The Explosion of E-Discovery

Episode Notes

Transcript

Dave Scriven-Young:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Dave Scriven Young. I’m a litigator practicing environmental and construction law in the Chicago office of O’Hagan Meyer, and I also coach young lawyers on how to accelerate their careers without burning out on the show. We talk to the country’s top litigators and judges to discover best practices in developing our careers, winning cases, getting more clients, and building a sustainable practice. Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcasting app to make sure that you’re getting updated with future episodes. I’m really happy today to introduce you to one of our new co-hosts of the show, Mic Rogson, who is vice President at Skyward Specialty Insurance. Mic, we’re all very excited for you to be helping out with the show moving forward. So tell us a little bit about your practice.

Mic Rogson:

Thanks David. I’m excited to be here and to be joining the Litigation Radio family. I have been practicing in the insurance space pretty much my entire career. First as a litigator in insurance coverage and then transitioning in-house to serve as a litigation bond expert. As you mentioned, I’m currently in-house with Skyward Specialty Insurance Company where I oversee Sky Word’s National Court Bond Practice Group.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Fantastic. Well, again, we’re really excited to be having you on the show moving forward. I think you’ll bring a great perspective being in-house and also of course being one of our leaders in litigation section. So thanks so much for being on the show.

Mic Rogson:

Thank you.

Dave Scriven-Young:

As always, this podcast is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association. It’s where I make my home in the A BA and where Mic makes her home in the ABA A as well. The litigation selection provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients. Learn more at ambar.org/litigation. And one of the best benefits of being a member of the litigation section is that you get to network with attorneys who are thoughtful and expert in the issues facing litigators on a daily basis. One of those issues is no doubt e-discovery, which has exploded into one of the most important issues litigators deal with and most every case that we’re involved in. Today’s guest is the author of Best Practices for eDiscovery, a Practical Handbook, which is published by the A B ABA Litigation Section. And I’ll turn it over to Mic to introduce our guest.

Mic Rogson:

Well, I’m very excited to introduce Nicole. Nicole Marie Gill is chair and managing member of Co Discover, an ancillary business unit of cos O’Connor that deals with e-discovery and information governance. She works with attorneys and clients firm-wide and with other law firms to develop efficient and effective discovery management strategies tailored to the case at hand, leveraging advanced technologies and analytics. She manages complex and high profile e-discovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many jurisdictions, both domestic and foreign. Nicole, welcome to the show.

Nicole Marie Gill:

Thank you so much for having me.

Mic Rogson:

Well, congratulations. The new book, which is a comprehensive field manual to help us litigators navigate the complexities of eDiscovery. Can you tell us a little about the book?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Sure. I like to call it a labor of love. This book really is born out of the daily practice of seen attorneys litigators who are either short staffed or don’t have the resources that a large law firm does have and really find it difficult to practically navigate the eDiscovery landmine. So hopefully it will from soup to nuts, from the identification to the collection and ultimate review and production of data, walk folks through a whole eDiscovery plethora of information and demystify it really, because I know it is one of the areas that ultimately cost the most when it comes to litigation.

Mic Rogson:

Definitely. And it is also not only an extraordinarily complex to begin with landscape, but it is also a continually evolving landscape. So I was hoping it looks like every time we turn around there’s a new app, a new social media platform or device that contains electronic information that is potentially discoverable. Can you share with us what’s new in the collection of this data?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Sure. By the time this comes out, it’ll probably be old because new sources of information are created almost dally, but specifically there are challenges with ephemeral messaging, so new ephemeral messaging applications that are coming out that make it difficult to collect data. We see the advent of different licenses that affect a person’s ability to collect data. So for example, for looking at Slack, I mean the type of license that you have with Slack will really dictate how you can collect that data in the advent of litigation. We also have to consider preservation for these tools as well because on the backend, many of them have automatic destruction after so many days. And keeping this in mind as we go forward for collection and preservation purposes is really paramount. We often think about RFPs directed to email to even teams messages that seems more commonplace now, but those other ephemeral messaging applications or other social media applications that are developing on the daily really pose some challenges.

The other advent are the discussion of AI chatbots. They are all over. I’m a chat GBT user. I’m sure that most of your listeners are utilizing some sort of AI chat bot, whether it be one that is created proprietarily for their particular law firm or whether it is a public facing AI chatbot Disclaimer, please never put client data in a public facing AI chatbot, but that disclaimer aside, we have to think about the collection of those particular prompts when they become relevant for purposes of litigation. These are new sources that might not be in the top of mind where relevant information is living, and we have to start thinking about that when it comes to the RFPs and the collection and preservation of data.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So you mentioned RFPs and kind of these new sources of information and new apps and that sort of thing. When you’re asking for the information and a request for production, how do you go about making sure that the company that you’re asking for knows what apps you’re asking for? So as a litigator, you want production from a company and you don’t know exactly what they’re using, whether they’re using Slack or Teams or some newfangled app. How do you go about, number one, finding out what they use, but number two, making sure that you’re putting your request for production in a way that encapsulates or encompasses all of those different sources.

Nicole Marie Gill:

That’s a great question and sometimes this might not come to light until say a deposition. These are great questions to keep in mind when you are looking for information or looking through information that’s been discovered and you realize, oh, look at that. They’re emailing about this WhatsApp group that they have. They never told us about that WhatsApp group. So sometimes this information will come to light later, but you would hope that when you’re asking for in an RFP information that’s relevant for a particular issue, that you are broad enough in your request. Now, I know that we are always apt to say any and all documents, but I think that that requires a bit more defining. So what is a document? We need to include all sorts of social media that are under the possession, custody and control of the individual that is the recipient of the RFP.

We need to think about all sorts of social media or third party messaging applications in those as well. And do they need to be named per se? No. It is often helpful to at least guide the recipient of the RFP by placing some information around, well, what do you mean by social media application? What do you mean by third party messaging application? But it really is incumbent upon the recipient of the RFP to be very thoughtful in their custodial interviews with their clients to understand exactly how and where they’re either A, keeping data or B, how they’re communicating. And it is incumbent upon the attorney that is doing that custodial interview and ultimately collecting that data. That’s part of their obligation to make sure that they are collecting that relevant information. Again, if you have a custodian that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of an attorney, perhaps this goes unrecognized for some time, but certainly warrants a question in a deposition as to how often do you communicate with so-and-so and by what means. Oftentimes they’re the instances when these things come to light and it’s not always for nefarious reasons. We might text our colleagues without even thinking, not realizing that that could essentially expose our cell phones to a collection when relevant litigation might occur.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And talking about social media, who owns that information? So for example, if you have a client that has a Facebook page and you get a request from the opposing attorney requesting all social media pages, posts, et cetera, relating to X topic, are you under an obligation to print off that information and send it to the other side, or is that a Facebook problem?

Nicole Marie Gill:

That is an eDiscovery nerd question that I love. So frankly, let’s first say we don’t want to print out documents if we can help it and submit them to opposing counsel because then we won’t have the relevant metadata, and that could certainly give us issues with authentication best to do those collections in a forensically sound manner. But this really calls into the question of possession, custody, and control. And there’s a lot of developing case law about this specifically for social media. Courts have found that possession, custody and control of a particular account, say a Facebook account is seen by the person who has access to it and who can actually make changes to it. Facebook is one of those particular platforms that makes it fairly easy to download the contents of an individual’s account, especially when you have the login credentials. But we get into stickier situations when we think about possession, custody and control specifically for a corporate client.

