Quinn Emanuel wins Ninth Circuit reversal for Perplexity in landmark AI agent access case against Amazon

Speaker 1: Echoing.

Speaker 2: Echoing later on Yeah. With a lot of the coverage that we do.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So we'd love to do a new game.

Speaker 10: Guys do a great job. Big fan of the show. Great cast. Actually, my board member was on your show recently, Carter Rain.

Speaker 2: Oh, Yeah.

Speaker 10: Nice. Yeah. Carter from m thirteen. Great And whenever you want me back on, I'm happy to do it.

Speaker 1: That'd be amazing. Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Speaker 2: Thanks here. For

Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon. Let me tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Wanna change the world? Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. Up next, we have John Quinn, the most feared lawyer. Welcome back to the show. Great to see you.

Speaker 2: So we we have a video that we'd like

Speaker 1: to play. You wanna play this?

Speaker 2: I wanna play I wanna play for John. We

Speaker 1: made a heavy metal song about you, the most feared lawyer.

Speaker 9: It's about time. About time.

Speaker 2: About time. Can we get it up on the big screen?

Speaker 1: Play play the play the last forty five seconds, man.

Speaker 2: This is what John was spending like probably an hour last night working on.

Speaker 1: Burning the midnight oil.

Speaker 2: Burning the midnight oil from this.

Speaker 1: We go.

Speaker 2: You can turn around and

Speaker 1: We got the full the full AI rendering version of

Speaker 2: get it louder, please.

Speaker 1: Here we go. But I think this really captures the spirit of what you bring to the courtroom, what you bring to the legal perfection. Just total fear and chaos.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Not me. That's our for

Speaker 1: your taste. Yeah. The first. Of course. Of course. Thank

Speaker 9: you very much.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: We'll send it. You can you can circulate it with the team.

Speaker 1: Yes. Good to see.

Speaker 9: So we're gonna talk about agentic AI

Speaker 1: Let's do it. Law? Yeah. I wanna talk about But

Speaker 9: I have some news this morning. Give us the news. Do you mind if I do if I reveal something? Please. The general press doesn't have you? Absolutely. Yeah. It's a case that our firm has Yes. And that I personally worked on. Okay. Within the last two hours, I got the opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Speaker 8: Okay.

Speaker 9: The case is Amazon versus Perplexity. Woah. And it's a very interesting case right at the intersection Yeah. Of agentic AI and e commerce. Yeah. So we represent Perplexity. Yeah. Amazon sued Perplexity. Mhmm. Because Perplexity has an agent, the comet that and that users can deploy. Yeah. Go shopping and doing whatever. Yeah. Didn't like agents' comment going to its website Sure. And buying stuff. Yeah. I think because it doesn't have eyeballs. Yep. Can't see ads. Yep. Can't be, you know, can't be upsold.

Speaker 1: Can't be manipulated.

Speaker 9: Amazon sued Perplexity under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which you can bring a civil claim under that for damages. Mhmm. It's also a criminal statute. What it requires, the elements are that you access a computer without permission, that, you know, you take information, you get information and you cause damage. Mhmm. Amazon's superplexity saying, your agent is being deployed. We don't want that to happen. We've told you we don't want your agent on our website shopping and whatnot. Very unfortunately, and they moved for a preliminary injunction to shut it down immediately. Yeah. Very unfortunately, the district court up in San Francisco entered a preliminary injunction a few months ago. I mean, we lost at the trial court level. Mhmm. But there's nothing a trial court can do wrong that a court of appeals can't fix.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 9: And just two hours ago, we got the opinion from the Ninth Circuit. And the Ninth Circuit understood that perplexity is not accessing the Amazon's computer.

Speaker 1: It's the user.

Speaker 2: The user.

Speaker 9: Yes. The user downloads the comet Yep. Deploys it Yep. And tends it to go shopping. Yep. Justice prevailed. Fantastic. But that's I mean, it's an interesting question What's

Speaker 1: going on?

Speaker 9: At the intersection of agentic AI. There you go.

Speaker 2: Alright. Thank you. Alright. Yeah. Very, very interesting.

