The Winding Road to Your Future

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.

Jim Reeder:

As you know on this show, we generally talk to the country’s top litigators and judges to stay abreast of developing trends in litigation, discover best practices in developing our careers and how to build a sustainable practice.

Mic Rogson:

But as you also know, there’s always two sides to an interview, and it’s our hope that you’re usually learning a lot about the guest. But we’re also thinking you’re not learning as much about the interviewer.

Jim Reeder:

We decided to take this opportunity to interview each other.

Mic Rogson:

If you are curious to get to know your hosts, stay tuned because we’re about to mine each other’s secrets and find out what makes the other tick.

Jim Reeder:

As always, this podcast is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association, which is where both Mic and I make our home. In the A BA, not only is the litigation section an inviting and supportive community of highly talented litigators, it also provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients. You can learn more at ambar.org/litigation. That’s A MB a.org/litigation.

Mic Rogson:

So Jim, before we start, I think folks should know that you and I don’t actually know each other that well. So I’m actually very excited about this opportunity to get to know you and it’s easier for me, I think in part because you were already a big name as I was coming up in the ranks of the EBA. You were, well, you were chair. I didn’t know you before you were chair. That’s actually how I got to know you. We may have met,

Jim Reeder:

But yeah, I remember Mic actually, I mean the A BA obviously is a wonderful place for you to meet people, but you made an impression on me as well the first time that we met young, vibrant, active, seriously. I mean, just go-getter, wanting to participate, wanting to add value. And so yeah, you got to see me, but sometimes when you’re in the trenches, you don’t realize that other people are seeing you too. And I was seeing you.

Mic Rogson:

I really did not know that at all. So that’s flattering. Thank you.

Jim Reeder:

Well, I mean think, well, we don’t want this to come off as a sort of self-indulgent, right?

Mic Rogson:

No.

Jim Reeder:

Truthfully, what we want is for people to understand kind of the method to our madness here. We could go about doing podcasts for the next few years and just ask questions and follow ups of guests, and you’d get a lot of helpful information about trying lawsuits and developing your career, and it’d be great and useful and worthwhile, but frankly, that’s the kind of stuff you could probably get in a lot of different, but Mic and I honestly believe that if we did only that, we’d be squandering an opportunity to provide you with a lot more.

Mic Rogson:

And I think that that’s part of what Jim and I discovered we had in common when we took on this task together as co-hosts. Because I think one of the things that we both really value about our profession is that its demands are so diverse that we have many, many different types of personalities finding their way into the law. We’re all very different, and each one of us finds ways to leverage our strengths, offset our weaknesses, and those are the kinds of things that we can learn from each other that an article is not likely to offer. No other format really gives you the same sort of opportunity to discover the personality and not just the acumen, if you will. Personally, I love working with people who think like me because generally goes very, very smoothly. But I actually adore working with people who think in completely different ways because they challenge me and help me grow

Jim Reeder:

Well, and that’s the important part of recognizing these differences. First, you recognize there’s a difference, and then you figure out, okay, what do I do with that information? Right? It’s our belief that being curious and learning about each other at that level, really understanding the fundamentals of who each of us is not only contributes to respect for each other, which is worthwhile in and of itself and contributes of course to respect, I think for our legal institutions, which is probably more needed today than ever before. But it also, I think contributes to civil discourse between us. It actually improves our learning and it improves our skills, and so

Mic Rogson:

It makes us more elastic as thinkers, which can only help us as lawyers and especially as litigators.

Jim Reeder:

So let’s become better lawyers by learning about each

Mic Rogson:

Other. Let’s do it. Gosh, who goes first?

Jim Reeder:

I’m going to go first. Tell us about yourself, Mick. What do we need to know about you and not resume stuff? Tell us about you. What makes you tick without any reference to your job, your education, the kind of things that anybody could read on a bio. This is the time to sort of let us look inside the curtain.

Mic Rogson:

It’s funny because when we first started talking about doing this episode, I had to sit and think, okay, well what’s my answer to that? What does make me tick? And there’s so much that goes into creating the core of who you are, but I think for me, part of it is definitely that I am the child of immigrants. I think if I had not been the child of immigrants, if stability was not one of the primary values that was instilled in me, I could only hope and pray that I would be a successful Broadway performer today. I haven’t given up on the dream. It may yet happen, but

Jim Reeder:

That’s something else we have in common, by the way.

