In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with a nationally renowned trial consultant, Artemis Malekpour whose strength lies in her trial litigation strategy consulting. She describes it by boiling it all down to, “we help your case.”
However, the sheer magnitude of the scope of her work ranges from before you even file a case, to the end result, and everything in between, including focus groups, trial strategy, mediation strategy, discovery, pre-suit issues, voir dire, and opening statements to name just a few. Artemis describes her entry into the profession as coming initially from a background of psychology and starting down the pre-med path when realizations came to her, along with a pretty dramatic chain of events, that aligned her studies with a passion toward the legal industry. Her dilemma with the situation turned into learning more and taking in feedback from many different subsequent cases and being introduced to them from the inside, which eventually confirmed she was heading in the right direction for herself.
Empathizing with Michael, who also has a psychology degree, Artemis describes several of the cases she’s been through where the emotions start to take over and the desire to help everyone kicks in. Both Michael and Artemis give several examples of intake processes now firmly in place to help avoid accepting cases which are not suitable to take on both for the good of the firm or for the good of the client.
Artemis also opens up about her focus group experiences across the country, averaging sometimes around 40 per year, and divulges some of the trends she is seeing as a result of our current political climate. An interesting moment is a conversation between her and Michael about the power of silence, be it in the courtroom or with a focus group, and how it can be used to benefit your case. And while this technique and others are discussed, Artemis reinforces the importance of understanding there is no “magic formula” for success and describes what she believes the best trial lawyers do after trial.
The insights Artemis shares throughout the conversation are not just insightful, but practical toward any case. Michael jokingly refers to these insights as a “list of the things we do to screw up our own cases.” But we also know even that depiction is sometimes an understatement, which is why talking with Artemis was such a pleasure in this episode. She tells it like it is, and we all come out better on the other side.
Background on Artemis Malekpour
Artemis Malekpour is a partner in the litigation consulting firm of Malekpour & Ball. With a background in psychology and psychiatric research, she specializes in focus groups, case strategy, damages, and jury selection. Artemis did her undergraduate work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then earned a Master’s in Healthcare Administration from UNC’s School of Public Health and a law degree with honors from Duke University. She has consulted on a wide variety of cases across the country, with a knack for identifying potential landmines, incorporating her knowledge from years of watching jury deliberations and talking with jurors.
For more info on Artemis Malekpour visit https://www.trialguides.com/authors/artemis-malekpour/
You Might also like
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with Cowen | Rodriguez | Peacock partner, Sonia Rodriguez, for another installment of TLN Table Talk to answer the questions of our listeners. This episode focuses on defense medical “experts,” or as Michael calls them, “paid opinion witnesses.”
Michael calls this spade a spade right from the get-go, in that the title of “defense medical experts” is a sham. Many times, he says, they are called “independent experts” when they are neither independent nor an expert, not to mention the fact that they are hand-picked by defense lawyers who pay them for their testimony. Michael believes it is a huge fraud being perpetrated on our clients, on the jury, and on the court system. He says, typically “we know what their report is going to say once we hear their name,” further exemplifying this flaw in the system.
So, Michael asks, “what do we do to expose this and show the jurors the truth?” Sonia believes it is critical we expose the relationships experts have with the lawyers who hired them, how often they’ve been used by that firm or the defense industry, as well as how much money they make from that business. She also uncovers what percentage of their business is spent on reviewing files for defense lawyers vs. practicing medicine, in some cases. All of which can go a long way in revealing these witnesses for what they really are, which is “paid opinion witnesses.” Michael also explains how he doesn’t like to even use the word “expert,” which gives them the mantle of that title. He goes on to discuss the harsh reality and his distain for medical professionals who misuse their degrees to go against the very oath they have taken to “do no harm,” while we represent legitimately injured clients, and they do it for money! They both agree how uncovering the financial ties and bias of these witnesses also says a lot about them because they could likely be making much more money by seeing patients, but instead are reviewing cases for a defense lawyer. Michael also talks through a real example of what he’s run into on how these medical witnesses come to find themselves making money in this way and how their path toward testifying can ironically parallel his client’s paths.
Michael and Sonia share a plethora of examples regarding their tactics on utilizing depositions, both past and present, to build their cases, ranging from networking with other attorneys and medical professionals to leveraging amazon.com in the middle of a deposition. Sonia explains how you cannot go into a deposition with a broad brush, but rather be laser-focused and able to drill down on even a single word, in some cases, to make your entire case. And to sum things up, Michael talks through the very polarizing two ends of the spectrum his preparations take him with defense medical experts, where they are likely to either be way “off the deep end” and obviously working as a paid witness, or he will focus his energies on essentially turning them to help his case. The strategies they both describe are pure methodical genius.
The conversation shifts to talk specifically about the tone and demeanor both Michael and Sonia use when deposing paid medical witnesses. They both agree the tone and demeaner you use in a paid medical witness deposition is extremely important, as it will likely be replayed for the jury at some point and jurors will also be watching to see how you handle yourself in this situation, the same way they do in the courtroom. We, as plaintiff attorneys, also need to be cognizant of how we are approaching the deposition so it leads the jury to come to their own conclusions regarding the credibility of the paid medical witness and their testimony. It also becomes reflective for the jury to feel the danger themselves of allowing these paid medical witnesses to get away with using their titles as a form of “expertness” in exchange for being paid by the defense. In other words, if we just “rip into them” it will likely backfire on us and not work at all in our favor. Not to mention, Sonia adds, that today’s juries are tired of the theatrics and enthusiastic approach of some lawyers, where the days of yelling and pounding your fist on the table are now long gone.
All in all, this Table Talk with Michael and Sonia was thorough and filled with an enormous number of real examples from their experiences over the years. As a trial lawyer, you will likely run into paid medical witnesses in trials often, and this table talk could be the one thing that prepares you most for success.Post Views: 5,477
(7 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with Cowen | Rodriguez | Peacock partner, Malorie Peacock, to answer the questions of our listeners. This show focuses on how to prove your client’s harms and losses at trial.
The first listener question is regarding the idea of whether 3X the medical bills is typically what you use to determine damages or does that only apply in certain cases? Michael recalls being taught the 3X “rule of thumb” back when he was first starting as a trial lawyer, but since then, no longer does for several reasons. First and foremost, times have changed along with insurance company practices. If an insurance company or defense attorney does start to talk to you about 3X medical bills, it’s likely because your case is worth a lot more than that. Instead, Michael focuses on what a jury might do when they look at each element of damage (pain, mental anguish, impairment, or whatever the measure of damage is in a particular state) individually and determine what they feel compelled to put in each blank. That, paired with what Michael calls “piss off factors” based on things the defense might do to compel a juror to give full justice for, becomes a number he’d like to keep as high as possible. Of course, he also takes into account whether his client is for some reason not likable or the defense is super likable, which can also affect the jury’s motivation in an adverse way for his case. Malorie also brings up another important note on the effects of jurors taking into consideration the percentage of fault even though they are instructed not to do so. To which Michael elaborates a little more on how to potentially work the messaging of that to the jury.
The next question by our listeners is how do you work up damages, especially in a smaller case that doesn’t warrant bringing in experts or producing lots of exhibits? Michael starts to answer this question by clarifying that experts generally do not help work up damages, but rather help to prove calculations on future medical expenses or a vocational loss. Having said that, with regard to the human and non-economic damages, he believes people who come in and talk about your client, how they were before, what they went through, and what they are like now can have the biggest impact. This also doesn’t cost any money toward the case. It does, however, take a lot of time in order to visit with these people to talk through what they know of the client before, during, and after, as well as collect photos or videos showing the client in a different state prior to suffering damages, etc. Michael discusses how this approach, even by taking the time to meet with people and learning your client’s story better, will make you more authentic in the courtroom which can have a profound impact on your case. Malorie sums this point up reminding us that all of our clients are more than just their injuries.
The next question they explore is regarding a wrongful death case without economic damages, which Malorie takes the reins on and starts with conveying just how hard it is to put a number on life when no amount of money will ever replace someone’s loved one. She goes on to elaborate that although you can do focus groups, they are not truly predictive. It will always boil down to the 12 jurors you get on any specific day in court who will ultimately put that number on a case. Michael adds that liability is what really tends to drive the number in wrongful death cases and it sometimes becomes very hard to have a conversation with the surviving family member(s) on the difference in the value of life versus the value of a case. He also shares how going to trial in a death case is extremely tough for the family as they relive one of the most painful events in their lives, which places a real responsibility on us as lawyers to make sure we are doing the right thing. Whether that means turning down an offer that is not sufficient to go to trial to fight for more and making an informed choice while understanding upfront the process and pain that will likely come with going through the details all over again. Malorie also describes the importance of knowing your client (a common theme throughout this episode) and understanding their goals, hopes, and struggles for their future to be able to help guide them through the conversation about money.
Proving grief is another topic Michael and Malorie explore with the belief from some jurors that everyone dies at some point. They both agree that there is a definite difference between dying when it’s time and dying when it’s not your time because of a tragic incident. Michael also points out the balancing act that occurs when you don’t want to “torture” your client and make them cry by bringing up all the pain and suffering they encounter now that their loved one is no longer here vs. focusing on the hopes that were and the plans for the future that have now changed because of the actions of someone else. He also points out that this is a good time to utilize experts like grief counselors and let them talk about the pain and suffering your client is, and will, experience due to the loss as well as the grieving process and the natural cycle of grieving to help paint an appropriate picture for the jury. They also give several other examples of ways to express the pain and loss without having to pull tears out of the surviving family members directly.
Michael and Malorie continue their abundance mentality by sharing so much great information in this episode on topics like when to submit and when not to submit a medical bill toward damages; avoiding the status quo and navigating a case to motivate a jury to give your client the justice they deserve; where do your client’s harms and losses fit into the greater story of the trial; an ideal “3 act” trial story through the juror’s eyes; how not to present your client’s harms and losses in a vacuum; how to get your client’s actual story (hint – it’s not what you might think); tips on utilizing psychodramatic methods; expediting the process of spending time with your client to understand their story; how Pareto’s Law can be applied to your docket; and so much more.
These Table Talk podcasts could not happen without the interaction and questions that are submitted by our listeners. We are eternally grateful for and encourage you to continue to send us your thoughts, ideas, and questions as we love sharing our experiences with all of you.
“Please note the TLN19 discount code mentioned in this show has now expired.”Post Views: 4,500
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with acclaimed author, speaker, and trucking lawyer, Peter Kestner, for a conversation on going up against insurance companies. Peter’s experience is somewhat unique having started out in the insurance industry working for the second largest trucking insurer in the country, handling truck litigation claims.
Then, after going back to law school, he ran an excess program for a sister insurer under the Travelers Umbrella with 30 of the largest trucking concerns with self-insured retentions (SIR’s) where he would audit their claims files to make sure they had proper reserves. In some cases when it was a high exposure case, Peter would have to interject himself into the case to settle it or make the decision to take it to trial. He was even nicknamed “The Janitor” because he would “clean the messes up.” Not long after, he made a change to become a plaintiff’s lawyer when he decided he wanted to help people instead of defending corporations. Michael points out that Peter’s background and experience from the other side is extremely valuable since he’s been on the other side valuing and negotiating the cases and helping make the decisions.
One of the first insights Peter shines a light on is how much the insurance industry has changed over the years in that they now operate more like the banking industry where it is focused more on getting the premium dollars in to the company versus being in the business of risk management. Peter explains, those are dollars the insurance company works the hardest to bring in, as evidence by all the marketing campaigns aimed at bringing in new customers. They then can use those dollars to invest where, unlike the banking industry, there is little regulation as to what they can put in their portfolios as they are regulated at the state level. He clarifies why this is important looking back to 1991 and the advent to Colossus and Allstate, when the McKenzie company did an audit and determined that Allstate was paying too much in claims and suggested they reduce the amount of third party liability settlements in order to increase profits. The assertion of this being that if an insurer can find ways to bring the number of claim settlements down and pay less in overall claims, it would be an acceptable risk when the practice results in a rare bad faith case against the company, keeping more money overall available to invest. It’s obvious that this strategy has worked, as Peter points out that the insurers have grown substantially to where they are now Fortune 100 companies with billions in assets.
The conversation throughout the bulk of this episode focuses mainly on a deep dive insight on a few cases Peter has encountered and how insurance factored into them. One case referred to several times in this episode is a fascinating case which involved a 63-year-old retired Seal Team 6 member who was hit by an 18-wheeler on a dusty road in Nevada. The details surrounding this case are particularly interesting when you consider the two trucks involved were from the same company and Peter’s client was found to have been 8 feet over the center line and they were still able to settle the case, after 3 days of trial, for a sizable amount. Other details, which you need to hear to believe, involved conflicting positions on who caused the accident from within the company (the driver of the truck and the official position of the company) where a Facebook post helped solidify his client was not at fault.
Peter and Michael give some amazing advice to those taking on trucking cases and how to handle insurance companies including: strategies on how (and why) to separate yourself from the insurance negotiations and trial discussions; defense counsel bluffs – how to spot and call them without getting taken advantage of; how to leverage focus groups to put together the best case for your client, even if it means not entering all the client’s injuries; how 5 seconds of hard data can (and did) defeat a defense theory; and so much more. This episode concludes with a discussion around the top things Peter has seen plaintiff’s lawyers do which ends up leaving money on the table. His insider knowledge is extremely helpful when considering case strategy and the whole episode is worth listening to several times over.
Peter Kestner has extensive experience with truck accident cases, both as a private attorney and representative for trucking insurers. He is a co-founder of the law firm McEwen & Kestner. Prior to founding his law firm, Peter served for 10 years as a claims adjuster and litigation manager with one of the largest tractor trailer insurers in the U.S. Peter earned his B.S. from Skidmore College in 1989, and his J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in 2001. Peter now uses his defense experience to represent individuals injured by the negligent acts of trucking companies. Peter has also served as personal counsel to policy holders in disputes with their insurers as well as serving as an expert witness in insurance litigation matters. He is the past-chair of AAJ’s Interstate Trucking Litigation Group, Chair of AAJ’s Bus Litigation Group, sits on the Board of Regents for the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, he is on the board of directors of Minnesota Association for Justice and he also holds a CPCU professional designation in insurance. He has litigated truck accident cases in 19 different states in both State and federal Court. He is also Board Certified in Truck Accident Litigation by the National Board of Trial Advocates (NBTA)
- Past Chair AAJ Trucking Litigation Group
- Chair AAJ Bus Litigation Group 2017-present
- Co-Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee, AAJ Trucking Litigation Group 2011-present.
- Minnesota Association for Justice Board of Directors 2012-present.
- Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys- Board of Regents
- Admitted to Bar, 2001, Minnesota and US District Court of Minnesota
- Appeared Pro-Hac Vice in Trucking Cases in the following jurisdictions: District of Colorado, Western District of Kentucky, Wyoming State Court, New York State Court, Iowa State Court, Illinois State Court, Wisconsin State Court, Kentucky State Court, South Carolina State Courts, District of North Carolina, Nevada State Court and North Dakota State Court, District of Utah, Texas State Courts, North Dakota State Courts, South Dakota State Courts, District of Mississippi.
- Education: Skidmore College (B.S. 1989); William Mitchel College of Law (J.D. 2001)
PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES
- Speaker: AAJ Summer Convention, Understanding the Transport Cycle, Summer 2019
- Speaker: AAJ Jazz Fest, Negotiation Matters, Winter 2019
- Speaker: New Jersey Association for Justice, The Defense Perspective, Spring 2019
- Speaker: Stratford Webinar- Finding the Hidden Motor Carrier, Fall 2018
- Speaker: Kentucky Association for Justice- The Broker Defense, Summer 2018
- Speaker: AAJ Members Only Truck Group- Trial of a Punitive Damage Truck Case
- Speaker: New Jersey Association for Justice: Maximizing the Recovery in Truck Cases, Spring 2018
- Speaker: 2018 Winter Convention AAJ, Negotiations Matter
- Speaker: National Board of Trial Advocacy, Summer 2018) (Understanding Broker Cases
- Speaker: Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, Summer 2018- (Understanding the Transportation Cycle
- Course Chair and Lecturer- AAJ Trucking College, Spring 2018
- Course Chair/Moderator: AAJ Annual Convention, Summer 2017, Trucking Litigation Group.
- Speaker: Ohio Association for Justice, Spring 2017- Trucking Insurance
- Speaker: Florida Justice Association Winter 2016: Hell on the Highways, Maximizing the Recovery in Trucking Cases
- Speaker: ATAA Fall 2016 “Truck Insurance 101”
- Speaker/Course Chair: 2016 AAJ Trucking College
- Speaker: “Rules in Trucking Cases” (AAJ Summer Convention 2016)
- Speaker: “Mediating the Trucking Case” (Minnesota Association for Justice May 2016
- Speaker: “Maximizing Settlement in Auto Cases” (360 Advocacy Seminar Spring 2016).
- Speaker: “Understanding the Transportation Cycle” (New Jersey Association for Justice-Boardwalk Seminar 2016)
- Speaker: “Mediating Trucking Cases” (Minnesota Association for Justice- Spring 2016).
- Co-author: “Potential Source of Recovery in Commercial Trucking Case” The Advocate, Vol. 41 #5 (Kentucky Justice Association Sept./Oct 2013)
- Author- “SIR vs Deductible” (AAJ Insurance Section Newsletter Fall 2015)
- Speaker: “Discovery In Trucking Cases” Webinar (Fall 2015)
- Speaker: “Insurance 101” (New Jersey Association for Justice Spring 2015)
- Speaker: “Insurance 101” (North Carolina Association for Justice, Spring 2015)
- Author- “Broker Liability for Negligent Selection of an Independent Contractor”, Minnesota Trial, Volume 37, No. 4 (Minnesota Association for Justice Fall 2012).
- Author- “Broker Liability for Negligent Selection of an Independent Contractor”, Interstate Trucking Litigation Group Newsletter (Fall 2012)
- Author- “The MCS-90 Endorsement: No Coverage? No Problem, Minnesota Trial (Minnesota Association for Justice Summer 2008)
- Author- “Trucking Insurance Chapter” Truck Accident Litigation, 3rd Edition, (American Bar Association 2012)
- Speaker- “Debunking the Broker Defense” Interstate Trucking Litigation Group Broker Shipper Liability Seminar, October 2013
- Speaker- “Debunking the Broker Defense” Interstate Trucking Litigation Group Broker Shipper Liability Seminar, June 2013
- Speaker- “Finding all Defendants in Wrongful Death Trucking Cases” Minnesota Association for Justice Wrongful Death Seminar, May 2013
- Speaker- “Technology in Trucking Cases” New Jersey Boardwalk Seminar, April 2013
- Speaker- “ Insurance Company Rules” 360 Advocacy Group, Trucking Litigation Seminar, May 2012
- Speaker- “ Insurance Company Rules” Kentucky Justice Association, Trucking Litigation Seminar, June 2012
- Speaker- “ Insurance Company Rules” Tennessee Justice Association, Trucking Litigation Seminar, March 2012
- Speaker- “Maximizing Your Recovery: Finding Insurance Coverage, Minnesota Association for Justice Successfully Litigating the Commercial Truck Case, November 2010
- Speaker- “Insurance Company Rules: Strategies for Maximizing Recovery- IPITLA Seminar, September 2009
- Speaker- “Defense of Trucking Cases, Why Commercial Motor Vehicle Cases are Different, May 2007