Transcript
Hello and welcome back to the
Australian Law Student Podcast.
I'm your host Oliver Hammond,
and in today's episode we're
joined by Professor Bronwyn
Morgan from UNSW, Sydney.
Originally from Zimbabwe,
Professor Morgan has a Bachelor
of Laws and Arts from the
University of Sydney and a PhD
in Jurisprudence and Social
Policy from the University of
California, Berkeley.
She's also taught at the
University of Oxford for six
years and brings a wealth of
knowledge to this episode.
In the episode, she shares her
perspective on the intersection
of law, society and justice, and
whether you're interested in the
socio legal dimensions of the
law, or perhaps how legal
frameworks adapt to societal
changes, this is sure to be an
episode you won't want to miss.
So without further ado, sit
back, relax and enjoy the
podcast.
Hello, Bronwyn Morgan.
Thank you for joining me on
today's podcast.
Pleasure.
Great to be here.
So you've been an academic at
UNSW Law school now for over 10
years and have an extensive
teaching background, especially
when it comes to legal theory,
socio, legal studies and
jurisprudence.
My first question to you is, is
how would you explain the study
of legal theory and what's LED
you to become so interested in
it in it?
So I like to think of the study
of legal theory in terms of the
work it does in the world,
actually, although it's commonly
said, you know, legal theory
leads you to define the concept
of law, that's that's exactly,
in a way, what I'd like to move
away from.
Although it's important to have
definitions, it's the sense of
understanding at a fundamental
level in relation to concepts
like power and agency, freedom,
fairness, coercion, the work
that law actually does in the in
the practical world in in the
context of other institutions.
And so for me, it's always, it
is always a socio legal
endeavor.
That's that's my interest in it
is it.
And if you step back and think
that law is is a human construct
and yet it seems to operate as
this external power, that's the
source of fascination.
It's it's not out there.
It's it's within us, but we give
it this solid form and then it
appears to be out there doing
things to other people.
But studying rigorously, what
happens when you apply law in a
particular situation?
And then, and especially when it
doesn't work, I think that's
what also led me to be
interested in theory is we're
taught in law school, this is
the law.
And there's an assumption that
once it's on the books it will
happen.
And then when it doesn't happen,
there's disappointment, but
there's actually really
systematic ways in which always
falls short of what it promised
to do.
So how do we justify that?
Yeah.
And I suppose talking about the
I mean that idea that the law is
simultaneously created by us yet
sort of we give it this this
power that it's that it's not is
that is that is that kind of a a
thought that's perhaps developed
over time this idea I mean
obviously there is so it's well
known that the law perhaps has
religious connotations or
connotations from sort of a
higher power.
What is this idea of human the
human sort of construction which
is beyond humanity itself.
Who do you think is is the is
the influencer in in relation to
this and and how does how should
society go about looking at the
law if if if it is a human
construct should we still see it
with this kind of yeah sort of
validity in that it's it it it
is higher than than.
Yeah, that's a great question
because there I think maybe
there's a human.
In fact, my daughter right now
is writing for Religion and
Society about whether there's a
biologically wired impulse in
humans to to turn to something
outside it and that it calls
religion, whether it's religion
or not.
And and perhaps people sometimes
place too much faith in law
because of the decline of
religion in some societies as a
source of authority.
And certainly the desire for law
to have a right answer, which is
very strong, especially from non
lawyers.
I think it's probably related to
to the impulse that people had
to defer to religious values.
But it's also good to I think
remember longer history when
there were, you know more
pluralistic religions with
multiple gods and and and gods
that were fallible and and and
did the wrong things sometimes.
But then the idea that there's
an authority outside of humanity
that can resolve that, yeah, I
think there's been a a a bit of
a back and forth between trying
to externalise that sense of
authority and and having more
optimistic faith that through
human dialogue between different
groups we can do it ourselves.
Yeah.
And so in a way it's kind of
this idea that the law is a a
tool that we can kind of shape
and shift in the way that we see
fit.
And so with with society, should
we try and create it in a way
that creates certain results in
in society?
Yes, well, that's so that's the
the whole idea of law as an
instrument and a tool is is
almost common sense now.
But yeah, it wasn't, as you say,
if you took law as a precept,
handed down as a natural law of
God, then it's very different
from being a a tool.
It's more like a moral code.