Mic Rogson:

Really? Oh God,

Jim Reeder:

Yes.

Mic Rogson:

Oh

Jim Reeder:

Goodness. Whole nother topic though about Broadway stars who actually then settled for being lawyer.

Mic Rogson:

Well, maybe you and I need to write a song together, but yeah, we’ll discuss that another time. That was actually my goal. That was my dream was to be on Broadway. But if you look at my eighth grade yearbook under ambition, it actually says author and or lawyer. So I’ve achieved at least one of those. I’ve partially achieved the other, not in quite the way I anticipated so that it may yet happen. But I think that my much of my career choices and my life choices have sort of been organized around the idea that I need to be able to be creative. And as someone who enjoys intellectual endeavors, I also need to be inspired intellectually, otherwise I get bored. But I also needed to do something that would allow me to pay a mortgage and have stability in my life so that my parents wouldn’t always go, are you okay? And hence the law and in particular litigation, because that still allowed me to have that performative aspect. And actually exactly what you and I are talking about because I love people. I really do love people. It’s one of the fundamental, I think, aspects of my personality is I inherently really just enjoy people. And so litigation is certainly the area of law that I think is apt for people who people, it almost makes me want to sing Barbara. Right?

Jim Reeder:

Right, exactly. Okay. But two other factors. I think that often play a significant role. Regionalism. Where’d you grow up? What part of the world, the country did you grow up in?

Mic Rogson:

Well, I was born in Israel. My father is an American. My mother is an Israeli. He met her when he was visiting in Israel, and we moved to the United States when I was four and a half, and we moved to la, which is where I grew up. I’m a native. It’s interesting. I don’t know how much LA really has made an enormous impact on who I am. In fact, when I moved to New York for my LLM degree, people assumed I was a native New Yorker because I talk really fast. So I don’t know. I don’t know the extent to which the regionalism is actually affected who I am.

Jim Reeder:

Well, and we don’t usually know that until we come

Mic Rogson:

Up right up against it.

Jim Reeder:

Exactly. In another region, right? Because we think this is so normal the way we grow up, and then we get exposed. It’s part of just growth and education. Alright, so then give me a generational framework. People don’t know that

Mic Rogson:

Either. Well, I grew up in the age of the greatest music ever. That would be the eighties.

Jim Reeder:

Okay.

Mic Rogson:

So eighties and nineties were my formative

Jim Reeder:

Years. I have never heard that in my life.

Mic Rogson:

No,

Jim Reeder:

That the greatest music of all time was from the eighties.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I can’t wait to litigate it with you.

Jim Reeder:

Okay. And that’s interesting because I grew up in the seventies and believed that the music of the seventies was the greatest ever. And I am always met with resistance to that because people will say, oh, are you talking Barry Manalow, the carpenters? I said, yeah, stuff’s great.

Mic Rogson:

I mean, I’m a huge Abba fan, so if you want me to give you Abba, I will concede that Abba is one of the greatest of all times.

Jim Reeder:

All right. So I do think that gives us a great insight. Alright, so here’s mine. I grew up in the south, right deep south, actually, Shreveport, Louisiana, a town of a couple hundred thousand people.

Mic Rogson:

I was never able to place the accent. So that’s interesting to know.

Jim Reeder:

And Shreveport, for people who don’t know, is I call it Far East Texas. A lot of people would say, oh, it’s Louisiana and therefore it must be sort of Cajun country. It’s not. It’s northwest Louisiana. So it’s about 20 minutes from Arkansas and about 20 minutes from Texas. And so it’s a much different kind of culture up there. Frankly, neither here nor there, but the current speaker of the house is from there. I was middle child, only, boy, older sister, younger sister in the middle, peacekeeper, avoiding being a visible kind of situation. Born in the sixties, grew up in the sixties and seventies and earliest memory parents, very politically active in Louisiana, which was a very politically active state. I can remember an early memory of six years old waking up and looking at the headline to see that Robert Kennedy had been killed

And being thoroughly confused because I didn’t know that Robert Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were the same person. My mother had to explain that to me, and I can remember having nightmares about that. Thereafter, very formative event in my life, middle class, educated Catholic. My dad was a lawyer, a very stable kind of environment until I was 10. And then he stopped practicing law and he bought the black radio station in town. And so I spent growing up a considerable amount of time at that radio station in town, obviously then spent a considerable amount of time in a culture that was unlike my own. Grew up with a totally different probably sensibility as a result of that.

