Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Deep conversations with underrated lawyers.
This is Quorum with Rums Quorum.
My guest today is Amika Kumar.
When Teched companies have bet
the company matters involving
free speech, they come to Amika.
We discussed how she strategically
built her career in the space,
starting as an associate.
This is one of the most direct
conversations we've recorded.
Here's Amica.
Khurram: Amika, I have been looking
forward to this podcast for maybe a year.
I don't know.
It's been a
Ambika: long
Khurram: talking right?
Ambika: It, yeah.
Hard to find a time.
Khurram: The longest I've waited to
record an episode and no pressure.
But, uh, yeah, it'll be really good.
Um, we, we, we've just had a number of
conversations for some time now, so it's
just, it's been really interesting to, to
get to know you and your practice better.
And so something I'm really struck
with is, uh, you're very down to earth,
but you're also highly strategic.
And so I am interested in, in, I think
strategy from our conversations is
something that showed up really early
in her career, going back to law school.
And that resonates for me because I
think I was strategic in, in starting
in law school that led me down the
path that we've, that I've been on.
So I'm curious to hear, um, it sounds
like you identify as a strategic.
Um, uh, taking a strategic approach to,
to your practice, I think subsequently,
and then also professionally.
Let's start with professionally.
What is, what is the role of
being strategic mean to you?
Like how have you been
strategic with your career?
Ambika: Um, well, I would, I would
think that, I would say that I'm
strategic in basically all aspects of
my life to the extent it makes sense.
And so, um, in the context of
my career, um, I went to Duke
University and I graduated in 2002.
And while I was there, I was the editor
of the Student Run Daily newspaper.
It's probably the hardest
I've ever worked in my life.
Um, and um, when I got outta college,
I thought about becoming a journalist,
um, and realized that that was not
necessarily what I wanted to do, in
part because, um, I wanted to, um.
Have enough income to raise a
family in the way that I was raised.
Um, and I thought, well, how
about I go defend journalists?
And, you know, at the newspaper we'd
gotten a couple of demands that we
had to talk with our lawyers about.
And so I'd been exposed to
it from that perspective.
Um hmm.
I took a year off, um, from
college and then I went to
University of Chicago Law School.
Um, and, um, because I knew I wanted to
work on First Amendment issues and issues
for journalists, I did an independent
study there, uh, with Jeff Stone, who's
a, you know, a scholar in the area.
Um, and then, um, when it came time to
figure out what to do after that, you
know, I was researching firms trying
to figure out, uh, who was sort of the
best in the news media defense bar.
Um, and there were two that came, you
know, sort of, that were at the top.
Of the, you know, top of the, their game.
And that was, um, Davis Wright, where I am
now, um, in a firm called Levine Sullivan.
Koch and Schultz, um, which was a
boutique, um, in DC and New York.
Um, I don't remember if
they have other offices.
Um, I interviewed with Levine
Sullivan and didn't get a job.
Um, I interviewed with Davis Wright,
um, and they were only really taking,
uh, uh, associates Summer, summer
Associates in their Seattle office.
Sometimes we take from in other
offices with very exceptional cases.
Um, and so I realized that if I wanted
to come to Davis Wright, I would
need to at least start in Seattle.
Um, and so I split my summer between
Davis Wright and Baker and Hostetler in dc
which also had a media practice, although
not nearly as robust as Davis Wrights.
Um, and, um, and so I.
You know, to me the, the difference
between the firms was night and
day, just from a, like a personal
aspect, but also substantively.
I was doing more work at Davis Wright,
so, um, uh, I got married, took
the bar, um, started my job, moved
to Seattle all in the same summer.
Um, and I actually wasn't, you
know, I thought maybe I would move
sometime to an area like the Bay Area.
I actually didn't wanna be in
sort of the media centers of
New York, DC or Los Angeles.
Um, I wanted to be at a place where
I felt like becoming a partner
was a real possibility and did not
require, you know, working all day,
every day, and sometimes all night.
Um, and so I, I came to Seattle thinking
maybe I'll do a little bit of media work.
It won't be everything,
but, um, but let me see.
Um, and by that time it was, it was
clear that content was moving online.
Um, and, uh, and so, and we have
these tech companies in our backyard
in Seattle, and I was thinking, well,
we should be doing more for them.
I mean, we already did do
work for them, of course.
Um, but I thought I
could find a place there.
And between that and the firm's nationwide
First Amendment media practice, um,
I was able to build a career and I, I
feel very lucky, um, that I could do
that sitting here in Seattle, which
is really not a hub of media law.
Khurram: How, how do you advise
someone to execute on this?
Any number of times a lawyer might
see some frontier technology or
some convergence of an industry,
um, practically, you know, this
is something that comes up a lot.
You know, like we, we, we, when
you talk to lawyers who early in
their careers, there's things that
they're really passionate about.
Maybe they wrote something out in
law, their, their, their article in
for their law review or whatever.
There's just some topic that is just some.
Interest in there is they're identifying
something cutting edge and they experience
challenges with implementing that.
This, Hey, I'm just an associate.
How do I move my career down this path?
I can see something, maybe
everyone can see something, but the
partners are embedded with their
existing ecosystem of clients.
They're not incentivized to
build out some new practice.
Maybe.
Um, there's a variety of conditions that
make it a challenge to grow in that way.
How did you do it?
And then what tips do you have for
someone today who wants to take that
strategic approach and, and, and
converge their interest with the
skills and platform that they're at?
Ambika: When I came to the
firm, um, it was clear that
I cannot do only media work.
There wouldn't be nearly enough.
Um, it was a very highly
sought after group.
Um, there was already one other
associate in the group who was
more senior to me, um, and.
So I just did what I did, just
general commercial litigation.
Um, and in fact I had one partner
in the IP area, litigation area who
kept telling me, just get general
commercial litigation experience.
That's what you need.
And he was right as frustrating
as it felt at the time.
Um, and then when, uh, you know, the
firm circulates a list of clients
for conflict purposes every day.
Um, and so I would look at that list
and, and a lot of people do this, and I
would see a case that had been brought
in that I'd be interested in, and I
would contact the partner who was running
the case and see if they needed help.
Um, and I did this many with, with,
you know, with one of my mentors.
Um, I did that and it was easy.
We would just start working on it.
Um, with another, um, I think I
had to ask him like four or five
times until he decided, okay,
I'm gonna give her a chance.
Um.
Then for me the key was just doing really
good work, um, and not, not being a jerk
as well, um, being, you know, personable.
Um, so, um, you know, over time I
just, I got to new clients better.
Um, and uh, and you know, I was
writing things, um, things like that.
I mean, I think I was very fortunate
to be at a place like Davis Wright,
um, because it is extremely collegial.
Um, and I think people are genuinely
interested in developing associates
who want to become partners.
Um, I also happen to be in a group
where a lot of the rainmakers are
women, um, and they have children.
Um, and so that was for me, a model,
although a lot of my models early on were
men with families and who were invested
in their families and who, you know, would
say, I have to go do this for my kid now.
Um.
I think times have ha I mean, at the time
Davis Wright was sort of a regional firm.
Um, and, and so it, I think it was
less, I, I don't know how to describe
it, but certainly no one was doing
document review day in, day out.
Um, and, uh, people were actually
getting tr we, you know, we had a
one-to-one associate to partner ratio,
which meant that the partners get
paid less, but it also meant that the
associates got the experience, um, of,
you know, multiple tenures of associates.
So they were doing everything from
drafting motions to engaging in discovery.
Um, and so you saw that stuff
and having client contact.
Um, so I think, you know, I don't know.
I, I, I can't say what,
what would work today.
I do think that finding, I.
Um, finding people who can teach
you how to do what you wanna do
is important, and writing their
coattails is important, right?
So, um, you know, one of the
reasons I came to Davis Wright was
there's this treatise, uh, a 50
state survey, um, on libel law.
And I looked at who authored the
Washington chapter, and it was Bruce
Johnson who was, you know, one of
the mentors that I mentioned, the one
that we I worked with for a long time.
And, um, and so I, you know, I found
him in my summer associate days and
did work for him, and then I continued
to work for him, you know, for years.
Um, so, you know, I, I had a review once
early in my career that was, uh, she's
too eager and ignores nonverbal clues,
which I found to be very confusing.
Um, and, and, and a couple years
later, the same partner said to me,
said, in front of a group of people.
This is Umca.
She's one of the most respected,
if not the most respected
associate, um, in Seattle.
