Legally Bond
Legally Bond
An Interview with Jennifer Schwartzott, Litigation
In this episode of Legally Bond, Kim speaks with Bond litigation attorney and Deputy Managing Member of the Rochester office Jennifer Schwartzott. Jen talks about her litigation practice as well as her recent appointment as co-chair of Bond's Diversity & Inclusion Committee.
Hello and welcome to Legally Bond, a podcast presented by the law firm Bond Shettick King. I'm your host, kim Wolf-Price. Today we're talking with Jennifer Schwartzot, a member in our Rochester office. Jen is a litigator, deputy managing member of the Rochester office and, since January 2024, co-chair of Bond's Diversity Committee. Hello, jen, welcome back to the podcast. Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 2:It's great to be back, kim. I'm very excited to be here.
Speaker 1:Thank you, it's always good to talk to you and I'm sure that we'll have a lot to chat about today as well. And if it works for you, I'd like to talk a little bit about your practice at Bond, like what it means to be a litigator, some of the types of matters you work on, and then, of course, discuss the diversity committee and what drew you to that role in firm leadership. And does that work for today's conversation? Definitely yes, thank you, sure, terrific. Okay, so while you were I guess it was over two years ago on the podcast before. So if you don't mind, I hope, before we go too far into our conversation, would you please just like talk to the listeners a little?
Speaker 2:bit about you, about your background. Whatever you want to cover law school undergrad, whatever you think, sure you bet. So I grew up in a small town in upstate New York, wyoming County. The town is Attica. Many people have heard of it because of prison fame, but there's a nice town there and I went to Ithaca College for undergrad and from there I went directly into law school at University of Maryland. School of Law and some listeners might know the professional graduate schools associated with University of Maryland are all located in Baltimore City as opposed to down in College Park where the large University of Maryland campus is. So I was there and graduated and started my legal practice there in Baltimore at a firm called Miles and Stockbridge.
Speaker 1:Again, maybe back up a little bit. I know you were a college athlete. Can you talk about that and do you think that training helps in legal work?
Speaker 2:Can you talk about that and do you think that?
Speaker 2:training helps in legal work college because I had a strong group of women that I was friends with and many of whom I remain friends with and still text with almost daily after all of these years.
Speaker 2:And one of the people that I've kept in touch with in particular that's kind of amazing is my coach.
Speaker 2:She was a first year coach when my class were freshmen and we just were texting yesterday, so she has not only been a coach of the soccer team, kind of a life coach, for the last 30 years, I guess.
Speaker 2:In terms of how it applies as a lawyer, I think it helps, certainly as a litigator, because having a healthy sense of competition is part of litigation. I think it also is very helpful in developing time management skills, which in private practice, the more senior you get, the more juggling you do, and it seems like we're going to talk about some of the juggling that happens in my practice that you are required to you know multiple hours of practice every day, as well as games where you typically might have to travel a couple of hours to get to a particular college to participate. It really requires you to set your schedule and when you're going to do your classes and you're studying, and I think it sets folks up really well for the practice of law, because that's an important skill. I would just add as a woman athlete. I think there's been a lot of literature to suggest that women athletes in particular. It gives them, when they are involved in athletics as a young person and through young adulthood, a sense of confidence that you can develop in your craft and that is certainly a healthy skill to have in the practice of law as well.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a great point. It's the ability to not only work as a team and all of that, but to be okay with standing out sometimes which I think some women struggle with as well but like, yes, I scored that goal, you will be celebrating me, even though it takes a team. And sometimes women are like no, no, not me, no, we deflect, like even compliments.
Speaker 2:So it's a, it's a really healthy skill to learn and the teamwork, as you mentioned, I should echo, is fundamental to my practice. So I have carried it forth into ever, since I was an associate and now as a partner, how I manage my cases. I take a team approach with our associates and we have team meetings and talk through cases, and so, in my opinion, I think everything usually results in a better outcome when there's a team involved.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, absolutely, and you hinted at this earlier. But you didn't start your career at Bond or even in New York State. So you have a couple of states that you are licensed to practice in, but will you talk a little bit about the start of your career and then how you got to Rochester and Bonk?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so I started, as I mentioned, at Miles and Stockbridge.