Mic Rogson:

That must have been fascinating.

Jim Reeder:

It was absolutely fascinating. Eric, my husband and I went back to Shreveport. We go back to Shreveport periodically, and we went and spent some time with one of my dad’s dear friends who was the sort of leading disc jockey at that station recently. And it just brought back to me how important that part of my life was.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I’m incredibly curious, and we probably don’t have time to explore it on this maybe another episode, but I’m curious what prompted your father to leave the law and choose that of all things as his next step? So

Jim Reeder:

Interestingly that it’s the reverse of what you and I have been talking about, it was showbiz. I mean, he had grown up also kind of a ham and loved entertainment and loved showbiz and had a very good voice and loved the radio business. And so he just did what you and I wish we could have done, which was to just say, okay, that’s great. I’m a lawyer, but I’d love to just try my hand at this. And that’s what actually led to that. So just two other quick little tidbits. I grew up placing a premium on being a good boy, convinced myself that my joy was tied to making other people find joy. Had an epiphany at 40, came out and discovered that I essentially had spent half my life living a partially complete life.

Mic Rogson:

And

Jim Reeder:

I considered the last 22 years since then husband kids career as my bonus life. And so approach day-to-day really in a much different kind of attitude and have for the last 20 plus years as a result of that. Those are the things I think that you need to know to get an understanding of who I am.

Mic Rogson:

I want to ask a question, something that is important to me as well. And you mentioned it earlier. You said you grew up very religious and as did I,

Jim Reeder:

Catholic schools. Catholic schools all the way through high school.

Mic Rogson:

And I went to Orthodox Jewish day school in high school all the way through high school, and actually a little bit beyond. I went to seminary and almost got what would’ve been the equivalent of a rabbinical decree if they actually granted those to women in orthodoxy, which they do not. That’s also another long conversation. Another subject, yes. So you can call me almost rabbi if you’d like, but I’m curious, has your approach or religious relationship to religion altered over time?

Jim Reeder:

I suppose it has. I still consider myself to be a considerably religious and spiritual person. My relationship with the church is probably changed. Well, it has changed. When you’re a kid and you go to a Catholic school and you do so until you turn 18, you don’t always have a complete appreciation of what it is that you’re doing and why you’re doing it, et cetera. And I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I loved it. And I have loved my relationship over the church, with the church as it has evolved over time, but yes, absolutely. And I can’t imagine that people’s relationship with their church doesn’t change over time.

Mic Rogson:

Right? Yeah. I mean, I think for me, realizing that you could have different feelings about institutional religion versus religiousness, right? Religious precepts and values. I’m so grateful for the education that I got. I’m grateful for growing up in a world where we could freely discuss values and ethics and morals, and it was something we were expected to do. I don’t know that I think we as litigators actually engage in conversations about those topics more often than maybe a lot of others do.

Jim Reeder:

Well, it’s an intellectual pursuit. Yes, it is in fact something different, much more ephemeral than that. But it also is very intellectual, and I think that that’s one reason why it intrigues lawyers.

Mic Rogson:

That is very true.

Jim Reeder:

Alright, so you mentioned briefly how you got to the law.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I mean, I can elaborate that on a little bit. As we were talking, I realized that the thing that I didn’t talk about was that I was an incredibly idealistic young person and I wanted to do something that would make the world a better place. I wanted to help people. I actually considered psychology. I mean, when you are articulate and you can help other people articulate their own emotional states, et cetera, and sort of help, it’s almost like a deposition, right? It’s just more nuanced and delicate, if you will. So that was something that I thought about briefly, but I also knew that when I would help my friends through things, it was emotionally exhausting for me. I knew in setting up a life that I didn’t want to come home from work emotionally exhausted to what I hoped I would have a family, a partner, and not have the emotional wherewithal to care for them in that same way.

