Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Deep conversations with underrated lawyers.
This is Quorum with Quorum's Quorum. My guest today is Tim Yu. Tim is a partner at Bird Marella, and he's one of the most well rounded lawyers I know. There's not a lot of lawyers who could reference the second fundamental theorem of calculus and the undertaker. We ran pretty well on topics here.
Khurram Naik:I'm hoping we can bring Tim back for a second round. Here's Tim. Alright, Tim. Well, I am really excited to sit down with you. This has been brewing for some time now, and we are I I think we could riff for a really long time on a wide range of topics.
Khurram Naik:I'm I'm super excited to see what we what we have time to get into.
Timn Yoo:Yeah. Likewise. I've been looking forward to this for a while as well. I know that when we first sat down for lunch and and just yeah. Like you said, like, riffed, I think we were talking for a long time, it just felt very natural.
Timn Yoo:I felt like I knew you for a really long time, so I'm looking for forward to this as well.
Khurram Naik:Cool. Alright. So you have I mean, I I I think just big picture, something that strikes me that's so interesting about you. You know, we were just talking a little bit, and maybe we'll get into it later on, about some of the the quantitative approaches you took to finding your spouse and how that worked out. But so, you know, you you went to Caltech, you were this applied mathematics guy, so in many ways, you are a product of that training, but you also are very eclectic in the kinds of ideas that you pull from, the disciplines that you pull from.
Khurram Naik:And I think one of the most interesting ideas or set of concepts that you riff on are the parallels between your work as a litigator and and the practice of pro wrestling. So can you can you tell us a little more about your your love of pro wrestling?
Timn Yoo:Sure. Absolutely. Well, first of all, I think it originated from when I was a child growing up. So it's very similar. If you ever seen the movie Minari that was a critic that claimed a few years ago starring Steve Young, there's scenes where he's basically a Korean American, you know, growing up in the nineteen eighties, which was very similar to to my upbringing.
Timn Yoo:And one of the memorable scenes, I think, in that movie is the the the child is, spending time with the grandmother, and they're watching professional wrestling together because there's something about that. There's something about the theatricality of that that appeals to, I guess, both young and old. So that was actually right on the nose in terms of, I think, how I grew up, where I remember spending a lot of hours, you know, on the floor while my grandma, was on the couch, in in Texas, and we were watching pro wrestling on Saturday mornings. So I think that's where I think the the genesis of that, I guess, lifelong interests, kind of grew from. But but, yeah, to your point, like, I definitely see a lot of parallels between what we do as lawyers and especially as litigators versus what, pro wrestlers and the performers that are in that world do.
Timn Yoo:Because first and foremost, I think that, look, they're they are storytellers, and we are storytellers. I think the big difference is that, look, they tell stories with sort of the action in the ring and, with their bodies and how they and how they, interact with each other. And similar to, you know, our world as as lawyers and and certainly trial lawyers is we're trying to tell a a a story. Except we we use our words and and and sometimes we use, you know, body language and our intonations and our facial expressions and things like that. So I think there's a lot of similarities in in that regard.
Timn Yoo:I also find it fascinating that if you listen to any of them speak, like, instance, if you listen to a podcast or if you listen to any, mainstream media period parents in which, a pro wrestler appears, they're they're excellent storytellers, first of all, because I think there's a very strong oral tradition in that industry. Because if you think about it, you know, they spend the bulk of their time in cars where they're trying to go to 300 shows a year. So a bulk of that time is making towns going from, let's say, LA to Sacramento, Sacramento to the next town, and they're spending hours in cars. So they're just sitting there telling each other stories, working on their delivery, and working on the payoffs and things like that. So, you know, if you listen to them speak, I find them to be really the best storytellers around.
Timn Yoo:And what the other thing that strikes me is that they also have they care a lot about their profession. They care a lot about their jobs and how to be effective at it and how to get better at it and how to, improve what they call their presentation. And their presentation consists of a lot of different things. It could consist of most basically their appearance. Obviously, they spend a lot of time in the gym.
Timn Yoo:But they also think about, how the other aspects of their presentation in terms of their their outfits, how they walk to the ring, how they walk out of the ring, how they like, the move sets that they use that are part of parts of their their their character. So I think that's very similar to what we do as lawyers because if you think about it, I mean, even from the very first client intake meeting, you're trying to project something. And hopefully, the thing that you're trying to project is a level of credibility. Mhmm. And that credibility can come from the words you say, but also how you say them, how you conduct it yourself, how you command a room or or or sort of read a situation.
Timn Yoo:So all of those things, I think, go into engendering credibility. Your first client meeting, I think that extends all the way to the time that you're ready to stand up in front of the jury and say, you know, good morning or good afternoon. My name is Tim Yu, and I represent Acme Corporation. You wanna they're gonna the the the jurors or whoever it is or the judge is going to make, I guess, a snap judgment on you about whether you're credible or not. So I think all of that goes into is part and parcel of the presentation, which is very similar in my view to the the pro wrestling world.
Timn Yoo:So, look, I I could wax on for a very long time about this, but, you know, certainly, you know, if you wanna ask me specific questions, I can I can expand further?
Khurram Naik:I do because I know you have more to say about wrestling and the structure of storytelling of wrestling for sure. So we'll pick up on that shortly. But something you just said is, you know, establishing credibility in, let's say, for instance, a client intake meeting. So, you know, I I've observed, you know, like, if you're a litigator, you go to lots of status hearings. You can observe how litigators establish credibility in a courtroom.
Khurram Naik:So I think that's something you can see a lot observe a lot of. It's free. It's public. I think what's more difficult is to get information or or insight into how people establish credibility with clients. And so do you believe that you have a set of principles or techniques that you use to establish credibility with with clients?
Khurram Naik:I guess I'd be particularly interested, you know, if that's different things you do in person, different things you do over a phone call. Tell tell me about that.
Timn Yoo:Yeah. I I think I don't know if it's, like, a technique, but I think and this is very simple, but a lot of time is just listening to what they say. You know? I worked very briefly, in a sales job where I used to sell cell phones, for a time being. But a big part of sales is they say that, look, you need to qualify your customer.
Timn Yoo:Meaning, you need to figure out what their issue is and what they wanna accomplish. And and, hopefully, you can do that as soon as possible. So a lot of that is asking a lot of questions, sort of. What do you use your cell phone for? Do you take a lot of pictures?
Timn Yoo:Do you play games? Do you do you call your grand grandkids? Do you do video calls? Things like that. So you're qualifying the customer.
Timn Yoo:So I think client intake is similar where you're you're asking them a lot of questions about what their particular issue is, and that means that you're necessarily gonna be a good listener. I think you have to be a good a good listener. So that almost goes without say. In terms of the credibility, it's also I I think it's a combination of, hopefully, they're consulting you in an area in which you have a level of expertise. So I think that needs to to come across that this is something that you know, this is an area where you have a lot of experience, a lot of knowledge.
Timn Yoo:And for me, I'm not afraid of the the I don't know answer. So I think, you know, a lot of times when you have a a discussion and you're supposed to be one of the foremost people in a field and a client asks you a question, I I think sometimes you may lose credibility by fumbling around and, like, sort of hemming and hawing and saying, well, I don't know. So I I'm never afraid to say it. I don't know the answer to that question. It's easily it's an easily noble question, hopefully.
Timn Yoo:If it's not a noble question, it's not something that can be readily figured out, then I'll tell them that as well. So I think that ties back into this notion of you need to project credibility and you need to, foremost, have confidence in what you're saying. And I think that from the listener's perspective, the amount of conviction that you you have when you're delivering your advice or your recommendations is proportionate to how much confidence they're gonna have in that recommendation.
Khurram Naik:So I I think going back to the wrestling analogy, it sounds like there's there's two you know, I think there's two dimensions of practice that are interesting is credibility with your client and then credibility with, say, a posting counsel and the judge. And, of course, there's overlaps between these, but in some ways, these are just different functions. And so maybe going back to your wrestling analogy, can you parcel out the ways in which a wrestler builds his audience, builds his, you know, supporters while also establishing who his enemy is and and and and what differentiates him from his enemy and and why he should prevail. Because it seems like the oral I mean, like, yeah, I'm not particularly familiar with pro wrestling. I've seen some of it, but it seems to me that it's not about athletic expertise or or prevailing that way.
Khurram Naik:It's about who has the better story and and and having that story prevail. So can you speak to more about that that how how you build your audience and then how you talk about your, say, opposing counsel and judge and how you build I I don't know if there's a credibility component that you are trying to build with all of these or some other analog of quality that you have as a litigator, but I'd be interested in hearing about that.
Timn Yoo:Yeah. 100%. So I will let you in on a secret, and I'm hoping I'm not divulging any spoiling anything for the audience that's listening. But but, yes, pro wrestling is not a genuine athletic competition. It is essentially, it is essentially, like, a live action morality play in which things are predetermined and things are largely choreographed to a degree.
Timn Yoo:So you're you're absolutely correct. It's not a genuine contest of who is who is trying to win. But I think what's important about that, though, once you acknowledge that and and once you you you sort of recognize and appreciate the premise of it, is that it's still very important to maintain the credibility of a character because the big conceit of that is the audience members, including me, they we want to suspend our disbelief for that amount of time. We want to be completely enamored and completely lost in that world for whatever amount of time that we choose. So it's important for the the characters and the performers to, a, stay in character, not do things that would take you sort of out of that moment.