Speaker 2:I was in the complex litigation group and it was a great experience. I worked with a lot of talented litigators on large cases that had a role, even as a young associate an important role to play in those cases. We had a number of clients around the country, so I handled matters throughout the United States in both state and federal court, which was really, as a young attorney, wonderful experience, and I really had an inclination and aptitude for litigation. I really liked it. Really had an inclination and aptitude for litigation, I really liked it, and so I sought out opportunities to work with some of the more senior litigators who would do trials, because that's a skill that I wanted to learn, and I was fortunate in that I was able to do that in both state and federal court participate in many different trials, evidentiary hearings and then ultimately, while I was still there as a more senior associate, evidentiary hearings and then ultimately, while I was still there as a more senior associate, handled a few trials on my own, which was great.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's great. And then you, somehow, somehow, I wound up in upstate New York, which is where I grew up.
Speaker 2:So I had two children at that point in 2010 and decided that, being a busy lawyer and having all lawyer friends there wasn't a good way for us to really provide the kids with the support network we wanted for them, and so we decided to move to upstate New York where I still had most of my family my mother was here, as well as some aunts and uncles, cousins, that sort of thing. My grandmother was still living at that time, and so we weren't going to move back to Attica, but we decided we were kind of between Buffalo and Rochester and we went with Rochester. Sorry, buffalo colleagues, I love you too, but went with the Rochester route. And when I arrived, I initially took a position at a smaller firm that was very heavily involved in litigation, and so I did continue to do litigation there and thought I would give the smaller firm a try for the years, especially while my kids were young, and then I ultimately made my way to Bond in 2018.
Speaker 1:Very good. Well, we're very glad that you did make your way to Bond in 2018. I am particularly happy to be able to work with you, so I think it's great, and a lot of what you talked about there leads approach the practice of law. So let's maybe talk a little bit more about litigation. What are some of the things that drew you to practicing law with litigation in a litigation focus?
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's a great question, Certainly, I would say, as I mentioned, I think as a young person I was very interested in it in a way that I didn't necessarily understand, but as an athlete, as I mentioned, it seemed like a good competition, you know, in terms of taking a side, being on a team and kind of advocating against the other team, advocating against the other team. So I started, I remember, as a young, I probably decided I want to be a lawyer when I was maybe 12. And then I did mock trial in high school and loved it and went on to college with the plan to be a lawyer. However, law school, as many of the listeners who are lawyers know, is very focused on how to be a litigator. A lot of lawyers know is very focused on how to be a litigator. A lot of lawyers probably at least 50% or more, aren't litigators.
Speaker 2:But that is it certainly was something that I continued to have fondness for through law school and when, given the opportunity to, when I joined the firm, was excited to join litigation group, I think the advocacy for others. My friends would say that I'm great at advocating for others, maybe not always myself, but that was appealing to me. I also didn't understand initially but have learned to love, and one of the things I like about it the most now is the strategy behind it. So it's very creative and strategical. And I don't mean creative like making a painting, which I'd be terrible at, but creative and coming up with arguments to support the different positions that you have to take. And so that has, although maybe not the initial thing I appreciated about it, is probably what I appreciate it most now.
Speaker 1:I think what's funny is that people think litigation, you know, is sort of like from TV, it's like from the hip, like just off the cup, and it is very much a practice and it is something that is. There is so much planning that goes into it, isn't there?
Speaker 2:Yes, I mean to do it and to do it well. It is all about planning right, and you always are planning for a trial which you might in most cases never get to, but you kind of take your end and work backwards and think what are all the facts and evidence and the things that I have to develop and plan around to get to being in a place where we could be successful at trial? And that, of course, informs whether we should go to trial If, with the planning and the evidence and the facts, if it isn't going to be successful, those are the cases typically that it's more likely than not would be settled.
