Inside the Murder Trial of the Century, with Prosecutor John Meadors: The Alex Murdaugh Case

Episode Notes

Transcript

Dave Scriven-Young:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host Steve scr. I’m a litigator practicing environmental and construction law in the Chicago office of O’Hagan Meyer. And I also coach young lawyers on how to accelerate their careers without burning out. On this 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 billing a sustainable practice. Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast on 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 A BA. The litigation section provides litigators of all practice areas to resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients. Learn more at ambar.org/litigation. Throughout history, attorneys have been in the spotlight of high profile litigation and face the unique challenges of handling highly publicized cases and their impact on trial strategy.

On the one hand, it’s crucial to ensure that these high visibility cases are reported fairly and accurately, which is a growing challenge and stays increasingly polarized media landscape. On the other hand, how can we protect our witnesses, jurors, and other participants by being influenced by the surrounding publicity? And this is one of the topics that will be covered during the A BA litigation section’s annual conference being held in Chicago from April 30th to May 2nd. And I’m very honored to have on the show one of our speakers for the panel that’s entitled The Court of Public Opinion Litigating and the Media Spotlight. And our guest today is John Meadors. He’s a prosecutor in the South Carolina Attorney General’s office. He has been trying murder cases for the past 35 years. John was part of the prosecution team that tried the case leading to the conviction of Alex Murdoch for the murder of his wife Maggie, and their 22-year-old son Paul. The trial is known as South Carolina’s trial of the Century and arguably one of the most high profile and sensational cases in South Carolina legal history. Welcome to the show, John.

John Meadors:

David’s a pleasure to be with you today.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, it’s a pleasure to have you on. Really appreciate you taking the time and looking forward to your discussion at the annual conference. But we wanted to give folks a taste of what you’re going to say at the conference. So if you could just give us the CliffNotes version of what the Murdoch trial was about.

John Meadors:

Well Dave, I’m looking forward to the conference also, and if you don’t come to hear me, there are two other great speakers too on the panel. And I’m really looking forward to participating in the discussion of litigating in the media spotlight. This was a case I got brought in toward the end of six or eight weeks before it started. I’d heard of the case most of the country and most of my family knew. Most of my family knew more about it than I did, but it was an attorney from a well-known, prominent family, if you will, who was accused of killing his wife and his son, been in the media. It was in the media. There were other instances besides the murder that had been in the spotlight prior to this, a boating accident involving the son Paul, where he was accused of being the driver and under the influence. And all this was leading up to this trial when I got involved and I said it was, I knew it was going to be big in the spotlight, but I really didn’t realize how big till we actually got down to the courthouse in Walterboro. And that’s some of the practical matters I’ll be discussing. I know in Chicago, and I’ll tell you now, the first thing that literally hit me were the trucks as we were

Dave Scriven-Young:

Walking. Yeah, yeah. So paint a picture for us as to what was it like outside of the courthouse walking in for trial?

John Meadors:

Sure. It is a beautiful courthouse. If you hadn’t been to Walter Barron, everybody needs to come see it, but beautiful old courthouse, small. But as we were walking up N-B-C-A-B-C-C-B-S, court, tv, our local TV channels from Greenville, South Carolina, Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina. And it just hits you right there. And obviously we knew it was big, but when you actually see it, you feel it then. And then the reporters, I know Craig Belvin was there the first day we were getting started along with Nancy Grace, just some figures that some folks may know. But anyway, the point being there was a lot of coverage. One thing that from my perspective was trying to keep it in perspective, trying not to lose focus and stay out of the limelight if you will, and focus on the witnesses and the testimony each day. We went in, there were some reporters, and I know you reporters, some reporters get a bad name, but everybody was just as pleasant as they could be and professional. And I had a ritual when I was kind of fist button fist bumping folks as I came in and we kind of did it all six weeks, but that was kind of the atmosphere. You got to know everybody. But then when it came time to focus, it was time to focus, which I think we did.

Dave Scriven-Young:

What was it like inside the Courtroom? Were there cameras? Were there reporters? Tell us what that was like.

