Business RadioX ®

  • Home
  • Business RadioX ® Communities
    • Southeast
      • Alabama
        • Birmingham
      • Florida
        • Orlando
        • Pensacola
        • South Florida
        • Tampa
        • Tallahassee
      • Georgia
        • Atlanta
        • Cherokee
        • Forsyth
        • Greater Perimeter
        • Gwinnett
        • North Fulton
        • North Georgia
        • Northeast Georgia
        • Rome
        • Savannah
      • Louisiana
        • New Orleans
      • North Carolina
        • Charlotte
        • Raleigh
      • Tennessee
        • Chattanooga
        • Nashville
      • Virginia
        • Richmond
    • South Central
      • Arkansas
        • Northwest Arkansas
    • Midwest
      • Illinois
        • Chicago
      • Michigan
        • Detroit
      • Minnesota
        • Minneapolis St. Paul
      • Missouri
        • St. Louis
      • Ohio
        • Cleveland
        • Columbus
        • Dayton
    • Southwest
      • Arizona
        • Phoenix
        • Tucson
        • Valley
      • Texas
        • Austin
        • Dallas
        • Houston
    • West
      • California
        • Bay Area
        • LA
        • Pasadena
      • Colorado
        • Denver
      • Hawaii
        • Oahu
  • FAQs
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
    • Our Audience
    • Why It Works
    • What People Are Saying
    • BRX in the News
  • Resources
    • BRX Pro Tips
    • B2B Marketing: The 4Rs
    • High Velocity Selling Habits
    • Why Most B2B Media Strategies Fail
    • 9 Reasons To Sponsor A Business RadioX ® Show
  • Partner With Us
  • Veteran Business RadioX ®

Explaining Arbitration

October 13, 2021 by Mike

Injury-Insider-with-Derek-Hayes-Tile
Gwinnett Studio
Explaining Arbitration
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Injury Insider with Derek Hays” answers legal questions and debunks personal injury myths with insight and expertise. For 25 years, Derek has exclusively represented injured parties in Georgia. Now, he’d like to put that knowledge to work for you!

“Injury Insider with Derek Hays” is brought to you by Status Home Design, your one-stop-shop for all your home and gift needs.

About The Law Office of Derek M. Hays

The Law Office of Derek M. Hays is located in the heart of downtown Lawrenceville at 30 Lumpkin Street, Suite C in Lawrenceville, GA . We are just minutes away from the Lawrenceville Square and Gwinnett Justice and Administrative Center.

Derek Hays, owner and founder of the Law Office of Derek M. Hays, is among Georgia’s elite trial lawyers, recognized for his work on behalf of victims of car wrecks, nursing home negligence and other personal injury claims. He has successfully obtained approximately $125,000,000 in combined verdicts and settlements in his almost 25 years practicing law. Nationally, he is one of America’s Top 100 Lifetime Achievement Award recipients, earned by the most skilled and ethical attorneys. Derek M. Hays has also been honored as Gwinnett Magazine’s “Best of Gwinnett” every year since 2015 as well as being a valued member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

Mr. Hays believes communication is key and this sets him apart from other firms. He is committed to clients and manages each case while discussing all aspects of your claim with you from the beginning, answering questions and guiding you through the process to maximize your compensation.

Call for a free, no risk case evaluation – 404-777-HURT

Click Here to View the Video of this Episode

Follow The Law Office of Derek M. Hays on Facebook

Follow The Law Office of Derek M. Hays on Instagram

Follow The Law Office of Derek M. Hays on Twitter

Tagged With: Arbitration, business radio, Business RadioX, car accidents, Derek Hays, derek m. hays, gwinnett personal injury attorney, injury attorney, injury representation, law office of derek hays, Leta Brooks, mediation, Personal Injury, Status Home Design, status life

Everything You Wanted To Know About Mediation

September 29, 2021 by Mike

Injury-Insider-with-Derek-Hayes-Tile
Gwinnett Studio
Everything You Wanted To Know About Mediation
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Leta Brooks and Derek Hays

“Injury Insider with Derek Hays” answers legal questions and debunks personal injury myths with insight and expertise. For 25 years, Derek has exclusively represented injured parties in Georgia. Now, he’d like to put that knowledge to work for you!

“Injury Insider with Derek Hays” is brought to you by Status Home Design, your one-stop-shop for all your home and gift needs.

About The Law Office of Derek M. Hays

The Law Office of Derek M. Hays is located in the heart of downtown Lawrenceville at 30 Lumpkin Street, Suite C in Lawrenceville, GA . We are just minutes away from the Lawrenceville Square and Gwinnett Justice and Administrative Center.

Derek Hays, owner and founder of the Law Office of Derek M. Hays, is among Georgia’s elite trial lawyers, recognized for his work on behalf of victims of car wrecks, nursing home negligence and other personal injury claims. He has successfully obtained approximately $125,000,000 in combined verdicts and settlements in his almost 25 years practicing law. Nationally, he is one of America’s Top 100 Lifetime Achievement Award recipients, earned by the most skilled and ethical attorneys. Derek M. Hays has also been honored as Gwinnett Magazine’s “Best of Gwinnett” every year since 2015 as well as being a valued member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

Mr. Hays believes communication is key and this sets him apart from other firms. He is committed to clients and manages each case while discussing all aspects of your claim with you from the beginning, answering questions and guiding you through the process to maximize your compensation.

Call for a free, no risk case evaluation – 404-777-HURT

Click Here to View the Video of this Episode

Follow The Law Office of Derek M. Hays on Facebook

Follow The Law Office of Derek M. Hays on Instagram

Follow The Law Office of Derek M. Hays on Twitter

Tagged With: business radio, Business RadioX, car accidents, court mediation, Derek Hays, derek m. hays, gwinnett personal injury attorney, injury attorney, injury representation, law office of derek hays, Leta Brooks, mediation, Personal Injury, Status Home Design, status life

Hon. Gail Tusan, JAMS and The Pave Foundation

September 2, 2021 by John Ray

Pave Foundation
North Fulton Business Radio
Hon. Gail Tusan, JAMS and The Pave Foundation
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

The Pave Foundation

Hon. Gail Tusan, JAMS and The Pave Foundation (North Fulton Business Radio, Episode 388)

Formerly a Senior Superior Court Judge in Fulton County, Judge Gail Tusan is quite active both professionally, with her mediation/arbitrator practice, and in the community. She joined host John Ray to break down the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, how it serves to resolve legal disputes at a lower cost, and more. Judge Tusan also shared her passion for enriching the lives of African American girls, particularly by fostering STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education and mentoring through The Pave Foundation. She also offered details on her upcoming “Tee Off with Team Tusan” fundraiser. North Fulton Business Radio is broadcast from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® inside Renasant Bank in Alpharetta.

The Honorable Gail Tusan, JAMS Inc.

The Pave Foundation
The Honorable Gail Tusan Washington, Senior Judge, JAMS Inc.

Gail S. Tusan, Senior Judge, brings more than 30 years of judicial service in various Georgia jurisdictions to her practice as an Arbitrator/Mediator/Special Master at JAMS. In April 2019, Judge Tusan retired from her sixth elected term as a Superior Court Judge in Fulton County. During her time on the superior court, Judge Tusan served two successful terms as Chief Judge and played an active role in the design and launch of the Family Division, where she also served for over a decade.

Prior to joining the bench, Gail practiced civil litigation in a variety of areas, including intellectual property, unfair competition, franchise law, family law and other general business matters. Her trial experience includes presiding over health care matters, business disputes, tort and contract disputes, family law and criminal law cases, petitions for injunctive relief and much more.

Gail’s multi-faceted career and extensive legal and community service have garnered her a reputation for building consensus during disputes and forging partnerships among the legal community, government, and the public they serve.

Gail regularly presents educational programs to the judiciary, attorneys, and law students on a variety of legal issues, especially those in the family law sector. She is a media contributor for Court TV, ALM and Attorney at Law Magazine where she hosts the podcast, Behind the Case with Judge Tusan. Gail is a Distinguished Visiting Instructor at Spelman College and an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law. She currently serves as a member of the Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement and is a Past President of Buckhead/Cascade City Chapter of The Links, Incorporated. Gail serves as President of The Pave Foundation, Inc., which provides STEAM enrichment opportunities and mentoring to African American girls.

Among many other awards, Judge Tusan has received the Atlanta Bar Association Litigation Section’s coveted honor, The Logan E. Bleckley Award for Judicial Excellence, Distinguished Public Service in the Judiciary, Community Leader of Faith Award, Day1 and the MLK Center for Nonviolent Social Change’s Peace and Justice Award. Finally, Gail is a published author of two novels, Misjudged and Riley, The Judge’s Son (written under the pen name, Susan Washington), and a contributing author to the anthology Loving Wisdom by the Wisdom Whisperers (October 2020 Release).

Jams Website

LinkedIn

The Pave Foundation

The Pave Foundation, Inc. is committed to “paving the way” for African American girls to achieve success in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics) careers by providing them with academic and enrichment opportunities that ignite their intellectual curiosity, develop self-confidence and instill a passion for protecting the planet by equitably distributing its resources.

Pave Foundation website

 

North Fulton Business Radio is hosted by John Ray, and broadcast and produced from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® inside Renasant Bank in Alpharetta. You can find the full archive of shows by following this link. The show is available on all the major podcast apps, including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google, Amazon, iHeart Radio, Stitcher, TuneIn, and others.

RenasantBank

 

Renasant Bank has humble roots, starting in 1904 as a $100,000 bank in a Lee County, Mississippi, bakery. Since then, Renasant has grown to become one of the Southeast’s strongest financial institutions with over $13 billion in assets and more than 190 banking, lending, wealth management and financial services offices in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. All of Renasant’s success stems from each of their banker’s commitment to investing in their communities as a way of better understanding the people they serve. At Renasant Bank, they understand you because they work and live alongside you every day.

 

Special thanks to A&S Culinary Concepts for their support of this edition of North Fulton Business Radio. A&S Culinary Concepts, based in Johns Creek, is an award-winning culinary studio, celebrated for corporate catering, corporate team building, Big Green Egg Boot Camps, and private group events. They also provide oven ready, cooked from scratch meals to go they call “Let us Cook for You.” To see their menus and events, go to their website or call 678-336-9196.

Tagged With: alternative dispute resolution, Gail Tusan, girls empowerment, JAMS Inc., John Ray, Judge Gail Tusan Washington, mediation, North Fulton Business Radio, STEAM, The Pave Foundation

The Amicable Divorce Network, with Tracy Ann Moore-Grant of Patterson Moore Butler

March 4, 2021 by John Ray

Amicable Divorce Network
North Fulton Business Radio
The Amicable Divorce Network, with Tracy Ann Moore-Grant of Patterson Moore Butler
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Amicable Divorce Network

The Amicable Divorce Network™, with Tracy Ann Moore-Grant of Patterson Moore Butler

Tracy Ann Moore-Grant, Patterson Moore Butler, chose family law as a profession because she enjoyed helping people. She took it one step further by founding the Amicable Divorce Network, a coalition of service providers dedicated to low conflict divorce. Tracy Ann joined host John Ray to discuss why a low conflict process is better for all parties and less costly as well. “North Fulton Business Radio” is produced virtually from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® in Alpharetta.

Tracy Ann Moore-Grant, Partner, Patterson Moore Butler

Tracy Ann Moore-Grant has practiced exclusively in the area of family law in the North Georgia area since 2002. She has focused her practice on all issues related to families including amicable divorce, child custody, child support, and contempt issues. She regularly handles matters which may be low conflict such as an uncontested divorce or complex family law matters such as cases involving psychological custody evaluations and small business and retirement division.

Ms. Moore has a client-driven focus with her approach to the practice of law and believes in treating each case as a partnership with the client and takes steps to accomplish a client’s goals. She has begun to focus her practice on uncontested, cooperative, and respectful divorces to assist the parties in navigating the court system in a low conflict manner. Ms. Moore is also a registered mediator and arbitrator as well as a trained guardian ad litem and parent coordinator.

Ms. Moore-Grant enjoys being involved in her community and has received several awards and recognitions over the years. She was given the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubble in 2018 which is the highest rating an attorney can receive for legal ability and ethical standards.

Company Website | Personal LinkedIn | Instagram

The Amicable Divorce Network™

The Amicable Divorce Network is a group of Georgia attorneys, mediators, psychologists, financial professionals, and other professionals with experience in family law who have come together to assist parties seeking a respectful divorce process. We are currently only serving the Atlanta Metro & North Georgia area. Professionals in the network have made a commitment to respect the amicable divorce process to help parties navigate divorce while providing experienced advice and services along the way.Amicable Divorce Network

The Amicable Divorce Network™ is both an organization for professionals who work in a divorce-related industry AND an Amicable Divorce Process™ whereby the parties to the divorce, and their selected professionals, are committed to settling their matter in a low conflict and efficient matter. A divorcing couple agrees to use members of the network for their case so that everyone involved has the same amicable mindset and has received the appropriate training on the process.

Website | Instagram | Facebook

Questions and Topics in this Interview:

  • Background on Tracy Ann and her firm, Patterson Moore Butler
  • Why Tracy Ann chose family law
  • Why she started the Amicable Divorce Network
  • Why the Amicable Divorce Network process is better for clients
  • What it is better for family law attorneys and other services providers
  • How it is different from a traditional divorce
  • Being awarded the Georgia Legal Award for Distinguished Leadership in 2020
  • How the Amicable Divorce Network is growing into a national and international network

North Fulton Business Radio” is hosted by John Ray and produced virtually from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® in Alpharetta. You can find the full archive of shows by following this link. The show is available on all the major podcast apps, including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google, Amazon, iHeart Radio, Stitcher, TuneIn, and others.

Renasant Bank has humble roots, starting in 1904 as a $100,000 bank in a Lee County, Mississippi, bakery. Since then, Renasant has grown to become one of the Southeast’s strongest financial institutions with over $13 billion in assets and more than 190 banking, lending, wealth management and financial services offices in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. All of Renasant’s success stems from each of their banker’s commitment to investing in their communities as a way of better understanding the people they serve. At Renasant Bank, they understand you because they work and live alongside you every day.

Tagged With: amicable divorce, Arbitration, Divorce Attorney, Divorce Mediation, Family Law, mediation, Patterson Moore Butler, The Amicable Divorce Network, Tracy Ann Moore-Butler

Decision Vision Episode 105: Should I Enter Into Mediation to Resolve a Dispute? – An Interview with Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation and Arbitration

February 25, 2021 by John Ray

Mediation
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 105: Should I Enter Into Mediation to Resolve a Dispute? - An Interview with Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation and Arbitration
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Mediation

Decision Vision Episode 105: Should I Enter Into Mediation to Resolve a Dispute? – An Interview with Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation and Arbitration

Ellen Malow of Malow Mediation and Arbitration joins host Mike Blake to discuss how mediation and arbitration can be used to resolve business disputes. “Decision Vision” is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Ellen Malow, President, Malow Mediation and Arbitration

Malow Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution company that assists companies and individuals in resolving conflicts. A wide range of cases is handled including complex business, employment, construction, personal injury, and other areas of the law. Arbitration matters are also handled where Ellen serves as the judge on similar matters.

Company website

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast.

Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional, full service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:20] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:41] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:07] Today’s topic is, Should I enter into mediation? And, you know, this is a really interesting topic to me from a dispute resolution perspective, because, as we’re going to learn, it has a lot of layers to it. And as we record this podcast on February 9th, 2021, we’re still in the midst of this whole pandemic thing. And only a small fraction of us have been vaccinated. I have not because I’m too young. And at my age, it’s nice actually still to fall into a category where I’m too young for something. That does not happen often anymore. So, I’m going to take that as a silver lining.

