Jurors: Every Breath You Take, Every Move You Make, They’ll Be Watching You

Episode Notes

Transcript

Dave Scriven-Young:

Hello everyone, and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Dave Scriven-Young. I’m a commercial and environmental litigator in the Chicago office of Peckar and Abramson, which is recognized as the largest law firm serving the construction industry with 115 lawyers and 11 offices around the us. On the show, we talk to the country’s top litigators and judges to discover best practices in developing our careers, winning cases, getting more clients, and building a sustainable practice. Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast in your favorite podcasting app to make sure that you’re getting updated with future episodes. This podcast is brought to you by the Litigation section of the American Bar Association. It’s where I make my home. In the ABA. The Litigation section provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients. Learn [email protected] slash Litigation. Trial by jury is a basic American right, yet many people think that jury duty is a tedious, time consuming endeavor, but that’s probably because people view jury service as just waiting around the courthouse and never being called into a Courtroom.

That’s been my experience at least every time I’ve been called for jury duty. But for litigators, we relish the chance to serve on a jury to allow us to see a trial through the eyes of a juror. Today’s guest is Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd, who is an experienced litigator and a longtime leader of the ABA Litigation section, serving the section for the past four years as the Chief Diversity Officer, she was lucky enough to serve on a jury recently and will tell us her perspective. Over the past 20 years, Shanti has developed an extensive trial in Litigation practice representing national and local corporations and Litigation involving insurance coverage, insurance, defense, premise liability, merchant, retail liability, products, liability, labor and employment procurement and intellectual property law in state and federal court. She’s currently senior Counsel at Travelers previously founded the Jenkins Floyd Law Firm and was a former partner of Portus, Henkel and Johnson Law Firm in New Orleans, Louisiana. Welcome to the show, Chauntis.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Hi Dave. I am super excited to be here.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, I’m super excited to have you on the show. It’s been too long and you’re somebody that we’ve wanted to have on for quite some time. So we’re really interested to hear about the case that you have served on a jury for. So tell us a little bit about your experience. Tell us first of all about the case. What was the case about?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Sure. I was selected to be a juror in probate court involving a case with dealing with generational wealth. The petitioner was the wife of the decedent. She sought to probate the will of her late husband. The natural children of the decedent were from his first marriage, and they made a claim of undue influence and sought to invalidate the will. Now just a little background to invalidate a will in Georgia, the undue influence must amount to deception coercion that destroys the testator’s free will. So I reported for jury duty on a Monday and got selected the same day, and we reached a decision a verdict on Thursday of the same week.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Wow. Okay. So tell us about the jury selection process. So tell us, first of all, have you been called for jury duty before? And I know you’re originally maybe from New Orleans. Have you been called before? Have you served before? Tell us a little bit about your previous jury experience.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Sure. Just as a point of order, the opinions I express here today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Let me say that when I arrived at the courthouse, I arrived with absolutely no expectation that I would be selected as a juror. I have been called to be a juror many times in my lifetime and I’ve been excused due to legitimate work obligations or I’ve never made it past the jury pool room. It only took 25 years after graduating from law school to be selected. So I guess this was a present, but it really was a great compliment to my career. I found to my delight, the jury selection process went quite smoothly. Yet it was different compared to what I experienced in New Orleans versus now here in Georgia, in the greater Atlanta area. For instance, I only made it to the jury pool room and never made it beforehand.

So in this instance, one of the superior court judges came to the jury pool room before our names were called to thank the entire pool for showing up. Wow. I’ve never seen that done before. And explained the jury duty process, why it was important to our community and society as a whole. And this was, as I said, the first time, I’ve never seen this done, and I was really impressed by this thoughtful extra step and gesture to educate everyone and to manage expectations because as you might suspect, some were very patient and then there were others who were friendly, yet were very vocal about their desire to leave sooner rather than later.

So they were talking about childcare obligations and missing work, and it really was a friendly conversation, but could tell that some people just really wanted to leave. We were told that there were going to be two trials that began that week, one in probate court, and the other one is state court. So again, I’m sitting there, I’m waiting to not be called and thinking about what I was going to do or had to do in the office that day. And so when I heard my name, I was honestly shocked, got up, lined up to be escorted to one of the courtrooms, and I was just really all eyes and ears from that point because again, I’d never made it past the jury pool room. And so I just really observed everyone around me and everyone was friendly and just going into the Courtroom, how we were lined up, how we were organized by the bail of everything, all of my senses were tingling because I’m a trial lawyer and I never get to see this part because I’m sitting at one of the tables in the front talking to my clients, looking over my outlines, making sure all of my exhibits are marked.