John Meadors:

Sure. It was crowded by the end of the six weeks. There was actually standing room, only a waiting line to get in, but they had one camera, which I think is what they do now. Court TV I think kind of provides, and then everybody else picks it up at the other stations. But in additions to the booths outside, you had certain rows that were, I guess reserved for the media. And so they were all there every morning. You were seeing the same folks come in and you had to maneuver that. And then as far as just practically, it’s a small Courtroom and it was a grand jury box on your right, jury on the left and not much room for all the exhibits, but you just had to operate within those confines and that’s what we did. And you just adjusted to it. It was exciting.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And you mentioned some kind of informal interactions with reporters. Were you able to make statements to reporters? Were they able to ask you questions? How did that go?

John Meadors:

We’re bound by our ethical rules here, which we’ll go into more detail at the conference, which I know everybody is, but specifically prosecutors we’re not allowed to talk about the case and specifically more than the charges and the allegations when it initially happens. And like I say, I wasn’t lead counsel on this, but our lead counsel and everybody involved, we made sure we followed that. So no, we weren’t talking about the case, but you’re still cordial and everybody was cordial and had a very nice relationship, a working relationship as you went through every day. And I think that made it easier on everybody, quite frankly, each day. I think the other side was provided with the lists that were coming up and that may have gotten to the media, so they had an idea who the witnesses were going to be. But other than that, it was very professional on both sides.

Some of the exhibits specifically the autopsy photos were protected. And so literally during the trial a piece of paper had to be put over some of the computers so the crowd couldn’t see the autopsy pictures. And obviously the judge kept those from going in the media. There was a discussion of a gag order early on from both sides just to keep some of the issues out of the media. Judge Newman, who we’ll talk about more at the conference, I did an outstanding job and denied the gag order, said no, everything’s going to be out in public. And it was. But as far as the talking with the media prior to and discussing the case, our great waters lead counsel and Donlin and Attorney General Allen Wilson, nobody did that. We followed the rules, but clearly they were there. You have, you develop a relationship with folks when you see ’em, you just talk. And so the atmosphere was very professional but enjoyable under the circumstances.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So coming into the case, did you have any concerns about how the presence of the media, both outside and inside the Courtroom would impact the trial in terms of your witnesses and the proceedings

John Meadors:

I’ve been involved in? Fortunately, I’ve been very lucky to be involved in some high profile cases, probably done this big, but that’s always a concern. I don’t want the limelight. And the only crowd I’m really worried about are those 12 or 14 or how many alternates you have in the jury box. That’s the audience. I don’t only really care about impressing, and I say that to mean I want the witnesses to focus. I want them to not focus on what’s going on outside, not to be distracted by the limelight, if you will. And so that to me is always a concern, if you will, to just prepare the witnesses to say, Hey, I know this is out there, but you got to put blinders on and when you’re in the witness stand, you’ve got to focus. And that’s part of my, I think one of the hardest, whoever’s presenting a witness state, our defense is keep ’em focused.

You want the jury to see that person as they are, build their credibility up as they are talking about themselves in the background. So when they get to ultimate issues that may affect the case, their credibility to already be out there and the jury can see it and feel it. I like to say, and we tried to prepare our witnesses that way, and that’s part of the conference I’m going to be discussing and maybe showing some clips of some witnesses and some of their questions initially and trying to get them to relax and adapt before we got into the heart of the matter. And I think that’s important because obviously it’s out there every day. There was not a sequestration in this case, but I don’t particularly want jurors watching and getting nervous, but they are if they’re written a sequestration. So that’s obviously a concern. And you just want your witness to be natural when you’re sitting up there in a crank of the old chair with cameras on you, that’s the last thing you think of as natural. But that’s what we try to do.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And also, I’m interested in hearing kind of from the attorney’s point of view, from your point of view and presenting the case. I know you’re closing argument is on YouTube and very famous people talk about it in terms of preparing, did you prepare your case any differently knowing it was kind of going to come before a national presence?

