Meet Jason Marsili - a Leader Who Exudes Quiet Confidence and Leads with Compassion and Genuine Caring

Speaker A: Foreign.

Speaker B: Hello listeners. Welcome, um, to another episode of Leading in a Lonely World. Conversations with transformative leaders. Today we have a very dynamic leader. His name is Jason Marcili and he is an attorney in la, California with the firm of Rosen, Marsili and Rapp. He is also a mediator, uh, and arbitrator in California. He is a graduate of Pepperdine University and also received his master's in alternative dispute resolution. At the same time, uh, Jason has had very successful verdicts on behalf of, uh, class actions for union employees as well as non union employees and a number of wage and hour and collective actions. He's also had very successful, uh, lawsuits on behalf of individuals and discrimination, retaliation and other, uh, claims under California state and federal law. I'm super excited to speak with Jason today. I've known Jason for a very long time through our mutual interest in the American Bar association where, uh, Jason early established himself as a young leader and has only furthered his leadership, uh, experience through his bar activity. He's also very active in the Los Angeles County Bar association and I can't wait for you guys to meet him and hear what his insights are in terms of becoming a leader. Great things a leader can do and also his views and opinions on the state of, uh, mediation and arbitration. So hold on to your hats, we're ready to rock and roll. And welcome Jason to the program. Thank you. Hello Jason, thanks for coming on, uh, the podcast today. Super excited to have you on and talk all things of leadership and ADR with you.

Speaker A: Well, thank you Vanessa for having me. Um, you know, we've been talking about this for, doing this podcast for a minute, so I'm glad we finally got the opportunity to do it.

Speaker B: Yeah, I love being able to sit down with, uh, friends, uh, talk to them in a way that's, that's different than when we meet up at conferences or over a drink. We actually get to talk about thought producing things and you know, spend some time taking a deep dive on some important issues. So thank you for making time out of your schedule to do that.

Speaker A: Sure, sure.

Speaker B: So I gave my audience a little bit of a, ah, brief, um, bio on you. Um, but you know what's important for the audience to know about you? What makes Jason Marcelli tick?

Speaker A: That is a great question. So, you know, I, I've been practicing law for 18 years and I would say for myself that I'm one of few people who actually went to law school, um, with a desire to eventually become a neutral and kind of advance ADR alternative dispute resolution. I knew that I wanted to do that when I went to law school, um, which I don't know that that's common, but that's what ultimately brought me to law school. And I've been practicing now for 18 years and recently made the transition to becoming a neutral. Um, so I think I feel that I am engaging in what I've been passionate about, um, ever since I started to enter the practice of law, because I knew that I always wanted to have a legal education, but I wanted to put that to use in terms of helping others resolve disputes. And having now practiced labor and employment law for the last 17, 18 years, I feel like I have a strong foundation of substantive knowledge to be able to do that.

Speaker B: You know, I think that is very unusual. I don't think that there are many, um, colleagues of ours that said that they went to law school specifically because they wanted to, um, become a neutral. I think for many of our friends, that has sort of been an evolution of their practice. As they became more experienced and more senior in their practice, they decided to switch that way. But I love how purposeful you were, and I did tell the audience that you did. At the same time of getting your, you know, your, your law degree, you also got a master's degree in alternative dispute dispute resolution. So you were one of those, you know, bring it all on type of people, right? More than the type A. What's above type A? Is that you, Jason?

Speaker A: I got, I actually got both my JD and my master's degree in three years. I took, I took classes over Christmas break and in both summers during law school and graduated with both degrees in three years. So, yeah, I'm kind of that person to write off more than I, than I should.

Speaker B: Well, it doesn't sound like it was more than you should because you did it very successfully. So tell us a little bit. Where does that, first of all, to be that focused when you start law school? Roughly 25 ish. So where does that focus, interest, uh, come from? And that incredible drive and dedication? What do you attribute that too? Is there a mentor or something in your background? Tell us where that comes from.

