1. Looking back, which professor, clinic, or course at McGeorge School of Law most influenced your professional thinking, and why?
I didn’t know any lawyers growing up, the ones I knew were on TV in criminal law procedural dramas, and that’s what I thought being a lawyer was. But in the summer of my first year I had a course on international business lawyering from Professor Joseph Smallhoover, and that changed my trajectory completely. I realized that there were massive problems that large international companies had to deal with, and that thinking about and solving these problems could be endlessly interesting. It set me on the course of pursuing a career focused on international law, and the problems that multinationals face.
2. You went on to earn an LLM in Competition Law at King’s College London. How did that experience complement or challenge the foundation you built during your JD at McGeorge?
At University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, I learned how to think and write like a lawyer. But for the area that I wanted to practice, I needed to dive deeper into a subject matter that wasn’t offered at McGeorge. I supplemented my antitrust and competition classes with courses on economics and regulatory policy. I also began to develop an understanding of European perspectives, and started my own personal integration into Europe. It was my first concrete step and commitment to being an international lawyer, and it opened up doors for me in Brussels where most firms required a masters degree.
3. As someone familiar with U.S., U.K., and EU law, and with a background in computer engineering, how do legal landscape in these regions affect tech-driven startups and entrepreneurs?
To generalise broadly, in Europe, things are forbidden unless they’re allowed, while in the U.S. and the UK it’s the opposite. The default is liberty and freedom, unless there’s a specific prohibition. Entrepreneurs don’t have to ask for permission for everything they wish to do, and that means there is more air to breathe. They aren’t stifled by having to win approval in order to begin. They don’t need to have pre-existing relationships and favor from the powers that be. In the US and the UK, you can just do things. You can build. But in Europe it’s a lot harder, and there’s a lot more pressure on “doing it the right way” rather than the outcome. I think that’s why a lot of European tech entrepreneurs end up leaving.
4. As a lawyer and computer engineer serving as Senior Director for Europe at the Chamber of Progress, what are your views on AI development and its impact on the practice of law?
I think the AI revolution is going to be more transformative than the internet has been. It will change the way we do business, across the board. The legal landscape won’t be saved either. We’ve already seen how much emails and blackberrys changed clients’ demands and expectations for outside counsel. I think AI tools will increase expectations even further, and make it harder for average firms to compete. I think the bigger firms will get even bigger, and a bigger share of the biggest clients’ work.
From a progressive perspective, AI will democratize so many things. The value that it will generate for average people who use it correctly will be mind-boggling. What is accessible only to the top 1 percent today, all forms of personalized services — from teaching to delegating — will become accessible to so many more people thanks to AI.
5. How should countries and unions shape their AI policies to support innovation while also protecting competitors and users?
Like with the early days of the internet, I think we just have to accept that we’re entering a bit of an unknown period, and try to address harms as they arise, with targeted regulation against the most foreseeable and likely risks. Because of AI’s transformative potential, there’s just too much pressure to not fall behind internationally. Even EU Member States are now calling for the EU’s AI Act to be paused, because they are concerned about over-regulation causing their economies to fall further behind. There’s also a lot of benefit for being a second, or third, mover. To see how the regulatory approach pans out before jumping in. At the end of the day, it’s a lot easier to regulate well, and convince other jurisdictions to take a similar approach, if you have something of your own to regulate. AI regulation’s success will ultimately be measured by what it safely enables, rather than what it prevents.
Bio
Kayvan Hazemi-Jebelli (Kay) ’08 is Senior Director for Europe at the Chamber of Progress, based in Brussels. Kay previously worked as Competition & Regulatory Counsel to the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and has over a decade’s experience working as a competition lawyer in private practice, in the European Commission Directorate-General for Competition, as a visiting researcher at King’s College London, and as Senior Legal Counsel at a leading UK media and communications company. Before that, he worked as a computer engineer.
Kay received a BSc degree in computer science and engineering from UCLA, a JD degree from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and a LLM degree in Competition Law from King’s College London. Kay enjoys teaching and knowledge sharing, and has lectured on competition law and policy in several universities, in Europe and the U.S. He also started a podcast on European tech policy.
Kay has been passionate about technology ever since his dad brought home an x286 based PC in the ’80s. He grew up in Silicon Valley and learned to build computers in high school (which he then sold on the internet, in the ’90s). When he’s not working to help all people benefit from technological leaps, he enjoys visiting museums, live music, and walking in nature.