you think that makes you different? In your current trial practice, how does that make you stand out from colleagues? How do you approach things that you suspect is a little different to others?

Yeah, I think those who have grown up entirely within...

The civil, U.S. civil litigation practice, whether it's federal or state or both, are accustomed to a certain set of ways that you approach cases, especially those who don't have a lot of cases go to trial, which is typical in civil practice in the U.S. today.

There's a certain way of doing things, assuming that it's going to be focused on starting out with a certain kind of motion practice, then written discovery, lots of document collection, depositions, and then You go to mediation and maybe occasionally to trial.

The sorts of cases that I handled doing arbitration and federal criminal work, for one thing, there was a much higher likelihood of going to trial.

You're thinking from the outset that that's a real possibility and everything that you're trying to do is focused on being prepared for that eventuality.

And another thing is that because you don't have these typical discovery mechanisms that you have in civil litigation, You have to have other ways of gathering evidence or of figuring out how to use the more limited sets of evidence you have as effective ways of proving your case.

What should a case ideally rest on? What are you looking at when you're building your cases?