Transcript:

Intro: Welcome to Disputes in Perspective, a Reed Smith podcast. This podcast series will discuss disputes-related trends, hot topics, and developments occurring in the global legal landscape, and hopefully provide you with some helpful insights and practical tips. If you have any questions about any of the episodes, please feel free to contact our speakers. 

Adam: Welcome back to the Reed Smith podcast. I'm Adam Massaro, a partner in the Denver office, and I'm also joined by Joyce Williams. Joyce, how are you doing? 

Joyce: I’m good. 

Adam: So we've been at the firm a little over six months, and you obviously are a founding partner. How is it going so far? 

Joyce: It's been great. It's been a very smooth transition, a great group of people to kind of get started with. Reed Smith has made it very easy to come over. It's been a lot of fun. 

Adam: What type of work do you do? 

Joyce: I’m a commercial litigation. 

Adam: So commercial litigation, no one knows what that means. What does it mean to you and how do you define it? 

Joyce: Sure. I represent individuals, businesses, and all sorts of litigation matters. So to be on the plaintiff's side, the defense side, whichever it is, typically ends up being some sort of breach of contract or fiduciary duty, something in the business realm is what we typically handle, but it can go beyond that. 

Adam: As far as subject matter, do you have any preference for being on the plaintiff's side, defense side anything like that? 

Joyce: I love being on the plaintiff's side, um don't always get to do that, but it's way more fun I think. 

Adam: And as far as subject matter what are some of the areas you like litigating in the most? 

Joyce: I would say, I mean, the comfort zone for me is probably more in like the real estate construction, that sort of area. But I do really enjoy doing kind of smaller business disputes and, you know, members of a smaller business and those types of breach fiduciary duty and similar disputes like that I find very enjoyable. 

Adam: Let's go back a second, though, because I think this will be interesting. On a personal level, what were some of your sports you did and maybe how they may impact what you do now? 

Joyce: Sure. So pretty much my whole life, I've been riding horses, really in the hunter-jumper kind of jumping space. So doing that for a really long time. It's high adrenaline, high rush, very technical in a lot of ways, too, which I think really translates well into what we do in litigation. 

Adam: With respect to height, what's the highest you've ever jumped? 

Joyce: I mean, right now I'm competing at meter 10, which is like three foot nine, but I probably jumped up to meter 25 to I think about four feet. 

Adam: When it comes to the pressure there, where does the pressure build and where does it release when you're talking about competitive jumping? 

Joyce: I mean, for me, I'm always the most nervous when I enter the ring and we get going. But then once, I mean, once you build a relationship with my horse in this case, then I just trust him. So I think it, that sort of release happens when we start going. And I know that, you know, we're in the rhythm and we're doing it. But, you know, coming up to a big jump can be pretty scary, especially if you don't have the right distance or it's not quite perfect. Um you know probably fallen off i don't know 70 something times in my life uh not that recently but um you know it's there's a lot of learning to do in riding horses and if you don't fall, I don't think you learn. So which again translates to all sorts of areas of your life. 

Adam: Now with respect to jumping itself what's what is from the the rider's perspective, you know, it's a team sport in the sense you got you and your the horse and both you have to do something to make this work, so what's the critical thing you have to do to contribute to the success of it? 

Joyce: I mean, there's so much training that goes involved into it to, like, really build between us a trust relationship. But I think, like, you know, at this point in my relationship with my horse, you know, what goes into it for me is just getting him in the right place. You know, building your canter, getting to the right consistent rhythm so that the jumps just sort of show up naturally and becomes easy. And then also a lot of it is just staying out of his way and not overcorrecting him and, you know, being too nitpicky. 

Adam: How long have you had your current horse? 

Joyce: Almost five years. It was a, you know, people got pandemic puppies. I got a pandemic pony, is what I like to say. 

Adam: What's that horse? 

Joyce: He's off the track thoroughbred. So he raced until he was three. He was not very successful. Came off the track as a three-year-old, and I've had him ever since. I mean, his dad did win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness and second in the Belmont. So he had the right breeding for it, but it just did not translate for him. 

Adam: What's his name? 

Joyce: Dude, and then his show name now is Dude Diligence. 

Adam: All right. And I take it people connect the dots fairly quickly between that and your professional ties. 

Joyce: They do. It's funny, I've been at shows where people are like, are you a lawyer? It's usually other lawyers that realize it and they definitely appreciate the pun. 

Adam: And then, you know, flipping to how you prepare for trials, what are some of the things you've learned or sort of the practices you do, obviously, on the equestrian side that you translate when you're preparing for trials and actually doing trials. 

