Crossover Episode with Appellate Lawyers and Podcasters Todd Smith & Jody Sanders

00:55:35

Subscribe and listen on…

Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts

Watch Full Interview | View Show Notes | View Transcript

In this bonus episode host MC Sungaila is joined for a crossover show with the co-hosts of the Texas Appellate Law Podcast, D. Todd Smith and Jody Sanders. They discuss the Portia Project’s recent milestone of the 100th episode, share insights from their appellate judge guests and conclude with some great tips on launching a successful legal podcast of your own. Don’t miss out on this special episode.

Relevant episode links:

Texas Appellate Law Podcast, Todd Smith - LinkedIn, Jody Sanders - LinkedIn , Justice Jeff Boyd - Past Episode – Texas Appellate Law Podcast, Blake Hawthorne - Past Episode – Texas Appellate Law Podcast, Unity 3D, Cayton Children's Museum, Girls Inc, Project Hope Alliance, Julia Smith Gibbons - Past Episode, Judge Rosenthal - Past Episode, Diane Wood - Past Episode , Christine Durham - Past Episode, Juvaria Khan - Past Episode – Texas Appellate Law Podcast, Girls Inc. - Past Episode , Riverside

About Todd Smith:

I focus my practice on civil appeals and litigation support in cases throughout Texas. I joined Butler Snow LLP in 2021 after spending 15 years building and managing my own appellate firm. I represent individuals and businesses on both sides of the docket, with the majority of my work coming through referrals from trial counsel and other lawyers.

The best LinkedIn connections are rooted in real life. If you'd like to connect and we don't know each other from elsewhere, please include a note letting me know why.

About Jody Sander:

My practice is wide-ranging, and has included cases involving commercial disputes and litigation, energy law, personal injury matters, family law, probate litigation, government contract disputes, products liability actions, securities arbitrations, administrative tax proceedings and litigation, bankruptcy litigation and appeals, property disputes, and a wide variety of declaratory and injunctive actions.

I focus on appellate law and civil litigation, but wear many hats. I've served as litigation and appellate counsel in civil cases throughout the United States, but also advise attorneys and clients on strategy, legal-writing, error preservation, and other aspects of litigation and appellate practice. In addition, I help clients determine best practices and strategies to streamline litigation and promote more efficient case handling.

I serve as the co-host of the Texas Appellate Law Podcast (http://www.texapplawpod.com). We provide weekly episodes featuring state and federal judges, leading practitioners, and legal experts to cover a wide range of topics relating to appeals, civil litigation, and legal technology. Our goal is to demystify the appellate process and encourage best practices in litigation and appeals. We also keep our listeners informed about cutting-edge issues in legal practice and emerging technologies that impact the way attorneys, courts, and clients approach the practice of law.

I also speak frequently at Continuing Legal Education courses on a variety of legal topics and publish papers and articles on emerging trends in appeals, litigation, and substantive legal areas. I enjoy taking deep dives into new topics and keeping on top of trends.

I'm pleased to report that we have a joint special episode between The Portia Project and Texas Appellate Law Podcast. I want to welcome both of the co-hosts of that podcast, Todd Smith and Jody Sanders.

Thanks for having us, MC. We are happy to be here. We don't fit the demographics of your normal guests. We are grateful.

Both of you were instrumental in the show coming to life and being present. You had such a quality production and podcast. The work that you have done was inspiring. It pushed me towards doing the show myself. As we are at the 100-episode mark for Portia Project and you all have exceeded that as well, I thought it was a good time to sit down and talk about our journeys and the combined knowledge and information that we have learned from our various guests in both of our show. It would be like getting the wisdom of 200 episodes together.

A lot of wisdom in there passed along by people other than the three of us. Congratulations on hitting 100 episodes. That is a significant milestone. You have done it quickly and much faster than we did. When you first started, you were going great guns recording constantly and you had quite a stockpile of episodes. Have you been able to maintain a good clip as far as keeping content coming and staying ahead of your publication schedule?

It is driven by the guests. They continue to recommend or suggest to me. The pace was driven by the people who were willing to come on. Many of them were state Supreme Court justices who wanted to be part of the project. I moved faster and had a lot more interviews in a row because I didn't want to have it be that.

It was interviewed in February of 2022 and their episode wouldn't come out until mid-2023. I wanted to make sure that we got all of that done and out. It still had a schedule. We still have quite a few episodes recorded and ready to go. In total, at this point, on the judge's side, 32 different state Supreme Courts will be represented on the show. I'm going for 50, but we are at 32.

We have more than one Supreme Court that we have done, even though we are Texas centered. We've exceeded our quota. That is impressive to have that many. What a great to hear from and get wisdom from, not only about being women in the law and women on the bench but general knowledge of appellate-related stuff, which isn't necessarily the focus of your show. It is quite the same way it is as ours. It is great. There are lots of good content and opportunity, especially for the target demographic. You are trying to encourage women to not only become lawyers but also judges. That is fantastic.

