Life as a Litigator

Episode Notes

Transcript

Mic Rogson:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Mic Rogson.

Jim Reeder:

And I’m your other host, Jim Reeder. As you know, I’m a recently retired lawyer who practiced antitrust and commercial litigation in the Houston office of Jones Day. In addition to trying lawsuits, I’ve spent my entire career focused on helping young lawyers become great lawyers.

Mic Rogson:

And I am an expert in litigation and fiduciary bonds with a background in insurance litigation. I have been in- house for over 15 years and I’m currently vice president at Skyward Specialty Insurance Company, where I manage their national court bond practice. On this show, we talk to the country’s top litigators, judges, in- house counsel and academics to discover best practices for developing careers, winning cases, getting more clients, and building a sustainable practice, all while staying well and happy. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcasting app to make sure you never miss an episode.

Jim Reeder:

Litigation radio is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association. It’s where Mic and I both make our home in the ABA. And we’re huge proponents of the litigation section. This podcast is just one example of the dozens of resources the litigation section provides litigators of all practice areas to help them become successful trial lawyers for our clients. Learn more and become a member at ambar.org/litigation. That’s ambar.org/litigation.

Mic Rogson:

You know, Jim, this is actually going to come up a little bit later when I discuss one of the topics we’re going to discuss the advantages that I would’ve had if I had been a member of the section when I was doing what I was doing. So this should be fun.

Jim Reeder:

It’s absolutely going to be fun. So Mic and I have been at this now for about six months, and we decided early on that periodically we’d do an episode where we checked in with each other and address some topics that have been raised over the last few months that maybe don’t warrant a full episode, but if we amalgamated them, would provide something interesting. So for the first time, and hopefully for the first time of many, it’s a time for what I call Mic and Jim miscellaneous.

Mic Rogson:

Or as I like to think of it, Mic and Jim litting it up.

Jim Reeder:

I don’t even know what that means, but I will go with it.

Mic Rogson:

Let it out. This is our generational amalgamation.

Jim Reeder:

So here is the first topic, first question. Does being a litigator affect how you handle some of your everyday issues?

Mic Rogson:

Mic? I think categorically the answer has to be yes. You know how they say if you go to see a surgeon, don’t be surprised if they recommend surgery. Right? So I think the same can be said for litigators. If you go to your friend who’s a litigator and you ask them a question, the likelihood is they’re going to think about it as a litigator. They’re going to come at it from the litigation perspective. And this actually happened to me very recently. My dad recently received a $4,500 bill from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power going back two years, allegedly for a faulty meter. He was incensed. He wanted to challenge it if necessary, sue. And he brought it to me, he said, “Help.” And my initial instinct was, okay, I looked at all of the evidence. I collected all of the documents that he had, the communications from the DWP, and I drafted a sledgehammer of a letter demanding all their records, their formulas and calculations for how they arrived at this ridiculous number, right?

The rationales for the backdated bill. When did the inspector come to visit it? I mean, it was effectively a discovery demand and a preliminary summary judgment motion all wrapped up into one. In order to make it clear to them, it would be far easier to just negotiate the matter away than have to deal with me. And in part, that’s because words are where my strength lies. I don’t think that many of us go into litigation if we’re not good at language, right? Language is one of our strengths as litigators. And I know. I know how to craft a sledgehammer letter or motion for summary judgment, right? But I’ve also learned over the years that you can often achieve more. It’s what my mother always says, right? You can catch more fly. Is it flies with honey or bees with honey?

Jim Reeder:

I think it’s flies with honey.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I didn’t want to catch flies. Yeah. For that matter, I’m not sure I want to catch bees, but either way I said, “Hold up.” I slowed my role. I said, “Okay, let’s not go antagonistic out of the gate. Let me see if a call can just fix this. ” Now, that call ended up being 20 hours on the phone. So I’m not entirely sure it was the most economical solution, but it did get me where I wanted to go. I managed to connect to someone who could help. He recalculated the bill, sent them something much more reasonable, and the solution was achieved without me having to resort to my litigation skills. But there’s no question my instinct was to go sledgehammer.