Timn Yoo:It'd be no different than if you're watching Mission Impossible and Tom Cruise who's playing the Ethan Hunt character and you've invested into this Ethan Hunt character and you believe the world that they're in, if he all of a sudden sort of stops and and says something as Tom Cruise and it takes you out of that. I think it's very similar to that. So it's important to for the for the performers themselves to to maintain, I guess, consistency and continuity in their characters. So for instance, if you have someone, just as an example, let's say, as the Undertaker who is, you know, he's essentially the walking undead or he's he's somewhere in between, you know, mortal and immortal. There's certain things that that character is gonna do, and there's certain things that the character is not going to do.
Timn Yoo:So there's there's and different characters are gonna react differently in different situations. So I think it's important for them to sort of maintain that. And for him, in particular, he's done a great job of doing that for close to thirty five years now where, you know, when he was an active performer for close to thirty years, he never gave any interviews. Never. Because he always stayed in that character.
Timn Yoo:And he would talk about how when he was walking through airports, he was always gonna be that character, whether it was 3AM in the morning or two in the afternoon and some, you know, children are seeing him. He's always gonna stay that way because he wants to make it easier for the audience to buy in and not sort of, in a way, make it known that, hey, this is not a real thing. This is really a gimmick, and this thing that we're all passionate about is a silly thing at its core. So I think that's important. So and you mentioned sort of the role of, you know, villains and, protagonists in that world.
Timn Yoo:So the the protagonists are known as baby faces, and the villains are colloquially colloquially known as heels. So there's a dynamic between heels and villains. And just like anything else, you need to have a very dynamic, imposing, threatening heel to to allow the the the the protagonist or the the baby face to have a worthy foil. So I think another thing that they're good at is setting up the conflict. And the way that they set up the conflicts is, you know, you make you make the villain someone who is very imposing, perhaps indomitable.
Timn Yoo:So when the the baby face actually wins, then that win means something. So I think they're very important about treating their opponents with the appropriate amount of fictional disdain. And what I mean by that is they're very good about, you know, when they're when when they say something like, hey. Look. You're you're you're you're you're washed up or your your boobs are terrible.
Timn Yoo:I I could beat you easily. They never say that. If you listen to them, they'll never say things like that. They'll say say things like, hey, I think you're a rotten person. Look, I I I didn't like the way you did that, but I respect you in the ring.
Timn Yoo:Like, you know, you've been doing this for however many years. You're you're one of the toughest SOBs that are walking God's green earth. And I hope I can beat you. But, and that's really sort of what the the the way that they set up that conflict. Because at the end of the day, look, if you beat a nobody, then what does that make you?
Timn Yoo:So I think that they they take that aspect of it, very seriously. But I think the the performers that tend to be more successful so, I mean, we talked a little bit about that this arbitrary world about, you know, no one wins the title in the ring. You you someone selects you to Mhmm. Be promoted, so to speak, to be able to to to win that title. And it's not it's not unlike any professional setting.
Timn Yoo:It's it's a lot like a lot of professional settings, including a law firm setting, where you people look at how credible you are, how dependable you are, how you are relating to your audience, whether that's clients or in the pro wrestling world, the the the viewing, the paying fan, and how effectively you are at that and your those performers who are the most effective at that, whether that's being the best performers in the ring with technical ability or the ability to to attract attract a large audience to the live shows or TV. Those are, I guess, the rainmakers, so to speak. Those are the ones who tend to get promoted. And in that world, they that's called being pushed. They get pushed or they they their their storylines are elevated and prioritized.
Timn Yoo:So I I think that's another sort of interesting parallel.
Khurram Naik:So is there something I mean, in law, we have a tendency to take ourselves very seriously. You know, we're working on in these weighty issues or in these courts, which are very formal. Judges wearing this, you know, black robe. You don't see that in any other part of society. So there certainly is a theatricality to it, but it's also very serious.
Khurram Naik:And I guess I'm struck with what you're saying about these professional wrestlers, especially the ones that have endured the most, like, say, the Undertaker, and that, you know, the gut level reaction society has to to pro wrestling is as trivial as ridiculous. And notwithstanding that silliness or whatever and and maybe they would self describe and self recognize. I don't know enough about how these wrestlers think about their profession to say, yes. It is this ridiculous thing, and yet it's possible to take something ridiculous very seriously and still proceed with that as a professional. And I wonder if you see any I don't know how similar that is to law, but, you know, that that's very striking about that profession.
Khurram Naik:I wonder if that's had any impact on you.
Timn Yoo:It is. And maybe not to put too fine a a point on it, but I think going on what you said about it's a it's a serious profession, there's serious issues, and there's issues that are important to the the principles that we we represent. And by the principles, I mean, with LES as well as ALS. So the agent principle context. So for the clients we represent, look, it's these are very important issues, and this is oftentimes the most important thing going on in their their lives.
Timn Yoo:Certainly, the most the foremost in their mind about what's going on. So I think it's it's incumbent on us. It's mandatory for us to take those things seriously, and there's a lot of parts of the process that are serious. Like you mentioned, you know, we go to court and there's someone deciding these issues, and they're wearing robes, and it's a very august situation in a lot of ways. But I think that is a little bit different than taking yourself too seriously.
Timn Yoo:So I think that there's aspects of it that I think you should allow yourself to, as a lawyer, to enjoy certain moments of levity at times. And and to be clear, I don't mean to suggest. I actually think I have a strong opinion of this is that I I'm not a fan of, let's say, humor in the courtroom. So I think it's fine to break up a tense moment, maybe with a quip or a one liner, maybe in very sparing circumstances. But I'm not at all a proponent of trying to cut up and and trying to say something clever or even sarcastic or funny because it just doesn't read well on a record.
Timn Yoo:I don't think it plays that particularly well. So in, you know, in the situation of a courtroom, I think it's similar to being like the Undertaker. Like, I'm sure the the man himself is a very charismatic, funny guy. But when he's in that ring, there's certain things that he will do and there's certain things that he won't do. He certainly won't cut up and and laugh because he's a very serious undead character.
Timn Yoo:I think that's similar to the courtroom, but I also view it as distinct from take I'll I'll put it this way. Absolutely take the the issues seriously and your client's concerns and the legal disputes that they're facing seriously, but give yourself some grace to to not take yourself serious at all times. And if you wanna indulge in silly hobbies or or silly, you know, silly content, like, think have at it.
Khurram Naik:Yeah. I think that's an interesting point because I that comes up for me in the context of how I present myself in social media. So I use LinkedIn a lot, and I posted very often and have for some years now. And so that's been a growing audience. I mean, that's actually how you and I met is you had a comment on my post, then you and I just I I I thought your comment was really thoughtful, so I you know, we just started having we had a phone call from there.
Khurram Naik:Just, you know, it kind of snowballed from there. And so with you're raising a really interesting point because I feel like my persona, let's say, in law school is like, I I think, you know, that I I I was definitely serious about law school, but I really liked having fun and making fun of the circumstances. And there was, you know, some friends of mine who were just just there were some hilarious people in law school. And, of course, there's so much pressure, and you're together so much. So there's just so much option to have just a lot of fun and laugh a lot.
Khurram Naik:And I find myself I I I don't really access a lot of that. Like, I don't think I'm as funny anymore, to be honest. And definitely, like, my LinkedIn persona is, like, there's there's definitely some people in, say, legal spheres that whose persona is I'm a funny person. And that's definitely a niche, and and definitely these kinds of people get a lot of attention and engagement. And, certainly, some of them also have serious substantive intelligent things to say.
Khurram Naik:For me, I I think I might take maybe more of the undertaker approach is, like, I'd rather have a consistent persona that people know. You know, I I'd seen somebody else who has been very prolific and and cutting edge and using the Internet to grow businesses and media. And this person, observed, his name's Tiago Forte, and he had made an observation about a newsletter. He's like, well, a newsletter, you should treat this as a TV show. Right?
Khurram Naik:It should be on at the same time every every week, and you know what you're getting in that newsletter. And it'll just the way you would the TV show. Seinfeld's on at 7PM on Tuesdays. You know what you're getting when when 7PM rolls around. And so I try for that consistency of persona at LinkedIn at the cost of, yes, like, having some fun, cutting loose, whatever.
Khurram Naik:But I'm I'm in favor of that because I think it's increased a a uniformity of experience. And then it also helps me understand It's kinda like maybe like that that that parable of the the cat and the tiger where the tiger's like, hey. Like, I'm tiger taught those cat cats. Oh my god. Show me your ways.
Khurram Naik:You know so many things. Tiger's like, oh, yeah. I got this trick. I got that trick. I think of that trick.
Khurram Naik:And here, I'll show you this one trick. You jump up from the top of the tree. The cat's like, okay. Cool. So then he learns that trick from the tiger.
Khurram Naik:And then a hunter or something like that comes along and coming out to both of them. And cat's like, oh my god. I'm just gonna do the one thing I know. It jumps in the tree. And Tiger's like, okay.
Khurram Naik:How am I gonna hit this hunter? I got so many good ops here, then the the hunter nabs the tiger. So, yeah, I I think I favor having fewer options, which I actually think ties into. I wonder if you would make the connection. I think something really interesting that you observe made about your practice is you try to make 20 decisions a day.
Khurram Naik:So I wonder if you make a connection between the ways you litigate, you know, the ways you present yourself in the courtroom and and and and approaches you take maybe with clients as well, because you talked a little bit about client intake and, like, maybe you just you have a limited set of tools, which is, hey. I'm primarily here to listen or whatever. Does that all tie together with this twenty twenty decisions a day? Can you tell us more about the 20 decisions a day?
Timn Yoo:Yeah. Absolutely. Right. It it's become somewhat of my gimmick at this point, but I think the origin of that is that I'd read somewhere that once you make a certain level of decisions or certain number of decisions a day, you start suffering decision fatigue, and therefore, the quality of your decisions sometimes degrades. So I can't remember if that number was 20 or 25 or whatever what what what or whatever it was.