John Meadors:

I really didn’t did, I didn’t watch anything during the trial, didn’t not that didn’t respect any other folks’ opinion. If I was doing something wrong, I didn’t want to know about it. In other words, I was going to do what I’ve always done for 30 something years and feel confident in it. So I just tried to stay focused myself and remind me that that jurors my credibility’s at stake. And so I tried not to let it bother me. Whether it did or not, I don’t know. I don’t think it did. But I tried just to be myself and for the good and the bad. I had my, I don’t know what Twitter is, I didn’t know what Twitter was at the time, but my son called me and said, dad, you’re twittering pretty high out there in the country. He said, don’t look at it. Most of it’s good, but some of it’s bad. So I didn’t look at it and just tried to be myself.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah. Any other ways that you think that the media impacted the trial? I mean, did you see a nervousness in witnesses or a difference in, I dunno, attitude or perception from some of the other folks in the Courtroom?

John Meadors:

I think so. I think, and I had one witness and I’m planning on showing it too at the conference who, I won’t say his name now, great guy. And the content of his testimony was pure and perfect, but he just got nervous and he was the last person I thought would get nervous and just one of the initial witnesses. And to me then I went, man, I didn’t think this, but it does affect everybody. But all I was fortunate to be a part of a great team and we all worked well together and it affects everybody. But I thought for the most part, people did a good job of keeping the media at bay while the testimony was coming out. And Dave, that was primarily, well, a lot to do with Judge Newman who just ran a straight Courtroom. It’s just no two ways about it. He kept it under control. That’s what a successful trial that’s being tried in the media. You’ve got to have a judge that knows what they’re doing and everybody respects. And thank goodness we had that in this trial.

Dave Scriven-Young:

We’re at the end of our time together. John, really appreciate your time and I’m really fascinated to hear more about the case and to hear from the other speakers about their cases as well. So for those folks who are listening, you want to learn more about the Murdoch case, to see John and other high profile litigators live to talk about these issues. Please join us at the litigation section annual conference to register, go to ambar.org/sac 2025. John Meadors, thank you so much for being on the show today.

John Meadors:

Thank you, man. I appreciate it, Dave. Take care.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And for our next segment, we all hear about these big conferences like the ABA Litigation Section annual conference. So let’s say that we pull the trigger on attending, what should we be doing to prepare and make sure that we get the biggest bang for our buck? To answer that question, we’ve brought in a good friend of the show, Larry Kristinik, who’s chair of the ABA Litigation Section, and a partner at Nelson Mullins in Columbia, South Carolina to answer those questions. Larry practices in the areas of business litigation, class action, defense insurance coverage and bad faith claims, defensive investor securities claims, and FINRA Embroker dealer arbitrations. Welcome to the show, Larry.

Larry Kristinik:

Thanks, Dave. Glad to be on today.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Let’s talk about the ABA Litigation Section annual conference, as well as some of these other conferences that you see on the internet been invited to in the past. What are some of the things that you do to prepare for large conferences like SAC?

Larry Kristinik:

Well, the first thing I’m going to do is get my hands on the conference brochure, and I’m going to go through that for a conference like SAC in Chicago, there’s going to be some must see CLE programs and I want to find the ones that are going to be relevant to what I do and also help get my hours, my CLE hours that my state bar requires. I’m definitely going to be attending one of the ethics programs to get a required hour at this year’s SAC. But for my practice, I really enjoy the trial skills presentations this year. I know there’s one on jury psychology, which I definitely want to attend, but a conference like SAC is also going to be loaded with specialized programs on a number of topics of interest to me that may not be in my specific practice, but for example, coming up in Chicago, the mock oral argument on the Harvard admission issues, I think that’s going to be a fascinating program.