Speaker 1:There's no gotcha moments. Lawyers don't like to ask questions at trial that we don't know the answer to.
Speaker 2:Yes, that is one of the neat things that I don't know why, but the general public seems not to know that when we ask questions as lawyers, we almost always know the answer or we wouldn't ask the question. That's right. And so I think, people, when we do depositions which for listeners who might not know is an oral statement under oath that you take during the discovery phase of the case we ask the questions because we have to ask them in a certain way, but we know the answers already. So they don't necessarily always like it. When we ask the question, they say something we know is not actually what the answer is, and we say, well, what about this? And then somehow they're often surprised by that and we have to, you know, go through the explanation of reminding them that we have access to the information, and that's, of course, why we know the answer already.
Speaker 1:Yes, you can offer to refresh their recollection. Would it help if you took a look at that letter from January 3rd? Absolutely yeah. I think it's really funny that people have this sense that we're like actually trying to figure out while we're there. But no, no, no, we figured that out way before we got to that point.
Speaker 2:Yes, and it's interesting. I think one of the things after you've been doing it a long time with questioning you become much better at which is listening to the answer and using that information to ask your next question. I think when you're just starting out that's really hard and you have your outline and you're really committed to it and the listening comprehension piece certainly gets better over time, because that can certainly be very important as well.
Speaker 1:Yeah, because at first you're just so nervous. But you're trying to just keep the nerves at bay, make sure you get your questions. But they tell us in law school and you know our mentors tell us like listening is the most critical part.
Speaker 2:I remember my first deposition. I was so distracted by the court reporter who was taking everything down that it was hard to focus on what I was actually doing.
Speaker 1:It's really hard. You're like such a pageantry sort of that's happening, you know, and everyone's there and people are playing roles, and then you're like just holding on to that. Well, they probably don't use paper anymore, but you know, you're like the first time it was definitely a piece of paper.
Speaker 2:Definitely paper for me too.
Speaker 1:So I think a lot of people think of litigation as just being good at arguing or debating. How would you sort of describe practicing law as a litigator?
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's interesting because so many litigators I can think of many who don't ever argue really, they just are behind the scenes, whether it's in discovery or doing persuasive writing. So I think I would explain litigation as trying to, I guess, get to a particular desired result for your client and, using strategy and case law and different evidence points on how to get there. So it's almost. I mean, it really is a creative exercise and arguing is a small piece right.
Speaker 2:There's very limited circumstances where a motion, which is an application to the court to do something, that you would make an oral, what we call oral arguments. But that is maybe 2% of something, because you just don't file that many motions. And now, actually for many motions the court don't want to even hear oral arguments. They just want you to submit the papers and they decide that way. So it isn't really about that. Certainly, being able to advocate is important in litigation and whether you do that, so much of that even can be now by email, or it used to be by letter or having a telephone conversation with the opposing side. But ideally in those situations you're not arguing, you're more trying to persuade the listener that your side is correct and their side has weaknesses.
Speaker 1:Right, because it is just. You know it's applying your facts to the law and you know the facts at hand to the law as it is to try to get to that desired outcome. So it's persuasive.
Speaker 2:Absolutely and different. I think one thing that maybe listeners who aren't lawyers and don't do litigation maybe don't appreciate the outcome. A good outcome is different for every client depending on a circumstance. Some could be they want to take a case all the way to trial and get a certain verdict. Sometimes it's just settling a case for something that's reasonable. Sometimes it's trying to, you know, work on a new way of doing something because this case has highlighted some deficiency that they might have Right, because really it's typically.
Speaker 1:It's a business and it's all about what are the goals for the business, what makes the business function best, and decisions have to be made.
Speaker 2:That's exactly right, and so it's not about fighting so much as what maybe people think. And certainly TV shows, right, they make it seem that it's all about these quintessential moments that happen at trial. But that's such a small piece and what? Probably 95% of cases don't go to trial, certainly in the civil context, which for listeners are from only does civil, not criminal cases.
