In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with 25+ year veteran of the legal industry and founder of eDiscovery CoCounsel, Chad Roberts.
In a legal world where we are document heavy and paperless, eDiscovery sets out to avoid the abundance of obstacles trial lawyers encounter when in search of documents, be it the dump-truck effect of getting volumes of information or the paid search games that are played.
Primarily, people think about documentary evidence which is stored in a digital format, to which the rules have somewhat of a bias toward that type of framework, which tends to be the biggest challenge, explains Chad. He goes on to describe that it is not so much the format by which these documents are held, but rather the sheer volume of content that is available. For those of us who are not experts in e-discovery, not knowing the right questions to ask to receive what is sought after or even what is available to ask for, can make a case challenging. Chad points out one of the biggest “tectonic shifts” in the advantage/disadvantage for discovery really occurred back in December of 2015 with the new Rule 26, pertaining to the proportionality factors that came about under that rule, of which Chad dives deep on along with the ways around it.
Chad continues to reveal the dirty little secret that the more you know about the information structure and how documentation is filed, the easier it is to deconstruct the arguments of it being tremendously difficult for the defense to compile what you are looking for … which, coincidentally, is enormously easy for them to produce. Furthermore, Chad describes the other “human nature” side of the story where attorneys psychologically feel that they are out of their element, mostly because they don’t do excessive amounts of document productions, and are more likely to agree to things that are not best for a case.
Ideally, as Chad describes, his firm is typically brought in at the beginning of a case and start with Electronic Storage Information (ESI) protocols, where the front-end platform is established through discussions regarding agreement of the mutual expectations of those involved in the case, and this, of course, is the best line of defense in counteracting the diversions played by opposing counsel.
The podcast concludes with Michael and Chad discussing the types of cases that make the most sense to bring in a firm such as eDiscovery; and the description that Chad offers on why even the biggest of firms would likely have a significant flaw in their practice if they had the capacity of his firm is enlightening and makes perfect sense when you hear it.
Background on Chad Roberts
Chad Roberts is a seasoned trial lawyer with a career focused on technology, complex litigation, and multi-district litigation. He has been a litigation partner at an AmLaw 20 multi-national law firm as well as a small, boutique trial firm, winning multi-million dollar verdicts as lead trial counsel. His focus at eDiscovery CoCounsel, pllc includes predictive coding technology, discovery jurisprudence, and large scale litigation management. Chad received an Engineering Science degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology and graduated with high honors from the Florida State University College of Law, where he was an Associate Editor of the Florida State University Law Review.
For more info on Chad Roberts visit: www.edcclaw.com
You Might also like
By Michael Cowen — 8 months ago
In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with Kentucky-based trial attorney, Hans Poppe, to discuss his recent cases, the difficulty of trying med mal cases, and much more.
The episode begins with Hans going into his history as a trial lawyer. Hans began his practice in Louisville, Kentucky, and currently runs a small, 100% referral-based firm, focusing on catastrophic injury cases. He goes on to explain that he started his firm 4 years out of law school and gradually built his practice through the years by focusing on case selection and making sure everybody knew what he was interested in by utilizing marketing methods such as CLEs to maintain relationships and monthly newsletters.
Following a brief discussion on CLEs, Michael inquires on Hans’ trial record on med mal cases, to which Hans responds, “We’ve won 3 of the last 4 med mal trials, [and have] gotten punitive damages in all 3 of [those wins].” He goes on to say that he’s been focused on trying these cases differently.
To this, Michael asks Hans to explain more about his recent wins, adding that med mal cases are tough for plaintiff attorneys. Hans agrees and adds, in Kentucky, the defense win-rate is 80-90%, and how there’s a very small group of attorneys in the state who take these cases to verdict. He goes on to say even the top lawyers who are doing very well are still losing 80% of the time.
