Ron Davis is a partner with Fogler Rubinoff in Toronto, where he has over 35 years of litigation experience. In this episode, he and Lindsay chat about challenges and opportunities in the legal industry in Toronto and Ontario, including litigation funding, the hot topic on everyone’s mind: AI, and Ron’s award-winning career as a jazz musician.

Check out Ron’s music ⁠here⁠, as well as his band ⁠Synphronica⁠. Ron also mentions Canadian author Robert Rotenberg in our chat, whose book catalog can be found on ⁠his website⁠.

You can listen to the podcast here, or we’ve provided a transcript of the highlights below.

Lindsay: Hello, and welcome to the Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast. I’m your host, Lindsay Griffiths, executive director of the International Lawyers Network. Our guest this week is Ron Davis, with Fogler, Rubinoff in Toronto, Canada. Ron, we’re really happy to have you with us this week. Thanks so much for joining us on the podcast. Why don’t you tell us a little bit about yourself your practice and your firm?

Ron: Lindsay, always a pleasure to be in touch with you. And because the world is dying to know more about me, I am celebrating my 40th year as a litigator here in Toronto. And yes, I began sometime before the Declaration of Independence, but still find myself practicing in various areas of litigation, commercial litigation, Canadian constitutional law, and a variety of interesting niches in civil litigation up here in Canada.

I don’t know if this is the time to mention, but for many, many years I also had a side hustle as a jazz musician. I was, I guess I still am in some ways, a jazz pianist and composer and recording artist, and had the privilege of being nominated for a Juno Award, the Canadian equivalent of the Grammys. And for many years I didn’t know if I was a full-time lawyer and a part-time musician or a part-time lawyer and a full-time musician. But thanks to much sleep deprivation, I managed to get through.

Lastly, I have the privilege of being a partner in a regional law firm in Toronto, Fogler, Rubinoff, which of course is a member of ILN, and that I like to think punches above its weight by taking on some of the bigger cases with some of the bigger law firms for clients in the small, medium, but also significant enterprise sector, and doing a good job at it, if I may say so myself.

Lindsay: I would agree with you, absolutely. And I think you might be our most famous podcast guest to date because of your awards.

Ron: Well, what can I say? We Canadians have a reputation for being somewhat self-deprecating, so I almost feel like saying, “Well, you can’t have had many guests on,” but I’ll take the compliment, and I thank you. It’s a privilege to practice law the way I do. It’s a privilege to practice with Fogler, Rubinoff, but it was a huge privilege to have an international jazz career and a recording career and to get the awards I got. And if we have time, and if it’s appropriate, I’ll tell you one or two of my more memorable stories as a musician, one of which includes the great Senator Howard Baker and his spouse, the former Senator Nancy Kassebaum, for whom I did a private concert. But why don’t we park that? That’s a bit of a tease for what we might discuss.

Lindsay: We love a good tease. All right, okay. So, let’s jump into our questions, and we’ll save the good stories for later so that we make sure that people listen to the whole podcast.

Ron: Stay tuned, folks. Don’t miss what’s coming up.

Lindsay: Okay, so speaking of work, can you tell us about your biggest challenge at the moment and how you’re working to overcome that?

Ron: Well, there are so many ways to approach that, but I think I’ll start with a challenge that any lawyer, litigator or not, might recognize and probably will recognize. In our business, whether you’re in a big firm or a small firm, whether you are surrounded by hundreds of partners or by none, there seem to be only two modes of operation, too little work or too much work. And these days, I find that I and my colleagues, and when I say days, I mean certainly over the past few years, and in a way since COVID especially, so already over four years ago … There has been a huge influx of work, and there seem to be … I won’t say fewer resources, but resources that are harder to find in terms of associates, in terms of partners, in terms of judges to hear the cases, at least up here in Canada. And so, we’re laboring hard. We’re fortunate to have the work, we’re fortunate to have the clients, but trying to keep up and trying to get results both internally in the firm, although I can say we’ve never dropped the ball, but also in the courts. It’s been a struggle.

Lindsay: Yeah, I can really imagine how that would be, and I can see, especially as a litigator … I was speaking to one of our other lawyers earlier this week, and they were saying clients can have this idea when they come to a lawyer that things are going to be wrapped up in this nice little bow within a short period of time, in part because of the things that they’ve seen on TV. And it normally can take months to years to get a matter settled; not settled in the legal term but settled in terms of the whole thing being finished. And I can imagine that that’s exacerbated by the fact that there aren’t as many judges available, probably because of COVID, especially.

Ron: So, I’m in Ontario, in Toronto. And as your listeners probably know, each province has its own courts in the same way that the American states have their courts. We don’t really have a federal court system as the American system does. And I can say certainly in Ontario, we have a fabulous bench, hard, hardworking judges, and a high-quality of appointment. I’m very proud to be in a jurisdiction where I can say that, but they are so overworked. The fact that we get things done to begin with is a testament to their dedication.

But I have to tell clients that if they need immediate relief, barring some situation where something big will crumble and many people will be affected, it’s going to be tough getting before a judge. I can say also I’m involved in a major constitutional case involving our federal political parties in British Columbia, and it’s even worse there. We’ve been in court on several occasions and literally been ready to go with three major political parties, attorney general and players, and we couldn’t get heard because there was no judge available. So that’s a struggle.

And then of course it’s balanced off by one of the other challenges, going back to your original question, Lindsay, which challenges we face: costs, the cost of litigation. And I can say up here in Canada, and certainly up in Toronto, if you have a claim of under $250,000, it’s going to be difficult for me as a litigator to say that you should litigate it. And that of course eliminates many small businesses, many consumer level claims. I mean, we find a way to deal with it. So those are the challenges. I mean, I don’t want to sound negative. There are many … What’s the opposite of challenges? Positives?

Lindsay: Opportunities?

Ron: Opportunities, exactly. But to answer your question, I think those are the big challenges facing me today.

Lindsay: I know we’ve seen in some jurisdictions the rise of litigation funding, and I have spoken to some of your colleagues about that being more prevalent in Canada. Is that something you’re seeing? Is that something that’s happening more on the consumer side and less on the business side that’s sort of becoming an opportunity for some of those maybe smaller litigations, or is that not something that you’re seeing that much anymore?

Ron: Well, we’re definitely seeing it. So much about Canada is, in many cases, younger brother to the bigger brother, the US to the south of us. And at the same time, speaking only about litigation, litigation is much more of a, if I can use the word, industry than it is in Canada, for a host of reasons. And our American friends, our stateside friends, were quite obviously much earlier to litigation funding and litigation funding models and practices and then court procedures regarding litigation funding.

We only up here in Canada, or at least in Ontario, but in Canada generally, we only started dealing with getting rid of champerty and maintenance roughly in the ’90s. Up until recently, champerty and maintenance were a thing, so litigation funding would likely have fit within that sphere. So, with that in mind and with the fact that we are following our American friends, we are beginning to see litigation funding models. I’ve personally been involved in two different verticals of litigation funding model. One is the classic commercial litigation, where the funder saw a significant piece of litigation involving a fairly clear piece of business that promised a fairly likely positive outcome on the litigation side and wished to get involved. It didn’t happen, in my case, for specific reasons, but this funder was clearly establishing a presence in Canada along with others. And we are seeing protocols emerge from the courts.

And then the secondary of litigation funding we’re seeing is of course in class actions, which again, are relatively new, compared to the States, are relatively new up here; 30 years, maybe? I might be a little off on timing, but we are beginning to see litigation funding practices and protocols. And they’re not easy. Litigation funders up here in class actions just don’t waltz in and say, “I’m in.” There needs to be a fair bit of court involvement. And there is, but it’s certainly burgeoning up here. And it’s becoming a business. So, watch the space, as they say.

Lindsay: Yes, that makes total sense. What would you say is the biggest area either related to litigation specifically or the practice of law in general that you’re curious about at the moment?

Ron: So, Lindsay, I feel like turning the question on you and saying yes, because I could be totally wrong, but I’m going to guess that you’ve asked that question and pretty much got the same answer all the time.

Lindsay: You’re right.

Ron: And I’m actually interested. So, you tell me what you’ve been hearing, and then I’ll see if it aligns with what my reflexive answer would’ve been off the top to that.

Lindsay: Everybody says the same thing, and it’s AI.

Ron: Thank you. Thank you. AI, yes, AI and cyber, right?

Lindsay: Yes.