I’m not paying attention to that aspect. It just was really great to just take it all in and understand how each step is so very important and critical to a smooth process for when the attorneys began to conduct voir dire.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, let me jump in and ask just a couple of follow-ups, because I think it’s really fascinating that a judge came in and talked to the jury pool beforehand. My only experience is in Cook County, cook County, Illinois, and the last time I was there, essentially everything was videos. So you’d walk in and there’d be a welcome video and then a video showing you what to expect. And it all was, I don’t know, remote and vague and as if, yes, they’re kind of playing lip service to the fact that jury service matters, but I would’ve loved to seen somebody come in and actually make that personal pitch and thank you like it happened with you. I mean, that sounds, it was a special moment.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

It was. And I really commend the judge for how she handled that because it helped to soothe and comfort those who are a little restless and underscore the importance and value of them being there and how appreciated that they were. I have not had the opportunity to appear before her since then, but I will make a personal effort to let her know how effective I thought that was and just how she stood out just compared to my other experiences.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, I love that. And you mentioned your experiences sitting at trial Counsel table, and obviously you’re at Travelers now, and I’m sure none of what you’re about to say is the opinion of travelers, but it’s of course your own opinion of what happened that day, the first impressions you had of the lawyers. And you mentioned when the jury walks in, you’re not necessarily paying that close attention to the whole pool. What were your first impressions of the lawyers as y’all walked in?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

So this goes back to my experience as a young lawyer before I ever came to Travelers about, once the jury is selected and once they walk in that room, the trial begins before you even ask a question, because the jury, at least what I did, I started observing them immediately, who are the parties on sitting to my left? Who are the parties sitting to my right eye contact is so important, body language was so important. And so the two lawyers who were there struck me immediately as being very acutely aware, very prepared in touch with their clients. They seemed to have a comradery with them. Their body language was someone who was concerned, who knew them, who was willing to talk with them. So they looked very prepared. And when they began with Adere, I automatically knew who was the trial, who was the trial lawyer, and who had more experience as a trial lawyer and who did not.

And I don’t know of any of them personally, but one person in particular just struck me just with his demeanor, his ease, the inflection in which he asked question, he knew that, okay, me arguing, my case starts right here, planting seeds about what this case is about, how this potentially affects my client, what the issues are, were reflected in his questions. Now, the other lawyer did a good job as well, but I could tell that one was more familiar than the other. And it made me think about the golden rule as litigators, as trial lawyers. We all know what the golden rule is. It’s improper acts jurors to place themselves in the victim’s shoes because the jurors are supposed to make their decision based on the facts and the evidence of the case. However, a great trial lawyer, an experienced trial lawyer, knows that although that golden rule exists, the way you ask questions during voir dire, you give the jury certain ideas, issues about what’s going to be important, and you’re actually indirectly asking them to put themselves in the role without doing so and breaking that golden rule. There’s a savvy to doing that and there’s a careful line to walk. And I found that both lawyers did a very good job of presenting the issues, important facts in each of their case and the questions that they asked. So that afterwards I was like, I know exactly what this case is about, it’s going to come down to this versus that. And surprisingly so did my fellow jurors.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Okay, so tell me more about that, because you know what you expect walking into vo voir dire, but the other jurors may not. And were there certain questions that they found more interesting than others? Were there some questions that they found offputting would love to hear more about what your fellow jurors said about the voir dire process,

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

The questions. So there were general, of course, we always ask general questions like, does anyone know this party or have you had any experience with them, et cetera, general questions like that. But the specific questions that had to do with it, has anyone been a caretaker? Has anyone been a caretaker of someone who passed away? Does anyone believe that just because you took care of someone, you took care of a family member, you should be compensated or left something in the will? Those specific types of questions elicited a lot of responses because again, you’re trying to draw out the strategy was who has that experience with wills or being a caretaker of someone who passed away? Those were important issues to both parties, both lawyers in the case. So there were a lot of people in that pool who responded and they were very candid and honest about how it made them feel.