Timn Yoo:But I decided, look. I'm gonna try to keep the number of decisions I make below 20. And and, obviously, that's not possible. You make a lot of choices in a day, but but it's I think it's a useful heuristic to think about in terms of limiting the quality or limiting the number of quality decisions. So for example, I guess an extreme example of this is I remember I went to, like, a boba tea shop once, and they asked, okay.
Timn Yoo:Would you like a small, medium, or lard? Okay. Would you like boba or no boba? Do you want 30% filled boba or or 60% filled boba? Do you want okay.
Timn Yoo:So yes. Yes. And then okay. Then do you want sugar, no and that's why I said, like, just just give me a drink. Just just make me my drink.
Timn Yoo:And obviously, that's an extreme example. But but the point is, I I think I try to be very deliberate about, I guess, the what I will call the high leverage decisions I make. And I try to make low variance decisions where I can. Because over the course of litigation, over the course of trial, and I tell I tell my teams this is that I think we should try to the to the extent possible to make low variance decisions where the outcomes don't swing wildly, where so that means, like, for me, I guess, I'm a little bit risk averse in in in terms of making a decision that could be a huge home run if it goes well. But at the same time, if it doesn't go well, then it's a complete disaster.
Timn Yoo:Disaster. So let's say that you make a decision to call a certain witness that you're on the fence about. This witness, if he hits or he or she hits that that piece of testimony or or says something about your case, that could be a home run for your case. On the other hand, if that person gets obliterated on cross examination, it could be ruinous to your case. Then I think that's something that I would have to think really hard about.
Timn Yoo:And to me, that would probably fall in the category of a high variance decision. And I'm not saying I'm never gonna make that call, but I try to avoid those to the extent possible because over the course of whether it's 20 decisions in a day or a 140 decisions in a week, over the course of a trial, those high variance decisions tend to compound. So, you know, obviously, hopefully, the time you get to trial, you feel enough strength and conviction in your positions that you don't need to rely on these high variance decisions. But sometimes maybe you're in a position where you're not as strong on the strength of the arguments or the evidence, and you sort of need to rely on these tech these these types of decisions. It's similar to I guess, I'm not a gambler myself, but if you go to Vegas and play certain table games that you need to be able to take advantage of these high variance swings and leverage that in order to have success.
Timn Yoo:Because over the course of time, as the the sample size increases, it's, you know, the house edge is always gonna win. So I I view it that way in terms of the decision making process, and I give I think that's a way of saying I I give a lot of deliberate thought to how those decisions are made.
Khurram Naik:So is I wonder if part of that is somebody who influenced me early in my career as a litigator explained that the key part of what a lawyer is selling is it just goes back to earlier where we talked about credibility. A key part what a lawyer sells is a peace of mind. And so I think protected for litigators, litigation is inherently it's, you know, unpredictable. And that's maybe arguably a feature, not a bug, of litigation is that, you know, that unpredictability forces parties to get serious about saying, okay. What are the issues we really wanna pare down to and and get resolution on?
Khurram Naik:And so in that way, in in litigation, particularly being so unpredictable, then what you're you can't predict or fully control outcomes. But what you can communicate to clients and and sell clients on is this idea that, hey. We took a risk adjusted pros approach on this and having factor in the variance of the different decisions we can make. This is the best risk adjusted path we could have chosen. So I wonder, is that part of your thinking of thinking about, hey.
Khurram Naik:Like, in terms of client management to say, here's what expect and forecast for this case. Is is that is that part of the rationale for for choosing those low variants?
Timn Yoo:It's not only part of the rationale. I think that is the rationale. I think if you captured it in in one fifty statement, that's how I would capture it is you're right. You can't control outcomes. So I tell I tell myself this.
Timn Yoo:I try to follow this. I tell my case teams this, but I I say, look, our job is governed by, in my opinion, one formula. So, you know, I studied applied math in in college and dealt with a lot of formulas. But I think in the job that we have, one formula applies. And that formula is the level of your client's satisfaction in any given situation is gonna be equal to the level of expectations they have minus the outcomes.
Timn Yoo:So as you said, you can't we we have a lot less control of the outcomes than we would like to think. So let's let's assume let's seed control of that and say we have very little control of the outcome. I think that what you have the most control over, not, again, not a 100% control over, but certainly, in my view, more control than the outcome is managing the level of your client's expectations. So that's to say that if their expectation is that they're gonna hit a home run at trial and win on every issue, and that's their expectation going in, and you deliver that outcome and you you do great and you hit every issue and the jury loves you and sides with you and you achieve that outcome, well, guess what? Those two things are equivalent.
Timn Yoo:So your client is maybe not gonna be that jazzed regardless of of the job that you did. So I think that and and that's not to say I'm not sitting here and saying that I think you you need to not be 100% genuine about the expectations, but I do think you need to be very realistic and constantly resetting those based on every situation that arises because that could change over time. So let's say over the course of litigation, depending on how the ruling on a on a on a motion goes or how certain testimony goes, I think you have to constantly revisit that and update the expectations and adjust them. So I do think that's part and parcel of why again, in my opinion, the prudent path is to take these low variance series of low variance decisions because a high variance decision necessarily means that the outcome could swing wildly, the expectations could swing wildly. Mhmm.
Timn Yoo:And if it's not worth it, it it would have to be very calculated in in a in a sense. So to to your first point, I I think that's that's sort of what permeates everything is abiding by that formula that I just mentioned. And I think in any client services business, that's you you have to you have to do that. And I think foremost is always managing the expectations of the principles that you work for.
Khurram Naik:You mentioned earlier this concept of qualifying in a sales context with and sales is really just another form of communication and and and and influence. And as a lawyer, you are communicating and influencing your clients. So these there's a a nexus or or maybe sales and and client management are are are as a lawyer are two of the same things. And so in a sales context, you mentioned the concept of qualifying, and I also think about I think more in terms of of disqualifying. And so, you know, as as a legal recruiter, I talk to people who are at outstanding firms and doing great work at those firms routinely.
Khurram Naik:And so early question I have that I revisit is, hey. Look. You are it sounds like you're getting great experience. You've got a great team, and you're at a great firm. Why would you even consider making a change?
Khurram Naik:And so that helps manage expectations and really ensures there's a clear narrative for them for why they'd even make the change, and then that's something that we can hone in on. And then, okay. So if that is the goal, then let's maintain that goal, if you really clarify the narrative there. So and I'm wondering for you, you know, as you progress in the course of a case, new information arises that can change expectations. How do you so I I just use this concept of disqualifying.
Khurram Naik:Say, hey. Here's all the reasons why maybe you won't make a change. And and by the way, in practice, it almost is never the case. I I it's extremely rare that somebody does not make a change if they are initiating this path of making a change when they work with me in particular. But I'm curious for you, what is the communication principle or technique you're using for for setting expectations and communicating those?
Timn Yoo:I I think a good start is what I talked about in terms of qualifying your your client. So at the very outset, I think what I one of the first questions I always ask is, what is the home run outcome from you here? That's one of the either the first or second question I asked after, tell me what happened, is what is the outcome? If I had a pen and paper and this is a script and or if this this is a progressing match and I could book the ending of the match, How would how do you see this ending? And I think that you have to listen to that and internalize it, and hopefully, the recommendations and the actions that you take are consistent with that.
Timn Yoo:And then to the extent practical, I try to to do that. So I think that it is constant communication is right. Because, obviously, if you're not communicating and having an open mind and open ear and listening, then you're not gonna always be attuned to things that could be changing every day. Because, obviously, whether it's an individual client or it's a company that has a lot of different stakeholders that have a lot of different interests, their whole paradigm could change day to day. And their expectations at any given piece of litigation could change and their objectives, there could be a management turnover, and therefore, certain things are prioritized.
Timn Yoo:Certain things might be prioritized this quarter that aren't prioritized next quarter. For individual client, there might be circumstances in their life that change. So their expectations and what they wanna get out of it are not going to be fixed and static. So I think it's a mistake if you think that that initial the information that you have at initial intake is going to be the same throughout a typical piece of litigation, which typically lasts between two and a half, three and a half three and a half years. So at some point during those two and a half and three and half years, if it goes to trial, it could be longer, those goals and objectives are almost necessarily going to be different or there's certain aspects of it that are gonna be more important.
Timn Yoo:Certain aspects are gonna be less important. But I think the point is that you wanna always be attuned to what your client wants. So and that goes to the basic thing of asking them, having conversations with them, give seeking feedback. Let me know your thoughts. Asking a lot of questions.
Khurram Naik:Can you go back to, you know, you mentioned you're an applied mathematics major, and so you're using this concept of low variance, and you've got this, you know, this this formula. I wonder, you know, when you talk about low variance, that's a statistical principle that's effective for understanding outcomes. And so I wonder, are there any other fundamental mathematical principles that you use in in in thinking through decisions, litigation or otherwise? Like, something that comes to mind for me is a concept like reversion to the mean. It's a it's a fundamental property of of of numbers that I think you need to understand, or you just talked about the law of large numbers as well about the compounding effects of of either high variance or low variance decisions.
Khurram Naik:Are there any mathematical principles that you think you rely on heavily or ones you think that just more lawyers should be aware of and and use?
Timn Yoo:I think reversion to the mean is a great one. I like that. One I thought about recently, and I don't wanna get too abstract about it, was perhaps the the the sec I I might be messing this up, but as I recall it, the the sec the second fundamental rule of calculus. And I I think about that. I thought about that a lot lately in the context of I read a book recently that I really liked called getting to neutral, and it was written by a guy named Trevor Moad.
Timn Yoo:And he was the performance coach for, among others, Russell Wilson, who was a Super Bowl winning quarterback for the Seattle seahawks. But his whole concept was it wasn't, hey. You should have this positive mental attitude at all times and have this rah rah mindset. It was, to the extent possible, always try to get back to neutral thinking. So it's the notion that if even if things are going horribly wrong and things are going bad I think the example that he used was Russell Wilson had thrown three interceptions in the first half of a football game.
Timn Yoo:But negative thinking is obviously, we just don't have it tonight. Sorry. We gotta pack it in. Positive thinking would be more like, there's nothing that we can't overcome. We can over overcome this if we just try really, really, really hard.
Timn Yoo:Neutral thinking is more like, okay. I've thrown three interceptions. Is the game out of reach? No. Okay.
Timn Yoo:So if the game is not out of reach, that means we still have enough time to score enough points to be able to win this game. Then thinking backwards, like, what do I have to then do to score those points? So if I'm two touchdowns behind, I need to score two touchdowns in a field goal or three touchdowns or certainly three more touchdowns than the other team is gonna score. So what do I do? What are the things I can do to to adjust that?
Timn Yoo:So I think that is the shift to neutral thinking. And the whole philosophy behind that is if you have negative velocity before you get to positive velocity, you necessarily have to shift to zero velocity, which was where the second fundamental theorem of calculus comes in is that at some point in time, if something's moving backwards and you have to have it move forward, at some point in time, the the the, you know, the the change of position, the rate of change of position is gonna have to equal zero. So I really like this notion of getting back to zero, getting back to neutral because in the course of a litigation, in the course of a trial, things like that are always gonna happen. And I think you need to have a level head and say, this bad thing happened. This witness or my key witness just gave away the farm.
Timn Yoo:He just admitted to, like, something devastating or they just adduced this document that is not helpful. That's not a helpful fact that has things that are very damaging to my case. Let's get back to after I dog cuss myself or whoever that is. Let's get back to, well, is this still a winnable case? Can I still prove what I'm supposed to prove?
Timn Yoo:And if that if the premise of that is is yes, you can still proceed to do that, then it goes to, okay, then what are the all the things I need to to to do to to achieve that outcome? So, you know, to answer it a a very long winded way of answering your question is, like, I I think about that a lot is sort of trying to arrest momentum. If it's, you know, moving backwards, negative momentum, and then steering it in a positive direction, but getting to that neutral place first where you can sort of have a level headed objective view of the world. Hopefully making a lot of low variance decisions along the way. So, yeah, a funny story about that is I it it's funny, but I I I halfway joke about it.
Timn Yoo:But, you know, when I'm hosting, let's say, opposing counsel for a deposition at my office or something like that, I always make sure to, you know, to offer them coffee or tea. Do you want water? Do you want ice with that water? Do you want a mug? Do you want a cup?
Timn Yoo:So I've I've already burned up half of their decisions before we even go on the record.
Khurram Naik:That is diabolical. But so, Ashley, I'm interested when you mentioned version of me, the first thing that came to mind was that concept, I don't know if it's biblical or not, of this too shall pass. And what's interesting about that concept is that applies to both poor outcomes and positive outcomes. And so I wonder how up would you use neutral thinking even when you're doing really well? So you're up, you know, doing really well, and, oh, man, looks like, you know, we're we're getting some really damaging emissions at trial or whatever.
Khurram Naik:Do you still do that level set to say, okay. Things are going well. You know, what but but let me just make sure what else could go wrong here. Let me just, you know, proof against that.
Timn Yoo:I try to because I think that I try to the extent I can to be process oriented more than outcome oriented. So I try to focus on what was correct about a certain process and not about so much about outcomes that you can't always control, like we talked about. So we like to think that we can, and we like to think that a certain outcome was a direct byproduct of our inspired thinking or our precision decision making and things like that. But I think if you're realistic and honest with yourself, you recognize that that's not always the case. So to the extent possible, I try to focus more on the processes.
Timn Yoo:And and for instance, if there's something wrong about the process or some optimal, and yet there was notwithstanding that, the outcome was positive in the circumstances despite, let's say, poor preparation or something I didn't anticipate, then I try to think about it in terms of things that could be better about the process. And also at the same time, not throw the baby out with the bathwater when things are are are like, there's a bad outcome and look more in terms of worse were there things about that that I could have controlled? So, you know, as you know, like in a trial, like, we don't we don't create all the we don't create the evidence. We can't control the the, you know, people talking about what they saw. We can't we didn't we didn't create the underlying events.
Timn Yoo:So we we, to a large degree, we we have to work with what we have, meaning that if you apply the same principles and the same processes to every trial, the outcomes are not always gonna be the same. So, you know, one one way I like to think about it is I've been playing more golf lately, but sometimes I might have a bad swing. I might hit the top of a golf ball, and it might just roll for a 150 yards right down the middle of the fairway, which is a good outcome. Other times, you know, I might have a really good solid swing, have a really good, committed swing to it and just not make center face contact and it might go astray. Or maybe I strike the ball really well and I hit it exactly how that ball is supposed to be hit by that club at that distance, and it happens to go into the water because there happens to be a water trap on this course where there wasn't one at another course.
Timn Yoo:So all this to say is I I I think that you have to look at the way that you're doing something more so than what what actually happened. And I know that's difficult. Obviously, that's against human nature. But I think in the profession that we have, to a large degree, we have to have that mindset because I don't think you can go in and have a mindset and say, well, this outcome wasn't good, so therefore, I must have done something wrong or I'm no good as a lawyer. And that's not to say that you shouldn't have a level of self reflection because it could be that both the outcome and the process were not optimized.
Timn Yoo:So but I think if you focus more on the process and how you optimize that, that is key to our profession. And frankly, as part of the job I really like is this notion that you have to always look at how things are doing, your process. I think I find rewarding endeavors, aspects of the job that require a lot of routine and repetition in terms of trying to get better at it. So I think that that's part of that's a big part of what, you know, appeals to me about what we do as for a living.
Khurram Naik:So tell me about it it seems like there's an interesting relationship between this low variance process oriented approach to working case with the practice orientation of challenging yourself by taking on new kinds of cases, and I know you, like, you recently had a trial, and and that was new subject matter for you. How do you think about that in terms of because, like, that's risky. Right? Like, that's risky to take on some unknown new kinds of work. You know, a low variance approach to the work itself is with Tim, you're a patent litigator by training, and so just focus on that.
Khurram Naik:Only do patent litigation. Maybe even niche more into that. You know, maybe you're the friend patent litigator or whatever. Tell me about the relation between that low variance process oriented approach with challenging yourself by and then challenging yourself and also keep yourself interested in the field as you progress by taking on new subject matter that you're not familiar with and that you you wanna do well with.
Timn Yoo:Yeah. Absolutely. And I would say with very there are obviously exceptions to this, and I think you mentioned some of them. Like, even within our IP industry, there are certain specialties that even people who have been in a long time, you would need to have that specialized training like FRAND or, like, Hatch Waxman litigation or something like that. But aside from those very specific niches, I think that you can abstract any dispute to a principle that spreads across all cases.
Timn Yoo:Right? At the end of the day, what we do is we're litigating over a breach of a legal duty. And that legal duty might be conferred by a patent that says that you can't do something for a certain period or others can't do some something for a certain period. Or it could be conferred by a contract, a piece of paper that says, you you will do this in exchange for for that. And what we're litigating at the end of the day is a breach of that legal duty.
Timn Yoo:So I'm not trying to be glib about that point and say, that means that all lawyers can do all all all manners of dispute. But I think you can abstract it enough. And if you abstract it in a way and you tell yourself, is that something that I can do? Then I think that that's a a good way to push yourself is that you're right. It might not be necessarily in the wheelhouse of things I've I've done all the time, but if it's something that it's at at the end of the day, we have to go and and figure out who's telling the truth, who is making more sense with their positions, you know, how did people treat each other, what legal duties did they have among themselves, who didn't perform that legal duty.
Timn Yoo:And so I think that's at the core of every legal dispute. So I try not to cabin myself necessarily. But, yeah, to your point, there's gonna be aspects of it that you you a subject area that you haven't picked up or a piece of technology or an industry that you're not as familiar with. And that's also the fun part of it as well, is getting in and doing a deep dive and and figuring out the things that matter, the things that don't matter. And that's part of the challenge that that goes into this this very dynamic profession that we call, you know, the legal the legal profession.
Khurram Naik:On the topic of of exposing yourself to different kinds of work, I I think something that's really interesting in your background is, you know, you were an IP litigator at at two great firms in LA, and then you took the unusual step of going in house to a entertainment company in Korea. Can you tell me some or and share some more here about how you came to that decision and and the impact that that that's had on your on your career?
Timn Yoo:Absolutely. I I think it was the the in retrospect, it turned out to be the most important decision I made in my life. The the best decision I made in my life in you know, categorically, I'll just say it was the best decision I ever made in my life. That said, at the time, sitting there making that decision, I can't sit here and say it was the byproduct of, again, a ton of ton of prescience. That's that's not to say that I didn't give it some thought and weigh the pros and cons and and things like that.
Timn Yoo:I think, foremost, I had an open mind about and I think it wasn't a rash snap decision. It was something that was percolating for a few years prior to that, which is this notion of, you know, I'm a Korean American. My parents immigrated here in the nineteen seventies. So I was born and raised in in Texas. I grew up here my entire life.