Speaker 1: How foundational is this? Because it because the the the Perplexity is just one company that is trying to do this type of thing. I think there's a lot of consumers that want the ability to deploy AI, whether it's self hosted open source. There's not even a company behind it. They want to be able to do these types of things. At the same time, there's going be corporate interests that don't want business.

Speaker 9: Of course. I mean, we're very early stages in trying to understand how traditional legal principles

Speaker 1: Sure.

Speaker 9: You know, apply to agents and agentic AI. Yeah. I mean, take this subject, it's something very basic, contracts. Yeah. I mean, it's well known established that, you know, and you can establish a contract between electronic interaction of agents. To be a human being. You know, you can have a binding contract.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 9: But things can go wrong.

Speaker 1: Yeah, of course.

Speaker 9: I mean, the agent may not follow instructions or optimize for the wrong thing. Yeah. For example, you tell the agent, go out, I need some cloud computing time. You know, go out and buy some compute for me at the cheapest possible price. Yeah. And the agent does that and goes and enters into a long term contract

Speaker 1: To get a huge price.

Speaker 9: Cancellation penalty.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Sure. Sure.

Speaker 9: I mean, that's Yeah. That's a problem. Nightmare. Yeah. So and just the sheer number of contracts entered into by agents. Agents can enter into thousands of contracts. But first, somebody's realized there's been a mistake. You know, something's gone wrong. It is certainly

Speaker 1: So disaster.

Speaker 9: I mean, do you do? Mean, if you out your agent has gone out and entered into a contract that's not not what you're interested in, not what you intended. I mean, one thing we know is you can't say it's the AI's fault. Okay. It's not my fault. I mean, there's even a law in California I think it was enacted this year. Mhmm. Civil code section seventeen fourteen Mhmm. That says you can't blame the agent. Mhmm. You know, it's it's your agent, you're responsible.

Speaker 2: What's the human precedent? Because big companies, I'm sure, for a long time have had issues with an employee entering into a contract, you know, signing, maybe they have I mean, it's it's very interesting.

Speaker 9: And it's kind of the same concepts I think that are gonna apply in the agent context. That is, did the employee have authority? Yeah. And even if they didn't have authority, did they have a parent authority? Yeah. If you deployed the employee, they had a job title, they had the card, seemed like they had the ability, the authority to enter into that contract, you're probably going to be bound by that. Mhmm. Similarly, with an agent, I mean the presumption is the agents out there in the marketplace buying things. Yeah. The presumption's going to be that the contract they entered into is binding and you're stuck with it. Yeah. But there is a concept of mistake Mhmm. That can come to the rescue. If the agent goes out there and buys, you know, because of a parsing error or something, the software buys 10,000 of something, which historically you've only been buying 100 of. Yeah. That may put the counterparty on notice that, wait, something's gone wrong

Speaker 2: here.

Speaker 9: Yeah. And if the counterparty is on notice that this is a mistake, the counterparty, you you may be able to get out of the contract.

Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean,

Speaker 9: so that's just kind of a kind of an example. So what is these traditional legal concepts about authority, apparent authority Yeah. I think are gonna come in play in agentic AI as well.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Are there any what precedents are are people drawing on to understand where electronic contracts go? Is there are there any learnings from, like, smart contracts and what the whole discussion around cryptocurrency? Or is it more like what what's been built up over terms of service? Because, yeah, this is like an almost entirely new paradigm and I I don't know exactly

Speaker 9: mean, call it the the problem of new wine in old bottles. Okay. And whenever there's a new technology Yeah. We see this. We have traditional concepts about contracts. Yeah. How you form a contract. Yeah. What is agency? Yeah. And then we have to adopt it to this new era where you have electronic agents that are interacting with each other.

Speaker 1: Yeah. What do you think the equilibrium is? Do you think that there's going to be a flurry of lawsuits and settlements and then sort of a new new establishment of, like, standards, norms, default contracts? Because Silicon Valley has been through a whole turn of contracts where there used to be equity financings, then there were a lot of convertible notes, then there was eventually the SAFE contract, which is a much lighter version of a financing that moves a little bit faster but can still hold some of the weight. And so, like, is is there a do you think there's a there's going to be demand for some sort of standard contract that agents can sort of execute that that builds on the shoulders of all the contract law but still allows for

Speaker 9: I the flexibility of think we are going to see contracts like that.