“You’ve got to be able to put $100,000 on the line and know there’s an 80% chance that you’re going to lose it.” – Hans Poppe
Continuing the discussion of the difficulty and uphill battle of med mal cases, Hans expresses the importance of being “hyper-focused” on case selection and realizing “every case is actually 3 cases,” (meaning the case you sign up on day one, the case you prepare for, and the case you try; none of which are the same) and how those factors need to be top of mind during case selection.
Building on the topic of trying med mal cases, Hans goes on to explain if you go into the courtroom and try against a physician just based on medicine, you’re going to lose. He outlines how defense lawyers who handle med mal cases are very good lawyers and work those cases hard, and how you need to “find something else” to bring to the table.
“If you can get past the medicine… and find [focus in on] the other angle… the other side is not used to that.” – Hans Poppe
To explain the concept of “getting past the medicine,” Hans goes into detail on his most recent case involving the suicide death of his client. He shares why it was an impossible case, considering his client committed suicide, but he chose to frame the case so it started before the suicide. He describes the business practice of this particular pain management clinic and the unavoidable outcome it produced of patients not receiving the care they need. This was due to patients only seeing doctors on their first visits and mid-level providers in subsequent visits.
In this case, the prescription given to his client was written 4 days before he’d even seen the provider and was for half of his normal dose. “What we focused on were the business decisions that were being made,” Hans says before delving deeper into the unethical business practices of this clinic. This case ultimately resulted in a $7 million verdict and was a zero-offer case, which Hans adds, “the defense had no idea.”
“There were 15 doctors, and the doctors aren’t seeing the patients… each doctor has 4-5 nurses under him, they see a patient every 15 minutes, and so the doctor bills 4-5 doctor’s visits every 15 minutes.” – Hans Poppe
Following this discussion, Michael and Hans go into another of his recent wins, a $21.3 million verdict case involving an unnecessary pacemaker. In this case, Hans and his team focused on the business practices of the hospital, and how it entangled with cardiologists and encouraged them to perform heart procedures; essentially disincentivizing proper care in favor of profit-focused business practices. “You know what the problem is with incentives?” Hans says, “They work.”
He and Michael continue the topic by delving into the ugly side of the medical business, and how it really changes the dynamic of a case when you can focus jury’s attention on something other than “the white coat and the stethoscope,” before moving on to Hans’ 3rd recent case.
In this case, the audit trail (document that hospitals and physician’s offices are required to maintain, tracks every time the chart is logged into, and if any edits are made) revealed several days after the patient died, the PA got into the patient’s chart and modified the history. The PA had no idea during his deposition that Hans had the audit trail, and not only that, but Hans never asked him about it … UNTIL TRIAL!
“We’re not trying a case about what happened the exam room … we’re trying a case on what business decisions were made and how those impact patient care [and leads to] a bad outcome.” – Hans Poppe
During trial, the PA had no explanation as to why he was changing the patient chart several days later. Hans had also obtained evidence the PA had a productivity bonus and had been running behind on the day his client was seen; a fact Hans argued was the reason he didn’t do a physical examination of the patient.
This episode also covers the willingness to risk losing and why the ability to recover is so important, the impact of your mindset, appearance, and self-confidence, how incentives can go bad and how to highlight it in your case.
Hans is licensed in Kentucky and Indiana; however, he has a national reputation for handling catastrophic injury and death cases as well as contingency fee business-to-business litigation.
While lots of lawyers hold themselves out as “trial lawyers,” Hans actually is one. According to the 2020 Kentucky Trial Court Year in Review, only three plaintiff lawyers in Kentucky have tried more cases to verdict than Hans since 2005.
In fact, since 1998, only four lawyers in Kentucky have more verdicts over one million dollars than Hans (2020 Kentucky Trial Court Year in Review.) Hans had the largest Kentucky verdict in 2016 and the second largest Kentucky verdict in 2008. Hans has multiple seven and eight figure verdicts and settlements in medical malpractice, insurance bad faith, and FELA cases.
