How to order pizza like a lawyer | Steve Reed | TEDxNorthwesternU

Can using law school training improve how you order a pizza? Law professor Steve Reed believes so.

Using his expertise as a clinical professor of law at Northwestern Law and as the assistant director at the Entrepreneurship Law Center, Steve Reed will demonstrate the benefits (and drawbacks) of legal thinking and analysis when applied to everyday life.

Steve Reed is a clinical professor of law, the assistant director of the Entrepreneurship Law Center, and co-director of the JD-MBA Program at Northwestern University School of Law. In the clinical program of the Entrepreneurship Law Center, Reed works with students to represent start-ups, more mature companies, and social entrepreneurs in a variety of transactional matters. In the classroom, he teaches Business Associations, Advanced Corporate Law and Mergers & Acquisitions, and co-teaches Entrepreneurship Law. Reed also co-teaches Law and the Entrepreneur, a Massive Open Online Course offered by Northwestern University and Coursera that attracted over 35,000 students worldwide in its first session.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

There's a family-owned restaurant
in Morton Grove, Illinois,

called Burt's Place.

It's a pizza joint,
but actually, more than that,

it's the place where you can get
the best pan pizza,

certainly in the Chicagoland area,
and I bet anywhere in the country.

The pizza's made by Burt Katz,

and it's served to you
by Burt's wife, Sharon.

Now, let me tell you about a recent trip
I made with my family to Burt's.

We walked in, seated right away,

were served antipasto salads
that were phenomenal.

Just as we were finishing our salads,

the pizza arrives.

It's got this caramelized crust around,
not too much cheese, the delicious sauce.

We ate the pizza,
chatting with each other.

At one point, Sharon came over,
served us some more pizza,

chatted with us for a while.

Compliments to the chef,
pay the check, and leave happy.

That was our experience
the last time at Burt's,

and that's always
our experience at Burt's.

Well, now let me tell you

about some experiences
I've seen other people have at Burt's.

I've seen a couple arrive to a restaurant
that was basically empty

except for us and one other family

and be told they're going
to have to wait two hours.

I saw someone scoffed at
for trying to order an appetizer.

I saw someone scolded
for serving themselves -

scalded, scolded -

they didn't scald themselves -
maybe they did -

scolded for serving themselves
another slice of pizza.

And I saw someone barked at sharply
in a foreign language

for trying to pay their bill.

So, what?

Like how is it that we have
these amazing experiences at Burt's

and other people have these awkward
to terrible experiences at Burt's?

What's the difference?

I've thought about it a lot,
and I've figured it out.

The difference is that I'm a lawyer,

and I think like a lawyer,

and these other people are non-lawyers,

who think the way normal people
are supposed to think.

So what do I mean when I say
"thinking like a lawyer"?

Well, before I went to law school,

I thought I had a pretty good idea
about what it was to be a lawyer.

I mean, I'd seen "Matlock" and "L.A. Law,"

so I figured lawyers
were super good-looking,

fierce advocates for their clients,

a little cool, maybe,
on the personality scale,

and wore a ton of seersucker.

And if you watch any kind
of lawyer shows today in pop culture -

"The Good Wife"
or anything like that, "Suits" -

you probably think lawyers
are even better looking

than I thought they were,

plus, again, this sort
of cool professionalism,

maybe not so loyal
in their personal relationships,

and fierce advocates for their clients.

Well, we all know

drawing lessons from pop culture
about a profession is dangerous.

I watch "The Big Bang Theory,"

but I don't think that makes me
an expert on physics or physicists.

I know what "bazinga" means,
but that's about it.

(Laughter)

But there are some truths
we see in pop culture about lawyers.

They're fierce advocates
for their clients,

they are cool and professional,

and on a per capita basis,

definitely more seersucker
than the average person in the population.

But there's more than that
that makes a lawyer a lawyer.

What really makes a lawyer a lawyer

is that they approach problems
and think like a lawyer.

So what do I mean by that?

Well, there's two kind of connected ideas.

One is lawyers study rules obsessively.