And so I had to think about, okay, well what can I do that would also help people and still leave me the room, the space to be a whole human being and have the family and all of that? And the answer was, be a lawyer. Because lawyers help people with practical problems. Let me use my skillset to help people, a skillset and specialized knowledge to help people who need the help. Obviously justice, I am motivated. I am energized by pursuit of fairness, lack of fairness. You know how any 4-year-old will get incredibly irate if something is unfair? I don’t know that I’ve lost that. It’s still just riles me up to see lack of fairness. And so I think all of that sort of played into my decision to become a lawyer. It doesn’t hurt that I told my Chaucer professor, I said, look, I love Choler and I have loved old English and middle English. Should I just become a professor? And he is like, well, what’s the alternative? I said, lawyer. He’s like, well, do you want to publish or perish or would you like to afford a home? I was like, okay, thank you.

Jim Reeder:

It’s amazing how those people can put things. So simplistically

Mic Rogson:

Changed my life.

Jim Reeder:

Well, I can point to two or three comments like that from professors I had over time. That changed the direction I went. It is remarkable. As I said earlier, this was not my first choice of profession when I was a kid. I wanted to be the president of General Motors.

Mic Rogson:

That’s very specific,

Jim Reeder:

Isn’t it? And it was because General Motors was the sort of gold standard of American corporate position that there was a book at some point that said as goes, general Motors, so goes the country or something like that. But also, I loved cars. So there was this perk associated with being president of the General Motors, which was that I got to just drive a variety of different cars, which I loved. Anyway, that wasn’t going to happen. So when I got out of college, actually I became an investment banker. And so I was an investment banker for a couple of years.

Mic Rogson:

Oh wow.

Jim Reeder:

And I did think that was going to be my career. And at some point, I don’t know that I ever put my finger on why, but it wasn’t very fulfilling to me. For me, for a lot of people, I’m sure it is, but it wasn’t for me. And so in some respects, I went to law school as a default, and I know there are a lot of people who go to law school as a default, but I needed to do something different. I needed to make a change. And so I went to law school. I did not go to law school as a response to some passion, and I didn’t go to law school thinking that I would do so in order to sort of change the world or to even help people. Those were not concepts in my head in those days as if they were ancient times.

But in the mid eighties, no computers, you didn’t make the choices about schools and law schools and doing things based upon the variety of information that you have today. I didn’t go to a single, I went to one college visit right out of all of the schools that I applied to. You just didn’t know that much. And you went to the best school. You didn’t go because they had a great program in this or they had a great program in that you just said, oh, that’s a great school. That’s where I’m going to go. Oh, the law school, that’s where I’m going to go. But it didn’t take long for me to realize exactly the thing that you’re talking about, which is that at some point, very early on, and it was while I was in law school and I was doing some sort of clinic, I realized that I had the skill and resources to do something for somebody that they couldn’t do for themselves.

And it was something I had never appreciated before, that people are in need of this help, this resource, and they can’t do it themselves. So who’s do it? Not everybody has access to that resource. And so I want to make sure that I’m out there and able to provide that resource. I tell you, I love the stories as I’m interviewing young people coming out of law school about how at five they had this experience, or at 10 they had this experience, or at 12 at this experience where they realized they wanted to be a lawyer. I think that’s marvelous. I just was late coming to the party and realizing that it was challenging. I loved that I could use my skills and my talents, which was that’s great. I loved serving clients. I loved getting the feedback from clients. I loved the thank you at the end of the phone call where they say, oh, thank you. Really appreciate your help. Thanks. And I find the people interesting. I find other lawyers interesting.

Mic Rogson:

Yes.

Jim Reeder:

And so I guess that I’m not unlike a lot of people. I wasn’t drawn to the law. But once I got there, I embraced it and realized how lucky I was that I did

Mic Rogson:

Well. And I think that there are just so many different opportunities. There is such a breadth of need in the legal profession that you might have to look around a bit before you land in the right place, but there is a right place for you to land if you want to. Your dad didn’t want to. And mad respect to him that he followed his passion,

Jim Reeder:

By the way, he then went back to the law, right? Oh, really? So yes, I didn’t add that part. So he did that. He was in the radio business for I guess probably, I dunno, 20 years, and then went back to practicing for 20 years.