And so what I learned from that was,
even though I was being eager, like that
ultimately did not cost me anything.
Right?
And, and in general, I think
being eager can only help you.
Um, and so, um, showing an
interest in learning, um, in
feedback, um, you know, not issuing
projects that are non-billable.
Um, you know that sometimes that's the
best way to get to know somebody is
like they need help writing an article
or a chapter or something like that.
And you do it.
Um, and you know, because it's
not billable, there's more time
for sort of, you know, personal
developing a personal relationship.
Um, 'cause you're not charging
anybody for that time.
Um, so you know.
I, I honestly feel lucky that content
and online like just happened.
Like it was, I didn't go to
law school for that purpose.
I just saw it happening and I
just happened to be coming to
Seattle and I thought, well, this
seems like a good opportunity.
And it was.
Khurram: Yeah.
I, I've observed among other litigators
particular that I've had on this
podcast is that I think that's a
formula for success is starting out
an established platform and growing
in some way, uh, into some frontier
that, that has been occupied.
Sometimes that is a geographic office,
uh, that's a frontier sometimes it's
a, it's a practice area, but it seems
to me that that's an asymmetric bet.
And as you said, like eagerness is
a form of an asymmetric bet, right?
Like there's.
A downside to eagerness.
Um, it, it can backfire.
Um, you know, maybe it looks, maybe
it makes you look too earnest and,
and, and naive or some others.
You can dredge up some negative
qualities from eagerness.
But imbalance, nine times
outta 10 eagerness will
have some asymmetric upside.
Uh, so I guess that's, I, I think
this concept of an asymmetric bet in
terms of, you know, on, on the scale
of eagerness on something, on the
day-to-day or on the scale of your
career, that seems to be another concept.
Does that resonate with you,
the concept of, of taking
asymmetric bets in your career?
Ambika: Uh, yeah, probably.
I mean, I, I don't have, I, I,
I'm not somebody who can say
something I don't mean, um, or
who can't just be brutally honest.
And so, um.
Oftentimes that means doing things
that where other people would
not feel comfortable doing it.
Whether it's, um, I don't know whether
it's having an unusual conversation
with opposing counsel about, you know,
our relationship and how to make it
better, um, and trying to slow things
down and make it less, or whether it's
knowing what's going on in the personal
lives of the people that I work with.
Um, you know, if they don't
wanna tell me, of course I don't
push, but I do take an interest.
Um, and I share my own personal life.
And so I, I think those things are
probably things that most people don't
do, but that have paid off for me, um,
in my career and in my personal life.
Khurram: Mm-hmm.
Can we talk some more about the
subset of aspects of your practice?
Tell me about substantively, you know,
maybe going back to your associate days,
um, a strategic mindset you took to.
How you counsel clients', litigation
strategy that differentiated you, that
you feel like was original, novel?
Um, a departure from, um, consensus.
Ambika: Um, my early associate days, I
was way too shy and too scared to say
anything in front of a client, much less
adopt a novel approach to counseling.
Um, you know, I, I grew up in a culture
where, you know, the people that
were more senior to me were sort of
authorities to learn from and to defer to.
Um, and that is how I
operated in my practice.
And, um, honestly, it's only in
the last, I don't know, you know,
five to eight years where I feel
like I, I am that person, right?
Like, where I, I sort of know
what the right thing to do is,
or what the, you know, I, it's
just, it's just more natural.
And so I don't have a problem.
Um, you know, doing it like, you know,
uh, I had a situation once where, um, we
were counsel for a defendant and there
was counsel from a co-defendant and they
were at like a, you know, one of these
top tier, not that David, I think David
was a top tier firm, but often, um, that
is not the impression of other people.
Um, and this more senior lawyer at a
different, you know, fancy firm was
suggesting that an argument that I had
suggested was, you know, not worth making.
Um, and, you know, 10 years ago
I would not have pushed back.
Um, but I did this time and, uh, you know,
I think it's important to, I mean, part
of that is getting comfortable with my own
level of knowledge and strategic insight.
And some of it is, um, not
being discouraged when.
Somebody who is more senior to me
and is a, you know, a white guy,
um, says something to me that,
you know, it doesn't, I mean,
that didn't resonate and felt
condescending and felt like I
wasn't being taken seriously.
Fortunately, I have clients, right?
And so clients, you know, they get
it and they know that I'm good.
And, um, and so, um, I think, you
know, in terms of novel approaches,
um, so I, um, I'm very direct.
Um, I do not overstate our chances,
if anything I understate them.
Uh, I don't want anyone to be
surprised if something bad happens.
Um, I tried a case many years ago,
early in my associate years, and,
and the partner in the case thought
we were gonna win, and I was like,
there's no way we're gonna win.
Um, and I had to be really
careful about what I said.
Um.
And, you know, and, and
sure enough we didn't win.
But anyways, um, so, uh, you
know, I, I send short emails.
I don't, they're not long.
And this is like, not novel, but like
I do see a lot of people at other
firms just sending these like, you
know, four paragraph graph emails.
They're not memos.
'cause I think memos are mostly things
that clients have decided they don't want,
unless it's something really critical.
Um, but they also don't want like
to have to read, you know, 20
sentences if it can be said in five.
Um, and, you know, bullet points
are helpful bolded headings.
Like if you're like looking for
like a part of an email that talks
about, you know, our motion to
dismiss, there's like a little
heading that says Motion to dismiss.
Um, I find that helpful.
Um.
I also increasingly believe in talking to
people as opposed to emailing with them.
Um, feels like it's becoming a lost art,
that I have one mentor in particular who
was like, just pick up the phone and call.
Like, why aren't you
just doing it that way?
And I think there's a
couple things about that.
One is, um, people can
be different in writing.
They're much more comfortable, um,
acting in a way that you would never
see them act in person or on the phone.
Um, also you can read the tone of voice
as opposed to reading tone of text.
You can't always do that.
Um, and you might learn more.
I recently had a situation where one
of the, one of the lawyers I work
with, he's like, I'm gonna send an
email that blah, blah, blah, blah.
I was like, why don't you,
why don't you call her?
Because then you will get more of
insight into what she's thinking.
Um, and he came back and he said,
that was, that was a good call.
Um, because I did, um.
So, I mean, that's not client facing.
Um, with clients sometimes it's
easier to talk through something
because otherwise you get spun
up in this like, churn of emails.
I've had that where I've been
co-counsel with another, again, fancy
firm and, um, the client calls me
and says like, I'm really frustrated
by this like, email exchange.
Like I feel like no one is
hearing what I'm trying to say.
And that's just a lot easier to convey.
Um, and it's easier to cut
to the chase on a phone call.
Um,
Khurram: are you saying the
client was included in the
joint defense group exchange?
Ambika: No, this was my co-counsel,
like, so they Oh, I see.
Also counsel for the client.
Mm-hmm.
Um, I often get paired with, um,
larger firms, um, closer, you know,
higher up on the AmLaw scale, um,
to provide my expertise on various.
You know, issues like the First
Amendment and Section two 30.
Um, I also don't, uh, I'm also really
honest when a client asks me, do you
have this expertise in your firm?
Like, it does me no good to be like, yes,
this person who kind of has experience.
Like if I recommend someone, it's
because I know that they're good.
Um, and so I just pitched a case where,
um, cases in a state where I don't
often practice, um, state officials
are involved on the other side.
And I pitched it and I said, you're
gonna really need to pair us with
somebody who knows these people.
Um, and, and things like local council,
they're critical because they have
the day in, day out experience that
you don't and can't have, um, to let
you know, um, uh, any quirks about.
Judges, anything, any particular
views they might have about
any issues in the case.
'cause a lot of my cases are, um,
you know, politicized, um, especially
these days because tech companies
are, you know, in the limelight.
Khurram: Is your observation, do you
think that that the importance of,
of local counsel is more important?
State or federal court?
Do you have a point of view on that?
Ambika: I mean, probably state, but I,
I, I think it applies to federal court.
Um, it depends on where you are, right?
Like if you're in rural Texas,
um, it doesn't matter whether
you're in state or federal court.
You need somebody there.
If you're, like, if you're in New
York, way less of a concern, you should
still have somebody there to ask base.
But it doesn't have to be somebody.
And it depends on the type of case.
Um.
You know, if it's a case that require,
that requires a particular expertise,
that involves knowing the procedure of
the court or the judges on the court,
like, you know, that's important too.
But if it's a run of the mill piece of
litigation and it's in a major city, um,
local counsel to me plays lesser role.