I mean, I I think one of the
really interesting some things
about legal theory in the
current context is how can law
become a tool for certain social
purposes without becoming
authoritarian?
So how, how do we construct a, a
legal order that's open to
plural versions of what's a good
social purpose?
Because there's never one
opinion on what's a good social
purpose.
And we've got the democratic
representative system in the in
sort of that laws embedded
inside to help promote pluralism
and A and a sort of a liberal
view of what counts as a good
social purpose.
So if we can get law and those
democratic institutions to be in
a positive dialogue with each
other, then I think law as an
instrument works, but otherwise
it veers towards
authoritarianity.
Yeah, yeah.
And so it can be kind of used
for, yeah, the the purposes of
few rather than the purposes of
of perhaps the the, the, the
wider democracy.
However, even in a more
democratic system, there are
people on the fringes that get
left out and that's that's
obviously, you know, I I think a
very famous quote about
democracy.
I don't know about George
Washington or something.
I've heard it.
But it is it.
It's yeah, two walls and a lamb
sitting down at a dinner table
and deciding what to have for
dinner.
And so it's kind of, it is kind
of perhaps it's it's better more
of a a view on democracy rather
than a view on the law itself.
But how do you think the law can
be more inclusive to ensure that
the people at the at the
fringes, the people perhaps in
low socio economic standing or
people who have disabilities and
that sort of thing, the the
people who are often perhaps
less of a voice, how how do how
do we incorporate that in a more
legal instrumentalist
perspective?
Oh, huge question.
I mean, because it catches the
the sort of debate between more
radically critical views of of
law and ones that that have that
more liberal view that I
outlined earlier.
So I suppose if you're going in
tune with the more liberal view
and you've got to fine tune that
system for it to become more
inclusive, then one method is to
to really push along the lines
of law's fairness, if you like,
and that we must push law to
become both fairer in both
process and substance for all
these groups.
And so I mean being very
reductionist, if you, if you
kind of pass different pieces of
legal frameworks that protect
these different groups from
discrimination, you get a range
of of rights against
discrimination and you see that
happening with sort of an
additional indices of
disadvantage added and then a
legal framework around each of
those to address that.
But I I do think that there's a
really important place for
having a different kind of
conversation which would be what
would it mean, for example, if
this is not the only way but to
have a more systemic shift in
how we design our underlying
institutions.
Say for example, the degree of
market economy and
prioritization of economic
growth is not it's it's a quasi
legal issue.
It's it's cast more as
economics.
But if you redesign the system
so that there was more instead
of redistributing to
disadvantaged groups after the
fact that you had more shared
ownership of property at the,
you know, in the early stages
some institutional imagination
around enterprise design and
using things like common zone
cooperatives to to redesign the
economic system, then you're
going to have more inclusion.
If you do that well of
disadvantaged groups through
system change rather than
through targeted legal
instruments ended each group and
you get a lot of hostility.
You can feel a lot of political
hostility from certain sections
of society saying on, you know,
we can't cope with yet another
angle of justice claim, I
suppose.
It is, but perhaps.
There's we need to step back and
rethink the bigger.
Picture.
Well yeah.
I suppose that that's the
question.
Are we too far entrenched in our
ways to perhaps revert to that?
I mean I think I think there's
definitely a branch of of
academics and and and people who
are looking to try and create
change who yes would like to
sort of yes, we're open to this
idea of perhaps more radical
change of sort of repealing and
then perhaps.
Yeah.
Trying to create the actual
foundations of the law in a
different perspective.
However they kind of accept that
where we are at now is too far
in and that perhaps what a
better like yeah, so so trying
to take, OK this is the past and
this is what we have to work
with.
I mean, is is that perhaps too
conservative of a view?
No it's and I think the
structure of legal legal work
the way I mean law is built on
precedent and even if we study
it as a social instrument
there's there's a logic to the
way that law works that you
can't completely let go and
start on a fresh page and if you
do it's literally becomes
revolution rather than law and
this is but but yes I I I think
it's just like do you know those
projects where you rewrite
judgments from alternative
perspectives.
So something like that, which is
working with the existing legal
material, but the feminist
judgments or the wild law book
of judgments, you know, from the
non human perspective, it just
says, OK, here's the material.
