Over the years, I have profiled my fair share of litigation funding conferences. As with any burgeoning industry, conferences provide important opportunities for market participants to get together in an environment conducive to education, discussion, and networking. I was not surprised, therefore, to see a number of big industry players — established funders, leading law firms, and others — start to advertise their sponsorship of a then-upcoming litigation funding “summit” that would be taking place in Chicago at the start of May. Indeed, everything from the agenda (over a dozen expert panels), to the venue (Museum of Contemporary Art), to the speaker list (respected voices from academia, legal practice, and the funding industry) suggested that this would be yet-another professionally managed entrant into the litigation funding conference calendar.
It was only later on that I learned that the whole thing was the brainchild of a law student and his colleagues. And when I had a chance to meet that law student at an NYU Law event I was attending, I decided on the spot that I wanted to learn more about him and his efforts. That sense was reinforced when I started to hear very positive feedback about the event itself after it took place. To that end, I was very pleased when he accepted my invitation to do a written interview for these pages.
Let’s meet our interviewee, who was gracious enough to agree to this interview despite this being graduation season. Charles Zuo is a graduating JD/MBA candidate at Northwestern University. During the program, Charles externed at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the N.D. Ill., clerked at Patterson Law, worked at Bridge Legal, and served as a law school ambassador for Harvey AI. Before Northwestern, Charles worked across China, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia — as a consultant at a management consulting firm, a corporate strategy associate at a $10 billion technology company, and chief of staff/corporate development at a family-owned business. He has studied English literature, business analytics, and machine learning in China and Spain.
In addition to his studies, Charles has a particular interest in third-party litigation finance, the evolving role of legal technology and innovative legal structures (Management Service Organizations and the Arizona ABS model), and their impact on the legal industry. He is building an AI-native legal platform focused on bankruptcy-related matters. He also holds three Specialty Coffee Association certifications. Over the past eight years he has been preparing to build a Blue Bottle-grade specialty coffee chain. In his personal time, he enjoys sci-fi films, bagels, city walks, and, for sure, coffee.
Now to the interview. As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Charles’s answer below but have otherwise presented his answer to my first question as he provided it.
Gaston Kroub: As you organized what turned into a very successful conference in the litigation finance space, how did you ensure that your conference featured a diverse set of voices?
Charles Zuo: My inspiration came from how legal codes are structured. Take bankruptcy law (my favorite subject) — it has both a procedural code and a body of substantive law. I am a firm believer that a diverse set of voices requires both a diverse set of people and a diverse set of topics.
On topics — which give the program its structure — the conference was built to span a wide range of panels: deal structures, market advisors, funders across multiple capital structures (credit and equity), the policy lens, the academic lens, legal technology, and Management Service Organizations, among others. Critically, no single entity held controlling power over any panel’s content — not panelists, not sponsors, not the conference host. In our panel prep calls, the host team made clear that high-quality conversations, even debates, were encouraged. I drew that conviction from Professor Bruce Markell and Professor Anthony Sebok, who were tremendously supportive. I am also grateful to our generous sponsors, who made the event financially possible without ever exerting editorial control.
On the people and panelists — who supply the substance — each panel paired speakers with common fluency but genuinely different vantage points. Take the bankruptcy panel: a sitting bankruptcy judge, a funder with Biglaw bankruptcy experience, two deal advisors with both funder and Biglaw backgrounds, and an academic who is a former bankruptcy judge with Biglaw experience. All speak the language fluently, but each brings a slightly different perspective to the same core topic. The secondaries panel is another good example: deal advisors, a law-firm founding member, counsel for a secondaries-transaction platform, and a chief strategy officer with funder and law-firm experience from a litigation case-management company. When you put multiple stakeholders on one panel, the chemistry happens on its own.
GK: Charles’s intuition about what makes for interesting dialogue and interactions on a panel comports with my experience speaking and moderating at conferences. That experience suggests to me that the best recipe for a compelling panel involves a range of voices, united in their interest toward advancing our industry, but disparate in their experiences and encounters with those operating in the field. I must also add how impressive it is that Charles was able to secure such a robust and credible set of sponsors for an inaugural event. I can only assume his transparency on what the event would cost to put on, coupled with the promise engendered by the thoughtful agenda and stacked speaker roster, helped give sponsors comfort that this was an event they could back with confidence. And based on the feedback I heard from those fortunate to have attended, both sponsors and attendees saw a nice return on their investment of time and resources in terms of what the conference delivered.
I will continue with Charles’s answers to questions 2 and 3 next time, which will center on the challenges Charles encountered getting the event going, as well as what he thinks contributed to its ultimate success. In the meantime, please feel free to consider investing in Charles’ coffee aspirations.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gaston@k2k.law or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of K2K IP Law, an intellectual property litigation boutique that also serves as a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gaston@k2k.law or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
The post 3 Questions For A Law Student Turned Conference Host (Part I) appeared first on Above the Law.