Jim Reeder:

The Department of Water and Power in Houston, when we were in Houston, I got a bill for $8,800.

Mic Rogson:

Oh my God.

Jim Reeder:

Yes. And it turns out that all of the bills that we were getting on a monthly basis had not included a particular fee, which was like the sewage fee or something that we were getting, or maybe we were just getting the sewage fee and not getting the usage fee. And so it does turn out that we owed the money because … And I should have recognized that early on that the bills were a lot less than what they should be. So it was really shame on me. But I have to say that my initial reaction was the same. I mean, you just think, “Oh, that’s unfair. It needs to be dealt with.

Mic Rogson:

” Well, I think one advantage of being a litigator is that we aren’t afraid to do the research into the law, the codes, the rules. And that’s the one thing that I did do for my father is I actually slogged through the various rules that were applicable to this kind of situation, which meant that when I went into the conversation with the investigator who was able to fix the bill, I came in armed with the knowledge of what my dad’s rights were. And I do think that’s helpful.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah, I think that’s exactly what we do. We are an evidence-based practice. And if you’ve done the work, you’ve done the preparation, there’s a good chance of success. It’s interesting because when I heard you talk about your initial instinct and what you wanted to do, it did own on me. When we did our first episode together, it became apparent to me that entirely fortuitously, and I actually see the world with very different lenses sometimes, which I love. And some of it’s generational, some of it has a lot of other components to it, which

Mic Rogson:

We sort of

Jim Reeder:

Discovered and delved into. And I do think that the average observer thinks of litigators as aggressive and tough. “I’m going to get my litigator, I’m going to get my trial lawyer and my lawyer to respond to you. ” And although I often go to sleep dreaming of being a sledgehammer, it turns out that when it comes down to it, I usually actually am more of a peacemaker and collaborator than I am an antagonist. In 40 years of practice, it just, as I look back, I achieve far better results treating counsel on the other side with fairness and respect rather than with disdain. Even if they didn’t reciprocate, there was almost a shame element to it.

Mic Rogson:

I will throw out, I mean, just because we’re talking about different perspectives, that as a woman, if you start off conciliatory, you may not get the respect that you need in a litigation situation.

Jim Reeder:

I absolutely totally get that.

Mic Rogson:

And so it’s interesting because I think my individual nature, I don’t know. I mean, I like a righteous fight. I really do. But I am much more of a communicator than an arguer. When it comes to that, I would much prefer to be in a mediation than in an adversarial situation. But I do think that over the years, I have steeled myself. I have actually girded my loins, if you will, to be able to put up that tough front so that I don’t get messed with.

Jim Reeder:

And you dispel any type of stereotype or conceived preconceived notion about who you are and what you are.

Mic Rogson:

And

Jim Reeder:

In some respects, I do the same thing, but in reverse, which is I surprise the other side by being nicer, more conciliatory, et cetera, and it puts them off guard. Just like somebody who’s got some preconceived notion about a woman lawyer would if you came out stronger and more aggressive. I am embarrassed to say that the way that the being a litigator translates itself into my everyday life is one that I’m not really pleased about, that I’ve actually worked very hard to sort of overcome. I’d say that most weeks, someone in my family, Erich or the kids or the kid’s mom, accuse me of adopting my litigator voice and tone in what should be an otherwise innocuous, friendly conversation.

If I am skeptical of something that they’re saying or I have a different view or I don’t think that they’re thinking it through or that seems the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of, then I reveal my skepticism through a sort of cross-examination tone, which I get called out for. Don’t be a litigator, don’t cross-examine me. And it really is, I hate it. I hate it that I bring it into sort of everyday life and it’s so obvious. And so I am working on that. My guess is that a lot of people may have that issue, but I’m definitely working on it because I don’t want my kids and my friends and my family to think, “Oh, you’re adopting your litigator tone.”