Timn Yoo:I traveled back to Korea frequently to visit my grandparents. And then at some point, my dad moved back to Korea. So I had a lot of occasions to to go back and spend a lot of time there, but I never lived there. And for that matter, I never lived outside of the The US ever. So I figured it was a good time period where I told myself sometime in the next few years, if the opportunity presents itself, that I could go live and work in Korea for some period of time, that I would have a very open mind to that.
Timn Yoo:So it turned out back in 02/2013, so it's been twelve years or so, there at CJ. They had a very specific opportunity where there was a piece of securities litigation, and it was high priority within the company, and they needed someone specific. They wanted someone that had experience litigating in California because it's pending in in California. They've reached out to their networks and asked around to see if anyone would be potentially interested, any experienced California litigators who were willing to consider relocating to Seoul, Korea, and taking the job and and being responsible for that piece of litigation. So I think it was a it was one of those situations fortuitous situations of being in the right place, right time, having enough of a open mind to consider that opportunity.
Timn Yoo:So I took a look, and I said, like you said, I I worked at two great law firms in LA. Part of the calculus was law firms will always be there. At least that was my my gamble or my my projection. And maybe that was prudent or imprudent, but I I figured, look, law firms are always gonna be there. This opportunity seems fleeting.
Timn Yoo:This is a time in my life where I'm I'm you know, there's not as much inertia to overcome. I didn't have family at the time. I wasn't married at the time. So it was, in a lot of ways, easy for me to port myself over halfway across the world. So I decided to to just take the opportunity.
Timn Yoo:And there's an aspect of YOLO to it as well. Right? You only live once. So I figured why not? And in retrospect, it turned out to be the best decision for myriad reasons.
Khurram Naik:Well, let's get into some of them. A first jumping off point is there was something there was, like, a motto emblazoned on the wall there. And are you sure what that was and and and your your thoughts and thoughts on it now.
Timn Yoo:Yeah. Absolutely. So as you mentioned, CJ is is one of the biggest or is probably the biggest entertainment and media conglomerate in Korea. But, like, it also has a lot of different business units. So it has a logistics affiliate that does shipping and and moving.
Timn Yoo:It has CJ Foods where they they package a lot of the foods and and create a lot of the foods that you might be familiar with, you know, in your supermarket. They have a lot of different business lines. But for CJ and and I worked at the entertainment side of it. And at the time, this was 02/2013, and they had, like you said, emblazoned on the wall. Every wall, every hallway, every workspace, every bathroom, every stall, there was this notion of the the the great CJ vision 2020, the 2020 vision.
Timn Yoo:So kind of a cheesy what I thought was a a marketing gimmick, this great CJ 2020 vision. But if you read what it said, it said, look. Our mission as a company is that we the objective is by the year 2020, we want every citizen of Earth to consume one piece of K pop content a week, watch one Korean drama a month, eat one Korean meal a month, or or something like that. That was the metric and the standard for success that they wanted. And everything that they did was driving toward that outcome.
Timn Yoo:And at the time, I I thought it was silly. I thought it was a gimmick and, you know, frankly, probably snickered about it and thought it was unrealistic. But seven years on and by the time we actually got to the year 2020, I think they either achieved that outcome or got as close to it as anyone, you know, probably had the right to expect to do. And I think to me, that was impactful because it showed me that those things don't happen by accident. They they don't you don't sort of set out to to to do something and then you land at a spot.
Timn Yoo:I think it showed me that it was the product of a lot of deliberate thinking and actions behind those thoughts. And if you look now, like, you know, if you go on Netflix and you see a lot of the the top content is is Korean content, a lot of the top performers on the Billboard charts are K pop MusicX, I think a lot of that wasn't by accident. And in fact, a lot of that was a lot of smart and talented people working a lot of hours with a lot of strategic thinking behind that and a lot of effort, and that's the outcome of all that. It wasn't this sort of lightning in a bottle and some phenomenon. It was more of I view it as more of a a byproduct of large scale strategic action.
Timn Yoo:And to me, that was very impactful to see that to see that in action.
Khurram Naik:So what else is the legacy of having this stint in house? Like, how did that change perspective if if someone had never worked in house and just did great work at a great firm? What what's the difference in perspective that you have or or the sets of tools that you have that that somebody didn't have experiences doesn't have?
Timn Yoo:I think in a lot of ways, it changes your perspective and your whole paradigm in a lot of ways because fundamentally, we're we're a service we're we're we're all service professionals. So as outside counsel, we, more often than not, work for, in house lawyers at companies. So they're, you know, your clients. They're your customers, if you wanna think about it that way. So viewing it from the customer side was very eye opening.
Timn Yoo:So I like I like to to to to joke that I'm probably the only lawyer at my law firm who's both been a provider of my law firm's legal services as well as a consumer of those services. So if you view it from the consumer side perspective, I think it's very informative because you recognize, you know, what are the things that make a lawyer user friendly, so to speak, easy to work with, a pleasure to work with in a lot of ways. What are the things that are important from the in house perspective? Because, you know, when you go in house, as you have a lot of different stakeholders, and those stakeholders are different than, you know, when you're an associate at a law firm, those are the law firm partners that you work for. You know, when you're in house, a lot of times, there's a folks who are on the business side, a very particular business unit, whether it's at CDA Entertainment, we had a lot of different business lines.
Timn Yoo:So at any given moment, you're talking to the folks who are in charge of film production or film distribution, music distribution, figuring out what to do with the next K pop act or the next piece of content. You know, I think CJ produced Parasite, which won the Oscar a few years ago. So they had a very robust film division as well and, you know, live performances. So at any given point, you have a lot of different stakeholders in a lot of different industries. And you recognize that at a law firm, you have a very focused objective in in a sense.
Timn Yoo:And it's you have tunnel vision about that, and all of your efforts and the time that you've spent in is is driving toward, in my case, handling a piece of litigation. But you realize that when you're in house, the objective of a company is to make money in a different industry, whether it is to, like, sell more, sell out a concert or sell movie tickets or or or something like that. So thinking about it in terms of how you support them and how your legal function is really only an aspect of that larger enterprise was eye opening to me. It was also eye opening in terms of this this sense of proportionality that not every dispute requires the same approach. So there could be a very tailored approach.
Timn Yoo:Sometimes the objective is to be more measured, to be more collaborative, to try to sort of impel an outcome that, you know, maybe preserves a relationship. Sometimes sometimes you wanna, you know right. Unleash the junkyard dog and take a more aggressive approach. But that whole experience gave me different perspective on that. And then, you know, taking a step back, just having literally a perspective from the other side of the world was very interesting as well.
Timn Yoo:And I think that changed my entire paradigm of thinking in terms of something's better or worse. So after my time there, it was always things are different, not better or worse, different in some ways and similar in other ways. That goes all the way to there's aspects of living in Korea that I enjoyed more. There's aspects of living in Korea that I enjoyed less. It was just different than, not better than or or worse than.
Timn Yoo:Same thing with working in house or working at a law firm. I think there's aspects of working at a law firm that are that I personally prefer. There's aspects that I don't prefer as much. So it's just a different experience. But I think having that different experience was invaluable to give you that perspective.
Khurram Naik:And and you're that's something you're interesting about being in house in I recognize you weren't in house at a US based company, but, of course, you service US based companies as well. And so I'm curious about, you know, when I hear about these Korean conglomerates, it's very interesting, and it's it's you know, The United States had this conglomerate phase in, like, the sixties or whatever. And so, you know, they're in South Korea, they're very successful today with these apparently, clearly. And so but it's it's definitely not in vogue anymore. Right?
Khurram Naik:Know, US companies are much more focused on fewer verticals. And so I'm curious, is there anything that you think American companies can learn from from South Korean companies for what they're successful at?
Timn Yoo:That's a yeah. That's a great question. You know, obviously, having lived and worked there and observed it, I think what was striking to me, like I said, is this notion that most everything is is is routinized. So they have processes and they follow those processes and they're very deliberate and strategic. And I'm not to say not to say that US companies don't don't do that.
Timn Yoo:Don't do that. Obviously, they do. But I think the degree to which I observed it was eye opening in terms of how deliberate, like I said, deliberate and wrote. Maybe wrote's a word that they're gonna chart a direction, and then they're gonna go in that direction, and they're gonna work really, really hard to to get there. To so to see that number of capable and talented people working that hard at that scale, it just wasn't surprising to me that they were able to to achieve their vision at the time and then sort of in terms of Korean conglomerates and and what they represent in Korean society as a whole.
Timn Yoo:I think that's clearly the reason why they were Korea was able to pull itself out of a bad situation where thirty, thirty five years ago, you know, in in my lifetime, it was a developing country. I mean, you go back to the time when my parents immigrated from Korea to The US, it was I think it had a gross domestic product that was lower than Vietnam. It was definitely a developing country, and and now it's I don't know if it's g 13 or g 14, but I think it's directly a a product of that that approach and that collective movement. So I think that's one thing that I did see. And and then, again, I'm not saying that this is better than or worse than.
Timn Yoo:It's just different than is that there's more of a collectivism than there is individualism. And I think there's drawbacks to that as well, but definitely in terms of sort of rote movement, applying, something and is using the dint of repetition and and effort and brute force to to to get to an outcome, I think was was something that I saw that perhaps there's aspects of that that US companies could learn from.
Khurram Naik:And you talked about, you know, we got this 20 decisions concept and trying to have lower variance decisions and and more routines. Is that a legacy of your experience there, or is that something in parallel that that you developed?
Timn Yoo:If I trace it back, I think I I think so. I I I couldn't candidly, I hadn't quite connected the dots in that way before, but I obviously, look, I've done this. I've I've graduated law school in o seven, and I'm not can't quite remember if I had viewed the work in the world in that way. So I think you're right. I think it was that time in Korea and sort of seeing it from that perspective and seeing how things were very deliberate.
