Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Play | Stitcher | RSS | More
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Michael Cowen sits down with Founding Partner at The Penn Law Firm, Eric Penn. To start things off, Eric describes his decision to focus on trucking cases and how it came from the simple fact that we can all relate to them. In fact, everyone (including attorneys) share the road with 18 wheelers. Eric goes on to point out that the general view point of “cases never looking better than when you first work them up,” while true at times, seems to go the other way with trucking cases where they get consistently better the more you roll up your sleeves and dig into them.
Speaking of rolling up sleeves and digging in … Michael and Eric pull back the curtain on what turned out to be an $89.6M verdict for the bulk of this podcast, which in and of itself is enlightening, educational, and impactful.
The brief synopsis of the case would likely have many attorneys passing on the case from the very start considering how things looked on the surface – A mother with 3 children in the car, running errands on a Texas highway, hit a patch of black ice, loses control of their vehicle sending them through the median into oncoming traffic and is struck by an 18 wheeler, and the police report indicating that there was no fault to be placed. Michael suggests that more than 98% of personal injury attorneys in the state would likely not take on such a case and the others might even look at it and see a $1-2M settlement, which obviously wouldn’t be enough once you hear the unfortunate circumstances the victims faced moving forward. But not Eric!
Eric’s reasoning behind taking the case stemmed from getting to know the case on a deeper level, understanding that the injuries were dramatic, and having an in-depth knowledge of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (the green book) and CDL Manual’s Safety Rules that are in place to protect all of us who share the road with 18 wheelers, citing one of the chapter’s intent is literally to “prevent crashes and save lives.” One might think that this type of case would revolve around the approximate 3 second sequence of the crash itself, but Eric’s explanation of how their focus became everything but those 3 seconds really shed a light on how this type of case can quickly grow to a much more substantial and just verdict. Spoiler Alert: Eric notes that EVERY case he has come into has 100% of the time been about the company behind the truck driver and how that company operates its fleet, making them much more responsible than they may like to admit. The compassion Eric demonstrates in describing his mental process in the decision to take on a case like this is palpable.
The details surrounding this case that Michael and Eric discuss are apt to be a significant learning tool from which any attorney can stand to learn.
Background on Eric Penn
Eric T. Penn believes that in order to keep our families and communities safe, we have to hold people or corporations who choose to violate safety rules accountable for the injuries and conditions they create. That is why he has been an outspoken advocate for seriously injured people for more than seventeen (17) years. He represents people who have been permanently and seriously injured through no fault of their own.
Eric is a born and raised Texan. He is a 1998 graduate of Baylor University. He received his Juris Doctorate (J.D.) from Baylor University School of Law. He was admitted to the practice of law in Texas and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2001.
A Trial Lawyer’s College (TLC) graduate, Eric is a frequent lecturer on Trucking litigation throughout the country. He is a member of American Association for Justice (AAJ) Trucking Litigation section, Attorney Information Exchange Group (AIEG), Academy of Trucking Accident Attorneys (ATAA) and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA).
For more info on Eric Penn visit:
-
15 – Phillip Miller – Understanding the Minds of the Jury
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Play | Stitcher | RSS | More
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Michael Cowen sits down with author, trial consultant, and lawyer Phillip Miller from Nashville, TN.
Oddly enough, Phillip never planned on being a lawyer, being raised as a “military brat” traveling the country with his family that had a background in medicine in the military. It was actually the misfortune of dealing with attorneys in the wake of his father’s unfortunate passing, and subsequently his mother passing 11 months later, which led him to want to go to law school at night while working during the day as a systems analyst. His practice started from humble beginnings to the point where he was paying overhead with no cases and not really knowing anyone in the field. However, his first case, which happened to be a car wreck, helped him to see his future in personal injury law.
Phillip credits his path to early success to his emphasis on education and taking as many CLE courses as possible. So much so that he began to have as much knowledge as those who were teaching the courses and soon after found himself invited to be on faculty with ATLA, which propelled his learning even more. Phillip notes that you don’t just get invited and start teaching. You first start out by writing a paper on the subject matter, which led to him reading more and becoming exposed to other great lawyers, and the cycle continued to help make him a better lawyer too. Michael also recalls a similar feeling of learning more from doing research and writing papers than from going to lectures to hear others speak on a topic.
Phillip discusses his views on learning from others and says that if you only talk with those who are practicing the same things in the same area, you’ll likely turn out to be just like them. Whereas he has sought to talk and learn from people from all over the world, just to get a different perspective on how others try those very same cases and continues to work cases from all four corners of the country and everywhere in between.
When asked by Michael about his approach to cases when he gets brought in, Phillip sites having worked with and picked up methodologies from Rodney Jew, like becoming an expert in taking depositions and the strategy behind them. As a great example of this, Phillip talks through the idea of “jury proof,” which goes beyond just the duty of breach, duty of causation, and damages line of questions and instead delves into other questions that, if aren’t explored, result in a jury filling in their own answers. In other words, thinking beyond the obvious questions and answers that will help to win your case and looking at the case through the lens of a defense juror. Phillip goes on to say that these techniques are great for finding the “land mines” which could potentially damage a case. Then taking it a step further to use focus groups to help prioritize those detrimental pieces of jury proof, which helps to set up cases to be tried in an order geared towards a jury.
Phillip continues to talk through these “land mines” and the idea of working through the “bad” facts of a case to make them irrelevant or immaterial to the case, which sometimes includes just accepting them and moving on. He also notes that this does not always come easy to plaintiff’s lawyers who are used to fighting for their client. Michael also points out (from something Phillip mentioned earlier in the day) that juries tend to make the trials about what you take time to make them about; so when the defense has something bad for your case and you spend time fighting about it, you end up making the focal point of the case more about that item.
The episode concludes with a discussion of the 5 things Phillip has learned about focus groups and juries and their significance to every case. He even gives some great insights on a product liability case involving talcum powder he worked on recently that really drives one of those jury lessons home.
-
21 – TLN Table Talk with Michael Cowen & Sonia Rodriguez
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Play | Stitcher | RSS | More
With overwhelmingly positive feedback from our listeners, TLN Table Talk is back again! This time featuring fellow partner at Cowen | Rodriguez | Peacock, Sonia Rodriguez, for a discussion mainly focused on how to win (or lose) a case in deposition.
Michael is quick to note that many cases tend to settle before going to trial, making depositions an integral part of the process. Oftentimes it comes down to knowing the documents better than the defense attorneys while also knowing the right documents to order, which in many cases the defense may not have. It can also come down to a witness’s ability to know and articulate the truth in a deposition, which is frequently a direct reflection on those who have helped to prepare the witness (defense or plaintiff).
So how do Michael and Sonia prepare for depositions? Sonia explains her strategy of always looking back on the jury charge to see what exactly she is trying to gain from a witness, scour the defense record from production to find nuggets of useful information, dig into the foot notes, fine print, and back of pages to find what others might miss. She has also found social media to be useful to learn as much as you can on the person being deposed including who their friends and other contacts are, companies they’ve worked for, and digging in to find info on company manuals or other ways to authenticate them as an authority coming from a witness. Michael, on the other hand, points out the importance of networking and collaborating with other plaintiff’s lawyers as “we’re good at getting things and sharing information” such as prior admissions, reports, or testimony. There’s likely nothing more embarrassing for a witness, especially paid ones, than to be cross-examined with contradictory testimony they gave in the past. Sonia, who recently had a deposition with a defense doctor, shares how his past testimony was the exact opposite of what he was testifying to in her case, which obviously played to her favor.
When it comes to the right length of a deposition, Sonia shares her wish to someday be able to take a short depo, but currently has her attention to detail and thoroughness to “blame” for the style of her depositions, one which sometimes drives opposing counsel mad. She tends to feel unsatisfied leaving a depo if she hasn’t covered a lot of ground, knowing the jury will likely not hear most of it. She has also found that many times when she’s taking a deposition, she’s not just doing a trial depo of a witness, but also trying to prepare in advance for a summary judgement response and how they can also be helpful to lay the ground work for what she might need from another witness. In contrast, Michael prides himself on short but thorough depositions stating how it really depends on the witness and subject matter. He also admits the danger of taking shorter depositions in relation to “having a beginner’s mind” vs. the “curse of knowledge” where you might already know something, the defense already knows it, and the defense witness knows it, but the jury does not, and could lead to talking over the jury with jargon they might not understand. Both agree 100% no matter how you approach a deposition, you need to be actively engaged in listening to the responses and not just running down questions on an outline where you would likely miss the truly important parts of what the witness is saying, or not saying, which could make your case.
The conversation shifts to a lively debate heard in many firms of weighing the idea of “going for the kill” in the deposition vs. saving things for trial when you know the witness will be there in person. With different experiences from both Sonia and Michael prior to them partnering, each brings a unique perspective to the table from their mentors as well as from their personal experiences. Of course they agree these tactics both have their place, but Michael also brings up the point how oftentimes with expert witnesses, if they don’t know something at a deposition, they tend to come to trial more prepared with a response.
Michael and Sonia jam pack the second half of their discussion with everything from preparing their own clients for deposition, video-taping depositions, deposing the other side’s experts, guiding medical experts to slow down their testimony while not losing the jury with industry terminology, and exceptions to all of the above.
Trial Lawyer Nation plans to do more “Table Talks” in the future, as this podcast has always been about inclusive learning for all in our industry, which includes learning from each other! Please keep submitting your questions, comments, and topic suggestions to podcast@triallawyernation.com; and be sure to like, share, and subscribe to get the latest from the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast!
Find out more about Michael Cowen here.
Find out more about Sonia Rodriguez here.
-
11 – Morgan Matson – A 360˚ Look at Legal Industry Recruiting
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Play | Stitcher | RSS | More
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Michael Cowen sits down with licensed attorney and founder of Preferred Counsel, Morgan Matson. Morgan specializes in connecting job seekers with great firms and vice versa for law firms and legal departments in companies of all sizes who are look for legal talent.
Starting as a litigator doing mass pharma defense work, then moving on to work for a smaller boutique firm handling medical defense litigation, Morgan found his purpose to be more of a “connector” than a “divider” which then drove him to start working for a recruiter and ultimately owning his own recruiting firm since 2007. He notes his enjoyment for working with small to mid-sized law firms mainly due to finding that “all the boxes that need to be checked” when those firms are looking for a candidate, become amplified when the office dynamics are much more close-knit than in a larger firm.
In a world that has taken “digital” job searches to seemingly every corner of the globe, Morgan is not only happy to be a legal “headhunter” but explains that his localized, relationship-driven recruiting tactics actually have an even greater competitive advantage in this day and age. Morgan leverages his experience as a litigator to find the needle in the hay stack for law firms, oftentimes finding the people who are NOT actually looking to make a move to be the best candidates as they are happily working … until Morgan calls with a very unique opportunity. Michael also points out from his own experience the troubles that come with having to sift through hundreds of resumes and find many with exaggerated qualifications.
For those who are looking to break into the legal industry, Morgan sites that recruiters can be an extremely good resource along with professional social media platforms, such as LinkedIn. Morgan elaborates on LinkedIn as being a fairly under-utilized resource in that there are many groups you can join and ways you can find commonalities with others who are doing what you want to be doing, at which point you can connect with them and find out if there is an opportunity foreshadowing or being hired at their firm. Michael and Morgan also discuss the need to get involved and start having conversations with those who you aspire to work with, whether that’s through attending CLE courses and starting conversations, or by simply picking up the phone and politely pursuing those who are either in the position you want to be in or who may have the ability to hire you. All of this contact, of course, should be done with respect and in search of understanding what it may take to achieve your career goals.
Morgan reveals several other tips for candidates and those looking to hire talented legal professionals throughout the podcast and ends with a striking description of his firm’s fee structure, for both candidates and employers, which is likely not how you think … remember, “relationship-driven.” Michael also uncovers a particularly beneficial reason to utilize a recruiter which ALL law firm partners can certainly relate to. All in all, Morgan is the type of recruiting resource any candidate can appreciate and any sensible law industry employer needs.
Background on Morgan Matson
Morgan is a 1999 graduate of The University of Texas School of Law. From there, he worked as a litigation associate with Fulbright & Jaworski (n/k/a Norton Rose) and later Ball & Weed, a litigation boutique where his practice focused on the defense of healthcare professionals in civil litigation matters and before the state licensing boards. In 2007, he founded Preferred Counsel, a legal recruiting firm focusing on the placement of lawyers and support staff in law firms and corporate legal departments throughout Texas on a direct hire, contract, and part-time basis.
For more info on Morgan Matson visit:
