Think Like a Lawyer: Featuring Attorney John Sage

Learn how lawyers think and apply these principles to your life. Analytical thinking, critical thinking, objectivity, and ethics are just some of the topics on this week’s episode with top Elder Law Attorney, John Sage.

https://sagesolutions.buzzsprout.com 

If you are interested in one-on-one coaching, email us at:
sagecoachingsolutions@gmail.com

**Legal Disclaimer**
The Sage Solutions Podcast and content posted by David Sage is presented solely for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes. No coaching client relationship is formed by listening to this podcast. No Legal, Medical or Financial advice is being given. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from this podcast or website is at the user's own risk. It is not intended as a substitute for the advice, diagnosis, or treatment of a psychotherapist, physician, professional coach, Lawyer or other qualified professional. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical or mental health condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. The opinions of guests are their own and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of the podcast.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:03

Welcome to the Sage Solutions podcast, where we talk about all things personal growth, personal development, and becoming your best self. My name is David Sage, and I am a self-worth and confidence coach with Sage Coaching Solutions. Today we're going to teach you how to think like a lawyer. But what exactly does that mean and why is it relevant? Well, we have a very special guest today. John is one of the hardest working individuals that I've ever met in my entire life. In high school, he was a good student and a well-rounded athlete, participating in baseball, cross-country, he was on the math team, and he was also a varsity wrestler and he was varsity in track. After high school, he went to college in Whitewater and got a degree in accounting. Shortly after, he passed the exams to become a CPA and a CMA and worked at a Fortune 500 company as a financial analyst. After working there for five years, he went back to law school and got a doctorate of law from Northern Illinois Law School. And he graduated Magna Cum Laure. He's currently a partner at a law firm and one of the top elder law attorneys in the state. And fun fact, he's a black belt in Taekwondo. What more than that? Growing up, you were my role model. I thought, this guy is incredible. I can't believe he's my dad. He's smart, funny, successful, strong, and athletic. I want to be like him someday. And so much of who I am comes from things that I modeled after you and things that I learned from you. You challenged me to think analytically, to think critically about things since I was young. And I don't think I would be the person I am today or view things in nearly as detailed of a way as I do if it wasn't for you. So please welcome my father, attorney John Sage.

SPEAKER_00 2:11

Thank you, David. It's a pleasure to be on your podcast. I've been listening to every episode since you first started, and I think you're doing a great job. Well, thank you.

SPEAKER_01 2:19

We're just trying to put value out there for people and make a difference and hopefully help people grow and learn and improve. I figured bringing you on here was a great way to do that because there are so many different things that I've learned in my life from our conversations, from just growing up, seeing the way that you handled different things. And I thought I could extract some really great value today and bring some of those lessons into everyone's lives. Before we get into it, our goal with this podcast is to share free, helpful tools with you and anyone you know who's looking to improve their life. So take action, subscribe, and share this podcast with them. Now, I touched on some of your credentials and a bit of your background, but why don't you give us a little more context on like how you came to think about things the way that you do and how you got this perspective that we're wrapping up as thinking like a lawyer?

SPEAKER_00 3:20

Well, David, when I grew up, my father was also a lawyer, and my grandfather was also a lawyer. So I was exposed to this at quite a young age. My father was always into making sure that I learned things when I was little, and I'd get up in the morning. I would go in and wake up my mom and dad when I was four or five years old, and my dad would start quizzing me on math and other things.

SPEAKER_01 3:49

Yeah, that sounds like him.

SPEAKER_00 3:50

Yeah, so he would he would start out like, what's five plus four, minus three, plus two, minus one, and then I'd give him the answer. He always was introducing thinking and being curious, making sure that if you didn't know something, figure it out or learn it, and uh then you won't have to worry about it later.

SPEAKER_01 4:09

So it sounds like some of the ways of thinking, you know, math, logical thinking, curiosity, if you have a problem, critically think and solve it. Some of these were sort of ingrained into you from a young age.

SPEAKER_00 4:24

Yes, that's correct.

SPEAKER_01 4:26

Are there other areas of life as you were growing up that you think helped contribute to the way that you see things beyond just your father and grandfather also being lawyers?

SPEAKER_00 4:38

Well, my father's father, um Joe Sage, he was a very, very hardworking person. He worked at Firestone, he ended up being a regional and uh sectional manager. He was somebody who always tried to figure out something. If there was something that um needed to be done and nobody had a solution, he was usually the person who would sit down and figure it out. He would always walk around with a little golf pencil in his pocket and some paper. And so if there was anything that he saw, he would write it down and then he'd try to figure out a solution. So I probably get a lot of my work ethic from my father's father, uh Joe's age.

