Learning How to Practice Law after Law School

Episode Notes

Transcript

Jim Reeder:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Jim Reeder.

Mic Rogson:

And I’m your other host, Mic Rogson. Stay tuned for another episode of what Jim likes to call Mic and Jim Miselany. As I think I’ve already expressed, I am not entirely in love with that title. My preferred title is Mic and Jim: Litting It Up.

Jim Reeder:

Well, it might be a better title if we actually called it Miscellaney. Mic and Jim Millany.

Mic Rogson:

I could, but then I wouldn’t be mispronouncing it. And I do love to give people opportunities to correct me.

Jim Reeder:

Well, I do like letting it up, so I think it’s okay.

Mic Rogson:

It’s okay. Is it just mid? Because I low-key disagree, but we can agree to disagree. That’s all right. We can move on. As you all know, 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.

Jim Reeder:

And 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. On this show, Mic and I talk to the country’s top litigators, judges, in – house counsel and academics to discover best practices for developing your career, winning cases, getting more clients and building a sustainable practice all while staying well and happy. Be sure to subscribe to this podcast on your favorite podcasting app to make sure you never miss an episode.

Mic Rogson:

Litigation radio is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association. It’s where Jim and I both make our home in the ABA and we are huge proponents of the litigation section. This podcast is just on example of the dozens of resources that the litigation section provides to litigators of all practice areas so that they can become successful trial lawyers for their clients. Learn more and become a member at ambar.org/litigation. So Jim and I have been at this now for about nine months and we decided early on that periodically we would do an episode where we checked in with each other and talked about some topics that we’ve thought about over the last few months that don’t necessarily warrant a full episode, but relate to things that come up in the life of a litigator. So once again, and I’m going to take privilege here, let’s lit it up, Jim.

Jim Reeder:

Okay. I’m okay with that. I’m okay with litting it up. I have some other ideas though. We could call it potpourri or law salad. Anyway, let’s get started.

Mic Rogson:

No, I want to talk about law salad for a minute because that feels like an epithet that a judge might apply to a poorly written motion.That’s not even word salad, it’s law salad, which actually makes me wonder if there are proprietary phrases out there that judges use for different kinds of writing or advocacy. I personally haven’t heard of anything like that, but I bet there are. And that would be fascinating. We should note that as maybe a future topic to bring up.

Jim Reeder:

Well, I just made up law salad, so maybe it will become – If you were a

Mic Rogson:

Judge, would you not call something law salad if

Jim Reeder:

It just

Mic Rogson:

Made a mess

Jim Reeder:

Of… There

Mic Rogson:

You

Jim Reeder:

Go. I think it should become part of the vernacular.

Mic Rogson:

I like it. All right, we’re going to push it. We’re going to use law salad anytime we possibly can. We have coined the phrase, we invite all of our listeners out there to start using it. Let’s make it a thing. But onto our first topic. Jim, we’ve all heard the idea that law school is law school and the practice of law is the practice of law. And I’m not going to say never the twain shall meet, but they are two very different things. So I wanted to ask, looking back on your time in law school, what was the most interesting or useful thing you learned there that you feel like you did bring into your practice?

Jim Reeder:

So this is a really hard thing for me to think about. And I should have been thinking about it and I’ve been living it obviously, but it’s been nearly 40 years since I was in law school. And it’s kind of hard to put myself back there to try to remember what it was like. So I took some time off between undergrad and law school. And so there were numerous things that I did in law school that I hadn’t done for a couple of years because I had been out of college. But one of the things that people always tell you is that law school enables you to think in a certain way. I mean that lawyers think like lawyers, whatever that means. And it did have that impact on me. And I think it has that impact on virtually everybody that you do learn to think in a certain way.

What I have always interpreted that to mean is to sort of think linearly. And that’s not meaning not to think with some originality, but to make sure that you’re going from A to B to C and that you don’t skip steps in between recognizing that the devil is in the details, if you will. And I think it’s instinctive for everybody. If they know what the end’s supposed to be to sort of skip to the end. And yet the process of law school, learning in law school and learning how to think like a lawyer is to learn about the process, not just the end. The other thing that dawned on me also as I sat in classes and you sat in these classes where everybody has sat in these classes and you had a moment where you saw somebody do something or you heard them do something and though, “Oh my God, that was really good.” I think that’s great.