But other things I do when I’m getting ready for a conference like this is I want to plan my dinners. I’m going to be in Chicago several nights. I want to have great dinners planned for Wednesday and Thursday nights. This year’s SAC, there’s going to be dine rounds that I can just sign up for both nights when I see the A BA send out a link for the signup for those. I’m going to go ahead and pick my dinners for those two nights. And one last thing that I always try to do before I go to a national conference is I try to reach out to my referral contacts from around the country who I think might be attending, shoot ’em a note, see if they’re going to be there. And if they are, I plan to meet up with them. And even if they’re not going to be there, it just gives me easy way to have another touch point with them. But that’s pretty much what I like to do, my steps in advance of getting on the ground for a conference like the section annual conference.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, all really great tips and advice, so appreciate that. And we know that there’s great programming and networking and social events at the upcoming annual conference for the ABA Litigation Section. So can you give us some of the things that you’re most looking forward to?

Larry Kristinik:

Well, there’s one thing in particular this year in Chicago at SAC I’m really looking forward to hearing Professor Lynn Nihal from the Michigan School of Law. He’s going to be the keynote speaker at the Friday networking lunch, and he’s going to be speaking on the rule of law. So Professor Neh wrote an amazing op-ed on the recent challenges to the rule of law published in the Detroit Daily News, and he just very creatively blended in stories from Shakespeare of all places to make his point on the rule of law. And in his article, he was talking about the line from the play, Henry the sixth saying, the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers. Professor Nihal points out that wasn’t meant to be a joke. It was meant that if there are no lawyers, then whatever the king said would be the law.

So Professor Nihal, he’s just so well versed on rule of law issues. He’s going to update us on the very quickly changing environment we are in with the constant executive orders and attacks on the independence of the judiciary and law firms and what is happening in the trial courts and the appellate courts on all of these issues. And there’s going to be more on the rule of law at SAC during the Thursday morning breakfast. We’ve set aside several tables for the purpose of having tabletop discussions on rule of law issues. For anyone who wants to participate and have their voice heard, we’ll have a facilitator assigned to each table and there’ll be starter questions printed out. So plenty on rule of law at SAC. When you take a look at our three plenary programs, the one that is of particular interest to me is going to be the one on litigating in the media spotlight.

I’ve always wanted to know what it was like behind the scenes for the lawyers in high profile cases. In fact, we got one of our speakers, his name is Matthew Rosen Gart, and he represents Brittany Spears. So he’s been living in a media circus literally for years. But another speaker is someone I know well from Columbia, South Carolina, and that’s John Meadows. And John is a criminal prosecutor working in our state attorney general’s office. So John is going to share some great insight with us about how the state prepared witnesses to handle media attention. And he’s also going to give us his thoughts on the impact on the judge and jury of being in a constant media spotlight. So that’s really something I’m looking forward to hearing. And that one’s going to be on Wednesday afternoon,

Dave Scriven-Young:

All wonderful events. And certainly I would recommend first timers, young lawyers, law students, people who haven’t been out to these events before to certainly come out to especially the social events, which sometimes people are hesitant to go to. What I found typically is the people in the section are very welcoming and love to see new faces. So if you’re thinking about coming to the conference, know that you’re going to have a very welcoming climate and we’d love to see new folks at these conferences. And so Larry, before you go, I wanted to ask you, since you are chair of the section this year and have held many leadership positions within the section, what do you personally get out of being in leadership of something like the litigation section? It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of brainpower to do some of the stuff. So would love to just get your perspective on why you do it and how it benefits your practice.

Larry Kristinik:

Well, Dave, it really comes down to this being able to make a difference in our profession. The litigation section is a national organization. It’s the voice of litigators in the United States. So if you want to make a difference in our profession, the section is the place to do it. When you’re in leadership, you’re collaborating with other attorneys from all over the country. You get to hear their perspectives and how they practice law in their communities and before the courts. And you’re working towards a goal to help others or help our profession. It’s not about me when I’m doing my volunteer bar work, it’s about providing trial skills, training for our members. It’s about advocating for more pro bono service. It’s about advocating for positive changes in the profession in section. We’ve had many different leaders working towards positive changes for our judicial system. And I’ll give you a couple of examples.

