Shattering a Stereotype, Engineer Who Loves Public Speaking Tackles Complex Litigation & Fulfills Career Goal—to Help Others
Some lawyers seem destined for the profession from an early age. Evan Vincent took a more circuitous route. Growing up in Norman, Oklahoma, he dreamed of becoming an aerospace engineer and, perhaps, an astronaut. He was fascinated by airplanes, rockets and the physics that made them fly, and a high school physics teacher helped turn that fascination into a career ambition. But somewhere along the way, Vincent realized that he wanted something else, too: a career that would allow him to put down roots, raise a family, and remain close to the people who mattered most to him.
The eventual answer was law, although Vincent brought his engineering background with him. That combination has proved particularly valuable in his litigation practice at the highly regarded, Oklahoma-based Crowe Dunlevy, where he has gravitated toward cases involving patents, product liability and other matters requiring lawyers to understand complicated technical and financial concepts. Rather than viewing his engineering education as a detour from law, Vincent recognized early that it could give him an unusual advantage. As he puts it, while some lawyers were attracted to law because it involved less math, he saw technical knowledge as a way to distinguish himself and take on challenging matters.
His story also demonstrates how much mentors can influence a lawyer’s career. His maternal grandfather, a neurosurgeon, offered a simple philosophy about helping others that Vincent still carries with him. A law professor and family friend helped him navigate the path to law school. And at Crowe Dunlevy, Vincent found additional mentors among lawyers he admired and wanted to emulate.
That emphasis on helping others now extends beyond his clients. Vincent teaches law students the practical skills of litigation, giving them an opportunity to experience the work they will actually perform as lawyers. He also has strong views about how lawyers should treat one another, arguing that civility and professional courtesy make an already difficult profession better for everyone.
Of Counsel recently talked with Vincent about the childhood experience that first sparked his fascination with flight, the decision that redirected his career, the mentors who shaped him, and the satisfaction of explaining highly technical matters to judges and jurors. He also discusses why teaching has become an important part of his professional life—and why, after all these years, helping someone solve a difficult problem remains one of the best parts of being a lawyer.
From Aerospace to Legal Space
Of Counsel: Evan, what led you into aerospace engineering and then what created the shift for you to go into law?
Evan Vincent: I grew up in Norman, Oklahoma, which is where the University of Oklahoma is and there’s a large Air Force base in southeast Oklahoma City called Tinker Air Force Base, where they do maintenance on B-52’s. They would periodically host air shows there. My dad and his father were both into different types of military aircraft; that just fascinated them. They took me with them at a young age.
I remember the first time I heard one of the fighter jets doing some maneuvers to show off for the crowd—the sound of that engine, it still brings tears to my eyes to this day—with the raw power behind it. I remember it vividly, and I was fascinated by it. The rest of the time growing up, I just really enjoyed learning about NASA—they had the space shuttle program going while I was growing up.
Math and science were always subjects that I did well in in school. I’d never thought about being in aerospace engineer until my senior year of high school and I had this magnificent physics teacher who taught classical physics to us, and it was just fascinating. And I thought, That’s what I want to do: learn about and work with the physics of how all the airplanes and rockets move, both in orbit and outside of Earth’s orbit. I chose that as my degree program with the thought that I would eventually apply to get into the astronaut program. That was a goal I had going into school.
After a couple of years of study, I knew I really enjoyed the subject matter; one day I was walking on campus and thinking that a career in aerospace wasn’t really what I wanted. Because if I were to take the military route, I’d be stationed all over, moving from place to place. And it has always been important to me to have a family.
Most of my family growing up was based here in the Oklahoma City area and Norman, and I got to see them a lot. For almost the entire time I was growing up, I had both sets of grandparents living and one set of great-grandparents living who were still independent enough that they could come up and visit, and I got to see them a fair amount. I just didn’t see how a career in aerospace could work for me because if I were in the astronaut program or the military, the work would take me all over the place. I thought, Well, I don’t want to stop pursuing aerospace engineering because I really enjoy that, but that might not be the ultimate career path I want to go down.
Inspired by & Learning from Mentoring Professionals
OC: So it was really an epiphany you had. What led you into law, and maybe you can talk a little bit about your grandfather’s influence?