And some of those responses were, yes, I think they do deserve X, Y, and Z. And then some were like, no, that’s a family member. And even though those questions were asked in the room before we were ultimately in the Courtroom, before we were ultimately selected, it carried on past that. So those seeds, those issues were planted in the minds of many that it evoked emotion. And I think it also influenced them early on. I was very surprised about how early on they were influenced just by the vo dire questions without one iota of evidence underscoring how important that initial process is.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely. And so tell us generally, obviously don’t name names or anything like that, but generally, what other types of jobs did you see your fellow jurors have? So obviously one lawyer on the panel, who else was represented?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Well, this probably was the most unique panel ever because there were two lawyers on the panel.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Oh, no kidding.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Myself and another retired lawyer, there was one physician, someone who had a very specific scientific background, and everyone was a professional and their own form or fashion. And I mean, they were diverse in a number of different ways, including the fact that there were only three women and nine men. Now, from a trial lawyer standpoint, that’s important to me because I’m trying to figure out why they’re choosing this person. And the decedent in this particular case was a man. So having nine men, both sides clearly agree that a male being in this process and a part of the deliberation was extremely important. Their thought process was I think, very influential, or at least the attorneys thought. So only having three women was interesting as well. To me, it really just made me think about, again, the dynamics and what their strategy was. But yeah, we had a very great panel, very analytical group of professionals.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, it sounds like it. And how did the judge handle challenges, and what were your fellow jurors thinking? What were you thinking as folks got challenged and perhaps removed from the jury?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Well, the way that juries are selected in Georgia in comparison to my home state of Louisiana is a little different because in Georgia you strike jurors and the ones that you have left are ultimately the ones who continue on to be served. So I didn’t get to hear the good stuff, the challenges, we weren’t privy to all of that. But the process of, again, selecting the jurors actually, I mean, we were able to do that. And it was finished, I think right before we took a break for lunch. So maybe about three or four hours. It did not take as long as I thought, but it went very smoothly. And again, all of the attorneys to their were very professional, very courteous, and so if there were any major challenges, I didn’t know about ’em, but from a technical standpoint, listening to the responses of jurors who clearly said, I don’t want to be here. I cannot be fair and impartial, you already knew who was going to have a peremptory strike versus for cause, et cetera. I could listen to the responses and make those predictions. And that was fun for me to do because I knew what might be coming just based listening to what others had to say.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Okay. So let’s talk more about what happened during the trial. We don’t need to go through moment by moment, but just generally sitting through the trial as a juror, what I guess surprised you the most as being a juror as opposed to being a litigator?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Well, I talked a little bit about the whole golden rule dichotomy, right? And how doing voir dire really and truly, you can make an impression upon the juror, it’s not made you do. And so carefully draft drafted questions, they don’t end in the Courtroom. When the jury’s being selected, they carry on. So you need to think about that. The seeds you plant carry on throughout the entire trial, never underestimate the impact of personal knowledge versus hard evidence. This case being a probate case, of course, dealt with a lot of testimony about what the decedent desired, what he intended, what he wanted ultimately versus what the actual parties thought. And although we had several wills and other hard evidence to examine circumstantial evidence and the testimony and the emotion that came from that testimony was very, very persuasive in this probate case. And of course, depending on what type of litigator you are, we all know that that also can carry weight in other type of cases as well.

But you should never underestimate that. Choosing your witnesses carefully was important. In this case, for something such as undue influence in my, as a lawyer, I would’ve expected more expert testimony to be presented about an undue influence, and that wasn’t present in this particular case. I’m not sure any of my fellow jurors picked up on that, but to me that was an element that I expected to see. And there was not much of jurors watch and see everything. I knew this, but I really got to understand that they do. They notice who was in court, who was not in court, who body language, facial expression, and at one point comments that were made about one of the parties just appearing very cold until she took the stand and gave her version and her testimony and how quickly that changed the sentiment. So they draw conclusions very early on.

So laying out your case as a litigator very strategically and anticipating knowing your client and taking a step back and looking at your client and thinking about how are he and she being perceived, how did their testimony come across objectively versus what you think it should mean is important. And I think one of the lawyers did a very good job in making sure that was balanced compared to the others. So every aspect becomes important because jurors are watching and seeing everything. And I personally, that was important to me. Whenever a question was asked, I would pivot and look at the party to see how they reacted, because you’re trying to weigh the veracity of every statement, all the evidence, and how they reacted to it. And so that really helped me. And I think my other fellow jurors noticed that as well.