Speaker 1: Okay. For sure.

Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean, but still we're always going to have the potential for the rogue agent. Yeah. That does something, that does it, exceeds the permissions. Yeah. But that's all the problem is what's built into the software. Yeah. So it's important to build in safeguards like caps, spending limits and the like.

Speaker 2: And for

Speaker 9: important and novel transactions, getting a human in the loop. That the transaction can't actually close, money can't change hands

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 9: Until some human being has actually looked at it. Yeah. So I think that's very important. And then also people need to audit, you know, the history of transactions. As I said, you can have thousands of these contracts being entered into and performed before somebody realizes anything's been going wrong. You need a system where you're actually auditing them and catching

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 9: And catching those errors.

Speaker 1: Do you do you know where DocuSign came from? Was that a legal innovation? Because we think of it as this software company that it says a lot of employees, they've built this program for A lot. E signatures. They have a lot of employees, but What

Speaker 9: would we do without it

Speaker 1: these days? Was there a moment where e signature was illegal, was not binding, and then it flipped? Or did they sort of adapt to the conventions of what counts as a binding legal signature and sort of slot in and then establish themselves.

Speaker 9: Yeah. Don't know the specific history on that. I mean, the guy who founded that company, I'm blanking on it. Yeah. He's actually a client of ours.

Speaker 1: Oh, no.

Speaker 9: Yeah. Okay. So I'm blanking on that. Yeah. So I don't know what the history of that is actually.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm just wondering if there's like learnings from like other times when we've had to take something that happens in the real world and adapt it to the Internet and and thinking through like the other foundational cases maybe net neutrality, these different debates because you have to imagine that consumers will want AI to go shopping for them. And they like and that's going to happen but they're gonna want it to be safe and and then companies are gonna want

Speaker 9: They don't want surprises. They wanna realize they got 10,000 toothbrushes and Yep. Instead of the 10 that they wanted.

Speaker 1: Sometimes that that happens just on, you know, Instacart. You order one banana and you get one truckload of bananas. It happens.

Speaker 9: I I think there's also gonna be issues in tort law. Sure. If you deploy an agent that causes harm or causes damage.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: How does tort law apply to that? Concepts of negligence, products liability. Yeah. I mean, it's an unsettled question in the law whether software is You know, like we talk about products liability for defective features in cars and So the there's a whole body of law surrounding that. Should that apply to agents that go out and do something that causes damage. I mean, we're seeing cases being filed where, you know, the allegation is that the agent persuaded somebody to engage in self harm.

Speaker 1: Sure. The model did. You know?

Speaker 9: And so Is

Speaker 1: that a defective product? That's the question.

Speaker 9: So concepts of negligence Yeah. Products liability and the like will apply. Yeah. And then people, you know, like in this case, Amazon tried to keep the perplexity out from its sight saying, you know, we don't, you don't have permission. Yeah. We're not we're not permitting that. But I mean we've all read about instances now where agents have gotten loose Yep. Entered in sites. Yeah. So what are the legal ramifications of that? There's a concept called trespass to chattel. Like, you know trespass on land. Yeah. A chattel is a thing.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 9: So there's also something called, and this is traditional, traditional concept in the law of trespass on a chattel. Chattel, it's trespass on a server, computer and the like hasn't gotten very far, but there's some cases where those types of claims are being raised as well.

Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. How how have you been processing all those cyber security incidents? It feels like these they haven't I haven't seen lawsuits filed. It feels like these will be discussed as settlements. Already the CEO of Hugging Face was sort of outlining what a non legal recourse could look like. Where do you think this all goes? Do you think there needs to be some precedent setting legal case to create the template for how these things get worked out if they happen more and more?

Speaker 9: I mean, way the way this, you know, we live in a common law country, of course. Yeah. So we have legislation

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: And maybe there'll be a need for legislation at some point. But until the legislators act, and it's hard to get legislators act and act in this country, the courts will be deciding these on a one off basis Mhmm. And establishing precedents. So courts will look to what other courts have done. Sure. I mean the issue that's been teed up in dozens of cases and that everybody's familiar with is that copyright infringement

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: Train a model on copyrighted material. Yeah. I mean there are dozens of cases that are teeing that up. We have some indications from a couple of cases so far suggesting that that's not infringement, but it's what's called fair use.

