Bench & Bar January/February 2026

W e often hear people say that “law school teaches you how to think as a lawyer,” but it is often also noted that law school does not prepare you for how to practice law. The practice of law remains largely an apprentice pro fession, and we learn how to be lawyers by practicing with and observing other, more experienced lawyers. Some of us are blessed to have worked with wise and skilled attor neys who took us under their wings and became tremendous mentors. I was fortu nate to have “studied under” a number of incredible lawyers who helped guide my career and shape how I approach the prac tice of law. Two mentors I had the privilege to learn under are Charles E. (“Charlie”) Shivel, Jr., and John T. (“Jack”) Ballantine. These two tremendous lawyers taught me the importance of extensive preparation for arguments, depositions, and presentations. They taught me how to craft arguments. They taught me that some issues were simply not material and that some battles were not worth waging. They instilled in me the importance of maintaining a solid reputation for being honest in the practice of law, and of remaining professional, while remembering always that ours is a profes sion requiring us to treat one another with respect. CHARLES E. SHIVEL, JR. When I first arrived at what was then Stoll, Keenon & Park LLP, in October 2000, one of the two business and commercial litigation partners I was assigned to work with was Charlie Shivel. A graduate of Berea College and the University of Kentucky School of Law, Charlie was a seasoned litigator and a demanding boss who worked each case thoroughly and who expected those work ing on the case with him to work just as hard. If Charlie was working on a case over the weekend, then it was understood that you would be in the office as well. But this was not mere face time; these were moments of collaborating, strategizing, and learning to be a better lawyer. One of Charlie’s common refrains was: “What do the Rules say? If you don’t know

the Rules, you can’t play the game.” Those of us who worked with and under Charlie often heard some form of that refrain, and it helped us develop as lawyers because there was real meaning behind the saying. First, it was a subtle reminder that, to be a good litigator – or any lawyer – one needs to have a solid understanding of whichever Rules may apply to the issue one is addressing. The “Rules” in question could be the Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, the local Rules of Court, or even the Rules of Professional Conduct. Hearing that refrain (or knowing we would hear that refrain) when meeting with Charlie rein forced the importance of having more than a casual command of the Rules, especially because the answer, in whole or in part, could often be found in the Rules or their annotations. This “what do the Rules say” refrain also instilled both a level of self-reliance and the discipline of first searching for the answer on one’s own before approaching Charlie with the issue at hand. If only to prevent the embarrassment of asking a question whose answer would have been obvious if only for a bit of digging into the Rules or substan tive law, one would first try to answer the question oneself. This resulted, of course, in preparing for a discussion with Charlie by thinking through and researching various angles, and only then approaching him with the issue. This focus on preparation was also evident in how Charlie approached the practice of law. Whether it was an upcoming deposi tion he was taking, or an oral argument he planned to make, no one was going to be more prepared than Charlie. He was deter mined to know the facts and the law better than the opposition so that no one could claim he had not done his best due to lack of preparation. It was also professionally satisfying to develop case strategy with Charlie, as he was very intentional about how he liti gated his cases. When I began working at Stoll, Keenon & Park, a number of the cases Charlie had me working on were coal

mine litigation cases, where underground coal mine maps often played a key role in telling the story of what had happened. As a young lawyer, I had the privilege of helping Charlie take a deposition of an underground mine operator and saw how, during that deposition, Charlie walked the mine operator through questions about what had happened in such a way that the eventual “cold” deposition transcript would clearly portray what had happened in the various parts of the mine. Before we left for the deposition, Charlie made sure we brought with us a number of different colored markers to use with the large mine maps that would be deposition exhibits. To allow the reader of the depo sition transcript to more easily visualize where on the map something might have happened, Charlie would, for example, take a blue highlighter and, on the record, state that he was marking with the blue high lighter a “B” with a circle on deposition Exhibit 2, a map of the mine. Charlie would then proceed to ask the deponent about events that had allegedly occurred in that area of the mine marked by the blue-colored “Circle B.” Charlie would then proceed to mark another part of the map in a different color and proceed accordingly. This is just one example of Charlie’s focus on preparation and intentionality. He had, of course, taken the time to go over all of the issues in advance of the deposition, but he had also thought ahead about how he needed to present the questions to the deponent so that, at the end of the deposi tion, the transcript was clear. Charlie was not haphazardly marking the map with his highlighter; he knew in advance exactly what he wanted or needed. It was this insis tence on both preparing and thinking in advance of any number of possibilities that was Charlie’s hallmark. He was determined to put in the work to be the most prepared person on the case. JOHN T. BALLANTINE. Jack Ballantine was the quintessential “gen tleman and scholar,” having received his undergraduate degree from the University

7

bench & bar