SPEAKER_01 5:21

Great Grandpa Joe was somebody that we always saw as I mean, I think we literally called him Superman, because I remember a time where he was helping us build a retaining wall at what? He was, I think he was 89 or 90. Either in his 90s or very close. He was doing things that most people that age would consider physically impossible. He kind of showed us that anything was possible, and that if you work hard and figure things out and take care of yourself, you can do almost anything. I remember actually writing a paper about all of the different jobs that he had, and I got in trouble because my essay was too long in school. Some of that was because I was a little rambly, but still. It's if that gives you any idea of how much this guy accomplished and did, it was it was incredible.

SPEAKER_00 6:13

Well, David, besides Grandpa Joe, there's two other instances in my life that I think really helped shape it quite a bit. Um one of them was I had a little brother, Michael, um and he he passed away when he was three years old. And I was seven years old at the time. He was very sick from the time he was about six or seven months old. And he always kept a very positive attitude. He had leukemia, and he would be in the hospitals and back out of the hospitals, and there was nothing that seemed to be able to put him down. No matter how bad the chemotherapy and other radiation and other things happened, he always bounced back, he was always such a positive kid, always still had a great sense of humor, and was just so loving and everything that I thought that's somebody I want to be like. Even though he was my younger brother, that was just a remarkable example. So I guess you can learn a lot from people who are younger than you.

SPEAKER_01 7:21

My middle name is Michael in honor of my uncle Mike, that I never got to meet, unfortunately. But I'm sure that was tough on you and your whole family. I'm sure that wasn't an easy thing for you guys to deal with. It's powerful that you all seemed to have come away from it with a lesson because of who Mike was.

SPEAKER_00 7:47

Right. I don't know for certain, but I think it probably helped shape my brother Bob, also, who's a doctor. The other factor I think that made a big difference in my life was when I was in high school, I was on the wrestling team. And the one thing I learned in wrestling was you have to go 100% all the time. There's no taking it easy. And no matter how hard you're going and how tired you are, you learn that you can dig down and do more. And even when you think you've matched your match, you can even do more. And that I think inspires a lot of confidence that no matter what you do, you can accomplish it. There is nothing that is unascertainable if you try hard enough. And David, like what you talked about in your courage um podcast, where you were talking about doing things that were scary or difficult, those are the types of things that really make a difference, and that's what really helps build confidence in people. If you take action and do the things that require some courage, and then you succeed, that's what really I think helps you succeed later in life. Like you said, it's like building a muscle.

SPEAKER_01 9:04

Yeah, I mean, courage and overcoming things or doing hard things is a lot of times the difference between successful people and unsuccessful people. Successful people are willing to do things that others aren't. They're willing to do things that are hard. They're willing to push themselves to hustle, they have grit. And that work ethic is a big part of their success. And I think it's been a big part of your success in your chosen field.

SPEAKER_00 9:32

Well, that's true. When I was in accounting, I was doing pretty well and I was in the management training program for a Fortune 500 company. But an opportunity became available where I would go to law school, and that was quite a big change. But I had the confidence that I could do it, and I just made sure that I would put 100% effort into doing it.

SPEAKER_01 9:55

It sounds like some of those earlier factors, like seeing Grandpa Joe doing some of these crazy different things, breaking limits, and then doing it yourself during wrestling, is what formed the foundations of this mindset, this work ethic, that you can be whatever you want to be. You just have to work hard and push yourself.

SPEAKER_00 10:18

That's true. Actually, I first started out in engineering because I was really good at science and math and you know, really strong analytical skills. And so I started out and I was doing calculus and chemistry and programming and drafting and all these other types of things. And I realized that I seemed to have more of an interest in economics and business. So I decided to change majors to accounting. And one of the best accounting schools around was EW Whitewater. So I went there and finished up my degree, and then shortly after that, I started working at a Fortune 500 company as a financial analyst in their management training program. After doing that for about five and a half years, I thought I was up for another new challenge, and that's when I went to law school. Again, a big change by stopping working a full-time job. You were just an infant and going to law school full-time.

