A Look Back—With Gratitude—on My Time as the YL Editorial Board Chair

I decided recently the time has come for me to step down from my role as chairman of the Young Lawyer Editorial Board. It was not an easy decision. I’ve been a member of the board for 10 years, the last seven of which I had the pleasure of serving as chairman. I’ve experienced tremendous growth in that time, both personally and professionally. I got married, made partner, and became a dad to two beautiful girls. I also learned A LOT—and not just the words to every song in Frozen, although I am not discounting the significance of that accomplishment. I write this letter as a retrospective highlighting the work of the board and our hoped-for impact on the legal community, and as a token of my gratitude to my fellow board members and our readers for stepping into the conversations we have sought to inspire.

I started on the board as a wide-eyed young litigator, fresh off a clerkship, new to the billable hour, and woefully naïve to the overall demands of the profession. The board meetings became something akin to group therapy sessions, where I had the opportunity to gather with my fellow board members and converse—and every so often commiserate—about our lives as young lawyers. We shared stories, compared experiences, and exchanged suggestions on how best to navigate the fast and furious landscape of the Philadelphia legal community.

What I have valued most in the Young Lawyer Editorial Board is the diverse makeup of our membership. Grounded in our personal identities and histories—from where and how we grew up, to where we went to school, to what kind of law we practice—each of us brought a unique perspective informed by our own life experiences. Sharing what we learned individually helped generate what I hope were informative and thought-provoking articles for young lawyers.

We wrote on topics such as marketing, interacting with senior partners and staff, and even making a lateral move. We encouraged pro bono engagements and identified ways in which recent law school graduates can best bolster their resume. From a board geared toward a younger generation of lawyers, these pieces were meant to shine a light for our peers and guide them through challenges we ourselves encountered in our early years of practice.

We also took on more profound matters such as the lack of diversity in law firm leadership. We challenged law firms to improve overall representation of minorities, and specifically called attention to the glaring gender imbalance of trial attorneys. These are serious issues that require real change, and we used our platform as a board to amplify that message to the legal community.

And, of course, the last year was not without its own unique challenges amidst a global pandemic. Like many others, our profession quickly pivoted to an entirely virtual platform and the legal community was forced to adapt on the fly. The interpersonal aspects of lawyering, from depositions to court appearances to every day client interactions, were suddenly reduced to a computer screen. This proved to be a true test of our preparedness as well as our resiliency. As a board, we did our best to help our readership navigate these unprecedented times, whether it was suggesting ways in which law firm leadership could help its young lawyers assimilate to law firm life virtually, or providing a little levity with our recommended courtroom performances in movies and television.

While I stand behind everything we published, the editorials of which I’m most proud are those in which we challenged ourselves as a group to take on more polarizing topics. See, per board policy, while a particular topic may be proposed by an individual and the editorial even written by that same person, there is never attribution to any one specific member. Each article requires a vote and is published on behalf of the entire board. This practice proved to be our greatest challenge. As you might imagine, getting a dozen or so attorneys to agree on something wasn’t always easy. [I am sure there is a lawyer joke in there somewhere.] But it was ultimately unifying to agree to put out into the world an opinion that may not reflect our own individual beliefs, yet—we hoped—would help our readership clarify theirs.

While we cautioned our readers against discussing politics in the office, we, as a board, decidedly did not shy away from partisan issues. We wrote about the various scandals that rocked the municipal and traffic courts and that which prompted the resignations of two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices. We weighed the morality versus the legality of a former state attorney general’s public refusal to enforce a controversial law, and whether her decision to do so usurped the role of the legislature. We discussed the dangers of an eroded due process for public figures accused in the #metoo movement. And most recently, we reminded our readership that a right to fair representation transcends personal animus toward an unpopular client or cause. Ours may not always have been popular messages but they were important ones to contribute to or catalyze the conversation.

I think back fondly on these particular editorials and the interactions that bore them, not just because I am proud of what we published but because I know we were all humbled by the work we put in to get there. These were nuanced issues involving delicate topics, and our ability as a diverse group to find a collective voice pushed us all beyond our comfort zones. We refused to be an echo chamber. Different issues resonated with us all in different ways, and we challenged one another to consider perspectives we otherwise may not have, or even may have simply ignored. This often required exhaustive discussions and detailed debates. But without fail, the more engaging and spirited the conversation, the more dimensional our editorial was as a result. We learned as a group that while using our voices empowers us as individuals, what unifies us is our ability and willingness to find common ground.

This was an important lesson and skill for all of us to learn because, as lawyers, we are forced to confront those with whom we disagree every day—it’s an essential part of the job. We spend our days advocating on behalf of a particular individual or cause against others who represent interests to which we are often diametrically opposed. This is unavoidable; indeed, lawyering is inherently adversarial and it is imperative that we approach these interactions with respect for one another. We should never treat our adversaries poorly or discount their position simply because their motivations or interests may be different than our own. Effective advocacy requires an open mind and sincere consideration of differing opinions; exploring the rationale behind alternative points of view forces honest reflection and further develops our own perspectives. And the more we understand and truly appreciate our differences, the more informed we are as a result.

Thank you to my fellow board members, both past and present, for sharing your perspectives and invaluable insights, but more importantly, for challenging me and one another. My experience has been as humbling as it has been rewarding. And, finally, my sincerest gratitude to the staff of The Legal Intelligencer for entrusting me with this role and believing in the board as a whole. In a profession where the voices of young lawyers are not often heard or valued, the importance of this platform cannot be understated, and I will always be grateful for your unwavering commitment to it.

Robert W. Stanko is a shareholder at Marshall Dennehey Coleman & Goggin. He focuses his practice on commercial litigation. He has handled matters in every stage of litigation—from emergency response to trial and all the way through appeal. He served as the chairman for The Legal Intelligencer’s Young Lawyer Editorial Board for seven years.