So for example, the hot topic that seems to come up a lot is if I have a client who is a corporate client and their employees were texting about a particular matter as the corporate client, do I have an obligation to make sure that data on the employee cell phone is preserved and do I have an obligation to collect it? And really that comes down to, it depends. It’s a fact specific inquiry. The courts typically look at is there A-B-Y-O-D policy that gives some sort of control over the individual employee’s cell phone? Is the employee expected to use text messaging in his or her day-to-day life in order to conduct business? And also there are particular illegal tests that are applied according to the jurisdiction. So the legal rights test or the practical ability test, which are pretty self-explanatory, courts will utilize those in really figuring out, well, do I need to own the burden, the cost of possession of collecting a cell phone or making sure a cell phone is preserved.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So you also mentioned ephemeral messaging. I assume that is kind of the what, WeChat or Snapchat?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Snapchat WeChat. Actually, it depends on the backend settings of how you are setting up your retention schedule. Some of these applications you can essentially say, I want this to delete automatically. Snapchat is ephemeral. However, there are ways that you can gather some of that messaging. So for example, and I am not a Snapchat user, so I’ll probably use the wrong terminology, but I know there’s ways to kind of favorite or pin particular chats and they live more, I don’t want to say permanently, but more permanently on a user’s account. So there are ways around this ephemeral nature, but there are true ephemeral messaging. So for like you had mentioned Snapchat, if there is no other parameters other than the typical parameters placed on a message, it will go away eventually,

Dave Scriven-Young:

But you’re still under an obligation to produce those messages if you get an RFP or a preservation notice. So

Nicole Marie Gill:

To the extent they exist. Absolutely. So this is what I would suggest too, in terms of a client who has use of Snapchat, you just tell them to stop utilizing that Snapchat and then to the extent that there is anything that might be pinned or favorited collected as soon as possible. Again, courts recognize that there are ephemeral messaging applications. There are applications where the retention schedule and the automatic deletion is fairly quick. So it’s really understanding as soon as you get that RFP, having that conversation with your client to understand what they have. Most of the people I would think, or at least in my practice, think, okay, custodial interviews, they’re to identify what to collect, but really the more important part of that is to identify what to preserve. The collection could come later as long as it’s preserved.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Alright, so once you’ve collected all of this information, you have this mountain of electronic data, somebody or something has to go through it all. So let’s talk a little about reviewing it. What are some of the new kind of technologies or new things that we should start thinking about in terms of reviewing that electronic information?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Sure. There are as many new startups that are trying to tackle the generative AI for review as there probably are social media platforms At this point. I feel like I’ve sat through many demos and frankly the future is very interesting. So generative AI tools have been developed specifically for the legal market either as a compliment to a particular well review platform. Relativity is the one that we utilize or as their own standalone review platform. And ultimately these particular generative AI tools for review work very much like a chat GPT where it is prompt based. You do need to train the model. You need to prompt it accordingly in order to find what is relevant and what is not. You typically in a typical workflow would run your prompt over a small subset of data until you get that feedback and you get the response that you would suggest and then you start expanding that and running that against a larger group of documents specifically because these generative AI tools tend to be pricey. However, when we compare that to say a linear review of a hundred thousand documents, a lot of times it can be very cost effective. So I think that’s going to be a game changer. These tools are always developing, new tools are always coming out, and really it’s incumbent upon those individuals who want to offer the most efficient and effective means of review to stay on top of those. It’s daunting for sure, but it’s going to be a necessary evil in the marketplace.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, and you wrote your book for folks that maybe don’t have the resources of being a larger firm and maybe have smaller cases. So is it cost effective to use these new AI tools for smaller cases or is there a certain dollar threshold that you would recommend getting involved in some of these products?

Nicole Marie Gill:

I’m going to have a very lawyerly answer, and it all depends, right? I think it depends on also the collection for example. So if I have a very small matter and I know that the collection was extremely super targeted, I might use more traditional AI tools. And when I say traditional I tools, I’m thinking continuous active learning, which is the kind of precursor to the generative ai. We know for those tools, it is essentially learning from your coding. So if I have a small document that I know most of it’s responsive, perhaps I code a small set of documents for responsiveness and then use that as a seed set to run across a larger set and see which documents are likely to be responsive and which ones are not. Looking at just kind of a sample threshold in making that determination and then ultimately producing.