Khurram: Mm-hmm.
Can we trace back to what, what was
that path from commercial litigation
to some of these high te, high
stakes tech and speech disputes?
And, and part of the question is also, I
mean, you initially were very interested
in the media tech litigation and you,
you're representing journalists and
now you're representing platforms.
Can you talk about those two
evolutions in your practice?
Ambika: Oh, yeah.
I never, I mean, I did represent
journalists for a good bit of time.
When Washington had an antis
SLAPP statute in particular.
Um, the news media had the resources to
pay for their defenses and knowing that
they would get their fees if we won.
Um.
That statute was held on constitutional,
I don't know, it's been at least 10 years.
Um, and that work kind of died off.
Um, and the reality was, being in
Seattle, I was never gonna be like a
premier journalist, defense lawyer.
It's just something I had to give up.
Um, and frankly, something
that's extremely competitive.
Not to say that the area I
work on is not competitive.
I mean, it is, but it wasn't, um, when
I started it wasn't as competitive.
It didn't feel, um, I think that, you
know, I just, if I saw the firm was
litigating something the related to
content, I went after that case, went
after the lawyer asked if I could help.
Um, and the more that like I did
that work, the more exposure I got
to other clients with similar work.
And those clients happen
to be, you know, platforms.
Um, but you know, I've certainly
had help along the way.
Other work that has been referred
from lawyers that I work with, um,
which is, you know, flattering 'cause
it suggests they think I'm a good
lawyer, but also that I'm, you know.
Relatively easy to get along with, um,
uh, at least in the professional context.
So, um, so, you know, uh,
um,
trying to think what else.
I mean, I, yeah, maybe I would, I
would go to conferences that were
around the subjects that I, but they
weren't like my main, like never did
I go to a conference and think I'm
gonna get work from this or, you know,
this is really gonna significant.
I mean, you have to go to them repeatedly.
You have to see people year after year.
Um, and you also have to rely on
your, like, on partners to introduce
you to people, which I had.
Um, I had one person who would be like,
you know, tell, look at the RSS VP
list and tell me who you wanna meet.
I will introduce you.
And those things are really important,
um, because they're just the seeds
of something that can grow later.
Khurram: In picking up this clientele
and, and starting to get experience
in First Amendment section two 30, um,
I'm curious, what was the inflection
point or inflection points in career?
Like what was the first inflection
point in your confidence skillset,
the stakes of the matters you're
working on, um, in that space?
Ambika: Um,
it's, um,
I mean the first,
first high profile matter matter on which
I was a lead was the first TikTok ban.
Before that, I had worked on
cases that were important, but.
And prominent and written
about in the news.
Um, but I was usually a part of
team, so all my bios, bio chip would
say, you know, part of a team that,
or, you know, that kind of thing.
Um, so it's really just been
the last, you know, five years
that I've felt this confidence.
Um,
I mean, it was growing, right?
It was like, it's not like
a, it wasn't like a switch.
Uh, um, you know, uh, I got increasingly
comfortable pushing for what I
thought was the right decision.
Um,
and when I started, when I, I think
when I got there was like this MVP
award for media and entertainment,
um, a few years ago that I got that.
Then I was like, wait, maybe I'm, you
know, maybe I have a profile that's
not local or tied to someone else.
Um, but that is just my own.
Um, and then the Wall Street
Journal, after the first TikTok case.
Wrote an article, which they said
they hired top First Amendment
lawyer on because Kumar, um, and
I was like, whoa, that's crazy.
Is that me?
Um, and uh, and so those
things have certainly helped.
Uh, and what has helped the most probably
is the reassurance of the people that
I work with, that who are much more
senior to me, who, who when I'm, if I'm
ever slow, which yes, it still happens,
um, are like, you're gonna be fine.
Like, go take a vacation,
you know, take the day off.
Um, you're gonna, you're gonna,
you know, from, from when I was an
associate, you're gonna make partner.
You are gonna make equity partner.
Um, you know, I didn't
have the confidence.
I, I only went up for partnership
and this was the year after my
first son was born because somebody
said, I think this is your year.
And I said, really?
Like, I just had a kid.
Are you sure?
Like.
And he is like, yes, I think
this is the right time.
Um, and I did, and I got it.
Um, and then I went up for Equity
Partner, uh, the year after my
first child, second child was born.
I can't remember.
Somewhere around there.
Um, and so, you know, part of it
is like the firm has supported
me immensely over the years in my
career development and trajectory.
Um, and you know, when I, you know, I, I
will never bill as much as I did before.
I had kids just not gonna happen.
Um, and, and I don't want to.
Um, and I think, you know, the Davis
Wrights willing to make investments
of that sort, knowing that, you
know, I'd established a reputation.
I was really hardworking.
I was good at what I did.
I had a kid, of course,
my hours were gonna drop.
How much we'll see, you know?
Um, and, you know, I, I went through
a divorce while I was at the firm.
You know, I, I never felt like.
Pressure from the firm to, um,
minimize my personal commitments
in order to bill more hours.
Um, and that's been easier the last
few years 'cause I generate business in
addition to like actually doing the work.
And so, um, generating businesses and as
time doesn't cost as much time, right?
Like you've got a reputation, you
write a client, you say, I saw this
was filed, would you like help?
And then, uh, over time, like maybe,
you know, 10 years ago, the chances I
would get it from just that are minimal.
And as time goes up, they're much higher.
Uh, they're still not like super high
or anything, but you know, there are,
there are now times where a major company
I pitched for it for a case and I feel
like it's like a 50 50 shot, which
actually feels like a, a pretty good shot.
Khurram: You have a couple
really wild stories in,
I don't know if you consider 'em
inflection points, but just maybe.
Maybe you do, maybe, maybe
they're just like, you know, just
tangible career catapult moments.
Um, but I'm thinking of, the
first one I'm thinking of is
ATI Row that you argued Yeah.
At seven 30 in the morning
on a two hours notice.
Yeah.
Can you, can you share that story?
Ambika: Yeah.
Um, it was a Friday in 2020, I think.
September.
Um, so 2020 I would've
had a, no, not 2020.
It was earlier than that.
I don't remember when it was.
My kids were small.
I had two small kids.
Um, and, uh, so they wake up early in
the morning and sometimes in the middle
of the night and all that kind of stuff.
Um, and, um, president Trump banned
TikTok, uh, times have changed.
Um, and, uh, or, or maybe times
haven't changed and he hasn't either.
But, um,
we got the, or like, uh, the executive
order and I wrote a TRO motion in a day.
Working with one of the litigators
and then just filed it that day.
And I went to bed feeling like,
totally, it was one of those days,
like I was in my pajamas all day long.
I didn't eat very much.
I was just focused on getting this done.
Um, and you know, so I was
relieved to go to bed at night.
I was like, oh, I get to sleep now.
And, um, like many people, I have
a bad habit of looking at my phone
sometimes when I shouldn't be, when I'm
like, I should just go back to sleep.
But that, that habit was reinforced
because at like six or six 30, I
looked at my phone and I saw that
the judge had set a hearing for
seven 30 Pacific, 10 30 Eastern,
because the case was in Pennsylvania.
Um, and I was working with a
couple other attorneys, um, one
of whom was much more senior to
me, and I called him and he said.
I was debating when to
call and wake you up.
Um, and so, uh, he said,
so it's good you're awake.
And this was, yeah, well it must've been
2020 'cause it was during the pandemic.
And, um, uh, and I went down to my, so it
was a virtual argument, like one of the
first ones I did or maybe the first one.
Um, so I went down to my basement,
um, like trying to figure out, like
I don't actually work at a desk at
home, so like that was not an option.
So I set up this crazy like area where
I had a, like a side table with a box
of like a fort fort building kit box
on it with my laptop on top of that.
And, um, and my seat was the back of
an exercise bike, um, that had been
torn to shreds by the cats that we had.
Um, and of course I did not
have my actual like background,
like I had a fake background.
Um.
We had the hearing, it was a lot of fun.
Um, but, you know, and then I, and
then I was done and I was like, okay,
back to my Saturday, Saturday life.
Um, I can't remember if we got
an order, but it, it definitely
was a hearing that went well.
And unfortunately the government
lawyer, unfortunately for the
government, he had been like, I think
even out of town or something, and
hadn't even seen the papers, really.
Um, and so I felt bad for him because it's
not like he knew the record very well.
He couldn't know the record very well.