Mic Rogson:

I have to say my favorite story from when I was a young lawyer, my favorite event, my favorite thing that happened to me, I had already moved to the defense side and I was representing the New York City Transit Authority and some other insurers. And so I was going up against a lot of the same lawyers. We would get to see each other in motion practice. And this was in Kings County. And so there was one lawyer, I’d gone up against him a couple of times, but nothing serious. And then we had this one case where we fought long and hard on this one motion, and it was at the end of that. And I did prevail. And he turned to me and he said, want to grab lunch? And I mean, I eviscerated him and I think he just respect it, took that. But he respected it. And he and I went out and grabbed lunch and talked about the case and talked about the law. And we ended up being friends and colleagues even though we were on opposing sides for the next several years. But that was one of my favorite. It validated for me. One of the things that I love about being a litigator, it’s intellectually stimulating. It’s not personal. We learn from each other. And I became a better lawyer because of what I learned from him, because of arguing with him.

Jim Reeder:

And that’s the civil aspect of the practice. The profession that can be so beneficial in sort of guiding sort of general social civil discourse, frankly, is that you can have,

Mic Rogson:

It is something that we learn to do that is specific to our profession, but may also be something we can

Jim Reeder:

Export,

Mic Rogson:

Teach, or give in some way. So now my question to you is, alright, so this is your second career. You’re working as a lawyer. Did it take you long to find your niche, to find the area of law that you ended up?

Jim Reeder:

It did not. Again though I wasn’t aware that it was my niche. Originally. I started doing commercial litigation because of a particular lawyer. I was at a big firm and I created a relationship with a more senior lawyer who sort of took me under their wing, which by the way, is this,

Mic Rogson:

It’s a blessing.

Jim Reeder:

Yes, it is absolutely a blessing. And it doesn’t happen naturally. We ought to do an entire podcast on it, frankly, we should about how it

Mic Rogson:

Happens. I’ve never found one. I’ve never had a mentor. Every time I hear other people talk about their mentors and what mentors helped them achieve, I wish I had.

Jim Reeder:

Well, our podcast needs to be, okay, well what happens if you don’t get it? Sure. I mean, we can talk about what happens when you get it. And we can compare it to the fact that it’s not the end of the world,

But it sure does provide a great foundation. So I had this mentor, he did a certain type of practice. So I started doing that practice with him. It was a very complex commercial litigation practice with an emphasis on antitrust. The antitrust area was very, very active at the time. And I didn’t realize it at the time, but it hit all my buttons because I obviously had a finance background. I loved economics, I loved markets. I found it to be intellectually stimulating, et cetera. And so it wasn’t something I searched for, but I accidentally fell into and am extremely grateful that I did

Mic Rogson:

The accidental. Falling into is also a repeat theme for sure.

Jim Reeder:

And in our family, we call it the lucky break. It’s when you think that you actually have encountered a crisis of some sort, might be viewed as tragic. In fact, when if you’ll just keep your mind open, it may in fact turn out to be something that wonderful. Wonderful. Exactly. Alright, so how’d you find the A BA?

Mic Rogson:

Well, that same thing that motivates me to want to help and leave this world a little better than when I found it, which I think probably hearkens back to my religious upbringing, is what really led me to the A BA. It was in 2016, without engaging in any sort of political discourse, there was language that was being used about women at the time that I found very, very disturbing. And that to me heralded future problems for women in the law. And I decided that I wanted to get involved in an organization that might be influential and be able to do something about it. I was feeling particularly helpless. I was just me. I was a little, not baby lawyer, but a little young-ish lawyer working in her field, specializing, doing her thing. But I wasn’t going to be able to alter or in any way inform the larger public discourse on my own.

I needed to be part of something bigger. And that’s what led me to the section litigation. They were having their section annual conference in San Francisco, which wasn’t too far. So it was easy for me. My company did not support my involvement. I did it all on my own, but I got myself out there. And I have to say, everyone was so nice. I mean, it’s easy to go to these things and not know anybody and stand in the corners and be invisible, never go back. But everyone was so incredibly nice, introducing themselves, introducing me to other people. The section of litigation is a remarkable place. I don’t know if I had gone, I don’t know about the other sections. I don’t know if I had landed anywhere else, if I would’ve had the same experience and gotten as involved as I had. But I can say that it was a remarkable experience. I felt like I had found someplace where I could belong to something bigger and make a difference, which obviously is what I’m still trying to do. And that’s how I ended up here.