But I'm going to start with a
really different subjective
consciousness, which isn't just
mine individually, but I've I've
had these discussions with a
whole lot of other women or
ecologists or whoever it is and
I'm seeing the world
differently.
What does it look like if I do
this particular case a different
way?
That's quite a a nice balance
and that at least opens up
thinking about well what could
we change in an incremental way
as you say.
And so I suppose what's again at
the at the core of the law and
and the way that it it is able
to be sort of perhaps respected
and regarded in such a sort of
fundamental thing that holds
society together is I don't know
if this is perhaps again maybe a
bit cynical but this idea of
force or this idea that the
state has the right to use force
in in in yeah sort of enforcing
the transaction they're able to
use force and have a means of
violence and that sort of thing
is is that is is in what way
does that play into your
understandings of of socio legal
theory and and and do you think
that there are other things that
obviously underpin it because I
think a lot of people still
follow the law even if they
there isn't you know the even in
even the possibility of of doing
that you know doing something in
your own private house that
might be a little bit illegal
something I don't know
downloading a illegal movie or
something like that people might
do even though that they're the
sort of threat of.
So they they might not do that,
even though that the threat of
violence isn't there, is there?
Is there still something in the
human sort of psyche that is
perhaps, yeah, it is this want
or desire for something higher
than ourselves.
Well, or or well, I definitely
think there's something more,
but I wouldn't necessarily say
it's higher, it's more, it's
it's more horizontally shared.
So a sense of shared norms and
shared morality, which isn't
it's tacit often but if law gets
too far out of step with that,
then there is that phrase as you
said the what's it, the state
has the legitimate monopoly of
violence.
I remember finding that quite
shocking when I was studying
law, because it didn't occur to
me in the way that law was
taught.
We were never reminded that
literally, if you don't pay the
debt, you know you can have the
bailiff at your door and a
violent removal of your
possessions.
It's always got that.
But as you say, most many people
will follow the law for other
reasons.
Perhaps that shared sense of
communal morality feels a bit
like the same way a religious
precept is.
Sort of a cultural but.
It's more cultural, yeah, and
variable across and across
different groups.
Yeah.
And so I was just about to say
that because it is variable
across different groups, I mean
the what we're talking about
this now is obviously a lot of
disagreement among the
international community, for
example, with events going on in
the Middle East.
And is, is, is this idea that
just because I mean the other
thing is with with international
law, it's this idea that bigger
states are able to kind of the
enforcers of it.
There's this sort of I think
it's an Austinian viewpoint
where it's this idea that
international law is only so
effective as to the point which
again it's enforceable by bigger
states or perhaps the collective
of countries and look at things
like the the Nuremberg trials
and that sort of thing that
that's where that sort of comes
to effect.
Whereas in a domestic sense, if
you have different groups that
are all coming together, does
that perhaps pose an issue I
think for society or this sort
of cultural Does there need to
be a point where cultural
differences can be celebrated
and but there needs to be some
level of underlying underlying
beliefs and values that can keep
the yeah, and does the law play
that function?
Oh gosh, it goes.
That goes very, yeah.
The particular way you ask the
question goes goes into the
international law realm quite a
bit, which I realized listening
to you, I don't.
I never think on that scale, by
instinct, if that makes sense
because but the history of
international law has been a
very limited use.
I mean, there is the use of
force and that becomes, as you
say, very contentious.
But the existence of multiple
groups and the toleration and
celebration of that within a
national state that is operating
on a Liberal Democratic basis,
there's a kind of a commitment
to supporting that sort of
plurality and freedom.
But then across nations, other
nations might choose to do
something differently and then
that's a more of a non
interference principle unless
there's significant harm going
on.
So it goes, yeah, whether
there's a a non positivistic way
to explain that, I I think I'm
sure there is.
The international relations
scholars are quite or
historically were quite
impatient with the international
law people saying it really is
just power.
Yeah, yeah.
But I think we're all
increasingly globally
interconnected in a way that
that sense of a cultural and
sociological force is able to
operate across the whole globe
when the news is so
instantaneous and and there's
such rapid reactions.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I think that that that yeah,
again that globalization of of
economics of cultures and I
think of understanding what's
sort of going on in the world a
lot more definitely is a great
way to yeah, kind of have this
dialogue in relation to the law.
And I'll suppose move on to
another change tact and move on
to another question.
