The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk - 139: Lin Wood – One Of The Greatest Trial Lawyers In The World

Starting point is 00:00:00 Go have a conversation with a curious mind. Listen carefully to what you're being told, and you will be able to follow up with questions that are logical, related, and oftentimes can be critical in terms of the importance of the answer that you miss if you're just going through an outline. Are leaders born or are they made? Our host, Ryan Hawk, believes that leaders can be made through determined, focused work on learning the art and science behind the makeup of other successful leaders. Now it's time to inhale knowledge and exhale success. You're listening to The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk. Hey guys, it's Ryan Update in regards to the Facebook group we've set up. I'm so happy to see the response that we've gotten from so many great fellow learning leaders.

Starting point is 00:01:01 The conversation and the dialogue has been fantastic, so I'd love to invite all of you to further the conversation and join. us. Simply go to learning leader.com slash group. Learningleader.com slash group and we will add you to the community. And you can join like-minded individuals to discuss leadership topics. Argue a little bit. Maybe we can disagree. I think that's how we all learn. But it's been fantastic. So far, I've loved really engaging with you guys, the great listeners of the Learning Leader show. So go to learning leader.com slash group. We'll add you and I look forward to talking with you soon.

Starting point is 00:01:47 Hey and welcome to the Learning Leader Show. I am Ryan Hawken. Thank you so much for being here. What a unique featured leader tonight. I just had a conversation with Lynn Wood. He's one of the most accomplished trial lawyers in the world. For 39 years, he's been in the courtroom fighting for his clients to help ensure their success. of the people he's represented. Richard Jewell, who was falsely accused of the Centennial Park

Starting point is 00:02:16 bombing at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of John Bonae Ramsey. Howard K. Stern, who was the companion to Anna Nicole Smith and the father of their daughter, the female in the Kobe Bryant case in Colorado, and so many more. And recently, he was involved in the DeVita Healthcare Whistleblower lawsuit, which led to a 495 million dollar settlement that Lynn won. Fascinated throughout this conversation with them. I love studying people who are the best at what they do and figuring out what their process is for sustaining excellence over 30 plus years in that profession to hopefully take some ideas that we could all implement into our lives. And Lynn certainly shared that through great

Starting point is 00:03:05 stories and tips and ideas that he has put into practice through the course of his career. Ladies and gentlemen, I know you're going to enjoy this one with Lynn Wood. Lynn, thank you so much for being here on the Learning Leader Show. So excited to have you. This is a different type of a conversation than I normally have, and you bring so many unique qualities to the world of leadership. I'm really excited to have this conversation. First thought that I have had is that you have had a long, illustrious, incredibly successful career,

Starting point is 00:03:48 and I would deem that you have sustained excellence over many years. And you've also spent time around others who have done that as well. I'm curious in your mind, from your perspective, what are some of the key characteristics that people who sustain excellence all usually have? Well, thanks for letting me participate, Ryan. It's good to speak with you. my experience personally and in terms of observations of others who have sustained excellence or who have achieved excellence and maybe had a failure but were able to regain excellence

Starting point is 00:04:30 I think that the ingredients involve first people that have a vision or a goal and it's clearly defined. I also believe that in order to achieve and maintain excellence, the individual has to be willing to take on risk. I don't mean irrational, unreasonable risk, but calculated risk, oftentimes involving a little bit of one's instinct. And then with that vision or goal and that willingness to take risk, I believe that you will find those individuals have a high-level of confidence in themselves, confidence that carries over from their individual actions and efforts to the actions and efforts of a team that they build around them to help them achieve the goal. And then at the end of the day, you can't escape the fundamental of success, and that is hard work.