Speaker A: So the desire to be a neutral, to be a mediator to help people resolve disputes, that really came from an incident that occurred, um, while I was in high school. Um, I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. And at that time there was kind of this changing culture, or at least the racial demographics of the community in which I grew up were changing. Um, it was predominantly Caucasian white, uh, and then there was a growing Hispanic population, certainly African American community was still at a minority. But my high school, I would say was probably 50, 50 between, um, Hispanic students and Caucasian students. And there was a lot of racial tension. Um, ultimately boiled over into a large scale brawl in the cafeteria that became very scary in terms of teachers who tried to stop it were swallowed up by the fight. That mean there was about 100 students who were involved. And it caused the entire high school to kind of push pause on what, um, what was going, needed to be done with respect to the student body with, um, concerning some of these, these racial tensions. So my high school started, the acronym then was called redac, the Racial and Ethnic Diversity Advisory Committee. Uh, and this is mid-90s. And I just, I don't even know how it happened. But in the very, very first meeting I kind of took control of the conversation. And I think it was probably because the fight was between Hispanic students and white students. And I was of neither group, um, but still minority and had a voice that needed to be heard. And I kind of took the conversation over and I never really gave it back. Um, I was asked to head that committee for the high school, um, and ran with it. Um, you know, long story short, I ended up receiving, um, an award from the national association of Social Workers for Public Citizen of the Year.

Speaker B: I did not know that about you. That's awesome. That's really awesome.

Speaker A: So being in that environment of this kind of conciliatory and mediation role and kind of served as an intermediary, I knew in high school that I wanted to do that type of work. Um, and then it was fostered by the coursework that I took in undergrad. I took some negotiation coursework and I thought that was really interesting and that's what steered me towards dispute resolution.

Speaker B: That's great. So your leadership started, um, really in high school, probably earlier than that. I mean, when you say, uh, you drove the conversation and you were heading the group, um, uh, do you think people are just born good leaders or do you think they're shaped or, you know, what do you think about it?

Speaker A: I think there are qualities of leaders that are inherent at birth, but how are they fostered during early development and whether that is for a positive result or possibly a negative result, um, you know, I feel like you have very charismatic leaders who are not doing the right thing and you know, they find themselves at the top of organizations that we're not none too proud of. Um, but I do feel like some of those qualities may be inherent by birth, but it's really a question of what are you going to do with it? Um, when given an opportunity to lead, um, and I feel like positive leadership skills need to be trained and developed. Um, and I think that takes place over time. So it's a combination of both.

Speaker B: Right, so it's like the Spider man quote. With great power comes great responsibility. If I haven't messed it up, it's okay.

Speaker A: I don't know if it was Spider man who said it first, but it's definitely a quote.

Speaker B: But you know, you make a good point that, uh, a lot of our leaders are very charismatic. You know, that, that they can, uh. And you yourself are very charismatic. You can command a room, you've got presence, uh, when you speak, people listen. So you're right. Are you going to use that, um, those talents and abilities for good or evil? Um, and you've chosen to, uh, do it for the good of others.

Speaker A: When I was a litigator, I don't know that everyone would have said that, but I do feel that now. This way for sure.

Speaker B: You know, when you opened your ADR practice, which I think was almost a year ago. Right. Aren't you coming up on an anniversary?

Speaker A: Yeah, November 1st will be one year.

Speaker B: I remember introducing you to a couple of my partners in our LA office and I told them you have to use him because we want him off the plaintiff's bar. For those of you who don't know Jason, he's very, very successful trial lawyer, very successful at, uh, collective actions, wage and hour type of actions, as well as all other kinds of employee side. So, um, we at the defense bar, because I usually represent employers, uh, we're just happy that you might be taking that neutral role

Speaker A: right away, young Jason.

Speaker B: Not fly away, but, you know, let's take you in another role so we don't have to come up against you. So, um, but you know, let's. Did you have somebody in your life, you know, from the early, from your early childhood or you know, maturing into high school, that, that did sort of guide or shape your, your leadership path?

Speaker A: I wouldn't say that it was, um, high school. I would say that my first very profound leader came to me in college. Um, a gentleman by the name of Jim McLeod, who was the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Washington University and also the head of the John, uh, B. Urban Scholars Program, kind of assumed this mentoring role. And it's funny, as I sit here, I still have a pin with his picture on it, which there's a slogan that says, we become our habits. And he was a man of just Infinite wisdom. And, you know, he took me under his wing and really showed me what it was. And it's like, as I'm talking about this, I almost get choked up. Um, because, you know, when you're young and you have abilities and you kind of are misdirected, it can manifest itself in a number of ways. And he really took me under his wing and showed me what it means to work with a purpose for a particular goal in mind and, and how you can bring others into that fold and cause people to kind of move in the same direction. Um, so I would say, um, he was, you know, Dean McLeod was, was one of my first real. Other than my father. Uh, my father was. Was my early mentor and early role model. But Dean McLeod was certainly, you, uh, know, responsible for the man that I am today, for sure.

Speaker B: That's great. It's great. And I hope he gets to listen to this and hear you speak so warmly about him.

Speaker A: He passed.

Speaker B: Oh, um, I'm sorry.