Speaker 1: Fair use, yeah.

Speaker 9: I mean ultimately all these new issues that are being teed up, we're going to have answers to them. Mhmm. But it'll take time. It'll just take time. It depends on the persuasiveness of the judge's opinions and the precedents. And some things will end up in court of appeals and maybe even the U. S. Supreme Court to make new law.

Speaker 1: How is the legal industry grappling with questions of liability around AI? If I have a law firm, my lawyer uses AI, are there is there any nuance there? Or has the legal industry had to grapple with what liability, what what the services delivered might look like in a world where there's AI agents that are going off and doing discovery or all sorts of different things.

Speaker 9: Well, lawyers are going be responsible for what the AI does. Yeah. I think there's no question about that. You've heard about these cases where lawyers have filed briefs in court that have hallucinations. Yep. Cite two cases that don't exist. Laws that don't exist. Or cite two cases that exist but don't stand for that proposition.

Speaker 1: Yep. Courts don't have What

Speaker 2: do judges think about that?

Speaker 9: They're not very happy

Speaker 1: with it.

Speaker 2: It's like when I'm when I start reading something and I realize that it's just been just a prompt Yeah. Effectively?

Speaker 9: No. I mean, the lawyers have been sanctioned for doing that. It's something that I think every law firm has to be vigilant about.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: Because, I mean, you can't get the models. I mean, you can try to tell Claude, you know, don't make anything up. Yeah. I only want double check. Yeah. Make sure the case really exists. Yeah. And it'll kind of be apologetic and say, you know, I'm just an LLM. I can't guarantee that. Seriously. Yeah.

Speaker 1: Yeah. That It's funny.

Speaker 2: How are how are the lawyers that you talk to at your firms and and just other friends in the industry processing just the progress of AI? We had the breakthroughs from one of OpenAI's new models on Saturday that kind of rocked the math world. But I'm curious how lawyers are just processing the models sort of broad set of abilities today?

Speaker 9: Look, lawyers are among other things, wordsmiths. Yeah. I mean, so we have targets on our back.

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: It's amazing how much, you know, how much quicker we can get to a finished product that we'd actually want to use, serve on the other side, or file with a court. And, you know, I personally think most of our profession is whistling in the dark that they don't realize what's going to come. There's a bit of an innovator's dilemma here because big law firms are doing really well.

Speaker 2: Yeah. All these AI.

Speaker 9: Why change? What's the issue? So

Speaker 2: Well, also, I'm assuming a lot of the most high profile cases are AI related. So at least in the moment, it's creating this sort of surge in demand.

Speaker 9: Yes. There's a lot of cases relating to AI. These novel legal issues like this perplexity case we never would have had eighteen months ago, the dispute between Sam Altman and Elon. Just on many different levels it's generating new work in addition to new types of issues. But I think it's fundamentally going to change the legal profession and the way law is practiced. Mhmm. I mean, most law firms bill by the hour. And if I can press a button and get a work product that's 80 or 90% there, think of all the time, the hours that have been saved. Mhmm. And that really needs to be passed on. The client expects that. They're expecting to see that that savings.

Speaker 1: You said big law is doing well right now, financially? I see.

Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean the the law firms, you know, the biggest law firms are doing very, very well.

Speaker 1: Doing very well. Yeah. What was the hardest year financially for Big Law or Quinn specifically?

Speaker 9: So we only do disputes work.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So I imagine it's not very cyclical, right?

Speaker 9: There's not it's not a lot of people think that litigation is cyclical. Yeah. There's more litigation when there's a downturn in the economy.

Speaker 1: Yes. Less when

Speaker 9: things are going well. I don't think that's true.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 9: I mean, you'll have more of a certain kind of litigation when there's downturn. Stress related Sure. Reorganizations, bankruptcy related litigation. But when and when there's a downturn, you know, people can't perform their contracts. Mhmm. You know, so you have those kinds of issues. But when things are going well and there are profits, companies will

Speaker 1: I know

Speaker 9: bring claims that they might pass on. Yep. You know, they'll pick up the nickel, you know, on the floor and say, okay, we're gonna we're gonna pursue that.