And so then you try to emulate that or people tell you, “Oh, you need to be in a study group.” And so you get in a study group even though that’s not who you are. You may not be the kind of person that learns from other people or you don’t have the tolerance for everybody going around and telling their own thoughts. And you’d rather do it independently. Or it’s not your style to emulate the way that other person does it. Takes a while to figure that out and who you are. But if there was something I did learn in law school beyond just the sort of linear thinking, it is be yourself. Figure out who you are and what you are, what you’re comfortable with and do that and figure out the best way to do that. And I think the final thought I would have about this is impressing your classmates I discovered is not nearly as important as learning the material and doing it the way the professor wants you to do it.

There were certainly a lot of people early on in my, I can remember in my classes who spent a lot of time raising their hand or in volunteering or trying to show their knowledge kind of think in a way to sort of impress everybody else in the room. That in the end didn’t prove to be a route to success. So those are just a few of the things that I’ve been able to think about the things that I learned in law school that have become more useful over time.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I mean, I like what you said about figure out who you are because I think that is something that translates into the practice of law as well. We’re all doing things that are similar to what our colleagues are doing, but each of us brings something different to the table. And there is I think an impetus when you are just starting out and learning to feel like, oh, there’s a right way and a wrong way and I need to figure out what that right way is instead of understanding that there’s a right way for me. There are things that are going to be unique about me. There are things I’m going to be better and worse at. I absolutely hate depositions. It’s just, I am good at many things. I’m good at depositions. I just don’t like them, which

Jim Reeder:

To

Mic Rogson:

Some extent means I’m never going to be as good as people who do love them

Inherently. So I think that’s a great one. But when you were talking about thinking linearly, that’s funny because the strongest memory that I have from law school was my senior seminar, which was on the presentation of law in film and literature. And I thought this is going to be a brainless class for me. This is going to be so great. I’m an English major. I’m going to rock it. It’s not even going to be hard. And I show up and this is after how many years of training myself to think, as you said, extremely linearly, making sure that I’m connecting A to B to C every time. And what happens? My teacher effectively scolds me and tells me that I need to get outside the box and start thinking creatively because I have lost that over my time learning how to be a good lawyer, think like a lawyer.

She’s like, “I need you to stop thinking like a lawyer and go back to think like a poet. That’s what I need.” And it actually took me quite some time to find the poet space in my head again because I had studiously evicted it.

Jim Reeder:

I think that’s a great, great point. And maybe the two things can coexist.That is that you want to make sure that you are dotting the Is and crossing the T’s and dealing with the details. But I do think that everybody has gotten away from good writing, for instance, because they feel like they have to write a certain way or write like a lawyer and they’ve got to use certain language. I suspect depending on who your audience is, particularly audience that reads a lot of legal stuff to start writing creatively, start being outside the box, if you will, actually would be well received.

Mic Rogson:

I definitely think that. And I also think that from a problem solving standpoint, especially as litigators, we can get really focused on what we can prove. The A to B to C of it. We can get lost in the details. And when I find that happening to me, this is why I think it made such an impression and it’s something that I’ve carried with me through the years from law school is I stop and I say, “Hold on. I want to see the full work of art. I need to take a step back and think about this outside of the linear, outside of the connection of dots.” And sometimes that can actually open up both possibilities and arguments. I mean, one of my favorite compliments from opposing counsel is that was such a creative argument. And I’ve gotten it often enough during my career to know that it’s something I do.

And I honestly think it’s all because Professor Arit Kamir in my senior seminar took me to task and said, “You’ve got to not just think linearly, you’ve got to think creatively.”

Jim Reeder:

So what do you do? So what’s the process that enables you to do that? I mean, for me, I would have to sort of, if it was writing or preparing an argument or whatever, I’d probably have to sort of draft it in a way that is logical, makes sense, probably more in tune with the old linear process and then maybe have somebody else look at it or myself look at it in a different way. So how do you do that?

