Cynthia Kuehl
on law firm strategy, the life of a litigation file, and what men can learn from women
The podcast version. It also plays in any podcast app.
Transcript
8,749 words · about 38 min to readMark the passages that stay with you: press the number beside a paragraph. Marks are anonymous, and the most-marked passages help choose what goes into the book.
To hear a passage, press ▸ under its number; it plays just that paragraph.
See a misspelled name or a wrong word? Select it and press Report an error, or email the correction. The transcript is machine-made; corrections are welcome.
Hello, I'm your host, Pulat Yunusov. This episode is supported by my law practice. Once in a while, I record this show for you. I love it, but my day job is commercial litigation, and I've been doing it for 12 years. I'd like you to know that your referrals are safe with me. You can find my contact information on my website at www.lawco.ca. Thank you very much and enjoy the show. Hello everyone, welcome to another episode of The Yunusov Question. Today my guest is Cynthia Kuehl, Chair of Lerners LLP in Toronto and London, Ontario. Hello Cynthia.
Good afternoon.
It's really great to have you. I, I think we met in October at the University of Toronto event, at the same event where I met your partner Earl Cherniak, who was a guest on the show, one of the more popular interviews, and a really interesting guy, really interesting lawyer, person, a legend, I think. And the Thing is that you're also becoming a legend.
Oh, I was gonna say that, you know, please don't weigh me against Earl because I'm afraid I'm going to lose that popularity contest. But I, you know, I like to say Lerners makes legends, but Earl is onto himself. So he's a class onto himself. Most definitely
he is. But I think you also are in a category of your own.
Thank you.
I want to congratulate you, first of all, on your selection as Chair of Lerners effective January 1st, 2023, if I'm not mistaken.
That's right. Thank you.
So that, that is a powerful role. It's a powerful place to be in a legal profession in this country. First of all, tell me briefly about this role. What is the responsibility of Chair of Lerners? Are you going to tell people what to do? You know, are you going to run things? Are you going to be the CEO? Or what, what are you going to— are you going to be the queen of Lerners?
Well, we'll see whether or not we can get to queen status. Other than in my own household, I've still been working on that for quite some time. So I'm really excited actually about the chair role. It's a— I've had a number of people congratulate me on becoming managing partner, and I say no, I'm actually the chair of the firm. And there is a distinction in our office. We, we have a 3-part executive committee. We have managing partners in both London and Toronto, and if you've read anything about our firm, and one of the significant aspects of the executive committee right now is that we're an all-female leadership team. Iola Ventresca, who's a firecracker in our London office, and Anne Spafford, who's probably the person I'm most afraid to be cross-examined by in our Toronto office, have already been on the executive committee, and I take over the chair role.
And the chair role, unlike kind of day-to-day management of the offices, which falls to our managing partners. The purpose of the chair role is to set a broader strategic vision for the firm and then work with the managing partners, the partners, the associates, the staff on the implementation of that strategic vision. And that can take a whole host of— that can involve a whole host of things in terms of succession planning, lateral hires, how big do we want to be, what kind of work do we want to do, how much do we want to spread, because we do have offices in the along the corridor between London and Toronto, including some growth happening in Kitchener-Waterloo in particular.
And so, you know, it's a very exciting thing for me to think about the big picture and the next 15, 20 years of a firm that I've been with my entire career. So it's exciting and daunting, to be honest. There's a lot of daunting too, but it's pretty exciting.
Yes. You spent your entire career at Lerners, correct?
I have been. Yeah. I articled here in 1998.
So you had a chance to see Lerners for over a long time span. So you know Lerners past and you know Lerners present. Your job right now, one of your jobs, is to determine Lerners future. Can you, can you talk a little bit about the past, the present, and the future? Where Lerners was? We learned a little bit about that from Earl Cherniak in that excellent interview that he gave. Also, please talk about Lerners is today and where you see Lerners in the future. I mean, I, I know it's a work in progress, that's why you were selected, but maybe you can lift the curtain a little bit.
Sure. So, you know, and, and you did speak to Earl, who is fundamental to the development of Lerners in London although, you know, it started in 1929 and Earl didn't exactly start on day one but he did start not there at the long after the call of called the Bar in 1960 and started off doing kind of work for people who needed a lawyer who may not always get representation elsewhere. And, and one of the things that's a real proud thing about our history is, when Earl would have no doubt told you, is that the time that he joined the firm, and certainly when Sam and Mary Lerner started the firm, there wasn't a lot of opportunities for Jews to work anywhere in law.