Um, and we got an injunction, um,
eventually, I don't remember if it
was from that hearing or another.
There was one that was, I
feel like she said it was
premature, something like that.
Um, so yeah, that, that was crazy.
Khurram: And then wasn't there
also another Saturday injunction
hearing in another matter?
Maybe I, maybe I confl.
I, I don't
Ambika: think so.
You might be thinking, um, we represented,
um, AWS in a lawsuit brought by parlor.
Parler is a social media, was a
social media service on the right,
you know, sort of politically.
Um, and this was after January 6th, um,
before the inauguration and, you know,
always made headlines, AWS suspended
or restricted parlor's account.
And then Parler saw a TRO, um, that
would require AWS to restore its service.
Um, that one, I remember I was
going through a divorce and I was
staying at a friend's house, and
I remember pacing the halls at her
house, um, practicing my argument.
Um, you know, there was a lot of
prep including, you know, with other
lawyers and including the client.
Um, so I, I remember that one
vividly too because it was.
Also very fast paced.
Um, and I was not even in my own
house and it felt odd to just,
and, and it was pandemic, so I
couldn't go to the office either.
So I was just sort of in this like, you
know, visiting, you know, and, and my, the
friend whose house it is, she was gone.
So it's just me and my
dog, my pandemic puppy.
Um, and I just paced the halls
and practiced my argument.
And then I did my argument
at a, at a side table in her
bedroom overlooking the water.
Again with no background.
Um, but I mean, pandemic definitely
put me in some odd places
physically to make arguments.
Um, uh, it was kind of fun actually.
It started like thinking like, should
I try to make sure I do it in this
kind of room or that kind of room, like
the kitchen, like, you know, um, so
Khurram: I wanna pick up on, you know,
you're, you're talking about, um.
Your kids is part of your routine and
the timing of the kids, and it seems
like kids are your, are your lucky charms
just, you know, if you want to level up in
life, have a kid, I guess it sounds like.
Um, do, do you feel like having children
has influenced how you practice?
You mentioned, you know, not billing as
much, but you know, focusing things on
things like, you know, you are by now if
you cumulative reputation, so then you can
focus on business development, which is
high ROI for the amount of time involved.
Does, is there a strategic
dimension of having children?
And I, I had a recent interview
with, um, Laura Klich, she's
a, a litigator, good one.
And she talked about the ways that
having children for her has made
her more strategic as a litigator.
Because in the past, you know,
she would've taken on every aspect
of a case and enjoyed, you know.
Owning every case, and now she realizes
she has to take a much of a team's
approach and say, who is the best person
for handling this aspect of the case.
Um, so I'm curious for you whether
you feel like, um, having children
has influenced, I keep on using
the word strategy, so you know,
you can ignore the word strategy
or, or supply some other word.
Um, influence how you practice.
Like has there been some sort of
reciprocal relationship between
having kids and how you practice?
Ambika: I mean, definitely
I delegate more.
That's a consistent theme.
Um, as one should, as one get grows
more senior, but not, it's not, it's
much easier when you have kids and then
something else you have to be doing.
Um, it's a hard skill to develop and
it's one that I try to tell people I
work with, like try to help them, you
know, like, why are you online right now?
Go.
Go.
Um, and, um, uh, I, I think that
having kids can change the way.
Change your personal interactions in
a way, um, that can be, I suppose,
advantageous, um, in the sense that, um,
you know, some of the cases I work with
are about tech companies and children.
Um, having children gives me
that grounding of, you know,
thinking about like, should my
children access social media?
If so, at what age?
What restrictions should be on there?
Should I be able to see everything?
They're little right now, not little,
but they're not of an age where
they can reasonably demand privacy.
Um, and so, you know, some of
those issues are still coming.
Um, but I think, um,
there's something about having children
yourself as opposed to ha you know, having
a colleague that has children that, um,
just changes your perspective, I think.
Um, and, um.
I talk to my kids about work.
I actually, I practice because if
I can explain it to my 12-year-old,
I can explain it to a judge.
Um, he, he, he will ask good questions.
Um, client development efforts
sometimes involve family Now.
Um, I've, I've taken a client and
his son to a hockey game with my son.
Um, it, it sort of, so
that part has changed too.
You know, I have a lot of female
clients and there's a lot of
conversation about our kids.
It doesn't feel gendered.
It feels like this is just my wife.
Um, and, uh, and so
I can't say that it's helped me
develop business in any direct way.
Um, um, except through friendships
with parents I've made of students
in the same school, for example, like
that, that certainly has happened.
Um, but, um.
But otherwise,
you know, I, I stopped working on
the weekends, um, for the most part.
Um, and I try to make sure
that other people on my teams
aren't working on the weekends.
Um, I, I always tell them, uh, if you
can't make a deadline, please check in.
It may not be a firm deadline.
And, um, we might be able to, you know,
oftentimes like I have a deadline for
someone to get me something, and then
I'm like, uhoh, I'm busy with this
other stuff, can't review it right now.
And so I'm just like, take it back
if you're not done, like, you know,
feel free to work on it some more.
Um, but
um, yeah, those are the ways
in which kids have changed my
Khurram: approach.
And then you mentioned, you know,
tech views around, um, you know, the.
The challenges that tech companies
are having now around privacy, around,
um, addiction, you know, different,
different aspects of, of social media use
for children and questions about that.
Like how do you reconcile, you know,
the needs of a client and your personal
views around, you know, how you want your
children, um, which they wanna have with,
with social media and what they, what
you expect from social media platform.
Like how do you reconcile, reconcile
those two parts of your life?
Ambika: I don't think there is
a lot of conflict between them.
Um, I really do believe
that's, it is my job.
Not, um, not the job of the law
to keep my kid, like, to teach
my kids what social media is, how
it should be reused responsibly,
whether it should be used at all.
I mean, my kids, I, I mean, I haven't
reached this point yet, but like.
Should they wanna engage in social media,
I'll help them navigate it, you know?
Um, and, uh, I do wish sometimes that
on some services I had better tools
to limit, you know, for example,
limiting access to, uh, specific like,
types of content or specific content
while allowing others like that.
It can be hard to customize it.
And part of the problem is that because
we're, as a society, we seem focused
on making the platforms responsible
for what children see, um, online.
And, um, you know, I've, I've seen
some arguments that are really
like, I don't wanna say frivolous,
but they are not good arguments.
Like, um, you know, I had one
case where the client's terms of
service said something like, I.
It was all like, it was
an adult only platform.
It made that clear said by, you
know, entering your date, date of
birth, you're certifying that you're
over the age of whatever it was.
Um, and then a separate part, it said
people under the age of majority are
minors may not access the service.
And the claim in the, one of the claims
in the case was that means you guaranteed
in your terms it was physically impossible
for children to access your service.
Like it's just a completely
unreasonable reading in the context.
What it means is you are not allowed to
do so, not you physically can't do so.
Um, and I, I wish, you know,
I had another case where, um,
the other side was adamant that
my client should be able to
verify the ages of its users.
Now, age verification is not like,
you know, flip a switch and it's done.
It can't be.
Um, and it also has
serious privacy issues.
That's not to say that one day
we might not get to a place where
like that is a thing that we
do, um, but we're not there yet.
And I remember asking opposing counsel, I
said, what is it that you want us to do?
Like, how, like it's
not possible right now.
Like, and the response was,
that's your problem, not mine.
Um, and so I, I wish that we had a
more cooperative relationship with
the people who have these concerns.
We being like, you know, I wish
the tech companies and government
could work together on things as
opposed to just, you know, I think
it's different in Europe here.
It's very much like we're gonna pass
this law and then we're gonna penalize
these guys and, um, until they comply.
Um, and often those laws are
unconstitutional and it's
counterproductive to be overreaching.
Um, 'cause then the real
problem is still there.
Right.
Um.
I really do want, you know, parental
controls that are more tailored.
I can make more tailored for my kids.
I, you know, I could probably go
look for one and probably find it.
Um, but it sure would be nice if it
was like advertised or the government
was like, here are some ones that
we think are good or what have you.
Um, but I don't, yeah, in some states they
do have that, uh, not that specifically,
but like, education for parents.
Um, but it just doesn't seem to be,
uh, it's, it doesn't seem to be the
dominant way that people attacking
com tech companies think about it.
Um,
you know, I am a lawyer for,
uh, in one of these, in some of
these cases alleging that video
games are addictive to children.
My children play video games.