Jim Reeder:

So we have known each other a while obviously, and we’ve had plenty of good discussions amongst us. That is a tremendously insightful revelation about what led you to the section, I think, because it is important. And it does actually tell me a lot about your view of the section, what it can do, how it can be used, et cetera, which is I think is marvelous. This may explain also why you and I sometimes have different views about the section and

Mic Rogson:

What

Jim Reeder:

It can do. So as I said, my dad, for the first 10 years I was alive. I was a lawyer, and he was very active in what in those days was called the junior bar. It’s now called Young Lawyers Division. It might be the Young Lawyers Division of your state bar or your local bar. But in those days it was called just the junior bar. And the first trip I ever took outside of Shreveport, Louisiana, it was 1978 years old, a annual meeting in St. Louis. He loved the A, B, A, and my parents loved the A, BA because of the people that they met there from all over the country. And it was a time when you didn’t meet people from all over

Mic Rogson:

The

Jim Reeder:

Country, just sort of naturally, not even on some electronic means. You just wouldn’t meet ’em. You didn’t have discourse with them, interaction with them because we just didn’t have this electronic world. And those colleagues of theirs were of my dad’s were their best friends until both my parents passed away then 40 years later. So that was on my mind when I became a lawyer, was that the A BA had been an important part of

Mic Rogson:

Your dad’s experience of

Jim Reeder:

My dad’s experience as a lawyer. And that was all relationship based. I didn’t know anything more than that. Why would I appreciate anything more than that? I couldn’t appreciate anything more than that. All I knew was that they had all these great friends and they loved them. And then I also recognized early on that somebody had to keep their eye on the ball of making the profession better

Mic Rogson:

That

Jim Reeder:

We are. But we are a profession and we have obligations to clients. We have obligations to our communities. We have obligations to each other. We have obligations to the rule of law or judiciary that there’s got to be some orderliness to how we protect that and we maintain that and we protect that and make it better. And so that was the revelation as I joined the A, b, A, and first I was just a member and then I realized, oh my goodness, yes, this organization is devoted to that. And then once I became more active in the leadership of the litigation section, it became apparent to me that the section has these tools in the form of these experienced litigators and these people who’ve done this for years that are going to meet whatever needs you have in your practice, whether it’s your practice or my practice, entirely different practices in different parts of the country, et cetera, that you have your strengths, I’ve got mine, you’ve got your weaknesses, I’ve got mine. The A, a, the section of litigation has the ability to feed what you need and at the same time feed what I need. And you can cut through the BS and know that you’re going to find what you need. One, you can find what you need. And there’s no way we could survive if we just taught deposition skills for instance. I mean, that’s not going to do it. Find what you need and you don’t have to wonder whether the source is legit,

Right? It’s not a Google search, it is not chat GPT. It is the American Bar Association section of litigation. And the information and content and skills and experience are from people who are legit. And so that to me made the a worthwhile that formulation of things.

Mic Rogson:

Absolutely. And it’s not just litigators. I mean, I had a question come up about, it was an obscure question about bankruptcy procedure, which is, by the way, what I do. It came up tangentially, but we needed the answer. And because I know someone from the section of litigation who happens to work as an AttorneySync within the bankruptcy court system, I was able to reach out by email and go, hi, do you know if there is actually a rule that applies to this particular situation in the abstract general question? And I was able to get the answer, and I would not know her if I had not been a part of the section of litigation. And I love also that the people that, and again, it is such a large section and there are so many lawyers from so many different locations, as you were saying, from all across the United States, we don’t all share the same opinions about anything, whether it’s the practice of law, what we would like to see the courts do differently, any of that. But it is such a pleasure to be able to engage in that kind of conversation with my colleagues from across the country. And I’ve changed my mind about certain things because of these conversations. I feel like I have a much more nuanced understanding,

Jim Reeder:

Generally. Well, it’s hard not to respect the people that you interact with. Frankly, they are of substance. They are experienced, they are, I think for the most part, good hearted. If you care about the profession, you join the A BA, that tells you a lot about who you are and it’s not mercenary. And so I do love that about it.

Mic Rogson:

I couldn’t agree more. Oh look, we agree. Yeah, exactly. This does not often happen.