Dave Scriven-Young:

You talked about emotion being involved and probably nothing is more emotionally charged than a family dispute, certainly after the death of a family member. But yet you had analytical jury, analytical jurors, doctors, lawyers, professionals. How did you weigh that emotional component as opposed to looking at it analytically and you trying to follow the law? Did you find yourself emotionally swayed at all by any of the parties or any of the lawyers?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

As a lawyer, I was determined to examine every piece of evidence because I know how much effort goes into gathering evidence, submitting it properly before the court. I just felt obligated to do that for the other fellow attorneys in this case. And surprisingly so did the other jurors comb through everything. And I always question that, do they actually look at it? However, an important aspect of this case was again, what did the decedent really want? This case involved multiple wills. And the very last will that he changed was right before his death. And we were trying to determine, we read everything, what did he really want? And there was one piece of evidence, a text message that he wrote to his wife in the middle of the night about how he felt about her, how important she was and how important their relationship was. And one of the jurors actually in the middle of the deliberation raised up this piece of evidence and said, we keep talking about what he want.

He said what he wanted right here. That to me, was one of many pivotal moments about how we evaluated the emotional aspect in determining whether or not there was undue influence or not. And so I was impressed by my fellow jurors and the time and effort that they put into that. And that one person in particular was like, here’s the answer right here. This is a great reflection. And so we balanced that with, of course, the instructions from the court and what the actual law was. But it made me think that this is just, again, a reflection of what actually happens to some degree in many cases. And so don’t underestimate the ability for the jury to analyze documents and listen to the emotional aspects to reach a decision that they believe is fair. And another thing that really impressed me or that stood out to me was objections.

We know as litigators how important it is to preserve the record, right? Because of a potential appeal. One lawyer in particular was spot on with just about every objection. He was surgical, and you could tell he was very well versed with the rules of evidence. However, I do think at some point the multiple objections began to have a negative effect upon the jury. Not sure how he knew that, but again, I think that being a really good trial lawyer, he read the jury, he read some expressions, and maybe he anticipated that I don’t want this to come across the wrong way. And during his closing, he actually addressed it, which I thought was brilliant because I think it was effective in explaining to the juror why objections are necessary, why it carries weight. And again, I thought it was a nice touch that I had never seen done before. Lawyers were taught not to apologize for something, especially depending on what it is at court, but he did it so thoughtfully that it left a really, really great impression.

Dave Scriven-Young:

That’s so smart. Let’s talk a little bit about the jury deliberations. So before you deliberated, I’m sure the judge gave some instructions and tell us a little bit about the instruction process, but also more importantly, how the instructions played a role in guiding your deliberations and decision-making as a juror.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

It was clear to me as a litigator that all the parties had reviewed the instructions beforehand and had weighed in on that, and the judge did a good job of delivering those instructions to the entire jury. We were allowed to have certain information when we went back into the jury room with our notes, that was so important because again, this was the first time for many of them serving on a juror. So knowing what we should consider, what is not evidence, how the deliberations will take place, that’s just as important. It made the process smoother. We did have questions along the way, and we were able to share that with the judge accordingly, according to the rules, and the judge provided a response expeditiously. So that was really important, and I made many mental notes during this process, but just to make sure that the instructions are clear in layman’s terms, not lawyer terms. Right.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And I had a question about that because, so you had two lawyers in the room. Were the two lawyers kind of taking the lead and explaining what those instructions were, or did you find that the instructions were so clear that that wasn’t necessary?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Well, as fate would have it, I ended up being the jury foreman.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Of course you did,

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

But the other lawyer in the room did assist. Yes, we worked together to explain exactly what the judgment meant. So I think that really was to the benefit of everyone in the room, and we didn’t get any pushback about that. I was thankful that they kind of trusted us, that we knew what we were talking about. But I also think in combination with how they were crafted, it made it easier. Again, just through experience. You’ve seen some situations where they’re not as clear and the jury keeps going, coming back and forth. They don’t understand that we didn’t have a lot of that, thankfully.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Tell us a little bit about the dynamics of the jurors during deliberations. Were there any particular disagreements? And you don’t have to get into specifics obviously, because you want to keep it confidential to the extent that you have to, but you tell us generally about how things went during the deliberations.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Well, I will say that I was pleasantly surprised at the sense of comradery that we developed over a very short period of time. And I don’t know what I actually thought about how jurors got along, but everyone got along. It was everyone was very respectful, thoughtful. I was impressed by the analytical skills of each of these jurors, and I now understand why to a large degree why they chose people with the backgrounds that they had. Most of the people in their roles were leaders. They had analytical roles. And it really helped in this particular case where details were important, interpretation was important. And so the way that we deliberated was in a very fair process. Everyone was able to communicate how they felt about particular issues. We listened. There wasn’t a matter of cutting anyone off. It was just a very respectful process. And again, I was all ears and eyes listening to everything because I just really wanted to understand how everyone processed the information, understanding that every case is different, every jury pool is different, but it really, really went well.