Mic Rogson:

There’s no doubt that there is a litigator tone. And I don’t know that I’ve ever used it with my family. In part, again, I think because my instinctive approach is actually not to be a litigator. I mean, I like to think logically and analytically about any topic that’s raised, and I like to believe that I can try to be as objective as possible and if anything, see my own biases. So I do think that from that standpoint, I do try to approach new topics, new discussions as a litigator, but in terms of tone, I’m always interested in assimilating information, but I do take on that tone when I’m dealing with, for example, maybe a teacher at the school who is doing something … I mean, this actually did come up. A teacher at the school was concerned that my daughter may have looked something up on a computer because she was taking a test in a separate room and somebody forgot to set up a proctor.

Now, my daughter is not the kind of kid who would ever in a million years cheat. She had additional information on this particular issue because it’s something she had learned several years back at a different school. So she was putting information that she hadn’t learned in class into her answer because she had it. And boy, oh boy, I definitely had my litigator tone when I talked to that instructor and he walked it back. She’s a straight A student and a merit scholar at the school. It was almost insane. He should have asked it as a question and not as an accusation, but I definitely put my litigator tone in for that and I don’t regret it for a second. Okay. Well, a couple of things have come up when we were talking about this particular episode. And so my next question for you is, as litigators, we are often asked by friends and family for assistance with these kinds of matters that we’ve already sort of brought up in this episode.

How do you respond? What are the considerations that you factor in and what’s the funniest or honest request you’ve ever received?

Jim Reeder:

So my position on this has actually changed over time. I have over the years represented a number of friends’ businesses as paying clients. That seemed to be a no-brainer for me. If they’re willing to hire me and they need the help, then I’d be glad to do it. I stopped doing that at some point because I found that one of my central roles as counsel is the ability to look at the case and its progress dispassionately. If I’m doing it for a friend, the risk of abandoning that central role to me was pretty high. So I stopped doing that and they understand. I think they understand over time. For the friend or family member who is seeking my help pro bono, if the request is just to give advice or a legal assessment, which most of the time it is, I tend to do it.

Literally just yesterday, my nephew sent me a text about trouble he was having with a shop that had his fifth wheel, which is a trailer that you pull behind your truck. He took it in for repairs. They’d had it six months. They promised it to him multiple times. They wouldn’t answer the phone. They would give him an update, say it’d be ready next week, and then it wasn’t going to be ready because they had some other excuse. We’ve all encountered that. In this instance, I think in most cases, I know that he was hoping I would tell him that he had some great case against the shop and that he ought to pursue it and we’ll write a strong letter or whatever. But as in most cases, I determined that he was going to be better off first, get the thing fixed and back in your possession.

You’re in a much stronger position if you got the thing, they don’t have it. And then providing practical observations about what the possible options are, what the possible outcomes are, what the emotional and economic costs are to achieve those results. And typically they can come to their own conclusion about whether that’s worth pursuing or not, especially if they sit back a little bit and realize that they’re just not going after punishment, have they been hurt? And as in every effort to settle a case, the most important objective to me is to get the friend or family member to think about something that the other party that can give you, that has considerably more value to you and relatively little cost to them or vice versa. Can you get a warranty from them? Can you get them to throw something in that cost doesn’t cost a whole lot to them, but adds value to you?

Oftentimes that’s a great way to sort of bridge a gap.

Mic Rogson:

When I was studying negotiation in my LLM studies, they call that expanding the pie. When the pie is finite and everyone thinks that they want their own piece, it’s very, very hard to achieve a solution that can be agreeable to both. But if you can find a way to expand the pie, you can actually achieve a solution that might be beneficial to both parties. Well,

Jim Reeder:

I love that. I didn’t know that phrase, but it’s totally appropriate. So as far as considerations to factor in, frankly, it comes down to me now, at this point in my career, to the cost emotionally and economically to represent or to assist somebody, a family member or friend. If it’s going to be long and protracted and emotional and I’m going to have to be lawyer and policemen and therapist, it’s just not worth it for me. If it’s just advice and I have the time to be able to give full thought to the problem, I’ll be glad to help. And I used to be willing to write letters and letters can really be effective, as you know, but I’m much more likely today to refer them to a friend or colleague who’ll have the time and energy to fully play out the process that a letter invites.