Timn Yoo:And I and I'm talking about I remember one of the shows that CJ Entertainment produced was a reality it was an American Idol style contest, but for rappers to find, like, the best Korean underground rapper. And it was a show called Show Me The Money, which I really liked. And the way that they were so scientific about the judges were in terms of coaching up and analyzing the contestants was humorous to me in one aspect, but very insightful where, you know, they'd have a contestant come up and and do their their do their rhyme. And the the the the breakdowns of those were clinical in a way. They would say, yes, I I thought so you should control be more mechanical of your breathing, be more consistent of your breathing, especially when you're hitting the the these rhymes.
Timn Yoo:We so your flow could be better. Your swag your swag was quite good. So your level of swagginess was was excellent. So and then, you know, and they would be like, oh, your drip was on fire, blah blah blah. And and the way that you'd sort of break that down where I think if you saw it in a US program, maybe it'd be more ephemeral and more sort of holistic about feel as opposed to a scientific approach to, like, what comprises a good hip hop artist or a rapper.
Timn Yoo:So it it also say is, like, I think it's it's just like a different a different approach that was interesting. So I think I I think you're correct. I think I probably adopted a lot of that about being strategic, in in your thinking and your and your outcomes and your strategy.
Khurram Naik:But you have an interesting principle, and you you're not the only one who has articulated this, but I'm very curious by how you framed it, is that EQ, emotional intelligence, is is at least as important as as IQ, if not more important. So can you say some more, like, notwithstanding this, hey. It's gonna be systematic and and routinized that the emotional component maybe that's very, like you're saying, very contextual and in the moment, whatever. Tell me some more about how that this this concept of EQ differentiates successful lawyers from the table stakes of smart lawyers.
Timn Yoo:Yeah. 100%. And you hit the nail on the head. My view of this has definitely evolved over time. Whereas before, when you say, oh, that person's a very smart person, I would think about it purely in terms of IQ, which I guess is immeasurable and is more, like, a brute force attribute or or measurement that you're born with or you're not born with.
Timn Yoo:I think that EQ, like you said, is at least more than half of the component of intelligence. And I I I view that now because I think as lawyers, our number one job by far our number one job by far, everything else is secondary and and tertiary by a large margin is you wanna get the the fact finder, the ultimate decision maker to want to rule in your side's favor. That's the number one job we have. And that's requires, I think, a lot of things. Reading the room, getting a sense of who your decision maker is, and getting the sense of of what's important to a jury, what's important to a judge, what's important to opposing counsel, the other side's clients, your clients.
Timn Yoo:I think a lot of that is this emotional intelligence of it's it's astounding to me a lot of times in terms of and and I'm trying to be patronizing here of of of how you see you know, if you you're you're in court and sometimes you see people who are not reading the room correctly. So they're pounding a certain argument or they're blowing past the stop sign. The judge is telling them and giving them indications of how they're gonna rule and why they're gonna rule. Or maybe they're on the fence, and maybe they haven't decided yet. But, you know, someone is not being helpful to their client and pushing a point and not quite reading the room about what the the judge in that particular case finds important.
Timn Yoo:So it's actually astonishing to me to the degree that I see that. And that's not to say that I never do that. But I think as lawyers, that's an important part of it. I think important part of it is recognizing sort of what levers to pull. Because as much as we like to think that we're governed by laws and legal principles, and of course, we are, but a legal principle a judge can decide that, look, today, I think that this legal principle is gonna take priority.
Timn Yoo:I think this this is the you know, takes primacy today, or I'm gonna focus on this case law that you cited because it supports, you know, this side winning, or I'm gonna decide to focus on this evidence and credit that piece of testimony and not credit this piece of testimony because because I think that this is the the the right outcome in this case. And we can have a long discussion about what like, which judicial philosophy makes sense. But I think fundamentally that there's a world that we perhaps ought to live in, and then the world it's the world that we live in. And that world is predominantly occupied by people who rule and make decisions based on who they who they want to win. So there's a lot of aspects of that, but I think core of it is knowing your audience.
Timn Yoo:And I think knowing your audience starts with having a certain level of emotional intelligence. And I think unlike IQ, that seems to be something that you can develop and hone over time by having a lot of different interactions, having a lot of client client contacts, you know, having interactions and communications with opposing counsel. I think a big a big part of it is obviously, part of what we do is having like, we're necessarily gonna be adversarial, and we have an opponent. But I think you can also learn a lot from your opponent as well. So for me, I always looked at litigation and trials like a tennis match, maybe because I'm a big tennis fan.
Timn Yoo:But I say that in the following respect is that in tennis, you know, you're trying to win zealously. You're trying to compete on every point. You're trying to beat each other's brains out, frankly, within the context of this the the 78 feet or 90 feet that you have across from your opponent. But at the end of the day and within the lines of the court. But at the end of the day, you shake hands with your opponent and you say, well done.
Timn Yoo:And that's kind of how I view it too. So you certainly have an opponent, but I think that there's a level of civility and jauntielness that you can approach that opponent with. And you can also learn a lot from that opponent as well. So one thing I like to do is I like to, more often than not, like, have a debrief, like, call like, if we settle a case, I'll call the opposing counsel or after we have a trial or if there's a summary judgment or something like that, like, I'll usually grab a cup of coffee or sit down or or talk to opposing counsel and essentially pick their brain about, hey, what are the things that, like, worried you about the case? What are the things that you think you think that we did well?
Timn Yoo:Or maybe even, like, what did I do well? Like, what were what were what were some of the your your takeaways? Because I think you can always learn by having this feedback loop. So it could be opposing counsel. It could be your own clients.
Timn Yoo:It could be your own colleagues. But the point is, I think emotional intelligence is the one aspect that you can work on a lot, in my opinion, and the one that I think correlates to, you know, successful outcomes.
Khurram Naik:That's a really remarkable idea. I don't know if I've ever heard a litigator do something like that. That seems to be a really effective way to learn from opposing counsel in a way that, you know, in a settlement, you're all aligned. And so why not share the ideas and experiences there? So it's just it's just it's just a free lunch.
Khurram Naik:So, yeah, that's a really cool concept. And I wonder if the synthesis between the strategic analytical techniques that you described here and these EQ components I I wanna think you synthesize another one of your principles, which is that the most effective lawyers are ones that don't think in a straight line. Can you say some more about that?
Timn Yoo:Yeah. And I think that's part of having relationships with your opposing counsel as well, and I'll get to that. But correct. I think there is look. Our our conduct is in our profession, is guided by the rules of civil procedure or the rules of evidence or things like that.
Timn Yoo:So there's a way to litigate a case in a straight line where you abide strictly by the code, things are due when they're due, things, you know, have to conform with that. I'm not suggesting that you you disregard that. But I think that sometimes you can do a disservice to your client by thinking too much in a straight line about having a level of rigidity. And by that, I mean, it could be, hey, the other side did not abide by code. These aren't these aren't conforming with code.
Timn Yoo:They didn't do this within the the thirty days that they were supposed to. We should immediately or let's say, like, noticing a deposition. Like, I can notice the deposition within a reasonable time. If that's not gonna work for you, then I'm gonna appear. I'm gonna take a notice of nonappearance, and we're we're off to the races.
Timn Yoo:Because my conduct is consistent with the code of civil procedure. So I think that's what I'm referring to when I say that there's things there's ways do things in a straight line. And then there's ways to do it sort of more nonlinear thinking about what are the outcomes that that are mutually beneficial? What are in this sort of prisoner's dilemma? How do I optimize utility for both sides?
Timn Yoo:And a lot of that is having communications and having a good relationship with your opposing counsel. It's also realizing that what are the what are the ways to I guess, thinking backwards. Like, sort of this is the outcome that you want to achieve, and what are all the different ways that are available to it to it to achieve that in a mutually beneficial way? And a lot of times, you know, especially when you start out as a young lawyer, I think it's easy to sort of set out these these long mean confer letters or say your position and cite all the case law that supports your position. I think these days, more often than not, let's say if I get one of those letters from opposing counsel, I will go immediately to the last sentence.
Timn Yoo:And I would say nine times out of 10 fully, it it says something to the effect of, notwithstanding the the the the the positions that were stated above in the in the prior five pages and without any, know, prejudice to our ability to change our position later on of, okay, we will agree to your proposal. So that's that's to say that, look, I think there's a straight line way of, like, citing the right cases and citing the the rights civil procedure sections and things like that. And I'm in a way, I'm minimizing that, but I don't mean to minimize it. But I think foremost is those are in service of our objectives. They shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog.
Timn Yoo:They should be used and as a to to guide our conduct and to to govern our conduct to a large degree. But I don't think as lawyers, we're necessarily doing a service to our clients by indiscriminately following them without any level of discretion. And I think that's a big part of our profession too is to exercise your discretion and your judgment. Because at the end the day, we're getting hired by our clients to exercise our judgment and to make recommendations. And that's something that they can't look up in the the rule book.
Khurram Naik:Is there an example that comes to mind where you present a nonlinear solution and that was, you know, well received or otherwise?
Timn Yoo:Yeah. I think in a in a in a recent trial I had, I there was a discovery deadline that we were coming up against, and this is a case that I had come in late in the game, actually, after fact discovery. So we were talking about expert discovery, and there was something like 20 experts that we needed to to depose and figure out the schedule on, and there was limited time. So it was almost like an LSAT puzzle. And I think that the prior approach had been sort of, hey.