In 2016, ALM VerdictSearch Top 100 Verdicts of 2016 recognized Hans’ $21,274,786 verdict in Wells v Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc as the 94th largest verdict in the United States. The Wells case was one of over 400 cased filed by the Poppe Law Firm in London, KY alleging unnecessary cardiac procedures were performed in order to boost profits. Three more cases went to trial and ultimately all the cases were globally settled the night before the verdict in the Owens v. CHI trial. The work done by Hans and his team also contributed to a $16,500,000 Medicare qui tam recovery from the hospital and $380,000 from two doctors. Additionally, the work done by the Poppe Law Firm helped lead to the arrest and federal conviction of two other cardiologists for Medicare fraud. One was sentenced to 42 months and the other was sentenced to 30 months.
At the same time he was handling the London unnecessary procedure litigation, Hans and his team found a similar fact pattern in Ashland, KY involving King’s Daughter’s hospital. Hans filed over 500 lawsuits in Ashland also alleging unnecessary cardiac procedures. Two months later the Department of Justice reached a $41,000,000 settlement with King’s Daughers for allegations of unnecessary procedures. The civil suits were settled in a 2019 confidential global settlement. The work done by Hans and his team also helped lead to the conviction of a third cardiologist who was sentenced to 5 years and $1,000,000 in restitution.
Hans was selected by his peers as the 2020 Lawyer of the Year in Medical Malpractice-Louisville by Best Lawyers®. Only a single lawyer in a specific practice area and location is honored with a “Lawyer of the Year” designation. Additionally, Hans was recognized in the same edition of The Best Lawyers in America for his work in Personal Injury Litigation and Professional Malpractice Law.
Hans was named a 2021 Top 50 Kentucky Super Lawyer by the prestigious Thomson-Reuters Super Lawyer peer review rating system.
Also in 2020, Hans was nominated and elected by his legal peers to be President of the prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates’ Kentucky Chapter.
Hans’ advocacy and professionalism recently led the U.S News & World Report to recognize The Poppe Law Firm as a 2021 Best Law Firms in Kentucky-First Tier Law Firm.
In addition to being a courtroom trial lawyer, Hans has had five cases go before the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Contact Hans:Post Views: 1,328
By Michael Cowen — 1 year ago
In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with former President of the State Bar of Texas, Randy Sorrels for another installation of our Masked Justice series. Randy recently tried an interesting case where he represented the sons of two former professional baseball stars and received a $3.25 million verdict. They’ll cover that recent victory, how this trial was different from a pre-COVID trial, what it’s like representing famous clients in high profile cases, Randy’s service to his clients, and more.
They start off the episode by digging into Randy’s background. As a defense lawyer at a large firm early in his career, he was able to gain experience trying cases quickly after law school. That experience has proved invaluable since transitioning to exclusively plaintiff’s work, and he notes some interesting differences between how a plaintiff’s lawyer and a defense lawyer try a case. He then sums this up by stating, “Trials always happen because one side mis-evaluates the case. I’ve been on both sides of that.”
Michael then transitions the conversation to Randy’s recent trial verdict, and Randy starts by sharing the facts of the case. His clients were two minor league baseball players, who just happened to be the sons of former professional baseball players (and close friends) Roger Clemens and Mike Capel. The two young men were at a high-end bar/night club on New Year’s Eve of 2018 when they were brutally attacked by a bouncer and, Randy claims, the owner of the venue. After a “scuffle” which neither of the men were involved in broke out, they were both violently thrown out of the bar, causing Kacy Clemens injury to his throwing elbow and Conner Capel a fracture to the skull. But more importantly, they both suffered tarnished reputations for “being in a bar fight,” something the MLB does not take lightly.
Randy was hired on the case almost immediately, leading Michael to ask what he did to preserve evidence. He shares how the police attempted to preserve the security footage from the incident, but after a suspicious interaction with the owner, they were informed the cameras only live stream and do not record. Luckily, video of the incident had been captured on cell phones from patrons. This footage was the evidence needed to prove neither of the men were involved in the fight.
