Timothy Yoo is a first-chair trial lawyer who treats litigation like sport. This is Tim's second time on the podcast, and I was eager to revisit the themes we explored in our first conversation. Since then, Tim has continued to refine his approach to performance, preparation, and what it means to show up ready for the biggest moments in a courtroom.
In this episode, Tim breaks down how he models his preparation on the habits of elite performers, from golfers to Olympic athletes to professional wrestlers. We dig into the physiology of high-pressure moments, the value of decision trees and pre-committed choices, how to be a reliable narrator for the factfinder, and why the variety of matters you take on compounds into mastery over time.
Keep reading below for the full link to the episode and the full transcript of our conversation.
Top Insights
Below are the highlights of our conversation:
- Prepare Your Physiology: Performance does not start when you say "good morning, Your Honor." Tim explains how he rehearses opening statements weeks in advance, in his living room in front of his family, because managing cortisol and adrenaline is part of meeting the moment.
- Pre-Commit Your Decisions: Tim uses decision trees in his examination outlines so he has already planned his response to every possible witness answer. The goal is to remove reactivity and emotion from high-pressure moments.
- Credibility Is Not Just What, It Is Also How: Factfinders, clients, and opposing counsel all read your conviction, nuance, and authenticity through delivery. Tim argues that how you say something can be just as important as what you say.
- Be a Reliable Narrator: Rather than telling the jury what to think, Tim positions himself as a tour guide who shows them the other side of every piece of evidence and lets them draw their own conclusions.
- Every Experience Compounds: Taking on matters outside his patent litigation core, from real estate disputes to personal injury defense, gives Tim new skills and comfort that feed back into his primary practice. Like The Undertaker collecting moves from regional shows, every repetition serves the eventual main event.
Listen Now
Catch the full episode on your favorite podcast platform.
Spotify
Or click here to listen on Spotify
Apple Podcasts
https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/047-tim-yoo-how-to-study-elite-performers-to-find-an-edge/id1536579571?i=1000751745685
Or click here to listen on Apple Podcasts
Full Transcript
Khurram Naik: Tim, I am very excited to have you back on the podcast. Your podcast was definitely one of the most unusual ones that I've had. And I really love the world view that you're building here, and I'm looking forward to revisiting with some new lessons from the past few years and exploring the top line for you.
Tim Yoo: Well, thanks for having me again, Khurram. I really enjoyed our last discussion. I'm looking forward to part two.
Khurram Naik: Okay, so in our last episode, I really loved the ways you talked about the role of performance. I think the big picture takeaway I took away from that is past a certain point of skill as a litigator or a lawyer generally, it's beyond the substance and the rules and transcends that into there's a dimension of performance, a dimension of persuasion. And that's really where you start to live beyond what does this case say and what's the proper way to get this admission or whatever. So to build on that, I want to pick up on this concept that you recently shared. And it's this concept that performance doesn't start when you say "good morning, Your Honor." Can you tell me about that?
Tim Yoo: Absolutely. So, yeah, when we talk about performance, I'm really not suggesting that we be inauthentic or there's some sort of false, performative aspect of it. I'm really thinking about it in the sense of, let's say, a concert performance, or somewhat topical now, the Olympics are going on. So how are you going to perform in that moment, whether it's a figure skating routine or whether it's a snowboard half pipe performance? Literally, you need to do what's called for in that situation. And how are you preparing yourself for that moment? And the way I think about it is we really need to, especially as trial lawyers, think about what are all the things that go into that moment right before. Like you mentioned, whether it's 9:30 a.m. or 10 a.m., you walk into the courtroom, you're seated at counsel's table and the judge says, "Would you like to address the jury, Mr. Yoo?" I think if you back out the weeks and the months before that, you really have to think about all of the things that you're doing to get ready for that moment. At least in my opinion, I think that's important.
So the way I look at it is, the first thing I think about is how am I going to feel in that moment? What are the things that are going to be, as a human being physiologically, what are you going to be feeling? There's going to be certain levels of cortisol, there's going to be adrenaline, there's going to be a lot of things just coursing through your body in that moment. So I think it's important to think about those as well. So when I say the performance doesn't just start right at go, it starts before that, I'm thinking about, have I done the adequate preparation in terms of obviously the substance of what you're going to say and the evidence that you've prepared and are ready to present. Those are obvious. These are things that you've already done presumably. But I'm leaning more towards, have you really thought about how are you going to say things, in what order? Where are you going to put the inflections? How is that going to come across?
So I think a lot of that comes from, obviously for me, my process begins a few weeks out or a few months out. But more practically speaking, probably a few weeks out when I know exactly, let's say, when opening statement is going to occur. And I'll back out two weeks, and I will, in my living room, have my wife, probably my oldest child there sitting on the couch watching me go through this process. At first, it starts out as a riff of my opening statement, and then it'll get refined further and further as I approach the trial date. But for me, that's an important part of my process, because I know that I want to be able to, at the very beginning, have an idea directionally where I'm headed with the things I want to say, and how I want to say them, and how I want to order them. And that just helps me towards the trial date, having a set process of what I know I'm going to be doing every night in the lead up to that trial.
Khurram Naik: Yeah, I think that's valuable, because the thing a lot of lawyers are thinking about, they're thinking about, okay, what evidence needs to get in, at trial. But I think, let's say in a recruiting context, I find any number of times lawyers say, "Oh, I'll just negotiate with this firm." I say, okay, what are you going to do? What exactly are you going to say? When are you going to say it? How are you going to frame it? I think there are any number of times lawyers think, okay, well, I'll just approach a friend to go to the firm. Okay, and so thank you. At the end game where you will accept only one offer and decline all others, what's it going to feel like to decline that offer to someone that you know? Like, how is that going to feel? So there's definitely an emotional dimension, and then a tactical dimension to these moments that people aren't necessarily thinking through. So what do you attribute that to? Why aren't people thinking about the emotions they're going to be feeling in a moment and working back to that?
Tim Yoo: Yeah, that's a good question, because I mean, I think to your point, the more foresight that you put into something, the more that you plan out, "Hey, I'm going to have this type of physiological response," or "I'm going to feel this way," and then you sort of try to almost take that aspect out of it, I think you're better served. Because you're right. You don't want to, especially in our profession, be prone to rash, emotional, reactive decisions. You want to be able to apply proactivity to those. And I think the only way you do that is you sort of game it out. You have a decision tree. I mean, even in my examination outlines, there are always trees in terms of the witness responds this way, the witness responds that way. Have you even contemplated how are you going to respond in that moment? So I think the more, I guess it dovetails to what I just said about the preparation and planning for things to go sideways, the more you're able to apply your objectives in those scenarios.
But I think what you said is interesting, because I think people underaccount for that in terms of how the emotion in the moment, when you're feeling a certain way, when you're in this parasympathetic state, this fight or flight emotion, how you might respond then. So I think that's really the core principle of what I'm talking about now. Try to essentially work that out of your process. Work out the emotion and those feelings that you'll have, and try to be as systematic as possible.
So even something like an opening statement, I think the genesis of it was, I was watching a golf pro talking about how they hit certain iron shots, and they said, "Well, on the practice range, I might hit that shot 160 yards, but in tournament conditions, I have to discount it by five yards, because it's going to be a tournament. I'm going to be more tense naturally. So I'm only going to be able to hit it 155 yards." And I thought that was really interesting, because it's this acknowledgement that even as an elite pro athlete, an elite performer, they're acknowledging that they're going to feel a certain way in certain moments, and they're not ignoring that. They're not discounting that. They're sort of leaning into it and saying, I need to take advantage of what the situation is going to be at the time, and I'm going to have to have a plan for that going in. So I think that's what I'm talking about.
Khurram Naik: And so your reference earlier, the concept of credibility, the components are what you say and how you say it, those are two aspects. So do different situations call for different techniques? Is there some overarching principle that you are using? Is it something like, "Well, I'm a big believer in the decision-maker's agency, whether it's the factfinder or the judge, that I'm always exercising. I'm always showing them how to exercise that agency, and leaving room for that." Or, what are the principles or techniques you're using for what you say and for how you say it?
Tim Yoo: I think they're somewhat related, but I think they are distinct. I think that how you say something is what we're talking about now, in a sense, because I'm assuming that what you say in terms of the substance of what you put together, the strength of your arguments, the best evidence that you put forth, that's the "what you say" part of it. I think the "how you say it" is almost, if not more, important in some situations, because the factfinder, whether that's the judge or the jury or your client or opposing counsel, your co-counsel, your teams, are looking into how you say certain things, how much conviction you're conveying, what lack of conviction you're conveying, what nuance you're conveying. And I think that all goes toward credibility and authenticity, which are the key pillars of what we do.
So what I'm talking about is, and I think it's the reason why I find it so important to put in all those repetitions in front of the mirror, so to speak, or in my living room, in front of my wife and my kids, is I really like to study how it's coming out, how the transitions are working, what are the high points emotionally or the points that I find myself emphasizing more naturally. I think those are interesting and I like to study that. So I think that's where I find the value and the benefit in going through this process, really focusing on this notion of how you say things, when you say them, could be almost as important as what you say.
Tim's focus on credibility through delivery reminds me of my conversation with Joe Ahmad, who talked about why juries are the ultimate "phony detectors" and how sincerity beats polish every time. Listen to my episode with Joe Ahmad here.
Khurram Naik: Can you track, I think there are a couple of recent matters that are particularly interesting. I mean, you're patent by training, an IP litigator, but you've had some very interesting other kinds of matters you've taken on. One of them was a real estate dispute involving defects among other issues, and then another one was a personal injury defense matter. So really a novel matter to take on for someone with your work experience. So in the context of, say, opening arguments or other positions that you took or presented, how did those change? What is it that you iterated, can you give us a sense of the before and after?
Tim Yoo: Sure, I think in those kinds of situations, you have to be mindful of the dynamics, like people coming in with certain notions. So for me, in those particular two matters, it was almost, I don't want to discount the merits, but I wanted to emphasize also the vibes as well. Arguing vibes in a sense of, this is something that, whatever grievances you have, my client is either trying to do the right thing, this is not something that's deliberate or intentional. And you want to make sure that gets across. At the same time, you want to make sure that no one's trying to skirt responsibility or hide behind what happened. You want to convey that this is something that we're here to confront, we're here to let you as a jury decide what happened.
And trying to be, the way I view my role is to be a reliable tour guide or a reliable narrator, in a sense, to show them different pieces of evidence. The way I analogize it is, if we're going out and opposing counsel is a tour guide saying, "Hey, look at this rock, and look at that tree, look at that stream," my role is really just to be the counterpoint of that, to say, "Hey, look at the other side of that tree, why don't you pick up the rock and look at the bottom of it, and see what you see there, and draw your own conclusions from that." And I'll even tell the jury this, that, look, I'm here to essentially play my role in the process, because if we don't all play our role, whether it's the counsel involved, the judges, or the juries, then the system's not going to work the way it's supposed to work. And if it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work, then we've all lost something. So please view my role as just being the person to demonstrate that there's always a different side of every story.
Khurram Naik: You referred to, I think it was the previous episode or so, in tennis, that you've got these elite tennis athletes, and they really view these rivalries. I'm not very up to date on tennis, so for me it was like Agassi and McEnroe. These rivalries where the opponents got better results. And so you've talked before about this concept of viewing opposing counsel not as some block to some outcome, but how can we play off each other, work each other up. When you talk about this concept of roles, it's really fascinating about showing people the different roles that everyone plays. And it's particularly relevant to me because as a recruiter, lawyers historically have been in this position. Anyone who's perceived to be a middleman can be in the position of trying to explain why they're even there to orbit outcomes. And so there's definitely a dimension of explaining the role to people. Say, here's what the role is, here's what this is called. By aiding the system, here's what the payoff is for everyone involved. Have you found, let's say with opposing counsel, so you were describing this role, explaining the role that everyone has, have you found that opposing counsel has, that's resonating with them, they've built on that, built a system of more effective way of getting to resolution? Like what's your experience for how opposing counsel has responded to this structure that you're proposing?
Tim Yoo: Pleasantly, I've been pleasantly surprised, maybe not surprised, but I would say more often than not, I think people accept that. We are all part of this inherently adversarial process, but I think that's by design. That's not a bug, it's a feature of the process. The process was set up that way on purpose so that we can all arrive at what the truth is. I think that if you view it from that construct and then speak and interact with opposing counsel within that framework, I've been pleasantly surprised at the response where people are willing to engage in that way. Obviously, there are folks who might be outliers, who might view it even more personally. Again, I've never viewed it personally. I've viewed it as you're trying to be a zealous advocate for the client that you represent and the other side is the same way.
So in a sense, they're your foil or your dance partner in what's going to happen. I think that's been a much more productive way for everyone involved, to have that level of being collaborative. The way I analogize it is, look, just like a tennis match, just like Agassi and McEnroe. Those guys, once they were in between the lines, they're trying to beat each other's brains out within the context of the contest and the defined rules. And within those rules, they're doing that because that's part of what they're supposed to do. The public expects nothing less, the paying customer deserves nothing less than that. So I think that's a good way of thinking about it. But at the end of the day, you're always shaking hands with your opponent at the net. And that's how I view it as well. At the end of this contest or interaction, at some point, we're going to look at each other and shake hands and say, "Well done." And I think that's a productive way to look at it.
Khurram Naik: So I want to pick up on this idea of role. I want to go back to the refinements you made in your opening argument. To get a sense of, I think for any of these principles, it helps to understand what the principle stands for and what it does. So going back to the opening statement, the evolution you made there, can you describe the initial approach you took at some level of abstraction and then the final position, what changed and why? Because that would help us wrap our heads around how you're honing in on what's most persuasive, how you're saying something.
Tim Yoo: Yeah, I think when you start out, you have this notion that, and perhaps it should be true, that if you have the goods, that's really all that matters. And by goods, I mean whether you have the evidence on your side or the law on your side, hopefully both. And then you can just kind of get up and rely on whether you think it's your natural charisma or your natural public speaking ability or your natural innate ability to persuade people and get up and do that. And maybe some people can, but I find that to be an outlier. Because I think in order to order the argument or the statement to be as persuasive as possible, you really have to start thinking about the structure of those.
So I think when you start out, I had this notion that people might be naturally great and charismatic speakers and they're going to naturally give great closing arguments or opening statements, or people might be these naturally brilliant examiners and be able to cross examine someone at trial and just be able to do that naturally. I find that empirically not to be the case in the sense that I believe that taking a great examination, giving a great opening statement, is fully and directly proportionate to the level of preparation that goes into it. So I think that's really what sparked it.
And to more directly address your question, for me, it was really, my approach to when I would take depositions is I had an idea of where I wanted to go in certain topics and not be so granular. But then I realized that the more time that you spend mechanically setting things up, working on your outlines, working on the contingencies, working on parts of your outline that you'll never even use, that is directly correlated to the quality of the examination. So I think that's really why I started thinking about it this way.
Khurram Naik: Is it, do you find, is it the quality of the examination improves, or is it more your comfort level, and then that kind of goes back to vibes again? Where it's just like, "Hey, I'm so comfortable and my adrenaline response is lower because I have these contingency maps." Is it about preparing for the contingencies, as far as knowing what to say, or is it more just the comfort level of knowing that you've done the work?
Tim Yoo: I think it's both. I think it's really both of those things. I think the comfort level plays into it a lot because, at least for me, I've been at trials where I'm seeing opposing counsel, very experienced counsel, and maybe it's natural, but they're pacing back and forth. They're putting their hands in their pockets, just these natural ticks of being nervous and having anxiety. And I'm not saying I don't feel that. I'm a person. So of course I feel that. But I think to be able to lean into that feeling, I think for me personally, I feel way less nervous and way less anxiety the more work I put in. So if I walk in knowing that I've done everything I can possibly do to meet that moment, then I think the nerves go away in the sense that you have that level of comfort.
But I think it's also having those repetitions and being able to have that level of comfort where the playing field slows down, so to speak. Athletes talk about being in this flow state where the pin in golf looks like a huge bucket. The other side of the tennis court, you can't possibly miss it because you're just in this flow state. So I think the more repetition you have and the more that you condition yourself to be in that situation, I think you start feeling that. And I think also it is just a unique thing about the law, that it's both theoretical and practical in the sense that it's one thing to know all the theory and know all the right things to emphasize and know in a sense what you're supposed to do in a situation. That has to be married with having been in that situation multiple times, I think, to really feel like you've begun to master a certain area. And to be clear, I think I'm far from that. But the more repetitions and the more times that you have opportunities and different experiences, it compounds. The more comfort you get, the more experience you get, the more effective these things become. It begets more comfort and hopefully more effectiveness as you go on.
Khurram Naik: So I want to ask you some more about that, because I think you're talking about this concept of flow. What it makes me think about is what I'm sensing you find so gratifying about elite performers and athletes, this aspect of flow, where they're just so connected with what they're doing. And I think that's important because the practice of law is really unusual compared to other disciplines in that, let's say in sales, my wife sold software, and in software, if you're just good at what you do, you can be the equivalent of, you've got people who are in business development roles, that's the entry level role, then you've got people who are account executives, those are client-facing, generating revenue. And you can just move into an account executive role and functionally speaking that's more like a partner than an associate. You can become a partner effectively in that world in a couple years if you're just really good at what you do. There's nothing like that in law. Even if you clerked at the Supreme Court or whatever, you don't just, "Hey, great, we're going to make you a partner and you'll argue at the Supreme Court three months from now." It's just a really long haul in every part of the profession, no matter what your credentials are. And I wonder, with so many lawyers, what they hunger for is that level of gratification from their work. And for litigators, so few of them are going to try a case. My first trial I went to, one of the partners said, "Hey, if you don't enjoy this experience, you should really think about moving into another practice area, because this is what it's all about." For me, I just really enjoyed it. It's definitely something that I knew I wanted more of. But there's that gratification that we're looking for from work, because it's a long haul, hard hours for years, where it's so rare to get into a flow state. And I wonder, did you see the documentary, Jiro Dreams of Sushi?
Tim Yoo: I did. I love that documentary. And I think it's sort of what you're talking about where someone had to train for 10 years just how to roll the rice just right. That took 10 years of apprenticeship to get to that level. And then you have to graduate to different levels of mastery.
Khurram Naik: So I guess the two ways to look at that are, one is that's deranged, because obviously the fun part would be to be Jiro there with the customers, presenting, making adjustment calls for what goes into a piece of sushi, presenting to the customer, courting the customer. "Here's, I'm guiding you in what this experience is. This isn't just a sensory experience. This is also, you need some context to understand what's special about this." So that seems to be like the trial lawyer in the courtroom. And that's the ultimate aspiration. So it seems like, hey, that profession's the same thing. You got to put in decades of work to really get to the privileged position of doing that. And Jiro has his sons who are in an apprenticeship, studying with him. They're grown men themselves with children, I think in their 40s, 50s, kind of waiting for their turn to be like their father. And so I wonder, how, for people who are not in the courtroom yet, how can people find that flow in what is otherwise the drudgery of sifting the rice, the other kinds of tasks that seem menial in the kitchen? How can people find that flow earlier in their career?
Tim Yoo: You bring up a great issue. I think just backing up, I'll address that point. But I think backing up, what you said about it being tough, I think our profession is tough because it does take time to achieve a certain level of competence. Some core competence. It just takes time and doing it over and over. So I think that's a difficult aspect of it. Because I agree with you that for anyone, and I think I read an article in HBR, Harvard Business Review, where a couple of the key components to someone feeling a level of job satisfaction, one of them is the job has to align with your values in some sense. But another key component was that you have to feel as if you're good at your job. That's a big part of feeling contentment. And I think the hard part of our job as lawyers is that it takes time to do that. Like I said a moment ago, it takes a lot of repetition to get to a certain level of mastery before you start feeling as if you're good at it. And when you start off, like you said, you're doing a lot of work that seems to be drudgery.
I certainly, speaking for myself, spent weeks or months of my life doing things that I can probably do in a couple of minutes now. And it just takes time to really get to a point where you then have this basic idea that you have an aptitude for what you're doing. So I think that's inherent in our job. I don't know if I have an elegant solution to that because I can't sit here and say there's some magic elixir or some potion to instantly jump to the front of the line and just have this level of mastery a couple of years out of law school. I think that's just an aspect of what we do.
To address your question about how you can, while you're figuratively figuring out how to roll the rice or massage the squid a certain way to make sure that it's palatable, and I hope this is not a cop-out answer, but I think it's realizing that that in itself is part of the process. A lot of what you do, and again, speaking for myself personally in my first few years of practice, was really just to learn how to be a professional, period. Not even just a good lawyer, but just not be a knucklehead. To be a professional worker who's going to an office every day, showing up on time, getting assignments done, and just trying to go into that process and learning how to talk to people, how to meet expectations, whatever the assignment is, to do that to a T. Because then once you sort of figure that out, you get the next assignment, you get the next level of skills that you're asked to pursue.
I think it's having the attitude that it's all leading to something else. Speaking for myself, I'm almost 20 years into practice and I still feel like I have to figure out what I want to do when I grow up. I still feel like I haven't quite become a grown-up in a sense of, I'm looking at the next thing to master or the next thing to tackle or try to get a hang of. And I think maybe all of that, if you want to collapse it down to a single concept, is to have this growth mindset of what is this task going to be in service of. How am I going to get better at what I do by doing this thing.
This idea of compounding growth through deliberate practice across your career resonates strongly with what Rakesh Kilaru shared about the long game of building a trial practice. Listen to my episode with Rakesh Kilaru here.
And not to tie everything back into sports, but everything, anyone who's ever had more than one conversation with me knows that's what I want to do. But this past weekend, I observed one of the more compelling sports comeback stories I've ever seen. This golfer, pro golfer Anthony Kim, he took 12 years off the game because he had certain injuries, some addictions, personal demons that he's openly spoken about. He got back on the tour, the LIV Tour, a couple years ago, and his results have been very poor. He would finish last place or second to last place in the first few events back. But I would follow him on social media and he would always be out on the course, grinding, training. His whole mantra was, "I just want to get one percent better. I just want to get one percent better today than I was yesterday." Because he knew that was going to compound over time.
At the end of last year, he was actually relegated off the tour because his results weren't there. So he was kicked off. He had to qualify again through an open competition. They had a competition saying the people who finish in the top three of this tournament at the beginning of the year will qualify to play in our league this year. So he had to do that. He finished third by the skin of his teeth to get on. And his results have gotten a little bit better. I saw an interview with him last week where he said, "Look, it's somewhat frustrating because I know all the work I'm putting in and I know I'm better than that. But it can be discouraging because you're not necessarily seeing all the results manifest on the field right away. But I know the work that I'm putting in and I'm getting better."
And this past weekend, he won the event at LIV Adelaide, which is the biggest tournament that they have. And he beat two former major champions, a former number one player in the world. He was down by five shots going into the last round, chased them down, and won this event. And it was very inspiring for me and really resonated with me because I think his whole principle of "I just want to put in the work and get one percent better," even though you're not seeing it manifest in a tournament in terms of the results quite yet, you know that he's banked that time. He's banked those experiences. And at some point, it was going to pay off.
And what was really captivating to me is when they were talking to him at the pressers afterwards, it wasn't so much like, "Hey, I can't believe this happened. Oh my goodness. I never would have conceived of this." He really was just sort of, "I knew this was going to happen. I knew that this was going to happen. The wild part to me is that it happened today." So it seems a little bit odd that he was so far behind going into today. But, "I knew that I put in the work and I believe in myself. So I knew that this was going to happen." And it was really inspiring.
Khurram Naik: I think what's so interesting about your approach, you know, in our first episode, I kind of commented on, if you just look at your training, you're this Caltech math major. And so there's a level of raw rational analytical power that comes with that. And any number of patent litigators, the stereotype is that that's what their expertise is, being technical people and not really focused on things like storytelling. And I've heard federal judges comment on this. Like, "Hey, it's just a patent trial and I kind of need a little more in the way of storytelling, and just getting out of the weeds of these endlessly boring expert battles that no one can make heads or tails of." So I think you really completely inverted that. I wouldn't guess that you were this Caltech math guy. So that itself, I think I commented in the previous episode, is remarkable, that you've transcended that training.
But I think another really interesting tension for you is this structure versus vibes and the reciprocal nature of those two. Because it's kind of like that quote from, I think it was Flaubert. Being structured and regimented in your life, ferocious in your art, or something. And having this highly regimented approach, Stephen King's On Writing advocates the same thing. My big takeaway from reading his book is, he takes a hostile view to this idea that there's some muse, this idea that inspiration was literally a god that would just visit you. Stephen King's position is there's not some magical fairytale creature going to inspire your art. It's from showing up and doing the hard work every day. Just grinding every single day. That's what works for him. That's what he advocates for. And so it's interesting because I'm sensing this interesting reciprocal nature between the goal, which is to get to this emotionally transcendent flow state, and how you get there is by having a heavily structured process. How do you think about the relationship between these two?
Tim Yoo: I think you just hit the nail on the head right there. So when I say vibes, I do mean that. I don't mean to suggest that it's in some kind of haphazard way and it's going to be, in a way, however I feel at that moment, I'm just going to try to convey. I think when I try to convey a vibe, it takes a lot of work to get to that point. And like you said, there has to be some kind of infrastructure behind it, some kind of very strict organization, structure, preparation. All those things lead to being able to convey a vibe.
And just as an example, at a recent trial I had, we parachuted into the trial a couple of weeks before. A lot of the liability issues had already been stipulated to. So there weren't a lot of exhibits or evidence that was going to be at issue. I think my opening statement was maybe 20 minutes. But in terms of the preparation that went into that, you would maybe not have guessed that based on how short it was, in a sense. I like to joke that I had to argue vibes because I wasn't exactly sure what evidence was going to come in. I mean, I joke about that. But I think you've got to create a structure that allows you to get to these emotional inflection points and really emphasize certain aspects to a jury. And in a lot of ways, it's a lot harder when you don't have these tent poles of, "Hey, look at the contract, look at section three of the contract where the other side agreed to this," and you can really just pound on that. I think it takes discipline and effort and thought to really think about what are the high points or the low points that you want to emphasize or even dwell on during your statement. So like you said, you hit the nail on the head in terms of it's not just going out there and winging it. There really has to be some kind of structure behind that, even when you're arguing a certain vibe or you want to imbue a certain emotional response in your audience.
Khurram Naik: Can you tell me about how, you know, you've done so much by way of patent litigation by training. And one thing I find really interesting is these departures from it, just because you can. You're just taking on completely different other kinds of work, because you can. How does that connect to this concept? Because I could, from first principles, say, "Well, Tim, shouldn't you be focusing on patent cases of a certain kind? Maybe it's just your niche into, say, Frand disputes or whatever, and that's the one space you're showing up in." And then that way all that foundation's there. Because the architecture of a patent case, actually a great example is Hatch-Wax litigation. It's so regimented that there's local Hatch-Wax rules that govern the schedule. There's minimal motion practice. And so that would be a space, if one wanted to try a lot of cases, that would be a space to practice again and again, so you can hone in on, like you're saying, that flow, the tennis court becomes a football field, whatever. So what role does the variety of work you're taking on play in this pursuit?
Tim Yoo: To address your question of how pursuing these varied experiences is going to service my pursuit of mastery in patent litigation, my short answer is I view it as all in service of that. I allow myself to be open to these opportunities because at the end of the day I'm tying it back to how it's going to serve me down the road. So when I take on these other types of trials, it's not solely because those trials are interesting and they're challenging and they're worthwhile in their own right. But an aspect of that is also, how am I going to gain experience which is valuable, gain skills that I'm thereby going to be able to leverage later.
I had a recent arbitration where one of my teammates was also a patent litigator by trade. And I was telling him, look, these skills that you're picking up now, think about it in terms of when you're going to use it next on your next big patent trial. In terms of your ability to craft an examination, to tell stories, to tell all different types of stories, to have that level of comfort when you're before an arbitrator or a jury. I think those are things that me and him or anyone on our team are going to be able to bank and deploy later on. So I don't view those pathways as separate. I view it as part of a linear journey of, these are the repetitions or the experiences that you're allowing yourself to have now, because at some point in the future you're going to be able to use those.
And I guess to draw back full circle, I spoke a lot about The Undertaker in our first session. But I was listening to him talk and they were asking him about the evolution of his character and his moveset. And a lot of what he said was similar to what we're talking about now. He said, "Look, that move where I walk on the tight rope, I saw someone when I was training in Mid-South territory do that, and I made a mental note to myself that I'm going to steal that." And then he got to a different territory. He got to Florida, he saw someone do an inverted piledriver, which became his signature move. And he said, "Okay, I'm going to make a mental note, I'm going to steal that." And the point is, along the way, along this journey, when he wasn't in the main event of WrestleMania, he was performing in front of 50 people at the local armory in some rural part of the world. He would pick up these different things that he was able to leverage later on. And that was a lot of work.
That's, in a way, how I view not only my experience but maybe how all lawyers, all associates, should view their pathway as well. It's all going to be in service of what their eventual goal is. Now, what their eventual goal is, they'll have to define for themselves. For me, it's this almost theoretical notion that there's going to be some big platform or big stage, some big trial in some place I'm uncertain of, that I'm going to have to be ready for, and be ready to meet the moment. So I think in a way I've used that as an abstraction to say that all of these skills, all of these experiences, are going to serve me when eventually I have to main-event WrestleMania.
Khurram Naik: I love that, because there's something emotionally resonant about that as a driver. Because some abstraction of like, "Oh, I'll prevail in a case with this much in controversy or with this large market cap of a client," is so abstract. I think probably at any stage, even if you've accessed those clients, it's still very abstract. But there's something that's more emotionally resonant about, I imagine, maybe there's more contours you're giving that. For me, something tangible is, with my kids, physical performance for me is two things that are emotionally resonant. One is I want to build a path that minimizes injury and maximizes my ability to move with my kids as they get older, to be able to just continue to move and pick my kids up as long as I can. So that's something tangible and also emotionally resonant. The other version is, if there's an emergency, if I need to grab my kids and run for a mile or whatever, can I do that? Those are tangibly the things I train for.
And what you're saying also reminds me of listening to a recent podcast with James Clear and another host. James Clear, he did Atomic Habits, which I'm sure almost everyone has on a bookshelf at this point. James Clear was making the observation, he was working out at a gym with other people, and his trainer made some comment about how attendance drops on bad-weather days. And whether it was the trainer or James Clear, they came to the conclusion, look, to gain an edge really only happens in moments like that, when there's a little friction involved. So looking for small moments to gain an edge. Sounds like The Undertaker said okay, perform at these regional shows, that's a place I can gain an edge. Because the way James Clear put it is, everyone can work out when they're feeling good, when they've eaten enough, when they've slept enough, when it's nice weather, when they're in a good mood. Everyone's good for that. But where you gain an advantage is when any one of those is missing. Put another way, it takes so little to get an edge. All you have to do is just be a little uncomfortable and a little creative in how you develop that.
I remember Lewis Tompkins, a partner at WilmerHale. Maybe you worked with him, Tim?
Tim Yoo: I did. I was at the firm.
Khurram Naik: So do you remember the story about his first Federal Circuit argument?
Tim Yoo: I don't remember, but why don't you refresh my memory.
Khurram Naik: So I think the details are going to be a little abstract from my memory, but basically he was tracking individual inventors who were trying to get appeals through the PTO, the PTAB, and looking for issues around different doctrines that weren't really tested yet. I can't remember what the issue was, something to do with the obviousness doctrine. But he was very entrepreneurial. He had great pedigree, clerked on the Federal Circuit. He could have been content to say, "Hey, I'm going to get great experiences here and get trial experience." But he was very entrepreneurial in identifying an opportunity where there was something that he could take on appeal himself and handle pro bono. And then he did, and that changed a lot. It's been some years, I don't remember the specifics. And then it helped out some inventor on a pro bono basis. So I'm really struck with stories like that where people are looking for these small edges and gaining them.
Tim Yoo: Absolutely. And I think that dovetails a lot with what we've been talking about this morning, which is, view every situation as an opportunity. And again, that's easy to say, but I found in my career, my short career so far, you take these, and it's not immediately apparent how you're going to use it later. But those experiences that you have, writing this type of motion in one case, researching this issue that you don't think has any relevance to what you ultimately want to achieve from a practice perspective, I find that it's surprising that it always comes back. It always comes back where you're able to leverage a past experience. For example, past experiences I've had where I've been able to pitch clients on cases because I've had experiences with that opposing counsel, or it's been this discrete issue that's an aspect of an IP case that's not necessarily obvious. But to be able to say, "Yeah, I've done that type of case," or "I've appeared before that judge," because there are any number of metrics that people find important in terms of their decision making. To be able to go back and have that experience in the past that you can draw on, I found to be valuable in this profession.
So where you can find your edges, I totally agree with that, because you never know when you're going to need to utilize that. And I think having those small edges obviously compounds a lot over time. And I think about, I'm a big Roger Federer fan, big tennis fan. Roger Federer gave the commencement speech at Dartmouth a couple years ago. And I think one of the parts of that speech that people remember a lot was him saying, "Hey, I won 1,400 matches in my career. Of those matches, I won more than 80%. But guess what proportion of all the points I ever played that I won?" And the answer was, he only won 53% of all the points he ever played. The point he was trying to convey is that it's roughly half. It's just roughly half the points he played.
So it's really just at the margins. And I think that's correct, but my takeaway from that was actually, it just shows you that those small, seemingly small, edges and those margins compound over time and have a huge effect. Because if you think about it, a 53% edge is basically the house edge of any game that you can play in Las Vegas. Any casino's house edge is about 53 to 47. And they're able to leverage that into obviously the big business and being able to pay for all those hotels and casinos. Someone like Federer is able to leverage that small house edge into having arguably one of the greatest tennis careers of all time. So I think that's a good way of thinking about it as well. You can find those edges, be open to the opportunities of where they might occur, and then you'll be able to compound those and leverage those to great effect as you go on.
This conversation about finding small edges and compounding them over a career reminds me of what Priyanka Timblo shared about identifying unconventional opportunities that others overlook. Listen to my episode with Priyanka Timblo here.
Khurram Naik: So how do you define your edge?
Tim Yoo: I think if I had to define it, it's having an open mind. Having an open mind to being open to opportunities, not foreclosing myself just out of hand. That's not to say that you take every opportunity that's presented to you. I do want to make sure that you want to be selective to a point. But I think at the outset, when I am presented with an opportunity, I ask myself, what is this opportunity going to offer in terms of new experiences, new challenges, putting myself in situations I haven't been before, to test my mettle, to give myself an opportunity to grow? I think that's one of the big drivers.
So I think if nothing else, an edge would be having an open mind, not necessarily having to be a certain way. Given that I went to Caltech, had a tech background, it might make sense naturally to do nothing but tech-related litigation. But I've always viewed it as, that's what I like to do and maybe I have an aptitude for that, but I don't want to foreclose myself from other opportunities. Because that's at the end of the day what keeps everything fresh and interesting. And that's really what I want to do. I want to keep it fresh. I want to keep mentally challenged, motivated. And that's really one of the things I really like about our profession, that every day can look differently. Even if it's the same type of dispute, it can have a different character, different posture, different types of things that are important. And that's really dynamic, which makes it challenging and interesting for me.
Khurram Naik: So something I've observed is, in any sphere there's just different ways to win. And so you identify the way that you want to win. But what about a comparably talented peer who takes an alternative approach? So you're proposing, "Okay, I would be open to a wide variety of things. I find that to be valuable." Because I think any number of people say, "Oh, I'm open." What's the way you can define your openness in opposition to some other comparably talented person who just has a different approach, strategy, or value?
Tim Yoo: Perhaps it's an openness to challenges, an openness to being uncomfortable. In terms of leaning into a level of discomfort and unfamiliarity, and just being content to sort of try the same type of case or litigate a certain type of dispute. Maybe to really push myself to be challenged and to put myself in situations that could be awkward, could be scary frankly, is one way I view that openness and flexibility.
Khurram Naik: Does the word versatility resonate with you?
Tim Yoo: It does to a degree, because I think it's good to be, I like to think that there's a versatility to my practice and my mindset. I obviously don't want to overextend that versatility, because you can't be everything to everyone all at once. You want to pick your spots. So I think having versatility and flexibility to a degree is good. But then you also have to circumscribe that with your larger principle of what is this, at the end, in service of. And to me it's always been, like I said, this abstraction that it's really undefined in the sense that, yeah, a certain dispute with a certain amount in controversy on behalf of a certain client with a certain market cap. That's just my abstract notion of, that's what I'm driving for. And I view everything else in service of that. And if it's not aligned with that, then it's an easy call for me.
Khurram Naik: Can you talk about how you position yourself broadly? How do you currently, given you've got this patent litigation core, you're taking on other matters in service of that core. I think there's this concept of having a T-shaped set of expertise. I think that's useful. Both feed into each other where the depth of expertise builds credibility for taking on other matters. People are probably approaching you because if you have a depth of expertise, it's much more intense competition to be a commercial litigator. But it's easier for people to find you in the context of, "Okay, you're a patent guy, and by the way, do you do other things too?" You're just known for something. And then the breadth of the T is also useful, like you're saying, you get these different ideas that you feed into your depth of expertise. So how do you present yourself to the market? What do you want to be known for? What do you think you are known for? What's your goal right now with how you are presenting yourself? Because I think this is a classic issue that every service provider goes through. What's my specialization and then how do I market it, such an ugly word in our profession, but how do I position myself?
Tim Yoo: I think foremost, first-chair trial lawyer, period. I like to think that I can try almost any type of civil dispute. And I think I've developed a certain track record and experiences that support that. So I think that's the first way I like to market myself. And secondly, I have an experience and competence in IP disputes. That's my own proclivity. That's what I like to do. There's a type of dispute that I like to litigate, particularly patent disputes. So that's probably my wheelhouse in terms of subject matter interest and competence.
But again, going back to what we were talking about, it could be any kind of breach of a legal duty somewhere. And I like to think that I'd be able to try that type of case, because I think that is one overarching skill set. Being able to talk to juries, talk to judges, arbitrators, and persuade them. And then the other part of it is having this aptitude of analyzing a technical issue, spotting non-infringement positions, or being able to do a deep dive into the technology, which I really like doing. So that's how I view myself.
Khurram Naik: So when clients approach you, what do you communicate about what they can expect from working with you?
Tim Yoo: If nothing else, I would say level-headed judgment. Maybe sometimes almost in a clinical sense. I spoke about this a lot during our first session, which is I view the role of counsel as managing expectations. And I think that's what I try to do. It's very iterative, and it updates based on what happens in the case. But managing expectations means being very forthright and direct about the aspects of the case and the representation and the risks involved. I don't mean it in a fatalistic way. It just means to be realistic, to give people a chance to assess those risks on their own, and what might need to happen for those risks and sensibilities to change.
So I think if nothing else, I try to be upfront and establish a direct line of communication, to be responsive, to ask a lot of questions, to be there and be responsive to questions. But at the end of the day, you're not really doing your clients a good service by just telling them what they want to hear. I really think you need to figure out what it is that they need to hear, and not just give them an information dump about, "Hey, here's all the information that's possibly germane to the decision that you have to make." It's really, a big part of our role, and I don't think outside counsel should abdicate that responsibility, of curating that to a degree as well. Curating the information, distilling it down to the dimensions that matter, that move the needle in terms of a decision, and then delivering it in that way.
I don't mean to suggest that there's no bedside manner involved. I think that's a big aspect of what we do. A big aspect of what we do is making sure that the things that are not important or productive to a decision-making process are filtered out. One thing I've noticed is, for instance, sometimes you get an email or a nastygram or however you want to characterize it from the other side, and sometimes that natural inclination might be to forward it to your client directly and say, "Look at all the things they're saying about your case and all the vulnerabilities." And the client is going to react to that in a very visceral way, more often than not, because they're not conditioned to speak the language that litigators speak. Because for me, when I see something like that, I'll just distill it down to what the upshot is. What position are they taking? Are they agreeing to my proposal? Are they offering a different proposal? That's really the main point of communication during the litigation stage.
So it's not always productive to go ahead and forward that along to your client, because they're going to have an emotional response. And that's not necessarily the best place to be. I view my job as taking what the upshot is and then being able to curate that and communicate that to the client. Because then they can take out all the emotion and make a rational decision.
Khurram Naik: Yeah, that's really helpful. And I'll share with you how I'm thinking about this. I'm curious to what degree this overlaps or maybe the structure is not analogous. But I'll share how I'm thinking about my client management. These are things that I'm talking about publicly, and I want to continue to talk about publicly. I guess I'll be really interested in your insights. On the topic of it's not just what you say but how you say it, I guess it'll be interesting to hear ways to make this more resonant and more persuasive.
So a core premise that I've honed in on is that every firm is a bundle of benefits and costs. That's a core concept, and I think everyone has to get comfortable with it. And I think that's a threshold reality that a lot of lawyers can't accept. And so that helps sidestep a lot of therapy sessions into, "Hey, look, the reality is that your firm is a bundle of benefits and costs, and so is that other one. There's not a better firm. There's just one that has a different profile of benefits and costs." And based on your stage and your goals, one might be a better platform than others. You can describe some of your goals professionally about what you want to accomplish. One firm is a better platform or another for the goals that you have. And for another litigator, maybe with a different set of goals, another firm is a better fit. It's just that simple.
So from that flow a number of different core layers, and there are other things that intersect with that. From that premise, you need to identify what the key tradeoff you want to make is. And the thing that we have observed is that's something you discover. And so, in the course of gaining options, you get clarity, not so much on the firms, yes, you get that as well, but more fundamentally on what's the most important tradeoff to you. What is the thing that is most important to you to trade off? And you really want to hone in on one, because there are so many variables that you could compare all these different opportunities. And lawyers are researchers by profession. Just like you're saying, you're trying to curate an experience and make this simple to get to a resolution and decision point. You're not trying to add complexity. As a lawyer, that doesn't make you seem clever or smart. What's helpful is, "Hey, let's distill this down." So that's our view. We distill this down to, what is the one key tradeoff you're making?
One thing that flows from that is, what you want in this process is an objective advisor, because if every firm is a set of tradeoffs, what's not helpful is someone pitching you. There's a reciprocal relationship between our business model and this approach. Any number of other recruiters might really be working with one firm primarily, and they're pitching on that firm, saying, "Hey, there's a reason we have really deep ties to blank firm, and here's all the reasons why this firm is the best place to be doing patent litigation." It's a very different business model. And like I was saying before, there's just different ways to succeed and add value in the marketplace.
So our approach follows from, okay, if everything is a bundle of benefits and costs, there are just tradeoffs among them. And you discover the tradeoff in the course of this. And that's this pleasant surprise you experience. So that's the space that we create for emotion. We provide structure. Here's this very analytical structure of, every firm has a bundle of benefits and costs. And then there's a number of things that flow from that in terms of the structure of how you work with us, what role we play, because you talked about the role of counsel earlier. And then you also talked about shielding emotions, filtering information. So I guess, maybe talk about what emotional discovery is like for the client, or in a jury context, for the jury. What's the way you can steward that and say, "I don't know what your emotional reaction is going to be when you pick up that rock or look behind the tree, but I bet you'll experience something new, and then that itself is helpful and predictive."
So big picture is, your clients are coming to you for authority and for credibility, to tie back to something you said before. And to help have lower variance outcomes. At the beginning of litigation, it's very high variance. Who knows what can happen. My perception of a skilled litigator is to reduce that variance over time and help a client get clearer around, okay, this is kind of how it's all settling out. So I'm interested in hearing from you, that interplay of, when it comes to counseling a client, or if the analogy is there, how you approach working the courtroom, laying foundation analytically for credibility and leaving room for emotions. Because alternatively, another approach to recruiting might be, "Hey, I'm going to get you really excited about this firm." That's the space for emotion. "I have expertise and authority about this firm, and I'm going to get you excited about that." But it seems like no matter what, there are different approaches, and each one has some interplay between the analytical foundations of authority and the emotional resonance. And whether that is something that you are curating or not seems to be one of the variables. I wonder if that resonates with you when it comes to client counseling, or in the courtroom.
Tim Yoo: It does, because it's hard to discount the emotion in terms of your client's decision-making process. For your client, no matter what type of dispute it is, there's going to be some level of emotional investment. It's going to be hard for them. This is taking up years of their time and their resources and their emotional capital going into this. So there's definitely going to be, I think it's unrealistic to expect that there's going to be some type of clinical analysis where they apply the right coefficients and the quadratic formula spits out the right answer. I think that's unrealistic.
But again, and maybe this is an approach that needs to be calibrated depending on the situation, I do think that it is important to try, to the extent you can, to quantify that as much as possible. A good analogy I got was, and this is not my area of expertise, I don't do criminal defense, but I have colleagues that do. And I always ask them, how do you do that? When I'm advising my clients, I might say, "I think I'm right, but if I'm wrong, oh by the way, this could be extra dollars the other way." That's one thing. But I always find it hard to quantify, "I think I'm right, but if I'm wrong, this could be five years of your life or 10 years of your life." How do you advise clients that way?
And I think it's a similar approach where they say, look, you try to quantify in terms of, "Well, how important is that? Do you want to roll the dice with going forward? Do you want to take a plea? Think about, do you want to guarantee that you'll be there for your kid's high school graduation, or do you want to leave that up to chance?" And in a way, you're tying the consequences of those decisions to an emotional event.
And I've used that as a helpful rubric, in the sense that my whole thing is, I try to give people enough information and obviously show them the evidence and the law, my own experience and my thinking behind certain things. My whole philosophy behind doing all these repetitions and preparing for these performances is to really try to play for the 30th percentile outcome. So I know that if I've practiced enough and I can do it 10 times, I want to make sure that the 30th percentile level of performance is still very good. And sometimes I might hit the 70th percentile performance and really do well. But I don't want to bank on that. So I want to make sure that for me, even a 30th percentile outcome is good.
So in a similar way, I want to give the clients, "Hey, if this happens, this could be your 30th percentile outcome. This would be your 70th percentile outcome. This could be a 50th percentile outcome, the middle of the road." I want to give them enough information to evaluate that. And it's really up to them to figure out how much of the emotional component is going to play into it. But I do try to quantify that as well, saying, "Look, vindicating a principle is one thing, but this is what you're going to be willing to do to take on this much risk." And that risk can take many forms, in the form of additional fees, additional uncertainty in terms of what the exposure is, the time investment, the emotional investment.
And maybe this is a wrong-headed way of thinking about it, but I find myself often telling clients, "Look, I understand the right or wrong aspect of it, but right now it's really about risk allocation as opposed to right or wrong." Right or wrong is something that you have a notion of in terms of morality and principles. But if you're talking about making a decision in the litigation context, you really should be thinking about it in terms of allocation of burden. And maybe that's too clinical a way of thinking about it, but to your point, I do think that you need to give them a rubric of how they're going to quantify their emotions.
Khurram Naik: And a key part of this concept is when you experience the emotions. And so my premise is that the best place for the emotion is later in the process, in the form of a pleasant surprise. And I think that just resonates with different people to different degrees. For some people, they don't want a pleasant surprise. They'd rather trade off the pleasure for certainty earlier in the process. And so, is there something, I guess, in terms of allocating when someone experiences emotion, or this concept of being surprised at all, or some analog to that? Is there something that you're adding to the process? Because part of it, I think you're talking about client agency, and not abdicating everything to the lawyer serves more than one purpose. Also, the client has skin in the game and is being invested in the process and thinking through every step of the way, not just abdicating decision making to their agent, their outside counsel. So I don't know if that resonates as part of this, to what degree surprise is, and something sounds like a negative thing for a client. Maybe the contexts don't really match up, but I'm just curious if that is part of how you counsel your clients as well.
Tim Yoo: I don't think we're talking about different things. Maybe surprise is one thing, but maybe not. Think about uncertainty, a condition happening. A condition is something that's not certain to occur but could occur. I think you put conditionality into the advice that you give. "This could happen. I handicap it as, these are the things that would have to occur before that, or this is the likelihood." And allow them to make a decision on that. I want to make it very clear that if it's a condition, a contingency that's not certain to happen, that they know that maybe their decision making shouldn't be dependent on that happening. And therefore, if that condition arises, then to use your term, they can be pleasantly surprised about it, and maybe that will affect their decision making.
But I think it's important to be very upfront about what you're saying are the conditions. And the flip side of that same coin is that don't try to set their expectations too low, either. Because if it's realistic that it's likely to happen, you should let them know that too. You shouldn't just take a fatalistic approach and say, "Hey, that's not guaranteed, there's no way that the judge is going to interpret this contract this way." If you think that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach, you should tell them that.
Khurram Naik: How do you relate to the concept of ambition? You've documented growth at this stage, and before we started recording, we talked a little about getting into a phase where you're comfortable and appreciating the rewards of hard work that got you there.
Tim Yoo: Yeah, I'm curious about how you relate to the concept of ambition. Ambition as distinct from growth, in terms of professional growth, is that what you're talking about?
Khurram Naik: Yeah, there's a connection between those two. And maybe a way to put it is, are you more or less ambitious than you were five years ago?
Tim Yoo: I would say if nothing else, maybe about the same or even more. But to be very specific about what I'm talking about, ambition in terms of personal professional growth. In terms of being able to select opportunities, pursue opportunities, put myself in positions to get more opportunities that speak to me. I think I'm just as ambitious as I was when I started, five years ago, whatever parameter you want to start from. I think that, for me, hopefully will be never-ending.
Because I want to be distinct about that in terms of ambition, in terms of whatever the byproducts of having goals of professional growth, whatever byproducts that might have, that's one thing. I don't necessarily fixate on that, whether that being the material rewards or outside recognition, whatever you want to call that. It's really, I find the pursuit of those opportunities and those growth opportunities fulfilling in itself. And I think the other components, whatever comes with that, will take care of itself to a certain degree. But for me, it's always certainly been the case to focus more on the growth itself as an end in itself.
Khurram Naik: Do you think in terms of goals? Do you have some identifiable goals?
Tim Yoo: It's funny, yes. I think you've got to have goals, because if you don't have something that you're striving toward, for me, goals are things that are actionable things that you write down. Because to me, it's not a goal until you write it down. So I definitely write them down. I put together my vision board recently about the things that I want to accomplish and drive towards.
It's funny, I was showing my, I actually work with a performance coach, or performance consultant if you want to talk about it. I was showing her, she's my former law school classmate, she was great. I was showing her this vision board and her first comment was, "It's not ambitious enough. You should actually write down goals that are more ambitious." Because the things that I wrote down, like, "Try to be a more present father, be a more loving husband, try to work on my craft," those are almost like things you're already doing. So she was saying that I should really write down stretch goals, like this is the level of growth of your practice, how many trials you've achieved, or things like that. I think she would really encourage me to write down and shoot for.
So I think that's right. It doesn't manifest until it's concrete and you see yourself striving toward that. Because a big thing for me now is, I try to curate a lot of what I look at on a day-to-day basis. Because obviously, what you see is what you desire. And I think it's very important, especially in the age of social media, you can find yourself doom scrolling and then looking at things like exotic watches or vacation locales and things like that and just convincing yourself that this is something you need to live a fulfilled life. And the minute that you get those out of your eye line and start looking at other things, then you really go toward the things that you're looking at. So I find myself, more than anything, really trying to curate what comes into my field of vision. Obviously it's hard to control all the time, but I think that's where having your goals written down, creating a vision board of what you prioritize, is very important.
Khurram Naik: What's been the biggest takeaway from working with your performance coach?
Tim Yoo: Yeah, I think in terms of the process involved, being equipped with how you think about things, the tools that you apply to it, just having someone to bounce ideas off of. In terms of, "These are my goals," being able to vocalize those and put words and names on what your ambitions are and what your desired outcomes are. I think that's been very helpful. And just having something that's actionable, I think was important. Because for me, I can work with a swing coach for my golf swing, or a personal trainer for physical fitness, or a dietician for nutrition. So I think given that what we all do as lawyers is, in a sense, the whole theme of this discussion today, how do you optimize performance and put yourself in a position to meet that moment and to be the best? And I think having, maybe performance coaching isn't the right label for it, I kind of view it as a consultant, a professional consultant. And I found that to be very helpful and productive for me.
Khurram Naik: Yeah. And to your point about what you see influences you, I think the people you associate with also influence you. And so I admire you, and I really love our conversations, and how much you get me excited and ambitious. One of the things I really admire about you is how you are very passionate about performance broadly speaking. You look for examples of it broadly. And you're really relentless in pulling ideas from that. So I'm glad that you do that. You inspire me to do more of that and curate more for myself, digging into what elite performance looks like. But yeah, I really dig the conversation, as always, Tim.
Tim Yoo: Likewise. I could speak to you for hours. I always enjoy the time. I feel like any day of the week, you can just give me a call, we can pick up the phone and press record and hopefully it'll be a worthwhile listen. But I appreciate the opportunity to come on your podcast again, and I enjoyed that conversation immensely. So thank you.