Timn Yoo:You you know, you're supposed to do this. I can't remember if it was, like, three days in advance or seven days in advance, but the point is there was some code provision that said that you that it needed to be done within a certain time. And I think if you limit yourself to those strictures, then there's no way that it could have gotten done. So I remember I called opposing counsel and said, look. At the end of the day, we need to get these things done this amount of time before trial.
Timn Yoo:And I for for me, I don't care if it's within within that prescribed period before trial. Like, we just need to get it done. So how how do we do that? So we were able to have a collaborative discussion about, okay. And we have flexibility of saying, okay.
Timn Yoo:I can't make that work, but I'll make this work. And and not sort of horse trading in a sense, but it was a real sense of this is a collective problem for us that we need to solve together, and we were able to do that. So I think that's an example of it would have taken a lot of letters. It would have taken a lot of threats to to seek court intervention or seek relief from the court if we can't resolve this ourselves, which I don't think was gonna be a productive use of the client's time. And a lot of times, you can cut through that by just having a direct a to b conversation with with the other side.
Timn Yoo:So I think that's an I would cite that as an example of this nonlinear approach, so to speak.
Khurram Naik:I wanna double back to you mentioned golf. You mentioned tennis. And and it's it strikes me that you are, you know, going back to what you said in wrestling, you are are observing top performers in these different spheres. So I wanna I wanna start with golf. What is it that you observe?
Khurram Naik:And I know that we we talked before about the rise of of golf in South Korea and how how much that's a big part of of South Korean culture now. So you might have more exposure than other people. Can you say what you've learned from from great golfers?
Timn Yoo:I think it's the approach as well. So just like with pro wrestlers that they care a lot about their their jobs. If you look look at golfers and if you I don't know if you've seen the show on Netflix, full swing, which is fascinating to me, but they profile these, different core level golfers at different stages. So the the top guys as well as people who are, like, fighting and competing for their their tour card. But I think what strikes me about golfers as well as all athletes or in general is that they care a lot about the process that goes into performance.
Timn Yoo:So all of that that everything that goes into the the moment where they step into the tee box on the first tee of a tournament and they swing the golf club and they hit the hit the ball. That's about ten seconds from the time they go into the the tee box and by the time that their tee shot is off. But the things that go into preparing for those ten seconds is fascinating to me. The the decisions that they make in terms of where to live in the off season, a lot of golfers live in Florida or a lot of them live in Texas because I think the ostensible reason is that there's weather, more wide open spaces, more access to facilities, the the nutrition decisions that they make, the the staff that they have around them in terms of their physios and making sure that they're they're have a certain level of flexibility and strength in certain areas and the way that they track their progress. They they track and they they track their progress in terms of how much club head speed am I generating.
Timn Yoo:Like, how much club head speed do I need to generate to be able to hit this ball a certain distance? And they I don't know how familiar you are with golf, but obviously, every club has a very specific distance. And it's important for every golfer to know within a very small band how far they can expect to hit a certain club in certain circumstances. And if you watch these pro golfers carefully, they're very meticulous about it. So there's this funny interview that Phil Mickelson did where he's talking to an interviewer about the science of hitting his wedges, and he's talking about how, oh, like, you know, sometime early in the morning, you know, when there's, like, some dew on it, it's not gonna come off your club face the same way, so you gotta discount that by five yards.
Timn Yoo:You gotta figure out whether you're gonna choke down an inch and take another two or three yards off of it. You know, different type of grass. It also depends on how the ball is laying relative to that glass glass, whether the blades of grass are going this way or the the other way. All of this goes into the calculus of it. So I'm I'm really fascinated by people who take those processes very seriously, and the goal of that is to have maximum performance at one very specific window.
Timn Yoo:So three hundred sixty five days out of the year, their goal is to make sure that when they're swinging that club for those ten seconds that they have a certain amount of club speed going in. And in order to generate that amount of club speed, they recognize that they need to be able to move their hips and their arms at a certain speed, meaning that they need to have a certain level of strength in their trunks and their legs and and and working backwards from there. It's very fascinating to me. So that's that's kinda how I I view it too, in terms of what are the things that go into optimizing your performance and how working thinking backwards from there about how how you can you can optimize those those different, opportunities. And I think fundamentally what appeals to me is this notion that, you know, I play tennis as well and that I can hit a good forehand if I have enough practice and and and repetition.
Timn Yoo:But to me, that's similar to this notion of taking a good cross examination or taking a good deposition, which is to say that those are products of the amount of time and preparation that you put into it. So when I say, like, I hit a decent forehand, that doesn't mean that I haven't picked up a racket in six weeks. I can't go out to the court and immediately be grooved in and and hitting good forehands. I need to practice and drill and hit a certain number of shots. And I think no matter how many times that you've cross examined witnesses at trial, how many times are you taking depositions, you gotta take that process seriously as well because it's very process oriented.
Timn Yoo:And in my opinion, the effectiveness of an examination is directly proportional to the amount of time that you spend preparing for it. So that's to say that these are all fluid concepts. So I I would never sit here and say, I'm a good examiner, or I'm I'm good at taking depositions. I think it's I would phrase it as I I know what it takes to take a good deposition. I know what it takes to take a good cross examination.
Timn Yoo:I know the level of preparation that it takes to do that and the discipline required. So that's that's kinda how I would would view it and and phrase it.
Khurram Naik:And then with I know that you've been playing more golf lately. I would expect, given that you again, maybe similar to the 20 decisions a day, it's it's impossible that you could be directing the same amount of energy to your work as you are with golf. What are you getting out of out of playing more golf? Like, how what what's the impact that's having on you?
Timn Yoo:A lot of benefits. I think, foremost, it's it's an outlet. Right? We have high pressure jobs, high leverage jobs where the stakes matter. And that's great because I think I I can't remember who said it.
Timn Yoo:Maybe it was Billie Jean King, great tennis player. She said pressure is a privilege. Because if you didn't feel pressure, that means no one gives an SH about what you're doing. So I think golf for me is a good outlet in terms of stress relief. So I think it's good to have those have have that level of balance.
Timn Yoo:It's also, let's say, the extent that you're walking on the course, but a a a good way to get your steps in or, like, a big part of your steps in. And then the other part of it is having more of a sanguine attitude about things in general. So having more grace about having more grace with yourself foremost. I think one thing I told myself in the last couple years is that, you know, I'd before I'd go out there and I'd have a shot, and then maybe I didn't hit a good shot. More often than not, I didn't hit good shots.
Timn Yoo:And I would, you know, dog cuss myself and say, you know, you're, like, you're terrible at this. Like, why'd you do that? I thought to myself, look, if if I'm not out there every week on the range practicing that exact shot from that distance with that club at that angle, then I I I have no right to have an expectation of myself that I'm gonna hit that shot well. If it happens to be that way, then then great. But unless I'm out there processing that very specific shot, you should have more grace with yourself.
Timn Yoo:And therefore, like, the conversations that you have with yourself, like, be kinder. And I think that helped. Like and that's contrasted by look. If I have a 140 yards with a seven iron in my hand to the pin, that's a shot that on the range you're practicing basically that's the shot that you practice when you go to the range. You you have that club at that distance.
Timn Yoo:So I'm darn sure gonna have an expectation of myself to to make that shot, and maybe that's that's different. But then those other shots the the other shots that you hit, just you gotta have more grace with yourself. So I think my takeaway of that is it just gives you a more sanguine attitude about things, about how and not to get too philosophical, but look, you gotta hit the ball as it lies. So even if you hit a terrible shot and it's sitting in the sand or it's, like, just a foot off the the water and you have a playable shot, you sort of have to hit the next shot at that spot, meaning that you have to deal with the circumstances and reset. So it doesn't matter of, like, how many shots that preceded it or how many shots that are gonna follow.
Timn Yoo:You have to focus on executing that one shot. So it doesn't matter how how poorly you've played. I think what I like about it is that during the time that you walk to the to your next shot, and that's a lot of time usually for me because it's probably, like, way off the fairway, is you have a chance to to reset yourself and say, okay. Well, going back to the neutral thinking.
Khurram Naik:Mhmm.
Timn Yoo:I've I've I've sliced my tee shot way right. Do I have a shot at the green? Can I can I play this club? Can I hit a shot, get a shot off here, and get it back into play? Okay.
Timn Yoo:If that's yes, then what do I need to do to do that? Do I need to pick the club and then commit to that shot and and and make the shot? So that's been I think that's been good in terms of, I guess, like, just general, like, mental mental approach to it, which I think is big. Part of that is, like, I I I listened to an audiobook, and there's obviously a plethora of these, but it feels like the mental aspect of golf. And I think there's a companion one for tennis, like the mental game of tennis, which is I think it it can, you know, you can apply it to across your, you know, your job and your professions.
Timn Yoo:So that's been great. I mean, look, by no means am I a good well, you know what? Let me qualify that. I I I recently shifted my mindset on this as well because I read a you know, I I I recently read Atomic Habits, and they said the big takeaway is that, look, you can you can set milestone goals of saying, hey. I'm gonna break a 100 this year.
Timn Yoo:And then or you can set habit goals and say, look. Okay. To get that, I'm gonna, you know, play however many rounds. But they say the most important, like, driver of that is to is to, like, kinda see yourself as a person who does those things. So when I started out, I think for a number of years, my New Year's resolution every year was like, I'm gonna break a 100 consistently in golf.
Timn Yoo:And I didn't achieve it. And then I I set a milestone goal of, okay. So I'm gonna play this many rounds a month to try to get better at it. I think very recently, I shifted the mindset to I I wouldn't say I'm a good golfer, but I'm a competent golfer. I somewhat know what I'm doing out here.