So it does have the capability of saving a decent amount of time for those matters that are small, but hey, it’s the wild west. We’ve collected large, we don’t understand what’s in there. Other tools could be helpful perhaps clustering, which really is again a predictive coding and a precursor to generative AI tool where it’ll essentially take a look, not necessarily conceptually, but text-based at the documents and parse them out into specific categories so that you can start seeing trends and also look at documents that might be specific to what you’re looking for versus excluding those documents that are maybe not so specific to what you’re looking for.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Sure, and you mentioned it is kind of the wild west, but I wonder because we all have our ethical obligations in certain obligations to the court and to the other side under the procedural rules, I assume use of these AI tools basically comply with those obligations.

Nicole Marie Gill:

You have a duty to understand exactly what is going to provide the most effective and cost efficient means to your clients of review and ultimate production of data. And I think that it’s going to, I mean obviously technology is now a, I don’t want to say a burden that sounds horrible. That’s the bread and butter of my job. So we can’t say it’s a burden, but it is certainly an added layer of knowledge that we all need to possess while practicing. And that’s not even just in the eDiscovery space. There are abundant new tools, whether it be for diligence, whether it be for contract drafting, and clients are going to start to demand the use of these tools in order to provide more efficient and effective representation.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, and that makes total sense. I mean that goes with our obligation of competence, which is maybe different from the way the obligation may have been framed when I started in law school in terms of what technology will look like and what technology can be used knowing what technology is going to be best for the case and meets our own discovery obligations comes with that obligation of competence. So that totally makes sense.

Mic Rogson:

Nicole, I’m curious, as someone who has worked with international companies in the past, I can only imagine that the collection of data when you’re dealing with international companies or entities that may engage across the border may be a little more complex as a result of the abundance and plethora of these various different electronic methods of communication. So I’m just curious, what can you tell us about the complications that this creates for cross-border data transfer with other countries?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Absolutely. This happens to be something that’s near and dear to my heart. So I am on a working group for the Sedona Conference, which is a really preeminent think tank to inform and move the rules of civil procedure forward. And kudos to Judge Bason, who is one of the judges that partakes in this conference and really has been advocating for change in the federal rules to accommodate for cross-border data transfers. So that being said, we need to keep in mind all of the interesting and nuanced privacy laws that accompany cross-border data transfers in the event of eDiscovery. So the particular drafting committee that I participate in for the Sedona Conference has to do with the cross-border data transfer from the People’s Republic of China. There are many nuanced privacy rules, not withstanding your typical privilege, such as personally identifying information in their specific PIPL laws as well as state secret review that needs to occur prior to data ever even leaving the country.

This is not an instance where we can sit in the US and access the data. The data has to sit in China and it has to be seen by people that are in mainland China. And that poses an abundance of hurdles not only for time because it is not quick, but also from cost considerations as well. We also have to think of more nuanced privacy data transfers when we are thinking about complying with GDPR. So again, no longer is it, okay, we’re involved in litigation, the data is now sitting in name insert European country here, I’m just going to send it through an FTP. We need to make sure that we are complying with the applicable privacy laws in order to effectuate that data transfer.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And Nicole, I wonder what are some other tools that litigators might use to make e-discovery less costly for their clients and just more efficient with their resources?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Becoming familiar with novel workflows that combine again, those traditional Tar Cal models with newer and advanced AI tools, we continuously gone, I should say gone are the days of I’m just going to put documents into a review platform and review in a linear fashion. Instead, what really is the special sauce is learning how to combine the tools in your toolbox to really achieve efficiency. So for example, that might be I’m going to load up data into a review platform. However, I might utilize some other third party tool, again vetted by your company and their risk audit team, but I’m going to use this third party tool. For example, Thomson Reuters co-counsel, they have a great product where deposition summaries, research queries can be made across larger data sets. Understanding how those particular tools might be able to supplement what would be a traditional linear review is really paramount. So again, yes, e-discovery, it’s costly, but understanding novel workflows and how the technology can work together with the traditional linear review will help litigators bring down cost for sure.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely. And one of the things that oftentimes we have an obligation to do is to work with opposing counsel in order to perhaps come up with eDiscovery protocols or certainly if there’s a dispute to work with them to try to resolve the dispute before we file motions. What are some of the tips that you might have for our listeners in terms of dealing with and negotiating with opposing counsel regarding eDiscovery at the outset of a case?