Speaker A: Um, it is a very, very large community of scholars, and I will certainly let them know that I gave a Nod to Dean McLeod during this podcast. They will be happy to hear that.

Speaker B: That's good. That's good. Um, so I got a chance to listen to you on a webinar, um, earlier this week, I think, and you were talking about leadership, uh, with several other of the leaders of the American Bar Association. And one of. One of the things you said really stood out to me. Um, you said that you thought that your leadership style over, uh, the years has changed that. Now people talk about your quiet confidence or your sort of calm demeanor as a leader, and that was different than, um, how you exhibited your leadership earlier. Um, so can you tell our listeners about that who didn't get a chance to listen to your words of wisdom like I did?

Speaker A: Sure. And I don't know how wise they are, but I will repeat them and we'll see. We'll let them decide for themselves. You know, when you're a baby lawyer, um, I feel like there's a desire to be heard. You know, when you're a young associate, you, you, You've gone through law school, you've received your degree, you're now in a firm, either large or small, representing one side or the other. You really need to kind of create a space for yourself. Um, when I was younger, that manifested itself in terms of making sure that my voice was heard, um, so that I was almost, you know, taking my seat at the table, so to speak. It almost falls in line with the concept of fake it till you make it. Um, but I feel like the manifestation of that is being a bit louder or more forthcoming with your opinion so that you. So that people around you know that you have one. Um, and that's not right or wrong. That's how I was when, when I was, you know, a younger lawyer or still green. And then at some point in time, you do make it, you know, the idea. And it's, it's, it's, it's interesting because on that podcast, I think all of the leaders that were commenting made reference to imposter syndrome, um, which is very much a thing. And, you know, if you learn that and embrace it and realize that this feeling of uncertainty that you have as you continue to kind of grow and evolve, that others in your, you know, similar situation feel the same way, it may look different, but they feel the same way. There's some degree of comfort that you find with that. And I would say, whereas I was more forthcoming with speaking and giving my opinions when I was younger, at some point in time I just stopped doing that as much because it had been determined by the larger dynamic that I had a seat at the table. And I feel like when you have a seat at the table, which is difficult for minorities to find themselves in that situation of, uh, feeling comfortable like you have a seat at the table. But certainly, I think with the American Bar association section of labor and Employment Law, I feel like I have a seat at the table. And that allows you, I feel like, to be your more authentic self. Um, because you are not clawing to establish your right to be heard. If you have your voice, that allows you to be your more authentic self. And for me, I think the way that that manifests today is speaking less, listening more, and knowing that when I share my opinion that it is appreciated based off of the experience that I have, um, drawn upon to this particular point in time. It's almost, you know, speak softly and carry a big stick. Uh, where, when I was, you know, 10 years ago, I would have been more inclined to just talk, talk, talk and make sure that everyone knows that I have something to say. When you come of age, so to speak, I think it looks different. Um, and I feel very comfortable in this particular, um, way that I am now. I was thinking about it, and I've joined organizations where I don't speak for the first year, um, that I'm a part of them because I'm just listening and absorbing and understanding the group dynamic, knowing that I have maybe the ability to change the group dynamic. To effectuate a new direction of the group dynamic. Um, and so it's really, you know, speak when spoken to kind of thing. And then eventually, when people realize that what you're saying is well considered and processed and put together and in the best interest of the organization, they start to listen more. And you have this kind of inherent ability now to move the organization in a direction that you may want to move it. Um, so that kind of evolution has been fun for me. And I know that there is one more stage. It's almost akin to when you're a rising star. You act a particular way, and then when you've made it and you've come into your own, you act a different way. And then what does it look like to be a leader in the twilight of your career as you are trying to light the path for the next generation of leaders? So, to me, I think of almost in three phases, and I would say I'm squarely in phase number two right now.