SPEAKER_01 11:23

So what's interesting is I think each step of the way, I'm hearing two different themes in some of these big life changes. You were focused on achieving different things. You had some interest in some of these big life changes. You started out going for engineering, and you were pretty good at it still. Even though it was hard and it was challenging, in this situation, it wasn't just the challenge, but you weren't that passionate about it. You weren't that interested. It wasn't like your thing. So then you switched to something that was a bit more interesting to you, but similarly challenging, because you grew up with that the obstacle is the way stoic mindset of doing hard things is rewarding. And when you did challenging things, that had some inherent reward to you because of the mindset that you had. But you also switched to doing something that, while similarly challenging, was more rewarding because it was more interesting. It's something you were a little more passionate about. So then you became an accountant, you did that for a while, and you figured that the next step, something that would be both more challenging and even more interesting to you, was to go to law school. So you did it, despite the fact that law school is not easy, right?

SPEAKER_00 12:43

Right. You have to take uh an entrance exam to get in, and they're pretty picky on who they admit. Once I got in, the the uh education system in law school is a lot different than what a lot of people are expecting. Um, they use just the Socratic method, and they are very tough on you. There were professors that would say, Well, is the next person literate? When somebody would get an answer wrong, or would say, you know, if you were working for me, you'd be fired. Now, luckily he didn't say that to me, but it was quite intimidating, and you start doubting yourself a little bit about did I make the right choice? But that type of challenge just encouraged me to put more effort into it. And I think that's what they were trying to do is weed out the people who weren't tough enough mentally to intellectually figure out with the curiosity how to teach themselves. Because that's what Socratic method is, is questioning by sort of interrogation, and you have to figure out the answers on your own, by doing the right research, figuring out what's the logical answers, what are the key factors that are important, which things are extraneous, all of that type of thing.

SPEAKER_01 14:00

So by teaching in that way, they were actually trying to impart some of the ways of thinking and some of the skills that are required of being a lawyer, not just to get you to know it better, but to start thinking like a lawyer in some ways. Now, the Socratic method goes back a long time. Uh, it originates from Socrates. This isn't something that's specific only to law and law school. It just finds a welcome home in law and law school because there's a lot of synergy there. There's a lot we can learn from Socrates, his life, and his way of thinking that contribute to the way that lawyers think. Socrates was born in 470 BCE. He was an ancient Greek philosopher from Athens. He was revered as one of the founders of Western philosophy. He's best known for his unique approach to inquiry and his emphasis on self-examination, not just examination of the world. He had a unique quest for wisdom. Socrates was considered wise not because he claimed to possess the most knowledge, but because he recognized his own ignorance. This paradox is captured in his famous assertion, I know that I know nothing. His wisdom came from a relentless pursuit of truth, engaging in dialogue with others to challenge their beliefs and assumptions. The Socratic method was the result of his quest for understanding, and it led to this whole line of thinking. It's a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue. Socrates would pose a series of questions to anyone that was listening, prompting them to clarify their thoughts and scrutinize the validity of their beliefs. This method often revealed contradictions in their reasoning, encouraging deeper understanding and reflection, or reflective thinking. Unfortunately, Socrates met an untimely death. It was his commitment to his questioning and dialogue that ultimately led to his downfall. He was tried and convicted for corrupting the youth of Athens. He was sentenced to death and chose to drink a potion containing poison hemlock rather than flee or renounce his beliefs. His trial and execution underscored his dedication to free thought and integrity, solidifying his legacy as a martyr for philosophy. His methods laid the groundwork for later philosophical inquiry and critical thinking, which are employed still in education today.

SPEAKER_00 16:42

Many of my college professors would use the same methods. They would challenge your opinion whenever you would give one. They would always bring up counter perspectives and then make you justify your position. That type of reasoning and logic, I think, is what helps form a good lawyer. Because even though you may be a smart individual, you don't know everything, and you have to realize that you don't know everything, and that you have to look at perspectives besides your own and look at the validity of other arguments. That's one of the main things that I think was instilled in me through law school.

SPEAKER_01 17:22

It sounds like they were trying to teach you how to look at things objectively.

SPEAKER_00 17:29

Yes, definitely. The amount of knowledge you have is only effective if you can apply it and consider other alternatives so that you can strengthen your own argument or find the weaknesses within your argument. All the objectives are only accomplished if you can come up with the best argument without weaknesses.

SPEAKER_01 17:54

Because in trial law, you're in a position where two different people are forming competing arguments. And if you were to let certain cognitive biases take over, like the my side bias or the confirmation bias, you're going to miss things that could completely undo your argument, or you're going to underestimate your opponent's argument.