Starting point is 00:05:36 You've got to go out and make the effort to achieve the goal, and there's really no substitution. for hard work and for preparation. When I first uttered that phrase, who was the first person that came to mine, or maybe people that came to mind? You know, I've had the good fortune of, in my 39 years of practicing law, to be mentored by, in one instance, a really great trial lawyer now deceased, Paul Hawkins of Atlanta. and he certainly met each of the characteristics that I described to you. I also have a really good friend and client, Alexander Gallo, and he's a real entrepreneur and found great success in the court reporting world, got caught up in the 0708 financial crisis,

Starting point is 00:06:31 and is in the process of rebuilding his business. and I'm confident that he will do so. Again, because I believe that someone who has the ability to achieve success, even if not maintained, has the qualities to rebuild to that level. And I've watched Alex, and he's got those qualities. Those two people come to mind right away. You know, Lynn, when somebody walks up to you who doesn't know you, because I know you made quite a name for yourself in the

Starting point is 00:07:05 in the legal industry and beyond, you know, have been featured on TV and print everywhere over the course of, what, 25 years plus, maybe more than that. But when somebody who doesn't know who you are walks up to you and says, hey, Lynn, what do you do? How do you respond to that question? I usually tell them I'm a trial lawyer. The next question is what type of law do you practice? And I usually say bizarre litigation. So bizarre litigation, so which obviously, by the way, great answers because it just continually piques the interest of the person you're talking to. So you say bizarre litigation.

Starting point is 00:07:45 Could you define bizarre litigation to me? Over my practice, I have had some interesting clients who find, who have found themselves in some very unique and challenging circumstances. No one instance has been the same, the circumstances surrounding, for example, Richard Jewell, after he was accused of bombing Centennial Olympic Park, as compared, say, to John and Patsy Ramsey and their son Burke related to the murder of John Bonaid. there's a commonality in the sense that I was dealing with individuals who were falsely accused, but yet the circumstances factually around the bombing,

Starting point is 00:08:42 the circumstances around the death of John Bonnet, they were unique situations and obviously very different in terms of their foundations that led to the dilemma that the clients found themselves in. You know, I've gone from doing medical malpractice to First Amendment defamation litigation to representing a couple of presidential candidates along the way to also doing a number of Medicare False Claims Act cases. So when I say I'm a trial lawyer, that means I can do different types of cases. It means that I can do them for plaintiffs or for defendants.

Starting point is 00:09:23 And when I tag in bizarre, it just means, I guess, that I've had the good fortune. of having a very interesting variety of clients and cases. What was your life like prior to the Richard Jewell case or representing Richard? Because for the younger people listening, they might not know a lot about that. For people my age, like in the low 30s and above, we all, I think, remember the Richard Jewel case. ESPN did a great short on it that prominently features you in everything that happened. So could you briefly describe that moment? Because I have to believe you were highly successful prior to that.

Starting point is 00:10:02 But then at that moment, it kind of propelled you into this different stratosphere of a combination of success and fame. So what was it like at that specific moment? How did you become the choice for the lawyer to represent him? And then how did it change your life? Well, let me say that you're right. I speak at various groups. around the country. And as I get older and memories fade and the audiences become younger, there are fewer people that know the story of Richard Jewell. It is a story that I enjoy

Starting point is 00:10:40 telling to those who remember him and to those who don't really know what happened to him because the Richard Jewel case is a case that teaches many lessons. I had practiced law from 1977 up until 1996, I started my own law firm in Atlanta in 1983, and I specialized in or focused on plaintiff's medical malpractice cases. I achieved over the years a measure of success and candidly had reached a point in my career where I wasn't actively looking to do something else, but I have to admit that I was getting tired of sitting around taking eight-hour depositions of doctors. They all began to somewhat run and run in like the same thing over and over again. I had worked with a lawyer named Watson Bryant back in 1982 at Freeman and Hawkins, the law firm in

Starting point is 00:11:39 Atlanta where the individual I mentioned, Paul Hawkins, was senior partner. And Watson had worked with Richard Jewell, some 10 years prior to 1996, at the Small Business Administration. Richard was a clerk and Watson was a lawyer. When the Olympic Park bombing occurred in the early morning hours of July the 21st, I believe, for at least two or three days, a few members of the media were interested in talking to the security guard, who had first spotted the package that later obviously contained the bomb. And that was Richard Jewell. He worked as a private security guard at Centennial Olympic Park.

Starting point is 00:12:31 He was in between jobs. I thought it would be exciting to work at the Olympics. And Richard was a cop. He had been a duly certified law enforcement officer in North Georgia, deputy sheriff. Richard spotted the NAPS. SAC realized that it was not being claimed by anyone in the vicinity. And so Richard did his job. He notified law enforcement at the park.