Joyce: Sure. I mean, it's kind of a lot similar to a lot of, you know, training or, you know, back work that goes into it that people don't necessarily see or appreciate. You know, when you're on a horse show, people are just like, oh, it looks like it's going great for them, but they don't realize like how much work has gone into it to get to that point. And I think the same goes for trials. You know, all of the different things that we do to really understand the whole case, not just on our side, but I mean, the best litigators are going to know the case on the other side as well. So you know what to expect, what to counter, and what to argue against. So it's really the whole training and the process and building and seeing the case from all angles and the horse ring, seeing everything from all angles and what could happen and anticipating that and being ready for it. And then if anything comes up, you're not concerned. You know, been at horse shows before, like weather can change and you got to be ready for something to happen or, you know, your horse isn't feeling quite right. What are you going to do about it? Same thing goes for trial. You need to be ready for anything because you never really know what exactly is going to come up and just be ready to react and react in a way that's not, you know, a freak out, but it's a calm reaction. And it seems like you anticipated it all along. 

Adam: Do you get nervous when you go to trial? 

Joyce: I mean, yeah, I think everyone should be a little bit nervous because that means you care. I mean, I think now that I've probably been to, I mean, four trials within the last year, you know, it's not as nerve wracking as it used to be. But I think that, you know, every good litigator probably does get a little bit nervous because that means you care and you're, you know, putting your all into it. 

Adam: When it comes to parachuting into a case that you've not necessarily started the case, but you got called into. What are some of the things you do early on to get your grasp on the case, knowing that you're not going to have perfect information? You didn't start the case, but you've now inherited it. What do you do in that context to learn in a way that's going to be beneficial and also put you in a position to take control of the case? 

Joyce: I mean, it's difficult to jump in, and it kind of always depends, too, on what part you're jumping in. I mean, Are you jumping in a month before trial when discovery is closed or are you jumping in, you know, kind of in the beginning of discovery? So it is kind of, you know. A whirlwind trying to get yourself up to speed. And obviously, you can't learn everything in such a short amount of time. So it's really trying to pinpoint what is the most important things to figure out. If there's been depositions of the main parties, that would be a good thing to start with reading and understanding what people are saying about the different aspects of the case. Also, just understanding what are the claims, what are the defenses, and how are we actually going to tackle this thing? What has been done to date? What still needs to be done. I mean, it's, I really enjoy doing that, but it's not always easy to get yourself up to speed, again, really depending on what part of the case that you're coming into. So I think just doing a deep dive, getting as much information as you can, and really importantly to talking to your client and just understanding the case from their perspective and what their goals are and, you know, what has happened so far. 

Adam: When you get to that next phase, you're heading towards trial and you've got to do witness prep for trial itself. How do you approach witness prep knowing that whether they're skilled or unskilled witnesses, it's going to be a challenging environment? 

Joyce: It's kind of getting to know the personality of your client to the best of your ability. If it's a parachuting in, you're not going to know them as well as maybe if you've worked with them for a year building up this case. But understanding their personality and what might be difficult for them at trial. You know, some witnesses, you know, they're just kind of nervous talkers and they just keep talking. So kind of working with them on, nope, just answer only the question that's asked. Some can be a little, you know, it can be a very emotional case and trying to keep their emotions calm too. So they don't, you know, come across in a way that, you know, might not be perceived well. So it's really kind of understanding their personality and what they need in order to prepare for this. And some witnesses, more prep is maybe not the best thing for them. You know, that can be kind of over-prepared and it can be kind of over, it kind of seems like a script. And that's not always good because it doesn't come off natural or credible. So it's really just trying to figure out what that individual needs in order to do their best at trial. 

Adam: You know, it's interesting. I think there's are, especially if there's an emotional aspect of the trial or there's going to be an emotional part of the testimony. I agree with you. If you rehearse it too many times, you run the risk that it's just going to come off as manufactured and it's just not going to land to the same level. I think that's the art of the trial lawyers coming up with what things to emphasize versus what things needed to just be raw in the moment, it feels like. 

Joyce: Definitely. 

Adam: So switching to trials, you mentioned you've done four in the last year. I believe you've done several openings for those trials as well. Is that right? 

Joyce: Yes, I did all of the openings. 

Adam: Walk me through how you approach openings and how you take them from good to great. 