SPEAKER_00 18:18

That's true. You have to play devil's advocate with yourself and consider the arguments that the other side does. A lot of times what happens is there are briefs that are filed where one side will present their argument and you have to then consider what their argument is. Oftentimes there isn't. But you have to think about what if I was on the other side? What arguments would I be making? And how would I then combat those arguments? Or are there exceptions that I'm not thinking about that may make a difference? You have to always think that your argument, no matter how confident you are, may have some weaknesses.

SPEAKER_01 18:59

It sounds like that requires some shades of great thinking, because you may not just solely be right. There may be important points, and I know that in your type of law, you don't do a ton of trial law just based on the nature of the law that you do. But I think that this principle is still important in the law that you do. I know you learned some of these things in law school, so you had to practice them then. But even in the law that you do, I feel like the objectivity is still important because otherwise you would just tell anybody what they wanted to hear if it made them happy, or like you would lose your objectivity just to try and help somebody out, right?

SPEAKER_00 19:45

Yes. When I'm doing the type of law that I do, most of what I do is very analytical.

SPEAKER_01 19:52

Which, if you don't mind, can you actually specify what areas of law you specialize in for context for everyone listening?

SPEAKER_00 19:59

Aaron Powell Yes, I specialize in elder law, which is dealing with Medicaid laws. I deal with tax law, real estate law, a little bit of business law, a lot of taxation, and estate planning, like wills, trusts, powers of attorney, uh marital property agreements, a lot of those types of things.

SPEAKER_01 20:19

Aaron Powell And a lot of those areas of law are kind of linked. They're in like the same general field. You're not branching way, way out. It's all in the same genre, if you will.

SPEAKER_00 20:31

Yes, they are all interrelated. A lot of times you need to use skills from each of those in order to come up with the best plan. In Medicaid matters, I'm presenting a case for a client to get uh qualified for Medicaid benefits. And frequently the caseworkers for the counties make mistakes. And then I have to take them to fair hearings. So I've done quite a few of those. And in those situations, I have to anticipate the arguments for why they made the decision incorrectly. And you have to anticipate a lot of different arguments that they're going to make at the fair hearing. So I have to make sure that my argument is sound, not only based on the law, but in logic too. And that I have to point out what the weaknesses are in their arguments. So I have to be able to make their argument in my own head, the best that I could, and then I will know where their weaknesses and their arguments are.

SPEAKER_01 21:29

So let's talk about what it means to think like a lawyer. What types of thinking, what skills does that take? How would somebody do it? And then once we hit what some of those skills are, we'll also break down why and how you can use them in your life.

SPEAKER_00 21:46

Well, I think the main thing is the analytical thinking. Most of the lawyers who were the top of the class, along with me, were people that had professions that were very analytical. They were engineers or academic. Accountants or financial analysts, people in those types of fields. So I think the main thing is you have to be analytical and in addition to that a critical thinker. You need to make sure that you come up with not only good arguments, but sound arguments.

SPEAKER_01 22:17

So we often hear these terms argument, sound, and valid, but they're often thrown around in a way that tells me not everyone knows what they really mean. When most people hear the word argument, they think of a screaming match, almost sort of a debate that turned into a fight where everyone gets heated and angry, but that's not the use of the word that you're talking about here, because obviously that would not hold up in a courtroom.

SPEAKER_00 22:45

No, I think the term argument here is reasoning for justification. I think that's probably a better definition. And a lot of people think that valid arguments and sound arguments are the same, but they're not. A valid argument is just an argument that has some points that are valid, that you know, that are correct. But it doesn't necessarily mean that your conclusion is correct, because you may have holes in your argument. But a sound argument has all valid points that does lead to a conclusion that's correct. So just like every rectangle is four-sided, not every four-sided figure is a square. A sound argument is a subset of valid arguments.

SPEAKER_01 23:34

So basically you're saying that an argument, or basically a justification for something, is valid if it's backed up by some form of logic, but it's sound if it's provably correct. Yes, that is what I'm saying. Because sometimes an argument can have some logic behind it, but be missing things, or be missing the point, or be misapplied, or whatever it happens to be in a way that makes it have some validity there, but that doesn't mean that it's sound. That doesn't mean that it's correct. So often in law it sounds like when you are formulating an argument, you are basing it in logic and then trying to make it sound or like foolproof, sort of making sure that it's provable and correct, and that gives a lot of power to that argument, right?