Mic Rogson:

I think what I do is I create my linear outline. I need to know your facts are your facts. You cannot mess with your facts. As lawyers, what we can mess with is the law. And so it’s the theory of the law that I then try to get creative around. Are there corollaries in other areas of the law? Can I talk to someone who might know about those corollaries more than I do? And that conversation may lead to an idea. I’ll say, “I have this problem. Have you had a similar problem in your field? How do you approach it? ” But I try to get outside of the box, not just in terms of linear thinking, but also especially if you end up specializing in particular fields, you end up talking to a lot of people who work in that exact same field. You don’t necessarily think outside of the four corners of that field.

And so that’s where I like to talk to a lot of people. I like to get different input and hear how other people think about things because it expands and creates more flexibility in the way I’m approaching the question.

Jim Reeder:

And I think that that actually is a good point as well, which also goes back to law school. Even if you weren’t the kind of person who liked study groups or though that study groups were a successful way to learn, once you practice, and this will bring us to our next question, once you practice, you realize that actually bringing others into the conversation and testing things out with others is actually a really good thing to do. That we don’t have all the answers, that our perspective is not the only perspective, that there are different audiences that will take things different ways. And so this sort of sharing of what you’re doing, going around checking is there an analogous situation, et cetera, is a way to sort of open our perspective and offer solutions sometimes when there’s not one. So that leads us to the next question.

All right. Which was your dichotomy. What has been then the most unexpected realization or discovery that you’ve made about practicing law that you were unaware of when you went through law school or didn’t learn in law school and then just discovered all of a sudden when you started practicing?

Mic Rogson:

Well, and I think that actually totally speaks to that inherent dichotomy between the creative and the linear and the struggle between them because I am inherently creative, but I absolutely love the certainty of the linear. I think it is one of the things that drew me to the practice of law and to litigation in particular because you give me a set of facts, that’s the box in which I get to work in. And then I get to be creative with the argument, which I still need to craft to build building blocks, one on top of another in a beautiful, precise, linear pattern. And then you get to the actual practice of law. And the first time you go in for a motion, you have prepped, you have researched every single, you think, every single case law that might be applicable. You have your argument all scripted out, you have practiced it in front of the mirror, you know what you’re going to say.

It’s going to go perfectly to plan and it never does. And now you are faced with a case law, a citation that you’ve never heard of and your opposing counsel is arguing it to death and you have never heard of this for some reason. And maybe it’s because it doesn’t actually apply. And if you had read it, you would know that it didn’t apply and they’re making it up and that has happened to me. Or the judge asks a question that completely derails you because you’re not sure how it’s relevant because it’s not relevant to the argument you just built, but somehow it’s relevant to the judge and you have to pivot. And so the realization that this idea of building blocks and certainty and these are the four corners of the argument is not going to happen in real life. That you need to prepare yourself, but you need to go in as flexible as gumby.

That was startling to me. I was not expecting it. I learned to enjoy it. I came to appreciate the fun of it, but initially it is simply terrifying.

Jim Reeder:

It is. And it’s interesting because the young lawyers particularly asked me as I was getting ready for trial, are we getting ready for trial? So what are you worried about? What are you worried about? What part of the case you’re worried about? And typically I was not worried about our case. I was worried about the fact that 40% of what was going to happen in that trial was unexpected, something that we had not prepared for. And this is uniformly true. You can prepare, prepare, prepare, prepare, and you should. But once you get there and get to trial, there’s a lot going to happen, as you said, that is entirely unexpected. And you spend a considerable amount of time fighting new motions that come in over the transom overnight. And that you’re going to argue the next day that you had no idea what was going to be an issue and it comes in at seven o’clock or 10 o’clock the night before and the judge wants you to argue it the next morning.

