Clearbrief Founder and CEO Jacqueline Schafer sat down for a 1-on-1 with Alaska's former Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth. Currently a partner at Cashion, Gilmore, & Lindemuth, Ms. Lindemuth is a highly respected litigator and appellate attorney who has handled some of the most high-profile cases in Alaska in recent years. Their conversation touched on Jahna's experience as the state's chief legal officer, the skills she's developed over her career, and what makes a great legal writer.
You served as Alaska's attorney general and are now in private practice. Can you share more about your career journey as a litigator?
Prior to serving as Alaska's attorney general from August 2016 to December 2018, I was in private practice for 18 years. I progressed through the big firm world, from summer associate to associate to partner and then to managing partner for the last eight years when I was at Dorsey and Whitney. So I had that background coming into the attorney general job and it was easy to transition back to private practice.
Now at Cashion, Gilmore, & Lindemuth, I have many of the same clients I had served before, and even some of the same matters are still alive. What is different in my law practice today is that I bring additional capabilities that I developed through my experience serving as attorney general. Commercial litigation is how I broadly describe my current practice, which involves a lot of cases both against the state and defending claims by the state. Since leaving the attorney general job, people have particularly sought me out to help with consumer protection and antitrust cases.
How would you describe your approach to legal writing, and how it has evolved with your experiences in private practice and public service?
Lawyers are advocates, but what does that really look like? The oral advocacy that happens in the courtroom, while dramatic on TV and certainly an important part of being a lawyer, is only like 2% of the work that lawyers do. Most of the advocacy that lawyers undertake is in writing, so it's so important to have clear, concise pleadings and communications so that you know the decision maker can make a good decision.
I'm a bit of a law nerd. I love being a lawyer, I love the law, and I love writing. I think any really good lawyer has to be a good writer, and I take research and writing very seriously. As your career advances and you are managing other lawyers - whether as a partner or as attorney general - you don't have as many opportunities to do the very focused work of developing that research and doing initial writing. But on important issues, and even in the attorney general's office, if it was something that was really important, I would dig in myself and do the research and writing.
I love working with newer attorneys and developing these skills. In that process I always give my redlines back so my associates can read the input and my thoughts as an editor, because I think that's part of the learning experience.
That's how I grew as an attorney when I was an associate, by looking at the redlines that others gave me.
I loved being a young lawyer for the chance to focus on legal research and writing, and then go through the editing process with partners. For me it's now flipped and I find myself mostly editing. I love to edit, and I actually think I'm pretty good at it. Everybody needs an editor, including me! So even when I write a first draft, I value having somebody whose writing I respect edit my work and give a second opinion.
I follow a similar process when I edit my own work: I write a first draft, step away and sleep on it, and then come back with fresh eyes. And then I ask myself, “How well does this section work, or how can I restructure this? How can I reword this to make it clearer, cleaner, and shorter?” The more concise you can be in writing, the more effective you're going to be.
How do you approach the editing process, and what is a common edit you give to the new lawyers you mentor?
Legal writing requires having a thick skin. I'm somebody who is going to be frank in my feedback. We all share the same goal of making a better written work product, and I fully expect whoever I'm working with will also view it that way.
There are many good writers who simply focus on the trees, if you will: they are able to point to all these different facts and can really describe them, but they miss the bigger picture of the forest. I see this again and again from average lawyers.
As an editor, you need to come in and ask yourself, “Is the structure of this brief capturing the big picture forest? Have we structured this so that we have this grove of trees over here that we describe together? Have we structured this so that the big picture is clear and fundamental pieces are in the right order?”
Organization can be hard for the original drafter to see. The mistake I see many newer lawyers make is that they build up to their best argument, leaving the strongest points at the end. And you can't do that!
The strongest advocates come out swinging with their best argument first. While you also want to finish strong, the most important structural edit I give is to make sure the judge or decision maker understands right out of the gate why you win. My best advice: don't hide the best answer at the end.
Whether it's written or oral advocacy, what makes a successful litigator?
As a litigator in Alaska, it's most helpful to be a generalist. I've been involved with a wide variety of cases, and the most complex and biggest cases are always the most fun. Clients don't like to find themselves involved in litigation, but I find it extremely meaningful to help businesses and companies navigate complex issues.
I think the role of a lawyer, especially in litigation, is to take something complex and complicated and simplify it down to something that people can get their hands around. Then, by telling the story in such a way that is compelling and simple, the matter can be resolved, whether through negotiation or by litigating the issue in court or to an arbitration panel.