SPEAKER_00 24:29

Right. That's where you're using the critical thinking to make sure that every piece of your argument fits together and it works. Without that, you would just have a valid argument. And some people think that a valid argument's good enough, but in my profession, you have to be right 100% of the time. 99% is a failure. You have to be right 100% of the time. So you have to make sure that your argument is sound and you have to analyze it. And you have to make sure that you use the correct words because some words are more precise than others, and you do not want your words to be misinterpreted because of uh somebody else's perspective being a little different in the way that they hear the words that you've said.

SPEAKER_01 25:15

Right. When I actually worked at the law firm, I learned a number of these different principles just by coming into a lot of contact with the law. And in some other ways, when I was doing contract negotiations for the Pfizer Forum, I learned some of the other parts of this type of thinking. Along with growing up around you and just seeing how you use this in everyday life, I think a lot of these things have become ingrained in me over time, despite the fact that I'm not a lawyer, just some of the thought processes stayed. Law is literal. The wording has to be very specific, and each word has very specific meanings. You have to pay close attention because if you use the wrong wording, and that's written into law, it means something different, and then it no longer accomplishes what the law was intended to accomplish. In legislation and in practicing law and being a judge, anyone surrounding those areas has to be very specific and literal in their wording, and they also have to think very much about the practical application of that wording, meaning how those words actually apply in the real world in their practical application so that it isn't taken the wrong way. They need to be very clear so that it can't be ambiguous. So, what I'm getting is that one of the things is to be very specific and clear in your wording to make sure that you are avoiding misunderstandings. And then, of course, it's also about how it interacts with all of the other laws and their wording. Now, we've covered a number of different topics here as far as thinking like a lawyer, but I think we should slow down here for a second and talk about how we can apply some of these in our daily life, not just in practicing law. Because let's face it, most of who's listening to this isn't practicing law. So, how can we use some of these lessons in our daily lives? Let's start with the Socratic method.

SPEAKER_00 27:21

Applying the Socratic method in everyday life would be trying to teach yourself something when you don't know the answer. Having the intellectual curiosity to look into and find the correct answer, not just try to find something that bolsters what you already believe, or to find a simple answer, but to dig deep enough to look for all the answers and the questions on both sides.

SPEAKER_01 27:49

So it sounds like it's the type of thing that we can use to help increase our understanding of almost any topic by applying the Socratic method, which finds a lot of its value in being very similar to critical thinking, and one of the major foundations of critical thinking in a way. It's sort of about critically thinking or using the Socratic method to question things so that we can make sure that we are rethinking things, so that we can make sure that we are not just taking things for granted, and overall we will get a much better understanding of things. Now, we don't want to use this to prevent us from taking action. This is kind of another tool for taking the you part out of it so that you can look at things more objectively.

SPEAKER_00 28:40

Yes, you have to look at it without assuming that you're always right. Now, many times you may be right, but you have to consider the fact that maybe you aren't right and to make sure to verify if you're right. That's where critical thinking and analytical thinking come into play. You have to analyze the facts in front of you, sort them into things that are important and things that are not important, and what are the factors that are determining? So you have to make sure that everything works out logically, and then make sure that you can put them together in a way that ends up with a solution to your problem.

SPEAKER_01 29:19

Which is kind of what you were talking about when you were talking about forming rational arguments, making them both valid and sound by grounding them in logic. So taking this analytical thinking, it's a lot of the things we've been talking about in shades of gray thinking and curiosity and critical thinking, absorbing all of the information, trying to find where they fall on a shades of gray, maybe using some critical thinking, then using in whichever order makes more sense, using analytical thinking to work through, sort through, and figure out what is important, what is not, and then put it all together using logic to form rational, coherent arguments. This is a good way to form ideas and thoughts and opinions about things in your daily life so that you are so much more informed, and so that you are so much more likely to find the truth, to make things in your life work better, to make things in your life work smarter.

SPEAKER_00 30:24

But also it helps you consider other things that you may not have thought about, and maybe then you change your opinion because the argument that somebody else has is more sound than your argument.

SPEAKER_01 30:37

Which sounds like it's kind of bringing it back to that objectivity we were talking about before. How it's important to try and confront that my side bias, that confirmation bias, so that you can view things more objectively, so that you don't come into it already trying to win a war of I'm right because if I'm not right, what does that say about me?

SPEAKER_00 30:59

Many lawyers will also give you an answer. When you ask them a question, most of the time most lawyers will say that depends. And that's not because they don't want to answer your question. It's because many times the answer will be different depending on the facts. I think your analogy on the shades of gray is right. Not everything is always black or white. And depending on the circumstances, things can be either a yes answer or a no answer depending on which facts are included.