Speaker 2: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: So, I mean, the disputes world in in America Mhmm. Is is generally pretty good. I mean, we we live in the most litigious country in the world. Our our legal culture is leads the league in that respect.

Speaker 1: Is that good?

Speaker 9: I mean, depends on who you ask. I think that it's a feature of our individualism. It's a feature of people's feeling of entitlement that I have rights.

Speaker 2: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: You know, I can get my day in court. Yep. I can get a hearing.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 9: So those are good things about

Speaker 1: it. Mhmm.

Speaker 9: But on the other hand, there's a point of view that it's really a lot of litigation is a tax on on doing business. Mhmm. And and we know that there's a lot of frivolous claims that are brought as well. So you ask different people, you'll get different responses to that.

Speaker 2: Mhmm. Right now, you have these, you know, gigawatts of compute being brought online. And in a lot of instances, there will be, like, a hyperscaler that is signing up for a long term contract. And when you look at some of these neo cloud businesses, a lot of people like to look at them and say, well, look, you know, this is a contract with a major, you know, trillion dollar company. That trillion dollar company is definitely good for it.

Speaker 9: And NVIDIA's back there somewhere guaranteeing performance

Speaker 2: as well and it's playing. Yeah. NVIDIA's usually usually involved. But in actually playing some of these things out, let's say in the future there's a a compute glut. And there's I think you should debate when that will happen. Maybe it happens in ten years. Maybe it happens in one year. Maybe it happens in two years. No one no one knows. There's a lot of indicators that, you know, you're just gonna see demand outstripping supply for a long time. But what do big companies do when they're in a contract that they really don't like and they wanna get out of it even though they signed on the dotted line and it's a bulletproof contract? Because because it's not like, you know, the biggest company in the world that people are, you know, has amazing credit right now that signed the contract, people are like, oh, it's you know, it's fully guaranteed. But there's a lot of things that companies in that scale can do if they're in a situation that they don't like.

Speaker 9: Well, I mean, it's tough. They can look, if you're if there are big obligations on both sides, big commitments on both sides, and one side doesn't want to perform, a lot of times that precipitates a negotiation. Because they need each other, right? They've each made commitments to each other.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: So if you and I have one of these contracts and I have a problem, then you have a problem too.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: So we gotta try to find some way to work that out. And oftentimes that's what happens. But I think a lot of these structures, financial structures, especially for data centers, are incredibly complex. You have a SPV at the middle of it, has a deal with a tenant, you have all kinds of financing, bond financing, securitizations, private credit, with cross default provisions. So if defaults, you know, the whole thing potentially goes down. I think on some of these data centers, we're probably going to see some reorganizations. You know? Everything, everything, look at all the money that's going into this and all the data centers that are being built. Are all of them a 100% going to come online when they're supposed to come online and everybody's going to do exactly what they contracted to do? You know, I don't I don't think that's going to happen. So there'll be some workouts. And the challenges that those data centers face from, you know, I've been told by one neo cloud that the biggest problem they face is electricians. Just getting the electricians to do the work. So it's it's there's a shortage of everything from electricians to power to chips, you know, to compute. So I mean, it's it's not gonna end perfectly for everybody.

Speaker 2: Yeah. But you would predict billions of dollars worth of billable hours dealing with all of that?

Speaker 1: You know

Speaker 2: Is that a safe prediction?

Speaker 9: I I don't

Speaker 2: Like, if you have a trillion dollars of of this kind of like complicated CapEx investment, then you're probably gonna get at least a billion, couple billion of of billables.

Speaker 9: Those are a lot billions are a lot of hours. I I don't

Speaker 2: seems like, you know, you have thousands and thousands, you know, of these projects.

Speaker 9: Look. And And If some of them go into reorganization and the equity gets wiped out, there will be negotiations. There will be what are called liability management exercises. There may be bankruptcies as well. And yes, lawyers will be very involved

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: In those workouts.

Speaker 2: There was some reporting recently that one group that is pushing back against the rollout of autonomous vehicles are trial lawyers or or sorry, not trial lawyers, sorry, personal injury lawyers who seem to be worried that in a world with, you know, full autonomous driving across The United States, there'd be less accidents. Does that surprise you at all if that were to be true?