Mike Blake: [00:01:48] But, you know, in this time, we’re in a period right now where if you’re in a legal dispute, it is difficult to get on a court calendar. And we had, very early on in the podcast, a couple of folks come on and talk about, you know, should I sue, how do I make a decision to sue somebody, and so forth. But a lot of that is now kind of warped. A lot of those, at least, advice kind of warped because, you know, the courts are not functioning the same way that they did. In some cases they’re not functioning at all. Can you imagine in a time of COVID, and now we have more virulent strains that have been unleashed upon us, you know, how do you sit 12 jurors for a multiday case and not, like, kill two of them, basically? It’s nearly impossible.

Mike Blake: [00:02:46] So, you know, I think alternative dispute resolution avenues, such as arbitration and mediation, and there may be others as well – hopefully, not dueling pistols at dawn. I like to think that one out with the 19th century – these methods, I think, they have to receive more attention than they once did. Maybe they’re being revisited by parties that had once rejected them, because, otherwise, frankly, you might be stuck in the mud. I’ve got a client that on the one hand, I think, is desperate to sue somebody. But on the other hand, you’re looking at a two to three year period before you’re going to get in front of a judge, if that. And that’s assuming no continuances and so forth.

Mike Blake: [00:03:35] So, I think there should be a lot more interest in this topic, and I think that there will be. And so, helping us out today as an expert is Ellen Malow, who is the President of Malow Mediation and Arbitration. She is a former trial attorney who practiced law for 13 years. She started her company 17 years ago and has been a full-time mediator and arbitrator since that time. She received her undergraduate and law degree from the University of Texas at Austin. She’s a member of several professional organizations. She has had numerous speaking engagements for many law firms and other groups. She has also authored several articles and serves as an arbitrator on certain matters. Malow Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution company that assists companies and individuals in resolving conflicts. A wide range of cases are handled, including the complex business – I’m sorry – complex business, employment, construction, personal injury, and other areas of law. Ellen Malow, welcome to the program.

Ellen Malow: [00:04:39] Thanks, Mike. I had myself on mute so as not to interfere with you.

Mike Blake: [00:04:44] Well, that’s all right. You know what? We’re just going to call that a dramatic pause and then move on from there. So, Ellen, thanks again for coming on the show. Great to see you. It’s been a long time. With the show, I like to start to make sure everybody understands kind of what we’re talking about. What is a mediation?

Ellen Malow: [00:05:07] A mediation is basically a facilitated negotiation where the mediator works with the parties to try to come up with some sort of solution to their issues. It basically comes up with ways to look at it that they may not have considered before.

Mike Blake: [00:05:24] And what does that process look like? If we’re considering mediation or maybe you’re consulting with somebody and they just want to know kind of what that process looks like, what is that?

Ellen Malow: [00:05:39] So, the format is awhat we call a general [indiscernible] where we all meet together and the mediator goes over the mediation agreement. And, really, the key thing there is confidentiality. And then, each lawyer on each side has the opportunity to give, basically, an opening statement. And if they want, their client can make comments as well. And then, I separate them and they have a caucus room. And then, my role is to go in between the caucus rooms for the whole process and try to get to a deal. So, there’s some fluidity to the process. So, sometimes I may take one of the lawyers aside away from his or her client and try to say, “Hey, what’s the roadblock here?” And maybe we can break through it. Sometimes I take all the lawyers in a separate caucus room. Sometimes we come back together. But as a practical matter, it’s really the way I describe it to begin with.

Mike Blake: [00:06:35] So, I’ve never been in a mediation, candidly. I’ve been in arbitration. I’ve been in trial. But it’s interesting, you know, this facilitated negotiation, it sounds like you start with a position of keeping the parties physically separate, is that accurate?

Ellen Malow: [00:06:53] So, there’s some controversy now as to if it makes more sense to start out separate. I think starting out together makes more sense. And sometimes when you’re mediating, you haven’t even met the other side, sometimes you haven’t even met your opposing counsel. You may be early on. So, it’s an opportunity to set the stage for that conversation.

Ellen Malow: [00:07:17] Some people, if it’s a highly contentious – like I have one on Friday, it’s a non-compete, non-solicit case where they’re accusing the former employee of stealing documents. They don’t want to be in the same room together. So, we will start out separately.

Mike Blake: [00:07:33] So, I guess some of that is reading the room, for lack of a better term. I guess you have to have some feeling as to how hostile, maybe even how emotional, the parties are and whether or not being in the room can be constructive or destructive.

Ellen Malow: [00:07:51] Exactly. The thing I try to do is talk to the lawyers in advance to find out what the dynamics are with their clients, with opposing counsel, with the opposing party. But like I mentioned, people want to skip this part completely. And when you’re trained in the process, it is a critical part, so I will encourage them. I mean, unless we’re talking about a sexual assault case or something that’s so outrageously emotional, I just think it makes sense to meet the other side, set the stage, let them hear your position without going into a full blown opening argument. Because if you skip it, you’re already polarized.

Mike Blake: [00:08:30] You know, I’m going to go off script here, but it reminds me of a practice that the litigation section of the Atlanta bar used to encourage, which was, take your opposing counsel out to lunch. And I’m not an expert. I’m a lousy expert witness, that was why I don’t do it. But I always thought that that practice, I think, is just constructive. You know, if you just get people talking and if you get two attorneys who are truly interested in resolving a dispute, you know, magical things can happen if you take them out of having the spotlight on them and the pressure of “performing” in front of their client in a certain way. You just let them kind of do their thing. Good things, I think, can happen from that.

Ellen Malow: [00:09:23] I totally agree. And I actually use that same example when I give speeches to law firms. I mean, that’s it. Like, you don’t have to be adversaries. You do have to be an advocate for your client. But it doesn’t have to be this butting heads scenario. It’s challenging because there’s that fine line between zealous advocacy and trying to come up with a compromise.

Mike Blake: [00:09:45] Yeah, for sure. So, you mentioned lawyers being in the room, but I wanted to clarify something because it’s an important point that I think is often overlooked, you don’t necessarily need to have legal counsel representing you in a mediation, do you?

Ellen Malow: [00:10:02] No. I mean, you can have a mediation before you even have a lawsuit. I’ve done some with a shopping center dispute where you’ve got kind of an urgent issue, where a landlord is trying to get a tenant out or whatever that might be, and so they can meet with a mediator without counsel. The challenge is sometimes you’ll have one side with counsel and the other side without and they feel like it’s not an even playing field. But I’ve definitely done cases with business people. I’ve actually done even divorce cases where the husband and wife don’t want to pay for lawyers. So, you can definitely do it.

Mike Blake: [00:10:37] That instance where one side brings legal counsel, the other side does not, that’s got to make it tricky, too, because of bar ethics rules, I would imagine, right? I mean, not that I’m a lawyer, but I work with them enough, you know, attorneys don’t necessarily like kind of going lawyer to layperson in a legal conversation, right?

Ellen Malow: [00:10:57] True. And I also don’t like to be put on the spot to be their lawyer because I am a lawyer. But my role as a neutral is to be just that. So, it’s difficult because they’ll lean on you to give some opinion or advice and you have to really be careful not to cross that line.

Mike Blake: [00:11:16] So, another alternative dispute resolution mechanic, arbitration, is often kind of set in the same breadth as mediation. If I’m not mistaken, I think you’re also a qualified arbitrator – and correct me if I’m wrong. What is the difference between those two? Or rhat are the differences? There’s probably not just one difference.

Ellen Malow: [00:11:36] Right. So, arbitration, as an arbitrator, I’m a judge. So, when people say arbitration, they don’t really necessarily understand that it’s the exact same thing as if you filed a case in State Court or Superior Court. So, I’m sitting in the role of a judge. I’m just not getting paid by the government, by the taxpayers. I’m privately being paid. And there are a lot of reasons why people want to select arbitration. Most of the time you’ll see, it’s in a lot of contracts between parties. If it’s a business dispute, it’ll say in the event of a dispute, this is what we’re doing. So, as the arbitrator, I’m making a ruling. Whereas, as a mediator, I’m trying to bring the parties to their own agreement. I can’t force an agreement on them as a mediator. But as an arbitrator, there’s evidence, it’s a trial, it’s a full blown deal.

Ellen Malow: [00:12:28] The difference between arbitration and a trial – the main difference is, an arbitration is totally confidential. So, if there’s a bad decision or good decision, whatever, it’s not public. And the other thing is, it’s binding and you can’t appeal it. So, if you think about trials that you hear about, they could go on forever because you could get a great result, and then the other side appeals it. Now, we’re two or three years later, then it’s kicked back for new trial, whatever happens. So, it’s much more streamlined. It takes way less time. There is a cost, too, because you’re paying this private arbitrator.

Ellen Malow: [00:13:05] And the other thing, Mike, that I think is the reason people really like it is, you can get an arbitrator that has subject matter expertise. Because you could go try a case and you might have a judge that’s well versed in criminal law but doesn’t really know much about this business dispute. So, it has a lot, a lot of advantages. People don’t like it because you could get stuck with a bad decision. It’s not a jury. So, there are downsides to it.

Mike Blake: [00:13:36] Now, my understanding is that you don’t necessarily need to have legal training to become a mediator or an arbitrator. Is that correct?

Ellen Malow: [00:13:46] It is. I mean, I have some certifications. But I think a lot of successful mediators and arbitrators have subject matter expertise and that is what enables them to get a lot of business.

Mike Blake: [00:13:59] Now, I’ve been in arbitrations where there have been multiple arbitrators, does that happen in mediation as well? Or is it typically just one mediator that’s running the show?

Ellen Malow: [00:14:10] In 30 years of both practice and mediation, I’ve only had one case that we had co- mediators, and it was a huge, massive, toxic tort case with thousands of plaintiffs. So, it’s rare. At least I have not experienced it. It may be nice because it’d be great to bounce something off of someone, but you just don’t have that luxury.

Mike Blake: [00:14:34] Interesting. So, when do most parties go to mediation? And then, I have sort of a twin question with that, when should they go to mediation? In other words, do people tend to go too early, too late? How do most people do it? And then, what would you recommend?

Ellen Malow: [00:15:00] Can I back up one step to the arbitration?

Mike Blake: [00:15:03] Please.

Ellen Malow: [00:15:03] Okay. The only thing I want to say is, so you can have either a three-person panel or a sole arbitrator, and there’s a benefit to each. The benefit to a three-person panel is that, you’re not stuck with one person’s decision. There has to be a consensus. Usually with an arbitration with a three-person panel, each sides picking one, so they’re sort of in their camp, potentially. And then, those two are picking the third one. So, that person may actually be a little bit more neutral. So, the sole arbitrator, you could have that risk of just that one person’s opinion not being the way you want to be.

Ellen Malow: [00:15:40] Okay. So, timing, that does have some layers to it. So, I would say more and more I’m doing what we call pre-suit mediations, where they haven’t even filed a lawsuit. I think the earlier the better. Because what happens is, the further along in the process, the more invested people become and the sunk costs are already there. And it becomes less likely for them to just say, “Okay. Let’s resolve it.” They’re so far down the road, they think, “Well, let’s just go ahead and try it.”

Ellen Malow: [00:16:11] So, at the outset, you don’t have all that yet. You haven’t spent the money on attorneys fees and court reporters and all that stuff. The downside of too, too early is you may not have all the information. So, I do a lot of employment cases, typically the employer has everything or most everything and the employee may have next to nothing. So, in that instance, it might be too early to do a pre-suit. But sometimes they still work there, so you’re trying to figure out almost a severance and it makes sense to try to mediate it early. So, I think probably, maybe, the best stages are right after they’ve exchanged documents – what we call written discovery – and before you get into depositions, because that’s when the expense really happens.

Mike Blake: [00:16:56] And I wonder, too, I mean, it’s not just the expense, but I wonder if kind of the longer you’re locked in battle, the more you emotionally invest in the notion of a victory, in particular an unconditional victory. And, you know, that may be achievable, but it’s typically difficult to achieve. Because if you’re trying to achieve unconditional surrender, then the party on the other side is going to fight like counsel. They have no other alternative to avoid that because there’s no upside to surrendering early. So, interestingly, somebody is going to do that.

Mike Blake: [00:17:34] Now, what about your cases where, you know, lawsuits have been filed. You’ve gotten through the discovery phase and you’re getting to the point now where the judge is now starting to get involved. It’s probably still pretrial, but you’re talking to the judge or filing motions more and more frequently. My understanding is, judges will often send cases into mediation in some fashion. Is that your experience as well? And why do they do that?

Ellen Malow: [00:18:06] Well, typically, at some point they’re going to order you to mediation. If they don’t order you, one side is going to ask the judge to order you. And the main reason they do it is because they’re flooded with cases, and now more so than ever. So, they’re trying to avoid – you know, I don’t mean wasting resources – using resources that will be taken up, whether it’s the time of the jurors or the time of the court.

Ellen Malow: [00:18:29] And I would also say, probably, 95 percent of all cases settle. It doesn’t seem that way because the papers or the news or social media will show things that are outrageous and happening as if it happens all the time. So, if it’s going to settle, their thought process is “Let’s get it settled”. So, I do know there are a couple of counties where I’m on the roster and I’ll hear the lawyers say, “We’re too early. This judge ordered us to mediation. We haven’t done X, Y and Z. This isn’t the best time to mediate.” So, some of those may not be as successful, but the courts want these off their dockets. And like you said at the beginning, with COVID, they are buried.

Mike Blake: [00:19:10] So, a mediation, to me, sounds like a complex animal because, as opposed to a trial or an arbitration, which is a trial that’s privately held, there’s no guarantee of an outcome in a mediation, is there?

Ellen Malow: [00:19:30] Well, no. The parties can decide to settle or not settle.

Mike Blake: [00:19:33] Yeah. Exactly. So, I think that’s an interesting distinction. And so, I have to imagine you see this a lot, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I mean, do you see parties that, you know, maybe are being ordered into time out, they’re being ordered to mediation, maybe, frankly, very much against their will. Even in that case, is there something constructive that can come out of a mediation that doesn’t have a resolution?

Ellen Malow: [00:20:01] So, I think a couple things can come out. One is just information, sharing things that may not have been disclosed yet that ultimately have to be disclosed. The other thing I think is beneficial is to have a neutral person give their impressions on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, because you’re now hearing from someone who has no investment in the case what they think could happen. I mean, my decisions is not binding, their opinions aren’t binding like they are as an arbitrator, but I think they’re informative. So, you know, you can also start engaging in negotiations that maybe you haven’t started and get the momentum going. So, even though that may not be the day it settles, it could resolve sooner than later.

Mike Blake: [00:20:49] Yeah. And, you know, the part you brought up about getting sort of what seems to be a sneak preview of how an independent legal expert kind of evaluates the case for both sides. You know, that seems to me to be extremely valuable so that it can inform kind of both parties, “Look, if you do kind of press this into the next step, you may be a favorite or you might be an underdog.” And I have to imagine that’s very important information.

Ellen Malow: [00:21:22] I think, so the challenge with the court ordered ones, like you said, Mike, is sometimes they’re closed minded just checking a box. I had one recently that was court ordered – so, there’s two different types of mediation styles. One is facilitative and one’s evaluative. And I’m more evaluative, so I’m not just shoveling numbers. Well, that lawyer on that case who was ordered to be there, her thing was, “Well, what’s her number?” “Well, don’t you want to hear anything else besides their number?” And she was just walled off.

Ellen Malow: [00:21:56] Courts say that when you mediate under a court order, you need to be there in good faith. You need to have all the people that are the decision makers. And you need to be there with an open mind, willing to listen. So, when you have someone who’s not doing that, I can’t be subpoenaed to testify, that’s one of the protections I have. So, I’m not going to go to the court and say, “This lawyer did X, Y and Z.” So, it’s a little challenging because then it means the other lawyer has to go complain to the judge.