I just wanted to take the
opportunity to do something a
little different.
I mean, we have been and we've
been discussing concepts in the
law.
And as an experienced academic
like yourself, when people think
of law and education as a
fundamental concept, that's
often not too far away, and
that's the idea of justice.
Drawing on your experience,
could you give us your
perspective on the concept of
justice and in today's society,
it's relationship with the law?
Oh OK another huge question but
I yeah, I think that's been a
thread of quite a bit of what
we've been saying is that when
when law is doesn't fit with
community perceptions of justice
or whether they come from
religion in some circumstances
you know what then happens.
I mean I I used to there's there
isn't 1 technical way of
teaching law is to sort of
disavow the connection and
really teach it as a technical
technical business.
That is is about chains of
authority that justify their
authority on the basis of rules
that aren't directly connected
to any sense of justice.
And it it's it's nice if they
overlap but it's coincidental.
But I think I remember asking
students in legal theory class
in an early class, you know what
most disappointed you about your
law studies so far?
Just as a way of trying to get
people to sort of step back from
the minutiae of every class and
start the class with a big open
mind.
And.
And often the, I would say the
answers revolved around two
kinds of aspects of the law.
One was more it's complexity and
cost and slowness and the
difficulty of actually using it
as a as an instrument or a tool
at all.
But the other was the the
feeling that the divorce between
Law and Justice was really quite
disillusioning.
Yeah, Yeah, so, so, I mean,
legal theory is 1 route to
reinvigorate, But I hope that I,
I feel, think we all at UNSW
feel like our teaching is
infused.
I mean, we've got references to
Justice in the mission
statements.
And tag lines.
And there are so many forms of
justice that that it's a it's a
great I guess when you said how
does it relate to, sorry, I
didn't mean to interrupt.
You.
No, no, no, no.
Well, I was just going to say
like in in relation to justice,
there's this.
I I suppose when I think of it,
it's it is a shifting sort of
thing where perhaps this idea of
retributive justice, which is
perhaps a little bit more old
fashioned.
This idea that regardless of
whatever that person's
circumstances were or whatever
else it was, this idea that yes,
justice would be done in a sort
of a more, yeah, retributive
sense where now it's more
justice is, is actually taking
into account a lot of more
people, sort of individual
circumstances and and the way
the society operates around
that.
Yeah.
Oh, I think and and even even
when there's an element, I was
thinking about reparations and
the the movement around that and
how there's an that's in some
ways connected to retribute of
Justice, but it's it's recasting
it as a repair.
Literally in the word
reparations and that it's a way
of moving forward rather than a
revenge for the past.
But I mean there's lots of this,
that sort of fairness,
procedural fairness, which that
fits quite well with law, that
that's the part of justice that
doesn't clash too often with
law.
And there's a more substantive
fairness with all the debates
over things like welfare
benefits and how much do we
redistribute to those who are
disadvantaged economically.
But as yeah, as you say, there's
also now much more attention to,
I think, Justice's recognition
and identity, plural identities
and different ways of being.
You know who you are inside.
So if if law can accommodate
that rather than assume
everybody's similar, it's not an
easy task, but it's it's an
inspiring one.
But.
Yeah, I I think it's, I suppose
it's kind of this the Retribute
of Justice kind of operates on,
I suppose the presumption that
everyone is of the same
capability to some degree or or
isn't influenced by different
factors.
And I suppose what I mean by
that is, you know regardless of
of of your standing or whatever
else, a thief or something like
that would be treated the same,
you know, however many years
ago.
But now I think there's a lot
more considerations of of the
individual and other factors
that I think make the law I
suppose.
Again, the shifting from this
idea of sort of baseline
equality, I don't know if that's
the right term or so.
Did they were all equal or or
that everyone should be treated
equally versus well?
No, there should be actually
different.
Yeah, well, that's a good.
For fairness, you know, for
fairness's sake, there needs to
be people that are perhaps given
a bit more leeway or or or
perhaps given a bit more
consideration in relation to
things like generational trauma
or you know, drug abuse or or
family familial situations and
that sort of thing, so.
One of the things I was thinking
of when you were speaking about
that was the the rules in Theory
of Justice, where where they it
might might relate more to what
you were saying was the
standardized assumption.
But he used it as a device in
some ways to try and get people
to design a system that would be
responsive to individual
circumstances.
