Engaging Experts
After 25 years helping litigators find the right expert witnesses, Round Table Group’s network contains some of the world’s greatest experts. On this podcast, we talk to some of them about what’s new in their field of study and their experience as expert witnesses.
Engaging Experts
Engaging with Security and Legal Expert, Dr. James Pastor
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode…
Dr. James Pastor is the principal expert at SecureLaw LLC, a security and legal consultancy. He's a security expert with a broad background, ranging from police work to academia. He's a published author, a sought-after public speaker and of course, an expert witness. Dr. Pastor holds a PhD in public policy analysis.
Do not, under any circumstance, work without a retainer, according to Dr. Pastor. He believes that your credibility and the engaging lawyer’s respect for your experience are embodied in retainers, and agreeing to one gets the employee-expert relationship off on the right foot.
Check out the entire episode for our discussion on avoiding premature opinions, Zoom depositions, and conceding less-than-ideal facts.
Introduction to Dr. James Pastor
Speaker 1This episode is brought to you by Roundtable Group, the experts on experts. We've been connecting attorneys with experts for over 30 years. Find out more at roundtablegroupcom. Welcome to Engaging Experts. I'm your host, noah Balmer, and today I'm excited to welcome Dr James Pastor to the show. Now. Dr Pastor is the principal expert at Secure Law LLC, a security and legal consultancy. He's a security expert with a very broad background, ranging from police work to academia. He's a published author. He's a sought after public speaker and, of course, an expert witness. Dr Pastor holds a PhD in public policy analysis and a J, both from the University of Chicago. Dr Pastor, thank you so much for joining me here today.
Speaker 2Thank you.
Speaker 1Nolan, it's good to be here, let's jump into it. So you've made a career in security. How did you first get into expert witnessing?
Speaker 2Well, I transitioned from the police department to practicing law and when I wrote my PhD dissertation in 2001,. That kind of segued me to kind of creating a pathway towards teaching and consulting and writing, I actually defended my PhD dissertation on September 10th 2001. And literally the next day what I say the world blew up and I was talking about a very esoteric topic called private policing on public streets and no one really cared about that until that event occurred. And so basically, my life's direction just took a turn away from the more active practice of law towards teaching and consulting and writing. And then probably my first case was sometime in the early 2000s, and you know, it's something that I always wanted to do.
Speaker 2I probably my first case was sometime in early 2000s and you know it's it's something that I always wanted to do. It's a crucial part of the litigation process in this country, as experts tend to turn the case one direction or the other, and so to me it was. It gave me the opportunity to utilize some of the litigation experience that they had over the years, but also then become a little bit more independent of the of the process, because the the you know, as a litigator you're tied to the court docket and courts manage case management system and things like that. So I bring an understanding of the legal system, as well as how lawyers think, into the equation.
Speaker 1Sure, absolutely. As an attorney have you used a lot of expert witnesses in your practice?
Getting Started in Expert Witnessing
Speaker 2I have mainly medical back in the day, but I don't practice law now in terms of litigating. I advise and and help in various ways, but I do not experts. I understood what the experts were looking for and clearly my goal at the time was more limited as to how is this person going to help my case? And so that same feeling now transcends into how I can help their case. So kind of the tables are turned in a sense Of course.
Speaker 1Now, as somebody with a fairly unique experience of being both an experienced expert witness and an attorney who has used experienced expert witnesses, what are those initial phone calls like from both sides? What should attorneys be asking and what should expert witnesses be looking for? Because it's a two-way vetting process in some ways the expert needs to decide if it's an appropriate engagement and the attorney needs to decide if it's an appropriate expert witness. So tell me a little bit about both sides of those calls calls.
Speaker 2Well, I use the caveat of watch out for shoppers and, as an expert, you have attorneys who are just kind of hauling around looking for somebody that might say the things that they want to say. So my approach and my advice is to listen carefully, if you're the expert, on how the facts are being conveyed, because lawyers will often talk in terms of conclusions when they're really not conclusions. There are characterizations about facts that the expert would need to be, you know, cognizant of, and then the expert should ask some questions, but not too many, you know. I mean, the job at that moment in time is not to go to the you know the crucial facts of the case, but just to get an overview of what the case entails. And then some discussion as to what your background is, your experiences, you know some way of characterizing your credentials and how they fit to the facts of the case. And then you know, I think from an attorney's perspective, they're going to want to hear that the expert's going to help them. And the problem is, as an expert, I think you should never give an opinion on the phone, particularly in the first call. If you're just getting your feet wet in this case, it's incumbent upon you not to give a kind of quote-unquote opinion. The lawyer will, though, often want you to go that direction. So there is a balance there, and how you manage that as an expert and how you, how you qualify that as an expert, is important, um, but that said, if you can't take, if you don't think you can help, say it both from a lawyer's perspective and from an expert's perspective it's a wrong thing to do to say, look, I, I can't, uh, you know I can't help you, but I think I'm going to just take this case anyway and take you down a pathway. That is. That is a little that's deceptive.