Our federal practice task force developed a resolution in 2023 addressing the abuse of single judge divisions in federal court. And if you don’t know if this is where a group would challenge a federal statute or regulation, and they would basically handpick their judge and ask for the entry of a national injunction, and this was bipartisan abuse. Both sides were doing this. It undercuts the people’s confidence in our court system. It really does. And so our resolution called for the random assignment of judges from other divisions in this limited situation where national injunctions were sought. This resolution passed in the A, a House of Delegates in August of 2023. And then just seven months later in March of the next year, the judicial conference of the United States reinforced its policy of random selection of judges when national injections of federal laws were at issue. It essentially adopted the resolution developed by our federal practice task force in the litigation section.

That was the section making a difference. And there’s another recent example. There’s another resolution that we’re working on right now, and it was just approved by our council and it advocates for state and federal courts to measure the statistics about the amount of diversity that is included in jury pools. And so why do you need this? Well go back to the Jim Crow era when we had all white juries convicting black men. And what we want to ensure is that jury pools actually reflect the people that live in the community. But to know whether you’re doing that, you need to measure it. So our resolution ask courts to gather the data, analyze it to see what it shows, and then to report it. And only then can we know if our juries really represent the communities. And if not, then steps can be taken to fix it. So when you’re in the leadership of the litigation section, you are empowered to identify changes that are needed and then you can actually do something about it. But that’s where I get my satisfaction in my bar work for the litigation section. I know I can make a difference.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, excellent. Thank you so much, Larry, for your leadership and for all the great work that you do. And just as a reminder for folks who are listening, if you want to join me and Leary for all of these great events at the section annual conference, you can learn more about it and register at ambar.org/sac 2025. Larry Knick, thank you so much for being on the show today.

Larry Kristinik:

Thank you, Dave. Enjoyed being here with you.

Dave Scriven-Young:

One of my favorite things about going to a conference like the ABA Litigation Section annual conference is the ability to meet and network with litigators at the top of the games from all walks of life, law firm, litigators in-house counsel, academics and judges. And I’m glad to have on the show today a judge who is one of the organizers and co-chairs of the A A litigation section annual conference. And my guest is the Honorable Griselda Vega Samuel. She’s an circuit court judge in Cook County, serving in the traffic division since May of 2024 before sending to the bench. Judge Vega Samuel was regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal and Educational Funds Midwest Regional Office based in Chicago as regional counsel. She worked to protect the civil rights of that Latino community in the areas of employment, education, voting rights, and immigration rights, both through impact litigation and policy advocacy.

She was an attorney for over 22 years of experience working in the areas of litigation and policy advocacy, focusing on employment law and general civil rights Judge Vega Samuels advocacy work extended to both US and international forms where she worked on human trafficking legislation as well and worked on policy issues to protect migrant labor rights both within US and Mexican legal frameworks. Before working for maldef, judge Vega Samuel was also the senior director of the anti-trafficking program at Safe Horizon in Brooklyn, New York, where she ran the second largest anti-human trafficking program in the US Judge Vega Samuel also graduated from the University of Iowa College of Law. So welcome to the show.

Judge Griselda Vega Samuel:

Thank you for having me, Dave.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So I just gave your biography, but I think people would be really interested in your career path in terms of how everything that you did in terms of policy and litigation brought you to where you are as a judge today.

Judge Griselda Vega Samuel:

Great. Well, it is a long and varied trajectory that got me to the bench, but really the bulk of my career was focused on helping and representing low-income clients. I was a nonprofit lawyer my entire career, so that really was the focus. I was representing low-income folks in the civil rights context, mostly in the employment world. I did do the anti-human trafficking work where I supervised a team of 10 folks to really ensure that all of the survivors of human trafficking were protected and got the protections that they deserved. And so doing this kind of work really reached out to the most marginalized and vulnerable populations to ensure that their rights were protected because for most folks who are low income typically don’t even know that they have rights, much less have access to a lawyer. So I was really proud to have been able to serve this community across the country and then on the legislative front, really creating protections to ensure that these most vulnerable populations continue to have access to justice.