Speaker B: That's a really, really interesting way to look at it, that there are these phases, the one where you're really actively seeking for that seat at the table. And once you get it, you want to make sure people hear you. And then after you've established yourself, you've got the confidence to know that you don't always have to speak to make an impact, but that when you do speak, that it's going to be taken seriously and add value. And I would love to see what's going to happen in your third phase, but I'm older than you, so I might miss that. Um, and I contrast what your style was versus mine. You know, when I started out as a baby lawyer, I was so worried about getting it wrong that I was super quiet, which you probably would never guess because I'm not like that now. But I was super quiet and really, really only spoke if I absolutely had to, like, in court, uh, or if I 100% knew I had the right answer and I could do it. But then as I got more confident in my own abilities and more socialized and a little bit more comfortable in my own skin, I just say what I want and people are either going to like it or not like it. I mean, I'm, you know, tactful. I'm not mean or anything like that, But I do express my opinion, and at times, it's not going to be the popular opinion. At times, you know, it may be a force for change. It may be, you know, I don't think we should approach it that way, but it's interesting because I'm almost the opposite of what you went through. So it's. And I don't know what my Twilight will look like. Although I think I'm kind of getting there because I'm really, really focused right now in my life on, um, promoting the next generation of lawyers and leaders. I'm really focused. And that's one of the things that I like about this podcast that my firm graciously lets me do, because I like to celebrate leaders. I like them to talk about, uh, their lessons learned on becoming a leader and then, you know, have it be a great example for those who, um, want to improve their style, want to emulate, want somebody to inspire them.

Speaker A: So it's interesting, the transition from, you know, phase two to phase three, um, that kind of exists on a sliding scale, at least from my perspective, in the sense that. So I've. I've been a professor at USC now for, I want to say, seven years. And I remember when I was just starting there that I was the young professor, you know, I was, you know, what, late 30s at that point in time. And now you. I don't mean to quote Matthew McConaughey from from Days and Confused, but he says in that particular movie about high school kids that, uh, he just keeps getting older, but they stay the same age. That's really what it is when you're a professor, is that you keep getting older, but they stay the same age. And where I was perceived in one light when I started at usc, I'm perceived in a different light now. And you actually, in real time, get to assess what it looks like in kind of training the next generation of leaders, while you still feel like in another aspect of your career, you're kind of in your, uh, you've come into your own. So. So you get to see it from. I've been able to see it from multiple different platforms, and it's interesting.

Speaker B: Yeah, no, that's really cool. So let's switch up gears a little bit, because when you and I first talked about this idea for the podcast, both of us really wanted to talk about, um, the issues of the lack of diversity, um, in various aspects of the legal profession and life in general. Um, you are a passionate advocate, um, a passionate ally. And, um, we talked in specifically about the lack of diversity and arbitration and mediators. And even there was an aba, um, report on the lack of diversity in the judiciary as a whole, whether it's women or, um, persons of color or Hispanic, uh, or Latin backgrounds, uh, Asian American, just really the Numbers are really pretty abysmal in the judiciary. I think they're worse in arbitration. Um, for instance, for union arbitration, you may get a slate of arbitrators that are proposed and they may be all older white men. And there's certainly no diversity there. Um, do you see that? Am I wrong? Am I just focusing on the outliers or do you agree? Not agree.

Speaker A: No, you're absolutely right. In the, I think the ABA Profile of the legal profession, um, it was just published in 2022, does a great job of explaining the lack of diversity in the judiciary. Certainly with Article 3 judges, both the trial court level and at the Court of Appeal, um, that problem, which has persisted for decades, naturally evolves into the dispute resolution context for this reason. Historically, arbitrators mediators were retired judges.

Speaker B: Mhm.

Speaker A: That's how the profession really started. When people were looking to someone for alternative dispute resolution, they were looking for a lot of retired judges. Um, don't quote me on this, but you know, I will say this. I think the JAMS used to be an acronym for Judicially Associated Mediation Services. Oh, you might be Mediation Services. JAMS used to be an acronym. So the problem that we saw in the judiciary would most naturally extend to dispute resolution because one, it was a second career for what was at that particular point in time pretty much an all white majority male, um, judiciary.

Speaker B: Mhm.

Speaker A: And some of the major ADR service providers then got wise to the idea that skill sets for dispute resolution be either in the arbitration context or in the mediation context benefited from having non judge mediators, non judge arbitrators. So you start to see some degree of diversification from a professional background and then you get to see it from a racial socioeconomic disability background. Um, but we're still not anywhere near where we need to be. And I think that Jay Z famously made that known to the population at large when he um, filed a complaint against AAA for lack of diversity in a case in which he was trying to select an arbitrator for his company. And of a panel of 200 arbitrators, um, there was not a single African American on a whole panel of 200. And then they got a second panel and there was three out of 200. Um, and it became very public that there was a problem with arbitration, um, in terms of the lack of diversity. And we still see that. I would give some credit to the major service providers of trying to remedy the situation, um, but we're not there yet. I mean this is a process for sure, um, because they're pulling from a pool, judges or lawyers that is still trying to become more diversified. So the denominator, the pool of applicants or people who can serve as arbitrators and neutrals, is struggling with diversity. Naturally, I think dispute resolution would as well. And then that takes you ultimately to mediators, um, who sit in a different environment because they're not making a decision. Mediation is not an adjudicative proceeding. Um, but when you're selecting a mediator, mediators work insofar that people select them to. To bring about resolution to their dispute. Um, if you're not selected as a mediator, you don't work. I mean, it's a very. It's, you know, it's kind of a free market system. And it dawned on me that this was a problem with respect to mediator selection, going back to my days as an advocate. And I think, too, you know, as an advocate, you think to select a mediator that is going to be effective in resolving the dispute. And when you're dealing with a case of disability discrimination or race discrimination or gender discrimination, you may be inclined to select a mediator that has the ability to be sympathetic, not just empathetic, to your particular client, but then, you know, I think to a very particular case that I had where I was representing, uh, a member of the LGBTQ community. And I thought to myself that I really wanted a neutral that was a member of the community so that they could understand the nuances of how the environment was making my client feel. And there's fantastic mediators in Los Angeles that can. That can do that and really sympathize with plaintiffs in that regard. But I wouldn't select that same mediator for wage an hour case, and there's no reason for it. Yeah.