Speaker 2Here's an example I had a I do some expert witness work around use of force in police cases, and I got a call from an attorney who had a very what I would call nuanced fact pattern, where their, their concern was an individual who was resisting arrest that was taken down by the police, and when that individual hit the ground he broke his arm, broke his leg and did some fairly serious damage, and the question essentially was was this takedown appropriate? Was this done in accord with industry standards? Was there? Was this done in accord with industry standards? And you know and that, to me, is a very nuanced question in terms of how use of force cases are handled. So I backed away. And a lot of deadly force, which is in many ways, in a weird way, more clear't want to waste your time and I don't want to just, you know, say something that that you know essentially creates a situation where somewhere down the road I'm going to have to back away and say I can't, I can't give you the opinion you need, so do it up front.
Speaker 1Absolutely.
Speaker 2Absolutely. When you say that expert witnesses should try to avoid giving an opinion in facts and a first phone call is almost it's essentially impossible and anyone who thinks that you can do that diminishes your role as an expert. So I think what you need to do is just back away from it, you know, say you're interested, say you think you can help and say you would need to review the record and the depths and various other things, maybe even do investigations, but to avoid having that question or making that question part of your engagement is really it's deceptive and it really hurts your credibility as an expert. Now, that said, as a new expert, it's impressive to have somebody ask you for your opinion and be willing to pay you for it. So you know you could go down that path where you start to say yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to help, I want to help, I don't want to help, but you can't help too quickly and you got to be careful how you frame it.
Speaker 1To what extent is it important for a newer expert witness who might be at the top of their field or in their niche but have never done expert witness work before? How important is it for them to try and obtain some kind of mentorship or talk to other expert witnesses, or is it enough for them to communicate any questions with their engaging attorney?
Speaker 2It's a good question. It's a good question, it's a big question. I think what I've seen is most people are ill-prepared for the litigation process. You may be the top expert in your area, but unless you understand the litigation process, unless you understand the mindset of attorneys, unless you understand where those lines are drawn, you are really at a distinct disadvantage. And I think what I do for the attorneys that I deal with and it cuts both ways.
Speaker 2By the way, attorneys who see you as a court of an expert but also an attorney, may be a little bit daunting because they can't, they may not be able to get out of you what they might be able to get out of an expert and some other expert that doesn't understand what I would call the game.
Speaker 2And if you understand the game and you understand the parameters that you should have as an expert and the process of litigating and how record is set and basically how to answer questions and all things like that that are hugely important to your value as an expert but have little to do with your credibility and merit as a professional in the industry that you're working out of, so, yes, I think for me I've been able to create, I think, hopefully a happy medium between being that expert in policing and security and public safety, but also bringing in the attorney experience as well as logic of law school, if you will, and that becomes an additional benefit to the, to the attorney who engages me. It also can be a detriment if an attorney wants to push you into a corner and you're not letting them do that. So you know. So that cuts so many different ways and yet at the same time, if you don't have an understanding of the process as an expert, you're probably going to do things wrong, either hurt you or your own client.
Speaker 1Let's talk about that expert attorney dynamic as somebody who has been on both sides. How do you get off on the right foot in a new engagement? All right, rule number one don't work without a retainer.
Speaker 2If you don't have a retainer along with a check, you are extending yourself, you're exposing yourself to the credibility and the character of the attorney but, even worse, they're showing you that they don't really respect you. So there's a respect element that comes into four. On the front end of relationship front, they are saying we value your opinion so much that we're going to go out on a limb and hire you, as opposed to the person who just wants to kind of keep fishing and waiting for you to give that answer and then they're willing to pay. Understand the human nature says your perceived value is usually more than your actual value. So on the front end of a relationship, if they perceive you to have value, they will demonstrate it by signing a retainer and paying you a check. That is the crucial step towards a what I would call professional relationship, because if they try to cut corners, then they will cut corners three or four months later when you're deep into the case, and then find it hard to extricate yourself from what you actually started. So get off to a good start. No retainer, no work. Here's a couple examples.
