Justin Moses on law as a compassionate practice

Episode 5: Justin Moses on law as a compassionate practice
Run time: 44:58

Voiceover: This is a Lander & Rogers podcast, bringing you fresh perspectives on the legal and business landscape and life through a legal lens.

Anthony Kearns: Welcome to Legal human, podcast focused on the role of human lawyers in the legal ecosystem and society more broadly. I'm your host, Anthony Kearns.

Welcome to Legal human. It's my great pleasure to introduce one of the great legal humans, Justin Moses. Justin worked for a long time, has worked for a long time in-house and in corporate, in-house legal functions, including in a big bank. And you spent quite a bit of time in a big bank, but you've subsequently then chosen to leave that sort of context to move into not for profits and worked for a very small, not for profit. I hope you don't mind me saying that. But then, now you're the acting general counsel of the Cancer Council of New South Wales.

Justin Moses: That's right.

AK: So, welcome to the podcast, Justin. But just -

JM: Thanks, Anthony.

AK: I think sometimes we ask people to explain the reasons they made those choices, and I'm not sure that they're necessarily available. But were there certain things or events in your career that you felt steered you towards this choice to contributing to not for profits, contributing your expertise to not for profits in that sector?

JM: Thank you. And, I think there certainly were in my particular case. I'd very much enjoyed a long career, as you say, in one of the Australian banks and found that rewarding and challenging and stimulating, with very interesting work and great colleagues. But at the same time, I had reached a point after - and we're talking literally decades - where I was very open, at least, to the idea of practising differently; certainly reaching what I felt were the sort of concluding stages of my legal career. And I had the very good fortune to undertake a secondment under a program that Westpac (or my bank - sorry, it probably doesn't matter!) was involved in, and which involved placing employees of large organisations and sometimes government departments into Indigenous corporations around the country to lend those corporations commercial experience and judgment, rather than necessarily specific professional capability in dedicated roles. And it was a life-changing experience for a couple of reasons. One, because it opened my eyes to aspects of the life of Indigenous Australians, which to that point I felt I'd been oblivious to, but also opened my eyes to the fact that the contribution that I was able to make as a lawyer could really be looked at in quite a different way.

And one of the key learnings I think I took from the whole experience was that lawyers, I think, mark our own work and the work of our colleagues very hard; we perform work which I came to appreciate is objectively of a very high quality, but regarded it as being kind of everyday and just part of the standard operating procedure when, by contrast, I was in an environment where the support that I was providing was incredibly valued by the organisation that hadn't had access on a daily basis to that sort of support previously, and was regarded as making a very valuable contribution to their work. It reset my thinking about the way we need to look at the way we support our organisations and business partners. And I came back to Westpac being an advocate for all of us in the substantial legal team there to think differently about the way our work should be evaluated, and to spend more time taking a step back and saying on those occasions, which were frequent, when it was really good work, "this is great work". Let's celebrate the fact that it's great work. Let's acknowledge the fact that it's great work. It probably gives us an advantage in the market, if that's what you're focusing on, but it also ought to be giving us satisfaction as professionals and as lawyers to know that we are making a valuable contribution in this way. And that certainly began to shift my thinking about where I would like to continue providing support that was going to continue to be valued in that way and recognised accordingly.

And so, when the opportunity came to bring my career at the bank to an end, on terms that for the bank and I were really great terms, my mind turned quite naturally, I think, towards a sector where I knew from that experience that those opportunities to add a contribution that was going to be highly valued, and which had probably to that point been a bit scarce, was going to provide all of those answers.

AK: As always in my conversation with you, there's so much, so many things in there that I would like to pick up on. But I think you're describing a time in your career when I first met you. And my sense is that this unlocked something in you, it was so aligned to your personal values, because I've always experienced you as being a very generous and compassionate person. It sort of drives you. And it seemed to give you energy and purpose, both the secondment and then a different sort of purpose, personal purpose in your work.