Speaker B: Uh, why? There's just no radio.

Speaker A: Yeah. But, like, I don't. So it dawned on me that, you know, where we are purposely selecting mediators for reasons that they can connect with the. With the conflict, but those same neutrals are not necessarily being selected for something that does not contain that, even though they may be perfectly equipped to address, you know, a less inflammatory case that doesn't have, you know, some of those, you know, emotional components to it. And now that I see this as a neutral, um, African American male, and I've been selected cases, you know, I've been selected for cases that. That deal with race discrimination. Um, and I. And you're left questioning yourself. Are you being selected because you have some familiarity with this and you can show sympathy to the case, the client and the Conflict, or are you independently being selected for this because of your skills as a neutral? Um, and I have an extensive wage an hour background, which. Wage an hour runs the gamut. You know, it's. It's a math problem in a lot of respects, so it doesn't have those components. But you're. As a neutral, you're left wondering, you know, why. What was the basis of the selection?

Speaker B: Yeah, but. But I would argue that representation matters even in those, um, wage and hour that are, you know, more analytical or as you say, a math problem, because, you know, especially in the collective actions where the workers, they could be all types of workers. I mean, they could be diverse, they could be white. They could, you know, it really. So to have someone who, um, is able to at least identify some of the issues that maybe wouldn't be apparent to someone else, you know, would be helpful. But I think more generally, you need diversity of thought and, you know, um, and that. That's what you bring. So when I, When I recommended you to my partners, I didn't recommend you because you were a black mediator. I recommended you because you were really, really skilled at wage an hour. And yes, there was, like, that little piece that said, let's take him off the market. He won't sue us then. But, uh, the bigger piece was because he's been doing the plaintiff side so much, he's going to be really effective to tell my clients, when you go to trial, here's what's going to come out, here's what's going to play out, here's the things that you're not going to be able to sweep under the rug. So for me, that came solely on the basis that I know that you're highly skilled in that area. That's what I think we want to get to when selections are based on what you know about the person and their experience level. So how do we get there? Jason, let's you and I solve the world's problems one, One podcast at a time.

Speaker A: Well, first off, thank you for saying such kind things, you know, uh, on this podcast and certainly with your partners. Um, and I agree with you. You know, I would say that completely devoid of what my background may be, um, you know, I know wage an hour, and I, you know, I'm not shy to say that. Um, so I, you know, I think it's important that whatever recommendation was made by you to others was based off of a skill set completely devoid of immutable characteristics of myself or the conflict. Um, it's so funny you ask how do we get there? Um, because Diversity Lab and the Mansfield rule have done such a great job with getting firms to understand that they're in a better position by being diversified throughout their ranks from top to bottom because of what you identified, this diversity of thought, our experiences cause us to process information and think about conflict and resolution a lot differently. Um, just off, um, of our experiences and because our experiences are different, then this collective ability to think together hopefully gives us the greatest opportunity of fashioning a resolution that works well for everybody. Um, I think diversity is thought is huge. And it's important to understand that with diversity of firms and that diversity of thought that stems from it, um, the next level is how are we taking the construct that we've developed for our particular firm and advancing that through the way in which we practice law. Now, you can't make that change with the judiciary unless you're calling your congressperson and saying, do this. You know, have this person be nominated by, by the Biden administration. Like, you can't do that through Article 3. You have a limit. You have less of an opportunity to do that with selection of an arbitrator because you're presented with a panel and you're really kind of working with, you know, who's ultimately presented on the panel. But I really do think, with respect to mediation, that firms have the ability to make this type of change because it is a free market system and mediators who are regularly book work and those who don't, don't. Um, so I think firms are empowered to really effectuate that change, um, because they're the ones who are making the selection from the universe of mediators. It's not as though AAA has provided you with a panel of arbitrators or jams has provided the litigants with a panel of arbitrators. It is the universe of neutrals. And certainly in a day and age where a good majority of mediations are taking place via zoom, um, you're not necessarily required to use someone in your locale.