Speaker 2I had a case out of West Coast where I had done some preliminary work, did a report and and then subsequently, almost a year later, the case kind of went silent. They came back and said we need a rebuttal report right away. And, um, so they gave me a report they got from the opposing expert, which was which was atrocious. It really he didn't have the skill sets in the industry and the report was not well-written. But they said we needed it done right away because we got its discovery deadline. And so you have that tension All right. Now, at some level, you want to abide the attorney because they have to deal discovery deadlines and that that is an important part of your, your value as a, as an expert, to be responsive and productive when they need you to be. But now, so I went ahead and and just wrote, I think, a substantial rebuttal report and ultimately the case was then dismissed against the plaintiff, which says that this report and my value was substantial.
Speaker 2Okay, well, now then, after you got your case dismissed, now I'm asking where, where's my invoice? You know, you know, pay the invoice, and then another attorney from the same firm comes in with a new case saying we want you to, we want you to give an opinion on this, this case. So they will run down the facts. So we got two cases, one new case. The attorney says, well, trust us because we paid you previously. And I said, well, wait a minute, we still. We have another invoice outstanding. Plus, a new case is a new case. You have to pay the retainer, right.
The Importance of Professional Boundaries
Speaker 2Well, you know, in essence, here's the thing. I don't know if they were playing a game, but I do know that you have to stick with your policy, particularly as a young expert. If you allow yourself to be kind of reeled in, because of course it's a motivating thing when somebody wants your opinion and it strokes your ego, oh yeah, that's great. You want to buy me? Well, then they really do have to buy you. Now, why do you care so much about the money? And you can't, but you have to, because it does go to the respect and the professionalism of the relationship, which then ultimately will reflect in your credibility as an expert, both in a deposition or even in trial.
Speaker 1You know. And speaking of those retainers, let's talk about billing a little bit. Do you have any other specific language or inserts in your contract that you require? For example, do you have a different travel rate? Do you do anything? Flat fee or is it all hourly? How do you like to structure your billing?
Speaker 2I deal with a testimonial time and its hourly rate and non-testimonial, which is hourly rate and also the travel is generally the same as non-testimonial. I have language in the retainer that says, in essence, if you haven't paid me, then I can stop work. I have language about Dahlberg challenges, where if there's a Dahlberg challenge, they need to let you know that there's a challenge and they need to involve you because this is your credibility. If you get excluded because they're saying things that are either not exactly correct or they're assuming you would say X when you would say Y, that's wrong because it's your business. I have language that says, in essence, if you disclose without paying me, then you pay a liquidated damage provision because ultimately you know you can't disclose me as your expert until you engage me and you know you have yourself in various expert sites. They see your resume. There it is, you can easily pull down your resume and there you are disclosed and you never even met them and so those games could take place.
Speaker 2I hope they don't sign it. Their tendering of the payment is actually accepting the terms and conditions of the retainer, so in that way you don't even need to have a re-signed retainer, but their payment is acquiescence to the terms and conditions, and there are a number of other things you can say in a retainer. You can ask for, for example, a clause that essentially says if you haven't paid by 30 days, then there's an interest payment. Why, that can be a little picay uni that you may not want, because that goes to you know it might take the relationship further than you want it to go, because this is really a trust based relationship and if they trust you, they you ought to be able to trust them, and vice versa.
Speaker 1Sure Do you get a lot of repeat business from the same clients, or at least referrals from those clients.
Speaker 2Yes, yes, I do. I think one of the best marketing things is take care of your clients, but yet you don't own their case. One of the crucial principles is the attorney will always care more about the case than your credibility or your reputation. So in your quest to win the case and make a friend for future reference, you got to be careful that you don't cross lines in terms of your own credibility and your own reputation. So you know, this work is fascinating from a human nature standpoint because there's a lot of interests that apply, that that you always got to keep check. You know you cannot allow yourself to be a quote-unquote hired gun, and yet being hired gun is very lucrative. So how do you manage that? Where's your balance?