Thank you, Todd. I appreciate that. I'm happy with serving as the facilitator for those who want to share their stories. We hope we have an impact on others as a result of sharing them. I want to be the conduit for what clearly resonates with people, both with the judges and those who are reading. We both have a range of guests. I do have judicial guests, but a lot of people in other roles inside and outside the law.

Let's talk about the judges first because you have had a lot of judges on your podcast. We were talking before we start that there are a lot of things that we know, especially as appellate advocates, that are good things to do, best tips or practices in brief writing or argument. My experience has been having talked to many appellate judges in many different courts where I haven't even appeared yet.

There is more than a common thread about things they are interested in seeing. I have seen through their lens what they need to do to decide the cases. For example, where oral argument sits in that process for them. I am forever changed in how I look at what we are doing as advocates for the courts. I don't know if you guys have had this similar experience or you have this a-ha moment like, “The way I think about this and my job is different now.”

I don't know that it has changed the way I think about it, but it has continually reinforced me to get to the point. That is one of the things that both advocates and judicial guests have stressed. It is easy to forget that because, as the advocate, you get so deep into the case. You know it better than anyone, but the judge who is going to get it, whether it is on a Supreme Court, an intermediate court of appeals, or even the trial court, is going to be one of many they have zero context for. Many of them have reminded me, “Give us something short and upfront to help us orient ourselves and figure out why this case matters and what matters to us.”

I have heard that time and time again in different ways of delivering that message. That is something I have taken and something I have tried to incorporate into what I do, whether it is a motion hearing, a trial court, and an oral argument at the court of appeals or in the way I do a brief, “Let's figure out what is my distilled elevator speech that this case is going to be about.” I need to keep that upfront and keep it to what I'm doing.

It has been reinforced for me too. I was sitting down with one of my partners because we have been asked to do an in-house seminar with our younger lawyers here in the office. One of the things we talked about was the lesson that is carried through, in addition to being something I have learned on the podcast that I have heard many judges say over time, which is to get to the point, as Jody is suggesting. Make the decision-maker's jobs easy. Let them know upfront what it is you are asking them to do.

Make the decision-maker's jobs easy. Let them know upfront what it is you are asking them to do.

We are going to be speaking to our younger lawyers about it in the context of trial court motions primarily because that is a lot of what they are doing. The same lesson applies to almost any form of written advocacy, whether it is an internal memo on a big case for an institutional client that is going to be applied across different actual cases, a trial court motion, or an appellate brief. I was okay with that before, but that now has been submitted into my brain. This is something that you need to do because it doesn't matter what level the court sits at. The job is to get their attention quickly and let them know what the case is about.

From their perspective, whether you are a trial court or appellate, you are moving between cases quickly and to get that orientation, like, “What am I dealing with? A summary judgment in an employment case on this. Okay, good. What is the issue?”

We like to ask a lot of our Supreme Court guests, particularly what part of the brief you read first. For almost all of them, it has been the statement of the case, which to me is more of a throwaway when you think, “This is a short little technical.” They all read it first because it gives them the blurb they need. What is this case about? What is the issue that I'm looking at? What is the action that is at issue here? I find myself spending a lot more time on that than I used to, where it was like, “Let's cut and paste the procedural details.” I think about, “What needs to be in here? What is truly important I want them to see? If this is the first place they are going to turn, where do we go?

That answer varied among the different folks that I have talked to. There is one thing that I always thought would be like the table of contents of each of those. That is my way of getting into the briefs personally. I will read the reply brief first to see where the fight is and work backward. Every judge has a different way on which part they are reading first. Some of them could say the statement of the case. You are like, “I need to up my game in that department.” You never know if your judge might do something differently. My sense is you need to have your game up everywhere but pay attention to it because you never know what the entry point would be that particular judge uses.

The second thing I learned was that sometimes the entry point isn't even the brief for many of them. Many of them say, “I start with the opinion I'm reviewing. I want to read what the district judge, the trial court, or the court of appeal said if it is the Supreme Court.” I start with the judge's decision and move to the briefs from there. That is an interesting wrinkle. I always think of them starting with the brief first, but you have to think, “Sometimes they might start with the opinion.”

That is true, although, for a lot of our intermediate courts of appeals here, our Texas trial courts don't issue written orders. It is nice because they rarely start with that other than the order says claim then the court denied.

Orders granting summary judgment are typically short and to the point here for several reasons. The last Supreme Court justice we interviewed did what Jody suggested. She said, “Statement of the case,” and then I went straight. From there, the next thing was the court of appeals opinion, which I thought was an interesting progression.