Those rules might come from, let's say,

the criminal code
that says it's a crime to steal,

or they may come from a contract
like online terms and conditions -

and even lawyers
just usually click "I agree" -

or might come from
the United States Constitution.

But in any event,
lawyers study obsessively rules.

We try to understand them
in all their nuance,

and that allows us to avoid
the kinds of intuitive thinking

that are so helpful in normal life.

But in legal life, you need to understand
and obsess over those rules.

That's the first thing lawyers do.

But the second, interconnected thing

is that we then help our clients
to navigate those rules

to accomplish their goals.

So there are three primary ways

that lawyers help their clients
sort of work with rules.

I'll explain those to you today,

and then I'll show you

how you can use those
in your everyday life.

The first thing that lawyers do

once they have
a comprehension of the rules

is they help their clients
navigate through,

they guide their clients
through the rules.

Not like a tour guide who says,

"Oh, this is the arch, this is the rock."

I mean like a mountaineering guide,

who takes you through a treacherous pass
with lots of ways to make a false step,

and you come out in one piece.

That's the guiding lawyers do.

I'll give you an example from my practice.

I work at the Northwestern
Entrepreneurship Law Center

with a lot of tech entrepreneurs,
which is pretty cool.

Recently, four tech entrepreneurs
came into the center,

and they wanted to set up a new company.

Great, very normal for us.

They wanted to all have
an equal vote in it.

Great, no problem.

But the thing that was unusual

is that they owned
different percentages of the business

but they wanted their vote to be the same.

So the person who owned
10% of the business

would get the same vote
as the person who owned 60%.

Now, that's unusual.

The other thing they wanted

was to not have a board of directors
or that kind of formal thing.

We're thinking about this problem -

how can we get them through the rules
to where they want to go?

If we set up a corporation
for them, the normal thing,

then you need a board,

and it's complicated
to do the voting that way,

and that's not a perfect fit.

So we navigate them over
to the limited liability company statute -

which is another way
you can form a business entity -

and set them up that way.

There, it's normal to separate voting
from economics, and it all worked out.

So that's the first thing that lawyers do:
navigate through rules.

We're not helping them
break the rules or sidestep rules;

we're navigating them through rules.

The second thing that lawyers do

is we layer rules
on top of existing rules.

You've definitely seen this in life;
you experience it every day.

If you check into a hotel,
you initial the registration card.

If you go to a public pool,
you see a sign posted with various rules.

These are rules
layered on top of the rules

that we all have to adhere to.

So, going back to my tech entrepreneurs.

They had this notion

that they wanted all their decisions
to be made on a majority basis.

Since there were four of them -

three of the four agree,
then that's what happens.

And again, pretty normal.

The limited liability company statute
says majority rules on almost everything.

Notice what I said: "almost everything."

Some things, like selling the business,
require, usually, a unanimous vote.

You can't force someone
to sell their ownership stake.

So what do we do?

We write them a contract,

which is how lawyers
layer rules on top of rules,

and that contract then says,

if a majority of us
agree to sell the business,

we'll all go along with it,
vote how we need to vote,

sign what we need to sign,
make sure the business gets sold.

It's a drag-along agreement;

it's what we wrote for our clients,

and that was layering a rule on a rule.

Okay.

The third thing that lawyers
do with their clients

in helping them get through rules

is we have this concept
called "changing jurisdiction" -

if you don't like the rules
where you are, go somewhere else.

It's the same idea as a college student
doing spring break in Montreal,

where the drinking age is 18.

Even if it's the wrong time
to go to Montreal,

but you go there
because you can drink, right?

So what you do is if you don't like
the rules where you are,

you shift somewhere else.

So, my tech clients.

They want to form an LLC;
they're all based in Illinois.

So it makes sense
we should start up in Illinois

under the laws of the State of Illinois -

start up an LLC under the laws
of the State of Illinois.

But there are a few things
about the Illinois LLC statute

that aren't ideal for attracting investors

and the way they wanted
to run the business.

So we studied other states.

Are there other places
they could form this business?