Starting point is 00:13:01 They brought in the bomb ordnance squad. Obviously, Richard's quick thinking and doing his job led to the evacuation of hundreds of people from the direct vicinity of the blast. And what people don't know about Richard is that, based on his training when he saw the bomb ordinance individual on his belly with a flashlight looking in the knapsack, and then he saw him get up and literally start to walk away at what could be described as almost a run. Richard had been trained that if you ever see a bomb agent run, make sure you're running in front of him or her. Richard knew that there was likely a bomb that had been found in

Starting point is 00:13:39 that package, and yet when faced with the choice of whether to protect himself or do his job and put his own life at risk. Richard made the decision again to do his job. He went through the five-story light and sound tower. The bomb, the package was located at the base of the tower. That was his assigned watch. And he single-handedly evacuated every individual from that tower before the bomb exploded, putting his own life at risk.

Starting point is 00:14:11 And I still occasionally across the country will run into someone an NBC cameraman or someone who was there in that tower, and they will comment on the fact that Richard Jewel saved their lives. So Richard got some limited publicity in the sense that people were looking for a discussion with the individual. They didn't even know his name that had found the package, the security guard. And AT&T, who sponsored the park, obviously was looking for some good publicity, kind of offset the bad publicity of the park bombing. And so they had one of their PR individuals take charge

Starting point is 00:14:53 to literally escort Richard around to do a handful of interviews. And in the process, that driver made a comment to Richard about, well, you know, Richard, one day you're going to be famous. They'll probably write a book about you, and you've got to get a lawyer. Well, Richard, in a joking fashion, called Watson. and if you don't mind me saying it, Richard had borrowed $100 from Watson 10 years earlier, and when you got Watson on the phone, I think the comment Watson made was,

Starting point is 00:15:24 where's my damn $100? But Watson, when the newspaper, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution broke the story about the banner headline FBI suspects, quote, hero, end quote, guard may have planted bomb, Watson took on the lead in trying to get out front with the public and also to help Richard and he called me a few days after the story broke and told me that Richard Joel was a great guy he was innocent and he was going to have a lot of really good libel cases, an area of the law by the way I'd never practiced at that point in time and I said well you know you know Watson give me a call when the dust settles and he's cleared and

Starting point is 00:16:11 I'll try to see what I can do to help him and you. And I remember when I hung up, I thought, well, Watson's picked the wrong dog in this fight because I had watched the news coverage and I thought Richard was guilty. Just a short couple of three days after that call, Watson called and said, essentially, I need you involved now because Richard has been sued. Enterprising plaintiff's lawyer had sued AT&T, the Olympic Committee, and Richard Jewell for an individual who was injured in the bombing. So I got involved initially to help with that matter.

Starting point is 00:16:50 I met with Richard in my office, which, by pure coincidence, the conference room overlooked Centennial Olympic Park. And I spent about an hour or two with him and realized what a great guy was. Again, you get instincts as a trial lawyer, and all of my instincts were telling me, you know, Richard Jules a good guy. guy and he may have literally been really railroaded here. Then he asked me, he said, would you be willing to represent me, Lynn? And I said, well, I'll do it on one condition, Richard. First, I want you to accept my apology. And Richard, in his own way, looked over and said, what do you mean,

Starting point is 00:17:26 Lynn, why should I have to accept your apology? Soft-spoken fellow for a cop. I said, because, you know, I was like all the other people out there. I believed what the newspapers and the media said, and I thought you were guilty. And here I am, trained to study law and be fair and be objective and be reasonable and not jump to conclusions. And, you know, if I got fooled, then that means a hell of a lot of people out there around the world got fooled. And I'd like to help you restore your reputation and write the wrong.

Starting point is 00:17:58 And so that started what turned out to be a 16, almost 17-year journey representing Richard even after his death, got out front dealing with Richard in the court of public opinion in an effort to prevent the FBI from wrongfully charging him or arresting him, which would have destroyed any liable cases. And naturally evolved to take the role as its lead lawyer. And don't hesitate to say that Richard was not just my client, he was my friend, and I miss him every day. but he stands for, among other things, he could be certainly called the poster boy for the falsely accused,