Ron: AI and cyber. And as a litigator, I mean, AI and cyber on both sides, so what’s AI going to do for me? I mean, I’m not going to make the mistake as some of our American friends, but it’s also happened up here in Canada, where I type into ChatGPT, “What is the law on relief from forfeiture,” and go to court with whatever ChatGPT feeds me. To whoever’s listening, if you walk away from this podcast with only one piece of advice, that piece of advice is, don’t.

On the other hand, a lot of my work is in strategy and analysis and written advocacy, so I have to read a ton of case law. And our structure up here in Canada is different than stateside and elsewhere in the world. So, we don’t have as many resources to consolidate case law here in Canada. So, when I’m faced with, for example, my constitutional case, hundreds of pages of reasons with dissenting judges, I will often use ChatGPT as a front-end summarizer of the case, knowing it could be wrong. But in 86% of cases, it has helped me. It has helped me work, it has helped turbocharge my work, and therefore it has helped the client, and it has reduced costs. Similarly, in my written advocacy, after I finish my work, I’ll sometimes go to ChatGPT and say, “Write me an argument to a judge asking for relief from an onerous clause in a contract.” And it’ll generate one or two answers. And in 80% of cases, I’ll get a few sentences that help just up my game in my written advocacy.

So that’s one side of AI. Of course, the other side of AI is the litigation side and people who might be harmed. I mean, obviously we’re seeing copyright litigation emerge in the States and possibly here in Canada. And I’m sure we’re going to be seeing other litigation. For example, one of the areas I practice in is professional negligence plaintiffs’ work. So, what happens to the lawyer who goes to court with a ChatGPT case readout and has just presented the court with everything that’s wrong, gets a case dismissed and the limitation period has passed? That’s going to be interesting. And that’s just a small use case for AI. And then of course the bigger picture for me is cyber, cyber attacks, privacy violations, the privacy violations that AI implies. Lindsay, I could fill the next eight hours of this podcast with what I see on this as being an issue. But long answer to a very short question, I would say AI and relatedly cyber are the most interesting and hottest issues at the moment.

Lindsay: I totally agree with you, and I find it fascinating too. I mean, I can see the benefits of AI, and of course, as you say, related to that, other technologies. And then I’m also fascinated with what the implications of those are, both as you say, from your clients’ perspective, and then what that’s going to mean for you as a practicing lawyer. And then for me, what are the implications for our law firms? Obviously, I don’t believe it’s going to replace lawyers. I think your expertise and your ability to advise your clients is always going to be something that your clients want and need. But then I’m curious about the things that it does replace, those sorts of low-level things that make sense for it to take over. How do we then replace that training for younger lawyers and get them up to the level of sophistication that the more experienced lawyers have?

And so that’s the piece that I’m grappling with, is also as we see, there’s this rise of remote working. And more lawyers, especially the more experienced lawyers, are spending more time working from home and are maybe not in the office to offer that level of sophisticated training to the more junior lawyers. And so how does that then help them to become the experts that we then need them to be in 20 years? So that’s the piece that I’m most curious about.

Ron: Interesting. I mean, first of all, I am resolutely not in the catastrophist camp of people about AI. Every technology, going back to Gutenberg, actually probably going back to fire, was met with, “Oh no, it’s the end of the world.” Well, with fire, “It’s literally going to burn us down.” And now that I’m entering my fifth decade as a lawyer, I can go back to the ’80s, when although I was already on computers in the early ’80s and on the internet, which was a very much minority kind of activity at the time, I remember people saying, “Oh no, computers are going to replace lawyers. And we need typewriters. And what’s with mobile phones? There’s going to be some other catastrophe.” So, I am a believer in technology, and I also believe, as some people say, that AI will not replace lawyers. AI will just replace lawyers without AI, with lawyers who use AI.

And yes, there are challenges. You just identified a few. I mean, I can tell you at a very anecdotal personal level, the issue of more the senior practitioners working from home and the mentoring model becoming different because they’re not on site with younger lawyers who might be in the office. I’m acutely aware of that. But thanks to technology such as Zoom or the good old-fashioned phone, I make it a point, and many of my colleagues at Fogler, Rubinoff make it a point, to interact with the students or the associates that they work with. And I hope that if you were to get them on the podcast, and if they were … I was told not to listen to what they had to say about our practices, that they would all say that they are getting a solid mentoring model, and in fact, a more efficient one unburdened by having the senior partner come into the office and talk for half an hour about some problem that they’re having with their car while the poor associate is trying to get a piece of work done that they’ve already lost four days of sleep over.