Mike Blake: [00:22:25] So, I want to ask about that good faith part, because it strikes me that when you’re a mediator, you’re also part kind of therapist or counselor, I would imagine, right? There’s got to be some overlap there. And I kind of wonder how often do you encounter it, where the the party’s goal of the mediation is to, basically, show the other party just how wrong they’ve been the whole time, and that’s their primary goal. And if you see that often, in your mind, does that constitute bad faith? And if there’s bad faith – I know this is a long question – is there any recourse to take if somebody has kind of put you through the motions of mediation when there’s really no intent to even attempt to have a useful outcome?

Ellen Malow: [00:23:18] Well, I think the very last part ties into what I said, that probably the only recourse is to go back to the court. And what is the court going to do? The court may assess attorney’s fees. “Listen, you showed up, the other side had to show up. They spent X amount getting ready and attending.” So, it’s just a weird scenario because you’re typically going to come up against the same lawyers over and over and it’s a small community, even though we’re in Atlanta.

Ellen Malow: [00:23:44] The part about the emotions, it’s interesting because I do so many different areas, you would think the emotions would be in a personal injury case or a divorce case. I’ve had some nasty business disputes, where what I get throughout the process is it’s the principle of it. It’s right or wrong. I’m going to teach them a lesson. And so, I get so much emotion. I mean, construction cases, you’re criticizing the other side’s work. Employment cases, someone has worked there for 20 years and now they’re out on the street. So, the the level of emotion and sort of the therapist role, I think it’s there in all types of disputes.

Mike Blake: [00:24:24] So, does your training as a mediator include having to address those emotions to try to de-escalate a scenario? Or is that outside of your purview?

Ellen Malow: [00:24:37] So, I’m a psychology major, so I feel that helps me be a good mediator. One of the things they do teach you in training is about listening. So, so much is letting them vent and tell their story. And you’ll see the shift during the mediation, at some point during the day, they start letting that go enough to start considering a deal.

Mike Blake: [00:24:59] You talked about, you know, being qualified and your training and so forth, what is a typical or, even, is there a standardized qualification set or certification to become a mediator? Do you have to be licensed? Can anyone hang up their shingle and do it? What does that process look like?

Ellen Malow: [00:25:22] So, in Georgia, there is a Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution. And in order to get certified by the State, you have to have this coursework and get a certain number of hours. And what that entitles you to is the ability to be on court rosters. So, I’m on the Gwinnett Roster, the Cobb Roster. I had been on Fulton, but they don’t really pay anything, so I got off of that one. So, if I were not certified by the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution, I could not be on those rosters. I could still be what we call a private mediator. So, there are mediators that have probably never taken training, but they’ve done a thousand mediations as an advocate.

Mike Blake: [00:26:01] So, you said something that was interesting I did not know. When you’re a mediator or, I guess, you’re a court appointed mediator, is it the court that pays your fee?

Ellen Malow: [00:26:11] Yes. It’s the county.

Mike Blake: [00:26:13] Interesting. I didn’t know that.

Ellen Malow: [00:26:14] Wait a minute. Sorry. That’s not the case in every county. So, on the counties I am on the roster, the parties are paying it. But like Fulton County, it’s a flat fee and the county pays it. It’s a free program, and Cobb is the same way. So, it is county to county.

Mike Blake: [00:26:36] Got it. Okay. So, in your particular case, what kind of certifications do you have to be a mediator? And what does that entail in terms of coursework, exams, continuing education, that sort of thing?

Ellen Malow: [00:26:52] So, when I started 17 years ago, what I was required to do is a 25 hour – what we call – civil training. I did a 40 hour domestic training and I did a six hour arbitration training, which is so bizarre to me because being an arbitrator is far harder than being a mediator. Anyway – and then I did some advanced training at the Pepperdine Institute – Pepperdine University Straus Institute many years ago. So, I have those certifications but, like I said, even if I didn’t re-up it, I could still mediate.

Mike Blake: [00:27:28] Sure. So, you talked about there are people that are subject matter experts, and I guess that ranges from the nature of the law, whether it’s family law or employment law, elder law, civil business disputes. Does it also help or should it matter if there’s a subject matter expert that maybe is a field expert? For example, if it’s a financial dispute, if somebody has a financial background, or if it involves fraud, somebody with forensic background, or if it involves some sort of engineering case, you should want an engineer. Does that factor into how a mediator is chosen and should it?

Ellen Malow: [00:28:11] I think it does and I think it should. What’s interesting is, you know, because I think you do a lot of expert witness work is, a lot of times you’ve already retained an expert who’s either issued a report or given a deposition. So, the lawyers have the benefit of that testimony or that expertise, so they’re not necessarily needed in their mediators. So, from my perspective, the benefit of a mediator is to look at risks and weaknesses, and why negotiation and settlement makes sense. And whenever you do that, I can do that analysis on any type of case. Now, certainly it helps if I can say I tried complex business cases, but I don’t have to be an expert-expert. I will say the one area I don’t do because I have no expertise is intellectual property. And I do think you’d want a mediator with that expertise because it really is very nuanced.

Mike Blake: [00:29:10] Well, yeah, I think that’s important. And, you know, in my practice, there are certain things that I don’t take on. You know, unless it’s really simple, I don’t take on health care, I don’t do extractive materials like mining rights or forestry rights. Those are such different animals that I’m like, “Man, I could do this but I’d probably do it badly. So, here’s three other people that actually know what they’re doing.”

Mike Blake: [00:29:32] As a mediator, I’m curious, can you call on outside resources as you’re mediating a case? Could you, in effect, phone a friend if you had a question? Or are you allowed to kind of Google things and look things up so you can mediate a case from a more informed perspective? Or are you limited to whatever is kind of contained within the the four physical walls of the mediation exercise?

Mike Blake: [00:29:59] I will say that one of the things I’ll do is research some laws. So, you say to me, “Here’s the case on point. This completely proves our position.” And while you’re then kicking me out of the room or when I’m doing something else or I’ve got a minute, I’ll pull up a case or I’ll look at the case they gave me or some statute. So, there are things like that. I can’t really phone a friend – I wish I could – because it’s all confidential. So, if I were to phone a friend, I would have to be really, really broad and not say anything that would reveal anything confidential.

Mike Blake: [00:30:33] Right. So, can a mediation process – I think I know the answer to this, but I want to make sure because I don’t want to assume. But can a mediation process impact – assuming that it fails to achieve a resolution – in any way a subsequent arbitration or trial?

Ellen Malow: [00:30:56] Well, I mean, it impacts if it settles, right? Because the others go away. If it doesn’t settle it, it shouldn’t because everything discussed in the mediation is confidential. So, it should protect, for example, the judge or the jury from knowing anything other than the judge would know it didn’t settle. And this may or may not go directly to your question, but I think it can impact the case. One thing that people say is, you can set a floor and a ceiling for future negotiations and so it could impact the ability to get it settled. I think, also, the other way could impact the ability to open up further discussions. But I don’t think it really impacts the trial or the arbitration other than, I mean, because of the confidentiality.

Mike Blake: [00:31:49] Right. So, one thing that you and I have in common is, I do find myself in an informal mediation of disputes, typically when there’s a buy-sell or some kind of built in dispute resolution, a shareholders, or an operating agreement where, you know, there’s a dueling appraiser issue. Two appraisers are going to do their own appraisals, the third is then going to decide which of the two they like more, that sort of thing. So, it’s a quasi mediation thing, which I enjoy. And in that scenario, one of the stickiest parts is, who do you pick to actually do that? Aside from a court appointed mediation where the parties don’t have a choice, presumably, or limited choice, how do parties come to pick you? And how do you convince them that, you know, you’re basically not working for the other side?

Ellen Malow: [00:32:49] Well, it’s interesting because some lawyers have the view that they just want the other lawyer to pick. And the reason they want that is because they think if the other side picks, that side is going to listen to what the mediator says when the mediator comes down hard on them. Typically, what will happen is, both sides have to agree to the mediator. And so, you would propose three names. I would propose three names. And then, someone in those list is going to overlap and that becomes our mediator, so it’s kind of like picking a jury. It’s a process of elimination, not selection. But at this stage in my career, after 17 years, people know me, you know, they’re going to say, “Oh, yeah. We used Ellen. We’re good with her.” And it goes back to the subject matter expertise because there are certain mediators that do employment law like I do. And then, there are others that do domestic. And you’re not going to pick a domestic mediator.

Mike Blake: [00:33:46] Does the timeline for mediation differ from the timeline for an arbitration or trial? I mean, for most matters it’s rare to see a trial last for more than a couple of days. It’s not like a murder trial. But you’re not going to mediate a murder matter. So, I’m curious, you know, do mediation’s last roughly as long, longer, or less long? What does that look like?

Ellen Malow: [00:34:13] So, most mediations are only one day. It’s rare to have a mediation that’s longer than a day. I will say that I recently did a case with three separate plaintiffs and we lined them up to have one at 9:00, and one at 12:00, and one at 3:00. And we were very unrealistic because the first one lasted 13 hours. So, in that instance, we’re really mediating three cases, but they arose out of the same facts. But, typically, it’s just a day. Like, a business dispute, it’s probably just a day.

Mike Blake: [00:34:43] I mean, that has to be so exhausting to do a mediation. I mean, I’m thinking about 13 hours, 13 hours doing anything is a long time. But the mental energy that is required to be spent, not just for the mechanics of the mediation of the case, but managing the emotions involved. After one of these things completes, I mean, you got to be ready for bed, I’m imagining.

Ellen Malow: [00:35:12] It is very draining. And a lot of it is because of the emotions. And it’s not necessarily just the party’s emotions, but it could be the lawyer’s emotions. So, I might be getting it from every direction. I’d like to think I’ve learned not to absorb other people’s emotions in that setting. I mean, obviously, in real life, it’s hard not to absorb someone’s emotions. But it’s tough. I mean, I think it’s very draining. But I like it. I love it. It’s fun.

Mike Blake: [00:35:43] Yeah. Well, you obviously do. You’re doing it for a long time and been successful. We’re talking with Ellen Malow of Malow Mediation. And the topic is, Should I enter a mediation? Let me switch gears here, are there scenarios under which mediation is not a good idea? Are there conditions where, you know, you just look at the matter, you look at the parties, you look at something and say, “You know what? I would love to help you, but this probably isn’t going to work the way that you like. And this may not be a good use of your time and fees.”

Ellen Malow: [00:36:17] Well, I always think it’s a good idea. There’s no instance where I don’t. But the the knock on it that I hear is, “We’re, potentially, too early. We need more information. We don’t want to show our cards. We don’t have to show our cards.” Like, there’s some cases that until you’re in the lawsuit and the court requires you to disclose – it could be an insurance policy, for example – they don’t want the other side to know that yet. So, it’s more about kind of playing poker from their side.

Mike Blake: [00:36:49] Interesting. Okay. So, have you run into any scenarios under which a matter is mediated more than once? Maybe they try mediation, they go away, and then more stuff happens. And then, they decide, “You know, let’s give this thing another try.” Can that happen?

Ellen Malow: [00:37:09] Yes. And sometimes what will happen is, they mediate with one mediator, it’s not successful. And then, they pick me later or they do come back. I will tell you what I do often is stay involved in what I would call an informal mediation process. So, if we don’t settle that day, I calendar two weeks from now. I call you up and say, “Where are we?” You say, “We’re not paying a nickel.” Then, I calendar another two weeks and you say, “Well, you know, we might pay a dime.” So, it can happen at different – it may not be a formal mediation.

Ellen Malow: [00:37:43] Interesting, the one with the three parties was kind of fascinating because I’ve never done this. As I told you, we had the three lined up. We couldn’t get to the other two. So, rather than doing two full blown mediations for the last two, we did – what I would call – a settlement conference where we didn’t even have the parties. So, I facilitated conversations between the lawyers in different breakout rooms and it worked.

Mike Blake: [00:38:07] So, we’re running up against our time limit here. But I do want to get a couple more questions. And before we take off, one question here is, is the decision to engage in mediation and has the process itself changed because of the pandemic? Is the thought process around in mediation, has that been changed because of the pandemic and its impact on the legal system?

Ellen Malow: [00:38:39] Absolutely. And it goes right back to what you said at the beginning, the opportunity to get in front of the judge or a jury is becoming more and more remote. I’ve had seminars I’ve attended where some of the judges have said maybe 2022, maybe 2023. And the real issue is, all the criminal cases come first because they have a right to a speedy trial. So, you’ve got all those people that need to be heard. Then, you’ve got the backlog from before the pandemic. And, now, you have this unknown answer as to when it’s going to happen. And like you said, you know, when are you going to put 12 people in a box? Well, they’re trying to come up with ways to be creative, but then you’ll have an outbreak at the court. And then, all of a sudden, that plan gets squashed.

Ellen Malow: [00:39:25] One of the things that judges are offering are bench trials. So, you just try it to the judge and you don’t get a jury. But a lot of people don’t want to try it to a judge. So, I think my business is busier. I mean, it’s hard to tell exactly but I’m seeing more and more cases now, I think, than I did two years ago. And I think it will get busier.

Mike Blake: [00:39:47] Are there any risks to entering into mediation that somebody listening to this program may need to know about? Are there things that can go wrong, haywire, unexpected, you know, that could materially impact their matter?

Ellen Malow: [00:40:02] I don’t see it at all just, again, because it’s confidential. But it goes back to some of the other things I mentioned about showing your hand, and maybe setting a floor and a ceiling, and maybe the other side saying the mediator said X, Y, Z. So, you should lower the value of your case. So, I see those types of things, which a lot of those are kind of psychological things.

Mike Blake: [00:40:30] Ellen, this has been a great conversation. I learned a lot. I’m confident our listeners have learned a lot. Would you be willing to let people ask you questions, send you an email or something to follow up? And if so, what’s the best way to do that?

Mike Blake: [00:40:44] Absolutely. So, my email address is Ellen, E-L-L-E-N, @malow, M-A-L-O-W, mediation.com. Only one Ellen Malow. And then, my website is malowmediation.com, there’s more information there. And I’m on LinkedIn. I’m trying to get really tech savvy, but I’m not quite there yet with Twitter and the other forms of social media.

Mike Blake: [00:41:11] Well, I don’t understand, if you don’t have social media, how do you know who to get mad at?

Ellen Malow: [00:41:17] I’ve got my head in the sand, Mike.

Mike Blake: [00:41:19] Well, that explains why you seem very well-balanced, so good for you. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Ellen Malow so much for joining us and sharing her expertise with us.

Mike Blake: [00:41:32] We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have a clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: alternative dispute resolution, Arbitration, arbitrator, Brady Ware, Brady Ware & Company, business dispute, dispute consulting, dispute resolution, Ellen Malow, Malow Mediation, mediation, mediator, Michael Blake, Mike Blake

Judge Gail Tusan Washington, JAMS Inc.

October 30, 2020 by John Ray

Judge Gail Tusan
North Fulton Business Radio
Judge Gail Tusan Washington, JAMS Inc.
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Judge Gail Tusan

Judge Gail Tusan Washington, JAMS Inc. (North Fulton Business Radio, Episode 301)

Host John Ray welcomes Judge Gail Tusan Washington to discuss her long career as a Superior Court Judge, her current practice as a mediator and arbitrator, and the creative work she’s able to pursue now that she is off the bench. “North Fulton Business Radio” is produced virtually from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® in Alpharetta.

The Honorable Gail Tusan Washington, Senior Judge, JAMS Inc.

Gail S. Tusan, Senior Judge, brings more than 30 years of judicial service in various Georgia jurisdictions to her practice as an Arbitrator/Mediator/Special Master at JAMS. In April 2019, Judge Tusan retired from her sixth elected term as a Superior Court Judge in Fulton County. During her time on the superior court, Judge Tusan served two successful terms as Chief Judge and played an active role in the design and launch of the Family Division, where she also served for over a decade.