Speaker 1solid character and ethical framework in order not to go down a path that ultimately gets you into trouble, both professionally or even, frankly, morally, because it's one thing to be educated, it's one thing to have been in the field for a long time, but it's another thing to be constantly on top of it and understand the newest goings on in a fairly dynamic field. So, in your field, how do you remain an expert?
Speaker 2Well, I could say I'm engaged in life. I could say I'm engaged in life, I have a pretty good worldview as to what's going on out there, because about what I deal with is crime and policy matters that impact crime one direction or the other, and, of course, technology plays a huge role in how that is affected. So, having a kind of a you know it sounds chotchy in a way, but in essence what it is is you have a lifelong learning attitude about life. You're always learning, you're always picking up new things, never become a dinosaur, um, and so you're staying in, engaged with the, the, the happenings, and a lot of that means is, you know you have to be able to use technology, or at least understand technology, uh, and make that user friendly in a sense. So, but also then you have a whole bunch of uh prior, uh prior opinions to have to manage. If, if, if, uh, attorneys are doing their, their due diligence and investigating what you said.
Speaker 2Of course, I wrote four books, so I have a lot of opinions out there, and that on a recent case, I had an attorney that I had never seen anything like this before, but what he did was this he did like PowerPoint slides and he had a picture of myself, my logo of my business, and he has these words of kind of an opinion or an assertion on a PowerPoint slide and then says did you say this? I said, well, probably you got that from one of my books. Yeah, I said well, and then he started to ask questions that are relevant to the fact pattern of the case and then said how does that fit with what you just said here? And so he then tried to kind of nail those words, these isolated words, on a 600. I don't know 600. I probably my total published. I probably have 1,500 pages of materials and books that can happen from any context and any circumstance and be driven by any kind of statement that was in my head that was relevant to the issue at hand.
Speaker 2And then he tried to pull that statement out and apply it to the facts. And so, and then he was using these PowerPoint slides as they were kind of like attachments to the deposition. So you know, I did this for a few slides and then I said, look, I'm not doing this anymore, I'm stopping. Previously the attorneys around me were objecting, but I said, no, I'm stopping. This is it. I'm not doing any more of these slides, you're summarizing what I said, you're pretend, you're taking words out of context, and on and on and on. Anyway, that goes to how hard it is, maybe, to be an expert as you gain status in the industry, but also to watch for what I would call creative but really not particularly legitimate ways to impeach your credibility legitimate ways to impeach your credibility.
Speaker 1Has it ever happened that perhaps you have changed your mind on a subject, or maybe new information became available and just the general thinking in your field changed? How do you contend with having said something and having a different opinion later and then being impeached on that?
Speaker 2And having a different opinion later and then being impeached on that. Well, in the world that I live in, most of what I wouldn't say would never change my mind. But generally I operate out of principles and those principles are then applicable to the issues and the facts and the circumstances at hand, the facts and the circumstances at hand. So you know, it's a little bit tricky because those principles are somewhat fluid, and yet if you do think that you gave an opinion that you now don't really agree with anymore, then say it. Say it, and I think one of the best things to do is you know, we're all works in progress, our lives are dynamic and fluid and there are times that we mature into different opinions and directions in life and then say that you know, ultimately I used to say this even as a attorney when I represented police officers If you're asked a question, you can say you can answer that in any way, but you have to qualify it appropriately.
Speaker 2And as you qualify it. You then frame your answer in a way that makes you honest, but you have to qualify it appropriately. And as you qualify it, you then frame your answer in a way that makes you honest but yet doesn't expose you to a broad application of your statement.
Preparing for Depositions and Testimony
Speaker 1Let's talk a little bit about some of the more difficult situations, some of the more stressful situations that expert witnesses might find themselves at Depositions, cross-examinations. Are there things that experts can do or should be doing prior to that difficult, stressful experience that'll make it go better? Are there any preparation techniques that you find work pretty well across the board? And a part B to that question is do you yourself personally have any kind of rituals? Some people like to not eat anything, or eat a big breakfast, or drink a bunch of coffee, listen to loud music, meditate. Is there something that you enjoy doing before going into a potentially stressful court situation?