Speaker B: That's true.

Speaker A: I just think I had a mediation, I don't know, a couple weeks ago, where the management, client, the employer was in Chicago, the lawyers were in the east coast, plaintiff's counsel was on the West Coast. And the only difficulty with that was the time zone. Time zone, making sure that everyone got to eat. But I think the opportunity to kind of look at the country as, all right, this is the universe of mediators that we can select. Um, so it really becomes a function at this point in time of knowledge M. I worry a little bit, and

Speaker B: we talked about this before we started our chat, uh, um, that mediators for the large part are selected from, from people that, you know, you've seen speak, uh, you've had a mediation with them before. You know, they're active in mediation. So just like we worry about when we, we do our hiring for firms. It can't just be people like you. You know, I mean, um, I think I'm blessed because I'm so active in the American Bar association. And the American Bar association just has, has just been always at the front forefront of, you know, equality equity, promoting, um, diversity, you know, really leveling the, the playing field. And um, so I have had the good fortune to meet lots of people from, you know, different races, genders, ages, you know, everything. But not everybody has that. And they might just, you know, say, hey, Sam, I've got this, you know, retaliation case. Who'd you use? And they're like, oh, yeah, I use this guy. He's down the road and that narrows it. And then if your individual network is not diverse, then, um, the mediators that you select may not be diverse. Right?

Speaker A: You're absolutely right. It is. How are we. And this is one of the things that we constantly talked about through the American Bar association is how do we expand our, you know, our concentric circles so that they get wider? And we are, we are, we are looking to. Not the non usual suspects. You know, you have the usual suspects. How do we find the individuals beyond that group that we normally go to? And we always, you know, when we're putting on conferences and stuff of that nature, it's always okay. Speaking opportunities. We are trying to find speakers that, you know, that don't normally speak, and we are expanding our network to find those individuals. I think the selection of neutrals is the same way. Um, there's no good solution to it right now. Um, I've been meaning to reach out to Diversity Lab to see what can be fashioned as a next level, um, of um. It seems to me the perfect solution. Not the perfect solution, but a solution would be a central database of diverse mediators, mediators of color, however one wants to describe it across all the major providers. Um, because, you know, whereas in the West Coast, JAMS is a major provider, but their presence is not as strong, maybe in the Midwest or in the East Coast. Um, but there are mediation providers, commercial providers in those geographic areas that also have diverse mediators, mediators of color, to me, a central database so that we are. Someone can understand the universe of uh, particular mediators beyond their. Hey, Vanessa, uh, who do you like from this particular type of case? Because that's how people are selected. Um, right, yeah. Taking the same concepts that we use in trying to create diverse platforms for speaking opportunities and doing that for mediation.

Speaker B: Yeah, I think that has a lot of promise. And um, I also think those of us who serve the management bar, you know, we may get pressure from our corporate clients to do the same because that's how change is occurring. And a lot of law firms is, ah, our corporate, ah, counsel are demanding it. You know, I had this amazing moment in June. We were, I was putting together a team to respond to a request for proposal to do something for a major, um, public client. And we had to put somebody. We had to put a team together. And it was for, um, a racial equity audit. And I was really excited. I still don't know if I got it or not. They're still deciding. But I was really excited because I said, okay, here's the people that I really want on my team. You know, there were four, four of them. And I said, you know, I need this person because they've done X, Y and Z. I need this person because, oh, before she became a lawyer, she was a consultant and she knows how to analyze data and, and she knows how to collect data. And she's going to know all the stuff I need to know for this. And then here's this gentleman who's done a lot of other type of audits. Not a racial audit, but other types of audits. And of course there's me. And you know what? It naturally was a diverse group. We didn't have to try. It was just. And then when I got us all on the phone, I'm like, wow, I wonder if the client's going to think we did it this way purposefully. But it really was organic. And I was so, so. I mean, it was just like my proudest moment because it just became that way as a function of who did, I think were going to be the core, uh, team to, to do this. We'll add other people if we're fortunate to get the job. But, um. And that's what I want. That's what I want for our profession.