And there's been a long time a mentality in our firm from then that what We want is excellent lawyers. We want people who are committed to the service of our clients and that we have a long history of serving our communities because that's our birth. That's part of the very genetics of our firm, the DNA of our firm. Earl then helps develop the Toronto office. I was a lawyer, I believe, 23 in Toronto. We're over 50. It ebbs and flows in Toronto. I think we're just over 150. 30 between the two offices, and we've got a few people in our Kitchener-Waterloo office as well. And there's been some growth along, as I say, along that corridor as part of a deliberate recognition that there are excellent corporate clients and other individuals who, you know, fantastic businesses who aren't resident necessarily in the immediate GTA, who also are deserving of amazing representation.
And fortunately, we already found that there were some great lawyers in those communities who have now joined us, and we're continuing to do that. We've always been full service in London. In Toronto, we're, I used to say, we're pretty close to full service litigation, meaning we do almost everything other than criminal. And among the things that I am most pleased about is the breadth and depth of work that we do out of the Toronto office. I obviously am representing London office as well, and I don't have the same degree of familiarity very, although I'm certainly learning in my new role as chair. But having grown up in the Toronto office, I love the fact that every day the people that I come into contact with are bound together by a common love of advocacy and a real desire to help clients, individuals on particular issues, as well as corporate clients on really sophisticated deals and everything in between.
And so It's a real honor to do work with people who are passionate about what they do, and certainly, you know, that's a common theme from our past and certainly our present. What does our future hold? I don't really see our future holding, you know, ending up being that we're going to be a, you know, 1,000-lawyer firm with offices in Dubai. That's never been what we've intended to do. We will be doing some growth naturally, internally. Many of us— I am not unique of being somebody who's been with the firm forever. We invest in our people, we invest in our staff, we also invest in our lawyers. We grow them from within. That's going to continue to happen.
And one of the things I've said as being— one of the things I want to make sure that people know about Lerners is that we have amazing lawyers of all vintages. Sometimes when you end up with someone with a number of senior lawyers, the perception is that lawyers in years kind of 10 to 20 or more are kind of like the bench strength, you know, that's, that's your bench strength. And what I would say people like that in our firm aren't your bench strength. They would be the starting five on any other play on any other team. We have people with a lot of experience doing complex corporate deals and high-level advocacy and first chairs.
So part of that strategic vision is making sure that people understand what we offer to them in terms of actual experience and depth of experience among people who at other firms may not, may may not, and I don't know, I've never been anywhere else, may not have that same level of experience.
So are you saying—
a lot of sport analogies too, Pulat.
I was gonna say so many sport analogies, but then I held my tongue. I love the sport analogies. I need to learn more of them. I recently went to a Leafs game for the second time in my life. So are you saying that young lawyers or junior lawyers will have professional opportunities at Lerners sooner than normal or usual in the profession, such as first chairing a trial handling their own files, and so on?
So I'm always hesitant to say relative to other— where in the profession. My experience and knowledge of what else is happening in the profession is based on what people tell me because I've never been anywhere else. So I can tell you though what my experience was My experience was that I was second chair of a trial in my first, second, first into second year of practice, that I did my own corporate commercial litigation trial as first chair in my fourth year of practice, that I did my first appeal in my fifth year of practice, and that I have, and I don't think my opportunities are unique. Are they different? For sure. If you talk to someone like Earl, he would say I was in, you know, In my first, second year, I was in court every single day because you would do like 3 trials a day.
Like, it was very different. He was doing some criminal work as well, and that's not the same. When I articled, I argued 13 contested motions. You can't get 13 contested motions on the list right now. The courts are overwhelmed with demand, so it is different. But I was fortunate to sit in review, and I won't tell you the person's name, of one of our amazing star associates. Today, and she runs some of my files in her third year. She does the contact with the client. When we get to the hearing, she will be doing first chair and I will be the one sitting in the back. And it is important that we give people those opportunities.
No one develops in this practice unless they've been given opportunities. And when people say, how did you become firm chair? What did you do? Because people believed in me, gave me a chance. And that's what I think is really important to— as I say, it's part of the— it's part of the DNA here, but it's really important and something that I think is, is necessary for the long term— for the long term of our profession. And certainly it's something that, that I think is essential to our firm.
Weren't you scared to do contested motions, and so many of them, when you were an articling student? I remember the gut-wrenching feeling. How did you do that? Tell me.
