Excellence in Advocacy – An Interview with Sarit Batner

Excellence in Advocacy – An Interview with Sarit Batner

Sarit Batner (McCarthy Tetrault LLP) is the 2020 recipient of the Douglas K. Laidlaw Medal for Excellence in Advocacy. In this episode of Friends Who Argue, Chloe Snider (Dentons Canada LLP) interviews Sarit Batner about what makes for excellent oral advocacy, whether oral advocacy is still important, and how Zoom may be changing advocacy. Sarit also shares her journey to becoming a distinguished oral advocate and key oral advocacy tips.

Sarit E. Batner is a partner in McCarthy Tétrault LLP’s Toronto Litigation Group, and a former member of the firm’s Board of Partners. She is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the Litigation Counsel of America. Sarit maintains a significant trial and appellant litigation practice, with a focus on complex commercial litigation and arbitrations. Sarit has experience before courts of appeal, including as lead counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada. She has received a number of accolades, including being listed as a leading litigation lawyer in Lexpert, Benchmark, and Chambers Canada.

Chloe Snider is a partner in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution and Transformative Technologies groups. Chloe’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and arbitration, with particular expertise in information and technology disputes. Chloe is a business advisor to local, national and global clients, assisting them in managing risk in corporate transactions and commercial relationships. Chloe has been recognized for corporate commercial litigation in Best Lawyers in Canada and Lexpert.

Land Acknowledgement
The Advocates’ Society acknowledges that our offices, located in Toronto, are on the customary and traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Haudenosaunee, the Anishinabek, the Huron-Wendat and now home to many First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.  We acknowledge current treaty holders, the Mississaugas of the Credit and honour their long history of welcoming many nations to this territory.
 
While The Advocates’ Society is based in Toronto, we are a national organization with Directors and members located across Canada in the treaty and traditional territories of many Indigenous Peoples. We encourage our members to reflect upon their relationships with the Indigenous Peoples in these territories, and the history of the land on which they live and work.
 
We acknowledge the devastating impacts of colonization, including the history of residential schools, for many Indigenous peoples, families, and communities and commit to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in an informed legal profession in Canada and within The Advocates’ Society.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:05

Welcome to Friends Who Argue a podcast from The Advocate Society.

Speaker 2: 0:10

Each episode will bring you conversations with advocates across all areas of litigation who share their stories, insights, tips, and tricks from their journeys. As advocates,

Speaker 1: 0:21

We hope you'll find this podcast informative, inspiring, and most of all entertaining, and that you'll subscribe to our podcast on iTunes to stay up to date on the latest episodes,

Speaker 3: 0:38

Friends

Speaker 1: 0:38

Who Argue is proudly sponsored by M N P, litigation Support and Dispute Resolution, your expert partner for forensics valuations and litigation support, m n P wherever business takes you.

Speaker 4: 0:57

Hi everyone. My name is Chloe Snyder. I'm a partner in the litigation group at Dentons Canada and a co-founder of the Task Podcast, friends Who Argue. I'm also on the executive of the 10 plus Standing Committee. I'm excited to be joined today by SAR Bater, a partner at McCarthy

Speaker 5: 1:21

Tetras. Welcome to the podcast Friends Who Argue. I'd like to start, uh, by giving a brief introduction. I tried to shorten your bio as much as I could, but it's a very impressive one. Um, so I will give a brief introduction and then we can get started. Siri Bater is a partner in McCarthy Teros Toronto Litigation Group. She is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the Litigation Council of America. Cree maintains a significant trial and appellate litigation practice with a focus on complex commercial litigation and arbitrations. Sarit has experienced before Courts of appeal, including as lead counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada. She often speaks and writes on matters of substantive law, procedure and advocacy. She has received a long list of accolades, including being listed as a leading commercial litigation lawyer in Lex Expert Benchmark and Chambers Canada in 2020 C was awarded the Advocate Society's Douglas K. Le Law Medal for Excellence in Advocacy. And I'm here to interview Sarit today for the Advocate Society's podcast as a recipient of that award, as part of the Friends Who Argue Interview series with tasks award winners. Siri, thanks so much for joining us. We're excited to hear from you and to learn about your journey to excellence in advocacy. Let me start by asking you, um, about the lay law medal. Can you tell us what it's about and what it means to you to have received this honor?