Joyce: I think for most cases, a long opening kind of doesn't land as well. You want it to be enough that the jury or the judge, whoever the decider is, is getting enough information they need to get a preview. But going into every detail, the problem with opening too is you can anticipate what's going to happen and that's what you're trying to lay out. But it might not actually lay out like that. So it's good to give a preview. So I think starting with that being somewhat punchy. But as far as laying it out, you know, coming up with some sort of consistent theme, which can carry through the entire case. So obviously, you know, working with your colleagues and clients and to make sure that that theme can play out throughout the entire case and that it makes sense. So coming up with that theme and kind of emphasizing a little bit throughout opening so that it makes sense. And it's something that, you know, again, the fact fighter, jury, judge can kind of latch on to and kind of anticipate and prepare for moving forward. I think visuals, too, can also be very helpful in openings. So at least for three of those four trials in the openings, we had visuals. And I do think that that helps. Usually not very detailed ones, but again, enough to just have this kind of idea in the back of the fact finder's mind of, oh, we might anticipate this kind of thing coming. And that just sort of sets the stage. So that's at least somewhat how I approach it. And then making it good is presenting it like several times to different people. And especially, I think it's great to do it too with lawyers that don't know the case. You know, other colleagues at the firm who might be litigators that don't know the case. So if I present it and it makes sense to them, I'm like, okay, and that hopefully will make sense to a fact finder who does not know this case. But if it doesn't make sense to them, then I can kind of help develop and build that. And I think that's the best way to make an opening go from, you know, decent to much better. 

Adam: Back to the visuals and catchphrases. Obviously, the one case we tried a bit ago and also we successfully won on the defense side, the key message there was pulling on the catchphrase, where's the beef? With the idea being that there just is no evidence in this case. It couldn't prove the case, things like that. Upside is you remember that theme right from the jump. It sticks, especially with a judge that's from the vintage that would understand what that commercial meant in the very beginning. But you also could lose a lot of capital with the judge if they don't buy it. So if you're going to take an aggressive theme, what is your thought process for understanding when that theme plays or when you have to abandon it? Because it's just, it's too strong or may not be strong enough in those circumstances. 

Joyce: I mean, I think it's, you know, how much do you believe in that case? I mean, I think that that particular case, we were pretty confident going into trial. I mean, sometimes you go into trial thinking, well, this is, you know, somewhat of a toss up. We'll see how this goes. And, you know, often, I mean, like, I always believe in the case that we're presenting, but sometimes you believe in it even stronger, because you just know that there's so many holes in the other side's argument. So I think it's, you know, knowing your case and how strong you believe it and how you see the facts playing out and then presenting that strong-wanted opening, I think, can work. But if the case is a little bit more, you know, there's more disputes, there's more issues, there's more gray area, then maybe you don't want to, like, come out with something so strong because if you can't live through with that and the judge isn't buying it, you know, again, you're going to lose your capital and it's not going to come across as well. 

Adam: But heading into trial, knowing that, especially on the defense side, when you're faced with multiple claims, partway through trial or partway through the case, what's your approach with what claims you go after at summary judgment, which claims you save for trial, especially on the defense side, knowing, again, that if you use too much capital too early, you may not have enough, whatever you need at the very end. 

Joyce: So I think there's often a strategy with sometimes with defendants where they're just going to go for summary judgment on the entire case, every claim in it, which can work. It's not like it never works, but I do think that you have to really carefully consider each claim and not risk losing some sort of credibility by arguing a claim where maybe that one's not as good. You know, I'd rather present a summary judgment motion where it's just an easy question for the judge. You know, that claim, of course, that claim doesn't work, rather than the ones that are a little more iffy or especially ones where you're like, this is not the best argument, but I want to go for all of them. So I think it's being very selective in which claims that you go after so that hopefully you can get the judge to grant. And if you can go after all of them, by all means, you should. But I do think that, you know, litigators should be a little more cognizant of which ones they're going after so that you don't lose credibility with the judge. I mean, I think the best way to go is if you can just get a little bit whittled out every time, that means the judge is totally buying everything that you're doing. And then by the time you get to trial, if there's only one or two claims left, then hopefully, especially if it's bench trial, that can go your way as well. 

Adam: You mentioned the trial when you had the complete defense verdict last year. Moving forward to your bookend case that I think you've just recently resolved and tried, how did that case turn out? So just recently, we had another complete defense verdict in a somewhat similar case. As far as takeaways, what were some of the things you did differently, things you refined for that approach that you're able to build on from some of the earlier victories? 