Speaker 1:That's right. So those TV shows where everyone's running to court all the time, that's not really how it. You're running to your keyboard a lot. That's exactly right.
Speaker 2:Yes, I did a trial a couple of weeks ago. It's the first trial I've done since before the pandemic started, so it has been a while, and it just, I think, shows how not common going to trial is.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I guess law schools maybe should change that focus a little bit.
Speaker 2:I think so. Yeah, I guess law schools maybe should change that focus a little bit. I think so. I mean, you know there's also the appellate part of litigation, which would be where the court makes a decision and one of the other parties don't like the decision and they appeal to a higher level court. New York is unique in that they allow what's called interlocutory appeals, which means you can make an appeal before the case is adjudicated, all the way till the end. That is not common in other states and it's not permitted in federal court, typically absent certain circumstances. So in state court, cases tend to drag out in New York a long time. Because that's available option. If you lose on a motion, for example, you can immediately appeal it to the mid-level appellate court.
Speaker 1:Right, and otherwise you have to wait until the entire thing is resolved, and then you make your appeal, so your state court likes to be different In a lot of ways.
Speaker 2:Yes, in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1:So what sectors or industries are your clients from? Is it a pretty wide range.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I would say I mean certainly over the course of my litigation career it's been wide. When I was a younger attorney I did a lot of toxic torts and mass tort type work. Yeah, multi-party litigation, you know rooms of documents back when everything was paper, those sorts of cases.
Speaker 1:I'm shuddering a little bit, go ahead.
Speaker 2:We've all if you're over a certain age and you did litigation, everyone who's listening is shuddering right the last probably decade, I'd say I've done a lot of work for health systems, hospitals and as well as schools. So I am outside general counsel to a number of schools and school districts primarily, and they have run into all sorts of litigation, or what we call adversarial proceedings, because for them, many of them are not at a court stage, they're administrative hearing officer, and so that's similar, but there isn't a jury, for example, and the rules of evidence are a little more lax. But it's a similar concept in that two sides are taking different positions and trying to convince, in that case, a hearing officer, to side with them.
Speaker 1:I guess maybe people don't even think of that as litigation, but it definitely is, because it's oral advocacy and it's advocacy using the arguments to advance your client's point of view, and administrative agencies or those types of hearings are definitely part. It's the non-litigators that often think that's not litigation. They're like well. I do that sometimes.
Speaker 2:Well then you look exactly and, unfortunately for them, when they are up against folks who have litigation experience, it shows, right, right, you know, in those sorts of cases, the big difference is the pre hearing or pre trials process is much different. Right, you know, in those sorts of cases, the big difference is the pre-hearing or pre-trial process is much different. Right, so there's not an extended discovery process, or discovery is the process with both sides are obligated to share certain information with the other side. So those are. That is not nearly as robust in an administrative proceeding, but once you get to the actual hearing, the nuts and bolts of it are very similar. Yep, absolutely.
Speaker 1:That's a really good point. So it's great that you've had experience with so many different industries and also different courts, but, whether it's state, federal, administrative hearings, disciplinary hearings, all of those different things, that must keep it really interesting.
Speaker 2:I mean, I think it's something that's another benefit of litigation, I guess you're always. It's different every time, right, because it's some fact. Patterns could be similar, but there's always some differences. Similar, as you say the court every court is a little bit different. Every judge is a little bit different. Even in the same jurisdiction there are nuances. For example, I just did this trial and this particular judge did things a different way than the judge I had in the last trial. I did, and it's got to be ready for that. That's what we as litigators we don't like surprise, right? So we always try to be prepared and ready for anything, but it definitely keeps it interesting.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean there's the lawyers, particularly the associates. Find the information. But you read the court rules for that judge, that district. You might read some former decisions by that judge. Talk to other lawyers you've been before that judge. It's all about the fact finding to make the best case.
Speaker 2:That's right, and every trier of fact whether it's a judge or a jury in some cases hears and interprets information differently. So when you can get information about a particular judge, it's extremely helpful because it can impact how you strategize and present the information in a way that you think will be compelling to that particular individual, based on what you've learned from their past decisions and rules, as you say.