Speaker 6: 3:02

Absolutely. Thank you very much for having me on the show. The Laid Law Medal actually means a lot to me for a number of reasons. First of all, as I understand it, it's a medal, uh, awarded to members of the profession who have practiced for 10 to 20 years. In my case, I'm at the upper, very upper end of that. And who has distinguished him or herself as an ad outstanding oral advocate in civil or criminal matters, someone who has actively participated in the training and mentoring of junior members in the art and science of oral advocacy, and someone who's been an active member of the Advocate Society and is held in high regard by the members of the bench and bar. For me in particular, I practice at McCarthy Tatro. I'm, I'm, I've been at McCarthy's my entire career. I started there back almost, it'll be 25 years ago in this coming spring that I started there as a summer student. Doug LA Law was, uh, leading Canadian litigator who was at McCarthy's before he died very young in 1984. Um, I believe out on the gardener. He was hit by a car when he was, was pulled over. It was very tragic. Uh, he joined McCarthy's in 56 and spent his career there of for almost 30 years. And by the time he died, he was a giant in Canadian litigation. He had been to the Supreme Court of Canada 50 times or more. He'd been to the Court of Appeal many, many times. He was a founding member, as I'm sure you know, of the, uh, advocate Society in 1963, and he was a director at the Advocate Society from 66 to 69. So at McCarthy's in particular, it was a big deal, uh, to hear stories about Doug Lela and, and the greats like JJ Robinette, like, like Doug Lela, like so many others who hailed from our hallways. And there was a very, very rich tradition of those litigators and that history and the honor, frankly, and privileged to walk in their footsteps and, you know, read their cases and learn from their work and not really work alongside them. Obviously, he was no longer around when I got to the firm 15 years after he died, but still sort of work in his shadow, if you will, amongst people who had learned from him and worked from him and really had his energy and his passion.

Speaker 5: 5:25

Soon there will be stories of the greats bater for all of the up and coming McCarthy's lawyers,<laugh>. Um, so this award is obviously about excellence in oral advocacy. From your perspective, what makes for an outstanding oral advocate or outstanding oral advocacy?

Speaker 6: 5:45

It's an excellent question. Uh, in the words of JJ Robinette to, to hail to another great, uh, oral advocate, he used to say, or he famously once said, uh, I believe about how to give an excellent jury address. But it, it is, it applies more broadly to speak slowly and smile a lot. And I think in some sense that kind of is the pip and substance of oral advocacy. I think you need to tell a good story. You need to find a way to connect with your listener in order to persuade and to compel. And I think good oral advocacy has good listening. Ironically, as a key component, you need to look at the people you're connecting with. You need to see their cues. You need to watch for their understanding. You need to bring them along. And so I would say passion, enthusiasm, conviction force, however you bring that for me, I have a, a way about my speech that brings those things. But I've listened to many oral advocates who are extremely compelling, who have very different styles, much quieter styles, in some case, organizationally different. In some case, I, I tend to be a very casual oral advocate. I've listened to very compelling, very formal oral advocates, but whatever it is, you need to find a way to connect to your listeners. And I think that at the heart of what JJ Robinette was saying when he was saying Speak slowly and smile a lot, is really just that idea of connecting with the person who's listening to you and listening to them and reacting to them as you move along. Remember to bring your audience along with you.

Speaker 5: 7:25

And did you, were you aware of that when you were starting out as an advocate or was this something that you learned as you went?

Speaker 6: 7:38

I would say a little bit of both. Like many things in life, I think there's some degree of innate, this is who I am as a little kid. I think this is who I always was. I don't think it was really a surprise to anyone who know, knew me as a young person that I found a career in the art of oral persuasion. Um, on the other hand, I believe that to be successful and excellent, you need to be good. You need to work hard, and you need to be a little lucky. And part of that luck is finding people to mentor you and to teach you. And I think along the way, I had great teachers, advisors and mentors who passed on the wisdom, not only their own wisdom, but the wisdom of folks like Layla and like Robinette and many others. And listening to those bits of wisdom and figuring out which ones work for me and how to incorporate them into my own practice, I think was intentional. So I'm not a very different advocate than I am than I was at the beginning, but certainly I've learned along the way and I've changed along the way. In terms of, you know, things that have worked and things that haven't worked,