Those kind of things are happening all the time. And then you get a ruling that requires you to pivot something and you can’t put on this particular witness or you can’t put on this expert or whatever. And so you have to obviously be prepared for the thing you’re unprepared for. The other thing is, and I can remember this from a law school class, a wonderful trial lawyer who taught trial advocacy. And we were having some sort of mock trial kind of thing. And at some point the judge told him, “Oh, you’ve got to… ” He starts arguing something before the jury about some document and piece of an exhibit and the judge says, “Can I see that? You need to present this to the court reporter and then up to me. ” And he sort of shrugged and went like this to the jury like, “Oh, sorry.” You can’t be afraid of sort of admitting that you made a mistake, right?

I mean, okay. Yeah. Oh, I didn’t do that right. Oh heck, sorry. Okay, let me fix that. The worst thing in that instance where somebody raises something, some new case that you’ve never heard of is for you just to BS about it as if you do know it. You can say, Judge, not familiar with that case, but from what I’m hearing, it doesn’t sound to me like it’s on point or Judge, not familiar with that case. And if you don’t mind, appreciate some time to be able to read it and look at it and be glad to respond to it. I think it’s unlikely that it’s applicable here because I think I would’ve found it otherwise. I mean, that kind of thing, right? So that you’re not just making stuff up because that’s going to be worse than admitting, oh, you know what? They’re raising something and I’m not familiar with it.

And most judges will be responsive to that. So I love the notion that that’s one of the things that you learn because I think we all learn that, that things change. The other thing that I had, I guess, something apreciation of in the back of my head, but really didn’t know how it worked in practice because law school doesn’t spend much time talking to you about the client. And the role of the client is the dominant role in the relationship. You’re there

Mic Rogson:

If not for the client.

Jim Reeder:

That’s exactly right. And so each case you read in law school, there was a client who dictated considerable aspects of the case. What was their objective? What did they want to achieve? Were they really trying to try a case and get to the result? Could they afford to do that? Could they afford to uncover everything and bring it forward to the court? What was the client’s situation? What was their tone? What was their objective? What was their business issues associated with that case as well? We all encounter that where we’ve got a litigation strategy and the client’s got a business strategy and sometimes those two things don’t end up being the exact same thing. So learning and appreciating the role of the client. The last thing I would say, and this has to go again with the notion that you can be comfortable with the fact that sometimes you don’t know everything, is that comfort is really important.

Being comfortable with your lack of expertise in some instances, right? Comfort with, as you said, reacting on the fly and reacting to the 40% of the case that you’re unprepared for. Comfort with the environment. That how comfortable are you moving around the courtroom like it’s your living room? That comfort is something that I didn’t appreciate in law school because it was all artificial. And you can only really become comfortable when you actually start to practice. And so you become comfortable with dealing with your client. You become comfortable dealing with your colleagues. You become comfortable physically in the courtroom or at a deposition. The more comfort you have, the better you’ll be.

Mic Rogson:

There’s no question. And I mean, the comfort is what led me to understand that I needed to learn how to pivot, to be comfortable really with pivoting because every court is different. And when you’re first starting out, the first time you go to a new court, to a new courtroom, to a new judge, the learning curve is steep. There’s no question. And the more you do it and the more new courts you go into, the more comfortable you are going into a new court and figuring out what it is that you need to learn, the more comfortable you are going up to someone who clearly looks like they sit in that court often enough and go, “Hey, how does this work here? I’ve never appeared here before. Could you give me the quick lowdown?” And that’s completely legit. It’s okay to do. No one tells you that when you start.

They send you off. You’ve got a hearing. Kings County. Let’s go. And it’s trial by fire.

Jim Reeder:

Well, intimidation and anxiety are huge impediments to effective performance.

Mic Rogson:

Absolutely. And that’s actually what I wanted to say was it’s hard because the stakes, let’s bring both of these together, the comfort and the client. The stakes are your clients. And that is why it is hard to relax because it’s not yours to lose. You’re representing someone else and you are trying to do the best possible job you can for them. And the fact is that if you did just relax, if you let go of the stakes, you can pivot that much faster. If you think of it as a game, which was very hard for me to do, I took my responsibility to my clients so seriously that I had to force myself to learn how to relax and think of it more as a game. Because the minute it’s a game and I can let go of the consequences and of the stakes, I actually function better.