Michael then digs deeper into the mechanics of Randy’s COVID-era trial, which was held in person in Harris County, Texas. Randy explains how they selected the jury in a large convention center and how the judge did an excellent job with maintaining a safe environment for everybody. The courthouse setup placed the jurors where the audience usually sits and placed the witnesses in the jury box. If you stood up, you had to wear a mask- something Randy avoided doing for the first couple days of trial, but once he stood up with the mask on, he noticed jurors were paying better attention than when he was seated and mask-less.
Randy then discusses why he does not believe there was a negative effect on the jurors with Covid safety protocols, and though he was initially concerned the jury pool would lean conservative, it ended up being a very diverse and representative jury. And while this trial was far from “normal,” Randy is very satisfied with the $3.25 million verdict he received for his clients and was highly impressed with Harris County’s system for in-person trials during the pandemic.
Aside from the unusual circumstances surrounding the trial brought on by the pandemic, Michael is curious as to how you convince a jury to award a professional athlete’s son a 7-figure verdict. Randy explains how it was a challenge, especially because both clients were working within 10 days of the incident, but in the end it worked out. In fact, Roger Clemens’ testimony was especially powerful to the case. Randy shares an amazing story of what happened when the defense attorney tried to grill Roger about allegations of steroid use, but ended up saying, “I’m a huge fan, and you’re a hell of a baseball player.”
This wasn’t Randy’s first rodeo representing a famous client. Early in his career, he also represented Ozzy Osbourne after he was rear-ended in a taxi in Houston (something that left Michael star struck)! While his whiplash injury was seemingly minor, Randy explains how it turned into a fairly large case because Ozzy had to cancel 3 shows for the most rockstar reason you’ve EVER heard. This story is a must-listen for metal fans and legal enthusiasts alike!
Randy also explains how important service is to him through his time as the State Bar of Texas President, a mostly unpaid position which he served in for a year. He believes interacting with lawyers on both sides has made him an even better trial lawyer today, and helped give him the state-wide notoriety to start his own firm, Sorrels Law. Michael also points out how Randy will share when he gets the policy limits on a case with a $30,000 policy limit. But Randy explains why those cases are still important and deserve representation, something he’s happy to give them.
The pair end the episode with another unbelievable story from Randy’s most recent trial, involving a lovable defense witness with a hidden secret. This really is one you need to hear to believe!
This podcast episode also covers why Randy was hired so quickly on the Clemens case, a creative place to search for footage of a crash, the safety precautions taken by the court, whether or not you should conduct jury research before a trial, why big verdicts are good for all plaintiff’s lawyers (even if it’s not your own), and so much more.
If you’d like to speak with Randy Sorrels you can email him at firstname.lastname@example.org or call his cell phone at (713) 582-8005.
Randy Sorrels is the Immediate Past President of the State Bar of Texas, which consists of almost 105,000 lawyers. Texas lawyers voted him to this position by the widest margin of victory in State Bar election history. As a Texas lawyer, Randy has also been named one of the top 100 lawyers in Texas for the last 14 years by Texas Super Lawyers magazine.
Randy holds five board certifications from the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He has extensive experience handling personal injury cases, medical malpractice cases, and business disputes – including “bet the company” cases.
Most recently, Randy has been named the Best Lawyers® Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs “Lawyer of the Year”, in Houston, and this is his third time for him to receive this honor. He has also been awarded some of the highest legal honors in Texas. He has been awarded the State Bar of Texas’ President’s Award (recognizing the one Texas Lawyer who provided the most outstanding contributions through distinguished service to the lawyers of Texas), the Judge Sam Williams Award (recognizing the Texas lawyer who provides the greatest contribution to both local bars and the State Bar of Texas), and the Houston Bar Association President’s Award (recognizing significant contributions to an HBA program). Early in his career, Randy was honored with the Woodrow B. Seals Outstanding Young Lawyer of Houston Award (recognizing the one young Houston lawyer who exemplified significant professional traits both inside and outside the practice of law).Post Views: 3,468
By Michael Cowen — 4 years ago(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with a trial attorney and prominent legal industry speaker, Randi McGinn of McGinn, Montoya, Love & Curry P.A.