It’s hard to say no to friends and family, especially when there seems to be obvious injustice and you know the cost to otherwise pursue it is prohibitive to them and they can’t do it themselves. But I found that when I violated my rule in the past, it’s never worked out for either of us.

Mic Rogson:

Have you ever had anything funny or odd that you’ve been asked to do?

Jim Reeder:

Yes. So the most ironic thing is that I show up at my first law firm, the big law firm that I was at for 30 years, right out of law school, we’re having orientation, senior partners are coming up and one of them says, “Okay, in no uncertain terms should you ever agree to represent a secretary in his or her divorce.” Okay, seems clear enough, great, because you will then become policemen and therapist and everything else. About six weeks later, another senior partner came to me to ask me to represent his secretary in a divorce, which I did. And then I spent the next three years as the go- to lawyer for secretary divorces.

Mic Rogson:

Oh, that’s great. Did you have to formally extricate yourself from that position or it just sort of segued off?

Jim Reeder:

Luckily, I was able to sort of segue it to somebody else who also had been told not to do it, but by that time I had enough seniority that I could sort of pull some strings and get somebody else to do it. What about you? So friends and family.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I mean, interestingly, when you are in- house, it really gives you an easy out. I was like, “Hey, you’re a lawyer. Could you help me with X, Y, Z?” And my answer is, “Sorry, I don’t do that. ” I do think it’s funny that people hear lawyer and they just assume you know every single possible area of the law, and that’s just not the case. So I have never actually represented a friend in that way. I have written many letters and if I think I can help and it’s fairly straightforward and it won’t go beyond the letter, I’m happy to help. If I think, as you said, that the letter may invite additional responsibilities, I recommend them to someone else. I either try to find someone who can help them or just let them know, “I don’t know anybody, but here’s what you need to be looking for.

” I think the oddest thing that I’ve ever been asked about, and it was something I really wanted to help with because I feel very strongly that you need a very, very good reason to euthanize an otherwise entirely healthy pet. But a neighbor had a dog who, I don’t know exactly what happened, but another neighbor complained excessively and he ended up getting a letter from the county that the dog either needed to be relocated to a non-urban environment or euthanized.

Jim Reeder:

Was it just a loud dog barked at night or

Mic Rogson:

That kind of thing? I don’t know. I mean, I don’t think that the dog was violent per se. Maybe this other neighbor got scared. I mean, obviously it wasn’t a very pretty situation for the neighborhood. Everyone was aware of this altercation, but he’s like, “Is there anything you can do to help me keep my dog?” And my answer had to be an emphatic, please talk to someone who actually has any sort of experience in this area because I do not. And nothing that I can do for you pro bono is likely to really help you and then I would feel terrible. So please find someone who can help. I don’t know if he did. As I understand it, the story ended with him relocating the dog elsewhere.

Jim Reeder:

Well, it is another, I think, example of litigators becoming more self-aware over time that really you Googling it to try to figure it out and what it is, is never the answer.

Mic Rogson:

No. Well, it does a disservice to your friend too.

Jim Reeder:

Yes, it does. Exactly. I mean, they can do the same thing, even though you’re going to bring a different perspective to it. If you find out that you’re Googling stuff about the law, then it’s not your area. Well,

Mic Rogson:

That’s a great lead into what I’m going to discuss next.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah. But before we do that, let’s take a quick break so we can hear from our sponsors. All right. We’re back with what I’m calling Mic and Jim Miscellaney. Mic and I talk among ourselves about topics that tend to come up in the life of every litigator. So next topic, Mic, have you ever done the big no-no and represented yourself?

Mic Rogson:

Yes, I have.

Jim Reeder:

Not surprising actually to me. I figured that might be the answer.

Mic Rogson:

No. Well, again, I do like a righteous battle. As I said before, probably part of the reason I became a litigator, I mean, initially, and I think I’ve mentioned this before, I dreamed of being a civil rights litigator and fighting the good fight. And then you have bills and maybe private school tuition to pay and you realize you can’t necessarily do that. But yes, I have done it. I have done it twice. Both in my mind were righteous battles that I needed to take on. And in both situations, I either did not have the money or did not think it was wise to retain outside counts. So the first time I had just had my daughter, I was in my mid-thirties, so not quite a baby lawyer, but a young lawyer. And I took on an area of law I had absolutely no experience with, which was land use here in Los Angeles County.