Prior to joining the bench, Gail practiced civil litigation in a variety of areas, including intellectual property, unfair competition, franchise law, family law and other general business matters. Her trial experience includes presiding over health care matters, business disputes, tort and contract disputes, family law and criminal law cases, petitions for injunctive relief and much more.

Gail’s multi-faceted career and extensive legal and community service have garnered her a reputation for building consensus during disputes and forging partnerships among the legal community, government and the public they serve.

Gail regularly presents educational programs to the judiciary, attorneys, and law students on a variety of legal issues, especially those in the family law sector. She is a media contributor for Court TV, ALM and Attorney at Law Magazine where she hosts the podcast, Behind the Case with Judge Tusan. Gail is a Distinguished Visiting Instructor at Spelman College and an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law. She currently serves as a member of the Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement and is a Past President of Buckhead/Cascade City Chapter of The Links, Incorporated. Gail serves as President of The Pave Foundation, Inc., which provides STEAM enrichment opportunities and mentoring to African American girls.

Among many other awards, Judge Tusan has received the Atlanta Bar Association Litigation Section’s coveted honor, The Logan E. Bleckley Award for Judicial Excellence, Distinguished Public Service in the Judiciary, Community Leader of Faith Award, Day1 and the MLK Center for Nonviolent Social Change’s Peace and Justice Award. Finally, Gail is a published author of two novels, Misjudged and Riley, The Judge’s Son (written under the pen name, Susan Washington), and a contributing author to the anthology Loving Wisdom by the Wisdom Whisperers (October 2020 Release).

Company Website

LinkedIn

Questions/Topics Discussed in this Show

  • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in a time of pandemic
  • mediation vs. going to trial
  • Judge Tusan’s mediation services
  • Misjudged and Riley, The Judge’s Son written under the pen name, Susan Washington
  • Newly released book, Loving Wisdom by the Wisdom Whisperers
  • Access to Justice Racial Equity and Social Justice
  • Changing of the Guard OpEd Series
  • The Pave Foundation, Inc. – newly created nonprofit aimed at paving the way for African American girls toward STEM careers

North Fulton Business Radio” is hosted by John Ray and produced virtually from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® in Alpharetta. You can find the full archive of shows by following this link. The show can be found on all the major podcast apps by searching “North Fulton Business Radio.”

Renasant Bank has humble roots, starting in 1904 as a $100,000 bank in a Lee County, Mississippi, bakery. Since then, Renasant has grown to become one of the Southeast’s strongest financial institutions with over $13 billion in assets and more than 190 banking, lending, wealth management and financial services offices in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. All of Renasant’s success stems from each of their banker’s commitment to investing in their communities as a way of better understanding the people they serve. At Renasant Bank, they understand you because they work and live alongside you every day.

Tagged With: ADR, alternative dispute resolution, arbitrator, going to trial, JAMS, JAMS Inc., Judge Gail Tusan, Judge Gail Tusan Washington, mediation, mediation services, mediator, Superior Court, Superior Court Judge

Decision Vision Episode 12: Splitting Up a Business Partnership – An Interview with Bill Piercy, Berman Fink Van Horn

April 25, 2019 by John Ray

Decision Vision
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 12: Splitting Up a Business Partnership - An Interview with Bill Piercy, Berman Fink Van Horn
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Michael Blake, Host of “Decision Vision” and Bill Piercy, Berman Fink Van Horn

Splitting Up a Business Partnership

It’s inevitable that business partnerships will dissolve, argues Bill Piercy of Berman Fink Van Horn, so partners need to prepare for the inevitable. In this episode of “Decision Vision” host Michael Blake talks with Piercy on how to prepare ahead of time, signs it is time to dissolve a partnership, and mistakes to avoid.

Bill Piercy, Berman Fink Van Horn

Bill Piercy is a Shareholder with Berman Fink Van Horn. Bill works with business owners to bring successful resolution to disputes concerning the management and control of the business. Frequently this means representing partners or shareholder groups who find themselves embroiled in controversy with their co-owners. After more than two decades of practice in the “corporate divorce” arena, he understands the challenges and the opportunities that arise from internal dissension within the management, operations and ownership of a closely held business.

Bill was named a “SuperLawyer” in the Atlanta legal community by Atlanta Magazine in 2012 – 2019, and as a “Rising Star” by that same periodical in 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011. He is a member of the 2012 Class of Leadership DeKalb, as well as an Eagle Scout.

Recently, Bill put pen to paper to share his more than two decades of practice in the “corporate divorce” arena with entrepreneurs in his new book Life’s Too Short for a Bad Business Partner.

Michael Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of “Decision Vision”

Michael Blake is Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. Mike is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

He has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

“Decision Vision” is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the “Decision Vision” podcast. Past episodes of “Decision Vision” can be found here. “Decision Vision” is produced and broadcast by Business RadioX®.

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

Show Transcript:

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions, brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional, full-service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make vision a reality.

Michael Blake: [00:00:20] And welcome back to another episode of Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic. Rather than making recommendations because everyone’s circumstances are different, we talk to subject matter experts about how they would recommend thinking about that decision.

Michael Blake: [00:00:38] Hi, I’m Mike Blake. And I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a Director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia, which is where we are recording today. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please also consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Michael Blake: [00:01:04] Today, we’re going to talk about splitting up a business partnership, or some people call it a business divorce. And for purely selfish reasons, this is a topic that’s near and dear to my heart because this, actually, happens to be a big part of my practice. Often though, not every time, that there’s a business split, somebody wants to know what the number is that one person should be bought out at. And, so, that’s a part of my practice from, sort of, a purveyor of misery.

Michael Blake: [00:01:35] But the thing about business divorces is that they can be equally as dramatic, equally as painful, equally as tense. And, yes, on some levels, equally as entertaining as watching a conventional marital divorce. But we don’t have to just take my word for it. We’re bringing in a subject matter expert. And joining us today, to help us work through this decision process is my good friend Bill Piercy of Berman Fink Van Horn here in Atlanta.

Michael Blake: [00:02:02] Bill works with business owners to bring successful resolution to disputes concerning the management and control of businesses. Frequently, this means representing partners or shareholder groups who find themselves embroiled in controversy with their co-owners. After more than two decades of practice in the corporate divorce arena, Bill understands the challenges and the opportunities that arise from internal dissension within management, operations, and ownership of a closely-held business.

Michael Blake: [00:02:28] Through hard work, candid advice and effective advocacy, Bill helps clients achieve successful outcomes. Bill was named a Super Lawyer in the Atlanta Legal Community by Atlanta Magazine in 2012 and as a Rising Star by that same periodical in 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Bill is a member of the 2012 Class of Leadership DeKalb. Bill previously served on the Executive Committee of the Gators for Business Arm of the Atlanta Gator Club and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Sole Practitioner Small Firm Section of Atlanta Bar Association.

Michael Blake: [00:03:04] In addition, to practicing in the corporate divorce arena, Bill has written a book on the subject, Life’s Too Short for a Bad Business Partner. Bill’s book is available for purchase at amazon.com. I would also say a bookseller near you, but those are pretty much gone now, especially, I think, Barnes & Noble is history, about to be history. And Bill has an undergraduate degree from the University of Florida and earned his law degree from Emory University in Atlanta. And I understand his parents did not bribe either institution in order to get in there. So, we’re getting the real deal. Bill Piercy, thanks so much for coming on the program.

Bill Piercy: [00:03:38] Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Bill Piercy: [00:03:41] So, you’ve got kids, I’ve known you a long time. You’re a busy successful attorney doing important things. Why do you find the time to write this book on business divorce?

Bill Piercy: [00:03:55] I found myself saying the same things to clients over and over again. And it occurred to me one day, “Why don’t I write this stuff down? It might be easier or better for people to digest it that way.” When someone has dissension in their business particularly with the other owners that can be a very lonely time and a lonely place to be.

Bill Piercy: [00:04:23] You can’t really go talk to the CPA to ask for a referral to a lawyer because, well, he answers to your business partner too. You certainly don’t want to go to clients and had them know that there’s some sort of problem with the business. You don’t tell vendors, you don’t tell lenders. And so, sort of like when your leg hurts and you go on to Google or Web MD to figure out what’s going on, people would find my blog and find me through that. And it occurred to me that if I created maybe a little more comprehensive guide, I might be able to help even more people.

Michael Blake: [00:05:02] Okay. I’d never thought of that but you’re right. I mean, all the venues that you would normally associate with getting help are close to you because the last thing you want broadcasted to anybody is I’ve got a potential business dispute internally. That freaks out employees. It freaks out advisors. It freaks out clients, vendors. Pretty much everybody within earshot gets freaked out by that.

Bill Piercy: [00:05:28] It’s absolutely right.

Michael Blake: [00:05:28] So, essentially. I haven’t thought of it that way, but that makes sense. So, they say that debt and taxes are the two things in the world that are inevitable. Is the same true of business partnerships? Are business partnerships kind of hired to be fired?

Bill Piercy: [00:05:43] I mean, they should be. Marriage is supposed to last forever or until death do us part, but that’s not the way business partnerships are supposed to be. You come together. You work together. It’s the common goal of making some money. And hopefully everybody leaves with their pockets loaded and as friends. Sometimes, they don’t end that way. And my practice is typically revolves around those situations where folks are less than happy as they are parting ways.

Michael Blake: [00:06:16] I did not expect that answer. I learned something. And you’re right, the notion of death do us part. And what the heck, my wife will never listen to this. But we know that that convention came into play when the life expectancy was about 42. And by then, you’re expected to die of black death, or a rotten chicken bone, or having somebody impale you with a hoe, basically, right?

Michael Blake: [00:06:45] And, now, things have changed. That till death do you part is a much larger commitment. I think when we think of partnership as intimate as a business partnership, I have to admit, I think of it as a lifelong engagement. But maybe you’re right, it’s healthy that you should kind of plan for the split. And maybe if it works out, that you both, as two business partners, you die lovingly and in each other’s arms on a pile full of money, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:07:15] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:07:15] Maybe that’s the optimal outcome, but that’s sort of a rarity. So, planning for that in advance, I guess, makes you more prepared, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:07:25] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:07:26] Okay. So, where do the cracks start? I mean, you and I could trade war stories probably all afternoon. We don’t have unlimited time unfortunately. But I’d like to hear from you and maybe I’ll jump in, but where the cracks start to show? What are the things that tend to be the kernels that, ultimately, result in a dispute that is most likely to lead to some kind of split?

Bill Piercy: [00:07:52] Sure. Lack of communication is huge. Lack of transparency is distinguished, in my mind, from lack of communication because it’s one thing for everybody be talking. It’s another thing to actually reveal the financial statements or the underlying transactions that one partner may be responsible for as opposed to the other. The lack of a shared vision among the partners, one wants fast growth, the other doesn’t.

Bill Piercy: [00:08:28] And tied to that, maybe a divergent comfort level with risk score, with debt. Some people, rob Peter, pay Paul, let’s run to the races. And other people want all kinds of money in the bank before they do anything. And that can cause a lot of tension among owners of a business. Disparity and contribution, right. It’s owned 50/50, but one guy is doing 80% of the work. You can see why he might get frustrated.

Bill Piercy: [00:08:56] And a lack of clearly defined roles. Sometimes, early on, we’re all going to jump in. We’re all going to do everything that needs to be done to make this a success, and they’re excited. And 10 years down the line, it would make sense for one person with a particular set of skills to do certain aspects of the business, and someone else to do other tasks. And sometimes, those either formally or informally happen. Sometimes, they don’t. Sometimes, it’s, “Well you were in the office, so you did it, or I thought you were going to do it,” and that can lead to problems.

Michael Blake: [00:09:36] That communication transparency part it, really resonates with me. With the partnership splits in which I’ve been involved in appraising the core business, it has always struck me that if a few honest conversations for 30 minutes had happened two years prior to when they’ve hired me, we may very well not be here, right? And the transparency, to me, is connected with surprise, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:10:11] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:10:11] When a surprise happens in the business. In my case, one of the things I really insist on is if a company hires me in a buy/sell that I want to interview both partners even if one of them is retaining me, and try to get them all involved in that, and engaged in that conversation because you’re more likely to get buy-in if there’s not a surprise, if you see the freight train coming, right. And the lack of transparency leads to surprise. Surprise leads to anger. And then, that leads to imagination.

Bill Piercy: [00:10:43] That’s exactly right.

Michael Blake: [00:10:44] And that’s where you kind of get the runaway train, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:10:46] Well put.

Michael Blake: [00:10:50] So, are there are the reasons that are, kind of, avoidable? I mean, we just talked a little about communication. But when you kind of look at that portfolio of partnership disputes, what are the ones you see most often that maybe resonate with what I describe which is, “Jeez, why are we here?” Like the old cartoon of what would you’ve done right to the police is never what would have happened, that sort of thing. Are there things in your mind or patterns that you see that have you, kind of, asking yourself why we’re at this point or are we sure this is not reparable?

Bill Piercy: [00:11:29] It’s whatever the problem is, it’s festering for a while. And so, it’s not necessarily — I mean, communication is a huge one, but whatever the issue is, the people, the partners involved aren’t addressing it head on. They aren’t confronting it with each other. And from my perspective, if there is tension in that way, I would encourage folks to consider ending the business relationship, in its current form. I’m not saying that every fight should lead to divorce, but if there is a persistent problem, the underlying structure isn’t working, right.

Bill Piercy: [00:12:22] And so, it may just need to be fixed, but I find it’s often more productive to go into that fix with, “You know what, the old way is done. We are starting from scratch, and we’re going to talk about how often we’re going to communicate, and we’re going to talk about who is responsible for what, and we’re going to talk about who stays in whose lane, and we’re going to decide what level of commitment and what level of compensation we’re going to have.” And I think those are the business relationships that can be salvaged, if that’s the right word.

Michael Blake: [00:12:57] Yes. So, I’m going to go off script a little bit. I think that’s really smart, if nothing else, because I never thought of it that way. The notion that there is this binary choice that you either keep the partnership as is, baby and bathwater, or you dump baby and bathwater out, it’ s a false choice, isn’t it, right? There’s an option to say, to consider, maybe this relationship, the way it’s structured, isn’t working. But what if we just sort of took a blank sheet of paper, literally a blank sheet of paper, that clean slate, what would we do differently to make us both happy? And maybe there’s a way to salvage that.

Bill Piercy: [00:13:33] That’s my idea.

Michael Blake: [00:13:35] And I’m curious, what’s your betting average with that? Have you suggested that? Have you gotten traction with that?

Bill Piercy: [00:13:44] I have, not a lot.

Michael Blake: [00:13:46] Yeah.

Bill Piercy: [00:13:46] By the time folks get to me, and they’re paying a lawyer by the hour to fight, they’re generally pretty mad. I think that there are probably a lot of transactional lawyers that do this sort of thing all the time. I’m a litigator. When they get to me, we’re typically filing lawsuits, or threatening lawsuits, or being threatened with a lawsuit.

Bill Piercy: [00:14:12] And so, it’s pretty rare, but I do have one shining moment example where I helped. And my opposing counsel was of a similar mindset. And we got these folks to agree to have breakfast at Shoney’s every Friday morning with a checklist. And they would talk through that checklist because despite all their hating each other, they were printing money, and it just made sense to keep printing money. And as far as I know, they’re still printing money today.

Michael Blake: [00:14:43] No kidding. Well, good for you. Well, if the law thing doesn’t work out, maybe you can be a counselor.

Bill Piercy: [00:14:48] Maybe.