Starting point is 00:18:41 but I'll tell you what I saw from, and that was a grace and dignity under pressure that was remarkable. Here was a young man who was facing potentially being falsely charged with the terrorist act of bombing the park, which carried with it the death penalty of federal crime. while at the same time having literally the cameras and the spotlights and the media inquiries from the world, because the world was watching the Olympics and the media of the world were in Atlanta, to fill the pressures of having the media after you and the United States government through the FBI after you, to be able to maintain that sense of dignity and grace that Richard, demonstrated throughout the ordeal, as I said, was remarkable, and to me stands out as a character

Starting point is 00:19:42 quality that I'm not sure many people could emulate. Richard, at the end of the day, was just a man who did his job, and in the process of doing his job, saved the lives of many people. He was never recognized for that heroism. he is more remembered as the man that was falsely accused of bombing the park when he should have been remembered as the hero of the Olympic Games they should have given him a gold medal and they should put a monument to him in the park there is no mention of Richard Jules name at Centennial Olympic Park

Starting point is 00:20:16 and I think that is a blight on the city of Atlanta it's an incredibly impactful story I remember when it was going on and all of the incredible work that you've done to help at least try to restore its name because I think some people, they just look at headlines, and they remember the first initial headline, and they don't look at follow-ups, and that's a shame. Not many people know the name Eric Rudolph. Right.

Starting point is 00:20:45 He was the individual who pled guilty ultimately to the bombing of the park. Yep, exactly. But even if you didn't live through the Richard Jewel tragedy, his name is the most recognized as it relates to the park bombing. Yeah. So that's happening for a number of years. And then from there, it just seems like there's just more and more people who look to you in times of need. You mentioned in the John Banyi-Ramsey case, another just took over the news with her parents and that tragic, tragic death.

Starting point is 00:21:19 And then a lot of people accused and thought that her family. could have been involved. And so you go from that family. I know you can't talk about it, but there is involvements with the Kobe Bryant case in Colorado. You've worked like you mentioned with some presidential candidates, congressman, Howard Kay Stern when it comes. I mean, so the people that you've worked around and worked with have been incredible. What is it that when something happens that they look to you, Lynn? said, because there's a lot of attorneys around the world, and you've been the guy that some of the most high-profile people have called in times of need. Why is that? I tell you, I represented

Starting point is 00:22:06 back in my medical malpractice days an individual named Kenny Ludford, and Kenny Ludford was a meat cutter at a local grocery store. He had some problems in a back surgery, and I took on his case, and it was a tough case, happy to say that we ended up winning it at a jury trial. But at the jury trial, I was addressing the jury in my closing remarks, and I looked over and I said, you know, Kenny Ludford's just a meat cutter. He's just a meat cutter. I said, but Kenny Ludford is also my friend. And I'll never forget, while the jury was out, Kenny Ludford told me how much that meant to him.

Starting point is 00:22:52 He didn't care if he won't have lost the case. but when I told the jury that he was my friend, it meant the world to him. And I used that example because then I'll fast forward and I go from representing Kenny Ledford a meat cutter to having had the opportunity over the last four or five years to also represent Sheldon Adelson. Sheldon is the owner of essentially the majority owner of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. He varies based on stock price between being the 15th to the 20th richest man in the world. And he calls me when he's got certain issues that I think he feels he needs some extra protection in terms of legal handling. And I think he does that for the same reason Kenny Ludford believed in me, and that is because I try to go beyond just the –

Starting point is 00:23:50 representation of a client as a lawyer, I also try to let that client know that I genuinely care about them as an individual, whether they're rich or whether they're poor. And I'd like to think that makes me somewhat unique. I'm sure there are many others. I've known some who care the same way I do. But at the end of the day, the pursuit of justice is really the pursuit of fairness. And it is best accomplished if you are pursuing it for people that you care about. I completely agree. The other aspect of it to, though, Lynn, I don't know if you're giving yourself enough credit, is it's also, there is a scoreboard, so to speak, meaning you do win or you do lose. And if you're a good guy and you genuinely care about your clients, but you lose all the time, you're not going to be getting hired very often. So, I mean, I think there's two parts to it. You have to be extremely competent.

Starting point is 00:24:52 You have to essentially be a winner. You probably need to win more than you lose. I would assume so. But on top of that, so I mean, I think that seems to obviously have to go hand-in-hand in order to continue to get work. Yeah, I won't go to the next step of speculating on what Kenny Lufford would have ended up saying to me if we'd lost the case. You know, you're right. And, you know, I don't mean to be too modest. I mean, look, I probably have the best track record in the United States in terms of getting successful results in defamation or liable cases for public figures.