But it was really great discussion and analyzing every aspect of the law. We talked about what certain laws meant and how to reach a conclusion. And what I really walked away from was feeling that it was a good faith effort by everyone. I didn’t feel like anybody was a slacker, right? Or anybody was just following the leader. No, we all were all vested and felt strongly about our positions and our thoughts, but we were able to come together and come to a consensus and do what we felt was fair and right. In this particular situation,

Dave Scriven-Young:

How did the voting take place on the final verdict? And again, I’ve never served on a jury, so my only impression is what I get from TV and from movies, which is sometimes you see in movies and TVs, as soon as they get into the jury room, they take a preliminary vote and then they deliberate. Did you guys do that? And then how did you kind of come to a final conclusion? Was it a secret ballot sort of thing or raise of hands or tell us a little bit about how that took place.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

We decided to unanimously, we decided to allot a certain amount of time for everybody to review the evidence first look over everything, and then we went one by one and talked about what we thought while each person spoke afterwards as the jury foreman, I just kind of tried to make sure that we were being respectful and let everybody have their time. We asked questions after every person spoke and went one by one. And then we had a full discussion about which direction we wanted to go in. And we were not unanimous every time, but eventually our final vote, we were unanimous and reached a consensus about it.

Dave Scriven-Young:

You got there. Okay. Well, Shante, this has been a great conversation, and I’m sorry to say that we’re at the end of our time together, really. Any last thoughts that you might have for our listeners on the lessons that you learned during your experience serving on a jury?

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

Yes, I am so glad that I did it. This was just a great opportunity. I was impressed by and really respected the work that each of the lawyers put into their case. I can tell that they worked hard, and it just really, really emphasized how important serving as a juror is as citizens. It’s important to protect the rule of law and to help ensure fairness In our judicial system, it’s imperative that we all make time to serve despite the work obligations, make the time to serve because you make a difference in a fellow citizen’s life and it’s transformative, and it was really a rewarding experience. I’m so glad I did it, and it gives me a new respect for all of the trial lawyers out there because I’ve been on both sides and just heightened my respect for the whole process.

Dave Scriven-Young:

I love that. Well, Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd, thank you so much for being on the show today. Really appreciate you giving your perspective and helping us to understand what it’s like to be a juror. Really appreciate it today.

Chauntis Jenkins-Floyd:

My pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Thanks to Litigation section premier sponsor, Berkeley Research Group for sponsoring this podcast. BRG is an award-winning global consulting firm, composed of world-class experts in accounting, damages analysis, economics, finance, intellectual property valuation, data analytics, and statistics who work across industries, disciplines, and jurisdictions, delivering clear perspectives that you can count on. Their guiding principle is intelligence that works. Learn [email protected]. And now it’s time for our quick tip from the ABA Litigation section’s mental health and Wellness task force. And I’d like to welcome Erin Clifford back to the podcast. Erin is a lawyer and director of marketing and business development at Clifford Law Offices in Chicago. She provides overall management of strategic business development, such as planning, coordination, and implementation of marketing and business plans. She’s also the founder of Erin Clifford Wellness, where she works with families, professionals, and corporations in creating and maintaining healthy lifestyles through nutrition, life and wellness coaching. Welcome back to the show, Erin.

Speaker 3:

Thanks, Dave.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, I understand you’re going to be talking about lifestyle strategies for today. So what’s your quick tip?

Speaker 3:

So my quick tip is that spring is the perfect time to spring into a happier, healthier wellbeing. So when I think of spring, it’s all about rebirth and renewal, which makes it the perfect time to turn over a new leaf and give yourself a fresh start just as our physical spaces may be neglected and become entangled with the messiness life during the coldest months. So does the space within our mind, body, and spirit. And this is especially true for those of us in the legal profession who often struggle with Cronin stress and burnout. So I have six simple strategies that can be super helpful as we come into this season and carry you through the nice and warmer months. So first off, we want a clear space by making what I like to call a Byrne list. So first, you want to think about any negative emotions that might be taking up space within your mind and body.