And we looked all around
and found - hey, look,

they can form this business
under the laws of the State of Delaware,

a state none of them had ever visited,

a state most people
don't ever bother to go to

unless those people are the legal persons
we call "corporations" or "LLCs,"

which love Delaware.

Delaware has a really
business-friendly kind of law.

So we set them up in Delaware.

They're still here,
but we shifted jurisdictions,

moved them where they wanted to go.

So we've got three strategies.

We've got guiding through
like a mountaineering guide,

we've got layering rules on top of rules,

and we've got switching jurisdictions.

And we can see all of those at play
in our daily lives.

There are rules around you,
whether you know it or not,

everywhere you look.

We've got them in the office, at school;

we've got them on the streets,
and we've got them in our homes.

And we can use legal thinking
to navigate through those rules.

So let's run a real-world example,
and let's get back to Burt's Place.

At Burt's, we'll see an example
of all three of these legal strategies.

So the first thing to know is that Burt's

has to comply with whatever laws
they have for pizza restaurants.

There's like the health code,
the labor code;

the village of Morton Grove
has a bunch of rules

about running restaurants.

Burt and Sharon Katz
have layered on top of those rules

a whole new set of rules.

They're codified,

and they're in a written document

that you can get right now
outside of Burt's Place.

It's called the menu.

Just walk over, pull one out.

So let's take a look at Burt's menu,
as lawyers, the way I would look at it,

and see if we can get any clues
about what the rules are.

Okay, so look at the top -

"Pizza for grown-ups."

Okay, we might bring my kids there,
but maybe there's a loophole.

And then underneath that -
"On time every time."

That's telling me these people
are concerned about timing.

If I wanted more evidence of that,
I flip the menu over to the back -

"For service at its best
please call ahead."

See the word "please"
is in all caps and underlined?

They're not saying "please."

This isn't a request; this is a command.

(Laughter)

Want to know if it's a command?

It's also inside the menu -

"For service at its best
please call ahead."

First time we went to Burt's,
called ahead the day before -

they like at least a day's notice.

What do you want to order?

I told them everything we wanted.

You want an appetizer? Sure.

How about salads?
What dressing on the salad?

Okay, I go over the dressing.

What do you want to drink?

I didn't know that.

That's okay - they can
be flexible on drinks.

Everything else, you need to do.

So if these are the rules at Burt's Place,

then what do you think they think
of someone showing up unannounced?

Is that "Please call ahead
for service at its best"?

No, right?

So you're going to wait two hours -
then it's like you called ahead, okay,

even though the restaurant's
completely empty.

What about ordering an appetizer?

You get there, you're like "I didn't know
you had onion rings - great idea."

Does that sound like
"On time every time"? No.

You're throwing off the whole schedule!

Follow the rules.

Remember I told you there was a customer

who was barked at
for trying to pay his bill?

He was trying to pay by credit card,

and the foreign word
that was yelled at him was "Nyet!"

You can't pay by credit card at Burt's;

it's a cash-only operation, baby.

They'll take checks if they have to,

but it's really a cash-only operation.

Do they have an ATM at Burt's?

It's not a frigging bank;
it's a pizza restaurant.

You go down the street to the ATM.

Sharon will wait; she trusts you.

Come back with the cash, okay?

That's how you have
a successful experience at Burt's.

There's other rules
that I admit aren't written down

that you have to get to know at Burt's.

Don't serve yourself a piece of pizza.

You are not a barbarian.

Sharon will do that for you.

Should you compliment the chef?

Yes, it's mandatory -
it must be done before you leave.

Don't ask for the check too early,

or there's a half-hour penalty
per request for the check.

You've got to time that just right.

But if you follow all these rules,
you'll have a great experience at Burt's.

Okay, ordering pizza is one thing,

and after this session's over,

I can tell you where to stand
in line at Costco -

got a legal analysis of that -

ordering at the drive-through at KFC,

even mowing your lawn -
I've got some really good stuff on that.

But these are all kind of transactional,

maybe mundane, normal things
we do in our lives.

What about something a bit more profound?