SPEAKER_01 31:32

What I remember from law was that there were a lot of caveats and contingencies and exceptions, because a law has many sub-laws or like other laws that say like this applies, and then it's like except in this situation, because things need to have some shades of gray. Otherwise, there's going to be huge blaring holes or problems in laws where it's like, well, what about this situation? We didn't think about this. Yes, they did. That's why they have that extra law. And this all goes to the last part that we were talking about in our first chunk of How to Think Like a Lawyer, which is wording matters. Using specific words and trying to be as clear and avoid miscommunications or ambiguity can help you communicate with others much more effectively. But it's not always about using fancy words, is it?

SPEAKER_00 32:30

No. Um if you're writing something for law, like you're drafting a trust or you're putting together a specific argument, you may need to use precise legal language. In fact, most of the time you have to use precise legal language in order to get your argument correct. And you have to use all the elements that are necessary in your argument in order to prove that it's right. However, when you are meeting with clients, when I'm meeting with clients, I always make sure that I do not use a lot of the technical jargon. I don't use terms like income and respect of a decedent when I'm talking about something that somebody's inheriting. I just explain it to them in a way that they understand. Because if I just try to impress them with my knowledge and they don't understand what I'm trying to accomplish or I'm trying to tell them, they're going to be confused and they're probably not going to be very satisfied. But if I can explain it to them in plain English, using analogies or examples that they can understand, I find my clients are much more appreciative and then they understand what we're trying to accomplish.

SPEAKER_01 33:44

Right, because the point of communication isn't to make yourself look smart. The point of communication is to try and communicate. It's to get the other person to understand what you're saying and to listen and try and understand as much as you can of what they're saying. And then each side can ask clarifying questions to help make sure that they have that understanding so that the exchange of information flows.

SPEAKER_00 34:11

In a lot of TV shows, they show lawyers that have a lot of ego and are trying to be hotshots and stuff like that. I don't think that's really a realistic professional um view of how lawyers really are. I think most lawyers try to keep their ego out of the room so that the clients realize that the attorney is actually another person like them and understands them. And the effective communication is really the key thing because the client doesn't really want to feel like they're inferior to the attorney because the attorney has, you know, a lot more knowledge. The client wants to know that the attorney understands what their situation is and has a solution for them and is able to explain that solution to them in a way that they understand it.

SPEAKER_01 34:59

So do you ever have clients come in and they've been told something about the law that's just blatantly off, and then you have to, you know, let them down? How do you do that?

SPEAKER_00 35:12

A lot of times I'll hear somebody say if they're coming in for a regular estate planning, that they don't need a power of attorney for healthcare and for finances because they're married and they can make all those decisions and handle everything for their spouse in case they ever have a problem. And unfortunately, that's not true. The joint accounts and things like that, yes, they'll be able to do that, but they will not be able to deal with the other person's retirement funds or their insurance company or even make their medical decisions without a valid power of attorney in place.

SPEAKER_01 35:44

I feel like most people don't realize that. That's actually one of the things I learned big time at the law firm was that many people think that marriage has that legal power and it doesn't. It's kind of scary how many people don't actually have a power of attorney done. How would you, if somebody says, Oh, I'm married, and they say that, what do you say to them?

SPEAKER_00 36:04

Aaron Powell Well, I say I hear that often, but that's a common misconception. And then I explained to them the situation that I had about two and a half years ago. There was uh I got a call early in the morning on a Friday, and um it was an emergency call. The the it was a husband and his wife had a pulmonary embolism, and she was in hospital. They didn't have any powers of attorney or anything. And no decisions were being allowed to be made. So the doctor told him he needs to get a lawyer and he needs to get a guardianship. This was like eight o'clock in the morning on a Friday. And luckily, I was able to reschedule all of my appointments, and I went out and met with the man, and I got all the paperwork prepared to get to a guardianship, and I managed to uh schedule an emergency guardianship hearing so that he could be appointed as the temporary guardian and make life-saving decisions for his wife. If I wouldn't have had that ability to do that, she probably wouldn't have made it through till Tuesday because this was a Friday and Monday was a holiday, and the course wouldn't have been open. So I tell people about that case and I say, you don't want to be in that situation. You don't want to be the person who has to worry is the attorney going to be able to get things accomplished and basically almost pull off a miracle to save your spouse.