Timn Yoo:So therefore, you know, before when I have a bad round, I would say, you have no idea what you're doing. You have no clue. You're you're just a a complete duffer. Shots are going wayward, and you have no, like, way of figuring out, like, how to get back on course. But now I tell myself, no.
Timn Yoo:You're just having a bad day or you're having a good day. But the point is, like, you know what you're doing out there. You know how to swing a golf club. You're a competent golfer. And I think viewing yourself that way is has been a a a powerful a a powerful mindset.
Timn Yoo:And I think that goes back you know, I mentioned the book that I read, by Trevor Moad, Getting to Neutral. And he tells his story about and it's possibly apocryphal. I don't know. But he tells a story, and I I like the takeaway from it, is that there was an executive and that that he worked with, and that person thought he was a bad student all throughout high school. So he kinda goofed off and cut classes and things like that.
Timn Yoo:And then he took the SAT, and then it turns out that he got, a 1,400 on his SAT. And then that that changed his whole paradigm where he said, oh, I guess I'm I'm not a screw up. I'm turns out I'm a pretty smart guy. So he decided to, okay, I'm gonna go to class. I'm gonna apply myself.
Timn Yoo:I'm gonna study. And then he did, you know, really well, for the rest of high school, went to a good college, got a good job. And then a number of years later, as the story goes, is he gets a letter from the college board and it says, oh, look. Look. It turns out that during your testing year, there was a the mistake, and we counted your your verbal score twice.
Timn Yoo:So it's not that you got a 1,400. You actually got a 700. But by that point, it was too late. Like, he had already sort of internalized that, look. I'm I'm I'm a good student or I'm a smart I'm a smart person.
Timn Yoo:So he started doing the things that smart people do or in his view that good students do. So that's kinda how I viewed it too is, look, if I keep tell if I tell myself, look, I'm a good putter. I can say that unqualified. I think I'm a good putter. And part of the reason is because, like, I have a small little putting area that I try to, like, hit a certain amount of putts every day.
Timn Yoo:So I like to tell myself, look, you're a good putter. You you should be able to bury this. You should be able to put this in the right in the back of the cup. And I think that mindset helps a lot. It's like seeing yourself as someone who does has certain habits.
Khurram Naik:Yeah. The first thing I wanna talk about is you said the word cuss a couple times. That's how I know you really are from Texas. Because when I moved to New Jersey as a kid, I I was so confused. I'm like, all these kids are talking about curse words, but, like, at this time, cuss words?
Khurram Naik:That's what I I don't cuss words. But, yeah, look, I I think a couple things you said resonate for me. So the practice that I have is a yoga practice, and so a couple things that you said resonate with me. One is that I observed that so you talked about, hey. You know, like, I'm great at depositions or whatever.
Khurram Naik:And so the but the the more effective way to frame that is, hey. I know what it takes to be good at that. And so I think I've observed that really experienced yoga practitioners have similar mindsets where it's not, oh, I can do handstands. A handstand practice is a practice. Requires a lot of work even for experienced practitioner who is conditioned, and there's a lot of specific, you know, musculature that you're using for that and mindset as well.
Khurram Naik:And so I would think that a number of of of of experienced practitioners can say, okay. Well, I can do handstands. It'll take about a month before I could do it consistently with an hour long practice every day. So so that resonated for me. And another thing at at the studio that I'm at now is they do emphasize self talk a lot.
Khurram Naik:And so, you know, particularly, like, you know, you know, when you're progressing through class, you're warming up, but you're still, you know, not in the swing of things yet, not fully warmed up and challenging yourself. And maybe start to have expectations of what you know, especially for someone like myself who who has a regular practice of I should be able to do blank today. Well, first of all, there's lot of variability in our bodies. Just, you know, our bodies are asymmetric. And on any given day, our body may be responding to something in the world that our bodies, you know, may perform one way or another way.
Khurram Naik:And so the self talk is important, and it's important to also I think to your point, rather than saying, I'm great at this or whatever, and putting all this pressure on myself, I'm confident at this. I know what it takes to get even better at this. I'm also satisfied with the level of performance given that this is just one part of my life. I'm not a full time student of yoga or practitioner. And so, yeah, I I think it is I I I also one of my big takeaways from Atomic Habits was this identity component that you don't just go through the motions.
Khurram Naik:Like, you know, I I think for some time, I cut out drinking almost five years ago. And if I recall right, I think early on, I was saying, oh, I'm not drinking right now. And then the shift became to, oh, I just don't drink. And so just the identity shift, as I recall, made it so much easier to sustain the habit. Oh, you know, actually, I I misremembering.
Khurram Naik:It's not the alcohol component. It's the caffeine component. That was a harder identity switch for me because alcohol was, like, much more clearly having a, you know, detrimental impact on me. Caffeine was like, you know, I cut the two out at the same time, and I was like, well, I don't know. I kinda like coffee.
Khurram Naik:So, I mean Mhmm. Real. All this everything in society says that coffee is, like, a good thing to have or whatever. So that was that was the identity chef was going from, oh, I'm not drinking coffee right now to, oh, I just I don't drink caffeine or whatever. So, yeah, I think the identity shift is important, but I think a subtle point that I think you're making is rather than putting all this pressure on herself to be, hey.
Khurram Naik:I'm great at this or whatever. Say, hey. Like, I'm confident. I'm good at this. I know what it takes to be better, and then but I am good enough that, which if I'm if I'm having an off day, that doesn't that doesn't dent me.
Khurram Naik:I know that, hey. I'm good at this. I'm gonna keep on at it and and keep going.
Timn Yoo:Bingo. So I think you hit the nail on the head is that you you tell yours or you believe. You have conviction that you're competent at this. And if you're competent at something, like anything else, like you just said, the way that you respond to things happening in the world. You have good days and you have bad days, but it gives you the self assurance that it's not gonna shatter you.
Timn Yoo:Trust me. I've taken a lot of suboptimal, let's just say piss poor examinations or depositions or, you know, written not focused on the right arguments and emotion. Had a bad day. That doesn't make me that doesn't, like, shatter my self belief or this notion of being self assured. It's just it just wasn't the best day at the office.
Timn Yoo:So I think that when you're a young associate or young attorney coming up, I think that's gonna be similar to, I guess, maybe a lot of people in their early in their yoga practice or as aspiring golfer. I know, you know, if something happened that that that was that you could have done better and you tell yourself, man, I and you beat yourself over it and you have this, like, self flagellation about it. I think that, you know, that's not as productive as just having that, right, the identity of, no. I've I've earned my stripes on this. I've been around the block enough times.
Timn Yoo:I've done this enough times to know that I know what it takes to be good at this.
Khurram Naik:And you mentioned a few books by now, so I'm curious as maybe a parting question for you. Are there any books that you've read in, say, the past year, past five years that have had an impact for how you think about yourself and and your progress professionally?
Timn Yoo:I have a few on my nightstand that I revisit from time to time. I one of them was credibility code. That's a lot of what we were talking about earlier in terms of the takeaway is that people make snap judgments about you based on nonverbal cues in terms of how you conduct yourself, how you hold your head when you're when you're speaking, like how rapidly you speak or not, how articulate you are with words, things like that. So I, you know, I always try to keep that on top of mind in terms of how I like, what I project into the world and how I I I want that world to to to perceive me. And hopefully, there's an identity of those things and and try to get as close to it as possible.
Timn Yoo:So that's one of them that I thought has been a helpful guide. I think also reading extreme ownership by Jocko Willink, the former navy the the navy seal talks about, you know, how the takeaway from that is, right, like, this notion of there's there's no bad teams. There's only bad leaders and talks about leadership principles and and and taking ownership of of those of those things. So I would say those are things I I think about a lot because, you know, more often than not, like these days, and I don't know if you can see it, but there's like a a picture of Dan Marino in the back. And I'm not particularly a fan of necessarily a fan of Dan Marino, but it's really the notion of I I like to view myself identity wise as the quarterback of my case teams and the the the one who more often than not has the ball, you know, in their hands at critical moments.
Timn Yoo:So just kind of viewing that like, that's for me why I think something like like reading books about leadership appeal to me. I think the the credibility side of it is something that, you know, I'm constantly thinking about. I think it I guess, to to to bring it back to what we were talking about at the very top of the conversation, I just, you know, like, pro wrestlers are are great at thinking about, like, how their characters come off. Like, one one of the big influences in that regard is and one of my favorite performers of all time was, like, Jake the Snake Roberts. And if you hear him talk about, like, how important it is to sort of present a certain image by the way that he walks through the curtain, the way that he saunters to the ring, the way that he has, like, a level of of coldness and remorselessness, and how he's trying to portray, like, this very, like, evil character.
Timn Yoo:And the thought that goes into it and the choices he makes to do that are just fascinating to me. So I I I try to think about that in terms of and, you know, I tell my case teams this too in terms of think about that, like, when you your character essentially begins at the check-in line at security. Like, the way that you you put your bags through, the way that you conduct yourselves and and, you know, talk to staff, talk to other other people at the courthouse, talk to your teams, and the way that you conduct yourself as you walk into the the courtroom. Like, are you sauntering? Are you what kind of traits do you have?
Timn Yoo:Like, how are you reacting in terms of things that come out during the course of that trial? Like, I think that all plays. So that those are things that I I I think about a lot and and try to apply.
Khurram Naik:Super fascinating range of ideas that you've drawn. So I'm glad that we had this time to to talk just as I guess just our time is just blown by, and I know that we would we'd probably have another hour or two in us. So, hopefully, they'll be around to another time. But, super fascinating, Tim, and it was a real privilege to have you on.
Timn Yoo:I appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Horum. And, yeah, I I I could talk to you at any time. I really enjoyed our conversation, so I'm hoping to do it again soon as well.