Speaker 5: 8:53

Is there anyone in particular that you feel had an impact on you, um, as you were learning

Speaker 6: 9:00

<laugh> there? I, there are a number, but I,

Speaker 5: 9:03

And you're not, you're not capped

Speaker 6: 9:05

<laugh>. So I would say, uh, there were certainly many partners at my own firm who, who, who impacted me as an oral advocate. Paul Steep, uh, Daryl Cruz, bill Black, now, justice Black, um, Andrew Redden, who's, who's, who's now retired, um, Tom Curry who was at McCarthy's but is now at Lancaster. Slatt was, had a huge impact on me in terms of taking time and giving advice and, and helping me along Jonathan Lysis who used to be at McCarthy's and is now at, uh, um, Laxo Sullivan. So I, I think there have been a number of, um, and I'm sure that, that there are names that I'm missing, but many, many, when I was a younger lawyer and you know, up until about five or so years ago, I would say I did a lot of running with a group of lawyers. We would run at lunch hours and we would talk, and that camaraderie, that ability to talk to and bounce off of other lawyers was worth its weight in gold. You know, people would say, how do you find the time to take an hour and a half outta your day in the middle of the day to go for a run? And I would say, you know, I got more work done in terms of moving my cases forward, thinking about my cases, getting ideas, strategizing and getting the benefit of the group. Think of all of the experience in that break, if you will, than I would've sitting at my desk doing anything. And so that was a real gift as well,

Speaker 5: 10:31

That, that's impressive. That's, that's multitasking in terms of getting your exercise and moving your cases along at once. I, I am impressed when I can do just one of those things. Um, and, and in the courtroom in terms of, um, you know, keeping your, your listener following with you, um, was that a skill that you had to work at? What, what can, uh, younger lawyers do to improve their ability to keep a judge, you know, following along that story with them?

Speaker 6: 11:06

I think the biggest piece of advice I would have to, for younger lawyers in this regard, and the thing that I probably did need to work on most as an involving lawyer is seeing the forest for the trees. So if you wanna keep your audience moving along with you, you have to mine the details. When you're ensconced in a case, every little thing matters and all the details matter and all the little tangents, you want people to understand them and to know them and to follow along with them. All of the dates and all of the chronologies. And they just, they, when you're in it, they matter. And the reality is the listener can't digest them. The listener can't process them all. The listener can't follow all those wonderful, miraculous details that you feel are so important. So I think the biggest advice to keeping your listener moving along with you, and the one that I've probably had to work on the most is exactly that. Be careful about how many details, how many tangents you go down, hold the main storyline. And you need to find other ways like written advocacy to, to pick up the details, to back the storyline. But you need to orate the main storyline to get people to buy into it. And too many details actually tend detract from that, even though as a young advocate, I think it's really hard to see that and to know that when often you're charged with some of those details and they really take on a great importance as you're going through them.

Speaker 5: 12:32

It's funny because I was in court last week with a partner of mine on an urgent injunction, and the partner I was working with said to me, get in and get out cuz we had so, so little time. Um, because we'd been in the weeds with the case and, and we had the sense that the judge just wasn't, wasn't gonna be able to take on board everything that we knew. So it's interesting to hear you say that.

Speaker 6: 12:57

It is great advice. You know, you asked me a few moments ago about, uh, uh, mentors and people from whom I got words from pearls of wisdom when I was in law school between 95 and 97 at U of T law. I took trial advocacy in the first semester of third year, and then I went on to teach it for about 15 years. Um, the p the practitioner who headed up the trial advocacy course for many years, and certainly when I took it was Julie Hannaford. And, uh, my, myself and another person were chosen at the end of the term to go on to argue on behalf of or to, to try on behalf of the u u of t a trial. It was called the AIP Cup. And it was, it was a competition. And in practicing for that and training, if you will for that, we, we had to do, one of the things we had to do of course, was opening statements. And I remember we had about five minutes for our opening statement and I wrote it out and we were in Julie Hannaford's office and I was orating my opening statement, very chuffed up, uh, with myself. And I remember Julie just shaking her head at me and saying, you need to get rid of the dates. You need to get rid of the details. You can have three points. And me quite strenuously arguing, but there are at least eight excellent important good points. And her saying doesn't matter. And it stuck with me that lesson of less is more, get in and get out, find the story, stick to the story, resist the urge to go off on the tangents. It stuck with me from third year law through my whole career.