Michael Blake: [00:14:48] Maybe as a second career. So, you’ve written this book, and you’ve done it because it’s an opportunity to, kind of, avoid the repetition. And it’s a quick read. Certainly, you’re not going to be mistaken for a Russian novel. But even that having been said, if you wanted a reader to take one thing away from that book, what do you think that would be? ***

Bill Piercy: [00:15:15] To focus on the future, where you’re headed, where you want to be, and not on the past, and what your partner did or didn’t do, and how angry you are about it, if you’re at the point where you’re reading a book called Life’s Too Short for a Bad Business Partner, or talking to a business litigator, or to a business valuation person because your business is in some sort of crisis, then, you’ve already, kind of, lost. And, now, it’s time to stop the bleeding, and to focus on going somewhere else, and making some money. It is easy to let that anger or fear consume you, and it’s just not productive.

Michael Blake: [00:16:07] And I will attest that. I’ve never had to go as far as a litigation, but I’ve been involved in business partnerships where I’ve been upset. And I think that advice is so good that, on the one hand, you do feel like you’ve been wounded somehow. And you’ve been wounded in what, really, is a very intimate relationship. You’ve placed your financial well-being and that of your family in somebody else’s hands to a certain extent.

Bill Piercy: [00:16:39] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:16:39] And that means that the second that is even a whiff of being threatened in some way, it’s very hard not to react. Like your bass is super tight in piano string, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:16:51] I’m not suggesting it’s easy.

Michael Blake: [00:16:52] Yeah. And there’s a lot of deep breaths and whatnot that sort of have to take place. And I think that focusing kind of — because you can remedy the passing. A lot of what you do is to recover things from the past, the past injuries. But the end of the, day everything’s out in front of us, I guess, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:17:12] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:17:15] Okay. So, you talked about, by the time you get to reading a book, by the time you get to talking to somebody like you, and paying your fees, and so forth, what is that trigger? How do I know that I’m so mad that I got to contact Bill Piercy, and have him help me figure this out, and have some combination of making me whole/extracting horrible revenge versus, yeah, I’m ticked off, but do I really like to get a lawyer involved? You know what I mean? What’s that Rubicon? What’s that inflection point?

Bill Piercy: [00:18:01] Sure. It’s nice when folks have the option of just being mad or annoyed. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don’t. Frankly, in either circumstance, I would encourage folks to get a handle pretty quickly on what rights and obligations they have to and from the business, to and from the other owners, to and from lenders and landlords. And that may mean getting a hold of your shareholder’s agreement, seeing where you can’t remember if you guaranteed the lease on the building or not. Those kinds of things.

Bill Piercy: [00:18:44] Some people are pretty organized. And sometimes, those documents are pretty easy to read. Sometimes, it takes a lot of work. Sometimes, there is no document. Sometimes, it’s on the back of a napkin, or it’s just a handshake, right. And a good lawyer can help folks understand that the law will impose some order on your situation, but it’s not intuitive always what those rules are. So, I would encourage folks to do it.

Bill Piercy: [00:19:15] And as for the trigger, as to when you start investigating those things, I mean, when you don’t trust your partner anymore, when you just can’t see yourself being in business with them anymore. or on a shorter time frame when your little key doesn’t work in the office lock one day-

Michael Blake: [00:19:37] Okay, that’s a trigger.

Bill Piercy: [00:19:38] … or you get served with a summons. I mean those sorts of things.

Michael Blake: [00:19:43] Okay, yeah. Or, as I’ve had with a client, just all of a sudden, one day, gets walked out of the building.

Bill Piercy: [00:19:51] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:19:51] Right. Obviously, there’s going to be a call to maybe multiple counsel at that point. So, I was going to ask one question, but I want to interject or intercede one question. Obviously, one sign that a business breakup is coming is that summons, that walking out, right. But are there more subtle signs that it’s sort of happening, but it may not be that apparent, and you’re like the frog in the water? You don’t realize it’s a business break until you’re the boiled frog in the water. You know what I mean?

Bill Piercy: [00:20:25] There are. There absolutely are. Trust that spidey sense or trust your gut. If it seems like maybe, “Boy, my partner seems to be having a lot of meetings with a closed door, or out of the office, or he’s kicked the can down the road on our weekly catchup meeting four weeks in a row. And I keep asking about the financial statements, and I keep being told I’ll see them tomorrow.” We all have other things to do. And not everybody turns everything in on time. But when those things start to lag, and you start to get suspicious, listen to your gut. Trust but verify.

Michael Blake: [00:21:12] Yeah. So, when that spidey sense, then, kicks in, what should you do? First thing, top of the to-do List.

Bill Piercy: [00:21:24] Gather whatever information you can that will help you and your team understand what rights and obligations you have and your partner has because that will be hugely determinative about your next steps and, frankly, the obstacles and opportunities that you have.

Michael Blake: [00:21:47] Now, do you have to treat a little bit differently when — I mean, you’re a company insider. On the one hand, I could certainly see advising somebody to be aggressive because if you think you might get locked out of the business, that means you may be locked out of your access to that information, and the only way we’re going to get it is through discovery. But on the other hand, do I have to be careful if I’m in that scenario because I may be acquiring and taking information that isn’t rightfully mine to have custody? Or I’m an owner of the business, therefore, I have the right to custody. Is there a balance there or a maze there that has to be navigated?

Bill Piercy: [00:22:28] It’s absolutely a complicated maze. And you’ve touched on a really good point. It’s as an owner of the business, you generally have the right to look behind the curtain and see whatever is there. But property that belongs to the business doesn’t belong to you just because you own a piece of the business. It’s not so much taking that information to yourself. I wouldn’t counsel anybody to email the customer a pricing list to their Gmail account, but I would encourage them to access it regularly and to ensure that they have that access.

Bill Piercy: [00:22:28] Sometimes, the division of labor leads partners to where one’s never met the landlord, or the IT guy, or the banker. And, all of a sudden, those things get shut off. It’s much harder to turn it back on when the relationship manager at the bank has never heard of you, and the IT guy doesn’t really know who you are. But if you have — not saying you take over that responsibility, but every once in a while, you stick your head in, and you make sure those folks know you. It’s much easier to restore your access should your partner do something nefarious.

Michael Blake: [00:23:49] So, one of the lessons here is in a partnership, protect yourself. Make sure that there are no key relationships and information sources that are proprietary to your other business partner. Maybe you’ll never have to call upon that, but if you do, you’ll be glad that you made that effort to have that line of communication, that recognition regularly.

Bill Piercy: [00:24:10] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:24:10] So, sort of a hypothetical. Let’s say that that maybe there’s a bunch of information on a laptop, right. It’s a company laptop. It’s one that has not necessarily been assigned to me, but that laptop has information that, I think, is material to my potential case going forward. Is that’s something I may be forced to kind of leave behind, or can I take it, or is it a it-depends kind of deal.

Bill Piercy: [00:23:12] I mean, it’s a it-depends kind of deal. Is it used in the day-to-day business by you? Physically taking it, are you depriving the business of the opportunity to use that information? I’m not so worried about where the laptop sits. It’s, “Can the other partner access the data on it just because it’s sitting in your living room?” Maybe. Maybe it’s linked to cloud, or they can call you up and say, “Hey, I want to come look at it.” And if you allow that, I’m much less concerned about that conduct than one partner excluding the other from some critical piece of the business.

Michael Blake: [00:25:19] Right. So, don’t take the laptop, and then put in a safe deposit box, or bury it, or something like that.

Bill Piercy: [00:25:25] That’s probably right.

Michael Blake: [00:25:26] Okay. So, one of the most common mistakes you see business owners, soon-to-be-splitting partners make during that process that if they hadn’t made those mistakes, they might have had a better outcome.

Bill Piercy: [00:25:40] I think that we’ve touched on really the two big ones already here today. And that’s taking company property and assuming that because you own a piece of that company, you can take this equipment or this data, and either use it for competitive purposes or exclude the other folks in the business from using it. That’s number one. And number two, just not having keys to the castle. Not knowing how to turn your access to the network back on, or get back in the front door, or whatever it may be.

Michael Blake: [00:26:18] I’m going to go off script again because I think this is an important question. What about the scenario, I’ve got two clients in the scenario now, the majority shareholder, basically, fires a minority shareholder, cuts off their income, cuts off access to bank accounts. How is that properly handled? Can the majority shareholder typically just do that? Is it that simple, or, for the minority shareholders, is there are remedy, or does a majority shareholder have to go through a process to do that legally?

Bill Piercy: [00:26:53] So, the firing, pretty much if the majority owner can say, “You know what, we’re going to hire out whatever work you’ve been doing,” or “I’m going to start doing it.” And it’s a complicated question but, generally, can show that minority owner to the door.

Michael Blake: [00:27:15] Okay.

Bill Piercy: [00:27:16] But access to information, if you own a piece of the company, you have a statutory rite, generally, to review the books and records of the business. And it’s a different right, whether it’s a corporation or an LLC, but, generally, you’ve got that right. And you’re supposed to just be able to write a letter, and then be provided reasonable access and an opportunity at your cost to copy whatever information you want to copy. And if that information is not provided, there is generally an expedited legal remedy for ensuring your access to that information. Basically, it means filing a lawsuit, but that lawsuit is supposed to and typically does move faster than your average case.

Michael Blake: [00:28:13] Okay. So, not all business divorces go to court, right, thankfully. But some of them do. I think you’ve touched upon this, but I want to make sure the point is clear. What, in your mind, distinguishes the amicable or, at least, non-hostile partnership dissolution from the all-out, knockdown, drag-out, street-fight of litigation?

Bill Piercy: [00:28:42] Sure. Fundamentally, people change their interest in the business, change their interest in being involved in the business, and what they want to do can change over time. Those are legitimate bases for folks just deciding to part ways and go do something else. Where it turns hostile and expensive, typically, I mean without getting too philosophical about it, it’s pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. The seven deadly sins or some combination of them that cause people not only to decide they don’t want to be in business together but decide that I want all the business or whatever their dispute may be. Those typical, those raw emotions are often what’s behind it.

Michael Blake: [00:29:44] That’s interesting. That’s a heck of a checklist. I’ve been around a long time now. So, have you found — I mean, people talk a lot about buy/sell agreements. And for the listeners, a buy/sell agreement is just the rules by which the two or more partners agree that a share will be bought out either by the company of one or more shareholders or between each other when somebody is going to get out of the partnership. Have you found them to be helpful? I mean, are they as useful as advertised?

Bill Piercy: [00:30:16] So, in some, typically, when they’re is useful as advertised, I never see it because it doesn’t result in litigation. And so, the transactional lawyers that are deal makers do them and do them well all the time. And I think they provide a valuable set of rules for — agree when you’re agreeable, right. And so, everyone has come to it. We’ve already established how we’re going to decide, how much, and when somebody pays somebody else for their share in the business. And we’re going to already decide ahead of time on these triggering mechanisms. And so, it provides, I think, an efficient and useful tool for helping people through what can sometimes be a pretty difficult situation.

Michael Blake: [00:31:09] Okay.

Bill Piercy: [00:31:10] That said, when I see them, either there is a legitimate dispute about language, and who’s got the right to do what, or somebody is gaming the system. It may be that one partner or faction has significantly more resources than the other. And so, a common buy/sell arrangement is one in which one partner makes an offer to buy the other out at a fixed price per share. And the recipient of that offer, then, has the option. I can either take that offer, or turn it around, and buy out the offer, or at the same price. So, that ought to result in a fair offer because you don’t know if you’re going to be a buyer or a seller.

Bill Piercy: [00:32:02] And it, probably, most of the time, does. I never see it because I’m a business litigator. I see it when maybe one side has more money than the other and thinks, “You know what, even if I make a low-ball offer, he still can’t come up with the cash to buy me out,” or the insider trading, kind of, “I know something about the business that’s about to happen that he doesn’t know. So, I’m either going to offer more than fair market value or try to get myself bought out before things go down the tubes by manipulating my offer. So, those are, unfortunately, the kinds of things that I see on a fairly regularly basis with buy/sell. But I’m certainly not against them. I think in a lot of situations, they can be very useful.

Michael Blake: [00:32:56] I see similar manipulation. In particular if the buy/sell price is either a set number or a set formula because that’s set number or set formula could be right whenever the buy/sell was initiated. But now, five years down, the road the company has changed, the market has changed, the economy has changed. That price is going to benefit someone, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:33:21] Right.

Michael Blake: [00:33:23] And then, there’s at least a financial incentive to manipulate or force a transaction because you know you’re either going to be bought dear or you have an opportunity to sell cheap, right?

Bill Piercy: [00:33:33] That’s absolutely right.

Michael Blake: [00:33:34] And I’m guessing that’s also a scenario that might come your way even though there is a buy/sell. I think in those cases the buy/sells actually can do more harm than good because they motivate the kind of behavior they’re trying to avoid.

Bill Piercy: [00:33:48] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:33:51] So, I’m going to switch gears here, more of a governance question. So, I would imagine if I’m a general counsel for a company – internal, external, it doesn’t matter – I have to imagine the worst nightmare I could think of is I’m in the middle now of a business partnership because I’m going to be asked to take sides. All right. It’s just inevitable.

Michael Blake: [00:34:21] But on the other hand, I mean, on one level, it’s “Golly, does the company have to have an attorney, and both sides have to have their own counsel and combine? You’re running the clock at $2000 an hour or something like that.” Have you seen that? Is that a legitimate concern? How does that get resolved? If you’re a corporate counsel or if you’re involved in that, what can you reasonably expect your corporate counsel to do and not do…

Bill Piercy: [00:34:48] Sure.

Michael Blake: [00:34:49] … or that they cannot do for you.

Bill Piercy: [00:34:51] That’s right. The corporate counsel can certainly help partners to access the information that they need to determine their respective rights and obligations like we’ve talked about. What the company’s lawyer can’t do, what would be a conflict of interest is for the company’s attorney to offer advice or suggestions to one partner, or the other, or God forbid. both on what their respective rights are, or what positions or strategies they might employ. The company’s lawyers got to look out for the company and really needs to be careful not to be answering to more than one chief at any one time.

Michael Blake: [00:35:47] The last thing you said, “God forbid, both.” So, I want to expand on that a little bit because I can see a scenario where maybe a counsel feels like they’re doing the right thing, right. They feel like, somehow, they’re giving equal advice to both parties. There’s no conflict of interest. Can you expand that upon it? That sounds like a land mine.

Bill Piercy: [00:36:08] I mean, yeah, it sounds to me like a call to your malpractice carrier at some point because, eventually, likely, one partner is not going to be happy with the advice they got, or even if they are happy with it, they may see an opportunity, and because desperate times call for desperate measures. And really, it doesn’t help anybody to do that. Partners would do well to go get their own private independent counsel even if it’s just a, “Hey, run through this with me for an hour and help me understand where I stand,” as opposed to relying on someone who has multiple folks to answer to and may or may not have your best interest at heart.

Michael Blake: [00:36:59] Now, I think, if I’m not mistaken, there’s a nuclear option out there where if there’s enough of an impasse, at least, in our State in Georgia, I don’t know if this is true in all 50 states. Logically, I don’t, but a judge could actually dissolve a company if there is a sufficient impasse. Is that correct? And what are the circumstances under which that might actually occur?

Bill Piercy: [00:37:23] There absolutely is. It’s called judicial dissolution. And there are two general scenarios when that can happen. One is — and I think it’s the more common of the two deadlock. And that would be very common if you’ve got two partners, and each one of them owns 50% of the company, and one of them wants to franchise and go national, and the other wants a sole location and to become the master of one particular area of town in which whatever they do, they do. One wants white, the other wants black. They can’t agree. They have equal voting power. The company can’t do anything. In that circumstance, a judge can order that the company be dissolved. And we’ll talk about that. I’ll talk about that just a little more after I talk about the other factor.

