Episode 79: Caryn Geraghty Jorgensen
00:49:08
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Litigation is a complex arena of law. Trial lawyers often need a mentor to guide them on their way. In this episode, MC Sungaila talks about litigation and teaching future lawyers with Caryn Geraghty Jorgensen. She specializes in complex litigation matters and believes in the ability of people to frame paths to resolution when conflicts arise. We discuss trials, litigation, and mentoring the next generation. Tune in for more great insights from women in the corridors of the law.
Relevant episode links:
Stokes Lawrence , Judge Lee Rosenthal - Past episode , Horizon , Infinity , Women Advancing Tomorrow's Technologists
About Caryn Geraghty Jorgensea:
Caryn advises clients in complex litigation matters. She represents businesses, non-profits, municipal entities, and individuals at trial and in alternative dispute resolution proceedings throughout the Pacific Northwest and the State of Alaska. When not litigating, she counsels clients in litigation-avoidance and assists clients to frame paths to resolution when conflicts arise. She has tried cases to verdict in the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties in Washington, Marion County, Oregon, and the Second Judicial District at Kotzebue, Alaska. In addition to her busy litigation practice, Caryn writes and speaks on trial skills, professional ethics, aviation and product liability topics. She was selected to Super Lawyers in 2013-2021 and recognized in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of Commercial Litigation in 2016-2022.
Transcript
I'm excited to have as a guest, Caryn Jorgensen, who's a Shareholder at Stokes Lawrence in Washington State. Welcome, Caryn.
Thank you. I can't tell you how excited I am to be here after tuning in to the show. I am so excited to have this conversation with you.
I'm glad to have you join. They are so blessed to have amazing women lawyers and judges engage in these fireside chats. I'm excited to have you join me to talk about your work as an amazing and accomplished trial lawyer and litigator. You are a great role model in that regard. I can say that firsthand because I have seen you in action in court. I'm pleased to have you share your wisdom with folks. Before we get to being in court, how did you come to the law? How did you decide to go to law school and become a lawyer?
I was raised in a family that had several lawyers, most predominantly on my dad's side, a little less so on my mom's side. As I was growing up, it was all men. My great-grandfather on my dad's side immigrated from County Mayo in 1880 as a ten-year-old with his family and grew up mostly in Eastern Washington. He became a Washington Supreme Court Justice in 1933. He's the patriarch of the Geraghty lawyers.
I have two uncles. My dad is 1 of 7 and 2 of his brothers were lawyers. On that side of the family, four of my male cousins are lawyers and I'm the first and only woman. I have a lot of cousins but I'm the only Geraghty girl who is a lawyer on my dad's side. On my mom's side, she's 1 of 7 as well. Her youngest brother is a lawyer and her first cousin is Judge Mary Mertens James who sat on the Marion County Circuit Court down in Oregon for years. She went to Willamette Law School. There is a mentorship award named after her.
You might want to add her to your list. She's retired but I had the privilege of trying a case to her. We disclosed to everybody the family connection and Judge James said, "I'm okay with it if all the parties are okay." The party said, "Okay." She is retired now but she was amazing to practice in front of a trial case. That's the family background.
In sixth grade, we had a substitute teacher who came in with an LSAT prep book and it was so thick. She said her husband was studying to go to law school and she read some of the questions to us and I thought, "It's easy. I can do that. I'm going to do that." Here I am. I don't know how auspicious that origin is.
There are so many different ways to have the idea that you might want to become a lawyer. It's in my case from liking to write, finding Appellate Laws, and being a good avenue for practice. There's so much variety in what you can do. A lot of people don't have any lawyers at all in their families. They are scratching their heads about how they came up with that great idea. You have a lot on both sides of your family. You had that background and that's charming that you are like, "I know about that. I could do those LSAT questions. I'm good with those. I can follow those."