Speaker 5: 14:24

And, and do you see, do you see the juniors that you work with struggle with that? Or is there, are there trends you see among junior lawyers in terms of the hurdles that they face in, in becoming strong advocates?

Speaker 6: 14:38

I do think that experience helps you see the forest for the trees and not focus on the details. So I do think that this is, I think a lot of senior lawyers struggle with this, but I certainly think that most junior lawyers do struggle with this. It's hard to write a 50 page argument. It's easier to write an 80 page one, it's hard to write a 25 page factor. It's easier to write a 45 page. One. The idea of leaving things on the cutting room floor I think is a struggle for junior lawyers. And then I think the other struggle for junior lawyers is just fearlessness. Like the, no matter how much you wanna advocate, and no matter how hungry you are to be on your feet, there is still an adrenaline, like a physical, a physicality to getting up and arguing that you have to push through. And it's a bit unnatural even if you're wired for it, right. When even if you are hungry to do it. And I think you have to push yourself through that. And then you need to hold your story and be, you know, compelling in it. So I think getting through that, getting out there, getting on your feet and then finding a simple story and learning how to tell it without losing your way through all the details, I think would, are probably the two hardest things for junior lawyers to get through.

Speaker 5: 15:55

Yeah, that makes sense. Well, you know, you were saying with experience, you sort of learn, I guess what to leave on the floor and what you shouldn't be leaving on the floor, but the, you're you just referenced, uh, you know, the physicality of it and, and getting up on your feet, which is, you know, maybe a good segue to talking about oral advocacy on Zoom where you know, you're not necessarily on your feet. In fact you're probably sitting, you know, at home in pajama bottoms in front of your computer. Um, or at least that's me. Um, so, you know, does oral advocacy change from your perspective when you're doing it on Zoom?

Speaker 6: 16:34

I think this is such a fascinating question. At the beginning of the pandemic, the idea of arguing sitting down was viscerally wrong to me. In fact, so much so that I did all my arguing standing up at a podium, even at my home office. And as with most things, we evolve and we adapt as humans, as we become more comfortable with the technology and the fears and stresses of the technology don't overtake or fear and stress over the case itself. We bec we adapt. And so I, you're quite right, I use the expression on your feet, but I am no longer on my feet. Often when I'm arguing I still do. If I'm cross-examining a witness, then I'll do it at the office on our boardroom floor at a podium in the way that I otherwise might. But I argue many things now in a seated position in a way that I wouldn't have before. I think Zoom has pros and cons. So I, uh, there is a presence, an oxygen occupying in-person element to oral advocacy of your pre covid that is to some extent lost on Zoom. It's hard to take up space, it's hard to, to have gravitas, to have presence, to have that[inaudible] that makes a lot of oral advocates turn heads when they walk up to the podium and people wait with baited breath. It's hard to get that in Zoom. It's hard to be big on Zoom. You know, I was speaking at a conference not that long ago and Danielle Robi was on it and she commented that she is a very tall woman and that on Zoom you kind of lose that physicality. And I remember thinking to myself, that's interesting cuz I would not have known that I didn't, I did not know or appreciate that. And she's quite right. There's something about being able to stand there and take up space and express that is lost on Zoom. Even just hand gestures, we don't do them on Zoom when we advocate. We don't do them intentionally even on Zoom. Um, on the other hand, zoom affords a closeup of your face. Zoom allows you to basically stare at your judge in a way that you can't really, uh, unabashedly do in person Zoom allows you to pick on up on cues you might otherwise miss and to see the room, including your opponents in a way that you might not get. A lot of judges I hear are saying that they feel that if they're going to be analyzing witnesses and and body language, they actually feel there's a benefit to zoom, not a detriment. So I am a big believer in oral advocacy. I think it makes a big difference. And so what I would say is I didn't like Zoom. I've become a convert on Zoom. I would like to go back to in-person for a lot of things, but whatever else, I think we should not lose oral advocacy. And if doing it by Zoom is what it takes to keep it, then two thumbs up for Zoom, I can get, I can back that.