Nicole Marie Gill:

My answer will typically depend on which side of the view you are on in terms of how strict or lenient would you want your ESI protocol. But regardless, it is really incumbent upon counsel to approach eDiscovery practically. I oftentimes see litigators quibbling over metadata when the metadata has nothing to do with the underlying issues or matters or documents, and they’re just quibbling and quibbling in order to quabble and quibble. So I ultimately suggest that you approach discovery practically. It’s also living and breathing. It’s an iterative process. So frankly, if you could be flexible enough to accommodate not only novel data sources, but whatever bumps and potholes come along the way of the road of discovery, since it is so fluid, things can change on a dime when you get data, you run terms you thought were very targeted and all of a sudden now they’re very overbroad. And as long as you have an opposing counsel who is really open to having a constructive negotiation and dialogue about how that can be addressed in a more effective matter, that will save a lot of time and angst in the long run.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, I think part of the problem is that as an attorney, and maybe you’re not familiar with what’s going on in electronic discovery, you know that it exists. You use email, maybe you have Facebook or LinkedIn account at least, but you don’t really know what it means. A lot of these terms mean, and so you walk into a meeting with opposing counsel and you’re supposed to talk about discovery, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about. So oftentimes I think people default to wanting to get everything. And so other than perhaps reading your book or taking a class in eDiscovery, what are some other ways that we could kind of educate ourselves so we can walk into those conversation armed with knowledge as opposed to maybe just bluster?

Nicole Marie Gill:

I think you had the first top two of my list, which are to one, consult the book and two maybe take ACL E. But also I noticed that newer attorneys that are coming out of law school, law schools are really addressing the issue. Again, don’t want to necessarily say it’s an issue because it has a negative connotation, but at least addressing eDiscovery as a critical part of litigation. And they are actually coming out of law school with much more knowledge in this area than we ever had. So really just being intellectually curious enough to ask questions not only of fellow attorneys, but even law students that are either summers coming out of law school and really asking those questions. In particular, if you do have a good working relationship with opposing counsel, asking the questions of opposing counsel and also not being afraid to ask, can you put this in terms that are not very techie? Explain this to me as if I were somebody who just found out that the worldwide web was something new. That’s an okay question to ask, and hopefully again, if you have an opposing counsel that is amenable to negotiating and to really just educating, then they would hopefully be receptive to doing that.

Dave Scriven-Young:

That makes sense. And there also seems to be some firms that might hire technology specialists that sit in on calls between opposing counsel or a in coming up with eDiscovery protocols. I assume that’s something else that people can consider as well if they have the resources available.

Nicole Marie Gill:

Absolutely. That’s exactly what we do at Co Discover. We like to say that we talk tech in terms of, we also have technologists on our team, but the attorneys are really well-versed in the technological lingo. They’re able to really, in very simple terms, explain what might seem very techie or complicated. And so if that is an option, I highly recommend partnering with a firm that offer or affirm an ancillary business unit such as co discover that would be able to help in those matters.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Fantastic. Well, we are coming to the end of our time together. Nicole, any last thoughts you have for our listeners today?

Nicole Marie Gill:

Well, I thank you so much for this time and this opportunity. I hope the book really serves as a tool to help practically navigate eDiscovery and demystify the whole practice. It is a nuanced area of law, so while it may seem like you can handle it typically by yourself as we just mentioned, I always am open for questions and certainly recommend that you partner with experts to the extent that you can and continuously utilize the book as a resource as well.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, speaking of your book, for those of you interested in purchasing copy of the book, which is Best Practices for eDiscovery, a practical handbook, you can go directly to the litigation section’s website, that’s american bar.org/groups/litigation/resources/books to purchase a copy of her book. And remember that litigation section members save 10 to 20% on all books published by the section Nicole Marie Gill, thanks so much for being on the show today. I really appreciate it.