Bill Piercy: [00:38:19] The other is waste. If the one partner – often, the majority owner – is taking advantage of the company paying unequal distributions, just taking money, and not even calling it a distribution out of the company or steering work to other businesses, all of those things can happen. And in those circumstances, a judge can order, “You know what, this is never going to work. The majority isn’t taking care of the minority here, not fulfilling his fiduciary duties. I’m just going to order this company dissolved.”

Bill Piercy: [00:38:57] And basically, a receiver is typically appointed. some third party. It might be a business broker. It might be a real estate agent. It, kind of, depends on what the company’s assets are. The assets are marshaled, gathered all in one place, and then sold. Sometimes, on the courthouse steps on foreclosure day. Other times, in a more orderly fashion. And then, that money is used to pay the company’s debts. And if there’s any money left over, it’s divided up pro-rata among the owners of the company.

Michael Blake: [00:39:31] And just like that.

Bill Piercy: [00:39:32] It is not a simple process, it’s not an inexpensive process, and you’re never going to get top dollar for a business that’s being sold on the first Tuesday of the month.

Michael Blake: [00:39:44] Yeah, yeah. In effect, it’s a slightly dignified fire sale.

Bill Piercy: [00:39:50] That’s exactly it. I’m not even sure it’s dignified.

Michael Blake: [00:39:53] Okay, fair enough. I certainly don’t want to put words in your mouth. Well, we’re running out of time. I wish we could talk more about this. There’s a lot of war stories I know that we could swap. But if somebody wants to learn more, or they’re thinking about they may be in this situation, think may be in the situation, and want to learn more, how can they contact you to to benefit from your expertise?

Bill Piercy: [00:40:16] I am fairly easy to find on the internet. Again, my name is Bill Piercy. I practice law with the Berman Fink Van Horn. The firm web site is bfvlaw.com. And my email address is bpiercy@bfvlaw.com.

Michael Blake: [00:40:37] All right. Well, thank you. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Bill Piercy so much for joining us and sharing his expertise with us today. We’ll be exploring a new topic each week. So, please tune in, so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy this podcast, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us, so that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor’s Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision Podcast.

Tagged With: corporate counsel, corporate divorce, Dayton accounting, Dayton business advisory, Dayton CPA, Dayton CPA firm, debt, Decision Vision, Decision Vision podcast, Decision Vision podcast series, dissolving a business partnership, dissolving a partnership, lack of shared vision, lack of transparency, mediation, Michael Blake, Mike Blake, partnership disputes, risk, shareholders agreement, splitting a business partnership, William J. Piercy

Decision Vision Episode 9: Should I Sue? – An Interview with Jessica Wood, Bodker, Ramsey, Andrews, Winograd & Wildstein, P.C.

April 4, 2019 by John Ray

Decision Vision
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 9: Should I Sue? – An Interview with Jessica Wood, Bodker, Ramsey, Andrews, Winograd & Wildstein, P.C.
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Jessica Wood and Mike Blake

Should I Sue?

How do you assess the pros and cons of bringing a suit or defending against one? How do you know “when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em?” What’s the best way to work with your attorney in a lawsuit? In this episode of “Decision Vision,” litigator Jessica Wood speaks with host Michael Blake, Director of Brady Ware & Company, on these questions and much more.

Jessica Wood, Bodker, Ramsey, Andrews, Winograd & Wildstein, P.C.

Jessica Wood

Jessica Wood is a Principal with Bodker, Ramsey, Andrews, Winograd & Wildstein, P.C. one of the top 100 Super Lawyers™ in Georgia.  She has won all of her trials in her twenty-four year practice.   Jessica is also known for achieving outstanding results for her clients without going to trial.  She helps individuals (including doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and entrepreneurs) and companies begin, maintain, and end business relationships.  Her advice relates to contracts, employment issues, officer and director duties, and trade secrets.

In addition to practicing law, Jessica teaches law students and attorneys.  She lectures on contract drafting, expert depositions, mindfulness in the practice of law, networking, pro bono work, trial techniques, and wellness. In her free time, Jessica enjoys volunteering, 80s new wave/pop/punk, and compulsive punning.

More on Jessica’s professional affiliations, awards, publications, and representative cases can be found here.

Michael Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of “Decision Vision”

Michael Blake is Host of the Decision Vision podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. Mike is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

 

He has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

Decision Vision is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the Decision Vision podcast. Past episodes of Decision Vision can be found here. Decision Vision is produced and broadcast by Business RadioX®.

 

Visit Brady Ware & Company on social media:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/brady-ware/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bradywareCPAs/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BradyWare

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradywarecompany/

Show Transcript:

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions, brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional, full-service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make vision a reality.

Michael Blake: [00:00:21] And welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we’re discussing the process of decision making on a different topic. Rather than making recommendations because everyone’s circumstances are different, we are talking to subject matter experts about how they would recommend thinking about that decision.

Michael Blake: [00:00:39] Hi. My name is Mike Blake. And I am your host for today’s program. I’m a Director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia, which is where we are recording today. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator and please, also, consider leaving a review of this podcast as well.

Michael Blake: [00:01:06] So, today, we’re going to have the car wreck equivalent of a business conversation, which is about, “Should I sue?” And if you’ve never thought about suing somebody, it means that you have not been in business long enough to have thought about it. It, ultimately, is going to come up. And it’s a lot more complicated than just, sort of, dialing up the phone number of an attorney whose picture you saw on a bus driving by to figure out if that’s a good idea. It’s a very complex decision. There’s a heavy emotional investment, as well as a financial investment in doing it.

Michael Blake: [00:01:48] And, of course, this is not something we can just tell you over the virtual radio, “Hey, you got to go sue somebody.” That doesn’t make any sense. But we can give you some advice from somebody that knows what they’re talking about in terms of thinking through that decision. And, probably, maybe there’s no place for a framework is more helpful because chances are if you want to sue somebody, think you might want to sue somebody, you’re pretty upset. And not many of us make our best decisions when we’re upset

Michael Blake: [00:02:19] And so, having that touchstone, I hope for all of you guys listening, that’s going to be helpful. And to help us through this is a dear friend of mine, Jessica Wood, who is a litigation attorney with Bodker, Ramsey, Andrews, Winograd & Wildstein. Stein or Stein?

Jessica Wood: [00:02:36] Stein.

Michael Blake: [00:02:39] And I’ll say this. I know Jessica. I know a lot of her colleagues as well. And it’s, sort of, hard, I felt like I was picking which one of my children I was going to have on the podcast, I was going to favor.

Jessica Wood: [00:02:50] Are you saying that because I’m so short?

Michael Blake: [00:02:53] Not at all, not at all. I’m definitely not going there. But one of things that impresses me about the firm too is all of your colleagues mentioned all five named partners all the time. Everybody else. There may be 18 partners, only the first two get mentioned. We have this firm in town called Morris, Manning & Martin. Nobody ever here is the Martin. I wonder if there’s a real Martin or not. It’s just everybody says Morris Manning, for example. But you guys all mentioned the five. I think it has something to do with the law firm culture, but I digress.

Michael Blake: [00:03:24] Jessica is one of the top 100 Super Lawyers in Georgia. She’s won all of her trials in her 24-year practice. So, she’s basically the Golden State Warriors of litigation or the Miami Dolphins of the early 1970s that were undefeated. She’s also known for achieving outstanding results for her clients without going to trial. So, this is not something that’s necessarily trying to railroad you into a trial, which is why I wanted to have her on. She helps individuals, including doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and entrepreneurs, and companies begin, maintain, and end business relationships. Her advice relates to contracts, employment issues, office and director duties, and trade secrets.

Michael Blake: [00:04:04] In addition to practicing law, Jessica teaches law students and attorneys. She lectures on contract drafting, expert desk positions, mindfulness in the practice of law, networking, pro bono work, trial techniques and wellness. Jessica also runs a quarterly water cooler event in midtown Atlanta that’s designed to help attorneys build a professional network within the legal profession, focusing on younger attorneys, but also helping older and younger attorneys build mentor-mentee relationships. She enjoys volunteering ’80s new wave punk rock, which explains the orange hair that she walked in with here today and compulsive planning.

Michael Blake: [00:04:43] And on a personal note, I’ve known Jessica for, I think, about 15 years or so. And she’s also been my personal attorney, although I’ve not had used her in the context of a lawsuit. I’ve used her for contract work to make sure that I didn’t get sued. So, I have a healthy respect. And I’m not just an admirer, I’m also a client, as they say. Jessica, welcome to the program.

Jessica Wood: [00:05:07] Thank you for having me. Just one friendly addition to my bio. You, Michael Blake, helped me invent Water Cooler Office Hours. So, thank you.

Michael Blake: [00:05:17] Again, I think you give me too much credit for that, but I’m just going to stop resisting everything and accept it. You’re welcome. I’m awesome. So, we’ll will just move-

Jessica Wood: [00:05:25] I agree.

Michael Blake: [00:05:26] We’ll just agree I’m awesome and move on.

Jessica Wood: [00:05:28] All right.

Michael Blake: [00:05:29] So, you’re undefeated in law. What’s your secret to being undefeated?

Jessica Wood: [00:05:38] Luck and preparation.

Michael Blake: [00:05:39] Yeah, okay.

Jessica Wood: [00:05:39] And it’s really picking the cases to go to trial. You can control the outcome by knowing where the dangers lie.

Michael Blake: [00:05:51] Yeah.

Jessica Wood: [00:05:51] And I coach my clients relentlessly about, “Here are the pros. Here are the cons. Here’s a risk benefits analysis,” so that they — and I love the way you described this podcast. We are on the same team. I’m trying to coach them, so they can make an intelligent decision. And it really depends on what the goal is, what the mission is.

Jessica Wood: [00:06:13] Sometimes, the mission in my life as a litigator, sometimes, the mission is to save a marriage. There’s an inconvenient fact that you do not want your wife to know about. And so, that person is going to be incentivized to not sue or to get out of the lawsuit by settling on reasonable terms. Sometimes, the mission is to teach the other person a lesson, so that they do not commit this business sin that they’ve committed again. Sometimes, the mission is to punish and deter. Sometimes, the mission is to save the company. So, every decision we make, every bit of analysis that we do is around what is that end result that we want to see.

Jessica Wood: [00:07:00] So, a lot of this, I guess — and we’ll get into this as we really jump into the questions here, but is it fair to say a lot of litigation is knowing when to hold and knowing when to fold?

Jessica Wood: [00:07:10] Yes.

Michael Blake: [00:07:11] Right. Because, sometimes, I’ve heard-

Jessica Wood: [00:07:12] To quote of Kenny Rogers, yes.

Michael Blake: [00:07:12] There you go. You can’t go wrong with that, right? So, I miss that punk rock. But there is such a thing as overplaying your hand.

Jessica Wood: [00:07:22] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:07:22] That’s right. It can be irresponsible and can really blow back in your face, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:07:26] Yeah.

Michael Blake: [00:07:26] So, you want to understand, sort of, the certainty of your outcome. So, with that, let’s talk at the very beginning. And the first question I have, I think, really gets to probably the first question, the first call you receive from a potential client. They’re mad, they’re upset, they’re frightened. Maybe some cocktail of all three and plus two other things I can’t think of right now.

Jessica Wood: [00:07:56] Chagrined.

Michael Blake: [00:07:57] At what point — Chagrined, nonplussed.

Jessica Wood: [00:08:00] Yes.

Michael Blake: [00:08:01] At what point does that emotion get converted into a serious discussion about taking this from a garden variety, “I’m mad” kind of, dispute into potentially a court of law?

Jessica Wood: [00:08:16] One approach that I’ve used with some success with clients is telling them, “I want you to sleep well at night. I want this business issue to stop haunting you at a certain point, so that you can go forward and be successful.” People don’t come to see me on a good day. They don’t come in to tell me how well their business is going.

Michael Blake: [00:08:36] That would be weird.

Jessica Wood: [00:08:37] It would be really. I would love it, actually. It would be delightful. So, they’re coming to me on their worst day. A nightmare has occurred. Something awful has happened. Someone may be about to see them, or, as you said, they’re furious. They performed a bunch of work. Someone got what they wanted out of them. And, now, they refuse to pay. And it can be very consequential for small to mid-sized businesses. So, they are, I think, you mentioned the cocktail of emotion. And I think you’re dead on.

Jessica Wood: [00:09:09] And so, I always want people to have to take a deep breath. I always urge them, “Let’s talk. And let’s go away from this, spend the weekend. Go to your child’s dance recital. And then, come back and tell me how you want to do this.” Of course, you always have to look at timing. There is a statute of limitations that may apply. The quickest one is defamation, that’s one year, on up to breach of a written contract, which is six years. So, there’s a lot of time for that anger to cool.

Jessica Wood: [00:09:43] And we also have to look at the life cycle of a lawsuit, which it’s going to be 18 months to two years. I have a case right now in Knoxville that’s been pending for five years, but I’m the defendant, s I’m okay with that.

Michael Blake: [00:09:56] Right.

Jessica Wood: [00:09:58] We can take as long as we need.

Michael Blake: [00:09:59] And so, I think, it’s not by accident that that the honorific of attorneys is often counselor because one thing that you and I have in common, your profession and my profession has in common, is that we are counselors. And I don’t think that’s not what they teach me in business school. I don’t know if they teach that in law school either necessarily.

Jessica Wood: [00:10:24] They don’t, unfortunately.

Michael Blake: [00:10:25] But you do have to have a certain way of managing anxiety and managing emotions to kind of get to the root of the problem and make the problem manageable, right? Is that fair to say?

Jessica Wood: [00:10:36] Yes, yes. We break it up into smaller components. Often, these things are inextricably bound, but there’s a lot of untangling that goes on. And a lot of the times — this bears noting. A lot of the times I have to be cognizant of the fact that a portion of my client’s anger is with themselves. And so, I have to be somewhat deaf and delicate around that. We can’t change the past. So, frequently, I will say to a client, “We can’t change what happened then, but what can we do today? What can we do tomorrow?”

Jessica Wood: [00:11:16] Another question that I ask along the road is, “Do you care about this?” I’m involved in a negotiation right now where it came down to a stapler. It’s not about the stapler.

Michael Blake: [00:11:29] Just not.

Jessica Wood: [00:11:31] The stapler, I don’t think. It’s a proxy for something else. But I will, sometimes, give my clients a little bit of tough love and say, “Okay, you’re paying me X number of dollars an hour. Do you want me to negotiate this stapler deal for you?”

Michael Blake: [00:11:49] Right, in an hour.

Jessica Wood: [00:11:49] And then, they’ll be like, “Wait a minute.”

Michael Blake: [00:11:51] An hour, you could have gone to Office Depot and bought a hundred staplers.

Jessica Wood: [00:11:56] Exactly. Here, take my stapler.

Michael Blake: [00:11:58] So, at what — So, let’s fast forward that a little bit. Let’s say somebody gets through your game. I think it’s worth mentioning that I know that you don’t take every case that comes to the door. I know your colleagues don’t take every case that comes to the door. And I think that’s a sign of a good advisor. But let’s say they meet your standard, that this is (A), a case that is winnable on facts and law; and (B), is worth having the fight about basically.

Jessica Wood: [00:12:29] Right.

Michael Blake: [00:12:31] What does that process look like? And we push that red button. What are the mechanics that process look like?

Jessica Wood: [00:12:39] Well, so, there is something that leads up to the process. I will frequently say to the client, “I want every piece of paper that relates to this. I want every text, I want you to tell me every scary thing. I want you to tell me every embarrassing thing.” And it goes back to what you said about our roles as counselors. We, as humans, want to impress each other. And so, frequently, what can tank a case is what a client does not tell me. And so, I try to be very kind and gentle and say, “There’s no perfect case. If you think there’s something stunning and bad out there, I really, really, really need to see it.”.