And it started because I received a notice that a cell company was building a tower literally directly across from my house. And having just had my daughter, I did some research into the impact of radio wave emanations from cell towers on infant nervous systems. I am not commenting here on the science. I can only say it made me uncomfortable. So I decided that I wanted to fight the installation, but we had also just bought the house, if you remember your mid- 30s and the-

Jim Reeder:

Coming to the nuisance or whatever.

Mic Rogson:

Well, the expense, I mean, we had no extra money to be throwing out. You know what I mean? I’m

Jim Reeder:

Sure. Yeah.

Mic Rogson:

Yep. So we just bought the house. There’s no way I could afford to hire someone. So it was let it go or fight it myself. And so I decided to fight it. And it was actually a wonderful experience. I don’t regret it for a second. First, I learned a ton about zoning administration and how that works, which has come in handy since. So that was very interesting. And I actually had some partial success at the zoning administrator level, which was interesting. I went to some hearings at that level, et cetera. I got the zoning administrator to add some additional requirements to the approval, but he did not reverse it entirely. So I did have to engage in an administrative appeal to the court and I had already gone in house by then. So I literally had absolutely no resources to rely on. And this is what I was mentioning before.

If I had been a member of the section, I would’ve had friends I could have reached out to to get at least some basic guidance on how to handle this, but I did not. So it’s a shame I didn’t join the section earlier, but I was on my own for this one. And what was most interesting to me about the administrative appeal portion was I was coming at this from a purely legal analysis perspective. I had no experience in this. I had no expectations or understandings of what the common tropes were, what the common legal theories were, only what I could glean from the case law and the statute. And as a result, I apparently made some pretty novel arguments that both opposing counsel and the judge expressed admiration for. They were interested in these arguments. They took them seriously. They engaged with them. They were still a little bit too novel for me to prevail.

The judge was not interested in going out on quite that kind of a limb with my novel legal theories, so I did lose at that level. But even more interesting, I ended up winning in practice even though I lost in court because the additional requirements that the zoning administrator had added onto the approval because of my litigation, because of my activism, if you will, in the zoning administrator level ended up proving too costly and the cell company just moved on to another site instead. So for me, I learned several really important things that I value from that one experience, which was A, sometimes you can win indirectly. That’s not something I realized in my early 30s. I think it’s something that as we gain more experience in the field of litigation, we learn that there are other ways to win than just going at it full frontal litigation, if you will.

So that was really great to learn. And second, that being unfamiliar with an area of law can actually provide an unexpected advantage because you may come across legal theories that no one else has thought of, and that can give you an unexpected advantage. It didn’t work for me in that particular instance, but I walked away with that in mind.

Jim Reeder:

Well, it did actually work for you because the result ended up exactly what you wanted. The point about sort of unintended advantage that you get has been clear to me for a long, long time when you are, particularly on a matter, you have younger lawyers on the case, they’ve been working very, very hard on it. They’re incredibly vested in it and you’re getting ready for trial and no matter what time it is, if they’ve spent considerable amount of time, if you start talking about settlement with the other side, they’re like, “Well, what are you talking about? Why are we talking about settlement?” No, we’re going to trial. This is something we have a great case. We have a great case. Why are we doing settlement? And there’s a learning experience, obviously, if you then get it settled and you go to them and you say, “Listen, oh, we got it settled.” And they’re like, “Gosh, that’s terrible.” And you’re like, “No, no, it’s really great because the settlement actually turns out to be really good for our client.” And because what we’ve done is there’s a business opportunity here or there’s a business solution or there’s something wholly unrelated to litigation that would’ve never presented itself except for the litigation.

And the settlement and resolution of it actually is very beneficial for our client. And you’ve got to be able to see that it’s more than just a binary equation. Success is not just win or lose. There are a variety of ways of doing it. And that’s a great learning experience for you early on, but you did it a second time-

Mic Rogson:

It was. I did. Even

Jim Reeder:

After the first time.