Yeah, I was scared. I'm still scared now. No, you're not scared. I don't think you're scared. Are you kidding me?
You know, I look— I'm looking at the list of your reported decisions. I'm looking at the list of your unreported decisions. I'm looking at the list of everything that you did, and I just— I can't. And then I look at you and I see, I don't know, a 35-year-old woman, and I can't— I can't— I can't believe, like, how did you do all of this? And do you know how to stop this, the, these terrible butterflies? I don't want to call them butterflies, but I've heard from the judiciary a few times that mid-career, not even junior lawyers, mid-career lawyers avoid trials because they never have done a trial and they're just scared of going to trial.
So they settle. In most cases settle. One of the reasons most cases settle is because sometimes on both sides lawyers never did trial, a commercial or civil trial. So, but you did so many trials, you did so many appeals. Also, the variance of, of industries and, and practice areas is just mind-boggling. Of course, part of this is Lerner's, because you told me this is Lerner's DNA. You did, you did a lot of things under the sun, and you were given a lot of opportunities to do things early. But I need to know your secret. Tell me your secret, how you did so much over so many different areas with such breadth. I can't wait.
Just please share.
Well, first of all, I am sincere when I say I still have the butterflies in my stomach. I still get quite anxious. I don't necessarily sleep well the night before, but I'm not sure it's entirely fear as much as part of it is excitement. I mean, I really love being a litigator, and one of the things I have been telling people when they say, are you giving up your practice once you become chair? I'm like, absolutely not. I'm passionate about what I do. There's no I'm giving that up. You know, will that mean I have a few less hours of sleep at night? Maybe. But I also think it's important— just sidetracked from that— is that if you're going to lead a group of lawyers who practice law, you better practice it, number one.
And number two, if you want to have a strategic vision that's about your clients, you better understand your clients. And so it's essential to keep practicing, in my view. So, you know, what is my secret? You know, no one ever told me how to choose, so I kept on doing You know, it's more like no one ever stopped me. So, you know, why didn't you specialize? Because no one told me I had to, and I was having fun doing a whole bunch of different things. And, you know, how did I get all these? You know, yes, Lerners gave me opportunities. Why did I take them? If you know anything, if you read anything about me personally, I'm a youngest daughter of 3 of a rural farmer.
My parents had you know, in a traditional family, had 3 girls on a farm. And we were never expected to do anything but succeed. My parents just thought, you know what, these girls can do anything. And so I kind of grew up with a mentality that I could do anything. And until someone told me I couldn't, I was gonna keep on with that mentality. It makes it pretty easy. And so I say I owe a lot of credit to the people who never told me I couldn't. And so, you know, maybe I have a false sense of confidence as a result of that, but it does make it easier if you have people who believe in you.
Well, let's talk about some specifics a little bit. Sure. I'm sure that in all of our audience, most of our audience are litigators, a lot of our audience are judges. So I'm really curious about the life cycle of a file. In your custody or in your possession. So let's take a bird's eye view from the moment the file lands on your desk. First of all, how does it happen? Maybe there is no physical desk. Is it an email usually? What is it? Nothing, nothing specific, just a general discussion, a bird's eye view of a life of a file on Cynthia Kuehl's desk.
Sure. So Because of the nature of the way our firm is organized, and I'll focus on my commercial litigation practice, most of the work that comes in is on a referral basis. I do have some repeat clients. Let's be honest, business people don't want to be repeat clients of litigation lawyers. We're a loss leader in many circumstances. I'm acutely aware of that. So most of it is word of mouth. I have been very lucky to have met people who have confidence in me and my ability to handle files for them. So I do occasionally get contact directly from corporate clients, but by and large I get contacted by lawyers who are asking me to handle a case that they either can't handle or because they're conflicted or otherwise.
So that's the vast majority of my work that comes in. And then I have some repeat clients. Usually it comes in the email, and assuming there's no conflicts, I do initial calls myself. But from a business person's perspective, I'm not always the person who should be doing the day-to-day management of it. I'm very, you know, I've got some really great associates and younger partners who assist me on my files. So, you know, it comes in. I like to have face-to-face Zoom-to-Zoom meetings with people at the outset. In my commercial files, part of that is getting the facts and part of it is getting an idea of what people want. And then, you know what, litigation often has a mind of its own.