Jim Reeder:

Well, and this is going to be controversial. Okay. I am a big believer that when you close the door or shut the computer, even if you’re going home that night and you’re working on it that evening, so you’ve left the office, you’re working at home, but you’re working on it and at whatever time you shut the computer or you close the door, you should really do everything in your power to eliminate that and clear your brain. Good night sleep’s really important. And the reason I think this will be controversial is because I think that there are a lot of lawyers who will say, “Ugh, yes. While you’re sleeping, I am thinking about ways to beat you. And okay, that’s fine. Stay up all night and think about ways to beat me. In the end, I don’t think it’s going to do you any good because I just closed my computer.

I did everything I thought I could do. I’ll get up in the morning, I’ll start fresh, but I’m going to sleep well tonight.

Mic Rogson:

Right. And that is going to give you the brain flexibility to pivot when you need to. Whatever they come up with, you’re going to respond a lot better on a full night’s sleep.

Jim Reeder:

Yep.

Mic Rogson:

Well, Jim and I will be back with more, but for now, let’s take a quick break so we can hear from our sponsors.

Jim Reeder:

We’re back with Mic and Jim letting it up where Mic and I – We’re letting

Mic Rogson:

It up. There we

Jim Reeder:

Go. We’re letting it up where Mic and I talk among ourselves about topics that tend to come up in the life of every litigator. All right. So Mic, this is a really important question that’s going to be very insightful. It’s going to tell us all a lot about you. What is your favorite courtroom drama?

Mic Rogson:

You want the truth, Jim? You want the truth? Well, you can’t handle the truth. I mean, who doesn’t love a good courtroom drama?Gotcha scene. And Jack Nicholson was just brilliant in A Few Goo Men. I mean, that’s the first movie that comes to mind when you ask me about a good courtroom drama. But to be honest, as I was thinking about it, I actually have an issue with the film because I didn’t find it believable that the Jack Nicholson character would break as a result of witness badgering and the fact that the witness badgering occurred with absolutely no one objecting. I had issues with it.

Jim Reeder:

The other thing is that the night before, they’re preparing for the next day and Tom Cruise just lays out what he’s going to do and how it’s going to happen. I’m going to do this and this is what’s going to happen, as if that actually happens.

Mic Rogson:

As we just said, it never happens, right? Right.

Yeah, sure, he gets the colonel to just admit to a crime and then act as if he doesn’t realize that’s what he’s done. I loved the scene itself and the acting. I mean, Jack Nicholson really is phenomenal, but I have to take exceptions. So notwithstanding the fact that that was the first one that come to mind, as I thought about it further, I actually decided that I prefer my cousin Vinny. And I prefer it A, because you’ve got this bumbling newbie who doesn’t really know what he’s doing, but the film demonstrates how it’s okay. As long as

Jim Reeder:

You

Mic Rogson:

Follow the procedures, you follow the facts to where they need to lead, you don’t have to be slick. You don’t have to be massively experienced. You just have to be dogged, dedicated and do a good job. And so aside from, it showed the importance of solid fact gathering. And I think appealingly, perhaps to some of our podcast sponsors, it showed the critical importance of a good expert witness represented by Marissa Tomei, who was just, I mean, as spectacular as Jack Nicholson in a completely

Jim Reeder:

Different

Mic Rogson:

Way. Easier to look at. No, let’s take that out. Jack is lovely. You can leave it in. Jack is lovely. Maria Tomei, they can compete amongst themselves.

Jim Reeder:

She’s lovely too. I love her.

Mic Rogson:

They were both amazing. They’re amazing actors and that’s really, I’m sure, what each of them cares about the most. But I think that I actually find my cousin Vinny to be a better sort of like Cortran. It was a comedy, but they managed to make it a drama and a comedy. It was a dramedy. It was lovely. It was just a really, really beautiful movie. I do, however, on a serious note, want to just comment on Judgment at Nuremberg, which is an older film. It’s from the ’60s. I think it won the best film Oscar in 1962. It is a three-hour film. This is not something you watch lightly. It is the trial of jurists and lawyers in the Nazi era who became accomplices to the regime’s human rights violations. And I think it’s just a serious and though-provoking look at what happens when the rule of law fails.