Jessica Wood: [00:13:15] Because I can always help a client. I can always do my special brand of legal ninja. And I can handle it live on the record as a surprise, but I can do a lot better if I know about it. So, I’m simply just going to gather up everything. Frequently, I’ll ask my clients to do a narrative for me, and everything in chronological order. That can be enormously helpful because they’re going to bottom line everything even though I’m going to look at the documents behind the narrative.

Jessica Wood: [00:13:46] But it also helps them unburden a little bit. It, also, helps them refresh their recollection. Frequently, clients will say, “As I was typing this 27-page, eight-point font, single-space document for you, I remembered that one time where the bad guy did this thing.” And I, also, always tell them, “We’ve all seen so many police procedurals and TV shows about law firms. They will want to censor themselves and say something like, ‘Well, I can’t tell you about that. It’s hearsay or what have you.'” I’m like, “Don’t you worry. We’ll fix that in the mix. Tell me everything. Don’t worry about whether it’s relevant. You and I will sort that out together.”

Michael Blake: [00:14:32] So, that’s interesting. I was not expecting that answer, which means I’m learning something. Part of that decision process, if you’re going to sue is, are you willing to be vulnerable yourself? And I imagine not just to your counselor but to your representation. But you’re, also, asking that questions because you’re assuming opposing counsel, who is competent, will make the best move available to them, and it’s going to come up and, potentially, on the public record.

Jessica Wood: [00:15:02] That’s correct.

Michael Blake: [00:15:04] So, you had to think long and hard that if push comes to shove, am I willing to have that out there? Winning this case, is the price of having that out there a price I’m willing to pay to win this case?

Jessica Wood: [00:15:21] Yes.

Michael Blake: [00:15:21] And, sometimes, maybe it isn’t.

Jessica Wood: [00:15:23] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:15:24] I imagine, right.

Jessica Wood: [00:15:25] That’s right.

Michael Blake: [00:15:26] I mean, have you ever had a client, you say, “You need to know X, Y, and Z,” and they say, “You know what. If I got to disclose that, it’s not worth it”?

Jessica Wood: [00:15:34] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:15:34] Okay.

Jessica Wood: [00:15:35] And the issue that comes up the most frequently would be what I would delicately call a relationship overlap issue where you’re engaged in one marital relationship, but there’s another relationship that occurred simultaneously or a couple of them.

Michael Blake: [00:15:51] An uncomfortable Venn diagram.

Jessica Wood: [00:15:53] Yes, a very uncomfortable Venn diagram.

Michael Blake: [00:15:56] Okay. So, you’re right. A nice segue. So, thank you for that. One of the first things you do is you ask in effect for a data dump.

Jessica Wood: [00:16:05] Yes. yes.

Michael Blake: [00:16:06] Everything on analog paper, digital paper, and otherwise.

Michael Blake: [00:16:09] And texts. How does that-

Jessica Wood: [00:16:10] And Facebook post and social media.

Michael Blake: [00:16:13] All that too, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:16:14] Yeah

Michael Blake: [00:16:14] If it’s out there, it’s out there.

Jessica Wood: [00:16:15] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:16:17] Certainly cheaper, if the client provides it to you, than you have to go scrape it somehow

Jessica Wood: [00:16:21] Yes.

Michael Blake: [00:16:21] So, how does all of that work? I mean, you mentioned police procedurals. Everything I know about the law, I learned from basically NCIS and TJ Hooker because I’m in the tank for William Shatner, and I just admit it. I have a problem, I admit it. But in the real world, how does evidence work? I mean, is everything on the table? What kind of stuff does get excluded. I mean, go through the mechanics of how evidence works in a trial scenario.

Jessica Wood: [00:16:56] Sure. It’s a multi-step process. So, in a lawsuit, there’s going to be a complaint. And then, 20 to 30 days after service, depending on if you’re in state of federal court, there’s going to be a responsive pleading, which could be an answer and could be a counterclaim. So, that’s always something you have to keep in mind. And then, there’s a discovery period. And, again, state versus federal, it’s going to be about four to six months. Frequently, it’s going to get extended because it’s unwieldy, and it takes a long time.

Jessica Wood: [00:17:24] So, everyone is going to exchange documents. They’re going to pose written questions. Then, you’re going to be deposed. So, that’s all of these pieces of paper, they all become evidence, could conceivably become evidence. So, at the discovery stage, you’re not really looking at whether something’s admissible. So, it’s a little more free range. At the trial stage, however, there are going to be many motions filed. They’re called motions in limine. You’re going to file motions to knock out certain evidence because it is irrelevant. That’s a big one. It’s actively harmful and can bias the jury in a way that’s inappropriate.

Jessica Wood: [00:18:09] And so, what comes in and what comes out is going to be up to the judge. I will tell you a very interesting evidentiary issue that’s arisen recently is what do emojis mean? So, we’re seeing more and more. When we think of a contract, we think of something with very formal language, and whereas, and things of that nature drafted by an attorney. Well, most of my messy cases don’t involve that. It’s the old spinal tap. They drew it on a napkin and crayon.

Michael Blake: [00:18:41] Right.

Jessica Wood: [00:18:41] And that leads to problems. Well, now, you might have a contract that’s a series of letters, or emails, or texts. And people are less and less formal in how they communicate. So, what does that winky emoji mean? Does it mean that that’s really the deal or that you were kidding? So, we’re starting to see this show up as an evidentiary issue.

Michael Blake: [00:19:01] That is fascinating.

Jessica Wood: [00:19:02] A very pivotal one, Isn’t it?

Michael Blake: [00:19:04] That is fascinating. So, a thumbs up emoji could be, I guess, construed-

Jessica Wood: [00:19:07] It’s a deal.

Michael Blake: [00:19:08] … as acceptance of a deal, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:19:09] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:19:11] That’s really interesting. So.

Jessica Wood: [00:19:12] So, watch your emojis, people.

Michael Blake: [00:19:14] Yeah. Well, boy. Nothing but smiley faces now or maybe just the straight face actually, just noncommittal. Now, what is a deposition? Not everybody necessarily knows what a deposition is.

Jessica Wood: [00:19:28] All right.

Michael Blake: [00:19:28] And they’re not necessarily the funnest things to go through. So, what is a deposition?

Jessica Wood: [00:19:33] Well, they’re fun for me.

Michael Blake: [00:19:35] It’s more fun if you’re in the driver’s seat, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:19:37] Absolutely. So, in a deposition, it’s a Q&A. You’re going to ask. An attorney’s going to ask questions. And then, the deponent is going to answer those questions. And the deponent is going to be seated right next to their attorney. And the attorney may object as to form. But like I said, it’s going to be pretty free range. Mostly anything goes. So, truly, you’re trying to figure everything out and get to the essential facts of the case. And they may ask something that is impertinent or improper, but you’re rarely going to see an objection that’s going to stick. Typically, the client is going to have to answer.

Jessica Wood: [00:20:20] So, this is where you start getting nervous in a lawsuit, if there’s something that’s got to be — something unsavory that has to be unpacked.

Michael Blake: [00:20:27] Okay.

Jessica Wood: [00:20:29] And it might be audiotape. There’s going to be a court stenographer there. It may be audiotaped. And then, it’s ultimately going to be transcribed. And it might be videotaped and shown to the jury. So, if it’s videotaped, and my client is going to be videotaped, I’m obviously going to prepare them for that and videotape them beforehand. We all have weird facial tics.

Michael Blake: [00:20:51] We do.

Jessica Wood: [00:20:53] And some of us may have an aspect to our personality where the outside doesn’t match the inside, and where your credibility could be called into question even though you’re telling the truth. But you’re so nervous, it appears that you are not being truthful. And the opposite is also true. I’ve seen some very smooth operators in my day.

Michael Blake: [00:21:15] We all do.

Jessica Wood: [00:21:16] They are absolutely not telling the truth, but if you’re looking at their micro expressions, and you’re listening to them, and you’re watching their body language, they appear to be truthful.

Michael Blake: [00:21:27] So, at what point then or what are the most common reasons where you look at this whole process, you look at what the client is telling you, saying, “You know what, don’t sue. This is not going to help anybody. I don’t want to take your money.” What kinds of things typically leads you to that advice?

Jessica Wood: [00:21:47] What’s going to lead me to that advice is a client who has never been in a lawsuit before, and a client who does not seem to understand my warnings, doesn’t understand — when a client says it’s about the principle, that is never about the principle. It’s about something else. When a client wants a victory that to me seems unseemly, or inappropriate, or something I’m not going to sign up for, I’m going to show them the door. If someone walks in and says, “It’s not enough for me to win. The other guy’s got to lose, and he’s got to be humiliated-

Michael Blake: [00:22:26] He’s got to be scorch to earth.

Jessica Wood: [00:22:27] … in front of the world.” I’m not going to do that.

Michael Blake: [00:22:31] Why?

Jessica Wood: [00:22:32] I find it wildly inappropriate. It will take a portion of my soul that I’m not willing to give. And that’s just not how I’m going to do business. And not for nothing. It’s destined to blow up in everyone’s face. It’s just not an appropriate mission statement in my view.

Michael Blake: [00:22:51] Now, I want to pause on that and kind of go off a script. So, I think that’s a really important discussion point because one thing that I have observed in the litigation process, the few times that I’ve been involved, is clients will sometimes be frustrated because they don’t think that their counsel is mad enough basically, right. And then, like, “You know I’m right. Why aren’t you pissed off about this whole thing? Why don’t you leaping across and ripping out their throat and so forth?” Why is it not a good idea to have your counsel get swept up in that?

Jessica Wood: [00:23:31] I have a saying, “A mad attorney is a bad attorney.” The calmest person in the room is the person in the catbird seat. So, actually, I would think the opposite. I would want my attorney to be very calm, cool, collected, and poised because they know something that everyone else in the room is about to find out; that they’re really, really good; that they’ve got good facts; that they have marshaled for their client; and that they’ve got solid case law. So, I don’t believe that yelly attorneys are good. And when I find one on the opposite side, I actually know instantly that they do not have what it takes.

Michael Blake: [00:24:12] Well, that makes sense. To me, I always advise my clients, no matter how mad you are on the outside and the inside, always be the adult in the room-

Jessica Wood: [00:24:24] Absolutely.

Michael Blake: [00:24:24] … on the outside because, at some point, somebody outside maybe determining your fate. And in my experience, it does not impress a trier of fact to have somebody that’s just a blow hard or your stack bully kind of personality.

Jessica Wood: [00:24:41] Not only that, it may infuriate the judge, it may infuriate the jurors, it might infuriate the bailiff, or the court stenographer in the courtroom. You can make a lot of enemies really, really fast by engaging that kind of vituperative behavior. Honestly, I’ve never seen it serve anyone. And when I do see it, I just sit back because I know I’m winning-

Michael Blake: [00:25:08] Yeah.

Jessica Wood: [00:25:08] … when that happens.

Michael Blake: [00:25:08] That’s right. Nobody gets upset because they’re winning so much, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:25:13] Exactly, exactly. It’s fear based, right? Someone feels insecure, or that is — or they’ve been bullied, and this is how they walk around in the world, which must be very exhausting. And I’m sorry for them. but I’ve never seen it gain an advantage for a client. Now, passion, yes. I am passionate in the courtroom. I take umbrage at things, but I just do it in a quieter way.

Jessica Wood: [00:25:39] And I should also say, attorneys come in all shapes and sizes. We all have our own level of emotional intelligence, and our own skill sets, and our own personalities. And I think we should bring our personalities to the table, whatever that looks like. A lot of people when they see me, I’m diminutive, I’m kind, I offer people snacks and coffee. And, sometimes, they think I’m a human marshmallow. and they find out very quickly that that’s incorrect.

Michael Blake: [00:26:14] You’re just luring them into the trap.

Jessica Wood: [00:26:15] I am, absolutely. Come hit her.

Michael Blake: [00:26:19] So, a question almost any client is going to come to the table with, and one of the sources of their anxiety frankly, and I know you encountered this is, can they afford justice? It’s one thing to have a problem you’d like to have solve. It’s another thing to be able to have the financial wherewithal to solve it. And going into a judicial process ain’t cheap, right? A friend of mine years ago told me it’s expensive to be mad. That’s just kind of all there is to it.

Jessica Wood: [00:26:50] Absolutely, it’s the most expensive anger you can feel. You’re better off axe-throwing.

Michael Blake: [00:26:56] Right.

Jessica Wood: [00:26:57] I think that’s like $30 per hour.

Michael Blake: [00:26:59] Not at people.

Jessica Wood: [00:26:59] Not at people.

Michael Blake: [00:27:00] Wooden targets or, at least, something, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:27:02] At a target.

Michael Blake: [00:27:05] Do you play a role in helping a client understand that? And maybe there are times when a client does need to financially extend themselves because of the benefit on the other end of the rainbow. And in that conversation, does that add extra pressure on you knowing that the client is extending themselves because they’re literally putting their faith and some of their financial stability in your hands to produce that outcome a year or two down the road? Am I making sense?

Jessica Wood: [00:27:34] You are making total sense.

Michael Blake: [00:27:35] So, how do you navigate that?

Jessica Wood: [00:27:37] So, we would have a budget. Frequently, we blow past it. It’s just like construction, right. It’s going to take twice the amount of money as predicted and three times the length of time, right? It’s always going to blow past that. Going back to a question you asked earlier about when would I show a client the door. If a client told me that they were going into their children’s college fund, I’m not going to do that. I’m just not. They’re going to be enraged. They aren’t going to get what they want. And I don’t think that’s a good use of their money.

Michael Blake: [00:28:11] And that’s not so much you don’t have faith in winning the case. You just don’t think that’s a good idea for the client.

Jessica Wood: [00:28:17] Yes. I think it’s a wretched idea because you could lose. You could lose. You could wind up paying your attorney’s fees and the other side’s attorney’s fees. So, what I would do at the beginning of a case would be to sit down and, sort of, project out how much will this cost. Are there less expensive alternatives?

Jessica Wood: [00:28:35] Frequently, even before suit is filed, I’ll want to go into a mediation or perhaps sit down and talk with the other side. It won’t hurt. It might help. But yeah, we’re going to have a very careful conversation about money because it’s going to be — the other thing is there’s no economy of scale. I will do almost these identical actions for a suit over $5000 as a $5 million case. You still have to have the depositions, you still have to file a complaint. So, you still have to do all this work. So, we really have to look at the scale.

Michael Blake: [00:29:10] That’s somewhat of my line of work. It costs as much or, sometimes, even more for me to appraise a pre-revenue startup than it would to appraise a $100 million publicly-traded company.

Jessica Wood: [00:29:26] Exactly.

Michael Blake: [00:29:26] And it’s not the scale. It’s just that the diligence and do-care required doesn’t vary depending on the size of the matter. It’s just you either do it right or you don’t do it right. End of discussion, right.

Jessica Wood: [00:29:39] Absolutely. Now, there might be a $5000 case I would take if my client walked in the door, if my client was a corporation, and had a lot of money, and the client said, “We need the word out on the street that we don’t put up with this kind of behavior. You will get sued, and it will be painful for you.” Something like that. That’s a noble cause, and that’s a good use of money. Frequently, I actually send my client to their tax advisor, whether it’s an individual or a corporation, our attorneys fee is going to be deductible. And what are the tax ramifications of what you may have to pay for a claim or a counterclaim?

Michael Blake: [00:30:18] Okay. Now, what about contingency fees? We all hear about attorneys that will take a case on a contingency fee. One, I mean, does that happen, or is that urban legends like roving bands of surgeons that steal kidneys when you’re drunk and dump you in a bathtub, or does it only happen in certain areas of law like personal injury? Talk a little bit about that. Is that a realistic expectation in a commercial civil litigation context?