So, you know, think about it. I like to sit down, I like to strategize. You know, it's a real pleasure to be able to make time to think about a file and think about what the right way to go is, develop a plan, present it to the client, and away we go. What happens thereafter is, you know, a confluence of the influence of of client demands, opposing counsel, you know, judges, mediators, etc. So, but that's basically how it comes to me and my approach to it. And I keep on saying I'm really fortunate. I'm going to stop saying that, not because I'm not, but because it's kind of like somebody who starts every sentence with yes or um.
But as I do that, but what I say is there are people that I work with, and at one point I was those people. The file would land on Earl Cherniak's desk or another partner's desk, and he would say, this is what I'm thinking, can you run with it? Now I get to be at this point in my career, it lands on my desk, I think about it, I turn to somebody else and say, hey, can you help me with this and can you run with it? And that's— and it's a weird evolution in your career to do that switch. So,
well, delegation feels good, doesn't it? It feels like a superpower because it extends your own abilities with abilities of your talented associates and partners. But I was curious that after— about this— after you let somebody else run with the file, you shared some of your views on the file, you gave some direction to the file, and the person ran, started running with the file. When do you return to the file? Do you return to the file when it's— when the trial is scheduled, or do you return to the file occasionally when high-stakes issues are raised?
So what I would say is I never leave the file. So someone might be running with the file, but depending on the level of person, so if it's my first or second year associate, they might be in my office quite, quite often. I say my associate, first or second year associate Lerners, they might be in my office quite often bouncing ideas. If it's a more, you know, one of our partners who's junior to me, I may not see that file as often, but I don't ever leave the file. And for me, I think one of the values that you add as you get more senior is the fact that you've seen a lot. And so I ask people to keep me apprised of what's going on because I may have seen this before.
I may have a strategic decision that they may not have been contemplating just by virtue of the fact that I've been around. And so, you know, you never leave the file. What you do is you give people opportunities to spread their own wings knowing that they've got a safety net. And as you become more senior, you know, you become the safety net more often than you are the person who needs the safety. So that's my own view of it. And I'm really careful and I tell clients upfront, this is how I'm going to staff the file. I am ultimately the responsible person. That means I take responsibility for the decisions that are being made.
But you're in really good hands with my colleague who is going to do the things that are within their purview, keeping me fully apprised. And that's how, you know, that's how you extend the hours in your day But it also, you know, there's a lot of— it's really exciting. I did an appeal recently with one of my younger partners, and it's really exciting when someone that you've worked with for years is doing something well in front of your eyes. So it's personally very rewarding to delegate and to competent people. And I think it's necessary, quite frankly, for succession. It's also necessary for clients. And, you know, this is a business. Clients don't always need to pay me to do everything.
And so there's lots of good reasons why you want to do that.
Well, you're quite on top of the recent directive from the recently retired Chief Justice Strathy and Associate Chief Fairburn about involving junior lawyers in advocacy. So kudos to you for that. But I'm also wondering, when you described the life of a file, you told me a lot about the involvement of junior lawyers. Is this also how you train them? Is this also how Lerners the firm trains its lawyers by simply involving them in files and by giving, giving the feedback from senior lawyers like you?
For sure. And, you know, that's part of it, is that when people do, I do give them feedback, and both informally and informally. But as some of our students and associates can tell you, you rarely get invited to do something with me that is not a forced learning experience. So I did a, I did a 2-week week hearing during COVID So it was over Zoom with one of my colleagues, and we had a student who's now one of our associates sit in to take notes, to do research on the fly, etc. And every day I would turn to him at the end of the day and say, tell me what you learned today. And, you know, I'm sure that the first day that was fun, and after that it became a bit of a, you know, you know, I'm sure all day he was thinking, what am I going to have to tell her today?
But now when he sits in on something, I don't actually always ask him, tell me what— I say, tell me what I could have done better. Tell me what hit and what didn't hit.
Tell me—
or I'll sit at lunch and say, how are they reacting to me over Zoom? And so there is that— I rely on— first of all, it's mentoring, and I want them to be learning and being able to consciously think about things. But as they get more senior, I want them to understand that I need them in that way too. I'm not particularly— I'm good at judging whether or not I'm good at something or not. I'd like to think I'm great at everything. It's not true. I'm a horrible cook. But I, you know, it's nice to have him say, you know what, I think this point is not resonating, or I think you lost them on this.
And if you involve them from the beginning, you give them the confidence to give you back that feedback. And so it becomes, you know, it becomes reciprocal feedback and it's beneficial for everybody. And certainly I think it's good for the client.