As an advocate, I generally start with the order I'm taking up or defending, but you have to craft those other things based in part on that order. In the statement of the case part, many years ago, we went to this tabled statement of the case that is not anything to look at. Even though you are not supposed to be argumentative according to the rules in that section of our briefs in Texas, it still does give you a chance to lay out the things you think the court needs to know about the case.

They can be stated fairly objectively and in a way that does what we are saying. It gives the court the basic information it needs to orient itself to what it is about to be asked to do without necessarily making a lot of editorials or comments about the weight of evidence. I see people do that despite the fact that our rules say don't. It is a sign of an inexperienced appellate advocate to see a lot of attempted advocacy in that part of the brief. It has been something I have honed my skill in developing because I know how important it is, and it has been reinforced by our conversations with our judges.

It is a sign of an inexperienced appellate advocate to see a lot of attempted advocacy in that part of the brief.

In the category of the most significant impact of what I heard from the judges about this is an oral argument. It was Judge Millet on the DC Circuit who was an amazing US Supreme Court advocate before going on the bench. I thought she had an interesting perspective in particular, saying, “Is there something you know now, being an appellate judge, that you wish you had known that you had a different perspective of when you are an advocate?” She said, “As an advocate, oral argument is the end. That is the end of the case for you until the decision comes and you do something. Oral argument is part of the process as the judge. Things get started after argument for us.”

If you think about where that argument is in the process for the judges who are deciding your case, you are going to think about oral argument differently. It is not the end. It is the beginning for them in terms of asking questions to you to get answers and that triangular thing that sometimes happens between one justice talking to another justice through the advocate. They are conferencing and discussing this.

It made me think, “Their perspective is different. That is not the end. How can you help them have the information they need to engage in those discussions with their colleagues and get to a conclusion that is hopefully favorable to your client?” Thinking about that, put yourself in their shoes quite about what that is.

I hadn't thought about it in that context, but I like that.

I was like, “She knows both. What would she think? What part of the process is it for the judges?” Knowing that or thinking about that when you're engaging in it might change your perspective a little. That was my big a-ha moment.

It is not necessarily the end of the process for anyone who can't stand having the last word.

Todd is thinking about something that happened in that regard.

I don't think I asked anyone about post-submission briefs as an advocacy tool. The best example I can think of off the top of my head about post-submission briefs is dealing with a question at oral argument that wasn't a good answer at the time. It was something that was addressed by your opposing counsel and you didn't have much time. You are appellate, it came up in rebuttal, and you couldn't address it. There are situations like that, but I was thinking to myself, “Is it the last?”

In most cases, it is the last, but you are right, there could still be some calling back and forth. That gets to our little guess, brief writing and oral argument. Those are both two good takeaway tips from all of them. What about guests in their careers? One of the things that have struck me the most that have been universal for all of the guests on my show have been two things.

The first is that you see the shiny outcome of their careers. If you didn't talk to them, you would think everything was shiny all along. The answer was not. There were dark parts of the journey. There were tough things and things where they didn't know where they were going to go, but they managed to pull it all together, and there it was at the end.

It is encouraging in humans to see that, even for people on the Supreme Court. There were moments of uncertainty and challenges in their career. Some of them talked about when they were asked to apply and when the opening came up on the court. They may have been dealing with a lot of things personally. Something was going on in their family, something they would have otherwise said, “This is not a good time.” They said, “This is the time when there is an opportunity so I'm going to take it despite all of these other things going on.”

That is inspiring to people generally, whether you are looking to become a judge or any of the roles that these people are. You can have success, even when there are a lot of challenges along the way. Sometimes overcoming challenges give you the skills you need to succeed in the end. There is something about that universally.

When you think of the traditional path to being a successful appellate advocate, clerkships, and all that, that is true. We have also seen that you can be a tremendously successful advocate, not take that path, and still get the same end result.

We have had 2 or 3 guests, and one of the features of their interview was they were taking a non-traditional path to become an appellate advocate. It is the same with some of our judges in terms of being transparent and offering some stories of resilience. More than one judge we have interviewed has wound up in their current position after losing a previous election. Staying with it, winding up, having a good outcome for themselves, being appointed to a higher office, and getting elected. We have a lot of that.

I have been pleasantly surprised and happy with how many of our guests will show more of themselves than going to a CLE. Because of the nature of this conversation, and we are having a three-way conversation over Zoom, it feels more intimate even though they know that people are going to be reading, and there could be 1,000 people or more that will read the episode. They are more willing to share. On some of them, you have to get over the hump. We had a few that wanted to know the outline. They were like, “What questions are you going to ask me?” Once we steer them to some other episodes, they reach a comfort level and know they are not going to be on the hot seat, at least not for long with us.

It is a positive experience. It is not meant to be a got you moment.

Another takeaway that threads between both types of guests, the advocates and the judges, is there is not a universally right way to be an advocate. There are some universal wrong ways, but there are people that have many different styles and ways of doing things that do a good job. It has been fun to see the different ways that they go about it and think, “I have never thought of doing it that way, but that works.” They are finding what is authentic to you.

