, a party that doesn't have adequate resources, doesn't have adequate counsel. That's when the system breaks down and that's when, um, uh, the system stops being an engine for truth.

JOHN QUINN: Let's talk about juries for a minute. 

DAVID BOISE: Yeah. 

JOHN QUINN: So if you have a choice, uh, somebody tells you your case can be decided by one person to judge, but we're not going to tell you who it is. You're you're gonna, it's going to be random selection. Or your case will be decided by a jury. You can decide now. You can't you're not going to know who the judge is Somebody off the panel Uh or a jury gun to your head Which do you choose?[00:26:00] 

DAVID BOISE: It depends to some extent on the case, but I would generally pick a jury um, why um uh I think that I am more likely to get uh common sense on factual issues Um I'm going to get a, again, we're talking about potluck. I mean, um, uh, there are judges that I would try all my cases in front of plaintiff or defendant.

JOHN QUINN: Of course, if you knew who the judge was and you knew it was a judge you liked and respected, you're going to take the judge. 

DAVID BOISE: Exactly. Um, uh, but if you, if you don't know the judge, um, uh, now sometimes you actually do know the judge because sometimes, um, there is a district or a division. where you're pretty sure who the judge is going to be.

Um, uh, sometimes, um, you can, uh, mark your case a related case. Uh, so sometimes you [00:27:00] can't actually, uh, know who the judge is going to be, but in the vast majority of cases, you can't. And in those cases, um, I am more comfortable generally, um, with a jury. Uh, now another thing about a jury trial is that Lawyers get a lot more freedom.

It's less likely that the judge is going to cut you off in front of a jury. If a bench trial, the judge may say, I understand that already. I'm ready to move on. 

JOHN QUINN: Or he might say, Hey, listen, I'll hear it for what it's worth. Sometimes, uh. Judges are more strict before the jury because he can't unring the bell.

DAVID BOISE: Right, right. And it, um, uh, And [00:28:00] often, um, Uh, You know, judges, You know, a bench trial, Uh, because there's no jury to be Uh, catering to, uh, it can take a long time, not because they take more trial days, but they just space the trial days out. 

JOHN QUINN: They give you a few hours here, a few hours there, 

DAVID BOISE: whereas, you know, you're going to get a clean presentation and I think, I think a concentrated presentation is for me much more effective.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. 

DAVID BOISE: Um, yeah. 

JOHN QUINN: I say the same thing. I say, look, you know, if the choice is a judge, I know and respect. I'll take the judge. 

DAVID BOISE: Yeah, 

JOHN QUINN: if you tell me it's going to the case, it's going to be decided a judge. I don't know a single individual. 

DAVID BOISE: Yeah, 

JOHN QUINN: that's a real crap shoot in a way, in the sense that. I mean, there's there's obviously random aspects to the jury that you get, but I think a group of people.

Yeah, you might get some outliers on that jury. Some people who aren't. Don't pay [00:29:00] attention or are biased or whatever But in the jury deliberation process, I mean if you can't identify them and and get them, uh off the the jury in in voir dire In the jury deliberation process those outliers tend to be ignored.

There's something that actually happens Right, I think in the deliberation process Which gives you some basis For having confidence. I I'm always nervous about You One person, I don't know, being the decision maker, 

DAVID BOISE: maybe if they gave us the same, uh, number of, uh, challenges 

JOHN QUINN: for judges, judges, if they 

DAVID BOISE: give us for juries, I 

JOHN QUINN: mean, I think that in some ways, uh, our businesses, our law firms as a business.

It's kind of a dumb business, just qua business, uh, compared to what things our clients do, investing tens of millions of billions of dollars, [00:30:00] uh, long term, you know, uh, enterprises, projects, heavily with risk. Thousands of people involved, whereas our business, I mean, we're basically taking people with legal talent and putting them together with.

People who have legal problems and. Often just billing them by the hour. That's the, as a business, that's the sum total of the business. It's kind of a stupid business. 

DAVID BOISE: Billing by the hour is really a stupid business. And, um, what, I don't know about you, but when I started, um, uh, a lot of clients were talking about alternative fees, how they loved alternative fees.

They wanted alternative fees. And we set out. That we were going to only do alternative fees, um, uh, what we found is that a very large number of clients don't like alternative fees. 

JOHN QUINN: No, they're not comfortable with it. Exactly. They think that they'll be, uh, [00:31:00] you know, if you do really well, they'll be second guess.