You mentioned a little bit about your backstory. You grew up on a farm. That alone, I guess, I'm not sure if it's that uncommon in Ontario, but it's quite special to a lot of people in Toronto who weren't even born here, like me, for example. So tell me a little bit more about your parents, who they were, what they did. Were they farmers? You already told me that they wanted to be good at everything. Why they wanted to be good at everything? Talk a little bit about your— let's, let's pay some respect to your parents.
Yeah, no, absolutely. So they are generational farmers. Sorry, I'm actually— that, that upsets me. I'm sorry. My dad recently died. So this is hard.
I'm sorry.
It's okay. Just give me one second. Yes. I wasn't expecting that. And I wasn't expecting this either. So just give me one second. He didn't recently die. He died in April 2020. But I'm so beholden to them.
Yeah,
my mom is the most important person in my life besides my kids. My husband too. He's amazing. But what my parents did— so we grew up in rural Ontario. They had a beef cattle farm. My dad was a third generation. His, his father had immigrated with his parents from Germany when he was 5 years old. It's hard work, you know. For people who are— I'm from Eastern Ontario, you know, it's— these aren't large, like, agricultural farm properties where these— this is like day-to-day labor to get by. I never had a sense of that growing up. My parents always gave us what we needed, and I never had a sense that it was hard for them to do that because they were so conscious of of providing for their family, which was amazing.
But growing up, I had two older sisters. My mom had her hands full, no doubt. I was by far the worst. I often say that by the time they got to me, they were probably like, oh gosh, we've given up parenting. But one of the things that they, you know, one of the things I remember my dad talking to some of his younger farming colleagues about men. And I remember one of his friends actually had a daughter and was just like, I was— and actually was very blunt about it and said, I was hoping for a son. And my dad's like, why? Women can do whatever. My girls have done whatever I've asked of them and more, and they're going to do whatever they want in their lives.
And so it was, you know, that's really special as a gift. And it's not unique to farming family, but it's a really special gift. Gift to have from parents. I do apologize how emotional I got at the outset, but it was really amazing, you know, to have that growing up. The other thing my parents did is they also taught me about the importance of having fun. We had a lot of fun. They had a lot of fun. They used to have these fantastic parties, and they would dance and listen to music, and people would come over and play musical instruments. I still love music. I go to a lot of concerts a year. My mom and my sisters and my now 21-year-old niece and I all went to Nashville before Christmas.
We love music together and I have a lot of fun now with my friends. We, you know, in very much the spirit of that. So it's really important to be passionate about what you do, but it's also really, really important to realize that it's not the only thing about you and that we can be— and I'm very serious about my work, And I am also pretty not serious sometimes at home. So, and my parents gave me that gift too, to realize that you can be many people. So anyway, I can't speak enough or highly enough of them. They're amazing.
Yes, yes, they are amazing. And I heard you speak about your dad and how he defended you and his girls and said that they can do as well or as much as men can. And boys, right? So I want to ask you about men in the legal profession.
Yes, sure.
And I want to ask you about women in the legal profession. So there is a pretty stereotype phrase that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Maybe this phrase has meaning, maybe it doesn't, but at least it symbolizes something. It symbolizes that there is there is a line between men and women, and we have a lot of debates, especially now, about the relationship between the male part of society and the female part of society. And the same thing goes about the profession. So, and I'm really curious about the split in the legal profession, and I want you to tell me about your experience over the many years I would say 22 years, right, at Lerners and in the legal profession, about your experience of dealing with male lawyers and male culture.
Is there such a thing as male culture in this profession? Is there such a thing as female culture in this profession? I know we're different in some things, and I know that I personally, for example, I constantly learn about other cultures, other countries, other people, and also women as a group. I think there is something to learn for men about women. Talk about that a little bit.
Sure. So I think, you know, is there a male or female culture in the practice of law? I'm not sure that there is. I think there's an overarching patriarchy in society that women always have had to deal with, and that should come as no surprise to anyone. I'm always really hesitant to talk about there being kind of men in law and women in law. And that's because certainly, and I don't know, I can't speak for men, but I can speak for myself as a woman. And I don't necessarily have the— I'm not part of a homogenous group of women. And oftentimes when we talk about women, what we're talking about is we have this preconception about femininity and motherhood.
And women in the caretaker role, and how does that manifest itself in the practice of law. And that starts with perception that's, that's what women bring to the practice of law. Women bring a lot of things to the practice of law. It also means that men aren't allowed to have those things. And so one of the things that I remember, and I give this example because women are always surprised when I say this, when I was is when I gave birth to my first child my intention was to take 6 months off work. I ended up taking 7 because he was born 8 weeks early. So I ended up taking 7 months off work, and my husband, who is also— he's a government lawyer— also took 6 months off work.