The other thing that I have seen is it is always when you go looking backward at the careers that it makes complete sense they ended up where they did. They have this particular talent here and there. Somehow, where they have ended up is the perfect marriage of all those talents. Somebody else who didn't have all of those things wouldn't be doing it nearly the way they are. It seems inevitable, but because of the first part we talked about, it wasn't.

There are few straight paths in one's career, the law. Everybody has a speed bump somewhere along the way unless you are Jody Sanders, you work for a great firm and have a great mentor, and you stay on this up to the right your whole career.

We will see if there are still a few years left.

There is still time for that speed bump, Jody.

It's not to say those haven't been there already.

As you said, Todd, people are willing to be much more forthcoming. Part of it is the intimacy of the medium, in a way. They don't come on unless they are willing to share.

We were shocked at the beginning at how much success we had getting good guests.

You started with your clerk of the Supreme Court. That is a good first guest.

Our first actual guest was a sitting Texas Supreme Court justice whom we got through our mutual friend who happens to be the clerk of the court. I have said this many times. That gave us immediate instant credibility. We go and tell people, “We had Justice Boyd and the clerk of the court, Blake Hawthorne, who came on. We must be legit. We are not like some guys trying to get you on some weird show that nobody is going to pay any attention to.

You had the same success. The numbers that you shared earlier with us about having had 30-some-odd state Supreme Courts represented among your guests are incredibly impressive. We have found that having that success and getting guests snowballs on itself after a while, and people don't treat you like you are crazy or you are trying to sell them something.

The judges are cautious understandably. I would be the same way but like, “Who is this person?” It was the first dozen guests I knew who did the recordings with no show out there at all. That was deep faith that I was going to treat them fairly and that it was going to be a good show. From them and those experiences came the next guests, and it snowballed itself. Once they were out there, it looked legit. We see it is okay to do this. Look at all these other amazing people who have agreed to sit down and chat.

In terms of getting guests, people make referrals, and we have taken advantage of that. There are still people on our lists we need to reach out to that were referrals that we want to have on the show. One strategy that I have used unintentionally but has been effective is if I go to a CLE and it is a topic that is potentially relevant or if I went to an event and targeted a judge. After chatting with this judge for a while, I was like, “You would be a good guest on our podcast. Would you consider coming on?”

She knew about it, and she was not an appellate judge. She is a trial judge, but we love having trial judges on our show and she said yes. We look forward to that and recording those kinds of episodes. It is a chance conversations that I find are effective in terms of being able to get other guests that maybe don't necessarily fall within the narrow parameters of Texas Appellate Law, but we can have interesting conversations. As we always say, “Learn something new from talking to that person.”

Learn something new from talking to that person.

The referrals of past guests are one of the avenues. One of the things that are interesting about a podcast which is different from writing a book or an article is that it naturally evolves both with the guests you are having and the direction that the show itself is going. It is a highly personal thing too. Where is your interest? You say, “I'm interested in this. Other people might be interested in this.” We will go in this direction.

In my case, I started with women appellate judges. I thought, “What other kinds of judges?” How you apply to become a judge, whether you are elected or appointed. That varies from state to state, different levels of court, and magistrate judges versus district court judges. I started thinking outside that box. It started growing to what are the other ways that women are leading in the profession off the bench and in other ways, and even outside the profession. It ultimately led to, “If I were in law school, what other careers and things are out there that I would like to know about that I'm not going to learn through career services?” This is vast. There is a number of ways you can use your Law degree.

I started branching out to legal design and a number of new cutting-edge areas, general counsel, and things like that. That is how it has evolved, and now it is pushing the envelope a little bit more towards women who are not in the law but are a C-Suite business, maybe chief marketing officers or otherwise. You have learned to navigate the business world and they have a little different approach towards that than lawyers might. What can you learn from them in how they have navigated their path?

I have expanded a little bit outside the law because I thought, “When we go multidisciplinary, that is when we start learning and thinking outside the box about how we can do things.” That is nothing that could happen if it weren't a podcast. If it were a book, it would have to be done, and it is there. That is one of the neat things about the medium.

We had some legal tech folks come on. We always try to at least have something of an appellate law angle or a maybe practice management angle, but it still winds up being a good conversation that we all learn something. I like that idea about the C-Suite. If you had a client or an in-house lawyer who would come on and talk about relations with their outside counsel from the client's perspective, something like that would be good. There are all kinds of possibilities.

I have had a couple of chief legal officers or general counsels of some major companies also on, which is a thing to learn about like, “How do you get to that point and what is the difference between being in-house and outside count?” Legal tech founders, legal design people from all over the world, and chief marketing officers of some major companies like Unity 3D, the chief marketing officer, who also worked at Apple and Google. She has a different perspective. Her episode is coming up later in 2023, but we have recorded it already. I’m thinking outside the box there. I'm hoping for some CEOs who have Law degrees. There aren't that many public companies, but there are half a dozen female CEOs with Law degrees. That would be an interesting crossover.