That's sixth grade and I went straight throughout college, which I don't know if I would recommend. I did go straight through, went to a liberal arts school for college, and then immediately went to Notre Dame right after for law school.
If you know that's what you want to do, you are directed. I was pretty directed, too. If you know that, you are like, "Let's get there. Let's get this done." I wonder in retrospect too would the experience have been different if I had other experiences in between? If you are young and you know exactly where you want to go, then you are goal-directed. We are going to keep going that way. The other would be a detour, so we will just keep going.
That's a good way to think about it because I knew I wanted to go to law school. That's what I wanted to do. I knew I wanted to be a trial lawyer. I was right around in.
The one that I experienced that I would have liked in both directions as I had a clerkship right after law school, then I had a year of practice, and then another clerkship. I felt I’ve got so much more out of the second clerkship having had not only the first one but having practiced for a year. I absorbed a lot more because there were some basic fundamentals.
I have already seen a summary judgment motion. I had seen certain things that I did not have to learn on top of that. I wished I had a year before the district court clerkship, too. That's the only thing. Otherwise, if you know what you want to do, go for it. You knew you want to be a trial lawyer, too. How did you know that? Was it also from your family because you had judges as well? Is that what you saw?
What's so interesting is I did not know well Judge James, my mom's cousin. I don't know that she was on the bench before I went to law school. Coincidentally, she went to Notre Dame Law School as well, which is a nice through-line. I don't know where the trial lawyer idea came from. Other than that, I always liked public speaking. I always liked theater. I never shied away from speaking in front of people. That was a natural role for me to play, pun intended.
My dad's eldest brother did mostly an estate planning, trust, and estates practice. His other brother worked for the IRS as an attorney for his own career. My mother's youngest brother was a trial lawyer and gave me my first legal job. During my 1L summer, I worked for my uncle Chris at his small law firm in Eastern Washington. It could have been that connection but I always envisioned in my brain, "If I was going to be a lawyer, it was a trial lawyer."
That's what you are going to do. Did you go into private practice out of law school?
I went right in. I joined a firm in Chicago that I had worked with during my 2L summer associate year. I went to that firm right out of Notre Dame. When I was interviewing as a 2L, I was so committed to learning how to be a trial lawyer that I interviewed with a whole bunch of big-name law firms in Chicago. I had an interview with one firm that will remain nameless. They sent me out to lunch with the 5th year and a 7th year associate in their trial practice. I remember distinctly being at lunch saying, "How many trials have you gotten to, be in or observed?" "None." I said, "Trials don't happen that often. How many motions have you argued?" "None."
At that level, that's a red alert.
I asked, "How many depositions have you taken?” The more senior of the two said, "I take a deposition next week." Long story short, the summer job I took and then the firm I joined right out of law school was an all litigation firm in Chicago. There were five of us in our summer associate class. By the time we started there, they sent each one of us to the state courthouse, the Cook County Courthouse, Downtown Chicago. We each had a motion day every week. We would get a stack of files when we had physical files. We would go to the Cook County Courthouse and whatever was in our stack of files, we would argue.
I was only there through March of my first year practicing law. That's a whole other story. My husband was in graduate school at the University of Chicago. He decided he did not want his PhD in Eastern Philosophy. I decided in January of that year, "It's negative 60 with the windchill. Maybe we should move to Seattle," which is where I was from. I did not spend a lot of time at that firm in Chicago before we moved in 1997 to Seattle, which was my home. That's when I joined the firm I was with for nearly a quarter of a century, Mills Meyers Swartling when you and I met. From Mills Meyers Swartling, we dissolved in September 2019 and joined Stokes Lawrence. I don't know what you led with, question-wise but I went off on a big tangent.
I was curious whether you had gone straight into trial practice. I wondered if you had almost exclusively all that time at one firm practicing with people. That's so rare, especially now but even throughout our time of practice, that's pretty special to have that continuity. I thought in your description that there was an interesting point. When you are interviewing with firms, you want to be able to know to ask the right questions. There are some things that you assume are the case.
You probably were asking excitingly, "How many of these have you done?" Looking forward to what you would be able to do. The answer is crickets, and that leads you to, "I want to learn how to do this. I want to get some skills. Where am I going to be able to do that?" That's an important point if you are starting, you are in law school or newer in your practice to ask the questions in terms of what opportunities there are for you in what you want to do. Building skills early in your career, it's about getting the skills.
It was a revelation. It was in the way I asked the question. It was not, "Tell me what experience I will get as a litigation associate at your firm." It was, "How many trials have you gone to?"
You were excited. You are like, "I want to hear vicariously these stories." You are like, "What? There's no story?"
I would encourage anyone interviewing for an associate job who wants to be a trial lawyer to ask those questions. “How often do you get to take a deposition? Have you argued any motions and what was your favorite motion to argue? Have you briefed any appeal?” Ask it in a way of, "I want to learn about you and what your experience has been." The intelligence you gather from that speaks volumes to the experience that the associates at that particular firm have.
The intelligence you gather from asking questions speaks volumes to the experience that the associates at that particular firm have.
You don't think you need to find that out but you do. I have even seen that in the last several years. Lawyers who are relatively senior associates are looking to move law firms. You ask them questions like that, "How many depositions have you had?" They might be seventh years. It's like, "I defended one." What? That could not be hard because then the new firm is at the point of training you. It's a whole different thing.
This is a challenge where there are a little bit fewer trials and usually your anecdote about, "We were given a bunch of files and we would go in and argue these every day," but it's harder and harder to come to those opportunities as a newer lawyer and to get that first argument or trial. Do you have any thoughts about that? If you were starting and you obviously wanted to do your trial work, what would you suggest people do?
It's a good question because it is a different world. We certainly don't have any courts around here that have those cattle call motion days every day all day in Federal court. It's up to the judge, whether the judge wants a thorough argument. More often than not, they are not. In the state court, at least here in King County where I am, in Seattle, you only get an oral argument on dispositive motions unless there's something extraordinary.
That can be a good thing in terms of judicial efficiency. My heart goes out to all the judges you have had on your show because I can observe how hard judges work, and how much they take on their plates. I can understand why we have evolved as a profession to have fewer and fewer opportunities to argue in front of a judge, even appeals. I had two appeals during COVID at the Ninth Circuit. Both of them were decided on the briefs.
Ninth Circuit tells you whether they want to hear an argument, too.
There are a lot of different things young associates or young lawyers need to do. One, be persistent about expressing your interest. Be persistent about volunteering to observe. Tell the senior lawyers, "Can I watch your argument? Can I do a practice run with you on your argument? Can I play the judge? Can I observe that deposition?" Be persistently reminding your supervising lawyers how excited you are to get out in front of either a judge, a witness or a client to make presentations and be eager to do that. That advice is hard to make universal because it all depends on the type of firm you are with and the type of work you are doing.
I would also encourage anyone who wants to be a trial lawyer, to consider applying to the Public Defender's Office, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Attorney General's Offices in whatever state you want to live in. Those first two, Public Defender's and State Prosecutor's Offices, what a phenomenal way to get on your feet in the courtroom. If that's what you want to do from a career path perspective, those are fantastic opportunities, either one of those.
The Public Defender's and State Prosecutor's offices are phenomenal ways to get on your feet in the courtroom.
I was lucky in the Civil practice at Mills Meyers Swartling. It's a small firm but doing the big firm type of cases. When I joined, I was the tenth lawyer. They did not have the luxury of having me sit for five years before I did anything. They needed to get me out. Fred Meyers is one of my dear mentors who became my partner. He's since deceased. My first jury trial was in 1998. I was two years out of law school. Fred sat next to me for that entire trial. He took two witnesses. I did opening, closing, and jury selection and he let me do the whole thing. That launched me. It secured what I believed to be true, which was that I wanted to be a trial lawyer.
The Public Defender and the Prosecutor's Offices, that's good advice. I know a friend of mine here who has a wonderful trial litigation boutique. A number of the newer, younger laterals that she brings in are those who have a lot of experience trying cases in Federal Court or State Court largely from the Defender's Office. Otherwise, it's difficult to get that experience as a junior lawyer.
You have to translate it to a civil environment. There is a different way of litigating in the civil environment but at least you have got those core skills. That's good advice. You need the opportunity to do things early so that you can find out whether you like them because you have the image of what it is. You are like, "I don't know if the reality of it is something I would enjoy."
You want to do that soon in case it turns out, "This is not what I thought it was going to be. I need to do something else." There are also opportunities like that from mentors who provide you with that little training wheels around you and allow you to go out on your own and take significant responsibility in the trial. It is so important to gain skills and confidence. Judge Lee Rosenthal, who I interviewed on the show, is a big proponent of this. You will get an argument on your Federal Court Motion if the junior lawyer who drafted that motion is the one arguing or at least partially arguing.
I was so glad to know that. There are some judges here in the Pacific Northwest who say the same thing, to put that in their general orders. I'm at the point in my career where I prefer that. I don't need to be the one arguing. I probably should not be the one arguing when I have got these fantastic junior partners, senior associates or frankly, even junior associates who did all the hard work, who came to my office to talk or Zoomed me as the case has been for the last years, to talk about the analysis who looked me in the eyes like a deer in the headlights when I say, "I want you to go write the other side's argument and bring that to me."
They are doing all that hard work and analysis. I should not be in front anymore. It's their time. I love seeing attorneys that I have had the privilege of mentoring, supervising, growing, and developing. Having them in front of the judge or the jury. For me, I'm at the point where that is more satisfying than me making the argument or arguing to the jury. It's a lucky place to be from my perspective.
It's a way to honor your partner who gave you that opportunity early on by giving the opportunity to others. I agree with you. There's a certain level of joy that comes from doing that. We are turning to the point of thinking, "What can we do to help foster the next generation, grow their skills, and get them on their way?" We won't be here practicing forever. We need to have a good next wave of people that we have trained. What do you love the most about being in trial and being a trial lawyer?
Whenever I reflect on the experience, I'm going to answer a question you did not ask first. What I dread is all the work and the 4 to 6 weeks before. It's so much work. You have to be so focused and it's exhausting. You've got to look at the evidence and all the exhibits and say, "Why do we have 600 exhibits? We should be able to defend this case or tell our story and the tenth of that," and whittling down, distilling the evidence, figuring out if you are going to present testimony by deposition, and getting the transcripts exchanged and highlighted. It's so much work.
Before COVID, then you show up at the courthouse on the first day of trial and all of that washes away. You have done all the hard work. You know what the evidence is. You know who's going to say what on the stand for the most part, and you are ready to go. You hit your stride and you are 100% in it with the judge, the jury, and the witnesses.
I'm getting tingles talking about it because it is so powerful. I don't want to sound too hyperbolic but it's our amazing system of justice at work. It's that visceral feeling that you are part of a community that is here to do something necessary and important and you have done the work to prepare to be there. What I love most about the trial work is what happens when you are physically and professionally in a trial.
There's something about it. It's stressful and challenging but it is so satisfying to be a meaningful part of our system of justice. In the last several trials I have had, getting back to that idea of seeing attorneys that I have known since their first year of practice, I have seen them emerge as phenomenal trial lawyers. What I love about the trial practice is being in trial, being part of that process, being with people, being in the community, and having that community, recognizing that, "The parties are here in the trial because we could not work this out."
It's stressful and challenging yet so satisfying to be a meaningful part of our system of justice.
I spend from either demand, complaint, or answer. I spent all this time trying to reach a resolution. When we realize we cannot resolve something, we accept that. That's why we have the system that we have. Being in the community that is created by our system of justice is so meaningful. I hope jurors leave their jury service, feel that same sense of shared purpose, and that they served their community as much as the judge, bailiff, clerk or the parties themselves did.
Being in a community that is created by our system of justice is so meaningful.
There's always something that is a lot of work, what we do, and most of it is not glamorous at all. There's got to be something that gives you the meaning and keeps you doing it. It sounds like it's both the actual setting of being able to present your client's case to the jury and the sense of by being there, you are part of a larger system of justice and continuum of what we have in our justice system. There's something inspiring about that.
When you said all the hard work before you get there, you hate that p but then it's all worth it. That's often how I feel before an appellate oral argument. It's like, "If I could just parachute into the actual argument when I stand up," not just before because I'm nervous but the second you stand up and start delivering, that is so much fun.
All the weeks and months beforehand are not fun and it's angsty but you have to realize that the joy part would not happen without the angst part. You need the other part, it would be a lot more angsty when you stood up if you did not have the prep beforehand. I often feel that way. I will say that, "It would be great if I could not have the six weeks before," but it does not happen that way.
It can't that way. You used the image of a parachute. "If I could parachute in and have my oral argument," your parachute would disintegrate.
It's all a process that gets you there but that's the fun part.
I should not say that the preparation is all drudgery. One of the judges that you have already interviewed for your show said, "Be prepared." I apologize, I forget who it was. That is so important because I don't think that joy and sense of fulfillment that you and I have both experienced do not exist.
If you are unprepared, there is no joy. It's a whole lot of fear. That also is important if you want to get into the courtroom early to see if that's what you like. If you have that transcendence sense that you have when you are there or does it not do that for you and should you look to something else? That's important to you. You talked a little bit about mentors, sponsors, and your former law partner in your trial who gave you opportunities, how you give others opportunities, and pay that forward. Are there any other mentors or sponsors who helped you along the way and how did they do that?
I mentioned Fred Meyers when I moved to Seattle. I started at Mills Meyers Swartling on April Fool's Day 1997. That was always the firm joke about starting on April Fool's Day as the tenth lawyer. Three of the partners at that point in time were fellows in the American College of Trial Lawyers, Fred Meyers, David Swartling, and Bill Bailey, all three of whom became my partner when they made me a partner in 2003.
Bill and Fred have both since passed. Bill passed in December 2021 but I would take Fred and Dave as the best examples of how important having different kinds of mentors is. I will use the example of how I learned to write. I would present Fred Meyers, the one who sat back while I was two years out of law school and let me try a jury trial. I will use him as a first example. I would give him a summary judgment motion that I have drafted.
It was giving him the paper. He would take his red pen that there was no redlining. We were still using the word, "Perfect." I would get it back to him later that day or the next day, "That looks good, FMM." That was Fred. He would tell me, "Go argue it. Tell me how it goes." I don't want to diminish what he did because leading up to me, drafting the summary judgment, he would have coached me through the depositions, theories, and cases. Once I gave him my product, assuming there was nothing terribly wrong with it, it looks good, FMM. Dave Swartling, in comparison, I would give him a summary judgment motion as a young lawyer and the red ink would be all over it.
I'm the common denominator here between these two things. Both styles were so important to my development as a lawyer. Bruce Winchell was another one of my now-retired partners. He had the art of brevity down. Each one of my supervising partners when I was an associate had a different style. I learned from every single one of them. Every one of them invested time in me. It's not so that they could craft me as their associate attorney in their image but so that I could find my own way to my own authentic professionalism, having learned from so many different lawyers.
I was so lucky as a brand new baby lawyer to land at Mills Meyers Swartling with the human beings who were running that firm. They were so different yet have that shared purpose and shared accountability to the lawyers they were hiring and training. They ensure that we were supported in our professional development. When I think about each one of them, they were all so different in their styles but they all empowered me to find my way and style.
Almost by having their own different styles, you could see by the example, different ways of being, and then say, "I can choose something else entirely different that's my style and fits for me." It's important to be authentic and to be yourself, especially in a trial. Trying to completely be like someone else is not going to work well.
You are talking about people who all have high levels of trial experience. To be in the American College is quite an accomplishment. To have that many in your firm training you as something else, you were super lucky but you also made a good choice in terms of training. It’s also a recognition of the different styles of training, too. The one is more hands-off to give you confidence and be, "You can go your own way as long as you are not completely going off a cliff. Go for it."
The other ones are more, "We are going to push and pull and make you even better at brief writing or various things like that." It's good to have all of them because you are getting the confidence from one and the other, refining your writing skills and getting some detailed feedback. That's an amazing experience. It's also a good example of different ways that everybody has their own style.
Sometimes people think the dripping red ink equivalent on the papers is bad, terrible, and I'm never coming back from this but that's not true. I think that way about both the associates I work with and the law students that I teach. I tell them, "If I did not care, I would not bother to edit it or comment about how you could get better."
Why would I bother if I don't think you are going to put in the work for it? Why should I spend the energy?" The other part is if you are on the receiving end, to be responsive as you were to recognize that, take it in, adjust, learn and grow as you go. That's what they are hoping they will see. That's an amazing example. I agree with you. That's unique to some of the boutique firms that were especially active in our early days in practice. There are not many of those anymore.
We dissolved our firm in 2019 and came over to Stokes Lawrence. We joined a firm that was bigger and would have more support. The important point was because we were going to a bigger firm, we had to find a cultural fit. We had to find a place that was as dedicated to training professionals, to mentoring attorneys as they develop in the profession. We found that here.
We give ourselves the space and the time to work with associates, to go over their writing, and get those associates out in front of judges and juries. I found a place where my fellow owners here are as invested as my partners back at Mills Meyers in the late 1990s was in me, the ownership of our current firm is as invested. I don't think I could have made a move to a firm if I did not find that environment and commitment.
After so many years with that culture ingrained in you and how you were trained, that would be hard not to be able to share that back. That's an important point in terms of what is incentivized to give that feedback within law firms, too. In many cases, it's not financially incentivized because you are not going to be billing that time. It's training for the purpose of training. In the long-term, it is yours to everyone's, the client's, and the attorney's benefit and longevity with the firm too if you are engaged in that training.
We have come to our lightning round already. I'm going to ask you a few questions. Which talent would you most to have but don't?
Piano playing.
What trait do you most deplore in yourself? What trait do you most deplore in others?
It's the same trait, impatience.
That happens to us when we are goal-directed. Who are your favorite writers?
I was an English major. I can read Jane Austin. I can listen to Jane Austin. I love Jane Austin. I also love Tana French. She is an Irish writer. She's a fictional crime writer. I have not read any of her books. I have listened to every single one of them. It's wonderful. All but the last are wonderful Irish voices, narrating fantastically constructed stories.
The other writer I would give a shout-out to is my sister-in-law who is a college classmate of mine. She has written and published a trilogy of science fiction books. Horizon is the 1st one and the 2nd one is Infinity. I can't remember the last one. Anyway, Tabitha Lord is her name. She wrote these great stories. I have those and read them. One of the judges you spoke to said, “Reading at night is problematic because I fall asleep.” That is my problem. I try and balance reading with the paper, the real book when I'm out walking, listening to stories.
It's good to have that for walking, driving or things like that. When you can hear it, you often can "read" more books that way. Who is your hero in real life?
My daughter, Mackenzie Jorgensen. At the age of 15 or 16, sophomore year in high school, she took an advanced placement in Computer Science. By junior year, she had founded a nonprofit with a classmate called Women Advancing Tomorrow's Technologists, where high school Computer Science students teach middle school girls how to code. The organization is still in existence and they are young Computer Science students teaching younger how to code.
My daughter studied Computer Science and Philosophy undergrad. She currently is getting her PhD at King's College, London studying in the safe and trusted Artificial Intelligence Program. She's my hero. She worked so hard. She was teaching. She's doing an internship with the government in London on their artificial intelligence and data management data use policies. She's cool. From a technical perspective, I do not understand all she does. All I know is that it's rock star technology stuff.
Where did she get the technology interest or know-how?
You know me well enough to know that it's not from me. My husband taught himself to code when we all had DOS-based green computer screens in the '80s. As an adult, he had a Liberal Arts-oriented education. When he decided not to be a college professor, he taught himself seriously how to code and then worked as a programmer for many years before becoming a business and technology consultant. If she comes by it naturally at all, it's through him. I credit a teacher she had her freshman year in high school. Her Math teacher was the one who encouraged her to take Computer Science. Empowering and encouraging her to do that has put her on an amazing path.
She was able to discover it so early and enjoyed it. Now she's ahead of the curve in terms of where she is.
I can't wait to see what she does next either after your description.
For what in life do you feel most grateful?
That one has to be family. That's an easy answer for a lot of people. My husband and I got married between my 2nd and 3rd years of law school. He was in graduate school at the University of Chicago. We were dirt poor, big old student loans, young, and we grew up together as friends and partners. We had our kids and raised our kids. He and I worked full-time and we made it work. It was not always easy but we made it work because we approached it in that partnership way.
First of all, we had a whole bunch of wonderful nannies. Thank God for nannies and for my parents who live five minutes from us and provided us with a lot of support. We had that community of friends and family who helped us raise our children and made it possible for both me and my husband to have meaningful professional lives while also having meaningful, close family relationships.
When you said you moved from Chicago back to Seattle, I thought, "One of the nice benefits for a young family is to have the extended family system which helps you get through that." Given anyone you could invite over for a dinner party, who would you invite?
What I would love to gather for a big dinner party would be the woman justices on the US Supreme Court and hopefully, the next one, Judge Jackson, as well as the seven women justices on the Washington State Supreme Court, 7 of 9 are women. I would add two non-justices, Michelle Obama, who I think is one of the most amazing human beings on the planet, and Kelly Clarkson, who is the odd man out.
Somebody needs to lead the singing.
One of my guilty pleasures is The Voice. Talk about bringing your authentic self. I assume it's her authentic self. She's so positive, has an amazing sense of humor, and seems to care about people. That's my crazy thought. If I could have a dinner party of a bunch of amazing women, it would be the women justices, US and Washington State, and then Michelle Obama and Kelly Clarkson.
That sounds like a perfect dinner party. You need a little bit of eclectic for a good dinner party. You want to cover a lot of different areas of conversation.
I would invite you too.
Thank you. I was like, "I hope I get to be part of this." I am all for something like that. Last question, what is your motto if you have one?
I should have been prepared for this one. I'm going to steal a motto from Linda Wheeler who has been a practice assistant here. She and I have worked together in the law for many years. I used to joke with her that when she retires, I'm going to have to retire. Whenever we have a challenging opposing party or someone being difficult, her motto that I have adopted is, "Always take the high road." To me and Linda and how she expresses it means to act with integrity and kindness. If I were to have a motto, I would steal that from her because that's an important way to live.
Always take the high road. Act with integrity and kindness.
That's a good reminder of, "Act the way you would act irrespective of whatever somebody else is doing." They might do something else but be true to yourself in how you respond. Caryn, thank you so much. This was fun. You have exemplified how engaging you are to jurors in our discussion. I appreciate you joining the show.
Thank you. It was so good to see you. Hopefully, we can connect again soon, and best of luck with this show. I am completely hooked. I can't wait for the next series to come out.
Thank you so much, Caryn. I appreciate it.
Thank you.