Starting point is 00:25:31 Most lawyers don't touch them because the burden of proof is so demanding and so high under the First Amendment that the chances of success are minuscule. and I have found success in those areas, both with Richard Jewell for the Ramsey family, for Gary Condit, the former congressman who was under the glare of the media and the Chandra Levy case for Howard Stern. Again, not the radio disc jockey, but Howard Stern, the lawyer and companion of Ann and Nicole Smith, obviously done work even for Dr. Phil, who is a client, remains a client. So I know that you're right. It's not just about caring about the client, but the clients want a lawyer that they believe is going to fight hard,

Starting point is 00:26:27 be aggressive, genuinely believe in their case, and at the end of the day, gives them the best chance to succeed. And I'd like to think that that's my reputation. recently correct me if my facts wrong I try to do good research leading up to this there was a settlement that you were a part of with devita is that how you pronounce it yes davida which the second largest owner and operator of dialysis clinics in the united states it was for 495 million dollars is that correct yes so and you were either the lead lawyer or i mean the prime one that was involved with helping achieve that settlement.

Starting point is 00:27:11 And so I'm not a lawyer, however, typically I've learned in those types of cases, does the lawyer get one-third of that sum of what the settlement is? Well, in contingency fee cases, the answer is yes, the lawyer can generally expect to receive anywhere from a third up to 45% of the gross recovery. Some lawyers will take 50%. I've never done that. But I'll tell you this, I've also, just as a note of caution, I will tell you that no matter how I have tried to calculate the figure, I've always found out over the course of my career

Starting point is 00:27:52 that 40% of zero always ends up being zero. But in the DeVita case, that was a false claims act case where I represented as lead counsel to whistleblowers. and you are in effect representing the United States government. The recovery goes to the United States. The relators receive a statutory percentage that can vary based on agreement with the government if it's successful, between 25 and 30 percent of the gross recovery to the government. From the relator's share, the lawyer is entitled,

Starting point is 00:28:35 to take a contingency fee. And then under the False Claims Act, if you prevail by verdict or by settlement, the lawyer is also, in addition to the contingency fee, allowed to recover from the defendant, the full value of the actual hours worked and expenses incurred. So, you know, look, a False Claims Act case that successful can be, shall we say, extremely lucrative

Starting point is 00:29:04 before the counsel for the relators. The DeVita case was at the time, and it still may remain, the largest settlement in the history of the country in a non-intervened case, meaning that the government can choose to come in and intervene in a whistleblower case and handle the case itself. In the DeVita case, the government initially declined the case, and so the relators and their lawyers, we win it alone, And that's tough because you're up against a Fortune 500 company with unlimited resources,

Starting point is 00:29:40 and you're out there fighting for the government and the taxpayers and your relators, and you're doing it out of your own back pocket. So that case went on for four years of very active litigation. But at the end of the day, obviously we were thrilled with the result, and I think it was a very just result given the allegations against Tevita. $495 million. I like, so and you, you have made the choice to, because you've, you've spent time at a large firm briefly, but you've made the choice to work at a smaller firm with you and some colleagues.

Starting point is 00:30:16 So I'm just trying to imagine the amount of course load and then what that day was like when you're cut a check for how much money? Well, the total amount recovered by the government was $400,000. total amount recovered by the government was $450 million, and DeVita paid an additional $45 million in fees and expenses. To you? To the lawyers for the relator. And so it was a big day when the checks were received, and the money cleared, and the funds were dispersed.

Starting point is 00:30:50 I won't sit around and try to mince words on that one. But let me tell you, you're right. I give you an example of what we started this conversation with. I had built my law practice up going into 2006 where I was being called upon to do a work for corporations that were looking for a trial lawyer to be lead counsel in the defense of class actions because they wanted someone that basically was as good or as aggressive as the plaintiff lawyers that were suing the corporations. and so I began to get more into somewhat of a split practice between plaintiffs and defense work. I did not want to grow my firm at the time. It was a small firm. It had been.