Speaker 5: 19:37

It's interesting because when you, when you said in response to one of the first questions about what makes for excellent oral advocacy, which was I think speaking slowly and smiling a lot, you know, it struck me that, well you can do those things on Zoom as well. Sure. Um, but I I take your point that certainly the hand gestures and the the courtroom presence can be, can be lost on Zoom.

Speaker 6: 20:05

It it, for sure. It's interesting that, um, zoom actually encourages, I would say speaking slowly,<laugh> there's something about the closeup of your own face and the spaces of other people that doesn't, um, lend itself to being in full flight the way I often am and the way people can be when they're on their feet in person or rating in that fashion. So I, I think Zoom does tone it down a bit and frankly probably favors oral advocates who are more, um, you know, organized and go through or methyl, you know, A to B to to C and work through an organized fashion. I think people who are tend to the more passionate or emotional side of advocacy probably feel the impact of Zoom a little bit more because I think it tones everyone down and brings everyone to sort of a more quiet, polite, organized manner of advocacy than, than the courtroom, which I think just allows for more diversity in the kind of advocacy you might have. It allows you to gesticulate to move from one table to the podium and back again to have a lot more in your repertoire. You lose some of that on Zoom, but at least you're still getting an opportunity to, or rate your case and make your point. I also think technology is still hard for a lot of people, including a lot of judges. And I think technology can sometimes overwhelm the advocacy. Everyone's focusing on how to pull up their document and what page number they're on, and it's hard to bring everyone to the center and tell your story when everyone's eyes are on their third and fourth screen.

Speaker 5: 21:48

It certainly becomes a lot more technical than just focusing on the, the delivery of the message. Um, but you were saying that that, you know, from your perspective, oral advocacy really does make a difference. Do you feel in your own practice that there are certain cases where the oral advocacy really did make a difference, where a judge seemed to be going one way during the hearing and then ultimately, you know, sided with you after the oral argument?

Speaker 6: 22:19

Uh, I experienced this all the time. I can think of a half a dozen examples from 2021 alone where a judge has actually even said at the outset, I gotta tell you guys, this is where I'm leaning. And then at the end going, well that's, I didn't, wasn't expecting to end up here. I I think it really, really matters, and I'll give you an example in a moment, but just to harken back to the beginning of Covid in 2020 when all of a sudden there was a state and a push towards written advocacy and actually the Court of appeal denied the ability to do oral advocacy in a number of cases, including one of mine. And we lost that case. And I believe that oral advocacy would've made a massive difference in that case. Uh, the ability to engage with the judge. I, I think the, the, the decision making process is not just between the decision maker and the paper, it's, it's the decision maker puzzling, well what about this and what about this issue and where does it get you on there and where are the edges of the envelope? It's the ability to be reactive, to be responsive. It's hard to say in 25 paragraphs, including the introduction and the conclusion and all of the bump that doesn't really matter. It's hard to really know what the judge is gonna be thinking of and what's really gonna move them or matter to them. It's sometimes, in fact, I would say often something that comes up, some metaphor, some example in oral argument that really clicks it for the decision maker. And I think it's a real disservice to the cases that matter. People say oral advocacy only changes people's mind and say 10 or 15% of cases, but it's in those cases where it matters most in those tough calls where you want to be able to work with your decision maker to understand what's troubling them, to get to the root of their issues, to sort out the margins with them. Um, so I I think it's a huge loss to avoid oral advocacy. I can one example, one, so lots of examples in my practice, including since Zoom where the judges have allowed that oral advocacy has moved their, moved the dial for them. So leave aside the cases where, I don't know, but I tried a case now, um, it was 2010, it was before Justice Conway, and it was a case about a bunch of engineers who had left and started up a competing business and it was a several week trial and at the end of the trial I was not feeling like the evidence had gone in perhaps as best as it could have. And opposing counsel and I had thought we were gonna do oral submissions in a day, half a day each. And Justice Conway had a fully different plan. She, she, she said, I think we're gonna be three days. And it's actually the only experience I've had where the judge has sort of said, you guys, I have like we're, we have a lot of ground to cover. And we stood on our feet, my opposing counsel and I, one or the other for three full days in a full dialogue with the judge about the cases and the underlying cases and the cases cited in those cases and where the lines were drawn. And I, you could see the wheels turning and it was a, a hallmark of where I believe that oral avo advocacy and the ability to work with the lawyers through the issues clearly made the world of difference.