Speaker 9: I hadn't heard that. But I guess nothing would surprise me about what the plan of tort bar might do.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: You know?

Speaker 2: How would you reform?

Speaker 1: It'd be considered

Speaker 2: law If you had So if you monopoly,

Speaker 1: so no corporations can sue each other.

Speaker 2: Would What you kind of reforms would you push for if you were king of The United States for the day? Around specifically around personal injury law. Because when you drive around LA, it's honestly very depressing. It's like, if you look up, you'll see a billboard that's basically saying, hey, do you wanna see someone? Yeah. You know? And that signal to me is that there's just, you know, billions of dollars of revenue

Speaker 9: Look, there's no doubt. I mean, are personal injury mills Mhmm. Lawyers that process high volumes of claims. I've never worked in one of those factories, but I sometimes wonder whether lawyers, there's ever lawyers eyeballs on what's filed and the discovery and the like. I think a lot of those are, those cases are brought to settle Yeah. As quickly as possible. Mhmm. So sometimes you wonder whether the client's interests are really number one. But this is I don't work in that field.

Speaker 2: So

Speaker 9: Yeah. My speculation.

Speaker 1: And it does feel like it would be a very different situation if every automobile accident involved going up against Waymo with perfect camera footage from every angle for every there's no testimony of this person said this person, this person did this, this person said that. You have the perfect footage, the GPS, everything that happened in that moment.

Speaker 9: Well, I I think I think AI, I mean you know there are early stage companies Mhmm. Early stage, maybe somewhere beyond early stage

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: That hoover up all the data available.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 9: Like permits, ingredients.

Speaker 1: Sure, sure.

Speaker 9: You know, compliance certificates, whatever. Hoover all that up.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: And then it also ingest all the regulations and rules. And they will identify claims and class actions.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 9: And you can subscribe to this. And they'll serve it up. So mean, AI is in itself generating more of that kind of work But as I also have the hope that it'll mean that cases are resolved sooner. Because there's more transparency sooner. As you were saying, like the Waymo situation where you have the record. So people hopefully will be able to identify the merits of their claims. Everything's more transparent. Identify the merits of their claims, you can underwrite the risk, And people may be able to get together with settlements sooner.

Speaker 1: Mhmm. On the next generation of lawyers, do you think aggression can be taught?

Speaker 9: I don't know if aggression can be taught. Don't know if it should be taught. Mhmm. You know? Aggression in the law and litigation isn't an end in itself. Mhmm. Know, I I generally think it's good to be the first mover.

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: I mean, have a saying at our firm that the side that figures out first what will ultimately matter wins.

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: So as a default position, I believe you should try to get ahead and stay ahead. Now that doesn't necessarily mean you're aggressive. Mhmm. But in some cases, you don't want to be aggressive. I mean, you might want to adopt a, know, a rope a dope strategy. Yeah. You know, come get me. You know, and let the other side play their cards first.

Speaker 1: Can you tell if someone's bluffing?

Speaker 9: So you know their, if you have a sense of what their case is and what it's worth and what the strengths and weaknesses are, you sometimes get a demand that you think either they're bluffing or they don't understand their case.

Speaker 1: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: So, you know, it it it really very much depends on the I think on the situation.

Speaker 2: How did you how good how good were you at reading people early in your career?

Speaker 9: Not for

Speaker 2: And how much how much how much did you improve? Like, did you have some sort of like baseline above average ability you think and then you got, you know, significantly I

Speaker 9: think I think with experience I I got better. I think as a younger lawyer I was probably too aggressive too often and didn't sort of modulate my approach. Over time I think I got better of understanding, not just understanding the other side and reading them, but myself as well. Where I was coming from

Speaker 2: Mhmm.

Speaker 9: And what my strengths and weaknesses were.

Speaker 1: Well, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Speaker 9: Thanks. Thanks for having

Speaker 1: me, Matt. Wish you

Speaker 2: had more time.

Speaker 1: Let's play you off with the final Yeah. Outro We're playing this all morning. Think every one of our guests needs an intro like that.