JM: Yeah. Thank you. I think that is true. And in many respects, and I've reflected a lot recently on the whole role of purpose in underpinning what we do, and in the course of all of that have sort of reflected on, well, there's certainly been times where an outsider could ask someone who had spent a long amount of time in a bank, you know, purpose must have been a bit hard to find. I mean, banks have been guilty of some pretty egregious conduct over the decades, and culminating in findings from Royal Commissions and all sorts of regulatory interventions and so on. But I think it is possible to separate all of that from the things that, you know, fundamentally still underpin the work that organisations do. And I wouldn't deny for a moment that the Australian banking industry does have a lot to answer for in terms of some of its treatment of customers and stakeholders over the decades. But at the same time, you know, banks have also done some incredibly valuable things for the community and for individuals. And those things do actually drive the vast majority of the work that's done in those organisations. So that values alignment wasn't necessarily hard to find. And I wouldn't like to sort of convey a sense from my earlier remarks that I didn't feel the contributions that I and other lawyers at the bank were making weren't valued. They were valued. But we had, sort of, almost marked down their value, I suppose, in the sense of just feeling that they, you know, in most cases it was just ordinary, when in many cases it was extraordinary, really. And so, yeah, your sort of identification of that becoming something of a passion for me is true. And, and I did and do feel that it's very important for professionals, young professionals, in particular lawyers, because that's my gig, to develop that capability to try more objectively to evaluate how their contribution can add value. And then when that's the case, to recognise that they've added value in that way and to be proud of that and to leverage that in terms of their career progression, and to share that, I guess in terms of that community piece that you talked about right at the beginning.

AK: Yeah, I didn't - sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were moving away from a context in which you didn't find purpose, because one of the ways in which I saw you find purpose or align your values to the work you were doing in a large corporate, was you focused very much on development and the development of the lawyers around you, and you've gone on then to be recognised by the ACC, I'm not sure how many times, but at least once as mentor of the year. You're very - I think I see you as very committed to development in the sort of whole sense. And that's why I was - a whole person sense, not just your legal skills, but developing better lawyers. And that's one of the reasons why I was so excited to talk to you in the context of this podcast. And that wasn't always easy, was it? I mean, that was not always easy to get attention and investment in that, within in-house?

JM: No, that's very true. And I do credit the bank with the foresight in terms of creating a role, for a very senior lawyer, like the role that I had at the conclusion of my career, which was very focused on development and training and knowledge management, and was really very progressive when you think that the obvious alternative to a general counsel is to say, well, no, my lawyers, particularly senior lawyers, are going to be doing legal work because that's really what we're here to do. But I think very forward-thinking, very progressive, to establish a role that was dedicated to focusing on leveraging the resources that existed within the organisation and in the appropriate circumstances. And that's how you and I met, to leverage the resources and expertise of the organisations who supported us to, you know, further that development for all of our people. And like a lot of considerations that general counsels and legal functions have to bear in mind all the time, I'm sure there was that cost benefit analysis piece that went in there and everything that we can run internally and accept the employment costs associated with that is money that we're not spending on an external provider who could be doing those things for us. And I think the clever thing about that approach, is that you're leveraging a resource that's already got all of the inside knowledge about the team and what it does and how it's composed and, you know, the various, who should participate, most fully in those sorts of opportunities because they have an appetite as opposed to some of those who maybe are not as interested right at that time for various reasons. Whereas, you know, a new external provider is coming in pretty cold when it comes to that, that sort of thing.

AK: You touched on purpose and I know that's something that we've talked about, this sort of concept of purpose having two sides, and particularly when you're working with highly conscientious people, highly conscientious populations like lawyers tend to be, when you translate that, you know, I heard you saying that actually the level of - the description of your services as being ordinary was internal. It's held by the lawyers themselves. "I'm just doing the thing that I always do, it's not extraordinary, there's nothing special about it." When I interview stakeholders in organisations about their experience of working with legal functions, almost invariably they're perceived as the most valuable business services function in the organisation, they're incredibly responsive, they're doing exceptional things, they're really smart. When you translate that into a not-for-profit context, that combination of conscientiousness and purpose, can it become unsafe? Do you find people committing too much of themselves trying to catch up to what they perceive to be their internal standards?