Starting point is 00:31:33 That's the way I liked it. But I had just come off of a successful result representing the victim in the Kobe Bryant case. I had reached a point in my career where I felt financially secure, where I didn't necessarily have to dream every day of getting another big verdict of settlement. And I needed some support legally. And I went with the then-law firm of Powell Goldstein. I'd worked with them on a couple of cases where they had served as support counsel to me. During my time there, which is about five years, Powell Goldstein was acquired by Brian Cave, which was a thousand-person international firm, way too big for me. But I stuck it out to see, you know, that it went successful in terms of the merger for Powell Goldstein.

Starting point is 00:32:22 I didn't want to give it a black eye and leave right away. But the DeVita case was actually brought to me while I was at Brian Cave. And, you know, the firm turned it down because they didn't want to take that type of risk and they didn't want to take that type of case that might be controversial to some of their other clients. A totally legitimate position for a large law firm to take. But that was the decision that made clear to me that I should go ahead and do then what I had been leaning toward, and that would be to go out at age 59 and jump off the cliff and start my own law firm again. And so I did that, started my law firm up in about two weeks with the Davida case and a few others,

Starting point is 00:33:08 but obviously the DeVita case led the way. In the process of handling the DeVita case, the lawyer that had brought the case to me also, involved me in another False Claims Act case against Halifax Hospital down in Daytona Beach. So for about the first three years of my new law practice, I was spending an incredible amount of time working on the Halifax and the DeVita case, which were contingency fee cases, but were requiring a large expenditure of money. I still had to find some other things to do that would make money to keep the firm lights on. And I got to tell you, you know, I've described the experience of going back out in 2011 as jumping off of the cliff without a parachute.

Starting point is 00:33:55 And it was tough. As the fates turned out, I was embroiled in discovery in both cases, Halifax and DeVita at the same time. So I was spending most of my life on an airplane traveling from deposition and deposition around the country. and I began to wonder if it was really going to turn out to be a successful endeavor. And I had always found success in my law practice. I had never had what I considered to be any type of failure. But, you know, I was beginning to look thinking, you know, I'm running a little thin here, and I hope this turns out well.

Starting point is 00:34:32 I buckled down and I tried to work harder, maintain my level of confidence, kept my eye on the ball, and in 2014 we settled the Halifax. case for $96 million, which was at that time the largest settlement in the country in a stark claim violation, stark claim deals with kickbacks and incentive pay to doctors, not allowed under federal law and Medicare rules. So the $96 million settlement in Halifax, when that occurred, I will tell you, I was breathing a little bit easier. And it was then a little bit easier to race to the finish over the course the next year to bring the DeVita case to a resolution.

Starting point is 00:35:21 That's incredible just to hear those two cases and the success and the just the amount of money alone is mind-blowing, really. You know, Lynn, as I was preparing for a time, I was trying to dig in to understand why you've been successful, specifically as a trial lawyer. since I think so few people, even in the profession of law, they excel, actually trying cases. And this is something you basically grew up in the profession doing. And I polled something you said that I absolutely love. And I try to actually do this during this podcast when I speak with world-class leaders.

Starting point is 00:36:03 And this is something you said I want you to expand on after I get done reading it. You said, if you follow a script rather than a checklist, You will miss answers that can lead to better questions. Start with a blank pad, listen, and have a conversation with a curious mind. I love every aspect of that phrase that you've said, and I try to embody that. And I feel like that has to be a key to your success over an extended period of time. Well, you have obviously studied or read up on one of my seminars that I have given on the art of taking depositions, and that is where that quote comes from. And it is a quote that

Starting point is 00:36:46 I strongly believe in and urge to the younger lawyers that I am able to speak to. You know, I was lucky as a young lawyer, I got into the courtroom and was actually able to try a surprisingly large number of cases in the first few years of my law practice, something that young lawyers simply do not have the opportunity to do now. The last part of that quote probably sums up why I believe that I've always been an effective trial lawyer and what I've tried to emphasize to others who seek to be litigators. Dealing with witnesses, dealing with judges, dealing with juries, I try to have a conversation with them. There's a certain expectation on the part of juries that there's got to be something like the drama in television shows.