DAVID BOISE: Exactly. I mean, I've heard, I've had clients tell me, um, because I've offered them a flat fee for a case, for example. Exactly. Um, or a, uh, uh, a percentage. Um, and, and they'll say, well, but if you, if you, if you solve this case, you know, in six months and you make all these millions of dollars, um, uh, I'll look so foolish, right?

And my answer is, if we solve this problem for you fast, right? You, you ought to look like a hero. Um, uh, you know, because you've perfectly aligned our interest with yours. Um, and we do well, if you do well, and if you do well, you shouldn't mind that we do well. Right. And there are some clients that feel exactly that way.

Um, but there are a lot of clients who are comfortable with the hourly billing system. Um, they can control it. Um, uh, and, uh, they can make presentations about it. And so, um, [00:32:00] uh, we've never gotten, um, uh, we've never gotten above 50%. And, and now we're, you know, we're materially less than 50 percent of our business on, uh, alternative fees.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. Yeah. I, you know, assessing contingent fee cases in cases you want to take risk on is an art. Also, I've always wondered, supposedly at the assessment firm, the whole partnership, the whole firm, down to the last associate, every week they have a meeting, everybody votes on whether they're going to take a contingent fee case.

Why, why Steve ever implemented that? I don't really get that. 

DAVID BOISE: Early, early believer in the wisdom of God. 

JOHN QUINN: Right. But so, um, as a business, uh, it's a dumb business, but I, I think that. Doing what we do professionally in a courtroom in front of a jury is one of the hardest things a human being can do. There's so much going on at once.

You know, you're up. It's [00:33:00] live action. You can't replay it. Uh, you have somebody on the other, uh, adjacent table whose sole job is to make you lose to make you look bad. Every minute, you have these people in the jury box who are studying you all the time. They don't have anything else to do, but to study you, you have a judge who's calling balls and strikes, not necessarily consistently.

You have a client behind you who's sitting there. I think in this whole future, his fortune, his liberty, whatever depends on what you're doing. And that's all going on at once. 

DAVID BOISE: Yeah, I, I think, I think you're right. I think it is the, it is one of the most difficult things you can do, and it is one of the most exciting and challenging things you can do.

Um, and I, you know, we've all been there because we've all done things great. We've all done things that are disasters. And, um, and, uh, the, you know, the, the feeling, uh, when you screw up is terrible and the feeling when you do do it well is great. 

JOHN QUINN: Right. [00:34:00] I can't resist asking you, I'm sure you've been, uh, asked this many times, but when you think about the cases that you've involved in and thinking back on your career, what ones are the most meaningful to you?

DAVID BOISE: I think that. If I had to pick one, which is, which is hard, um, I have six children. I wouldn't want to try to pick among them, but if I had to pick one case, um, I think it would be the marriage equality case, um, uh, which had a lot of. Specs to it. It was a, it was a difficult case. It was a challenging case.

Uh, it was a case where we got enormous attacks when we took the case on both the left and the right. Um, uh, we had a, a great judge. We had, um, a great opponent, uh, uh, Chuck Cooper and his firm were opposing us. Um, [00:35:00] I was working with Ted Olson, um, you know, a great lawyer and a good friend of mine. Um, And we were, uh, working towards something that when we finally accomplished it, I think made a huge difference in the lives of millions of people.

So I, I think that if I had to pick just one case, I think, I think that would, that would be probably at the top of the list. I think, um, uh, Bush v. Gore, um, uh, even though I ultimately lost it, um, Was, um, was a case that, uh, I wouldn't, uh, ever pass up again. Um, uh, I think, um, a case against Microsoft, um, where I represented the Department of Justice, and the case.

Against IBM, where I represented IBM [00:36:00] against the Department of Justice to trust cases, um, uh, would certainly be, uh, near the top, both because of the importance, um, of those cases to the economy of the United States, but also to the development of our antitrust laws. Um, a, um, a case that you probably never heard of, um, uh, would also be in the mix, um, which was a case where I represented, um, Westinghouse, um, being sued by the Republic of the Philippines for allegedly bribing Ferdinand Marcos when he was the dictator.

And, um, we, it was a great trial in front of, uh, Dickinson Debevoise in, uh, the District of New Jersey. Um, in Newark, and it was very difficult case because there were a lot of bad documents. [00:37:00] Um, but it was a exciting, challenging case, uh, with a lot of very, very colorful, uh, individuals. Yeah. So, so, so, you know, the cases are.