Speaker A: Well, Vanessa, that is a tribute to you. And I, And I do want to say this, that, you know, there are, if I think of in my head of who I know who are true, true allies and understand the concept of allyship, you are top three, top five. Every single time I think of that answer.

Speaker B: Oh, you're Gonna make me cry.

Speaker A: So it does not surprise me in the least bit that, uh, just by virtue of the network that you've built through the years, just by who you are and who you've associated with, that you would come together with a diverse platform just by your network. Because, you know, I think. I feel like you have always done the necessary work to do. Um, and I. And I hope, I hope you know that. I hope. I do hope you know that, because.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Um, it's important that people understand that who are trying.

Speaker B: Yeah, I appreciate that. I do appreciate that. But to me, that. That gives me hope that it can be done, you know, So I think you can. Yeah, it's going to take a little

Speaker A: bit of time and a little bit of understanding. I. I had, um, There's a plaintiffs lawyer in out of New York who sent me a message asking about another mediator of color here in Los Angeles that was proposed. Former management lawyer, um, but now working for one of the bigger houses out here in Los Angeles. And I, I don't. I've never worked with him as an advocate or in any, any sort of academic context, but I know of him through his particular firm, which I've had, I had cases against. And I said to this lawyer, don't get frustrated by the management background. Use this individual. Um, they're well trained. Um, you know, they, the house that they've, you know, the ADR house that they've joined is extensive in who they vet to add to their ranks. Um, use the individual. And, you know, that to me, it wasn't me. You know, you know, my name hadn't been advanced, but it didn't matter to me as much as it did that this individual get a fair shake. Um, but the nice thing about it was the disqualifying aspect of it wasn't the fact that he was African American, the fact that he was a manageable lawyer, which did, you know, did bring a little a tear to my heart. But, you know, it works both ways. So.

Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's diversity of thought too. You know, um, sometimes. Sometimes we as management attorneys think it's best to have a management attorney more times than not. I think it's important depending on the case. But like, if I think I have a case that I really think the client should settle for a variety of reasons, um, not all of which would do to liability, but there might be other reasons for it to settle. I might want a plaintiff's attorney because they're going to be really beat my client up about, um, you Know the. The bad facts, the facts that aren't going to look good, and that will be able to move the needle a little bit more than. Than I was able to do. So.

Speaker A: Yeah. Not to. I. I tend to agree with you. I. And I. That's the sense that I get. Just in terms of me being proposed in for cases now. Um, I feel like management attorneys like to propose me to plaintiff's counsel, um, given my history and I guess the way that I litigated, um, for the years that I did, they respect the way that I approached the law as a litigant, um, and hope that they. I'll have the ability to persuade, um, plaintiff's counsel.

Speaker B: Yeah. And I think it helps that you're a professor and you have all those others, so they know that, you know, you know how to do it, and then you've had this background and. And that's why it pays not to be a jerk to everybody that you litigate against. See?

Speaker A: Indeed it does. Yeah.

Speaker B: All right, so let's get back to leadership, because we're gonna.

Speaker A: We're gonna.

Speaker B: I'm gonna. I've been. You've been super generous with your time, but we should probably wrap up. But so I'm gonna just ask you, um, you know, what do you think is your individual leadership style? And that leadership style, you know, comes from through how you work with clients now, how you're working with your mediation and arbitration clients, and how you hold yourself in the community. I mean, leadership is all encompassing for really every aspect. What do you think is the current iteration of, uh, Jason Marcili's leadership?

Speaker A: Um, I would say compassionate, with a high degree of emotional intelligence. It is the way that I think that I lead, and I think it is the way in which people choose to follow my lead, for lack of a better way of describing it. Um, I care about what I do. I always have. And I remember telling people when I was in the throngs of practice that I don't love being a lawyer, but for being a lawyer, I love what I do. And that was representing people. And I feel like I've kind of taken that idea, uh, to this next phase of my life, both with the neutral practice, because that certainly is my passion, but the other things that I do, I serve on a couple of nonprofit boards of organizations that I really do care about. Um, I am a very obviously known, staunch supporter of the American Bar Association Section of Labor Employment Law. Um, and the reason why I am so active in bar associations is because I think that it makes the profession better. And for a profession that is so quick to be judged by the public at large, Um, I learned early on that you can't really defend the profession every way that you want to, but you can defend the work that you do. And to the extent that you are trying to make it better, I think that's very defensible. And I've been passionate about that. So I think it comes from a really organic, natural place that people feel the compassion that I have for what I do. And, um, I make sure that they are part of that should they want to be. And I think that's what I would say exists for my current. The current iteration of my leadership style.