What if we talk about
personal relationships?

The relationships
that we have with each other,

romantic and otherwise.

One thing we should recognize
in terms of the first -

this guiding through the rules -

everyone starts
with a set of baseline rules.

These are common
across our society and our culture.

Things like you say hello to somebody
or hi or hey when you greet them.

Things like you should like your friends,
and your friends should like you.

Things like you should love your lovers,
and they should love you,

depending on the duration,

but there should be some kind
of at least affection or attraction there.

These are baseline rules.

Can't get around them; they're just there.

But on top of that, in our society,
we layer on additional rules.

We do that in two ways.

First, as individuals,

we each layer on our own set of rules.

If you think about yourself,

maybe you're the kind of person
who likes to receive compliments.

Maybe you like to give compliments.

Do you like to laugh along with people?
Do you like to get a laugh?

And so that kind of normal thing
about human interaction.

Does this work for love and attraction?

You betcha.

Maybe you've got a rule:

I like someone to wow me
with their physique,

maybe to wow you with their intellect,

maybe to wow you
with their sense of humor.

You've got your own rules
that you've built

and stacked on top of our basic rules

that guide what you're looking for.

Once you understand that framework
and think about your own rules,

just swipe your way
through Tinder to happiness.

You'll find the right person.

(Laughter)

But in addition to these rules
that we have for ourselves -

and you have to recognize
everyone else has their stack of rules

that they've layered
up on top of themselves -

when you're in a friendship
or other relationship with people,

you build relationships.

That's where you build the contracts
that lawyers build.

So, to take an example from my life.

My wife, Jessica,
she views doing dishes as a chore.

I view doing dishes as a privilege.

To me, it's like my meditative moment.

And if you want a sort of legal analysis
of how you should load the dishwasher,

I got that ready.

But I love it; I love doing it.

So we've set up a contract
in our relationship:

I do the dishes.

Everybody wins.

But It doesn't have to be procedural,
like how you squeeze toothpaste -

those dumb things.

Also on more profound things

that are more important
to a relationship.

Things like monogamy,

or faith and morality,

or questions like,
are we going to have kids?

How many kids will we have?

All those kinds of things

are additional contracts
that you make in a relationship.

Now, so that's guiding through rules,

now we're layering on rules.

What about changing jurisdictions?

I remember 20 years ago,

sitting on a rooftop
with some friends of mine in college,

high on life and marijuana,

(Laughter)

and thinking to myself,

with the relationship
I was in at the time,

thinking to myself, you know,
I'm not following the rules here.

We've got fundamental rules
in this relationship,

and I'm in what lawyers would call
"breach of contract."

I was in material breach of contract.

So what should I do here?

The answer is pretty clear:
change jurisdictions.

We broke up.

A couple of years later,
I met this wonderful woman, Jessica,

who became my wife,
mother of my two children.

Worked out.

Now I have no trouble following
the contract - we got it worked out.

And it sounds maybe overly analytical -

it's that easy.

If the contract isn't working,
you find you're breaching it, get out.

Find yourself a new jurisdiction.

(Laughter)

So that's about it.

(Laughter)

I do want to say that like
any analytical approach,

legal thinking has its limits.

You have to use it judiciously.

It's not good, but that's a legal pun.

You've got to use it judiciously.

(Laughter)

So, you know, you can come off
as cold and analytical.

When Jess says, "Don't lawyer me on this,"
then I know I've gone too far.

Also, when I was in law school
and a couple years afterwards,

I totally lost my sense of humor.

So I understood the rule
that there are jokes,

I understood you should laugh at them,

and I even recognized
when they were being told.

"Why did the chicken cross the road?"

That joke, in my mind I'd be like,

chickens live in pens

(Laughter)

or hen houses.

And they are terrified birds;

they are not going near a car.

(Laughter)

Right? But you learn how to laugh along.

You can't take legal thinking too far.

But if you remember these things -

guide yourself through the rules,

notice how we layer on
the rules and build contracts,

change jurisdictions when necessary -

legal thinking can help improve your life.

Thanks.

(Applause)