Starting point is 00:37:40 and while that has its place in the courtroom at the end of the day, and I certainly can be accused of putting on a little occasional dog and pony show in the courtroom, but it's going to have to be one that I'm confident will work and not fail. But, you know, at the end of the day, I think it's about having a conversation. People like to be talked with. They like to be engaged instead of talked down to. And so that has been really the focus of how I've tried. to engage in the art of trial law. I will also tell you that being a trial lawyer, I believe,

Starting point is 00:38:18 is an art. It's not a science. And there are only a certain small percentage of lawyers that I think are born with that gene to have those types of instincts to be able to practice law as an art. That does not mean that as a science, it cannot be practiced very effectively. There are a great number of litigators out here who study hard and work hard and prepare hard and they're great lawyers in the courtroom. But I will always draw a distinction between a trial lawyer and a litigator for that reason. So again, I go back and I agree with you 100%. I'm flattered that you found that quote. Not that long ago, I had one of my former partners called me late at night. she was about to take a deposition

Starting point is 00:39:07 she's a very experienced lawyer but she was in a little bit of a panic and she called me and said you know could you just give me one you know hint kind of like you ask people for a swing thought when you go to hit a golf ball she'd give me one

Starting point is 00:39:19 one idea to keep in mind tomorrow when I take this deposition and I said Catherine you know exactly what I'm going to say to you go have a conversation with a curious mind listen carefully

Starting point is 00:39:32 to what you're being told and you will be able to follow up with questions that are logical, related, and oftentimes can be critical in terms of the importance of the answer that you miss if you're just going through an outline. I love it. I think that's great advice for anyone who's interviewing because I think that's, I mentioned to you prior to recording. That's my preparation process for this is trying to essentially absorb as much.

Starting point is 00:40:05 information about the person I'm going to speak with is possible so that I can be agile and kind of quick on my feet and then be a great listener throughout the process. So there's no question scripted. There are notes and there are ideas and thoughts and parts of your stories. In this case, a quote that you said that I love that I wanted to talk to you about because I think that is an approach not only to being a great trier lawyer, but to being a great leader, to being great as a CEO of a company. Anyone that's going to have any type of tribe they're going to lead needs to be able to listen and ask great follow-up questions based upon the answers you received, not just going down a script. And that's, I have to believe that's in addition to you

Starting point is 00:40:56 befriending and genuinely caring about your clients that that sentence alone or that phrase alone has been one of the keys to your success. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. I think that my approach to the practice of law in terms of having a conversation with the people that I'm involved with applies to every business person because at the end success is often found in one's ability to successfully communicate. And I believe the key to communication is to have a conversation. and when appropriate to have that conversation with a curious mind. I love it, man.

Starting point is 00:41:38 I love it, Lynn. Now, the one other aspect before we get going is you see on movies sometimes, maybe a prosecutor will talk about their one loss record. Why is it a bad thing to think about a one lost record or somebody who's undefeated? I have also read that you've mentioned that anyone who's undefeated has probably had one case, they got lucky, and then they died. That's pretty close. Yeah, so basically, and I've spoken with other, a prosecutor friend of mine has told me that he can't stand it when people talk about the fact that they've won.

Starting point is 00:42:14 So because he says that means you're not trying enough cases and you're not trying enough challenging cases and you should be willing to go and do that. What is your thought process around one loss records and having, as you mentioned at the very beginning of our conversation, the willingness to take on some risk where you are going to lose some. sometimes. Well, you hit the nail on the head. I have been known to say that the only trial lawyer that never lost a case was the trial lawyer that only tried one and was damn lucky. Yeah. You know, you can't escape the win-and-loss record. I mean, it's either or something.

Starting point is 00:42:51 I certainly don't keep up with it. But in your mind, in your mind's eye, I'm sure that lawyers do keep up with it. Trial lawyers are very competitive. Litigators are competitive. I couldn't tell you how many total cases I've tried, but it's a lot. I can tell you I've won considerably more than I've lost, but I don't really keep score in the sense of knowing how many wins versus losses. I gauge the success of my practice by the overall success,

Starting point is 00:43:25 and that's not, thank God, depending on the outcome of one case, win or lose. But if you look at it from the perspective of being a plaintiff's lawyer, and that's where my heart and soul has always been on the side of the little person or the victim, even though as a trial lawyer you can also represent defendants if their cause is just. You know, the cases that get tried are the toughest cases for the plaintiff, because those are cases where very smart, skilled, competent, experienced defense lawyers and their clients, have decided they probably will win. Because if they didn't think they would win, they would settle the case. For example, with a prosecutor in a criminal case, you'll hear, I know my friend Nancy Grace, now a television star, used to be a prosecutor. She would always claim she'd never lost a case.