Jim Reeder:

And so I reluctantly was interested in this role hosting the podcast and reluctantly because I am the current opinion that we just have to have younger people doing all kinds of stuff instead of older people doing it anyway. But I then realized as I approached the end of a very long career that I just feel the need and want to carry on and make sure that the next generation learns about not just the substantive things, but the soft things that are associated with the practice. I’m not that great a writer, but I have a pretty good control of language and advocacy, and I want to share insights. I want to get the best out of others so that they can share their insights. I want people to listen. I want people to listen. Hopefully they find our styles appealing so we can get more people to listen.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I love what you do before you actually begin your interview. When you stop and ask the guests to talk a little bit about themselves so that you get a sense of who they are and not just again, the acumen that they’re obviously going to be sharing in the ensuing 20 minutes or so.

Jim Reeder:

And I want to give credit where credit’s due. There’s a national organization called the American Leadership Foundation, which brings together leaders in communities from a variety of different backgrounds. And it’s for the purpose of bridging gaps and creating discourse and understanding among leaders. It’s really a marvelous organization. But the first thing that they do is every part of each class is that you have to give what they call your seven minute story. And your seven minute story is what you and I started with. Right. Okay. Tell us about what makes you tick.

Mic Rogson:

I’m going to have to tighten mine up.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah, no, yours was less than seven minutes. It was really good. But the point is that if we just had time to listen to everybody’s seven minute story before we interacted with them, before we had some interaction or communication or relationship with them, the nature of the relationship going forward would be entirely different. And the manner in which we dealt with them and the respect with which we approached their thoughts and ideas without judgment would be so positive.

Mic Rogson:

It’s interesting. I actually studied mediation and negotiation as part of my LLM. One of the first things that you learn is that you have to create a connection. If you’re going to get people to actually talk to each other, they have to see something of themselves in each other, something that will connect them so that they can actually bridge the practical divide that you are trying to bridge. Right? Yeah, exactly. And I always love that, and I think that’s what you’re talking about. So it’s actually relevant to our profession as well, because I mean, half of what we do is negotiate settlements

Jim Reeder:

Well, and the other half of what we do is that we tell stories. And in order to tell a story, you’ve got to actually be curious enough to actually figure out what the story is. And if you lack curiosity about the person you’re dealing with, then you’re never going to be able to tell a story or reach them or bridge a gap,

Mic Rogson:

Et

Jim Reeder:

Cetera.

Mic Rogson:

And storytelling is actually one of the best ways of teaching anything

Jim Reeder:

It is. Well, hopefully we were going to have a lot more stories for you people. This has been absolutely terrific. Now a lot more about me and Mick, and hopefully we have demonstrated, and in turn, you have recognized the many ways in which difference can show up and contribute to the way we practice and to the development of our careers. So thanks Mic for that.

Mic Rogson:

Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.

Jim Reeder:

Yeah. Well, unfortunately, 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

Mic Rogson:

M Roon, that’s M-R-O-G-S-O-N, at skyward insurance.com

Jim Reeder:

Or JA reader, R-E-E-D-E-R, at jones day.com. And of course, you can connect with us and with the a b ABA Litigation Section on LinkedIn.

Mic Rogson:

And as much as we enjoy connecting with you online, nothing beats meeting in person at our litigation section events, as I hope I conveyed in our discussion. So please make plans to join us at one of our upcoming conferences such as the 2026 Women in Litigation CLE conference, which is taking place February 11th through the 13th in Jersey City, New Jersey. This year’s theme is Launch and Lead Empowering Women litigators to lead with purpose. It aims to ensure all attendees leave feeling empowered, inspired, and equipped to accelerate their career trajectory by leading with purpose. Connect with litigators from across the country and hear from distinguished speakers like Desiree Rawles Morrison, who is McDonald’s general counsel. She’ll be our keynote luncheon speaker, and many others don’t wait to register. Rates will increase after January 20th. As always, discounted rates are available for litigation section members, so don’t wait and become a member. Learn more and register at ambar.org/lead her. That is A MB r.org/l EAD, DHER.

Jim Reeder:

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 community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcasts or a quick rating at Spotify, that’s incredibly helpful too. And finally, we want to quickly thank some folks who make this show possible. Thanks to Michelle Oberts who’s on staff for the litigation section and helps us tremendously as we produce this program. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the Litigation Section’s audio content committee, Haley Maple and Michael Steger. Thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network. And of course, thank you for listening. Talk to you later. Bye.

Continue Reading