Mic Rogson:

Now, the second time I do not feel quite as positively about. And in part, you talked before about the emotional cost of engaging in litigation when you are personally involved. And that was definitely part of the issue for me in the second one. So the second lawsuit, we were defrauded by our contractor. It was a complicated situation. He was a friend of a friend. He was referred to us by this friend and he stole from us. Now, again, righteous battle, right? I do not regret doing it. One of the reasons I became a lawyer is to help people who have experienced injustice try to achieve some measure of, if not justice, then equity, right? Some measure of redress so that you don’t walk away going, life is just unfair. And so I couldn’t let it lie, but I also felt that it was going to cost far too much to actually retain counsel, which would’ve been my preference at the time, but he had just defrauded us of a significant amount of money.

So it felt like it would be throwing good money after bad if I did hire a lawyer. And I was also hoping, as you said, to simply position them in a place where I could negotiate and settle for at least some of my money back. I mean, that’s what I really expected would happen. The impediment to that was the fact that they retained opposing counsel who was, to be blunt, cut from a very similar cloth as the contractor themselves.

Jim Reeder:

Not really shocking.

Mic Rogson:

No, although it was a learning experience for me because I had never met an attorney like that. I did not know that they came like that. Everyone I had ever worked with, everyone I had ever gone up against, they were great. I mean, some better than others, obviously, but they were solid lawyers. They were people you could contend with and speak to. And in this instance, she was just not. And she engaged in egregious delays, egregious discovery delays, egregious delays in responding to motion practice. And the court was sympathetic to her initially, but I mean, the excuses were so flimsy and at times just utterly unbelievable that even the court lost patients And ended up ordering sanctions against her personally, which I was never able to collect because shortly after the lawsuit concluded, she was disbarred, not surprisingly. But as a result of all of her shenanigans, it took five years to resolve something that really should have just settled out within a year.

I mean, the facts of the case were obvious. And that took an emotional toll on me. I mean, the time it took, not only did I now have to contend with being defrauded by a contractor who was a friend of a friend and who I trusted, but I was now being defrauded of my time. And to some extent, some of my faith in the legal system by this woman who was simply abusing it. So it was exhausting. It is exhausting. I did get some of my money back. I did in the end,

But it was exhausting.

Jim Reeder:

I’ve been really fortunate because I never have had the need to represent myself, which is great. Situation just has never come up. We’ve never been the victim of someone else’s stupid or malicious conduct. You are blessed. Knock on wood. No, it is. But I just actually now remembered something where I guess it may undermine everything I’ve said so far. But you know the house that we used to live in because the backdrop for your Zoom is our little study from that house. So somebody during COVID knocked on the door, made us an offer for the house. We were going to sell it. We entered a contract. We just sell it to them. They were very excited about it. We don’t have another place lined up, but we get a place lined up to lease for a little while until we can find another place because it’s all going to happen very, very fast.

And we engage in the costs of all that and movers, et cetera. We show up at the closing and she doesn’t show up. We get an email from her real estate agent said that she’s not going through with it and she wants her earnest money back.

Mic Rogson:

Wow.

Jim Reeder:

And needless to say, you’re just in a state of shock and you’re … So I did draft very quickly. I mean, like within a couple of hours, I had drafted an email to the president of the real estate agent that the company, it was a big, big firm in Houston and happened to know who she was, Erich knew her brother. And it was a long list and it had ended similar to your sledgehammer draft. It said, “I want you to preserve all communications, all documents, et cetera, et cetera.” I find that that language oftentimes is the thing that really will get somebody’s attention. You’ve got to start preserving your documents.

Got a call from her immediately, said, “Oh, don’t worry, you’re getting your earningspend back. In fact, it’s probably already in your account.” So I didn’t have to represent myself in the actual lawsuit. But again, it is an example of, yeah, I was going to defend myself. If the opportunity presented itself today though, and it was going to require litigation, luckily I have the resources to be able to hire somebody else, which is what I would do because there are a lot of people out there who are better than I am even at what I do. And I’d rather pay to have them provide me their expertise and particularly shoulder the responsibility because that’s the thing that really takes the toll.