Starting point is 00:44:19 Well, again, she's a great prosecutor, but prosecutors get to pick and choose which cases they try. And so, you know, the old adage is you always want to. try your winner. So if you're a good lawyer, good litigator, a good trial lawyer, then you've got to have the wisdom of knowing when to hold them and when to fold them. And you try to make educated decisions at the end of the day. It's a matter of how much risk you're willing to tolerate. And with obviously greater risk can come greater reward. But I'd like to think that one would view my career or the careers of others, you know, as a whole body of work and not based on a win and lose record in the courtroom. If I get high marks overall, that means I was a winner much more often than a loser.

Starting point is 00:45:17 No, that makes complete sense. Lynn, I really appreciate your time today. I got one more question for you. You know, when I first reached out and I have to thank our mutual friend, Mike Golan, for connecting us. He's a great guy. Great guy. You know you guys are golfing buddies, I know. And you guys have went on some fun trips recently.

Starting point is 00:45:34 But when Mike and I first connected us and you learned about my show and the name of specifically learning leader, I'm curious, what was the first thought that came to mind when you saw that phrase combined, learning and leader? You know, the two words are totally consistent. I learn every day something new. And when the day comes that I do not have the willingness or the eagerness to learn, then I'm probably at a point where I need to hang up my boots as a leader. So I think that the idea of leadership being tied to learning not only applies to the leader, but I also think that properly discussed, a leader can inform and educate and help to teach those

Starting point is 00:46:34 who want to try to follow in his or her footsteps to achieve leadership. So it goes both ways. A leader needs to learn and a leader needs to help others learn. Love it. I love it, man. By the way, I had the pleasure of playing golf up in Dayton with your father. He is an absolute gentleman, enjoyed it very much. Really?

Starting point is 00:46:53 Did you beat him? I don't think I beat anybody in golf, Bob. But I always have a good time, and I get to meet some good people, and your dad was one of them. Yeah, thank you. I'll, I'm sure he'll be listening, so he'll hear, and I'll talk to him here prior to you even release it, so I appreciate that. He'd swing that left-hand club.

Starting point is 00:47:13 He hit a long ball often. It's kind of like a banana slice, but he'll love that you said that, and then I'm not correcting you completely, but just a little bit. but no. I'm not going to tell you where it landed. I just know he took the ball along. I'll let us stand that people can think he's a good golfer, but we're all a work in progress on the golf course.

Starting point is 00:47:32 Now, thank you so much for being here, man. Is there anywhere you would send people to learn more about you online? I think my website probably at www. Linwoodlaw.com has a pretty fulsome resume of my experience and some of my clients. And that'd be a starting point. If you Google me, you'll read the good, the bad, and the ugly. But as I said, it's been a very rewarding career.

Starting point is 00:48:01 I'm very fortunate to have represented some of the great individuals that I have had the pleasure of calling clients and friends. And I'm not done yet. I hope to keep going for a few more years. I was going to say, what's next? You know, I don't know what I – people say, well, why don't you retire? What would I do? I mean, I can't play bad golf every day. Listen, I do what I love doing, and that's to continue to practice law.

Starting point is 00:48:27 I wish for everybody the ability and the good fortune to find gainful employment in an area where they love what they do. And that's how I feel about the practice of law. And so as long as I continue to feel that way, I'll continue to practice law until I can't remember my name and I shouldn't be standing up in the courtroom. Love it, man. Well, Lynn, thanks again for being here, Mary. Man, I really appreciate it and I enjoyed it. It was my pleasure and thank you for allowing me to participate, Ryan. I hope to see you soon.

Starting point is 00:48:59 Sounds good, ma'am. Okay, bye-bye. This episode of The Learning Leader Show is over, but we have plenty more to keep you locked in until next time. Head over to Learningleadershow.com for more information and to request your favorite entrepreneur, CEO, world-class athlete, or anyone else that inspires you. You can also talk to Ryan directly by reaching out to him on Twitter

Starting point is 00:49:20 at Ryan Hawk 12. Thanks again and we'll see you next time on the Learning Leader Show.

The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk - 139: Lin Wood – One Of The Greatest Trial Lawyers In The World

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.