And of course you’ve got this crazy cast. You’ve got Spencer Tracy, you’ve got Bert Lancaster, Marlena… I don’t know how you pronounce her name. Marlene? Marlene Dietrich. Marlena. Marlena. Marlena. Okay. Marlena Dietrich, Judy Garland, and even a young William Shatner, which is fun. I saw it ages ago. I don’t fully remember it, but it left an impression because it just addressed such a really interesting topic, both in terms of the process of the law as they were going through the trial and in terms of the concept of what it means to be a lawyer in the arena of the rule of law.

Jim Reeder:

Well, and it’s a marvelous movie. It is. It’s long, but it is marvelous. And it does showcase because this is a real thing that happened and they’re transcripts actually of the proceedings. And so the language that, yes, it’s scripted, but there is actual language in the case that is used by lawyers and judges and witnesses, et cetera, that makes it very factual and also highlights, I think, the quality, frankly, of the lawyers, particularly Justice Jackson and some others who just were marvelous trial lawyers. So I agree with you. I think it’s a great film. I also, though, my favorites are a little older. I do love a few good men. I do love Cousin Vinny. I love to watch them all the time. Find them very, very entertaining. 12 Angry Men, which actually doesn’t showcase lawyers, but showcases the jury, is one of my favorite Favorite movies of all time, Henry Fonda, and a wonderful cast that shows the jury deliberation process where they go from 11 to one to unanimous 12-0 the other direction through the process of the film.

And I’m a huge believer, as I know you are, and most litigators are in the jury system. I think people try hard to do their best, that they take it seriously and they want to reach the right decision. And I think this is a perfect example of all these different people coming into this room who don’t know each other, all of them with kind of different agendas that they bring at the door. And then through the process of the deliberation, they become more serious and more thoughtful about the decision. So I love that movie. The Verdict, do you know The Verdict with Paul Newman? That movie is one that I go back to periodically. And he obviously is a flawed character. It is David and Goliath and it is an uphill battle by a challenged person. And I’m not going to tell you how it ends, but it is a wonderful process to get from the beginning when you’re worried sick that there’s no way that this guy’s going to self-sabotage and he’s going to sabotage the whole thing.

And it’s a great example of experts too. So he hires this expert, he’s the perfect guy. He gets up on the stand and he’s undone. To Kill a Mockingbird, obviously a lot more than just courtroom drama, but Craig Repeck, I don’t know how you could choose somebody better to be your lawyer in a case during a period that reflects cultural issues that are just, you can’t imagine what that time was like. And a fair judge who just finds himself in a culture where it’s difficult, small town. God, I love that movie. So those are three of my favorite. But I’m going to call out a few that sometimes people talk about and you can just tell me whether you give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down or one to 10, whatever. So legally blonde.

Mic Rogson:

I mean, Reese Witherspoon is delightful and it was a fun watch. I’ve never thought of it as really about the law. And maybe I should have. I don’t know. I mean, you can make me rethink that. There was the gotcha. And again, it was one of those plays on expertise. Someone who’s an actual expert catching something. So sure one could make an argument that it is once again a great commercial for the importance of the perfect expert witness.

Jim Reeder:

It’s a fun case. I mean, it’s a fun movie I think. I like watching it. You’re not going to learn anything about practicing as a result of that. You’re not going to get any great insight.

Mic Rogson:

Exactly.

Jim Reeder:

But it does show that, okay, if you know things that are just as a result of your own experience, don’t leave them at the door. If you know what this season’s Jimmy Choo’s versus last season’s Jimmy Chu’s are, or if you know what happens when a perm gets wet, bring it to the table, right? Because that could be important stuff. All right. Erin Brockovich, no courtroom stuff, but definitely a legal kind of thriller.

Mic Rogson:

I mean, I think Erin Brockovich highlights what it is about the law that inspires filmmakers and makes it a genre unto itself. Because I think most of the reason that we keep seeing films about these legal issues is because the legal system is there to try to create fairness, equity in society. It is a way to remedy wrongs. It is a way to allow the little guy to fight the big guy. And that’s what we get to see in Erin Brockovich.