Over the years, I have profiled my fair share of litigation funding conferences. As with any burgeoning industry, conferences provide important opportunities for market participants to get together in an environment conducive to education, discussion, and networking. I was not surprised, therefore, to see a number of big industry players — established funders, leading law firms, and others — start to advertise their sponsorship of a then-upcoming litigation funding “summit” that would be taking place in Chicago at the start of May. Indeed, everything from the agenda (over a dozen expert panels), to the venue (Museum of Contemporary Art), to the speaker list (respected voices from academia, legal practice, and the funding industry) suggested that this would be yet-another professionally managed entrant into the litigation funding conference calendar.
It was only later on that I learned that the whole thing was the brainchild of a law student and his colleagues. And when I had a chance to meet that law student at an NYU Law event I was attending, I decided on the spot that I wanted to learn more about him and his efforts. That sense was reinforced when I started to hear very positive feedback about the event itself after it took place. To that end, I was very pleased when he accepted my invitation to do a written interview for these pages.
Let’s meet our interviewee, who was gracious enough to agree to this interview despite this being graduation season. Charles Zuo is a graduating JD/MBA candidate at Northwestern University. During the program, Charles externed at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the N.D. Ill., clerked at Patterson Law, worked at Bridge Legal, and served as a law school ambassador for Harvey AI. Before Northwestern, Charles worked across China, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia — as a consultant at a management consulting firm, a corporate strategy associate at a $10 billion technology company, and chief of staff/corporate development at a family-owned business. He has studied English literature, business analytics, and machine learning in China and Spain.
In addition to his studies, Charles has a particular interest in third-party litigation finance, the evolving role of legal technology and innovative legal structures (Management Service Organizations and the Arizona ABS model), and their impact on the legal industry. He is building an AI-native legal platform focused on bankruptcy-related matters. He also holds three Specialty Coffee Association certifications. Over the past eight years he has been preparing to build a Blue Bottle-grade specialty coffee chain. In his personal time, he enjoys sci-fi films, bagels, city walks, and, for sure, coffee.
Now to the interview. As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Charles’s answer below but have otherwise presented his answer to my first question as he provided it.
Gaston Kroub: As you organized what turned into a very successful conference in the litigation finance space, how did you ensure that your conference featured a diverse set of voices?
Charles Zuo: My inspiration came from how legal codes are structured. Take bankruptcy law (my favorite subject) — it has both a procedural code and a body of substantive law. I am a firm believer that a diverse set of voices requires both a diverse set of people and a diverse set of topics.
On topics — which give the program its structure — the conference was built to span a wide range of panels: deal structures, market advisors, funders across multiple capital structures (credit and equity), the policy lens, the academic lens, legal technology, and Management Service Organizations, among others. Critically, no single entity held controlling power over any panel’s content — not panelists, not sponsors, not the conference host. In our panel prep calls, the host team made clear that high-quality conversations, even debates, were encouraged. I drew that conviction from Professor Bruce Markell and Professor Anthony Sebok, who were tremendously supportive. I am also grateful to our generous sponsors, who made the event financially possible without ever exerting editorial control.
On the people and panelists — who supply the substance — each panel paired speakers with common fluency but genuinely different vantage points. Take the bankruptcy panel: a sitting bankruptcy judge, a funder with Biglaw bankruptcy experience, two deal advisors with both funder and Biglaw backgrounds, and an academic who is a former bankruptcy judge with Biglaw experience. All speak the language fluently, but each brings a slightly different perspective to the same core topic. The secondaries panel is another good example: deal advisors, a law-firm founding member, counsel for a secondaries-transaction platform, and a chief strategy officer with funder and law-firm experience from a litigation case-management company. When you put multiple stakeholders on one panel, the chemistry happens on its own.
GK: Charles’s intuition about what makes for interesting dialogue and interactions on a panel comports with my experience speaking and moderating at conferences. That experience suggests to me that the best recipe for a compelling panel involves a range of voices, united in their interest toward advancing our industry, but disparate in their experiences and encounters with those operating in the field. I must also add how impressive it is that Charles was able to secure such a robust and credible set of sponsors for an inaugural event. I can only assume his transparency on what the event would cost to put on, coupled with the promise engendered by the thoughtful agenda and stacked speaker roster, helped give sponsors comfort that this was an event they could back with confidence. And based on the feedback I heard from those fortunate to have attended, both sponsors and attendees saw a nice return on their investment of time and resources in terms of what the conference delivered.
I will continue with Charles’s answers to questions 2 and 3 next time, which will center on the challenges Charles encountered getting the event going, as well as what he thinks contributed to its ultimate success. In the meantime, please feel free to consider investing in Charles’ coffee aspirations.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gaston@k2k.law or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of K2K IP Law, an intellectual property litigation boutique that also serves as a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gaston@k2k.law or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
The post 3 Questions For A Law Student Turned Conference Host (Part I) appeared first on Above the Law.