Nicole Marie Gill:

Thank you so much.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Thanks to litigation section, premier sponsor Roundtable Group for sponsoring This podcast. Roundtable Group is an expert witness search and referral service with decades of experience and a comprehensive array of academic and industry relationships, as well as access to proprietary tools that further enhance the expert search capabilities of attorneys with no upfront fees. You only pay if you retain an expert referred by Roundtable Group. Learn [email protected]. And now it’s time for our quick tip from the a b ABA Litigation Section, and I’m pleased to welcome back Lindsay Polega for her tip on the podcast. Lindsay is an associate at Cat Siegel in Maple in Tampa Bay, Florida, where she focuses her practice on construction and commercial litigation matters. Welcome back to the show, Lindsay. What’s your quick tip?

Lindsay Polega:

Hey, Dave. I’d like to talk about the power of pro bono today. I know that taking on my work is often the last thing a lawyer wants to do, and it sounds counterproductive to improving mental health, but I’m hoping that everybody doesn’t tune out on me now. Well, I can’t speak for all of us. I think that many of us chose to pursue a career in law because we wanted to become helpers. A good part of us were drawn to the profession because we wanted to make a difference in society to promote justice or combat injustices. But after graduating from law school, so many of us have large student loans, and I think what we’re often finding is that the jobs that are centered around fighting for justice don’t pay very much at all. And the opportunities to be paid to represent people in real need are so, so limited.

It’s this great capitalistic trap. You have to make a choice between paying bills and having a comfortable life supporting your family or a career where you get to fight for justice and are barely scraping by. I mean, it makes sense that the areas of law where attorneys are most needed don’t pay well. The people who need legal representation the most are the ones struggling financially. So I think we’re seeing this large shift in the areas of law that a majority of attorneys are choosing to practice today. And I’m not yucking anyone’s yum. There’s some really exciting and fulfilling areas of law that most of us wouldn’t label as heroic or life-changing. Maybe like my own area of work, I work in insurance defense, but for many of us out there who went into law hoping to be a helper and finding that we’re mostly helping the insurance company or a corporation or whatever it might be, I think it’s a slow crawl down the path to burnout and resentment of our careers.

I myself practice in Florida earlier this week I saw that the Florida Bar President elect, Rosalyn s Baker Barnes put out a statement about the sustainability of the legal career. The Florida Bar did a study and it was hearing from too many lawyers that they’re questioning whether they can sustain a long and fulfilling career in law. There were some statistics that came back that were really alarming. About 70% of Florida lawyers believed the profession was becoming less desirable. And for lawyers under 35, that figure jumped all the way up to 80% pre pandemic. The average associate attrition rate at large firms was 16%. So we’re talking like 2019, and by 2021 it was 27%. I think it’s really hard to say that’s a blip. That’s a screaming warning signal that people are not happy in the practice of law and they’re choosing to leave it.

They’re mentally unwell. And while there are probably a myriad of reasons for that, I think a big one is that what the practice of law is has shifted immensely. Firms are trying to meet a bottom line. The economy’s getting worse, it’s continuing to take a turn for the worse. And even those of us in comfortable positions have large student loan payments to make each month. I know attorneys who have been practicing for 20 plus years and they’re still paying them off. We’re stuck in this rat race, but so many of us entered the profession because we believed we could do more. Then there’s those who took jobs out there that are doing really important life-changing work in family law, immigration, social services at nonprofits, but they’re burnt out for other reasons. There aren’t enough people choosing this route to fight alongside them. They’re overworked and underpaid.

I can think of a very few select few who have found a role that supports them financially and is in an area of law that actually works to promote social justice. So what is the cure to the hopelessness about the law and our increasingly high rate of burnout? I think the only cure for hopelessness is to create hope. And there are a lot of opportunities out there to remind us that hope doesn’t die. As lawyers, we have a special and unique purpose. Less than 1% of the world holds this license, and it’s up to us to decide to use it in ways that are and meaningful we’re the front lines of upholding the law of promoting justice. And right now, society is screaming for more of us to step in and apply the law fairly. The need for pro bono representation is there. It’s never gone away and we’re doing less of it than ever before.