Um, and once again, you know, when
I, when I see in some of these cases
the number of hours, hi, and the age
at which their child, you know, like.
So-and-so started playing
at the age of three.
Um, so-and-so spends, you know, 15
hours a day playing video games.
Like, I'm sort of just wondering like,
what is going on that has made this
possible and to, and happen, you know?
Um, I ha my kids play
video games too much.
I don't like it.
Um, and it's a constant struggle.
Um, and now that they're getting older, I
can at least explain why I don't want them
playing video games as much as they are.
Um, but they're not playing, you know,
they didn't start playing at age three
and they're not playing 15 hours a day.
Um, and I can't fathom
that ever being the case.
Khurram: Hey, like you can watch
with some frequency at this point.
It's become daily, like, uh, you know,
videos of garbage trucks and construction.
Those are the two ones.
Yeah.
Love it.
And so, and then we also pair it with.
And I have mixed feelings
about this pairing with meals.
'cause I've observed just like an
adult, uh, you're more likely to,
you eat more when you are distracted.
Ambika: Yeah.
Khurram: Distracted, enjoying something.
And so, you know, he eats
pretty well as it is.
But then we will, you know,
put that in front of him
Ambika: and he'll just be like, mm, yum.
Totally.
I mean, my kids are one of my kids
I learned in, in therapy with him.
He, he was in therapy and
um, the therapist has these
like fidgets everywhere.
Fidgets were not a thing
when I was growing up.
Like, you did not, it was like,
you should not be paying attention
to something else or messing with
something else while you're also
paying attention to a conversation.
Um, and also, um, at my kid's school.
The head of the intermediate
division, who's a, a good friend.
I mean, she's no longer in that position,
but her office was full of them too.
And I was like, oh.
And you know, and one day my son
had a fidget he was taking to
school and the nanny was like,
do you really want to take this?
And I was like, I don't, I don't know.
Um, and so I asked my friend,
I was like, what do you think?
She's like, yeah, like, and,
and it's permitted in school.
And that's because if they have
something that they're doing like
this, and I find that I am the same
way, um, I pay better attention.
Um, and in therapy, talking about
painful issues is easier if you're
like throwing a ball back and forth
or, um, doing something that takes,
takes the sting away somehow.
And so, um, so with my kids, you know,
I feel the same way about drinking.
Like I don't, I'm not,
certainly not there.
He's 12.
He's not gonna be drinking alcohol
anytime soon, but at some point I will
introduce it to him, um, to make sure
he knows how to do it responsibly.
Um.
And, you know, that's,
that's all I can do.
Like, I, I view my, my job in
the world is to turn them into
happy, good people, you know?
Um, and part of that is knowing how
to navigate the world as an adult.
And, um, you know, we got him a watch
when he was nine or phone and maybe 10.
And it wasn't, he
doesn't play games on it.
It was because he's an anxious kid.
And when I was late to pick him
up for something, he would get,
he would just be terrified.
Um, and maybe that's something
you should have to learn, but
like in this day and age Yeah.
You really don't.
Right.
Like, as an adult, like you
just text and you say, Hey,
I'm running a little bit late.
Yep.
Um, and so, you know, it made gave
him peace of mind and it made me
less guilty being late to places
because I knew he wouldn't win from
me, that I was just running late.
Khurram: Yeah.
And so I'm curious, you know, in your,
your work seems very distinct to me
in that, uh, you know, I was a patent
litigator, and so the relevance of
public opinion is, is fairly low.
To be fair, most of my work is bench
trials, so I I was yeah, far less
opposed to popular sentiment, but
your work is virtually strictly
linked to pub to public sentiment.
So I'm curious about, I, I've
always been, I, I've never had very
satisfying explanations for our
relationship with tech companies.
Um, maybe the best analogy that I can
make is, you know, uh, uh, growing
up in the nineties, the nineties and
two thousands, a lot of the backlash
was towards companies like Walmart,
which clearly most people used,
but then had these very ambivalent
feelings about, and just also hated.
And so there's a.
Target of public I, or like, you
know, McDonald's, let's say, um,
you know, with, with, um, what was
that documentary I'm thinking of,
but, um, supersize or whatever.
So, um, with tech, it just, uh, I,
I'm curious to hear from your vantage
point, me you've been, um, you know,
you've been in Seattle for, for a
period of time, and so you've seen the
growth of, of tech companies there.
You know, uh, Seattle's had this kind
of, it's, it's relevance in tech has kind
of fluctuated over time and, and kind of
just gone this like, you know, very, yeah.
Spiky process of upward and then
down and then, and then much higher.
And so you, it hasn't been like
this steady, and then also public
sentiment on it, I think has been
kind of mixed in terms of like how
much we love it or, or hate it.
So I, I guess, can you speak to how
you, the role of sentiment tracking,
sentiment being strategic about sentiment.
Uh, policy, like how does
that play into your work?
Like how do you weave legal
reasoning, um, strategy?
I'm trying not to use your strategy.
I know.
I've already, I've
already blown my budget.
Okay.
With, with, um, this sort of
sentiment component to your work,
it's just, it seems to be a really
unusual way to, to really unusual
form that influenced your practice.
I'm not sure how,
Ambika: um, well look, you know, the
clients are businesses, um, and what's
good for the law is not necessarily
what's good for the business.
Um, and so, you know, when advising
clients, I think it's important to
understand what their goals are.
Um, and in these cases that are very high
profile and very, you know, have sometimes
have very disturbing facts, um, there are
strategic reasons to do various things.
For example, sometimes, um, clients
have an arbitration clause and the
reason for that, so it doesn't have
to be litigated in the public sphere.
Right.
Um.
Uh, I think the popularity of arbitration
clauses has waned over time to some
degree, um, for a variety of reasons.
But, um, some clients just won't make
an argument because they think, um, I
mean, I think, see if I can say this, um,
for many years I think some companies
were reluctant to use the First
Amendment in a way that said, you
know, we didn't know this content was
on our service and so we're protected.
Um, because they viewed it as, um,
for basically saying, we have a person
right, to have this smut on our service.
Right?
Which is not that different
from what Section two 30 says.
But the, but the result of that was
that Section two 30 took off, um,
and there was a lot of law developed
in it, and the First Amendment
law stagnated in the tech sector.
Until people were like, oh, we better
pay attention on the First Amendment too.
Um, culminating in, you know,
the moody net choice, um, case.
But because I come from a firm that has
such a strong First Amendment practice,
um, you know, I, I, I think a bunch
of us felt long ago that like, you
know, it's sort of full party to rely
only on section two 30, which can be
repealed, uh, to the exclusion of the
First Amendment, which is, you know, one
would hope never going to be amended.
Um, so, um, I haven't, you
know, interestingly, I haven't
had people like sort of
ask me, how do you do this work?
Or things like that.
You know, I think, um,
it's interesting that either your
comments about Walmart and, and
McDonald's, uh, you know, I'm trying
to think how analogous those are.
I think I.
I think so Walmart, you, you only
go to Walmart if you need something.
You only go to McDonald's
to eat something.
Technology is, is the source
of everything in some ways.
Um, and so there is no way, even if
you didn't want to use Walmart, Walmart
or McDonald's, you could do that, but
you can't not use technology really.
Um, and, and function, um, in, in society.
Um, and I grew up in the eighties,
nineties where I hadn't, you know, in
analog childhood there was none of this.
Um, but, um, and so there's,
you know, there's good things
and bad things about it.
And, um, you know, I think the important
thing is to, you know, the important
thing in any case in this field or not,
is to tell a story that's compelling.
To have a narrative that's
gonna resonate with a judge.
Because judges fundamentally
wanna do the right thing, right?
They wanna, you know, they,
they wanna be able to.
Find a doctrine that tracks what
they think is the right result.
Um, and so whatever you can do to give
them peace of mind that what they're,
if they dismiss a case, it's not gonna
be the end of the world for another
set of plaintiffs or, um, you know,
really the client is a good actor.
Um, and these are just bad facts.
Um, you know, sometimes these cases
involve children who've died by suicide.
Um, those are very hard cases because
the harm is so great, even if it
wasn't caused by the tech company.
Um, but by third party content or
what have you, a host of factors.
Um, and those, those are
cases that, you know,
you know, I, I have a different approach
in cases like that in terms of, you
know, whether to settle, when to settle,
you know, what arguments to make, what.
You know, because the reality is in the
law that suicide is an intervening cause
that generally gets rid of liability
for, you know, the, the tech companies.