Speaker 1:That's great. Yeah, I mean it's an important piece of the strategy for sure, definitely.
Speaker 2:I mean, I feel as though there's not, and this is perhaps where some people get annoyed with lawyers, but in litigation there's usually not one piece of information that isn't relevant or important. Right, everything can have an impact, especially in a trial. How you sit in the chair can have an impact if it's a jury trial, because there's an assessment about you constantly.
Speaker 1:Well, I was going to say it. I mean, I won't take us too far down this road. But for women, you know, we think about how we wear our hair. Will we wear our glasses? How much jewelry are we wearing? What color are we wearing Like? And I know the men think of some of this as well. But all of those things are under consideration for the best interests of our clients.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. It's funny you say that, kim, because I recently just got these new glasses that I'm wearing that our listeners can't see they look really good, but I just I have gotten them since this trial and so I didn't. They arrived in the middle of the trial, but I told the associates with whom I was working I needed to keep wearing the old glasses through the rest of the trial because they might make an assessment if I changed my glasses.
Speaker 1:That's right, it's so true, like it's like oh, she took time off to go get new glasses, or whatever the case may be yes, and unfortunately those glasses were not progressives.
Speaker 2:These are my first progressive lenses. And so I couldn't see close with them on, and so I every time I would go up to the lectern to look at documents, I had to flip them up and then I put them down and flip them up and put them down. So I don't know what the heck the jury was thinking about me with the glasses, but I knew I couldn't change it up.
Speaker 1:Right, we have to think about all of those things. And welcome to progressives, welcome to the so far, so good. Yeah, that's good, I'm very glad, all right. So, while litigation has so many deadlines, all of this prep that we've talked about the discovery, the writing, the research, client expectations, which could be its own whole episode. But you also really do a lot to mentor younger attorneys, you're involved in community work, you're raising children and you also have these firm leadership roles. So that's a lot what drives you to take on more with firm leadership roles.
Speaker 2:Really a good question, kim. I think a couple different things. One, I would say I feel some sense of obligation as a woman to take on leadership roles that have been offered to me in firms, because that has not historically been an opportunity for women in law firms, and I think it's an important perspective and voice to have in those conversations and those rooms when decisions are being made that impact the entirety of the firm, for example, or a committee that puts out a whole firm, wide information or making decisions, and so you know, in that way I do feel an obligation. I also, as just my personality, is such that I feel capable of representing other folks' interests in a way that I think is meaningful and I really like people. I think that that is part of why I do it and what I enjoy about it, because I enjoy getting to know people and understanding all of the different perspectives and working with various people in our different offices, for example, and feel like I can contribute in a meaningful way.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that's so important. Not only does it open doors, but it leads by example, which I think is really important to all of the attorneys coming up, men and women that are junior right now. Well, one of the roles you have now taken on you were active on the diversity committee before, but you've taken on the role of co-chair of the firm's diversity committee, which, of course, for me is the diversity officer is pretty important. So what compelled you to sort of take on that role?
Speaker 2:So I was honestly flattered and honored to be asked to do that, as started on January 1st, and I think for me there isn't really an issue in law firms right now from the operation of the law firm side, that could be more important. I think one of the things that our committee does it's a committee that has impact and influence all firm employees, members, all of the attorneys, all the non-attorney staff and it's an important place for perspectives to be shared and learning to be done and I. Those are things that are so important to me personally and something that I'm pretty passionate about making sure happens for other people, and I was delighted to do it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and we're so glad to have you. I mean, it was great that you were serving on the committee and then, when Monica Barrett, one of the past co-chairs, was stepping down, your name was immediately Sanjeev Desai. The other co-chair was like do you think Jen would do it? And so we're very glad all of us that you said yes to that. Do you want to talk about some of the things the committee works?