It was 2005, and that was relatively unheard of. Not me taking 6 months, him taking 6 months. It was important to him. He's actually was way better with babies than me, to be honest. That was part of his nurturing and caretaking soul. The only comment I had that was negative about that came from a woman who said to me, I can't believe you are giving up time with your child. And it was incredibly eye-opening to me that I was suddenly wound up with being not— I mean, of course I take motherhood seriously, but that somehow my decisions were going to be judged by that. And what I would say to women, the idea of women culture or female culture or male culture, is that what we want is a culture where people feel like they can make choice.
I worry sometimes that men feel that they can't take leaves or take care of their children because that's not the stereotypical role for them. Them, which also then puts the reverse, you know, then, then puts pressure on women to take over that caretaking role. So we perpetuate it by our understanding and our belief that somehow we have to be within these molds, and we're not all the same. Have I had bad experiences? Oh yes I've had bad experiences. I had a man who commented, a male lawyer who commented after I left a discovery at 7 PM. Now, if I can say, is after enduring hours of him asking inane and not very helpful questions of my client.
At 7 PM, I said, we're done. I walked out, and the next day I got a call from my co-counsel who had sent an articling student to take notes, who said, after you left, he turned to the female articling student and said, that's why women shouldn't be able to practice law. They have to run home to their babies. Those attitudes— so that was in 2005, 2006— those attitudes existed then. Do they exist today in the profession? Of course they do. I think we are doing a really good job of saying they shouldn't exist. We have a lot of work to do, but it's not because it's unique to the profession. It's because it's, you know, unfortunately endemic in society.
What do we do about it? There's a lot of work to be done. One of it is to have women in leadership. I think that's very important. And for that not to be performative. It is not just putting in women in leadership because that's a good thing to do. It's because they bring a different perspective and thoughtfulness to it, while also recognizing that we're not all the same and and that we need to give everybody opportunities to figure out what's best for them in their lives. And, and so, you know, there's, there's all kinds of things that still exist. We still do in our firm extraordinary women's event because we celebrate women and our firm has a long history of having women in leadership and doing well in respect to gender parity in our partnership in Toronto and in our office overall.
But, you know, those things are some part of what we have to do. Some part of what we do is need to have hard discussions about what it is that we expect of one another in terms of support and moving the needle away from saying the primary female issue is this. Well, actually, we're all a little different, and that's okay too.
Wow. Lots to think about, lots to digest. And I'm very serious about this, and I hope our listeners are taking away similar feelings from this. Well, first of all, I understand that that women are different, and this is probably the first principle that we should start with. We cannot apply the same metrics to all women. We cannot expect the same things from all women. But on the other hand, women also fight for their rights, for example, right? And when they do— and they have fought for their rights for decades, centuries— and when they do, they represent themselves as a group. So I believe that there is a difference between men and women, and I think that difference often is not in favor of men.
And I think that because of the bias over thousands of years when men— you mentioned the word patriarchy— a bias arose over thousands of years where men simply got used to the idea that they were running things and that this is a typical person that should be in charge. Then this bias, of course, I think led to an accumulation of errors, just like, you know physiological errors or biological errors or the accumulation leads to cancer eventually and the organism dies, right? So in this respect I was wondering if you could share what men could learn from women from female lawyers, what male lawyers could learn from them. And not just obvious things like don't be an asshole and don't say things like some male lawyers say, but maybe things that will be directly practical and directly useful in a lawyer's job that men maybe physically are not capable of wrapping their mind around because they don't have the experiences, the life experiences that women have.
Could you talk a little bit about that?
Sure. So one of the things you said is that, you know, women have often fought, and when they do, they fight as a unit. And what I would say in respect of that is that women have had to fight, and it's bloody exhausting. And we lean on each other, even though that we're not a homogenous group, because it is tiring to do it on your own. And so I have not had to endure the fight that others have had because of my my good fortune in many parts of my life. But that's something people need to walk away from saying, like, you know, we can't keep on having to fight. The other thing is we can't keep on having to fight for women because we've got in our profession a real need to fight for others.