And because I know this is a mental health tip, I’m going to tie it all back and tell you why this is good for your mental health too. Listeners, the benefits to your pro bono clients are obvious, but helping others can be really good for your brain too. The helper’s high is a real thing. Our body releases endorphins when we help others. And some studies have found that you can recreate that high just by remembering past altruistic acts. So I’m hoping that everyone listening today will try taking on a pro bono initiative that’s close to a cause they care about. It’s a good way to learn about new practice areas, increase your skillsets and change up your work. Let’s make life interesting. It can bring you purpose and it’s a great way to combat loneliness or boost confidence. I know that it’s been incredibly impactful for me.

I lacked a lot of Courtroom experience prior to my pro bono work and getting in the Courtroom and arguing before the judge made me a much more confident and confident attorney. Through my pro bono work, I’ve also made some of the closest professional connections of my working life, and I’ve developed what I’m sure will be lifelong friendships. And then when I get a positive pro bono outcome, it’s such an incredible reminder that I can make a real and lasting impact on a person’s life that my work and all the hard work I did to enter this profession mattered. And here’s the other thing, and I’m going to guilt trip. Anyone listening here just a little bit. If you aren’t already sold on the idea of taking on some more work, some extra pro bono, we took an oath. I recently retook my oath on Rule of Law Day, and I was reminded that part of the Florida Bar Oath is that we’re not to reject the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

I encourage everyone to revisit their oath of admission if you haven’t already done so. We’re really obligated to do this work. Our society looks better and functions better when we’re helping others in our communities live fuller and happier lives. I know there’s at least one person out there thinking, my firm doesn’t have a pro bono department, or My firm won’t support me doing free work to the person without a department, start one. And if you have billable hours, request that your pro bono hours count towards that goal and to the person who thinks your firm won’t support the work. Here’s your pitch. Pro bono work is incredibly important to a law firm’s reputation and to attracting and retaining employees. It provides opportunities to develop new skills and in particular, gain Courtroom experience for arguing cases, especially in this new world of virtual court, I found that pro bono cases often involve sensitive matters which require in-person argument and have gained most of my in-person Courtroom experience through those pro bono cases.

Pro bono cases are often collaborative with attorneys working together from different firms or organizations and are incredibly valuable for networking purposes. And from the firm’s perspective, a high profile pro bono case can generate business for the firm for years to come. Who doesn’t love free advertising and who knows? Your pro bono work might inspire others to join in the cause and create a little less overwhelm for all of us. And if you give your firm all of that and they still don’t support your pursuit of pro bono, I think it’s time to consider if that’s a firm for you, your mental health will Thank you for choosing a place of work with a culture that cares if you’re looking for pro bono opportunities. The A BA has a center for pro bono with a national pro bono opportunities guide. Many state bar associations have similar programs, and nonprofits are always looking for help. Our profession may look a little ugly right now. I know a lot of us are thinking it, but we are the only ones with the power to change it. We have to change it from within. We have to create some hope for ourselves and for others. We should be able to love the law and be proud of our work within it.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, thanks Lindsay so much for being on the show today. And that’s all we have for our show. I’d love to hear your thoughts about today’s episode. If you have comments or questions you’d like for me to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact me at dscr Young at O’Hagan meyer.com and connect with me on social. I’m at Attorney Dsy on LinkedIn, Instagram X and Facebook. You can also connect with the a b ABA Litigation Section on those platforms as well. If you’d like to show, please help spread the word by sharing a link to this episode with a friend or through a post on social and invite others to join the show and community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcasts, it’s incredibly helpful. Even a quick rating at Spotify is super helpful as well. And finally, I want to quickly thank some folks who make this show possible. Thanks, Tom Mighell obs, who’s on staff for the litigation section. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the Litigation Section’s audio content committee. Haley Mabel and Shirley Stevens, thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network. And last but not least, thank you so much for listening. I’ll see you next time.

Continue Reading