SPEAKER_01 37:32

Not to mention the fact that a guardianship is many, many times more expensive than setting up powers of attorney. It's important to handle those things in a way that you're not upsetting people because if you were to off-put them and tell them, no, you're an idiot, that's not how it works, they might then have their ego flare and say, Well, you know what? Screw it. I don't want to work with this guy. Then they're not getting the right thing done, and now they're in that tough situation. So by treating people with respect and letting them down lightly, you're helping everyone involved. And I think that's one of the reasons why law has some built-in ethics so that you can have a certain form of trust. What are some of the ethics that lawyers are required to abide by?

SPEAKER_00 38:26

There's a lot of ethical rules. Um, but I think the two main ones that you hear the most about are the confidentiality and the loyalty to the clients. With the uh attorney-client privilege, anything that the uh client tells the attorney during the time that they're meeting cannot be disclosed under any circumstances, even in court. The court cannot compel me to tell them anything about what a client was telling me. So the client knows that whatever they're telling me is going to remain with just me and in my client records. So they can be honest and tell me exactly what the situation is. Plus, besides that, the loyalty to clients prevents me from taking any other type of matter that would be against that client. If this person was my client, even if it's years later and somebody else has and wants to take an action against my client, I cannot take that client, even if that was another client of mine, because I cannot choose one client over another. I have to be conflicted out of both matters. So lawyers have very, very strict um ethical standards, probably the highest ethical standards of any profession. You have to pass all kinds of background checks and everything else just to get into law school.

SPEAKER_01 39:49

Now, these ethical standards matter and they're there for a reason. And yes, some of them might feel like jumping through hoops, but they accomplish goals. They accomplish a specific goal, which is to provide loyalty and trust so that people can effectively work with their attorney and so that they can trust them and give them all of the information. This is a lesson we can take into our personal relationships, right?

SPEAKER_00 40:18

True. If you have trust with somebody, then you can be open and honest with them and your communications can be much better.

SPEAKER_01 40:26

And if you want to keep trust with others, then maybe you should take a page from the lawyer's ethical book and not share other people's secrets. If somebody tells you something in confidence, like confidentiality, then you need to keep that. You need to not spread that. You need to keep their trust. This way they can know that they can trust you with anything in the future, so that you can build that trust and a better relationship with the important people in your life as time goes on. They will know that you are loyal to them. So this is a great tool for building better, stronger, and trustworthy relationships.

SPEAKER_00 41:10

Well, besides though the uh trust issue, another important thing is making sure that you're a good listener. A lot of clients will come in and they'll tell me a story. And I have to then go through and sort the critical facts and the important facts from those that are maybe somewhat important but aren't factors that are going to make a determination of what the answer to their problem is. And then that leads me to be able to ask them an open-ended question so that they can give me more information. So I never want to assume that I know the whole facts until I've listened to them and been able to ask them a number of open-ended questions, meaning questions that are not yes or no answers, so they can give me more and more information. And once I have all the critical facts, which usually requires me figuring out where in the shades of gray they are, which things are there, which things are not there, are there exceptions to rules that I need to know that are existing in the facts? And then only after I have all those facts am I able to have a better idea of how to deal with their solution.

SPEAKER_01 42:21

Yeah, it sounds like you have to take the whole situation into account. And through listening, I think this is a really good example of how curiosity and critical thinking play a big role. You have to use the curiosity. If you're bored of it and you're not really listening, you're not going to get all the information. You have to use the curiosity to absorb all of the information by actively listening and asking clarifying questions to get as much information. Then you're using the critical thinking to do the sorting, the issue spotting, the shades of gray. It's how it all fits together so that you figure out what you need to know, and then you can make a personalized plan for that person. But in order to do that, you have to understand the system. One of the big things that I learned from working at the law firm was when you work on Medicaid, you have to understand the entire system of Medicaid. Now, it's not that other forms of law don't work like this, they do. But Medicaid is really about understanding the full system. All of the different rules, all of the different exceptions. And once you understand that system, you figure out how to work within the system. But if you don't fully understand the system, how are you going to know what's relevant and what's not? How are you going to know what the issues are or where the exceptions are?

SPEAKER_00 43:49

Right. That's very well said, David. And John Schober has also said that you should also try to become a lawyer sometime in the future. Yeah. Because you you did pick up a lot of these things very quickly. When you Know the system, you can then spot the issues. And the key thing is listening to find out which issues apply. So if you don't spot all the issues, you may not come up with the best solution. So it is not only just knowing a lot of different things. Like if I'm dealing with a Medicaid-related case, I need to know every single asset that the person has: life insurance, annuities, IRAs, bank accounts, etc. I need to know what their income is, I need to know what the costs are. I need to know what their other costs are, like their supplemental insurance premiums or everything like that. So without having all the pieces of information, I'm not going to come up with the best solution. And we always try to make sure that we come up with what we consider to be the best solution.