You always hear of all the things you can do with a Law degree. We all read a fair amount in terms of what alternate careers you can follow. That is as important as educating people. Not everybody has to practice law because you have a Law degree, but it doesn't mean that having a Law degree isn't significant and doesn't open doors for you in other ways. It clearly does. I'm always interested in those stories.

Not everybody has to practice law just because you have a Law degree, but it doesn’t mean that having that degree isn’t significant and doesn't open doors for you in other ways. It clearly does.

Most of the people who are most conscious of what you are talking about, Todd, in terms of how they use their legal training, thinking, and analysis, are those who lead nonprofit organizations. The Program Chair of Girls Inc and the CEO of Cayton Children's Museum. The Executive Director of Project Hope Alliance, which deals with homeless youth. All of them are conscious.

They can articulate in ways that are highly specific about how they use their legal training to lead their organization, understand risk, and how to think through problems. It is something they have thought about. They were like, “Yes, it is useful.” It is useful for them in that context. They were like, “We got a lot of legitimacy from that. We have a Law degree. We have a certain level of respect that we are given in leading a nonprofit from having that training.”

I always appreciate non-traditional legal paths.

It is interesting to hear how they evolved into that. Maybe that is something they plan to do going into Law school. Some of the academics are interesting too. The Dean of RAND Policy School is a lawyer. She doesn't have to be. She has a PhD, but she was previously a dean of a law school. Who would think that you would be the dean of the training ground for a think tank? That wouldn't be something we think about. There are few lawyer authors and novelists. A lot of us have a novel in us or think we might.

Especially the appellate lawyers of the world, we are all frustrated novelists.

The historical development of what it shows in the history of women in the law from hearing the stories of people who were in law school in the ‘70s and early ‘80s as opposed to moving to the current day. How quickly that change has happened. There are more than 1 or 2 women in law school. The Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor days are gone from not being able to get a job.

You get a sense of appreciation of history and how fast it has changed hearing about this. These are women who are still practicing and are on the bench who had those experiences. I hope that it gives insight and maybe appreciation to those who are coming out of law school. At the front end, we got a different experience than those who had far more challenges to begin with but still ended up being on the bench.

I'm privileged as an Anglo male in our society, but I always find those stories inspiring because I have my own perspective and the natural, I don't want to say biases because I don't mean it to be in a negative thing, but it makes me respect the folks that had to climb in that way even more. With more women in the profession and on the bench, it is easier to see. You are used to women in those positions, which has to set that example for even more women that are coming up. There are a lot of great stories of folks climbing up from less-than-ideal circumstances to get to where they are. I always enjoy hearing those.

Some of the most popular episodes are Julia Smith Gibbons on the Sixth Circuit, Judge Rosenthal from District Court in Texas, and Diane Wood. Everybody is already fascinated by those stories, even Christine Durham from the Utah Supreme Court. Judge Gibbons is one of the most popular because she was a first in almost everything she did. It is interesting to hear about that time. It is pretty neat.

When people talk about diversity, inclusion, and different backgrounds, the importance of having different backgrounds is the experience on the bench. When you hear the stories and the different perspectives, you realize, “That is important to have those different perspectives.” The one that resonated with me was Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who was a tribal court judge and moving up to the Supreme Court.

Thinking about and hearing her story of serving as the tribal court judge and understanding what that role is, which is different, you have to understand the culture of that particular tribe. She was a tribal court judge for different tribes. She was like, “The job is different depending on which tribe.” How you gain legitimacy of your decisions and mediate things is vastly different because it depends on the culture in which the court was brought up.

In some of them, there is no authority, statutes, and no case laws. All are oral transmissions of what had happened before. Others were much more like our legal system. Understanding how each of those was created came out of the culture of that particular tribe. Having that background, you are going to look at the context in which you are making decisions on other benches differently. You are going to understand in an intuitive way how all of that contributed to the legal system that is there because of vastly different interesting perspectives.

The thread that has run through a lot of our episodes is the doors that have been closed to applicants of different backgrounds to appellate practice traditionally and the people that are working to open those doors and create pipelines for populations that didn't have access to appellate practice and didn't know anything about anyone it. What stands out is Juvaria Khan, who founded The Appellate Project, and having her brings into sharp focus the problems that our practice has with a lack of diversity in the things that she and many other people are doing to try and fix that. That was something that stuck with me. It keeps coming up in many different episodes with many different guests with that same theme.

From my own experience in appellate practice, when I first started, there were a lot more women in the practice because it didn't quite have the prestige that some segments of the appellate practice have now. It was easier to balance having a life. It wasn't like, “I was in trial all week and had no idea what was going to happen so I can't schedule anything in my life or for my family.” There were more women in the profession at that point, but now that it is changed, we are back to not as many women.