JM: I think there's always the risk. I think that's as much as anything, a risk that sort of resides in the individual or doesn't. I mean, lawyers as a generalisation tend to get labelled as perfectionistic, but I think we do actually fill the whole spectrum from those of us who are, to those who actually are not. So I think a lot of the risk of that kind of approach to doing work is internally generated, but to the extent that it can be externally imposed, I actually think it's a lot less likely to feel imposed in a not-for-profit environment than it is in a, we're talking super generally here, but in a for-profit context. And that's certainly my experience. And to me that's reflected in things like, while my roles in not for profit have been very busy, I wouldn't say they've been as pressured as my experience in the for-profit environment. And in particular, I think because there's a recognition that the stakeholders are different. I haven't had in the not-for-profit context that sort of shareholder-driven pressure and that sort of, how that translates through the expectations in the organisation right from the board through to executive leadership, through to general management through to sort of team-based approaches. The, you know, the same sorts of pressures around deadlines, the same sorts of pressures around completion of work to certain levels or within certain timeframes, tend not to exist, in my experience, to anywhere near the same extent. And so, I think sometimes the risk, that internally-generated risk around expectations and that sort of pressure to deliver, sometimes surprises the leadership of not-for-profit organisations. They almost feel themselves driven to say, you know, calm down. It's okay, tomorrow will be fine. Because sometimes, in my experience, the lawyers are definitely the kind of a standout in that context when it comes to that willingness to impose on themselves that need to go above and beyond.

AK: Okay. Well, I mean the purpose of Legal human really, or the catalyst for Legal human has been the extent of conversation as to how much we, not just the profession but society, are talking about generative AI, its disruptive potential, and also particularly within the legal profession I think there's a focus in the conversation across the legal ecosystem on both the possibilities, the opportunities that generative AI presents, and then to some extent, the risks that it presents. Because it seems to go to the heart of our sort of working definition of expertise and what it means to be a lawyer. Before we get into that, I just wanted to just touch on, I think you've already sort of covered this, but what does being a lawyer, a human lawyer, mean to you? If you think about what defines "lawyer" as an identity as much as an occupation, what are the most important elements?

JM: I think a desire, a passion, probably, for being of service. Being in a role that involves supporting others at its most basic, supporting others to achieve the things that they want or need to achieve. And of course, the extent of our role in doing that can vary enormously, according to the context and environment and sometimes, you know, right down to the specifics of a particular matter that we might be working on. But fundamentally, for me, it's about supporting, and I suppose solving. I think lawyers are probably drawn to law and certainly learn through their studies and through the gaining of practical experience that fundamentally it's about coming up with a solution to a problem. And so, finding satisfaction in that, and I think knowing that in the vast majority of cases, that's going to benefit somebody who needed that input, needed that support because it involved bringing skills and experience and judgment that wasn't otherwise available, is what makes it rewarding for us.

AK: So, if we sort of take that down to the next level, and we, you know, what does that actually mean? In terms of behaviours and sort of orientations, mindsets, those sorts of concepts, what are the - and I don't suspect that we're going to have to completely change; I think that, if you think about what the great human lawyers you've had an opportunity to work with, and I consider you one of them, what are the enduring and then what are the emerging emphases, I guess? What becomes important if we start, if we're less, if it's not necessary for us to hold and be able to access large volumes of information, knowledge, then what becomes more important?

JM: That's interesting. So, I think curiosity is fundamental. What's really going on here? What's happening, and what am I being asked to think about in terms of why that's happening, how to change what's happening, how to influence what's happening? I think that's key. And for me, that's enduring. That is always going to have to be a key part of what lawyers do or want to do, I think. The next part for me is thinking - okay, I've asked all of those questions, now that I have at least some information about that, do I feel that's enough information to deliver something of value to the person who's asking me? Or do I have to do some more? Are there some things I have to do for myself that in most cases, and this is what the key to being a lawyer is, I think, have not occurred to whoever it is who's asking you to sort of consider these questions and help them reach a particular outcome. That's why you're the expert. Now, I don't know, maybe other professional experts do all of these things and ask all of these questions as well. I don't know, I've always been a lawyer, so maybe this isn't unique to lawyers! But I suspect some of it is because of the way we're sort of trained. So, curiosity, thinking and then, I do think there's an element of bringing generosity to the processing of all of that. And, and I think for me this possibly distinguishes human lawyers maybe from other descriptions, in that I think the really great lawyers and the things that I find rewarding about being a lawyer, are wanting to then say, so here's what I think as a result of all of that. But not only that, here's something else that might be of value to you or of assistance to you in considering how you move forward with what it is that I'm giving you. So for me, I think all of those things, they've always shaped the way I've approached being a lawyer. I think there will always be room for them to be part of the process. Whether they are fully replaceable by automation, I think is an interesting and I would say at this stage still an open question. Of course, you know, if you can come up with the right prompts, you can search through unimaginable masses of information to draw together in quite succinct terms various outcomes. But I think it's a very open question at this stage whether that could still actually tick all of those boxes in the way that a human lawyer can. Because there is actually no limit to the way we can think about approaching a problem compared to a data-driven model, which the limits are ultimately driven by the data, even if that data might be almost incomprehensible for us to think about in terms of its volume. And certainly the human element around the passion, the generosity of being part of a solution - and let's face it, the reward that comes from the gratitude that generally follows when that solution is provided, that feels innately human to me. I think artificial intelligence would have a long way to go to develop that.