SPEAKER_01 44:49

So I think one of the biggest takeaways is understanding the difference between memorization and conceptualization. This was a game changer for me once I realized what these were and the difference. If you just memorize each individual law, but don't really think about them, you're going to have a lot of problems. You have to conceptualize the whole thing. You have to understand the concepts. Once you have conceptualized something, you understand how it works, which means that you can work within that system. You have conceptualized the system. Now, systems thinking is an approach to problem solving that views problems as part of a wider, dynamic system. Instead of just the specific fact, the specific law. It recognizes and prioritizes the understanding of linkages, relationships, interactions, and interdependencies among the components of that system and gives rise to the system's observed and total behavior.

SPEAKER_00 45:57

Yes, this is exactly the type of reasoning and approach that I took when I went to law school. After I graduated from undergrad and I was working as an accountant, a financial analyst, I realized there were some things that I knew, but I didn't know them as in depth as I needed to. And so when I studied for the CPA exam and the CMA exam, that's when I really dug into it and was more serious, even more serious, I suppose, than I was in an undergrad. And so when I decided to go to law school, my goal was not to get a specific grade. My goal was to make sure that I understood everything, frontwards and backwards, inside and out, so that I knew exactly the way it worked and why it worked. And that was a huge difference because a lot of people struggled in law school. After about the first three, four weeks, and I started getting used to the Socratic method, I really didn't have much of a difficult time in law school.

SPEAKER_01 47:00

Because you were conceptualizing things, not just memorizing them. Correct. Now, I think we have really hit on a lot of important and valuable thought processes that come from being a lawyer and from your life experiences in general. Now, to summarize some of the major practical, usable things, I would say in order to think like a lawyer, you need to try and have a strong work ethic. You want to have some grit. You have to work hard to get it done. Do things that are not typical. You want to use things like the Socratic method to question things, to question yourself, to strengthen your arguments. If you're going to form an argument, make sure that it's valid. And whenever possible, try and make it a sound argument. Evaluate things with logic. Try and use analytical thinking and critical thinking to sort through the information, use the shades of gray, and absorb all of it through curiosity. Come from a place of objectivity. When you're objective, you will see things more clearly, but you need to have some intellectual humility to do that. Conceptualize, don't just memorize. See things as a system, and once you learn the system, you can work within it. Apply some ethics to your own relationships, and you will find that people will both like you more and trust you. And lastly, be specific but clear and concise in your wording. Look at the situation you're in. Regardless, try to be clear. If you're in a situation that needs high amounts of accuracy, use very, very specific wording to make sure that you do not have a miscommunication. In other situations where you don't need to be quite as specific, optimize more for clarity, concise. Keep it simple so that you're not just using big words which are needlessly confusing.

SPEAKER_00 49:12

That was a very good summary, David. I think for me, you've summarized it better than I could have explained it. Because I just think like I do, it's hard for me to explain how I think. I think you've taken a lot of the things that I've said and boiled it down to a point where it's very understandable.

SPEAKER_01 49:31

Thank you. I appreciate that. That's actually very kind to hear that I did a good job explaining how a lawyer thinks from a lawyer. But that's the whole goal. Not everyone I interview has to be a world-class Olympian for me to extract value from them. Because you can learn something from anyone, and everyone has some value. Everyone knows more about something than you. And I'm just trying to bring on people and guests where I can really get some great things because I see great things in them, and I want to share that with everyone in a way that we can all be a little more like them. So I really appreciate you coming on the podcast and being a part of this with me. Is there anything else you wanted to say before we uh head out?

SPEAKER_00 50:26

No, just thank you very much for letting me be on your podcast, and believe it or not, this is not so easy to do.

SPEAKER_01 50:34

Yeah, well, come on and find out yourself. Thank you for listening to the Sage Solutions podcast. Your time is valuable, and I'm so glad you choose to learn and grow here with me. If you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss out on more Sage advice. One last thing. The legal language. This podcast is for educational and informational purposes only. No coaching client relationship is formed, and no legal advice is being given. It is not intended as a substitute for the personalized advice of a physician, professional coach, psychotherapist, lawyer, or other qualified professional. The opinions of guests are their own and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of this podcast.