I have even seen that evolve during the time I have been in appellate practice. It is an interesting phenomenon. We need to get back to having more wide array of folks practicing appellate law. Juvaria Khan’s project is focused on that and has a lot of people involved in it. A lot of the judges who have been in my program have mentioned that and said, “We are involved in that. We are doing something to help foster that encouragement.” I remember that episode. It was a good one on your podcast.

My partner, the head of my practice group, and I have both taken on mentees from the Appellate project. She was doing that, and I knew Jody had done that. My partner, Amanda Taylor, was already working on that, aside from having Juvaria on the show. It was a nice way to help publicize that wonderful program that she built. It is nice to see the fruit of that firsthand work in working with a mentee and watching Amanda's experience with hers. Little things like that can make a difference.

That is what I hope the show does in itself. It makes a difference. If you can't have that one-on-one mentoring situation, at least get that through the show itself. Many of the guests have said they will reach out to me if anyone is curious about something. They are open to talking to people. The other thing that you touched upon in that is that a podcast being part of a larger whole, like another tool in your toolkit.

You were able to hopefully elevate the knowledge of that particular project. More people could participate. That would have a ripple effect in the real world besides the particular episode. The corollary of that for my show is the Girls Inc. episode that we did, a live panel in person with eleventh-grade girls who were going through an internship training program in the summer with Girls Inc. in Orange County.

There were personal relationships between judges offering for these girls to come to watch them in court, and all of this came out of that experience. Being able to use the show to leverage that more than those 100 girls who were in the room would get to hear the knowledge of that panel and hopefully ripple out and inspire more people down the road.

One of the powers of the show is being able to leverage it into ripple effects in the real world. It was fun because when you were there with the girls, they were like, “This is amazing.” You are talking to eleventh-grade girls. How you describe your career and what people do is going to be different because you are thinking about it through a different lens. A lot of the participants there were very rewarding because they were like, “I had to go back to when I was in high school or college. What would I want to know?” It was a neat trip for them. The camaraderie of having all of them together at once doing the show was neat.

Since we are talking about podcasts and podcasting, close out with some tips for those who might want to start a podcast. What things they should think about, things I wish I had thought about before I started this, or things I wish I knew. Maybe of some of the things we knew, we might never have started it. Maybe we don't want to share everything.

I came in knowing almost nothing. It was easy for me to say, “I wish I had known a whole lot more.” I have talked to several people about starting a podcast. Several of the things I tell them is, “Map out quite a few episodes in advance. Think about what you want to do and what you want to cover. Make your roadmap for the first 5 or 10 episodes.” Todd has mentioned the stat that few podcasts get past ten episodes. If you can do that, you are already in a small percentage of podcasts that are successful. Sit down and map out where you want to go for your first 5 to 10 episodes.

Few podcasts get past ten episodes. If you can do that, you are already in a small percentage of podcasts that are successful.

We can't all be like UMC, who was able to put many in the can before you even got started, which is amazing. Try and get several of them going because life does get in the way. Todd and I were, in some ways, lucky that we recorded our first couple of episodes together at the Texas Supreme Court. The next week was when COVID hit. All the judges and we had a lot of time on our hands. Everybody had a Zoom account.

Life didn't get in the way for the first year and a half of our podcast. That was a weird thing that happened that I think wouldn't have happened. We are trying to do weekly episodes now with what our lives are like. Starting it from scratch would be incredibly hard. If you are going to do it, map it out, think about where you want to go, and maybe recruit your first few guests if you are going to do a guest one. Record a few and see how you think they sound before you start putting them out there.

Having a plan is critical. In my previous thinking about starting a podcast, I didn't have a firm plan. That was one of the reasons why it never got going. Connecting with Jody made it easier. One of the things I admire about you and your show MC is that it is all you all the time. If I'm having a bad day, Jody can pick up the slack or vice versa, although we don't tend to have too many dead spots in our podcast.

We manage to keep the conversation going, which is one of half the battle. Advanced planning and having the tech stuff down are important. That has worked out fine for us. Zoom is a great medium to record on but there are other mediums out there that you can use that are all accessible. You can do a Google search and figure out what those are. This has worked out great for us.

It has worked for me too. I try to make whatever is easy for the judges. Almost all the judges have Zoom. That decides which platform I'm going to use. They were like, “Zoom, we know that.” Some of the more pro pros use Riverside to record theirs that I have experienced. There are different strokes for different folks, as it were.

The upside I understand to Riverside is that it records to the hard drive separate files. If you have a hiccup in the internet connection, it could be spliced together and fixed easily. As long as everybody's internet is reasonably fast, Zoom has been fine and almost never has there been an issue.

You can record separate audio files on Zoom on the computer. That usually solves a problem for me.

We do that too. We have stuck with Zoom. We have no plans to make any changes there at this point. We are keeping an eye open. Who knows what will happen in the future? Your point about judges knows Zoom is a good one. We don't have to train them on how to join a Zoom call. That was one of the concerns.

It would not have been practical to think that we could record all of our episodes in person, especially if we were covering a broad geographic area in terms of our guests. It would have been impossible for you. Zoom has been a great solution there. We hit the perfect storm with the pandemic starting. We give a lot of credit and try to see the good that came out of COVID. It helped us get started and build that momentum. It was a big benefit for us plus people were thirsty for conversation.

It is helpful for the guests because they were like, “We want to talk to someone and the judges weren't in court.” That is my experience too. The first set of episodes I recorded was still during another lockdown in California. The judges were like, “What do we have to do? We are available. No problem. We are happy to talk.” It made it easier. Now that everything is in motion, it can be harder. It takes a few times to schedule something. In that case, not only were people want to talk to people, but the audience was interested in hearing things and listening to a podcast. It gave you the edge in getting the audience to begin with.

We also had a lot to cover. Of our first 20 episodes, 15 of them had to deal with pandemic effects, shifting over to Zoom and shifting to remote proceedings. That was stuff that we felt was important to get out of because not everybody could go to CLE and discuss it. We felt like we were helping do a public service by disseminating information about that for ourselves.

Part of the reason to plan it out, invite people, run through it and see how the episodes go is to see if the theme works for whatever you are planning to do. Is it broad enough or niche enough? Are there enough episodes in it to make it continue and be interesting? Is there room to evolve within the theme you have chosen? Who would be interested in this thinking about the audience? You have to work, test and plan that out to see if there is enough room in there. The other thing as it goes along is to be open to it evolving because that is inherent in the medium.

We will go on streaks where we record 3 or 4 weeks in a row and have quite a stable of episodes built up. It is useful to have that, especially at the end of the year, when it is harder to get people, but we roll with it. Whenever opportunities come up, we will try to schedule when people are available. It is usually not too hard because the way we approach our show is not closely scripted it. We know enough about our guests to be able to come up with a general outline of topics for discussion. Most of them are more than agreeable to go off an outline and see where the conversation takes us.

That is where the magic is. If you try to script it too closely, it comes across as stilted. Every often, I will ask a pointed question to a guest. I surprise even myself occasionally, who I choose to ask pointed questions of. Our guests are almost universally gracious about it. They understand that people want to know things. The medium lends itself to that. We have had nothing but universally good feedback from not only listeners but our guests too. They all say, “I enjoyed that experience,” even the ones that go in with some trepidation.

If you try to script the show too closely, it comes across as stilted.

I have had that too. We were like, “I'm not sure.” They were like, “That was a good experience,” and then you get referrals.

I let Todd ask the hard questions. He is the mean one. I'm the nice one.

I'm not mean, but Jody is nice.

You guys have the luxury. You can go off each other in that regard. It is me all the time. It is either good or bad. Hopefully, people are okay with that, and people don't get too tired of that.

They are okay with it.

You have been successful with being just you.

I'm going to throw out something for discussion before we close because I know we are going to wrap up here shortly. The one question I get asked fairly often, and Jody does too, is, “Do you get any business out of your podcast?” The consensus between Jody and me is it is hard to measure it directly, but you are putting yourself out in the world. It does help to increase name recognition. People recognize you as an expert in your field. We are talking specifically about things that are at least indirectly related to being an appellate lawyer. It may be a little bit different than your focus MC, but I will throw it in to answer my own question here.

I have started using podcast episodes to demonstrate to a potential client who has contacted me about a specific topic that I have talked to people who know some things or I know some and have had those conversations. I had a few people comment. They were like, “That was helpful. Thanks for sending that.” These are quite often non-lawyers who are the most impressed by this.

In the last few months, maybe it is a byproduct of having over 100 episodes in the can, but when a phone call comes in, or somebody approaches me about a new case, we have got a podcast episode that is relevant to that. It has been a useful resource in that way, even trying to be helpful to someone that doesn't even wind up hiring you for whatever reason.

That is in the category of, “I wrote an article on that. I have a blog post.” You’ll say, “I have a podcast on that.” That honestly never occurred to me, but I have on occasion when a trial lawyer asks about a particular judge. “Does anybody know about Judge X?” There are biographies and various things you can do. I'm like, “There is a podcast where you can read about her journey that might be relevant to you.” That is the only way that I have responded to an inquiry. That is a good point, Todd. I haven't thought about that.

How I have used articles I have written in the past is, “Here is this article. Here is a CLE paper I wrote on this particular subject.” Jody has written his fair share of CLE papers. I feel confident if anybody wants to talk about some of the things that Jody has written, it is a nice marketing tool. I don't think podcasting in our realm is direct marketing of any sort, but it does elevate you and keeps you on top of mind with people in some ways, which is part of the goal. You can't be aggressive in your marketing as an appellate lawyer. You can drive your clientele away.