Speaker B: Ah, that's great. Ah. And I think that I can see that about you. I really can. So, um, I've been asking my guests the best piece of advice they've received and the worst piece of advice they have ever received. Um, I'll tell you my worst. My worst was when I was a baby lawyer and the partner that I was working for, I went to him, I was so nervous. I had this really big deposition. All the other firms had partners. And I'm like the second year attorney going, he told me, don't smile too much. That was his big advice at this deposition. So that was the worst advice I got. So you tell me your worst advice you've ever got, and, um, the best advice you've ever got, you know what?

Speaker A: It's actually going to be the same piece of advice. So when I was a baby lawyer, um, the partners who trained me, who are also very active in bar association work, said if someone presents an opportunity to you, you say yes. Because if you say no, that opportunity may not present itself to you again. And when I was a young lawyer, I was presented with opportunities through the Los Angeles County Bar association and the, um, American Bar Association. And I said yes. I said yes again. I said yes again. And then I just kept saying yes to the point where, like, I don't have any more time to do anything. Which makes it then the worst piece of advice. But, uh, in the process of all of that, you learn how to say no. And your ability to decline opportunities, if you have done it well in accepting them previously, is viewed as an honest assessment of your own bandwidth and your ability to do whatever is being requested and do it well. I, um, think that when people need assistance on a particular project, um, or when they need assistance in developing a particular program, they respect individuals who will decline the opportunity for want of time. And they're honest Upfront with them saying, I would normally do this, but I cannot for X, Y and Z reasons, as opposed to the people who say, sure, I'll take it on, and then either not be able to finish the project, go through with it, um, or just not do their best job. And so the idea of being able to develop the ability to say no to opportunities, um, is very, very important. But, ah, at a starting position, saying yes, um, is both probably what put me in my current state of affairs in terms of leadership. But it was also met with a lot of, oh my goodness, I can't do anymore. Uh, learning how to say no at the same time.

Speaker B: Well, it's very important to learn how to say no, to learn how to say no gracefully, to learn how to say no, say no without the door closing forever. Those are really essential skills. And I like the idea that you say yes and then maybe you should have said no a little bit earlier than you did, but you learn and that's what it's about.

Speaker A: Yeah, had I learned how to say no earlier, it would not also be the worst piece of advice that I received. But that's on me as opposed to I took the advice wholeheartedly and I can't say that I would be in the position that I am today if but for doing that. Um, but I probably should have learned how to say no a little bit sooner.

Speaker B: All ah, right. So besides telling, uh, emerging leaders, emerging lawyers learn, uh, how to gracefully say no, what other piece of advice do you want to leave them with?

Speaker A: Um, be honest with yourself in what you choose to do. Um, it is, the legal profession can be an unforgiving place. Um, and the, the level of people who leave the profession at a really, really early age, um, is a function of a couple of things. One is if you do not like the work that you're doing, you're not going to stick around in the profession. And if you do not like the people that you're doing the work with, eventually you're not going to stick around in the profession. If you find yourself in a situation that you like the work that you're doing and you like the people that you're doing it with, you will continue to do it and you will do it well, you will do it at a high degree and you will continue to excel in that particular environment. Um, that is hard for young lawyers to understand because you've gone to law school, you've made the financial investment, chances are you're probably in a good deal of debt and you need to do it and it produces some degree of unhappiness. Um, you need to be honest with yourself in that regard and find the pivot, find the ability, find the space, the niche, wherever you ultimately need to be, because that is where you are really going to be able to grow. Um, otherwise you cannot grow through the profession. You can't grow as a leader if you're not. If you don't care what you're really doing, it becomes a job. Um, and then you're really forced to kind of find your passion elsewhere. Um, so I would say being honest with yourself as to what it is that you do and don't want to do and searching for it and hopefully finding it sooner than later, because that's really the opportunity to layer roots in that particular environment and grow from there.

Speaker B: Wonderful. You have given so much of yourself during this interview. Um, thank you. You were so kind. Um, and I just appreciate you. So with that, Jason, we're going to say goodbye to the compassionate leader who leads from his heart because he cares and, um, has learned how to say no. But luckily, he did not say no to this interview.

Speaker A: I could never say no to you. Come on, Vanessa.

Speaker B: That's true, that's true. Um, so I wish you the best of luck on your one year, um, adr, uh, anniversary and, um, looking forward to seeing you soon.

Speaker A: Okay, thanks for having me.

Speaker B: Sure. Thank you.

Speaker A: All right, bye. Bye.

Speaker B: Mhm.