Mic Rogson:

It does. And I also think that given our experience, I mean, I had a situation arise this past summer. We had rented an Airbnb in Spain because we were celebrating our 20th wedding anniversary and it was supposed to be air conditioned. It was not. We spent one evening in 95 inside the house. It was insane. We had all the windows open. None of us slept. And the next day, the owner had sent a technician who’s like, “This air conditioner is 40 years old and there is no repairing it. ” So I sent her a text saying, “Hey, we did spend one night. I’m happy to pay you for the one night. If you agree that we’re going to terminate, we’re going to leave and we need a roughly four o’clock departure time so that we can get to the next place that I’d already found.” She sent me an invoice for the one night.

She amended it. I assumed that was acceptance. I accepted it. She then sent me a text saying, “You’re already two hours past checkout time. Please leave immediately.” Lovely. We had nowhere to go. We had $300 worth. Oh, it gets worse. We had about at least $300 worth of food we had just purchased in the fridge. She sent the police. I have a picture with two of the most attractive Spanish policemen, which of course was me also preserving documentation because I dreamed that she refused to give us the money back. I literally spent the next two days before our vow renewal ceremony on the phone with different managers at Airbnb who kept saying, “Well, you can’t stay past the checkout time.” And I’m like, “That wasn’t the checkout time.” They could not understand that we had had to truncate because of a problem. And I was absolutely, I was like, “I am going to sue.” And I got home and I said, “It is not worth the emotional cost to get my money back.

And thank God I can afford to do that. Not everyone really can afford that. “

Jim Reeder:

That’s the point, right? Is that at different stages, you might have different capabilities and capacities and resources. And if you get to the point where you do have the resources to be able to do it, it does seem to me to represent yourself as just false economy.

Mic Rogson:

But the angst is definitely still there.

Jim Reeder:

It’s still there. I

Mic Rogson:

Hear you.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah. All right.

Mic Rogson:

Well, okay then. Listeners, what comes up in your daily lives that you respond to differently as litigators? Are there unique challenges and advantages, any funny stories you want to share? We would love to hear it. And if you have requests for any future Mic and Jim miscellaneous discussions, please send your suggestions to us at [email protected]. That’s M-R-O-G-S-O-N at skywardinsurance.com or [email protected]. And tune in for the next miscellaneous section where Jim and I check in and maybe even discuss the topic you send us.

Jim Reeder:

And that’s all the time we have. We’d love to hear your thoughts about today’s episode. And if you have comments or questions you’d like for us to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact us at those same emails. [email protected] or [email protected]. And of course, you can connect with us and with the ABA litigation section on LinkedIn. But if you want to meet us in person, your best bet would be to join us at one of our next litigation section events. If you go to ambar.org/litigation, there’s a whole calendar of events that you might want to participate in.

Mic Rogson:

And you are guaranteed to meet some amazing people. Thanks to the 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. And they work across industries, disciplines, and jurisdictions delivering clear perspectives that you can count on. Their guiding principle is intelligence that works. Learn more at www.thinkBrg.com. A reminder to be sure and subscribe to Litigation Radio on your favorite podcasting app so you don’t miss our next episode. And while you’re there, consider leaving a review or a quick rating. And 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 media and invite others to join our community.

Jim Reeder:

Finally, we want to quickly thank some folks who make this show possible. Thanks to Michelle Oberts, who is the producer on staff with the litigation section. Thanks also go out to the co-chairs of the litigation Section’s audio content committee, Haley Maple and Mike Stager. And thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network.

Mic Rogson:

And last but not least, thanks to you for listening. I’m Mic Rogsen.

Jim Reeder:

And I’m Jim Reeder, and we’ll talk to you later.

Mic Rogson:

Hey, Jim, do you think we should be saying something like talk to you litter, like make a pun on litigation? What do you think?

Jim Reeder:

You know I didn’t even get the lit thing early on, but if we start talking about litter, I think people are going to think we’re talking about cats. All right,

Mic Rogson:

That’s a fair point.

Continue Reading