Joyce: So I do think that the more recent one was a little more difficult of a case, a little more questions about, you know, how to prove this and, you know, whether plaintiff really did have a valid claim. So it was more difficult in that way to build, but I think just also still same way, kind of picking and choosing the claims to go after and at what point. In that earlier case, I think there were maybe 14 claims to begin with, and we did do a motion to dismiss and got about at least half of them were dismissed and a motion to dismiss. Summary judgment, there were, what, six or something left, went after a little bit at a time. This new case, the claims were a little bit better played, a little stronger in the beginning, so we did not go for a motion to dismiss, which I think did make sense because, again, this losing credibility with a judge along the way is not something that— used to try not to do. But we did then move for summary judgment, got about half of the claims kicked out at summary judgment, and then went on to trial. So I think, you know, kind of building off the same, you know, strategy as before into this case really worked well. But this case also being a little bit, you know, just stronger from the outset on the plaintiff's side. So knowing that and also, you know, these were the same attorneys, same plaintiff, essentially on the their side. So kind of already knowing how they handle their case, how they build the case, and knowing how to counteract that, it did make it easier the second time around because you know what to expect. 

Adam: For purposes of trial presentation, I think a lot of people overlook the use of Rule 1006 exhibits, especially in my mind. You can get admitted for the truth. It's not just a mere demonstrative. Oftentimes, especially in our complex corporate case, and they really synthesize information. What's your take on Rural 1000 exhibits? How do you use them? And how do you incorporate them into your trial work? 

Joyce: Yeah, I agree. I may think they're underutilized, but they are such a useful tool, especially, I think, really in a lot of ways that we use them are for, you know, large amounts of financial information. Say you have bank records going back like years and years and years. All the bank records are important, but rather than trying to admit, you know, 20 different documents of bank records, why not synthesize the information in a Rule 1006 and then get that admitted? And then that's an easier way for the judge to look at, you know, one or two pages rather than thousands and get the same information out of it. You know, judges are busy. You don't want to give them thousands and thousands of documents to review if they're trying to put together findings, fact, conclusions, and blah. So if you can do that in an easier way for them to still get all that information, I think that can be very helpful. And it's also a lot easier to work with witnesses when you're talking through that information. If you're trying to present every single accident and go through each one, it just gets old. You know, the witness gets kind of tired of it. The fact finder gets tired of it, whether it's judge or jury. So having in this kind of easier way, then you can go through it much more quickly. And it has a lot more impact than all of thousands of documents. 

Adam: I also understand you made partner about the last year. Is that right? 

Joyce: I did. Yes. 

Adam: Congratulations, first of all. 

Joyce: Thank you. 

Adam: Now, as far as your path to partner, at some point, it seems like everyone has to make that choice of, you know, they're going to go all in and they're going to take the steps necessary. You know, for you, can you point back to a period of time or sort of what caused you to decide to go down that path and fully commit to the process? 

Joyce: I guess it's kind of hard to think about when exactly that happened, but I do think that it was a few years ago, before I joined the firm previous to Reed Smith, that, you know, I knew this was kind of an area, a path that I wanted to go down. And I didn't think I was at the right firm to make partner. So it was kind of finding the right group that would, you know, support me and help me to elevate to that next position. So I think that's an important thing for associates to, you know, kind of look around and see, you know, who's around you and who can kind of be your, you know, your champion to help bring you up to the next level and being in the right position too. I mean, if you're one of, you know, 10 senior associates and you know there's not really room for everyone up top, that can be a challenge. So I think kind of considering what's around you and, you know, maybe what your book looks like, what kind of, you know, the book of the other people around you looks like to not just the other litigators, but what, you know, what kind of work are the corporate group bringing in that you might be able to help work on? I mean, litigation is finicky in the sense that, you know, we're not just chasing people around being like, oh, did you get sued? I mean, we're not the ambulance chasing type. So, it's more, you know, it's harder to kind of sell what we do. So, I think being in the right environment is really the best step to get yourself set up if you want to go to the next step to make partner. 

Adam: I see what you're saying. I definitely agree over the years looking at it. We're probabilistic, I think, on how we approach the business development piece, which you have to have a lot of lines out there. And when matters happen, they have a lot of longevity, but at the same time, you have to sort of forecast for how you can create that pipeline. So I do agree, I think, for an associate training partner, it's looking at pipeline and making sure that you can get into a bigger pipeline. And it certainly is going to increase your chances from start to finish. Joyce: Definitely. 

Adam: All right. Well, that is our time for today. So I really appreciate you joining the pod and we'll certainly have you back on again and to hear your next trial win, which sounds like it probably won't be that far away based off of the string you've put together so far. 

Joyce: Let's hope so. Well, thanks for having me. 

Outro: Disputes in Perspective is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's litigation and dispute resolution practice, please email disputesinperspective@reedsmith.com. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP. 

Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. 

All rights reserved.

Transcript is auto-generated.