You know, I have— I've said this publicly, I'm very happy that I'm a part of an all-female leadership team, and I, I am very, very proud of the fact that we have gender parity but I'm not patting my back on the shoulder quite yet. We have a lot of work to do with respect to racialized lawyers. And so when even we talk about men and patriarchy, we are not talking about all men. And so we have work to do in that area as a profession. Our firm's starting to do that work, but you know what we're really doing? We're starting to have discussions about how to do the work because it's, it's not easy.
And we need to be doing it in a way that's meaningful and not just, you know, something that's a great tweet. And I'm really happy about that. But it also exhausts me because the fight's been going on for a while. And I think sometimes we need to shift gears. That said, what can some women learn from us? You know what, if you believe all the stereotypes about women and some of this is true, you know, women, I find that one of the things that I do well and maybe, you know, again, this is, this is a pat on the back, is that I genuinely am interested in people and I listen to people and I am a human being.
So, you know, I am a little apologetic for getting emotional during your interview, but I'm not all that apologetic because the end of the day, I'm a human being with real emotions. And whether you are dealing with a per— an injured client in a personal injury matter or a corporation that's doing an M&A deal or a you know, a corporation is involved in litigation, there's humans involved. And listening to humans and understanding where they're coming from often has more of a personal element than what people may realize. And so that skill set of listening, I don't think is a unique feminine trait. But I think if you talk to people about what different— what there are in terms of general differences between men and women women are good listeners.
Part of that is because of a patriarchal society where we always were being told to listen and we're being told to. Now we actually have a voice as well, which I think is really, really important. And it's important for me as a lawyer to be human. And I think, you know, we don't need to all crank out billable hours and be automatons either for our clients. We need to be conscious of that. So I think that that's a— that those are kind of some of the traits. I think as well there's a vulnerability to that we are more willing to accept than others. Maybe not all of us again, but certainly I have been very candid whenever anyone asks me about what's happened in the course of my career to explain the ups and the downs.
And there's been downs. I don't think men are given that same freedom to be vulnerable in their careers. And it's hard to get support and advance if you aren't able to identify the support that you need. And so I always say, and I like to go to talk to my male associates and say, say, are you okay with doing this? Do you need me to help you with this? How are you? You know and I, I confess I wasn't always very good at that. I'm getting better. But that kind of, you know, being vulnerable so that you can get the support you need so that you can advance and, and also be a little less stressed, I think is something that women are better at than men, generally speaking.
Maybe not all men,
right? This is fascinating. You know, you mentioned Twitter, and there was a discussion on Twitter today that I started, I admit, and the discussion was about what litigators have in common. And one of the theories offered was that they have— one of the things that they have in common is the narcissistic personality disorder. You know what, I'm not a psychiatrist, so I always admit my ignorance. So I actually wasn't sure what it meant, narcissistic personality disorder. I always thought narcissism was about, you know, me, me, me, like in Seinfeld, in that Seinfeld episode, loving myself and so on and so forth. But then I felt that this tweet really struck a chord and it had something right about it.
And then I went to Google and I tried searching for the right disorder that I felt that a lot of litigators shared. And of course is— this is a half joke, but there is some truth to it— and I searched personality disorder no empathy.
Oh, and the first—
and I was wondering if there is such a personality disorder, and the first result was narcissistic personality disorder. So of course that theory was exactly right about what I had in mind. So no empathy There is a disorder apparently in the manual of mental disorder, something like that. Well, you would be familiar, probably you had cases about it.
Maybe.
Yeah, maybe. So you did a lot of med mal in your experience. Some of the hardest trials I know, civil trials, are medical malpractice trials. So anyway, no empathy. Do you think lawyers have— let's assume they have little empathy or less empathy than normal people. Do you think it's a strength? Maybe historically society wanted lawyers to defend clients' best interests without much empathy for the opposing party, because defending your client's best interests often involves hurting opposing parties, sometimes vulnerable opposing parties. Do you think the society has been interested in selecting people with little empathy to be litigators because applying the law was preferred to be more of a dry process without much regard for feelings or for people who evoke feelings?
What do you think about this? Whole thing?
Well, you know, I have to say that when I talk to— I'm now going to go look at that Twitter and see who suggested that, because I actually think lawyers have a lot of empathy. And I'm— I am— and so certainly I think that perception of the television lawyer who can cross-examine everybody and seem to walk away and feel nothing about it, I can understand that as being true in some circumstances. I think that There might be circumstances in which, in which you want to harden yourself a little bit because what you're doing is difficult and emotional, and that can cross different types of litigation. But what I would say is, at the end of the day, and this is one of the things I say to all of my clients when we go to trial, the person who is the most important person in the room, the person you need to convince, is a judge.