And so when it was time to think about my next step after 20 some years of litigating these cases, I thought, how can I best be a public servant and continue that work? And it was to become a judge and serve on the bench. And so now I sit in Cook County in the traffic division, which is the largest traffic division in the country. We have a pretty high volume, and again, it is doing what I’ve done my entire career, which is really provide access to justice to the folks that come before me. And that could be ensuring that folks get access to interpreters, that they understand what I’m saying when I’m issuing a ruling. And so it really does to me, really this next step has been to really become full circle for me.

Dave Scriven-Young:

That’s wonderful. And part of what you do as well as you do some work with the A litigation section. So wanted to ask you a little bit about that, how you got involved in the section and why you decided to get involved in the section.

Judge Griselda Vega Samuel:

So I’ve been part of the A BA since, as we like to say, sometimes I was a baby lawyer. I graduated from law school in 2001 and became involved in the Young Lawyers division of the A BA in 2002. And it was really a place to be surrounded by other litigators, other young lawyers at the time. And so what happened after my really great experience in the young lawyers was, as we like to say, age out of the young lawyers was really figuring out where we go next. And so I did actually participate in a variety of other sections but have landed in litigation because that it was the bread and butter of the work that I’ve done as a practitioner. And so also the A BAI tell young lawyers now that it has been a place where I found colleagues who I have known for over 20 years.

And so a lot of those friends are in the litigation section. And so not only was it really my practice area, but it was really a place where I have formed long-term bonds with these folks. And it’s always great to hear about the litigation that they’re working on from, because we all have different practice areas, but we’re all really focused on the litigation. And so this is a place, the litigation section is the largest section of the A BA. And so to really get involved and continue to support lawyers and to create great programming, which is my favorite part of being part of the litigation section, and really the A BA is how I got to the ABA Litigation Section. And so it’s been really great to work with talented folks to create really great programming. And that’s why when Larry asked me to become one of the co-chairs for the section of annual conference, I was super excited because it is the premier conference for the litigation section.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely. And certainly a lot of folks have come from the Young Lawyers division into the, and a lot of those folks have become leaders and chairs and I’m sure future chairs of the section as well. So I’m glad you’re here, glad you’re in the home of the litigators. And so last question for you. So we do have this conference coming up at the end of April, beginning of May. What are you most looking forward to during this conference?

Judge Griselda Vega Samuel:

So as a native Chicagoan, I am super excited to have the SAC here because as I just mentioned, programming is my favorite part of doing the work as a leader in the section. And so we have fantastic plenaries that we’ve been planning for the last two years. The plenaries are probably what I’m most excited to really, or looking forward to the plenaries range from the topic of litigating high profile cases to a plenary on the role of the Supreme Court in today’s society and how that’s changing. And then ultimately, or lastly I should say the other plenary that I’m super excited about as a former college athlete is women in sports. The women in sports plenary will have a couple of professional athletes on the panel. And we’re really excited to really talk about this issue, how it has really come into its own in the last few years.

And so to really look at it from a litigator’s perspective and really hear from the players themselves, I think it’s going to be a really exciting plenary. And so I invite all of the folks listening to join us because like I said, it is the premier conference for the ABA Litigation Section. And so not only do we have great plenaries, but we have a fantastic array of CLEs. So come to the section, you’ll get a ton of CLEs and actually really great programming. Really it’s targeted to all litigators from all field, all practice fields. And you’ll be able to not only get your CLEs, but really walk away learning a thing or two.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely. Well, to meet some great people like Judge Vega Samuels, join me at the litigation section annual conference. You can register at ambar.org/sac 2025. Judge Vega Samuels, thank you so much for being on the show today.

Judge Griselda Vega Samuel:

Great. Thank you for having me, Dave, and look forward to seeing everybody at A-B-A-S-A-C.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Now it’s time for a quick tip from the A litigation section, and I’m pleased to welcome Nikki Bhavsar to the show for her first tip. Nikki has a cool job. She’s a senior attorney for construction and capital projects at Universal Destinations and experiences in Orlando, Florida. Nikki, welcome to the show and what’s your quick tip?