So you had the veil of
ignorance.
You had to imagine that you had
a veil in front of your eyes
about who you were going to be.
And then what kind of legal
system would you design or what
principles of justice would you
come up with if you knew nothing
about what who you were going to
be when you stepped into the
world.
And then you you have to sort of
accommodate all the possible
variations that could come from
that.
And he comes up with principles
with that method, So that's a
clever way of bringing those two
together.
Thank you for listening to the
Australian Law Student Podcast.
The following segment is
questions from the Bench.
Here we ask our guests a set
series of questions designed for
you to get to know them better
and to get the key advice to
help you on your journey.
Each week we also take a
question from you, our audience,
Head over to our socials and
send us a message to get your
question answered.
Thanks for listening.
So without further ado, we'll
move on to some perhaps rapid
fire questions.
These questions are a bit more
fun and a bit more get to know
you.
So I hope that listeners have
enjoyed the perhaps more
theoretical and abstract
conversations.
But yeah, moving on up to the
first question, what was your
favorite subject in more school,
Norman?
So it was a subject called law
and social justice, which was an
elective I took towards the end.
It wasn't actually the theory
subject that I had to take but I
was just intrigued by the the
phrase social justice really and
and it was an eye I I remember
having a passionate debate.
I wasn't especially passionate
because it was all new to me.
But those class had this
passionate debate over whether
rules or theory of justice that
I just mentioned came up with
principles that were elitist.
And so somehow the class turned
into discussion of whether
government some funding support
for opera was socially just.
And I just I found that such a
bizarre topic to be debating in
law school that I kept thinking,
where am I?
This is just a new world and all
the ideas that were being thrown
at me, which I hadn't come
across at all because I'd
studied literature undergrad.
So I just was unfamiliar with
political theory and that was,
yeah, just fantastic.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I imagine that would.
Made me interesting.
Yeah, it's very fascinating.
I do wonder how that the
conversation actually reached
that point.
But yeah, yeah, it's
interesting.
What's 1 habit that you believe
is being pivotal to your success
in the legal field?
So this is probably specific to
my particular pathway through
the legal field, but I I think
it's it is.
It is endemic to law to an
extent.
It's curiosity to link things
would seem otherwise unrelated,
unrelated.
So to cross fields and to say
you know, that seems to be like
this in a completely different
field, but to link them through
law.
And I was thinking of it as like
a hyperlink kind of mentality.
And the problem now is that
there are so many hyperlinks in
the actual Internet that it's
actually a a death knell for
productivity.
So I still have that habit of
linking across and across and
across.
Yeah, it's a productive one and
it's been very creative, but
you've also got to put a stop to
it at some.
Point.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
I mean, but I think that would
absolutely like help with more
creative thinking.
And I think that's definitely
something that's not as advised
or perhaps not as thought about
as being as important, but
creative thinking and that sort
of idea of, yeah, linking things
that perhaps haven't been linked
before.
So yeah, moving on, can you name
a book or a movie that's
significant to you and one you'd
recommend to students?
So the one I came up with a
significant to me, it's called
Don't Let's Go to the Dogs
tonight.
It's probably a fairly obscure
title but it's it's an
autobiography of a woman who
grew up in Zimbabwe, which is
where I grew up.
And it's she was born almost the
same year as me.
And it's it's very funny and but
it's it's also so close to my
life that it's an eerie
experience to read a book that
reflects your own childhood so
closely.
So it's a great book to have to
give to people who want to
understand, you know, sort of
where.
I came from.
That's very personal, but the
one I'd recommend, I mean, it's
a good read but the one I'd
like, yeah, I'd like to
encourage people to read
Ministry for the Future, which
is a science fiction novel by
Kim Stanley Robinson about
climate change and and sort of
sit in the near future.
And actually, I mean I won't go
into detail, but it's it's one
of the most creative ways of
thinking about how could we have
incremental reform.
Going back to your question
earlier about, you know, we need
to balance radical change with
incremental reform.
And this book shows that, you
know, the biggest challenge that
we face, this enormous problem,
climate change can have various
creative incremental things that
respond well to it.
But it's also great read.
It's it's got a shocking couple
of first chapters in terms of
confronting, but plow on through
them and then yeah, it becomes
more optimistic.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, thanks.
Thank you so much for those
recommendations.