What was your path to becoming Alaska Attorney General?
I fully recommend public service on many different levels. I hadn't planned on coming into the Attorney General job or made it a career goal. In most jurisdictions the Attorney General is an elected official, so you need to be willing to put yourself out there in a campaign and run for the job. Alaska is one of a few jurisdictions where the governor appoints the Attorney General.
My path to becoming Attorney General really began because I had thrown my name into consideration for the Alaska Supreme Court after a seat opened up. In Alaska, we have a merit judicial selection process. My name was on the shortlist of finalists for that seat and in April 2016 I interviewed with the governor along with three other candidates. You won't be surprised to learn that the governor did not appoint me to the Alaska Supreme Court. And at the time, I was very disappointed. But I also felt like if this wasn't what I was called to do, then there's something else that I'm meant to do.
Several weeks later, I got a call asking me to come meet with the governor. I was unsure what we had left to discuss, and at the outset the governor made his agenda clear, saying “You're probably wondering why I called you here. Well, tomorrow the current attorney general is going to announce his resignation. And I'd like you to serve as the next attorney general.” And I have to tell you, I was floored. It was super exciting. But I was very surprised, as I just hadn't even dreamed that I'd be asked to take on that role.
And the attorney general position is the complete opposite of a judicial role. Instead of going in depth into cases and spending weeks on a particular decision, you deal with cases in 10 minute increments, making 100 decisions in a day, and talking to 100 different people about a wide variety of issues. You have to have a really strong team behind you in order to do that. In addition to being the top lawyer for the state, there is the public service aspect of the job. There's a real obligation to interact with the public and make sure the public understands why decisions are made. And taking on that public facing role was the biggest challenge of the job for me.
What accomplishment are you most proud of from your tenure as Alaska's attorney general?
I'm proud of many things. It was an honor to serve the state as attorney general and it was a meaningful way to contribute to public service. In many respects, I think we were able to accomplish quite a bit in the two and a half years that I served. It's really hard to pull out just one.
For the last year and a half of my tenure, the governor had asked me to take on public safety issues in Alaska. That involved coordinating amongst all the different departments that have input and responsibilities that impact public safety, including the Department of Public Safety, and many others. I was charged with putting together a strategy of improving public safety and developing concrete steps that would make Alaskans feel safer and be safer. We implemented a number of broader public safety efforts than what an attorney general would usually become involved in.
Given the size of the state, it's physically impossible to have Alaska State Troopers in every community, but Alaska is also home to many federally recognized tribes. The framework of the plan was to develop a working relationship between the federal government, the state and the tribes whereby they could take a greater responsibility for public safety in our communities. The seeds we put into place when I served as attorney general are still being developed by the current state administration. And Senator Lisa Murkowski put forward legislation that recently passed that further strengthens and empowers those relationships, particularly for domestic violence cases. I am very proud of the work that we did, and it's really pleasing to see those efforts continue.
How do you communicate with clients about strategy decisions while helping them see the complex bigger picture?
My approach is to get ahead of issues and develop the strategy with the client. That way there's buy-in on both sides about how to navigate a case. The first step is to understand the legal issues - the strengths and weaknesses of your case - and then have a frank conversation with your client about the best path forward.
Some high level strategy questions include, Are we trying to push this into a settlement posture? Is this one likely to not settle and so will need to be litigated? How best do we get the case ready for that?
I view litigation as a poker game where you're dealt your cards and you want the opportunity to switch out some cards for better cards. At the pre-trial phase, including the discovery process, you have the opportunity to strategize and make decisions about what to do with your hand. Meanwhile, you need to fairly evaluate what your competitor's hand might look like and be honest with yourself about your own hand.
Sometimes it's best to fold and go home; other times it's best to say, “If they're not willing to settle on our terms, then we do want the ultimate decision maker to decide.” That's how I approach litigation.
What role do innovation and technology play in your litigation practice?
It's important for lawyers to stay ahead of the curve on what's happening in the technology world, and take the tools you find and apply them to your practice. Many lawyers think, “This is the way we've done it, we're always going to do it this way.” There are still people who dictate their drafts to have someone else type up, if you can believe it!
The world is changing, and we as leaders and problem solvers have to figure out what's the best tool to bring to any particular problem. I'm all about using technology, both in the courtroom and in practice. I joined a small law firm and we are a paperless office, everything is online so I can work from anywhere. I can grab my pleadings and my briefs, wherever I happen to be. Clients expect us to be responsive to their needs, and technology helps support us in delivering on client expectations.
Thank you Jahna!