Speaker 2I don't change my routine based off of a deposition. I think I'm comfortable enough in those environments that I don't feel like it changes me in any way. As a cop I probably testified a thousand times and as an attorney, I'm guessing I've been in about 700 depositions, so those things don't really stress me in any real way. But preparatory things is, you know, if you wrote a report, read your report, know your report, make sure that report is top of mind, and then also you should be aware of what the ultimate questions are that the attorney is going to be focusing on, because those are the questions that are going to turn the case one direction or the other, bridged or addressed, and how you may answer if it comes in from this direction or if it comes in from that direction. As an example of that, I had a recent case where this was in a housing project where an individual was shot and killed and they entered into the housing project through a gate that was inoperable because the gate broke. So the question in the case was did the security firm reach its duty by allowing this person into the facility through this gate because it was broke? And of course that becomes a crucial question of how are you going to help deal with the fact that there's a broken gate? And, as I say, every case has bad facts, and if you understand the bad facts well, you might need to address them. And so, in this case, one of the ways to address that bad fact was was being posed prior to this, there wasn't. Was this individual known to be a bad actor? He wasn't. Who'd he have gotten in through the facility through other ways other than the gate? Well, the answer was yes.
Speaker 2So there are many things that kind of play to this, but the end result is be prepared for those questions that are going to turn your case, and if you're ready for them and you understand what the facts are and circumstances that relate to them, you can then answer those in a lucid way and you can answer those honestly, and that's crucially important that you do that. Then you also should consider the obvious things. Also should consider the obvious things. The lawyer is not your enemy, nor is he your friend, and so be cognizant of having a professional demeanor, but also, you're being friendly. This is not a fight. You're doing your job, he's doing or she's doing hers, and that's good. Everyone has a role in the system and you ought not to take it personally.
Speaker 2Now also and I don't know how deep you want to go into this but if you do understand what the record looks like, be cognizant as to how your answers are coming out. If you're giving kind of partial statements and then you maybe change your thought mid-sentence, be aware that the record may not be really as it seems in a conversation, because what we'll end up having is a black and white record, or even a videotape. That will be easier to understand if it goes that way. But if it's just a black and white transcript and you're changing gears in between your sentence, the record will be confused. So be cognizant as to what points you're making and that you actually make a point that you want to make, that you made it in a way that was understandable.
Speaker 2Now, those are big things. But one more factor Watch for compliments. Lawyers will like to stroke your eagle. Oh, you're the expert. I understand you have great credibility on this matter and I certainly don't know as much as you know, but did you? Could you tell me about this? And, and maybe what that is is a way to stroke you and loosen you up and get you to say things that they may want you to say that again. If you're being honest and you're only giving your opinion because that's what you believe, that's one thing. But if you're being led down a trim road's path because your ego's being stroked, that's another.
Speaker 1Are these things that attorneys can effectively coach or train newer expert witnesses on how to maintain a professional demeanor? Some of the non-content things, some of the just how you present things, rather than what exactly it is that you're presenting? Does that come across in something like mock cross-examinations? Or are there other tools that attorneys should be using in other ways, that experts should be preparing themselves for these sorts of eventualities?
Speaker 2Well, the experts should prepare themselves and there are a number of training materials. There's experts out there or attorneys out there who have done various training mechanisms to support this. I've given some in the past. But you know generally the attorney in your case, at least in my experience, maybe because I don't think, maybe I don't need it, but maybe I just haven't seen it and that is, most attorneys won't educate you to how, to how to testify, because it takes too much time and they also don't want to get into a situation where they're actually coaching you to say things that that they want you to say so it's, and plus, they usually don't have enough time to jump through those hoops.
Speaker 2Litigate attorneys who litigate are generally very, very time constrained. So so, with that said, an expert needs to know all these demeanor things, these professional demeanor things. They need to know all these demeanor things, these professional demeanor things. They need to know how they're appearing both on record and in their own credibility. They need to understand how to shape their credibility in ways that are often kind of nuanced. So I mean, there's a lot to be said there, but I think you get the drift.
Speaker 1Absolutely. Are there any negative stories that you have that have kind of informed the way that you go about expert witnessing, or perhaps any red flags that newer expert witnesses should be looking for?
Speaker 2There was one case that I was basically taking off the case by a judge because and this is very nuanced, but let me try to frame it out I have a PhD in public policy, which means I have a kind of an understanding as to how laws become laws. Well, I had an attorney hire me that who was actually defending himself because he was caught having sex in a in a car in a public area, and his defense was the law that they arrested me from for was not even a law at the time they arrested me, and so what he wanted was for me to go in through the record, understand what the city legislator was doing at the time or city council was doing, determine whether it was a law or not at the time that the arrest was made. So I understood, walking into this, that I was dealing in a legal question, not a factual question, and, generally speaking, experts should confine themselves to factual issues, not legal questions, not legal questions. So, but I had this very gray and somewhat actually unique way of maybe adding some light to a question that you know blended pretty well with my background. So I figured, okay, I'll give it a try.