Speaker 5: 25:32

Yeah, it's interesting and it ties back to what you were saying about those runs you did at lunch where you were engaging with issues. And I certainly feel that way, you know, when I grapple with the case that it's only after talking it through with your colleagues and sometimes with opposing counsel that you, you're able to fully formulate your own views and, and why that would be different for judges. I'm not sure.

Speaker 6: 25:57

I I totally agree. I need to talk to understand, I need to ask the questions, hear the answers, ask different questions, hear it again. And I might sound like I'm fully as, as my associates, as the associates who work with me know, it may sound like I'm fully on one side of the argument only to finish the argument and say, yes, I agree with you because I need that process. And I don't think for one moment that anyone is ever worse off for that process. That is a neutral at best process and often very, very helpful even just to make sure you understand, let alone to decide.

Speaker 5: 26:35

Yeah. Do do you see that as, as a potential struggle for the, or challenge for the legal profession now that we're, we may be moving away from oral hearings.

Speaker 6: 26:47

It's a big tension in the legal profession between access to justice. And by that I mean delay cost resources on the one hand and moving towards writing as opposed to oral hearings on the other. Right. There really is, it's clearly faster and cheaper to send in your argument and, and get a result than it is to schedule and manage people's schedules and oral arguments and add that whole layer. So there's a real tension I acknowledge, um, I think actually in this way, zoom in oral hearings are our friend, they, they add a layer of efficiency that cannot be underestimated. You know, it used to be you go to a nine 30 appointment, you left your office at nine, you got there for nine 30, you worked third on the list, so you didn't get called till 11 and then you left and you got back to your office at 1130. Now you can sit at your desk, you get called. When you get called, you do other work in the meantime and your appointment takes exactly the 18 minutes that you spend with the judge. And so we find that generally all of the sitting around and waiting, all of the moving to and fro all of the breaks, um, eliminated actually means a much cheaper system for clients. You don't have to travel far to go to a pretrial, you can do it just as effectively on Zoom. That means instead of going to well end and taking a full day to do an hour and 40 minute pretrial, you could take an hour and 40 minutes to do your hour and 40 mil minute pretrial. So I think we're gonna be able to use technology, I think in a way to keep oral advocacy and still ease the pressures that I think impede access to justice, which is obviously a monumental issue. And I, I'm in civil litigation where the access to justice issues aren't as acute as, say, for instance in criminal or family litigation.

Speaker 5: 28:34

Yeah, I, I've seen huge efficiencies just like you, I remember sitting in civil practice court with, you know, 20 to 30 other lawyers and these, I always sort of felt like they should be serving bagels in the hall because it became sort of a social thing, which is something that you do lose by being on Zoom. Um, but certainly it's much more efficient for, for clients to be able to do at least the proforma things and scheduling matters. Uh,

Speaker 6: 29:01

Yes. Although your point is an excellent one. The zoom world is for clients much cheaper and much more efficient. The people who lose out are young lawyers because the magic happens in terms of, you know, learning about your mentors or the, the, the, your colleagues or the lawyers you're working with on the walk to and from court in the hallway. The number of lawyers I was introduced to by other lawyers that I was with in those settings is, is basically all of them. In some ways that's how you get to know a wide swath of the profession. That's where you get to hear stories, that's where you get to, you know, tell tales and listen really as a junior lawyer, listen to the tales and get excited about court and get excited about the law and get excited about the profession. That having been said, you know, lawyers, younger lawyers are ingenious in other ways. They, they've moved to Twitter, they've moved to other forums like people, young people in the profession are hungry for involvement and if if it doesn't come this way, it will, they will find a way to make it come in another way. It just might take a little ingenuity and a little bit of rub along the way.

Speaker 5: 30:11

And, and I guess, you know, turning your, your mind back in time to yourself as, as a younger lawyer or, or as a student in law school, what advice would you give to your, your a prior version of yourself?