You know, our, our mix, um, uh, CBS against Westmoreland, Westmoreland against CBS, um, uh, early libel case, um, was, was a great case for me, both because we were defending, um, freedom of the press against some very serious attacks, um, but also because if I hadn't been a lawyer, I would have been a. American history teacher, like my father was, and it gave me a chance to use all of the discovery techniques to take depositions and get documents about the Vietnam War.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah, historians don't get to do that. I can remember, I was in Kravatka and I seem to remember a map of Vietnam. Yeah. On the wall. On the wall of your [00:38:00] office. Yes, exactly. That's what's happening. 

DAVID BOISE: Yeah. 

JOHN QUINN: But, uh, tell us about, uh, Ted Olson, of course, just passed away within the last two weeks. Tell us about Ted, what it was like working with him.

I mean, politically he You know, he was completely on the other side of the spectrum from you. Yeah. 

DAVID BOISE: Yeah. We, uh, and he was 

JOHN QUINN: against you and, and, and Bush v Gore. Exactly. 

DAVID BOISE: He, he, he argued, um, in the United States Supreme Court, uh, against me and, um, and Bush v Gore. Um, uh, he was, um, a very, uh, consistent, uh, Republican.

I was a pretty consistent Democrat. Uh, we disagreed on everything from, uh, citizens United, um, to, uh, you know. Voting rights decisions. Um, um, but, uh, he was a person of enormous ability, enormous integrity. Um, he was committed to the [00:39:00] justice system. Um, he was somebody who, uh, was the epitome of an officer of the court.

Um, he was an advocate, um, but he always advocated, um, of wealth. Great, uh, integrity, uh, great respect for the people on the other side, um, uh, and he was a, and I think, I think people sort of realize that about him, but they don't realize so much about him is he was a warm, funny, uh, Uh, he, uh, I was telling you about the bike trip we had in Bordeaux last September.

Um, uh, he was on that bike trip. 

And, 

uh, he and I, um, uh, bike together. Um, uh, once a year for the last 20 years, [00:40:00] almost ever since Bush vor. 

JOHN QUINN: Wow. Great tradition, . 

DAVID BOISE: But he, but he was, he was a great, he was a great lawyer, great patriot, great friend. Um, and, and somebody, uh, who I've said a number of times recently, you know, left the law and, uh, his country and all of us better than he found us.

JOHN QUINN: You know, I enjoyed your book. I read when it came out many years ago, courting justice. Um, so two questions about that. One, and I've sort of toyed around with the idea of writing a book myself, but I, I have a very hard time finding the time. That's my first question. How did you find the time to do that?

But the second, that's got to have been 15, 20 years ago. I mean, there's a lot, a lot of water under the bridge then. Should there be a volume two? Those are my two questions about your book. 

DAVID BOISE: Well, it, uh, uh, it was hard to find the [00:41:00] time. Um, and, um, uh, I turned the manuscript in, uh, two years after I had promised.

Um, uh, they gave me two years to write it and I thought that's going to be more than enough time. Uh, and ended up taking twice as long, um, uh, it was, um, it was a hard, I think writing is hard. I think writing about yourself is one of the hardest things you can do. Um, and, um, the way I solve that problem was that rather than writing about myself.

I mostly wrote about cases that I did. And I, I wrote about a group of cases that I did over a four or five year period. Um, and if I ever did a second book, I think I'd do the same thing. I would just, but, but you're right. It's been, um, it was, uh, 2004. So it's been 20 years. [00:42:00] I 

JOHN QUINN: think it's time for volume two.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, 

DAVID BOISE: there's certainly been, there's certainly been a lot of cases since then. 

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. David, such a pleasure to talk to you. 

DAVID BOISE: Well, it's been great to talk to you. 

JOHN QUINN: I've enjoyed this conversation immensely. Thank you for joining us. 

DAVID BOISE: You bet. 

JOHN QUINN: This is John Quinn. This has been Law Disrupted. We've been speaking with My friend and the great legendary trial lawyer, David Boies.

Thank you for listening to Law Disrupted with me, John Quinn. If you enjoyed the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on your chosen podcast app. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, you can sign up for email alerts at our website. law disrupted. fm or follow me on x at jbq law or at Quinn Emanuel.

Thank you for tuning 

[00:43:00] in.