Maybe there’s a goal that hasn’t come to fruition. Maybe there’s a toxic relationship in your personal or professional life. Perhaps you’re feeling disappointed, resentful, angry, or frustrated about something, or maybe you’re just constantly engaging in that negative self-talk. So now grab a pen and paper and write down a list of things that you think are negatively impacting your wellbeing and you want to let go of. And once you’ve done your list, you’re going to either Byrne it or tear it up as a symbol to move forward this spring with a new mindset. And this can be a really fun exercise to do with your family, friends, or even your colleagues. Next, a great way to get a little spring cleaning is to actually go in and clean out those external spaces because the physical act of cleaning and decluttering can actually improve our mental and physical health.

It can increase our productivity and mood, and we’re all very busy. So I always advise my clients to start small and just pick up one area of your office or home. Maybe it’s a drawer, it could be part of your closet. And organize piles of keep throwaway and giveaway and set a schedule and do it on multiple days. We don’t want this to stress you out more and you want to make it entertaining. So listen to your favorite podcast, your audio book or music. Also, spring is a great time to add in some mindfulness to your routine, which is going to promote some more mental positivity. And how can you do this? You can do this by meditating, just starting with five minutes a day. If this is something new to you, there’s lots of guided meditations online or apps such as calm or headspace.

You can also practice gratitude by just writing down five things a day or thinking on them things that you’re grateful for over time. This can really shift your mindset. Do a digital detox. We’re always on our phones and computers too much. So commit to cutting back on social media, shopping news websites, especially before bedtime and exercise. Moving is one of the absolute best things you can do for a mental boost. And I always tell my lawyers, schedule it in your calendar like you would every other appointment, because otherwise we have a tendency to put it off. And speaking of making sure we practice some self-care every day is really important. What is self-care? It’s really about taking the time to do things that you enjoy and supporting your routines with exercise, healthy nutrition, mindfulness, sleep hygiene. It can be as simple as having a cup of tea in the afternoon or planning a vacation.

Also, maintaining those boundaries, getting a haircut or manicure, making sure you go to your doctor’s appointments. And I know we’re all really busy, but you are worth at least a five minute pocket of self-care every day. Next, make sure you still are connecting with others. As busy lawyers, we often neglect our connections with friends, family, and colleagues, and even sometimes the people we live with. How often are you sitting at the dinner table and everyone’s on their phone instead of really enjoying each other’s company? So make a point this season to connect with others by either sending a text, an email, a call, scheduling a walk, a coffee date, maybe during a meetup over the weekends. I always like to tell my clients, all the success in the world cannot hug you back. And finally, give yourself grace. We often set theBar highest for ourselves. So this spring season, cultivate some self-compassion and empathy by allowing yourself to be less than your idea of perfect, because after all, perfect is really boring.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, thanks Aaron for those really helpful tips and thanks for being here today.

Speaker 3:

Thank you.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, that’s all we have for our show today, and I’d love to hear your thoughts about today’s episode. If you have comments or a question you’d like for me to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact me at [email protected] and connect with me on social. I’m at Attorney Dsy on LinkedIn, Instagram X and Facebook. You can also connect with the ABA Litigation sections on those platforms as well. But as much as I’d like to connect with you online, nothing beats meeting you in person at one of our next Litigation section events. So please make plans to join us at the 2024 Section annual conference in Washington DC taking place May 1st through the third. This section annual conference is the premier event for litigators. It brings together top Litigation professionals from across the US to discuss timely legal issues and the latest in trial advocacy, Litigation strategy, and case management.

The conference will include over 20 dynamic programs highlighting all aspects of Litigation. There are, of course, will be multiple opportunities to network during the programming breaks and breakfast, as well as the welcome reception, networking Luncheon, international Spy Museum reception, and the John Minor Wisdom and Diversity Leadership Luncheon. To find out more and for registration information, go to ambar.org/sac 2024. If you’d like to show, please help spread the word by sharing a link to this episode with a friend or through a post on social, and invite others to join the show and community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcasts, it’s incredibly helpful. Even a quick rating at Spotify is super helpful as well. And finally, I want to quickly thank some folks who make the show possible. Thanks, Tom. Mighell Obert, who’s on staff for the Litigation section. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the Litigation Section’s audio content committee. Haley Maple and Tyler, true thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network. And last but not least, thank you so much for listening. I’ll see you next time.

Continue Reading