Speaker 2:on committee works on. I probably could go on and on, but I guess what I would say just as a general thing, as you know, the committee takes on a role of raising awareness, providing learning platforms for colleagues here, and does that in a number of different ways. For example, we have celebrations of particular histories. So we have had a celebration of Black History Month and Women's History and Latinx History, and those are sorts of examples of things that we've done. We celebrated just a couple of weeks ago International Women's Day and typically the committee and through Kim, your excellent leadership in their different offices, we kind of allow that to be determined exactly how the celebration goes right in the in the particular office and what works best for folks there.
Speaker 2:And our office and I unfortunately had to miss it because of the trial, but we had a what we call a lunch and learn. So there was a documentary video about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who hopefully everyone listening knows who that is. Yes, and there is. So everyone's invited, all the attorneys, the non-attorney staff, everyone can come. There's a video. There's lunch, provided we used a women owned place, a restaurant, to get the food, and we try to do that for all the different types of events, if we can, and it really opens a forum for discussion a lot of times and learning, right, I think. Kim, I recall various times you know we've done this lunch and learn process and folks have reached out to you and confirmed that they've really learned a lot of great information that has spawned them into doing some of their own research.
Speaker 2:Relatedly, we've done some 21-day challenges which for many folks might know, but it's put together by you and your team, which has been outstanding Resources every day on a particular diverse topic or group of folks and really resources to me ever and where they are.
Speaker 2:There is some that are a one-on-one level on a particular topic and there's some that are, if you already know about that topic, some more complex reading, for example, or a TED Talk or something like that, and so folks can click on the resources, they can talk to their colleagues about it, and that's been, I think, really well received. That also goes out to everyone in the firm, not just the attorneys, and I know that we've also recently, for the last couple of years, the committee has supported and encouraged the development of affinity groups, supported and encouraged the development of affinity groups, and that has been well received. We have a BIPOC affinity group and a LGBTQ affinity group, I think is called Bond Pride, and they have been terrific, I think, well received and, again, those are also open to all firm colleagues, regardless of whether they're a non-attorney or attorney or what have you.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it really is that I think the committee all of that goes to trying to create community, right, If you can take away that otherness, if you could hear people's stories it goes back to that listening. If you can listen and hear people's stories, then it really does break down some of those barriers and create a more inclusive place where people can, whatever their backgrounds are, they can come together and bring themselves to work and then it provides better client service and a better work environment.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, kim. I think that's obviously in your role You're very good at that, explaining that but certainly the concept of belonging is essential, I think, to having a strong culture within the firm, which, to your point, it yields a good work experience for folks, as well as, what's important to us, client service, because of course, we are a client facing business and when you have cooperative, collaborative, well-enjoying staff and attorneys, they do better work for our clients.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, absolutely, and it just makes coming to work a little bit better for all of us. Absolutely. Yeah Well, we're so glad that you're co-chairing the committee and that you're passionate about the work and have been engaged in it for a long time before you were at Bond or on the committee, but now that we get to use your skills and talents there. So thanks, jen, thanks for coming to the podcast today. Can we have you back sooner than two years from now?
Speaker 2:Hey, you know, kim, one of the things I love to do, as do you, is talk, so anytime you need me, I'm here. I'm happy to join and chat whenever.
Speaker 1:I appreciate that. I appreciate it All right. So, producer Kate, you have that written down. She's probably that's good, all right. So thanks so much. I hope to see you soon in Rochester and we'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 2:Thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 1:Thank you for tuning into this episode of Legally Bond. If you're listening and have any questions for me, want to hear from someone at the firm or have a suggestion for a future topic, please email us at legallybond at bskcom. Also, don't forget to rate, review and subscribe to Legally Bond wherever podcasts are downloaded. Until our next talk, be well downloaded Until our next talk.
Speaker 3:Be well, bond, schoeneck and King has prepared this communication to present only general information. This is not intended as legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act or decline to act based upon the contents. While we try to make sure that the information is complete and accurate, laws can change quickly. You should always formally engage a lawyer of your choosing before taking actions which have legal consequences. For information about our communication, firm practice areas and attorneys, visit our website, bskcom. This is attorney advertising.