EV: Yes, he did influence me. This is not the grandfather who took me to the airshow; this is my maternal grandfather. He was a neurosurgeon and very much a doctor’s doctor, very committed to helping other people. His motto was: Wake up every morning with a goal of helping someone else. He said, “We all have unique talents that can be used to help others.” That really stuck with me.
I was thinking: Okay, I’m not going to pursue this path of aerospace engineering or an astronaut career. What are the other things that I enjoy doing, that motivate me, and that I would want to pursue along a career path and ultimately help people?
I laugh at this now, and I can say this because I consider myself an engineer, but there aren’t that many engineers who enjoy public speaking. It’s usually quite the opposite. But public speaking was always something else that I found fascinating. Rhetoric, I can’t say that I studied it in any formal sense, but I had always been a big fan of great speeches. To this day, my absolute favorite speech is one that JFK gave at Rice University, talking about going to the moon.
Law appealed to me because that’s what you do in the courtroom when you address a jury. There’s speechmaking involved; there’s presentation involved. You’re on your feet and you’re trying to persuade people. That really appealed to me.
I was very fortunate that one of my best friends growing up, his father was a professor at the University of Oklahoma law school. His name is Murray Tabb, and he is one of my heroes. I went to speak to him about that. I didn’t know if law had a pre-law requirement as pre-med does.
He very patiently and graciously explained to me that I didn’t have to have any particular major to get into law school. He thought engineering was a great field to continue to study. He also said that if I wanted to go to law school, he’d guide me through every step in the process, like taking the LSAT and the application process, and he’d be willing to provide his insight and advice to me about where I wanted to go.
He never put any pressure on me to go to OU; in fact, he encouraged me to apply to some of the more highly ranked law schools, which I did. I did apply to some more highly ranked schools. The grandfather who was the neurosurgeon that I mentioned, he was very supportive of that. Although, as a doctor, lawyers weren’t his favorite. [laughter] But he took me to visit several of those schools in the last semester of my senior year of college. I agonized over the decision for a while, and ultimately decided that I wanted to go to OU because I wanted to raise my family here and also because I had Professor Tabb there to go to for guidance. That was one of the best decisions that I ever made.
OC: What did you do after you graduated from law school?
EV: I went straight into practice with the firm I’m at now, Crowe and Dunlevy. I had opportunities to work for other places, but I picked Crowe and Dunlevy mostly because I saw attorneys there who I wanted to be like and to learn from. On my first day there, I was paired up with a mentor who I learned so much from, and then I’ve had opportunities to work for several more.
Drawing on Science Background to Practice Law
OC: You knew you were going to go into litigation. Did you expect that you’d also be using your engineering and science knowledge and your ability to grasp difficult concepts and work with companies in those sectors?
EV:Yes, I did. It always struck me as interesting that as I went through law school and started meeting lawyers, how often I would hear lawyers make the comment that they chose their career in law because there would be very little math involved or that they weren’t very good at math. I always kind of laughed at that and thought that my background would be a unique way to differentiate and I could take on more complicated and challenging [legal matters] that maybe some other, more senior lawyers don’t want to work on.
I gravitated toward certain areas of law that involved those technical issues, like patents, litigation work with respect to product liability, as well as financial aspects, just understanding the numbers. Those were always things from the very beginning that I thought, One, I still like the subject matter, and, two, this might be a good way to grow and develop as a lawyer and get opportunities that I might not otherwise get.
OC: When you think about some of the cases that stand out in your mind, what would one or two of those be?
EV: One that I can think of that happened I think about five or six years into my career … The firm had a seven-year partnership track; we don’t have a formal designation as a senior associate. I didn’t have that, but I was a more senior associate. I was still trying to find my footing a little better, gain confidence, however you want to put it, as to whether I could hold my own with more experienced people. That’s who I would measure myself against: lawyers who had 10 or 15 or 20 years more experience than I did, as a way to force myself to improve.
There was a case involving some defective fiber optic cable where we were representing the party that had purchased it against the seller and claiming that their manufacturing process had caused all of these defects in it. It involved the physics of bending, the adhesives they were using, and how they were shaping the different portions of the cable to make sure that the sheath that covers it would stay on and protect it from rodents, the elements, and various things that would cause it to degrade and potentially just break.
And the case had been going on for a while before I got involved, but I was asked to come in for my background in engineering and was given the assignment: you need to do the expert witness portion of this. I took on that role and I really relished it and got to work with multiple engineers on our side who are our own experts.