Speaker 2I wanted to be cognizant of the judge's prerogative, and I did. I was. I thought, well, I probably went a little bit beyond where the judge wanted to go, or he just didn't like the fact that an expert was opining about legal questions, so it was like, no, we don't need you. In this case, it wasn't anything I did wrong. It was, though, that line between law and fact became very blurred, and so the kind of takeaway for experts more generally is be on the fact side of that line and be. There are a lot of legal judgments that are made relative to duty that tend to blur that line, so the deeper you get into nuances of that, the more relevant that might become Sure, absolutely.
Speaker 1Let's back up to a couple more general matters. You've been doing this for a while. What are some of the changes that you've seen, as an expert witness, from when you were very first getting started? Are they going to settlement more often? Has Zoom and telepresence changed things? What are some of the changes that you've seen, and do you see any trends that are moving us in any specific direction in the in the near future?
Technology and Future Trends
Speaker 2The biggest change is technology and obviously I'm I haven't I haven't done a live across the table inter uh deposition in years. Everything seems to be going towards uh, zoom or teams and uh and, generally speaking, there you know there's that is a. There's a very excellent cost effective nature that attorneys I'm based out of Florida. I got a lot of cases in different parts of the country it is a lot cleaner for attorneys to engage experts around the country because of Zoom. So that is a very positive thing in many ways because it's cost effective and it's efficient and I don't think you lose a lot with the interaction. But you do probably lose a little because there is an eye to eye across the table looking at each other in a deposition room that you might lose. That sometimes cuts positively and sometimes cuts negatively. But, that said, I think the biggest factor going up is AI and AI will be able using AI, my gut says and I don't know this definitively, but AI will will vet your opinions in ways that attorneys can't vet your opinions and get to some really pointed examples or pointed conclusions as to what you would say and when you said it. So the ability to capture information through AI about what you did in the past is going to change the expert witnessing business and will change the nature of how those things are dealt with in a litigation setting.
Speaker 2I think we're too early to tell and how big this will be. But that just goes back to a point that you start with. Credibility is everything. So if you are comfortable in your own mind that you're doing and saying the things that you believe, if there's something out there in the background that AI quote unquote can find, well, you shouldn't worry about it, because that's not who you are, that's not how you operate, that's not who you are, that's not how you operate.
Speaker 2And I think a really interesting point that Abraham Lincoln brought to this he said something to the effect that no one could be a good enough liar because their memory isn't good enough, because then they have to remember who they said, what to and when. Well, ai can remember all those things. So what I think what would need to be done is to be galvanizing yourself more and more in only what you believe and then, if there's things that are outside of that, you can explain it based on circumstances and factors that are unique to this particular case. So kind of a long-winded answer of saying technology has changed it and will continue to change it, like everything else in life.
Speaker 1Of course, before we wrap up, do you have any last advice for expert witnesses, particularly newer expert witnesses, or attorneys who are working with them?
Speaker 2I guess the best thing I can say and this sounds it's more soft than it is hard, and that is care about your role, care about doing justice, care about the truth, justice, care about the truth, and and as you live that, uh, you become more and more valuable because, uh, lawyers you know lawyers will want you to say what they need you to say, but they'll also respect that you have your own lines and um, and then having that reputation and living it is a crucial part of when a case really matters.
Speaker 2There ain't no lawyers are going to want to have somebody that is solid, that isn't going to be impeachable, that isn't going to blow with the wind, and so, thus, stay grounded, stay focused on who you are and and what you believe, and you know if, if there are facts in a case, don't be afraid to uh concede on certain things, because you know what it's it. It is what it is, it's your. Your job is not to hit a home run for your client. Your job is to do your job. He might give him a triple, but you know a triple is a triple, a triple is better than a single, but if you can't give a home run, then you don't give a home run. And so, and that will help you, you know, months and years later, Sage advice.
Speaker 1Dr Pastor, thank you so much for joining me here today. It was my pleasure Great conversation. And thank you, as always, to our listeners for joining me for another edition of Engaging Experts Cheers.
Speaker 2Thank you for listening to our podcast Engaging Experts. Our show notes are available on our website roundtablegroupcom.