So, I’m bullish on the technology. I believe it will enhance our work. We’ll learn how to use it as we learn how to use the internet. Even with COVID, I can’t speak for the experience elsewhere in the world, but here in Canada, especially Ontario, the courts were slow on adopting technology. All of a sudden, COVID hit, and the courts discovered computers, and they discovered virtual hearings, and they discovered Zoom. And now, one piece of relief for our overburdened judges is that they can do much of the work on Zoom. And we adapted as we needed. So, we’re slow to adapt, but we are an adaptable profession. And with this technology, I think we’re going to improve things.

Lindsay: I think that’s right. Yeah, I totally agree with you. What do you think is something that people misunderstand about the practice of law?

Ron: All of the above. So much, oh my gosh. Well, of course thanks to movies and television and media, people, I think, misunderstand the work. They misunderstand the challenges. Let me start with what I think is the biggest thing they misunderstand, and that is that lawyers … I think this applies to every area of practice, but I might only be referring to litigators. Lawyers don’t sell results, lawyers sell advice, sell time and advice. Those are the only two things we have to sell. Well, of course, and labor: time, advice, and labor.

So, when you come to me as a client and you present a problem, I’m going to say, “You have a case here, in my view. And here’s a strategy that I believe will work. I’m going to consult with my colleagues, but you need to know that unless we’re working on a contingency basis” … And that is a separate model. I’m not referring to that model now. “But you need to know that I’m going to work my butt off for you. I’m going to give you my time, I’m going to log my time honestly on this. I will not log one minute more than I actually spend on your case. And I will use all the expertise and all the experience and the best resources I can within the most reasonable budget that I can. And I will work to get you the result I believe you should have. But there are so many factors in the way. Judges are human. There may be a piece of evidence that hurts us, that I can’t guarantee the result, but I will work to get you that result.”

And I think the best clients understand that once you explain that to them. I’ve never told a client, “This is a slam dunk, you’re going to win this.” And maybe I should be more resolute. But I feel from a consumer side, a client-side point of view, the client understanding what they’re getting into services them best and also makes it the best for me. And as I said, unfortunately, I’ve sued a fair number of lawyers in my time for professional negligence, and often, not always, but often the issue has been one of communication, the lawyer who promised something they shouldn’t have or didn’t do the diligence that they ought to have. So, I think that would be my number one answer to your question.

Lindsay: That makes a lot of sense. I mean, the legal business is not a products business, it’s a services business. And so, results would be a product, not a service.

Ron: That’s true. I mean, that said, I don’t like losing. I try not to lose. And I haven’t done a tally, but I certainly hope I have more, far more Ws than Ls. And that’s another thing: if there’s a case that’s not winnable, the best service that I can do for you as a client is to work with the other side to bring in the dispute to a soft landing. And instead of you paying me six figures in legal fees and having to pay the other side what you owed them in the first place … and because Canada is a loser pays jurisdiction, you would have to pay at least a part if not more of the other side’s legal fees. So, if I can bring something in for landing … And the truth is, frankly, the best cases for me are the ones that I settle, because everybody walks away a bit unhappy but happy.

I love winning. I just had a nice win yesterday, and it feels good. But I’m also mindful that there’s a losing side. And they’re people too, at least in this particular case. They’re not bad people. So, as you say, it’s a service, not a product. And I think that’s the message to get out. But of course, with TV and movies, it’s glamorized and the good side always wins. And that ain’t always the case. And the worst part about television movies is that the media show the 10% of the fun bits: going to court, arguing the case. They don’t show the 90% of tedium that is necessary.

And if I may make a segue into a somewhat long-winded answer, it’s exactly the same in the arts. So I had a privilege of being an international jazz musician, and I got to play some amazing concerts. I got to make some terrific records, meet terrific musicians, share stages in cool venues. But 90% of that was either staying at home and practicing my brains out or trying to find funding for the arts, the business side of the arts, and trying to figure out how I would make the gig happen. So, I used to joke that when you hire me as a musician, the music is free, the travel and the planning is what you have to pay me for.

Lindsay: That’s right. And that’s actually a perfect segue because that’s what I wanted to talk about next, was your career as a jazz musician.

Ron: Oh well, I mean, it’s longer than my music career because I began playing in my teens professionally in the ’70s. And then I did get a little bit waylaid by law. I started law school in 1979. And then I was called to the bar after I articled in 1984. And it was over a decade when I actually wasn’t performing. I kind of set it aside. I didn’t perform. I didn’t even play much. I was focused on my legal career. And weirdly, I also took a detour into academics. I ended up doing a PhD in French Linguistics at the University of Toronto and became an assistant professor in the French department there until the ’90s. But I never went tenure track.

And I practiced law throughout. That never stopped. And it was in the ’90s that I came back to my music career. I used to joke that I was a full-time musician and a full-time lawyer, and sleep was the only thing that paid for both. And what can I say? We have a wonderful jazz scene in Toronto. It’s funny because when you go to New York, of course everyone talks about the fantastic New York jazz scene. But I feel like half the New York jazz scene is Toronto musicians. I met so many people when I’d go down there, people I grew up with or I knew.

But I was able to make my place in the Canadian jazz scene. I recorded thirteen records of which, as I said, one I was privileged to be nominated for a Juno Award. I toured the world; well, not the whole world. I did a lot in Japan. I toured Indonesia, I did a lot in the UK. And I’ll share that one story that I teased at the beginning. So, my first concerts in Tokyo were at the invitation of the Canadian government. It was a celebration in 2004 of the 75th anniversary of Canada-Japan relations after World War II. And I was invited to come play a concert in Japan. I had never yet been in Japan, and so I didn’t know what to expect. And my timing wasn’t right. I landed one day and immediately the next day I had to perform, but I’d forgotten about the 12-hour time difference. So, I barely had any time to sleep.

And Tokyo, as you may know, is a massive city. It feels like six Manhattans. And I had to find my way to the embassy with my bass player. And I made it there just in time for the concert, and we were backstage. And as I was about to go on stage, I forget, I think I had two tunes to play with three as part of the commemoration for the 75th anniversary, the cultural attaché, Canadian cultural attaché whispers in my ear, “Oh, when you go out stage, the princess is sitting in the front row.” And all of a sudden, I had this moment of shock, “Oh my gosh, I am going to be playing for royalty. Nobody told me about this.”

And lo and behold, the sister of the now-emperor, the Princess Takamado, Her Imperial Highness Princess Takamado, was sitting in the front row. And it so got me unnerved that my hands were shaking. And I was thinking, “How am I going to perform this song?” Somehow, I got through it. Somehow, the audience seemed to appreciate it. But the next step was meeting the guests of honor as one of the performers. And I had studied a little bit of Japanese, and I was trying to coax my Japanese, “What am I going to say to Her Imperial Highness?” And as I was approaching the reception line, I was at a loss. And I panicked, and I didn’t know what to say. And then I reached her highness. And she reaches out to my hand. Before I could say anything, in a perfect English accent, she says, “Oh, Mr. Davis, I so appreciated your performance.” It turned out that the princess had studied in England, and her English was impeccable. So, disaster was averted. Music was appreciated.

And the punchline is, to go back to what I said at the beginning, the Canadian Ambassador, a wonderful man, Ambassador Wright at the time, was very kind about the music and invited me to do a private concert in his foyer, in his private residence the next day. And I appeared with Ambassador Wright. And what I didn’t know is that the private concert in this space of maybe 30 square feet, it was quite tight with just a piano, was going to be for the ambassador of Sweden, ambassador of France, the governor of the Bank of Japan, of course our ambassador, and the American ambassador and his spouse.

And that American ambassador was former Senator Howard Baker with his wife, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum. And I was raised in the Watergate era. And having Howard Baker five feet away from me as I played … And I prepared it too, I prepared Battle Hymn of the Republic, a jazz version of Battle Hymn of the Republic. And Senator Baker and Senator Kassebaum were so kind. They insisted We take pictures together. Whatever I may achieve in law, whatever experience in law, nothing will replace the experience of those concerts in Japan, and meeting Senator Howard Baker and Senator Kassebaum. I have more stories, but there’s only so much time and so much attention span.

Lindsay: That is wild and incredible. I mean, wow, just two amazing stories. And I’m sure everybody is going to want to find you and hear more.