But we don't, you know, it's not like
we're going around, like, I don't go
around saying like, let's say this,
you know, it's kind of not, it's not
an argument that, um, it's not an
argument that appeals to one's sense
of good and justice and fairness.
Um, right.
Um, what might resonate is
these, these are the specific
circumstances of this child.
Um, here are all the things that
were going on in their life here
are, you know, that kind of thing.
And so, um, but you know, that, that
needs discovery a lot of the time.
So it's, it's hard.
Khurram: Can you, just on a substantive
point, can you go back and just,
you know, briefly explain the
relationship between Section two 30
and the First Amendment, jurisprudence
and state of the past 10 years?
And I, I know that's a big question,
a lot to explain there, but for people
that are, it's obviously a hot topic,
but yeah, a lot of people, uh, maybe
they saw some dry summary of the Supreme
Court decision recently and just,
you know, just eyes glazed over, um,
Ambika: yeah, yeah.
Section two 30 was passed in 1996, and
the purpose was at the time, you know,
we didn't really have the internet.
I mean, we had the internet,
but most of us did not.
And, um, at the time, uh, the, you
know, at, at, at Common Law, arguably a
service could be like an a OL or Prodigy
could be responsible for the content
that it hosted that other people posted.
And Congress didn't want that to happen.
Actually, Congress passed a, an
omnibus law that was like, you can't
send harmful content to minors.
But also here's this like exception to
liability, um, for third party content.
And most of the law was struck down and
what survived was section two three.
And so over time it has been
expansively interpreted to protect,
uh, publishers that host third party
content that allegedly is harmful.
Um, and it has been litigated a lot
in the last probably 15 years, um,
because it is such a strong immunity.
Um, and, you know, it's, it's
one that kills lots of cases.
Um, and so it, it was designed to foster
the First Amendment on the internet.
Um, it was designed so, uh, in,
in the brick and mortar world, in,
you know, first Amendment land.
If I'm a bookseller and I have
obscene books in my collection that
I'm not aware of, I'm protected.
If I know they're there and I know
they're unlawful, well I'm not
protected with Section two three.
Doesn't matter what I know or don't know.
Um, and the reason for that is because.
When a service polices its own content,
um, it is incurring a risk of liability
because then someone can come and say,
okay, you, you, you, you vetted your
content, but like you left this one out
there and the number of messages, um, that
we're talking about was just staggering.
And so what, what Congress did
was say, okay, you're just not
gonna be responsible for that.
Like, you're gonna self-regulate, you
know, police your own services, um,
and no one's gonna come be able to come
after you and say, you missed this one
piece of content, and so you're liable.
And so they are
complimentary of one another.
Um, and, and I think people
don't always understand that.
Um, uh, I frequently get the
question, how can you say that
your client's a publisher but also
entitled to section two 30 immunity?
And the reality is that section two
30 immunity applies to publishers.
Like, the answer is, I.
These publishers won't be treated like
publishers at Common Law if the harm
is stemming from third party content.
But it's, it's, it's not
necessarily intuitive.
Um, and it does require
an attention to detail.
And I think that, um,
state legislatures down to
municipal, you know, bo governing
bodies, they don't, they're not
concerned with the details often.
Um, which as a citizen I find
disappointing because I, I, I can't,
you know, if I were in government,
I could think of much better ways
to, to do regulation in this area.
And I'm sure that's true in
all other areas of my life.
Um, and, and in this area at
least, whatever is politically
popular is what's going to happen.
Um, and that's not always
what's most logical result.
Khurram: Mm-hmm.
And then, um, and, and I am sorry
if I didn't understand it fully, but
then what was the relationship with
the First Amendment jurisprudence?
Like how did that, you know, now?
Ambika: Yeah.
So the, yeah, so the First Amendment,
um, as I said, if, you know, if you were,
the relevance is that the First
Amendment was being applied in
the brick and mortar world and
not on the internet ever, really.
Um, even though there were principles
that we now know from the, you know, the
net choice Moody case, which made clear,
I mean, there was this, there was this,
um, reluctance to treat online publishers
the same as brick and mortar publishers.
This idea that 10 companies and
tech services and social media
services were somehow different.
Um, and so we're not entitled to
the same protections, even though
what they were doing was the same
thing that publishers have been
doing for, you know, a long time.
So there's a case called Tio, um, I
can't, if it's Florida Star or something
like that, Supreme Court where.
Some negative thing was
written about a politician.
Um, and I think Florida had like
a write a reply, like requiring
the newspaper to host a response.
Uh, and the court said, no, no, no.
Like what messages you include.
That's, that's your, you know,
you get, you have that, right?
And, and the same is true with
social media and tech companies.
Um, they have the right to decide what mix
of content is gonna be on their services
to figure out what kind of communities
they wanna create, what they wanna
tolerate, what they don't wanna tolerate.
It's all about organizing content.
Um, and so the first member
principles apply equally to that
as they do to section two 30.
But because people were reluctant to
make those arguments, section two 30
kind of predominated, um, for a while.
Um, and then when politicians were like,
well, maybe we should get rid of section
two 30, you know, people came around and
started making more of the arguments.
And as I said, that culminate
culminated in the, in the net choice
case, which held that, you know,
services that are arranging, editing
content, et cetera, our publishers
under the First Amendment and entitled
to, you know, the same protections.
Khurram: Yeah, I can't remember
where read this years ago.
But, um, it, it is pretty fasting that,
uh, someone made the assertion, and I,
I haven't disagreed with it since then,
that, that media businesses are fasting
because they're, the existence of the
business is constitutionally protected.
That it just, it's hard.
I, I can't think of another business
model that's protected by the most
core tenants of our, of our government.
Ambika: I mean, the gun industry
is protected by the constitution.
There you
Khurram: go.
That's going.
Um.
Can you, uh, speak to, uh, so an obvious,
uh, we, early in the conversation,
you were talking about identifying
a change in technology that a body
of law is gonna be applicable to.
And so you recognize that tech
companies are becoming publishers
and so there's new terrain to be,
new clientele to, to work with.
They're, they are in their backyard.
So you saw this conversions happening
there, very obvious convergence, um,
is now ai that's this new frontier
that, you know, potentially section
2 32, 30 first Amendment applies to
and, and some disputes around that.
How are you thinking
about this new frontier?
Ambika: I mean, million dollar
question, uh, $10 million question.
I don't know.
Um.
You know, because the firm represents
content creators, um, and traditional
publishers as well as tech companies,
you know, we see it, we see the
arguments on both sides, right?
Um, and for the most part, on some
issues, we just stay outta the
fray 'cause we can't, um, take
positions that are inconsistent,
very inconsistent between those two.
Um, and so, I mean, it
will be really interesting.
I, I do think there is a chance that,
um, at some point, I don't know, when
the Supreme Court, um, decides that
AI information generated by AI is,
um, subject to lesser protection than,
you know, court protected speech.
So, you know, commercial
speech is, has less protections
than non-commercial speech.
I could see the court
saying, eh, same thing here.
Like, and the reasons for
that in the commercial speech
context, the idea is that.
Commercial speech is more robust
that people are, you know, companies
are gonna advertise, they're not
gonna be chilled by regulations of
advertising 'cause it's to their
benefit, extreme benefit to advertise.
And I think the, probably there is gonna
be some kind of similar analysis that, you
know, the, the generators of ai, um, stand
standup benefit from improving on ai.
And so maybe it will always exist.
We'll, never, it'll
never really be chilled.
And so the, the reasons we
afford protection of political
speech, which is much more
easily chilled, don't apply here.
Um, so I haven't seen, I haven't
seen that argument made by anybody.
Um, I, I could see making it, um,
you know, but uh, it would have to
go up very high in the appellate
courts to really gain any traction.
And much like we were just at the
beginning of section two 30 and the First
Amendment stuff, you know, 15 years ago.
I think we're just at the beginning,
um, of whatever this is going to become.
Um.
And I, and I don't know what it is
because the other thing is, is AI
is always evolving and changing and
it's not something that's fixed.
Khurram: Is there anything different
you see about the ecosystem of AI
businesses versus the tech businesses
you saw, you know, some years ago?
Um, and the impact that would
have on, I'm just thinking about,
uh, a young amba co Kumar today.
Like what, what would she be seeing as,
hey, like how do I create the opportunity
at my platform to be servicing, um, either
the copyright holders or the AI companies?
Um, how would you be thinking about,
is there something different about
this ecosystem or conditions today,
maybe at law firms as well for how
someone you at the states that you were
identifying this opportunity would act?
Ambika: Um.
Well, I'd be thinking about
who cares the most about this.
It's content creators.
It's um, uh, you know, content
generators, but also content users.
And I think there's probably some room
for growth in, in the area of helping
companies who want to make use of ai.
I'm just thinking right now, like I
read an article in the New York Times
the other day that, um, or maybe it
was Washington Post, something about
AI and, and, and medical advice, right?
That likes, you know, identifying
cases where somebody was able to find a
treatment for whatever they had that had
not been identified by their doctors.
Um, that seems like a
really beneficial thing.
Um, uh, and I have actually used such
technology, um, even though I'm the
daughter of two physicians, um, and I.
I, I don't know what's going on
in that space, but it wouldn't
surprise me if there are copyright
issues, if there are, um, you know,
issues on relying on the advice.
You know, even though there's
probably a disclaimer somewhere that
says you shouldn't rely on this.
Like, you know, someone's
gonna be like, I relied on it.
Um, and, um, I think every,
every industry's having to
figure out how to integrate ai.
Um, and so there will be, I mean,
there will be a range of claims
from like employment claims.
Like my reviews were generated by AI to,
you know, you just saw that the California
bar admitted to having some questions
generated by AI for the bar exam.
Like, you know, um, uh, to, you
know, to medicine, like I mentioned.
Um, you know, I'm, I'm sure it will
affect every industry and I guess I
would be, I wouldn't be so focused on
the tech companies, um, even though
I live in Seattle, um, because it's
gonna affect more than just them.
Um.
It's gonna be in areas outside
the copyright context too.
Um, although that will be an
interesting thing to watch.
And then, and then there's a
question of how does section
two 30, you know, apply to ai?
Um, you know, when, um, I pull up, um,
I mean this has already been decided,
but like, for example, like when I
pull up a, a map and I'm looking for,
I don't know, like Taylors in the
city of Seattle and I get like a few
options pop up, what if it's wrong?
Um, is that the service's fault for
giving me the wrong information?
Um, or not?
And um, so we know that that kind of thing
is protected by Section two 30 'cause it's
been decided at the circuit court level.
Um, but that's just a form of ai, right?
It's a, it's a form of taking
information and putting it in
a different format and, um.
And maybe even like, you know,
recommendations are a big thing right now.
Um, so, uh, so yeah, I, I, I don't know
that I have a specific area that I would
practice in or look for, but, um, you
know, the news is just as good of a source
as anything on, you know, what's coming.
Khurram: And I'm wondering for you,
y you mentioned, Hey, when I am, I'm
in a position now where I can pitch.
And, you know, maybe 10 years ago it
had been a long shot, but, you know, by
virtue of having ser service some of these
companies and, and clients and, and your
reputation maybe with, with, with clients
that haven't represented, or companies
you haven't represented, um, you've
boosted the odds of, of getting this work.
How do you, it seems to me that
someone in your position could be
balancing two different things.
One is picking up work today where
just there's, you know, you have an
opportunity to, you've got a set of tools.
That of course, expands and skills,
skills expand and the law changes.
Um, but you've got a playbook
to apply to companies.
And so you could just run that
playbook or you could be spending
more time thinking about the evolu.
You're doing some of this, right?
You're talking about some of the, the
evolution that you expect of either
jurisprudence or pervasive, pervasive
of the technology and who would
impact where potential, uh, clients,
potentially people could be affected by
laws and spending more time identifying
some frontier of your practice.
It's seizing that there's some
sort of balance to be had between
frontier work for you and, um,
executing on that playbook that you
have today for, for, for clientele.
Does that sound right?
Is that something that you balance?
Ambika: Yeah, I mean, for sure.
Um, I think it's kind of scary for
people who are used to doing one thing
for a period of years to think about.
A big jump to something else.
And it's not a big huge
jump, but it is a jump.
Um, and I, you know, lately I have
been feeling a little bit like, see,
I mean, I like my work a lot, but a
little bit, like more of the same, no
variety, um, and wanting some variety.
Um, and that could be a
place where it comes from.
Um, but I think that, um, I have a
very specific focus in and passion
in terms of the first amendment and
dissemination of information that keeps,
keeps me in this like, sort of like,
I, I don't wanna do employment work.
I don't wanna do, you know, class
actions that are not related to my field.
You know, I mean, there are a lot
of general commercial litigators
who are fine with that, but it
doesn't drive me to do anything.
Um, and so, uh.
And maybe you've identified
where I am right now.
I've got existing work, but it's where
there's this prospect elsewhere, um,
that I think about but haven't really
done much to engage in and get work in.
And I think partly because maybe at
this stage it's counseling, it's not
litigation, um, because I mean, it
is litigation in some senses, but
like we're just at the beginning.
Um, and so there is probably a lot
of counseling that's being done.
I know there was counseling being
done by my partners, for example.
Um, and the counselors are not
always litigators, and that's
true in companies as well.
Sort of how it's, it's
odd to me because, um,
it, it seems to me that like when
you're building a product and you wanna
know the risks of litigation that like
it, a litigator at some point
has to be involved because
there are things that we see, I.
You know, we're used to reading something
and turning it around and making it
seem like it's something different.
Um, but, you know, obviously that can't
be the rule in every, every product that's
developed and, and clients do con consult
litigators of course, but, um, but it's
a much smaller group of people than the
people that are litigating these issues.
Mm-hmm.
Khurram: You know, on that topic,
how do you get, so you're, you're,
you're talking about how people can
get counseled and understand risks.
They don't understand.
How do you do that on
the scale of your team?
How do you get new ideas from your team?
Or can you point to Matt as you've worked
on where someone that was on your team
that you manage presented some view
that was co to yours that you adopted?
Like how do you get new
ideas into, into your work?
Ambika: I dunno that, um, there's
ever been like an idea that
I ultimately disagreed with.
There have certainly been ideas that.
I'm skeptical of.
There's also, um, new arguments that, you
know, I'm pleasantly surprised someone has
come up with that I think are really good.
Um, there's, I mean, I, I, I am
a firm believer in, you know,
two heads is better than one.
Um, and so I do a lot of talk,
talking with my team about various
issues, talking out loud and or
in messaging, you know, uh, sort
of what makes the most sense here.
Um, 'cause there are many calls
in litigation that are not easy.
Um, and, and I tell my clients that too.
I'm like, look, you know, this
is not one I feel strongly about.
Here's what I think.
And, you know, 'cause they, they
should be participating too.
But, um, clients also provide new ideas.
Um, you know, they'll be like, you
know, and, and like, ones that I
never thought of, like, well, maybe we
should phrase it like this, you know?
And, um, uh, but usually.
If a team member disagrees with me
strongly, they'll be able to persuade
me or I'll be able to persuade
them such that we're never really
on a different page at the end.
And that's because my team is awesome.
They're smart.
Um, they're open to discussions
of different viewpoints.
Um, you know, hopefully they've, they've
learned from me, you know, I mean, the
priority is to serve the client best and
we understand what the client's goals are.
Um, there's room for disagreement and
approach, but there's, you know, very
little that, I mean, not always, but
like, yeah, there are certainly times
where I'm like, that is a dumb idea.
But, um, uh, they're not
usually coming from my team.
So, um, uh, you know, uh, so,
you know, new idea and new ideas
also come, like when I do, I.
Appellate arguments.
I have moot arguments with outside
counsel from other companies, which
like, sounds a little daunting, right?
Like, uh, not from other law firms rather.
So like here I am doing a moot with my
client for like, you know, a circuit
court and here are these other lawyers
that are basically my competitors
helping me prep in front of the client.
And actually clients suggest this
to me one time and now I'm just
gonna make it a practice if I
can, um, from a cost perspective.
And it's super helpful 'cause um, you've
been embroiled in this litigation and you
know what you think, but like, you don't
know what somebody fresh the case thinks.
Um, and so, you know, I don't often
call, you know, my competitors and
say, what do you think of this?
But, you know, I, I don't, I'm not,
wouldn't put it, it's not outta the
realm of possibility on certain things.
Um, so, um.
I mean, I often ask the general commercial
litigators, what do you think about this?
Um, so, you know, I'm always soliciting
input and I think that's one thing the
team likes about me is that I like to
vet these issues and not just sort of
be like, this is what we're gonna do.
Um, and hopefully that gives them the
ability to raise, you know, whenever
somebody's like, I have a dumb question.