I I suppose for students
aspiring to make an impact in
the world, what skill or
qualities do you believe is most
important for them to develop?
I thought about this for a while
and I really feel tolerance for
uncertainty.
I don't know how that relates to
being a lawyer exactly, but I
just think for making an impact
at at the time we're at in the
world, that some sort of
tolerance for coping with
uncertainty at quite multiple
levels is going to be crucial.
Yeah, yeah.
I suppose just from being able
to to cope and function
standpoint I think yeah that
that's that's very like
abstract, but I I definitely
appreciate that.
Now thinking about it's like
yeah, I think as someone who
likes to at least view the
future as somewhat certain in
certain areas and that sort of
thing.
It it's yeah, having to tolerate
some level of uncertainty I
think is good because it also
allows you to try and think a
bit more to to to to think in
other perspectives as well and
and to not get locked in on to
into one way or the other.
And I think that's important for
an adaptable society.
But yeah, did you always
envision yourself practising in
the field that you you are in?
And if not, what did you think
that you'd do?
Oh, as an academic?
No, no.
That class combined with one
other class.
It never crossed my mind to
become an academic.
So if the teacher hadn't
suggested it, I've always
appreciated that I thought I
wanted to be a diplomat.
When I did law school, I didn't
see myself becoming an academic
and I took a career test once
which said I should either be a
researcher or a primary school
music teacher, which I thought
was quite funny.
Different.
And so what's the greatest piece
of advice you've ever received,
I suppose is is obviously a
broad question, you might have
several pieces, but yeah.
Well, yeah, I thought about that
a bit too.
And I I received the same piece
of advice twice from two
different people at different
times in my life, which was, and
it was in relation to Korea.
But it was the piece of advice
was to not forget about the rest
of your life when you're making
big career choices.
And to to make the career choice
based on the fact that you need
friendship and community in the
first instance or that you might
wanna leave a little space in
your life for children if you.
I just think it's in my context.
I used to forget about that,
having a holistic appreciation
of why you're doing what you're
doing beyond even when it's a
work decision.
I think, I think I think of like
that advice is refreshing.
I feel.
I think a lot of people perhaps
going to the law really scared
about that, that sort of stuff,
that.
They That's why I really
appreciate it, because I think,
I mean, the first one made me
choose Berkeley over Yale for
various reasons, and that was
the best choice I ever made, you
know, at postgrad education.
And the second one indirectly
made me end up, you know, having
a family.
So and it's just, yeah, I just
think just to give you
perspective step back.
Yeah.
So maybe it has to do with
tolerating uncertain.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, as well.
Oh, interlide it.
And so finally, this is our last
question and this is from one of
our listeners.
Do you think there are
personality traits that gear a
person to be more suited to an
area of law?
And if So, what are the
personality traits of a good
legal teacher?
I decided they were like quite
separate questions because my my
instinct answer to the first one
is, well, I I actually think it
depends probably more on the
client base or the stakeholder
group that you work within the
area of law.
I think the ability to relate to
that area whether it's with
financial acumen or appreciation
for social disadvantage or is,
is probably going to matter more
and and it's a case of being
empathic but retaining your
technical skills.
But I was tempted to just answer
that the this, the trait is the
ability to tell people in effect
that the answer is always it's
complicated or it depends
without disappointing them
because it's often what lawyers
end up having to cope with.
And so I don't know that that
translates into teaching a good
trait.
I felt like that was a different
thing.
I had AI had a former teacher of
mine who said there were two
kinds of teachers.
And this stuck in my head.
There's either they're either
like Shakespeare or like Milton
and what do you.
Because I was a literature
scholar.
What he meant was that
Shakespeare's the kind of person
who inhabits other people's
worlds.
You don't.
No one even knows, really, who
Shakespeare was.
He creates these plural worlds
with lots and lots of different
approaches.
With Milton created Paradise
Lost and and and it was almost
like he was God.
He was the the poet and he was
God and he was the myth maker
and the storyteller.
But the Shakespeare is more the
facilitator and the connector,
and I think I'd probably
identify with the Shakespeare
more than the Milton.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, on on that, no problem.
Thank you so much for joining me
today.
I hope that and I know that our
listeners will really enjoy this
conversation.
So thank you so much and all the
best for the future.
Thanks.
Thank you.