Speaker 6: 30:26

It's funny, there would be lots of advice I would give to a prior version to myself, but myself benefited along the way for lots of this advice which I took to heart and, and which really shaped who I am as a lawyer. So advice like when you're in your first few years of practice, take on lots, take it on, get experience because experience is your friend. Once you've seen it, it forms part of your arm, you know, armament of what you know to draw on until you've seen it, you just don't know. So take on a lot in those first few years is advice I got and advice I followed and advice I would give. Anything you haven't done, take on ahead of anything you have done. I think that lawyers tend to be type A people. They wanna do the things that they're good at. And so it's much easier to gravitate to something, especially in this world of specialization towards something that, you know, and I actually think you become a better lawyer if you do things you don't know because you know that, you know, tribunal hearing you did is actually going to help you in your next civil dispute. The oppression case is gonna help you in your next securities case. Like all of these things fit together and they give you a breadth and an insight into the law which you don't get. I think at least when you're a more junior lawyer, if you don't keep your sights broad, once you get a few more years at, at the bar, third, fourth, fifth year, like this starts young, I would say invest in your juniors. You cannot be great without great loyal juniors. Cannot be done. No lawyer was great without great, loyal, ju loyal juniors. And so if you don't invest in the people that you're working with, they will not be there for you. Have your back, check that extra footnote, find that extra case and you will never be great without the help of a great team. So invest in your juniors I think is, is hugely important. Listen is actually great advice for young people. Young people have lots to say and they have great things to say and often they're thinking about what they wanna say instead of listening to what's being said to them. And I would say just listen even to your clients who you think you know are providing edits that don't really matter or providing information that kind of misses the point. If you listen, there is usually something good in there that will make you better, make your argument better, make your position better. And then the last probably two things I would say is, um, don't try not to take things too personally. Uh, we, we are passionate about being lawyers. It kind of is who we are in a lot of ways for a lot of us. But, um, we see people often not at their best when they're in, uh, ad you know, adversarial mode when something bad has happened to them or when they're trying to right or wrong. And so try not to take it too personally. You, you can get sw sideswiped a lot along the way and if you don't put on a little bit of armor, it can, it can cause you some body blows. And losing is part of the job. So in this, in this adversarial process, there's always a winner and a loser. That's why I say to 100% of clients, I love to go to court. You should not love to go to court. So any, any outcome you can negotiate for yourself is gonna be any better than anything that is imposed on you in the sense that there will be a winner and there will be a loser. And even if I think you're gonna be the winner, you could be the loser. And so I think you have to internalize as a very young advocate that losing is part of the job. It's not that you failed, it's not that you've done something wrong. It's not that you should pack your bags and go find another profession. It's just if you're not losing cases, you're not taking enough risks or trying enough cases. So you have to sort of understand that going into it or it's gonna be a long, hard career.

Speaker 5: 34:05

Thank you so much, Sarita. I I I think that's great advice. I'll try to take some on some of that on board myself. Um, but thank you so much for your time today. You've shared, uh, some, some really great insights and, um, congratulations again on the award.

Speaker 6: 34:22

Thank you very much. It's been my pleasure.

Speaker 3: 34:27

Thank

Speaker 7: 34:27

You to Sar Bater and Chloe Snyder for the thoughtful discussion and great tips. Thank you to my co-editor, Ian Brennaman, our production leads, Kirsten Johammer and Natalia Rodriguez, and to the Advocate Society team and our sponsor for their support. This is web highlight co-editor of friends who argue signing off

Speaker 1: 34:48

Friends who argue is brought to you by M N P. You wanna put your best case forward in the courtroom. M n P is there to help with fact finding, analysis, insightful, reporting, incredible testimony. M N P provides a full suite of forensic and litigation support services all in one place. Their experts also provide early detection and prevention of financial irregularities so you can prepare your strongest defense. Mn P's objective team of experts in law enforcement and investigations will ensure you aren't surprised during the litigation process. Get through your next crisis with the right experts in your corner. Visit mnp.ca to learn more. That's it for our show. We hope you enjoyed listening to this episode and that you'll tune in next time. If you

Speaker 2: 35:36

Enjoyed this episode and want to stay up to date, please subscribe to our podcast on iTunes.

Speaker 1: 35:42

Friends Who Argue is brought to you by The Advocate Society, an association of advocates with over 6,000 members from all areas of practice across Canada. For more information about the Advocate Society, go to www.advocates.ca or follow us on Twitter at advocates s o c.

Speaker 2: 36:03

Until next time, we are friends who argue.