You can’t be aggressive in your marketing as an appellate lawyer. You can drive your clientele away.

The most direct benefits I have gotten from the podcast are the insulated podcast-branded mug and the two podcast-embroidered shirts that I have. It is a great mug and they are nice shirts. To Todd's point, there are a lot more people I can call to ask questions of or vice versa than before we started.

The most surprising benefits of it are not only you get to learn about the guests or the community that has been created by the guests themselves but the community of other podcasters that we have found, which is neat. There are a lot of unexpected areas like that. I have been conscious of that community within the guest part.

If somebody calls me and says, “I have heard such and such episode. I like to talk to Judge, or whoever the guest is because there are some similar things that I want to start something like that in my state.” I will say, “That is fine. You can reach out to them.” They were like, “Would you introduce us?” I'm like, “Sure.” In many cases, they are both judges. They could call each other, but that's fine. I'm happy to facilitate it, but the community that is created within that is neat.

What about we put a little different spin on it and ask if you have any regrets or things you wish you have done differently so far?

If I had known how much work it was going to be, I might not have done it.

I understand that.

That is fair, especially being the sole personality on the show. I want to hear what you have to say, Jody, but for me, it is not a regret. It is more of something I could have done differently and still might. It has to do with the community aspect of the podcast. There are things you or I could do to try to develop that among our guests. It is a cool thing when I send out a mug and post it on Twitter. Suddenly, I get all these messages from previous guests saying, “Where is my mug?” “I'm working on it.”

That is not exactly the community thing I'm talking about, but something as simple as an email list of guests only with new episodes. That would be so easy for me to set up. I could do it in ten minutes. That is something I wish I had started from the beginning. If I were going to do it now, it would be a little more challenging, but it could still be done. I haven't given up on that idea yet. Because of that thing, you are talking about, MC, of like, “I heard maybe they don't listen to that many podcasts,” I also don't want to inundate our previous guests with emails. I don't want to hassle clients. That is something that I think I might give more consideration to going forward. Jody, what about you?

I don't have any regrets. This is one of my favorite things that I do. Had I known then what I know now, I could have done a better job early on, but that is part of learning and experience.

Part of the early advice is to start. If you are waiting to make it perfect, no, it happens by doing it.

It is like drafting a brief. Sometimes you have to get words on the paper to get started. I feel like this is that way. You learn by doing, you improve, and you get better. I have no regrets about doing it at all or anything that we have done.

You learn by doing, you improve, and you get better.

I don't mean to imply that I have any regrets. It is something I could have done maybe a little differently. There is maybe still time, but you are spot on.

That is part of the evolving process, Todd. You have enough to have a critical mass to have that community aspect. I have had particular things where people have said, “This person is my hero because she has done X. I like to learn about X.” I'm like, “Feel free to use the show as a reason to contact her and be able to facilitate those things.” They enjoy that all the time.

Facilitating connections, seeing connections between people, and making that happen, I enjoy that, whether it is through the show or otherwise. It is another way to do that and to have a connection even with people that you have known before but haven't talked to in a while. The show is one way to do that, and certainly, people that I have caught up with by having them as guests on the show.

One of the more rewarding things about it is being able to show the rest of the world that somebody got a lot of valuable things in their head and thoughts and getting them to share them.

I want to shine a light on them, elevate them and share how awesome they are with the world. It is neat that you are able to have the platform to do that through podcasting. Thanks for sharing this and having this discussion. It has been a lot of fun. As always, the seamless, fun discussion with both of you. For your podcast, I would not have met you. I'm grateful for your podcast for that reason alone and it is high quality. I usually end with lightning-round questions, but I'm going to ask one question for both of you, which is, what is your motto if you have one?

There are two concepts that I have tried to think about, and it is directly related to our conversation. It is a one-word thought, “Simplify.” Another one is stay focused because we are full of distractions in the world. I am not particularly good at either of those, but I'm trying to get better.

I don't know that I have a motto, but I guess one of the principles that I try to always live by is to be kind to yourself and others because you never know what people are going through.

MC, what is your motto?

I knew you were going to ask me that.

This is a back-and-forth thing. We can't have it.

My mom has various things that she would send to me, quotes, and inspiring things. She would always tell me, “Make this the best day ever. Paint the canvas of the day the way you want to.” I think of that way as each day as a new day to start over and think about that like, “It may have been a tough day yesterday, but now we are going to move forward fresh and start over. It could be a better day.” Also, do not forget to make your mark on the world and do what you think is important. Both of those are things I think about a lot.

Thanks for having us. We sure appreciate it.

Thank you so much, and congrats on 100 episodes.

Thanks so much. I appreciate your joining and have a great day.

You too.