Jessica Wood: [00:30:47] It is. It is a rare attorney who will do them. And I’ll tell you when they might be inclined to do them. So, if you have a vanilla breach of contract, you can get compensation for the breach, and you can get attorney’s fees and expenses. But to get the numbers really pumped up, to get punitive damages, you cannot get punitives on a breach of contract. You can on a tort. So, a tort might be tortuous interference with a business prospect, or it might be defamation, or it might be trespass, something of that ilk. Assault, battery-

Michael Blake: [00:31:22] Fraud.

Jessica Wood: [00:31:23] … fraud. All of these can be torts. So, you could have fraud in a director officer case for example. So, you might be able to find an attorney who would take something involving fraud on a contingency because the punitives are going to be in an amount to punish and deter. They aren’t going to be somewhat tied to the worldly circumstances of the defendant. So, you might be able to find someone to do that.

Jessica Wood: [00:31:47] The incentives are going to be a little bit different in terms of how that attorney is going to behave. They may be in a bigger hurry. They may really want to settle for some certain. They may be super aggressive because they want to get it in, or they want to get to trial by the end of the year, if that’s possible. But I’ve also seen cases where the other side, I suspected they were on a contingency fee basis, and they were not pushing hard at all, perhaps, because they had too much going on.

Jessica Wood: [00:32:17] So, it’s difficult to predict what kind of business incentives they’re going to be when you have a contingency fee attorney. But they are very, very rare, I can tell you that. Contingency fees are more common in personal injury.

Michael Blake: [00:32:31] Now, we’re talking about-

Jessica Wood: [00:32:34] And plaintiffs. Sorry to interrupt. Plaintiff’s employment, those are frequently done on a contingency.

Michael Blake: [00:32:41] Right, okay, yeah.

Jessica Wood: [00:32:42] Which makes sense, you’ve just lost your job. You don’t have any money for attorney’s fees.

Michael Blake: [00:32:45] Right, right. Okay. So, switching gears just a little bit. I think, there’s a conception or concept that if we are suing somebody, then this automatically is going to end up in court at some point. Is that true? How many of these cases actually make it in front of a judge and a jury?

Jessica Wood: [00:33:11] Very few. So, first of all, I would want to look at the contract to see, is there an arbitration provision? So, arbitration is basically, you’re going to pay the judge in your case. You’re not going to have a jury. It’s going to be swifter and more expensive because instead of your tax dollars paying the judge, you’re paying the arbitrator or arbitrators per hour.

Michael Blake: [00:33:32] That can be more than one.

Jessica Wood: [00:33:33] Yes. I once had an arbitration where he had — the deal was if the two sides couldn’t agree on an arbitrator, and, of course, they could not, each one would choose an arbitrator. And those two would choose a third arbitrator. And all three arbitrators would hear the case. And that is what we did.

Michael Blake: [00:33:50] Wow.

Jessica Wood: [00:33:50] Yeah.

Michael Blake: [00:33:51] That’s a fast running meter.

Jessica Wood: [00:33:53] Oh my gosh, yes. And we won. Thank goodness. But it was very, very expensive. But I’ll tell you this, the arbitrators, when you’re paying an arbitrator, they’re going to read every word, you’re going to brief the issues before you walk into court. It’s a little bit wild west-ish in terms of evidence because they know what they should pay attention to and what they shouldn’t.

Jessica Wood: [00:34:15] So, the first, the threshold question is going to be, do you have an arbitration provision? Then, the next question is going to be, is it enforceable? Otherwise, it is a long road to justice. As I said, it can be 18 months, 24 months, five years. So, you are going to wind up in court along the way perhaps for hearings or a status conference. But to get to trial, it takes a long time. Frequently, the judges will order you to mediation because you have to look at what — The judge is trying to be efficient with these public funds. They’re trying to get cases off their calendar. And so, there’s big incentive to settle.

Michael Blake: [00:34:57] Yeah. I want to ask you about that, in fact. So, I am familiar with the fact that judges want to — they do want to get it off their calendar, and mediation is often a step. Have you found mediation frequently to be effective?

Jessica Wood: [00:35:11] Yes.

Michael Blake: [00:35:11] Really?

Jessica Wood: [00:35:13] I have a 100% — there’s an asterisk here. for sports fans.

Michael Blake: [00:35:21] You did steroids?

Jessica Wood: [00:35:21] Yes, I did steroids. No, I used my whole anger to get through it. I have a 100% success rate in mediations. The asterisk is it doesn’t always settle that day. But it’s like, you know how you’re trying to open up a peanut butter jar, and you’re not successful, and you have to hand it to somebody else? It’s like that. You’re going to loosen things up a little bit. You’re also — not for nothing, you’re going to get free discovery. You’re going to learn something that you don’t know by the end of the day.

Jessica Wood: [00:35:52] And, frequently, going back to your question about anger-fueling litigation, there are other ways to feel like you’ve been heard, and you’ve had your day in court than actually going to trial. Mediation, I think, is a great way to do it. Frequently, you’re going to be in front of someone who’s a current judge, who you’ve hired, or a retired judge, or a litigator with years or decades of experience. And they’re going to sit down and listen to you. I’ve had things wind up at 2:00 in the morning. You’re going to spend a very long day, but your client can bring up things that you don’t feel are — perhaps, aren’t relevant in the case but are important to the client.

Michael Blake: [00:36:36] And so, there’s a-

Jessica Wood: [00:36:37] Going back to the stapler-

Michael Blake: [00:36:37] … cathartic element.

Jessica Wood: [00:36:38] Going back to the stapler. The gosh darn stapler. I’m so furious about the stapler.

Michael Blake: [00:36:43] I’m never going to look at a stapler the same way now. I’m going to have issues with stapling. In fact, I may have stapled my last thing. It’s all going to be paper clips and thumbtacks from now on.

Jessica Wood: [00:36:53] There’s always a stapler in every case. I have a case right now where there’s a stapler. I mediated a case to a successful conclusion a couple of months ago. And it was all about the social media of a non-human animal. That was the most important issue. So, you never know, but there’s some version of a stapler in every case.

Michael Blake: [00:37:17] Okay.

Jessica Wood: [00:37:17] But it’s rosebud, right?

Michael Blake: [00:37:19] Yeah. That’s right.

Jessica Wood: [00:37:19] It has meaning. It has meaning to the client, and I’m not going to look askance at that.

Michael Blake: [00:37:25] Sure.

Jessica Wood: [00:37:25] I must respect it.

Michael Blake: [00:37:27] Well, it’s part of the fact pattern at the end of the day, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:37:30] Absolutely, yes.

Michael Blake: [00:37:33] So, it wouldn’t be the way I ran a railroad, but it’s not my railroad.

Jessica Wood: [00:37:35] Exactly.

Michael Blake: [00:37:36] So, I got time for a couple. I could have a two-hour conversation with you on this, but I can’t afford your rate. So, I’ve only got time and budget for another couple of questions. But one question I do want to ask is, at a high level, what is the best way a client can maximize your value to them? How does a client make sure you’re in the position to be most successful for them?

Jessica Wood: [00:38:03] That’s a great question. Give me everything at the front end or as much as you can, partner with me, collaborate with me on coming up with your narrative, be available. That’s another thing that we haven’t talked about. Once you file a lawsuit, you can be held into court at any moment. And the court does not care if you’re on spring break with your children. So, that’s another thing. You’re giving up time, but you might be giving up something intensely personal as well.

Jessica Wood: [00:38:36] I want my clients to be responsive, to get back to me quickly. In general, I want to get some forward momentum on a case. There are rare times where I will ask my client, do you want me to refrain from acting? Do we want to just hang out and see what the other side’s going to do? So, there are appropriate times for silence and not doing anything. But, in general, I just need the client to be available to me. I have clients who I will pose a pivotal question, or the other side will ask them for when can we have deposition dates, and they will become [monstrous]. That’s a client I’m going to fire.

Michael Blake: [00:39:12] Okay. There are lots of people out there who do what you do. Same with me. There’s people out there who do what I do. And as you said, all attorneys are different. They bring their different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Somebody decides they want to have that conversation, and they need to kind of pick the right representation for them, what are the two or three things you think are the most important or the, kind of, due diligence points that that potential client should be doing on their own end?

Jessica Wood: [00:39:48] So, most of my clients are sophisticated business people. Either individual C-suite level, doctors, lawyers, or on the corporate side, very good at what they do. I would say that they should ask around. That’s the best way to find — a lot of people find me through two completely different people. That always makes me feel really good when that happens. But they should ask around, and they need to hear horror stories, and they need to hear success stories. I think that’s the due diligence.

Jessica Wood: [00:40:19] You can’t really look up a win/loss record. You would actually have to talk to the attorney about that. I mean, I’m sure you could go to the Northern District of Georgia or Fulton County and look up what cases they’ve dealt with but ask the attorney. And a win/loss rate isn’t everything because, sometimes — or as I’d like to put it, coming in second place because that’s what happens at trials sometimes.

Michael Blake: [00:40:41] And there’s that human element, right?

Jessica Wood: [00:40:44] Yes.

Michael Blake: [00:40:44] You don’t know what kind of judge and jury you’re going to get, and the client may sandbag you by withholding material information.

Jessica Wood: [00:40:52] Right.

Michael Blake: [00:40:52] And you can play a great game basically and still lose. That’s just the way it works.

Jessica Wood: [00:40:58] Absolutely. So, to quote Depeche Mode, “Everything counts in large amounts.” So, it’s a little bit your likability on the stand. It’s a little bit how good is your attorney. It’s a little bit what are the facts of the case, how did the court rule on whether certain evidence should come in or be left out. So, there are many, many ingredients that go into a success or going into second place.

Jessica Wood: [00:41:24] Just because you go into second place doesn’t mean that you’re an abject failure. And just because you win doesn’t mean you really won. There are appeals that can be had. I had one case where — and I told my client this. I said he’s going to file for bankruptcy if we win. He said, no, he would never do that. His pride won’t allow him. Guess what happened, spoiler alert. So, my client got a sheet of paper that said, “You won, and you’re awesome. Here’s $1.1 million.” But then, my client had to chase this guy for another two years to get a fraction of that. So, you can win without winning.

Michael Blake: [00:42:01] Yeah.

Jessica Wood: [00:42:01] You can lose without losing. You can also win too hard. There are times where you have an early victory, perhaps, at an evidentiary hearing, or you humiliate the other side intentionally in a deposition. And then, that person’s ego becomes so fragile and so involved that they then make the decision to crush your client. So, you have to be deaf at all times, and you have to think everything through. Every single step comes with a consequence. And so, I’m always careful to avoid blow back.

Michael Blake: [00:42:42] So, I can’t do any better ending an interview than with a Depeche Mode quote. So, I’m not going to try. I don’t have it in me. If somebody wants to learn more about this topic, if they want to learn more about Depeche Mode, or they just have a great pun they want to share with you, how do they get in contact with you?

Jessica Wood: [00:43:07] Well, they can call me. I actually pick up my phone.

Michael Blake: [00:43:09] You do?

Jessica Wood: [00:43:09] I absolutely do. I know, unless I’m on a deadline, in which case I’m going to ignore the call and get back to you. But typically, I’m going to pick up the phone. So, they can call me on my direct line, which is 404-564-7409, or they can email me at jwood@brawwlaw.com. They can look at my website, and read more about my bio, and read more about the kinds of litigation that I’ve done.

Michael Blake: [00:43:40] All right. Well, that’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Jessica Wood so much for joining us and sharing her expertise with us. We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in, so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy this podcast, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us, so that we can help them. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor’s Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision Podcast.

Tagged With: contingency fees, data dump, Dayton accounting, Dayton business advisory, Dayton CPA, Dayton CPA firm, Decision Vision, Decision Vision podcast, Decision Vision podcast series, deposition, discovery, due diligence, emojis, fraud, lawsuit, legal evidence, mediation, Michael Blake, Mike Blake, pleading, settlement, Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers in Georgia, tort, trade secrets

Family Law Attorney and Guardian ad Litem Daniele Johnson

February 9, 2015 by angishields

Pro Advocate Radio
Pro Advocate Radio
Family Law Attorney and Guardian ad Litem Daniele Johnson
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Daniele Johnson

Family Law Attorney and Guardian ad Litem

Daniele JohnsonAttorney Daniele Johnson explains how the child custody process works in family court to help our listeners have a better idea of what to expect when engaging lawyers and how to work with a Guardian ad Litem.

Daniele has been practicing family law in the Atlanta, Georgia for about fifteen years.

She is a tireless advocate for children and for seeing the evaluation process work as it should to help the family court reach the outcome that is in the best interest of children. Please visit her website to schedule a consultation and learn more about her practice.

Follow Daniele on Facebook and LinkedIn.

 

James O’Brien/Pro Advocate Radio

Talk Show Host

James

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

www.ProAdvocateRadio.org | Twitter (PAR) | Twitter (James)

 

Deb Beacham/My Advocate Center

Founder, Executive Director

20150112_115241-SMILEWe are the Game-Changers in guiding improvements that affect the Family Law community, specifically high-conflict divorce, child custody disputes & family violence matters.

Bold moves are being made to help parents understand how to better transition through & out of conflict, meaning we help reduce stress for children, and preserve family time & resources for their benefit.

Professionals who are like-minded are encouraged to connect and become a part of our Resource Directory. Please visit the Counsel for Change group page here on LinkedIn to learn more about our discussions. Our advisory panel reviews professionals to ensure certain standards are met. If you are focused on upholding ethics rules, professional duty, and are committed to helping children receive the best that both parents have to offer, let us know.

Our investigations, initiatives & strategies are also well suited to supporting government agencies in making necessary improvements to programs & services. It is important that these changes are made to better serve parents & children; but it is also possible to yield a positive economic return for each community & state.

MAC’s purpose in contributing to agencies & other organizations is to improve the divorce/child custody process in a way that leaves our communities stronger & better able to support the needs of children. We now have opportunities to lessen the impact of family violence, addiction & other dysfunction, while putting our financial resources to better use.

Connect | Inform | Empower

When it comes to guiding public policy to improve the process, and to helping parents navigate through high-conflict custody cases, no other collection of experts and resources is better positioned to give you clear and actionable insight.

MyAdvocateCenter.com | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin (Deb)

 

Tagged With: Daniele Johnson, Family Court, Family Law, Family Law Attorney, Family Law Discussion, GAL, Georgia Family Law Attorney, Guardian ad litem, Guardian ad Litems, mediation, Pro Advocate Radio, Pro Advocate Radio Experts, Superior Court Domestic Relations

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Business RadioX ® Network


 

Our Most Recent Episode

CONNECT WITH US

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Our Mission

We help local business leaders get the word out about the important work they’re doing to serve their market, their community, and their profession.

We support and celebrate business by sharing positive business stories that traditional media ignores. Some media leans left. Some media leans right. We lean business.

Sponsor a Show

Build Relationships and Grow Your Business. Click here for more details.

Partner With Us

Discover More Here

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy

Connect with us

Want to keep up with the latest in pro-business news across the network? Follow us on social media for the latest stories!
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Business RadioX® Headquarters
1000 Abernathy Rd. NE
Building 400, Suite L-10
Sandy Springs, GA 30328

© 2025 Business RadioX ® · Rainmaker Platform

BRXStudioCoversLA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of LA Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversDENVER

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Denver Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversPENSACOLA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Pensacola Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversBIRMINGHAM

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Birmingham Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversTALLAHASSEE

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Tallahassee Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversRALEIGH

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Raleigh Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversRICHMONDNoWhite

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Richmond Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversNASHVILLENoWhite

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Nashville Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversDETROIT

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Detroit Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversSTLOUIS

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of St. Louis Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversCOLUMBUS-small

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Columbus Business Radio

Coachthecoach-08-08

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Coach the Coach

BRXStudioCoversBAYAREA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Bay Area Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversCHICAGO

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Chicago Business Radio

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Atlanta Business Radio