I wasn’t the one doing the actual cross-examination, but I was preparing all of the outlines and all of the arguments and educating the more experienced trial attorney who was going to be doing that. I also had to write all of the Daubert motions for both sides. I remember in those motions having to explain to the judge, who had very little exposure to this, how to break down the basic concepts of the physics we were dealing with to demonstrate why our experts were on very solid footing and why their experts were not.
And going back to what I’d mentioned before, that I was still trying to find my footing, when I put all of those motions together and it was time to be filed, I took it to the more senior attorneys on the file, and they looked at it and said, “I can’t make this better; go file it now.” That was an impactful moment for me because these were people that I looked up to. I thought, Okay, I can do this work.
Distilling Complex Concepts in the Courtroom and the Classroom
OC: So that was clearly a time when you were able to apply the science background and talk the language of the engineers, the expert witnesses. Certainly it must have been very satisfying. What was the outcome of the case?
EV: It was very favorable for us. It resolved through a settlement that was very favorable for us, and we prevailed on the Daubert motions that I was the author on, and that was very satisfying. Another one, and this is still going and there are confidentiality concerns, so I don’t want to say too much about it, but it involves some very advanced chemistry. This one actually went through trial and it was particularly satisfying for me because we had a whole trial team and it was one of the best trial teams I could ever imagine working with and one of the best I ever had worked with. I was the lead, and I had to give the opening speech to our fact finder. I got to use both of the skill sets that we’ve been talking about, where it’s giving a speech and active persuasion and using rhetoric, but also breaking down these very complicated chemistry concepts in a way that people who are not with a technical background can understand and digest. That was very challenging but also very thrilling.
We also got a good outcome in that case. Again, it’s still being worked out, but we did get a good result from the trial, and that was just one of the more satisfying things that I’ve done in my career, to be able to bring all of that together as I had envisioned doing when I started my career. I handled a very complicated matter and explained it to everybody in a way that they could understand.
OC: And you do much of the same thing in your role as a law professor. What do you like about teaching?
EV: Well, I’m teaching a class this fall called Civil Pretrial Litigation. It’s an experiential learning class where the students do mock exercises of things that they would actually do in practice, which is drafting pleadings, drafting written discovery, taking a deposition of a witness, making an oral argument to a judge. They do all of those things. I really enjoy it because I know I owe so much of my career to the wonderful mentors and instructors that I’ve had, as well as the more senior attorneys that I’ve gotten to work with. It really is satisfying to be able to impart the knowledge I’ve learned to other people and help them understand it.
So much of law school is devoted to theory—and I’m not being critical of that—but there’s not nearly enough of the practical aspects of how you actually do the job. I remember the stress that comes with learning that. So, to the extent that I can help people who are reaching that point in their careers, where they’re just getting out into that space, and help them along, give them a little bit of a head start, so to speak, that is really one of the more satisfying things that I’ve encountered in my career.
Calling for Civility, Solving Problems, Achieving Satisfaction
OC: What is it that you dislike about the legal profession, what would you like to see change?
EV: I would say the interactions between counsel. Everybody says we want civility, and I could not agree with that more. I remember a case I had against fantastic attorneys on the other side, and we became friends through that case. I think about it often in that that is how it ought to be. Both of us were representing our clients and we took strong positions, but at the end of the day we were able to get along well. I really enjoy it every time I run into them now, and I think they feel the same way about me.
This job is hard enough without making it more difficult by not showing other people courtesies, using aggressive language, or doing other things to force people to work on things at the last minute just because you can. That’s one thing I preach to my students, that accommodating other people’s schedules, even when it’s your opponent’s, is something you should always do. We don’t have to make it harder on each other for no good reason.
OC: What brings you satisfaction? What do you enjoy about working in the legal profession?
EV: It goes back to what we talked about with my grandfather’s quotes, that you get to help other people. It’s true for being a litigator and also true for having a transactional practice, I believe. Fundamentally, people come to a lawyer to help them solve a problem, just like engineers do. Helping them get to a place where they feel relief. That is one of the more satisfying things that I’ve had in my time as a lawyer. There is nothing more satisfying than getting to make the phone call to the client when you’ve had a good result and everything has been worked out.
Interview by Steven T. Taylor
Of Counsel: The Legal Practice and Management Report, Vol. 45, No. 10 (Oct. 2026)