I'm like, don't say it's
dumb 'cause you're not dumb,
and it's probably not dumb.
Yes, there are dumb questions, but
they're very few and far between, so,
you know, I want you to raise 'em.
And, um, and I think particularly
with women, um, they're not, we're
not taught to have as much confidence.
I think that's my anecdotal experience.
And so the chances that I'm gonna
hear, I have a dumb question from a
woman versus a man are much higher.
It's not that men don't do it,
they just don't do it as much.
Um.
I will tell the women on my
team like, don't do that.
Like, you're smart.
Like, you know, and I, and
people did that for me.
You know, they, they would, like, I
remember one of my mentors who was like
probably one of the best travelers in
Seattle once put in a review that I needed
to be able to speak up more in front of
clients because I had some valued add.
Um, and I, and I want people to feel
that way because I'm not, if, if
I, if I'm working with them, it's
because they do have some value add.
Um, and I'm looking to squeeze out as
much value as I can for the clients.
Um, because my goal is to, to often,
it's not to continue their litigations,
to get them outta litigation, um, in a
way that's consistent with their goals.
And so my goal is not, I mean, in
some ways it's self-defeating in the
sense that, you know, law firms have
historically prized billable hours.
But my goal is to spend fewer hours on.
My cases and have my team
spend a few hours on my cases.
Um, just, you know, enough to do a really
good job and get rid of it, whether
it's through a motion to dismiss or
summary judgment or, um, or, you know,
through a settlement of some sort.
Um, so I think that's
where I get, get new ideas.
Um,
you know, sometimes it happens in casual
conversation with friends, you know,
say something and it'll make me think
Khurram: on the topic of, so you
mentioned this, this mooting approach,
and of course it's only, you know,
when there's an argument to be made.
Um, at that point in the case.
Is there anything you're doing on
any hygiene you have on a weekly
or monthly basis with you or your
team that you think differentiate,
differentiates you or, or makes you
particularly skilled as a litigator?
Ambika: I mean, uh, I'm not one for.
Formalized processes.
Like, just to give you an example,
um, I had an assigned mentor
and then I had other people in
my life as a junior associate.
And I cannot say my formal mentors were
even close to being as helpful to me
as the people I worked with closely.
Um, and I would say the same thing about
probably like, I mean, would it be a
good idea to have a weekly or monthly
meeting or something like, probably.
Um, but the reality is I talk with
these people all day every day.
It's not as if like I go off to a
deposition, I'm gone and like, you
know, I, like, I'm, I have, I, my
messaging app is closed, but I'm sure
that like somebody has messaged me
about a case more than one person.
Um, and so, um.
One of my associates a new,
actually it was, it was a newer one.
You're familiar with her?
She said something like, I like that
you are like, kinda like a millennial.
Like you'll hash these
things out over messages.
And I was like, well, yeah.
And I, I think it's more efficient,
you know, and, and that is unusual
probably for someone of my generation,
but like, it's, it's just how I work.
And so my, my chats are full of
debates about what we should say or
what we shouldn't say, or, you know,
is there adoption that says this?
Or what do you think of this?
Um, and so, you know, my whole life,
whether personal or professional, is
it back and forth with other people?
Um, it's how I operate.
I, I think it's probably what
makes me, um, a good litigator.
Um, you know, I like to see
different styles and ideas and
pick the one I think is best.
Um, and, um.
That gets harder over time.
'cause it's sort of like, I know
this and I'm not gonna be swayed.
But, um, but the nice
thing is the law changes.
So like, you know, it, it doesn't have
to be that like I was wrong and it can
be, the law is different now, so it's
a little easier to accept, um, and
seriously consider a different idea.
Khurram: So you're the co-chair of this
practice, you know, it was this hard
one process that in many ways was the
very thing you were building towards,
uh, when you first joined your firm.
So what, what could top this?
Like, do, do like, like what
could be more graphing than
having achieved what you have?
You've got probably decades of
career ahead of you if you want it.
So what is it that's gonna motivate
you or, or is there some sort of,
how do you think about a goal or
something like that from here?
Because.
Is it something substantive like
argument at the Supreme Court or, you
know, what is it that is that North
Star that is the next level for you?
If, if that's how you think of it?
Ambika: I mean, that's one thing
is argument at Supreme Court.
I would love to do that, but, um,
even just, um,
I don't know.
I think we talked about
this the last few years.
I've really felt my
gender, um, in my cases.
And it, it's almost like the more
high profile of a case or important
of a case, the more I feel it.
Um, and I don't know why that is.
Um, but I would love to not feel that way.
That would be a goal.
Um, I, I don't know how to get there.
Uh, I think it might
be, might be impossible.
Um, but, uh, you know, one can dream.
Um, uh, I applied to be a
federal judge a few years ago.
Um, and I would seriously
consider that in the future.
It, to me it would be, I.
Very gratifying.
I think I'd be good at it, and I think
I'd be fair, and I think it would be
meaningful to me in a completely different
way than, um, than what I do now.
Um,
I mean, those are the things
in my career, a lot of my
overall goals are more like, like
personal, like raising my kids, um,
to make it so that other women don't
feel this way when I have two sons,
you know, to make it so that, you
know, that's not a thing, although
I think it'll always be a thing.
Um, or, you know, taking care
of my parents or, um, making the
most of the time that I have, you
know, knowing that it's finite.
Um, but you know, in terms of career,
I think arguing with the Supreme Court,
getting more cases where I like, that
are high profile where I'm the lead, uh,
and sort of the presumptive authority.
Um, on what we're gonna do, um, because
those positions are very hard to get.
Um, and they, you know,
for a variety of reasons.
Um, but I think that I would,
I'd feel good about that if that
happened more often in my cases.
Um, and I can see it possibly
moving that trajectory.
So it's not hopeless.
Um, uh,
I mean, I, I really enjoy mentoring.
Um, and I would, I would love
to find a way to do that.
I also think I'd be a good mediator,
but I'd have to like figure
out how do I become a mediator?
And that seems daunting.
Um, but, um, those are the
things that are exciting to me.
Khurram: I think there's obvious
things about becoming a federal
judge that are appealing.
Uh.
Influence you have, you know, the
variety of matters you take on and,
and that impact you have on society.
Um, what is underrated about
becoming a federal judge?
Ambika: Underrated?
Uh, I don't know.
I mean, I think just the ability,
especially in the area of criminal law,
to like have the ability to look at
somebody standing in front of me and make
an assessment, um, about what's going
to happen to them is very meaningful.
Um, I, I, I also, I mean, to be
clear, there are definitely drawbacks.
I interviewed a few judges when
I did this before I applied.
Um, and it's clear to me that
it's not the life for everybody.
And particularly right now, I'm not
sure, you know, if I were the judges
that were holding on constitutional, you
know, executive orders, I don't know.
I mean, it would be, would be
thrilling in some ways, but it
would also be scary in some ways.
Just like, you know, I.
Leaving the country and coming back as
someone who's brown, yes, a citizen,
but still brown is also terrifying.
So, um, not terrifying,
but it is worrisome.
Um, and the fact that I have
to worry about is terrifying.
Um, but,
um, I, I think judges have the ability
to help shape the profession in, in
the sense that, you know, when I'm
talking about women and men or younger
lawyers, older lawyers, you know,
some judges have a rule that's like,
we want more junior lawyers to argue.
Um, you know, I think there's a lot of,
um, authority and power in a, in a judge,
particularly a district court judge
who has more of an ability to affect
the day-to-day life of the people that,
that are clerking for them, that appear
before them, um, whether client or not.
Um, but um.
You know, and by being an example, um, you
know, that hopefully deters stereotypes.
Khurram: Well, I'm looking
forward to your potential
confirmation in the coming years.
Ambika: It's not gonna
happen, but that's okay.
Maybe, maybe
Khurram: Amika this is, uh,
exactly what I hoped it would be.
Uh, okay.
You know, it's such a great ins,
such a great glimpse into your really
unique career path, how you think.
Um, yeah, I just, I'm just
as a stuff now get outset.
I'm not gonna use the S word.
I've already, I've already, uh, said it
too many times, but, um, but yeah, just,
I think it's, it's very easy to talk to
you and, and, um, you have a lot to, uh,
to share that I think it's very relevant
for lawyers at any stage of their career.
So I really appreciate your, i your
direct communicator as you said.
So I, I, I just appreciate how much
you have to share here and, um,
hopefully we can do this again.
Ambika: Thanks.
I appreciate it.