Nikki Bhavsar:

Thanks, Dave. Thanks for having me. My quick tip today is finding who you are as a lawyer. So if you ask any lawyer what the first year of their career was like, the mass majority will say word for word, it was drinking out of a fire hose. And that makes sense, right? That’s what it feels like when you’re thrown onto a field with players. Nothing about playing a game where you know very little of the rules and on top of it all, you don’t even know what position you play. So I know for me, I wasn’t comfortable as a litigator for a long time, but I gained a lot of confidence and knowledge from my mentors and colleagues and I’m hoping to share that tip today. So let’s start with getting to know the players. There’s internal players and external players. Internal are those within your firm or your company?

And so you need to get out of your office, say hello to partners or stakeholders and make yourself known and available in the firm. It’s really easy to hide away and get caught up in your work and research. And honestly, I think the sheer amount of work can make us feel like we have to be glued to our computer, but that’s not helping you grow. People who have been in practice for a very long time have a unique way of taking depositions, making their points persuasive at hearings or handling a mediation. So no one’s model is going to work for you, but what will work is taking bits and pieces of different people you meet to mold to your personality and needs. So I’m a five foot woman who loves people and being aggressive towards a deponent didn’t work for me, but being overly friendly did.

So I earned trust through kindness where some people might focus more on weaknesses of the case, some people might do a combination of the two. So the point is use people around you as a guide to help pull together bits and pieces of practice styles. Once you have a handle on the firm, you’ll notice you’ll start seeing some names and firms pop up in your network of opposing counsels, and that’s a good thing. So that means you can build a rapport with those people, which will only help your clients moving forward. People are more willing to be flexible with their friends or acquaintances than a stranger. So now let’s move on to the rules of a game. The law is constantly changing. Statutes are voluminous, and that doesn’t even include potential codes or regulations you may need to know in your practice area. So like for me, the building code, A STM, things like that, the key is you don’t have to be the smartest one in the room.

You have to be the one that works the hardest. And I understand not having a lot of free time, but if you do and you’re starting to look for a way to advance your knowledge, open up Westlaw and start just reading secondary materials specific to your practice area. For example, I practice construction. So naturally there’s an excellent construction law manual on Westlaw that breaks down a lot of claims and defenses that I spent a lot of time reading can if you do the work, it takes the extra mile, it’ll pay off eventually. So that’s my tip on that. And lastly, the biggest one in my opinion, it’s what’s your position? The thing about finding your position is that it takes time. No one walks onto a field and knows they’re a forward, right? You have to know you have the skills and speed to take that position on your career in law is no different.

Think about strengths and weaknesses as you’re going through your first three years. Figure out what you like and what gives you anxiety, right? Always does. So you’ll find that your priorities personally may shift as well. So finding a position takes all of those things into account. One year you may say no to partner the next year you may realize you love the work you do and you want to be a partner. Or maybe you’re trying to scale back a little bit and you want to go in-house or you want to shift to an of council position. Well, that’s all things you have to figure out as you go. And the only way to do that is to be aware of your needs and your strengths at the same time. It’s a continual process, and that’s the only thing that you can monitor and manage by yourself. So that’s my tip, and I hope that it helps you figure out who you are as a lawyer.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Excellent. Thanks so much for being on the show, Nikki. Great tip. And 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 dscr Young at O’Hagan meyer.com and connect with me on social. I’m ad attorney d sy on LinkedIn, Instagram X, and Facebook. You can also connect with the ABA Litigation Section 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 2025 Section annual Conference, April 30th through May 2nd in Chicago. This annual conference provides unique opportunities to learn and interact with in-house counsel, outside counsel, academics, government, employees, and judges from across the country.

The conference will include over 20 dynamic programs highlighting all aspects of litigation, and of course, there will be opportunities to network during our special events and programming breaks. To find out more and to register, go to ambar.org/sac 2025. You won’t want to miss it. If you like the 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 your 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, To Michelle Oberts who’s on staff with the litigation section. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the litigation section’s audio content committee, Haley Maple and Charlotte Stevens. 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