Ron: Well, actually, I am on Spotify, please, and the other streaming services, under my name, Ron Davis. I had a band called Symphronica. So that’s another name you’ll find me under. But I love networking with our colleagues. And of course, this podcast is under the banner of the ILN, the network. And so, I invite any listeners to email me at Fogler, Rubinoff. And if you have a CD player, I would love nothing more than to share one of my 13 CDs with you. I’d be more than pleased to mail out a signed CD to share the music. I’m no longer a professional musician. I had a great career. It’s time to make room for the young ones. And also, this just in, jazz music is not the most profitable enterprise. And there comes a time in one’s life when one must focus on one’s financial security as one ages. So, I’m now fully dedicated to law, but I still have CDs. I’m happy to share them.

Lindsay: That’s wonderful. I will definitely link those; links in the show notes for everybody. And I do have a couple of copies of your CDs that are signed. And I’ve seen you perform, so I can attest to your talent as well. So, I invite everybody to reach out to you. And as I said, I will link those things in the show notes.

Ron: Thank you. It’s really a privilege. And I do have a fond memory of performing for one of the ILN conferences up here in Toronto. And so, when people came in, I was a musician, but then when the music was done, I was one of the participants. So that was a wonderful moment. And as I’m sure other people have told you with ILN, I made some lasting friendships there and at other times through ILN.

Lindsay: I’m so glad to hear that. That’s one of the most meaningful things for us and one of the beauties of our organization, is those lasting friendships. So that’s what I really love the most about our group.

Ron: Indeed. Well, here, here. I don’t know if I got any gigs out of it, but …

Lindsay: I know, that’s’-

Ron: Music gigs. Music gigs, of course, music.

Lindsay: Right, right, right. Right. Hopefully, you will have gotten some referrals. If not, those are on their way, I’m sure.

Ron: No, most definitely. And I’ve had some wonderful experiences in the reverse, working with some of my ILN colleagues in Quebec, in Germany, I’m sure elsewhere … oh, in France, through ILN. So, it literally is an international network.

Lindsay: Wonderful. Well, there’s one final question I always like to ask everybody before we wrap up. What is one thing that you’re doing right now that you’re enjoying that has nothing to do with work, or in this case, music, that you’re really enjoying?

Ron: Talking to you?

Lindsay: Outside of talking to me.

Ron: Because I am enjoying it.

Lindsay: Good.

Ron: I am enjoying it. And for me, this has nothing to do with work. I am embarrassed to tell you that I don’t have an easy answer to that. So, what I would say is this, is that because when I was doing music, I was taking so much time away from law, that I am now, as I say, in my 40th year, making up for all the lost time. So, I’m working crazy. But if I really thought about it for a moment, the answer today in 2024 would be the same as the answer in 1984 when I became a lawyer. And that is reading some fantastic novels, which is a great hobby of mine.

And I’m going to give a plug here to a fellow Toronto lawyer. Robert Rotenberg is a brilliant Toronto criminal lawyer with a specialized practice in family disputes, but he’s also a writer of murder mysteries; and not just your everyday murder mysteries, but solid ones. And they’re all based in Toronto. It’s becoming a bit of a cool city. Recently, there was … Oh, what’s the television series in legal affairs? It tells the series that-

Lindsay: Suits?

Ron: No, CSI. CSI.

Lindsay: Oh, CSI. Okay.

Ron: Well, Suits is filmed in Toronto. Yes, thank you. But there is a CSI Toronto now, yes. And so, Toronto’s becoming cool. And Robert Rotenberg, his murder mysteries are absolutely terrific. They’re obviously fully legally informed with Canadian law. So, it’s a little bit different, if our international listeners want to know what the Canadian justice system is like. They are brilliantly written, and he just released a new one. And that is what I enjoy. Well, I guess I gave you a law answer after all, didn’t I? Sorry, Lindsay. I was trying to get away from it, but it is a novel, and I love novels [inaudible 00:38:37].

Lindsay: Me too. And I love mysteries, so I’m definitely going to be looking him up and reading those, because that’s one of my passions.

Ron: If I’ve left you with nothing from this time, Lindsay, and too often I do leave people with nothing, I’ve at least left you with Robert Rotenberg and his name as an author. So, it’s a win. Taking it as a win.

Lindsay: Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. Lots of wins today. I’ve really enjoyed this.

Ron: Cool. Likewise.

Lindsay: Well, thank you so much, Ron, for joining us this week, and thank you so much to all of our listeners. We’ll be back next week with our next guest. And in the meantime, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe to our podcasts on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. When you take some time to rate us, hopefully you will give us a five-star review or leave us a review. That really helps other listeners to find us. And thank you so much.

Ron: Thank you, Lindsay.