AK: So it seems to me that you're describing, if I was to sort of try and capture the elements of what you're talking about, it's understanding that the problem exists in a context, and you can find out a certain amount about that context through direct inquiry. But a fair degree of it is your own human experience informing what might be going on, what's really going on here. There's this degree of sort of, let's call it empathy, informed insight that you have because you're coming into the situation as a fellow human being and you've been presented with a problem which your expertise says has these elements that are technically complex or complicated. And then there's these other bits that you're not quite sure yet. So, it either informs further inquiry or, you know, induction on your part. I see that this person is behaving in this particular way in response to this problem, it probably suggests that it's more important than they're letting on. I'm going to just see how that plays out. But when I come back, my advice, I may hold that back while I work that out, or I will present it, but attend to those other things.

JM: Yep.

AK: It sounds to me that what you're describing, if I was trying to think of a word for it, and this is not a popular word in corporates, I think, and it's becoming more, people are becoming more interested in it, is compassion. It's the active form of empathy. It's appreciating somebody's experience of something, but doing something to try and address that.

JM: Yeah. I think that's a really accurate, if you were going to label it with a single word - label is probably the wrong word, but attribute a single word to it - I think compassion is the right word, and I think it even extends, I think in your summary then you were recognising that it includes evaluating the various weightings that should be given to elements of the, you know, the structure that you're being asked to look at. And that's a very human piece. Because somebody tells you something, you may not necessarily believe it or believe that to be the whole story, I think, is probably more relevant in the sorts of contexts that I'm talking about. But I think compassion is a great description for an influence in the approach to the delivery of the final outcome, because, just as you might sort of hold some things in place while you undertake further inquiry, sometimes you might not give the totality of the advice that you've formed. And that's informed by the way in which your advice is being received as you deliver it. And that's not to suggest you might never go to the next step of kind of finishing the journey, but in my experience it's not that uncommon to kind of start to, you know, give your concluded view and decide for yourself, actually, I've given them enough. They're happy, there could be more. Now sometimes, I talked earlier about that sort of spirit of generosity about adding the above and beyond. Well, you know, that's a sensible and helpful thing to do in the majority of cases. But I think there can be cases where that compassion element can actually tell you, you know what? They don't need that at this time. It's not actually going to significantly or importantly assist in the resolution of this issue. And often out of an expectation that, well, this is not necessarily over. You know, a lot of these things span an extended period of time, if and when that becomes helpful at a later time, well, the work is done. But right now, I might just hold on to that.

AK: Yeah. I'm right, but it's not necessarily helpful. And so, it's not never, it's just not yet. And what you're assessing is the readiness to receive. Are there things that are more important to you right at that moment? This could be really important, but can you attend to that? Have you got sufficient capacity to accept and act on that right now? It's a continuous, it's a sort of process of checking in, attending to the person in front of you, are they ready to receive?

JM: Yeah. And I would confess, Anthony, I don't know if that's a difference between working in an in-house environment and working in private practice. I haven't worked in private practice so I don't know if in that circumstance a private practice lawyer might feel, no, no, I have to lay it all on the table because I can't guarantee that this relationship will continue. That's different from an in-house environment where the client is effectively captive and you can be pretty safe in assuming the relationship will continue and, you know, probably has a dynamic to it that allows the freer exchange of perspectives and information and so on across time. So for me, you know, possibly my thinking around that compassionate approach to the full disclosure is informed by my expectation that there will be an opportunity later on, if it's appropriate, to take it to that level.

AK: You have dealt with a lot of external lawyers, though, and when you think across your experience, the ones that stand out to you as being the best, the ones that you've most engaged with, derived the most value from - do you see those behaviours manifesting?

JM: No, to be honest, it's a great question, and no, amongst the best, I think, motivated by the same feelings as I am, I suspect they would find a way, if they felt there was a risk that something less than the full value had been, had been sort of handed over, they would find a way to do it. So yeah, I'm very confident of that.