The judge is human. So I can do the best cross-examination, but I better not cross-examine to the point that that judge is, is now feeling badly for the person I cross-examined. The judge is human. So if lawyers can't have empathy, and maybe you'd say, well, judges start off as lawyers, so the judges don't have empathy either, but I don't believe that. I don't believe that. So you have to weigh your desire to to beat everything into submission in cross-examination with the fact that you have an audience. And you might think you did the best job possible, but what you think matters zero. It is what the judge thinks. And so I, I think, you know, approaching it as it's best not to be empathetic— Maybe you don't want to have empathy, but you better be alive as to whether or not the person who actually makes the decision has empathy.
And, and, you know, the other thing is, as I say, a lot of my clients make decisions that are not based on the law. They make decisions that are settled to settle based on what's in their corporate interest or what's in their personal interest. And sometimes in, you know, closely held companies, the personal interest and the corporate interest merge. And if you have no empathy and you can't understand that, you can't give good advice. So I can tell somebody they're going to win on the law, but I better understand where— what other motivations they may have. Have. And so I think it's— I think a well-rounded lawyer is suitably empathetic in my own view.
If a lawyer, a litigator, from in, at the height of his career 20, 30 years ago traveled through time in a time machine and landed in a courtroom 30 years from now or 20 years from now, what do you think he will see? And I'm saying he because most likely it was a he 20, 30 years ago.
And they're fast-forwarding 20, 30 years from now.
And we're fast-forwarding 30 years, 20, 30 years from now when you will be a great legend of Canadian litigation.
I love how you keep on mentioning that. So maybe you'll make it true. So I, I think that, you know, we just had this discussion the other night about the fact that if you, you know, that in the first 20 or 30 years of someone like Earl's career, very little changed. And now technology is moving so quickly that everything is changing. So first of all, I don't even know if they're going to be in a courtroom.
Yes,
I think that we're in— we're part and parcel now where we do everything virtually that the demands on the system might be such that that continues. And I certainly don't think they'll be surrounded by papers and highlighters. That's for sure. I think that the current use of technology will only grow and expand. I'm hoping that the person who decides their cases, and I say I hope because change takes a really long time and 20 and 30 years can pass by in the blink of an eye, but I'm hoping that the person who decides their cases looks like the society that they represent. I don't think we have that yet. We're working on it, but change takes a really long time.
So I'm hoping that's the case. And in 20 and 30 years, bless them, please not be wearing a black robe. So I realize I might be alone in that, but I'm happy to give up my robes any day now. So
yeah, I am neutral to robes. I prefer to be without the robe, But I'll follow the crowd on this one. This is not the revolution that I want to start, but for sure I hear you on this. You know what, Cynthia, this has been such an amazing interview, and you made me think a lot. And I often— people often make me think, but you also made me feel, and that's much harder actually to make me feel something. Thank you, and thank you for your generosity. Thank you for lifting the veil on your day, on the life of a file at your firm. This is really practical. This is really valuable, especially for an army of young lawyers who will never work at a law firm, who are now graduating law schools and starting their own practices.
This is the new reality. And I talked about that with George Strathy, Honorable George Strathy and he made some suggestions. But I think when lawyers like you lift the curtain on their practices, on their daily routines, on their procedures and systems, that's training not just for your associates, that's training also for all associates out there, even on those who are associates of themselves, solo practitioners starting their own practice. So thank you so much for that.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for lifting the veil on your own inner world, on your heart, on your soul, and sharing your feelings with us. This is really precious, and we don't have enough of that. Everybody is rock solid and perfect and presents an appearance of an ideal universal soldier. So,
you know, one thing I say to people is that I am, first of all, my— I'm an open book. And secondly, I am who I am. And two, when we talk about, you know, what does my day look like? My day looks like Cynthia Kuehl gets up in the morning every day. And so if what I would say to people who are practicing on their own is stay true to yourself this, you know be passionate about what you do, whatever it is. Make sure you're doing stuff that makes you happy. And maybe that's— maybe your work doesn't make you as happy, but it funds whatever in life, the rest of your life, makes you happy.
But, but don't lose yourself. It's, you know, I, I think that clients like the fact that they know that they get me, not somebody I think they want to see. And I'm hoping that, that, that other people take, take that seriously. Makes it so that I actually really have loved the last 25 years of my career.
Wow. Thank you so much, Cynthia. It's been a great interview, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you so much.
Thank you for the opportunity. It's been a pleasure.