From the very beginning of their conversation, Randi delivers compelling insights on the one thing that still unites people, as well as influences in our decision-making process as humans. She also shares what engrain our decisions moving forward in trials, as well as in “real life” more times than not, regardless of what future evidence is acknowledged and/or presented. More importantly, is the necessity for trial lawyers to know and understand this concept in order to be able to implement it in a trial situation from the very beginning of a trial to impact a jury’s decision. Going even a step further, Randi relates this tactic to put the jury in the “zone of danger” in order to make things more relatable to them through their own eyes versus their own logical view of how a scenario would likely play out. Truly a fascinating viewpoint and provocative example that is given, one that all lawyers should take note of.
Once the concept is revealed, Randi does a deep dive on knowing how to apply it, to which Randi describes her own firm’s use of focus groups in determining the best strategies toward figuring out the best way to leverage the information a trial attorney has at their disposal. Funny enough, some of their best ideas come from “ordinary people” seeing as attorneys can tend to become narrow-minded when approaching another case. Fortunately, Randi’s approach is less like classical music where you have rules to follow and more like jazz where there are many ways to approach the narrative of a case. Having said that, Randi also notes that sometimes the work equated to a case is 200 – 300 hours outside the courtroom for every 1 hour inside the courtroom, which is part of what makes her and her firm so good at what they do.
Michael and Randi expose the dirty little tricks defense attorneys play against plaintiff attorneys and the “little guys” they represent, as it’s important to note that many jurors may not have any concept of how difficult that fight may be. Furthermore is the uphill battle regarding the misconception most have of people getting hurt and thinking “oh goodie, I have a lawsuit” while truth be told, the process to recovery is not an easy one, and in some cases is impossible.
The episode wraps up with a discussion aimed specifically at female attorneys entering the field and advice from Randi on how best to take things on, as well as for the men in the industry who want to empower women to help make the world a better place. Both Michael and Randi have some amazing insights to share which are beneficial regardless of gender or tenure.
Background on Randi McGinn
Randi McGinn is the author of “Changing Laws, Saving Lives: How to Take on Corporate Giants and Win,” available through Trial Guides at http://www.trialguides.com/book/changing-laws-saving-lives/ Trial Lawyer Nation listeners can receive a $10 discount on the book by using the code LAWSLIVES10.
She is one of the country’s leading trial lawyers, having tried over 130 cases. The first woman president of the Inner Circle (100 best trial lawyers in the US), she is known for her creativity in the courtroom and use of demonstrative evidence to visualize opening, direct, cross-examination and closing argument. She has destroyed adverse witnesses by leaving a pretentious Beverly Hills doctor standing in front of the jury covered with post-its and clutching a grapefruit to his chest, by grilling a government snitch until he threw up and by exposing the fact that a world-renowned polygraph expert had been polygraphing his own sperm cells in the dead of night. In a particularly hard-won police shooting case, the local SWAT cops once put her face on their Christmas pinata and took turns whacking it with a big stick.
She recently was appointed as a special prosecutor and tried the first murder prosecution in over 50 years of an Albuquerque police officer for an on the job shooting.
She started her career by giving birth to her daughter Heather, now age 37, the day before the 3-day bar examination.
Senior partner in a 5 woman, 2 man law firm in Albuquerque, New Mexico; double listed in criminal and civil litigation in Best Lawyers in America; International Academy of Trial Lawyers fellow; past AAJ Governor; past president of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers’ Association; NACDL board member, NITA-NCDC-UNM adjunct instructor.
For more info on Randi McGinn visit: https://www.mcginnlaw.com/About-Us/Randi-McGinn.shtmlPost Views: 13,740