AK: So, I guess the, the 64 dollar question is, how do you, how can we deliberately develop this, or is there any need to? I mean, is it in sufficient, is it in abundance within the profession now, so that really what's going to happen with the enabling technology is we just get released to do more of this? Or is there a need to develop this deliberately? So if you think about whole-of-career education for a lawyer, development for a lawyer, for example, is there a change in emphasis? How do you refocus, I guess, the profession on these things as being as important as what you know?

JM: I mean, I think it's going to be an evolution. I think there's a lot of heat and light at the moment around the topic, and I'm sure like me, you'd have been to any number of sort of presentations and conversations about AI and other technologies and what they'll mean for the future. But still, the jury's out for me in terms of the extent to which people are actually engaging with some of these technologies in a thoughtful way. I think a lot of people are doing it in a very experimental way and almost kind of having a bit of fun with it. But I think the actual use of a lot of these technologies is significantly behind where a lot of people would have you believe is - at least in our profession, it may be that in other places it's kind of racing ahead. I think, a reason for that, and I think this will always be an element of the approach lawyers will take to assistive technology, there's a trust element. There's a trust in the reliability of the source. There's a trust element relating to the integrity of information, which, you're going to, you know, place important emphasis on and, you know, at its most extreme, stake your reputation on. And I sense - I probably feel to a degree, still a large degree, skepticism around the reliability piece. And I think that's going to take time and almost going to take the passage of time where there hasn't been blowback from it being wrong, for people to kind of go, oh, well, it feels like it's been long enough now for us to feel as though the data sources have been refined sufficiently, tested sufficiently rigorously enough, for me to feel that I can kind of fully trust what I'm using here. I mean, in some respects that's kind of interesting, as I've been saying, to think about, particularly given your focus on human lawyers, because, you know, most lawyers of any seniority have relied on and trusted in lawyers more junior than them to be doing work on the matters, the problems that they're trying to deal with and solve, and ultimately make judgments and do place trust in those things. But I suspect on the basis that they've been along that journey as well. And you are absolutely making judgments about an individual and their level of conscientiousness and capability and intelligence, even, and all of that. But you are still fundamentally relying on your human assessment and those traits, and your experience and judgment about what it is that it's giving you, that person is giving you as sort of the source material. So, yeah, still a lot of elements there to me that feel as though, I'm not suggesting they can't reach a point where we can trust source data and information and process, but I think we're some way from it at this point. I think I am!

AK: Yeah. I've been watching… one of the reasons for this podcast is, I think that to the extent that we're focused on the developmental implications of things like generative AI, we're still very much focused on the interface between the technology and the human. And so, to the extent that we're trying to help our young lawyers with this change, we're focused on things like prompting and developing their familiarity with the technology, and it's very much a skills-based approach which is largely I think grounded in adoption, our goal is adoption. I'm much more interested in, and I have been for 20 years, in the human-to-human interface. I mean, if we get that working and it's relatively accurate and we get over the, you know, the massive skepticism hump that comes from working with professionals and experts, I mean, it's part of our value, is in skepticism, it informs judgment. We approach problems from a risk intolerance, if you like. And that's one of our great assets, I think. On the human-to-human side, we've been talking about things like compassion, empathy, curiosity. I mean, we're talking about - you seem to be describing it as essentially an energetic practice, in the sense that you have to be genuinely interested in the human in front of you to care. I mean, how do we, or do we need to develop that? Or is that something that we've just sort of not been able to do as much as we'd like? And these are not questions I think we can answer in this conversation, but how would you, how do you educate or develop those capabilities in lawyers and re-emphasise them?