Jim Reeder:

I love that observation. There’s a

Mic Rogson:

Little bit about the ABC, right? Yeah. There’s also appreciation I think of the doggedness, the dedication that it takes to follow facts to their natural conclusion, the intellect involved in coming up with the arguments. So I liked it. And again, I don’t think of it as a courtroom drama because I think it’s more about the case itself and not necessarily the practice of law, but it’s an amazing movie and I learned a lot about the issue by watching it. And I have a tremendous amount of respect for the woman herself.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah, me too. And I watched it again recently too, and it is great because it’s all those things that you said that I think make for a compelling drama and the reason why legal issues in courtroom circumstances are so popular. The sort of, again, uphill battle, the David versus Goliath, the seeking justice, getting justice in the end, or injustice, if that’s what you want to be provocative about equity, smart, intellectual, and the fact that you can be smart and win. And it’s just not about power in winning or money in winning. All those things create, I think, a wonderful milieu for – Storytelling. Or storytelling. Exactly. It is. And it’s great storytelling because it provides a great canvas from which to tell stories of those kinds of themes. I encourage people not to poo-poo some of these movies because they are actually, I think, great entertainment, but also show a great deal about the profession.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I mean, you could argue that Legally Blonde, the point of Legally Blonde is to illustrate that it takes all kinds of intelligence to achieve an equitable result, that we think it has to look a certain way and it doesn’t, which is a valid point to make about litigation and the practice of law.

Jim Reeder:

I agree. I agree. Okay. Just a quick thumbs up or thumbs down on a couple more. Philadelphia.

Mic Rogson:

Philadelphia was amazing. I cried nonstop. Yeah.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah. Thumbs up. Thumbs up. Mary Steen Burgeon’s sort of self-recognition that this just feels terrible. This is filthy. I hate doing this. I’m sure that a number of people have felt that way before. Okay. Did you see A Time to Kill with McConney?

Mic Rogson:

I did see A Time to Kill. I’ve also read A Time to Kill. I liked it a lot. Again, it’s about the cleverness. It’s again about the uphill battle, the David versus Goliath. It was compelling. Yeah.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah, thumbs up. Thumbs up. Okay. So listeners, what’s your favorite movie? Or if we want to actually be more serious about it, what advice do you have for young lawyers? What comes up in your lives that you respond to differently as a litigator? Are there unique challenges and advantages, funny stories you want to share? We’d love to hear it. And if you have requests for any future Mic and Jim litting it up discussions, please send your suggestions to us at [email protected], MRogson, M-R-O-G-S-O-N at skywardinsurance.com or JA Reeder Jr. [email protected]. And then tune in for the next law salad session where Jim and I check in and lit it

Mic Rogson:

Up. Lit it up. We’re going to have to get together and do it together, right? That’s all the time we’ve got. Thank you so much for joining us. We would 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 that Jim just shared. And of course, you can always connect with us and with the ABA litigation section on LinkedIn. Or if you find us so fascinating that you would like to meet us in person, your best bet would be to join us at one of our next litigation section events. And we always like to mention them when they are upcoming. There’s nothing imediately over the summer, but there will be more coming in the fall so we will let you know.

Jim Reeder:

In fact, check periodically your ABA section of litigation website at ambar.org/litigation. They’ll tell you about the calendar of events that’s coming up. A reminder to be sure and subscribe to Litigation Radio on your favorite podcasting app so you don’t miss out on 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 the episode with a friend or through a post on social media and invite others to join the community.

Mic Rogson:

And finally, we want to thank some folks who make this show possible. Thank you to Michelle Oberts, who is the producer on staff with the litigation section. She works tirelessly and we are so grateful. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the litigation section’s audio content committee, Haley Maple and Mike Stager. Thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network.

Jim Reeder:

And last but not least, thanks to you for listening. I’m Jim Reeder.

Mic Rogson:

And I’m Mic Rogson.

Jim Reeder:

We’ll talk to you later.

Continue Reading