JM: Yeah. It's a great question. I think there is an element there, and it seems to be coming through in a lot of disciplines now and a lot of conversations about professional skills and attributes, however you want to kind of label them - you know, qualities around authenticity, qualities around vulnerability, qualities around humility. You want to call them "soft skills" or you don't, kind of, at one level, who cares? I mean, the words are plainly understood in terms of what they're really all about. And I think we have entered an era where some of that expectation around professionals, be that lawyers or other professionals, have this kind of veneer of inscrutability, the emotion is irrelevant, it's all factual based, it's all, you know, expertise and kind of objectivity that comes into the equation. I think there's a wider acceptance that if that's what you're insisting on, you're missing out on a lot. Because so much colour can be added, and nuance can be added, through an acceptance that, you know, judgment is assisted by acceptance that, well, I don't know everything. How can I know everything? But based on what I know and based on my investigations and based on my experience and judgment, I'm giving you the very best of what I can offer you in the circumstances that you are addressing. But I would never pretend to be able to tell you that that's an infallible position. And just I think plain acceptance of that and probably, an area for focus in terms of the development is as much as, kind of, being comfortable that that's okay, is actually also the language around that. And, you know, I've told this story a million times over the course of my career since it happened very early in my career, but one of my best learning experiences, and I'm so grateful that it happened early in my career, was hearing a lawyer senior manager who I reported to, who was an exceptional lawyer, a brilliant lawyer, admit to a group of, you know, Wall Street investment bankers and leading firm lawyers in the US that he didn't know the answer to a question one of them had about the Corporations Act and how it impacted our particular organisation. And, you know, you could have heard a pin drop in an audience like that for someone to have the humility to say that they didn't know the answer to a question. And of course, he worked out the answer within a short amount of time, and he relayed that and we moved on. But it was career changing, I genuinely believe for me, to be in the presence of that humility, but also that honesty and that practicality, frankly. I mean, how much worse would it be to make something up? And so, yeah, I think that has shaped my approach for a very long time. And I think we just need to accept that's okay. I mean, we are still experts. It's another thing that I talk to young lawyers about a lot, is that, you know, if you're the member of the legal team that's in a group discussion about a particular initiative that your organisation is pursuing, you are still the subject matter expert. You do know more about the law than any other person sitting at that table and how it's relevant and all of those things. So honour that in yourself. I mean, you've earned that, and it deserves respect, not just from you, but from the other people who don't have that. Just as you respect the fact that there's a strategy expert and a marketing expert and a finance expert and whoever else. And I think sometimes, you know, lawyers fail to recognise that we give out all of this respect and recognition and so on, and often we're pretty slow at saying, how about some coming back my way?

AK: I mean, you've touched on humility, and it's a great place to finish our conversation, I think, because I've always seen that as one of your great strengths. But it's, for me it's, going back to your story. It's a real - it's a ticket to genuine complexity to be participating in the solution of genuinely complex problems where you can't know, where you can't know as you start what the answer is but even whether it's capable of being solved. I don't think you can participate in that if the only value you perceive that you can add is expertise and knowing the right answer. Humility is required to even participate in that iterative sort of decision-making environment, which is where we all want to be, right? Every in-house lawyer I've worked with says, I want to be at the beginning of the conversation, I want to be there when they're starting to think about these things, I can create value if I learn about it earlier. But if it's humility that gets you into that conversation, you've got to be willing to sit in the uncertainty of this, that the answer is emergent, and you've got to be experimental along the way. I think that humility is your superpower to some extent, and you've gone down the wrong track and you've got to pull back - if you just persist because you need to save your status and face in that situation, I think you're going to end up, it's going to come back and bite you.

JM: Yeah, I agree entirely. And I think too, sometimes the ultimate humility is in accepting that, here I am, I've delivered this valuable, insightful contribution that's taken a lot of effort and thought on my part, and in the particular circumstance your business partners say thanks for that, actually it's become irrelevant or we're going a different direction or whatever, whatever it is, and it's - well, okay. Thank you.

AK: See you next month! So final question, Justin. As always, I think I've got a sense of this already, but how optimistic are you for the future contribution of human lawyers to the legal ecosystem?

JM: Very optimistic. Because I think lawyers have, I think often are by nature, but often learn to be highly adaptive. We do do our work in environments that constantly change and, you know, there are all the tropes about tradition and precedent and all those things - they're more than tropes, I mean, they are true, but they aren't enslaving. They aren't limiting. They are part of what is relevant to the way we look at things. But we're also, more than ever, I think, through things like curiosity, thinking more and more expansively about the things that we can bring to the table, and deliver for the benefit of the people we're supporting. And I think that will always be the case. I think we will always find ways to fundamentally deliver the value that we know we are capable of delivering, and that we understand is what is being asked of us, and being asked of us because we're, you know, experts in a discipline that, you know, other contributors are not.

AK: Justin Moses, thank you so much.

JM: You're welcome. Thanks, Anthony.

AK: You've been listening to Legal human. To hear more Legal human podcasts, subscribe to the channel.

Voiceover: For more insights from Lander & Rogers, visit our website at landers.com.au or connect with us on LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube.