Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
(4 votes, average: 3.75 out of 5)
Loading...
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, 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 viewpoint 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:
-
74 – Ed Ciarimboli – Masked Justice: Part 3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with fellow trial lawyer Ed Ciarimboli from Pennsylvania. Ed is part of the elite class of lawyers who have been able to take a case to trial in the COVID era. And with the final witness testimony being so monumental to the case that they settled immediately after he left the witness box, this trial story is one you need to hear to believe!
They begin with a brief discussion of Ed’s background and how he started trying cases. A partner at a 12-lawyer and 3 location firm, Fellerman & Ciarimboli, Ed mainly focuses on commercial motor vehicle cases. He got into the AAJ speaking circuit about 9 years ago, where he began to really hone his skills as a lawyer. It was a couple of years after that when he was told he needed to become great at trying cases. When Ed asked why, the other lawyer responded, “Because you’re the worst lawyer I’ve ever seen at settling a case.” So, Ed took the advice and has since focused his energy on being as comfortable as possible in the courtroom.
When asked to elaborate on what he did to develop his skills as a trial lawyer, Ed insists the biggest factor was his investment in his education. He urges young lawyers to do more than join a webinar- they should go to conferences and workshops to truly focus on the different aspects of trial and HOW they’re doing it. Body language and movement are crucial to a lawyer’s performance in the courtroom, and after working with a long list of consultants and gurus on these topics, Ed encourages everyone who wants to be a great trial lawyer to put the effort into this.
He then clarifies that this doesn’t mean following the dogmatic approach of one pro- it’s about learning the fundamentals (taking depositions, cross-examinations, etc.) then studying different approaches to storytelling and choosing the best one for your particular case. This approach requires much more work than a cookie-cutter strategy, but both Ed and Michael agree that it’s well worth the effort.
Michael then starts to dig into the facts of Ed’s case, which was unique and incredibly tragic. Ed explains how the defendant company purchased a huge molding machine from a broker. The defendant company signed the paperwork and assumed responsibility for the machine, then hired a crane company for the rigging and transportation of said machine. The crane company was told nothing about the details of the machine, notably the 55-gallon drum of hydraulic fluid still inside the machine. In the process of moving the machine onto the flatbed truck for transportation, the hydraulic fluid sloshed to the side and caused the machine to tip over onto Ed’s client, killing him instantly.
Ed then explains how they ended up suing the company who purchased the machine and shares how his extensive work on commercial motor vehicle cases set him up for success on this case. Ed knew the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations “100 million times better than the defense,” which he used to his advantage in placing the blame on the defendant company whose only real defense was, “We hired this company.”
Michael continues the conversation by asking Ed how jury selection was handled. Ed shares how voir dire was conducted in a large old theater instead of a courtroom in order to allow for safe spacing between the potential jurors. And while he admits he was more nervous for this jury selection than any he’s ever done before, the process went incredibly smoothly. He gives high praise to the judge, his jury consultants, and the jurors themselves, stating, “I truly believe we won this case in jury selection.” He also notes that the demographic composition of the jury pool was not skewed, something which will surprise listeners who believed COVID would cause people to resist sitting on a jury.
Ed then shares the setup of the courtroom, which included the jurors sitting in the gallery with two large screens in front of them. He explains in-depth the lengths he and his team went to effectively present to a jury largely spaced out, including the widespread use of visuals that any trial lawyer trying to get back in the courtroom needs to hear.
Michael then digs deeper into Ed’s sequencing of the case and presentation to the jury, which is something he did with incredible craft and thoughtfulness. He began by simply stating, “George James went to work one day and never came back. Why?” before introducing the jury to the company, who was very experienced in dealing with hazardous materials. He then boiled this complex case down into one simple graphic of the transportation cycle, highlighting the defendant company was both the shipper and the receiver of the machine.
Ed then called the corporate representative as his first witness, who did “TERRIBLE,” and came off smug, angry, and unwilling to accept the responsibility which was so clearly his. Next was their expert, then the moment which Ed was most concerned about, the client’s blue-collar co-workers from the crane company. His fears were quickly abandoned as these witnesses talked plainly and honestly about their lack of experience with hazardous materials, further securing the blame on the defendant company who assumed the responsibility. But the most powerful moment of all was seeing the way they all talked about Ed’s client and how amazing of a person he was, causing many of them to break down on the stand.
As the trial went on, the defense kept offering more money to settle the case, but it was nowhere near enough. Ed had rested and was ready for closing until the defense called their final witness, an economic expert. While Ed had chosen to leave economic damages out of the case completely, the defense thought it wise to have their witness testify that based on the client’s income and life expectancy, his life was only worth $61,000.
Considering the client was such an upstanding person that his EX-WIFE was one of the key damage witnesses, this was a shocking move. After Ed’s brutal cross-examination of this witness (which you need to hear to fully appreciate), he was rushed in the hallway by corporate counsel eager to settle for the amount he wanted. Ed agreed and the case was settled right before closing.
While Ed’s trial story and success in the age of COVID are admirable, Michael wants to know – would Ed recommend other lawyers to push their cases to trial, or should they wait until COVID has passed? Ed simply states, “I say do it.” It’s scary filled with uncertainty, but as lawyers, we are not doing our jobs if we are not pushing our cases.
As a follow-up, Michael curiously asks, “What about if your only option is a Zoom trial?” to which Ed is a bit more hesitant. They go back and forth discussing the merits and limitations of Zoom trials, which Michael is set to partake in starting February 1st. Ed praises Michael for taking this leap and wishes him luck in this upcoming trial.
This podcast episode also covers why sequencing your witnesses properly is so important, using experts, how Ed found his “best jurors,” the details of the FMCSR’s on transporting hazardous material, what the jurors said when Ed reached out to them post-trial, and so much more. This is truly an inspiring trial story that you DON’T want to miss!
Interested in hearing more COVID era trial stories? Check out our other Masked Justice episodes:
Guest Bio:
Attorney Edward Ciarimboli is a founding partner at Fellerman & Ciarimboli Law PC. He graduated from Wilkes University with a dual degree in political science and engineering and applied science. While at Duquesne University School of Law, he was admitted to the Order of Barristers for Excellence in Courtroom Advocacy and was named a national semi-finalist in the American Trial Lawyers Association Moot Court Competition.
After receiving his Juris Doctor, Attorney Ciarimboli served as a law clerk to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Attorney Ciarimboli concentrates his practice on trucking and auto collision and medical malpractice litigation. He is active in many professional organizations, including the American Association for Justice, the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, and the Luzerne County and Pennsylvania Bar Associations. He serves on AAJ’s National College of Advocacy Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the Pennsylvania Association of Justice, donates to AAJ’s PAC, and is a member of AAJ’s Trucking Litigation Group; Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway and Premises Liability; Insurance Law; and Professional Negligence sections.
Attorney Ciarimboli has been selected for inclusion in the Pennsylvania Super Lawyers® list every year since 2008. He was named Top 40 Under 40 by the National Trial Lawyers Association and named to the Top 10 National Trial Lawyers’ Trucking Trial Lawyers Association. He was also named as one of the Nation’s Top One Percent by the National Association Distinguished Counsel.
In addition to his extensive trial practice, Attorney Ciarimboli frequently teaches lawyers across the country on both deposition and trial skills.
Attorney Ciarimboli is also an active member of his community. With his partner, Attorney Greg Fellerman, he began the Safe Prom Pledge in 2010 as a way to promote a drug-free and alcohol-free prom night for students throughout Eastern Pennsylvania. To date, they have spoken to more than 25,000 high school students on the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Attorney Ciarimboli lives in a 115-year-old farmhouse with his wife, Jennifer, their children, two dogs, two cats, countless chickens, roosters, and an occasional pheasant.
-
33 – Julian C. Gomez – Autonomous Vehicles: People v. Machines
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
(11 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)Loading...
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with automotive products liability attorney, Julian C. Gomez, to discuss his expertise on product cases, specifically dealing with autonomous vehicles (AKA: Robot Cars). Most attorneys can relate, but the gist of every other talk Michael has ever heard on this topic, before Julian’s, was that we’re going to get robot cars, they’re never going to crash, and they’re going to put everyone out of business in 5 years. This is certainly what the automotive industry is trying to promise, but the data we have to date suggests otherwise.
Julian’s beginnings, getting into the field of automotive product cases, started back when he clerked for a judge who was the first in the country to try a Ford Explorer/Firestone case. He was able to sit through the trial and learn from some of the best lawyers in the country, which sparked his interest and set him on this path. When Julian started doing automotive product cases, he noticed the engineers were starting to address the legal issues as opposed to the engineering issues behind them. He points out that the engineering is really not all that difficult – the vehicle uses data gathering devices, puts the information into a data processor, which processes the data based on an algorithm, then an answer or result is spitting out, and makes the vehicle do something. Getting too far into the details can sometimes overcomplicate things, which Julian compares to the area of autonomous vehicles and states “I don’t have to be a computer engineer, to know that my computer is broken or to know that it’s working.”
Julian then describes the different levels of crash avoidance technologies (1-6) to include all sides of the vehicle along with the various types (signaling warnings to taking full-blown actions with the vehicle). He goes on to talk about how the levels start to gray out based on human data input as well as how there really are no “driverless” vehicles on the road today, despite what you hear on the news. He also discusses a recent AAA report addressing the confusion regarding the different types of autonomous systems due to the industry, and manufacturers, because there is not a standardized naming structure for these systems.
Interestingly, Julian explains the current way they are measuring the level 3-5 type autonomous vehicles is through disengagements, where the human driver has had to take over the car’s actions instead of it driving itself. In comparison, Apple had roughly 1 disengagement every 1.2 miles whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum, Waymo had roughly 1 disengagement every 10,000 miles. And while there is a huge disparity between the top performers and the bottom, and numerous tragedies throughout the industry, Julian points out the real problem is there haven’t been enough vehicle miles driven to know how safe they are going to be. He also talks about the millions of vehicle miles driven each year compared to the thousands of deaths that occur on the road, and then extrapolates the data from when Uber had its recent fatality, based on the number of vehicle miles driven by autonomous cars at that point, to determine we would be experiencing around 1.6 million deaths each year. He brings this point home by stating even if you cut that number in half multiple times, it’s still much more than what is happening today on our roads.
Another problem Julian points out is the conflicts that occur between an objective algorithm system in the computer within the car working with a human subjective system. He gives a great example of how we’ve all seen cars, even before we started driving, interact in different ways when the driver is planning to turn right (IE: roll slowly through the light, even if it’s technically not the correct way). As humans, we are able to gauge how much space/time we have between our vehicle and the vehicle turning in front of us, whereas autonomous cars look at it from the standpoint of what the rule is and how it will obey that rule.
Michael points out how the computers can only do what they are programmed to do, making the job of the engineers to think of every possibility and then the safest possible outcome for each of the scenarios unfathomably enormous. Julian notes that as humans, the second most common function our bodies perform (breathing being the first) is seeing. We have been “seeing” and processing things through our eyesight for our entire lives, since day one. Some even suggest for a computer to process the amount of data we have seen in our lives, the computer would be the size of a warehouse, much less the size of a car, or the size of a computer in a car. Julian also discusses the responsibility to predict the unknown, which is nearly impossible, as if to say “tell me everything you don’t know.”
Michael and Julian recount the unfortunate incident in Arizona with the self-driving Uber car, the details of which are likely not what you might have heard previously, nor are they what you might expect (hint, hint – the frontal collision system was turned off, but by whom? Listen to find out). Also, perhaps somewhat shockingly, was the fact that the case was settled in 10 days, which Julian notes, might give you a sense of how Uber felt about their culpability in the case. Michael and Julian also discuss the perceptions of the “auto-piloted” cars as set forth by the marketing departments of the vehicles and how they are not exactly in line with what the cars are actually equipped to do.
The podcast concludes with Julian revealing his process for evaluating which product liability cases to take on as well as the “why” behind them versus simply going after damages, the results of which could do more harm to the legal industry than good when the wrong type of cases are pursued. They also make some predictions as to the future of mass-produced autonomous vehicles and where they’ll likely be used. As this technology continues to evolve, this episode drives home (no pun intended) the vast areas of the unknown in the auto industry in regards to where blame should be placed in such an environment where humans are sharing responsibility with computers, along with the engineers and companies who design them, to keep our roadways safe for everyone.
“Please note the TLN19 discount code mentioned in this show has now expired.”
BACKGROUND ON JULIAN C. GOMEZ
Julian C. Gomez is an attorney in McAllen, Texas. Julian was raised in South Texas. Julian is a ninth-generation Texan and his family still ranches on their original Spanish land grant. Julian graduated from Texas A&M University with a degree in Agricultural Economics and was a member of the Corps of Cadets while at Texas A&M.
After graduation, Julian spent time on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as an analyst in the cattle futures and options pits. Julian graduated from the University of Houston Law School in 2000. Julian was a law clerk for Filemon Vela, United States District Judge, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division and a law clerk for Reynaldo Garza, United States Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Julian founded The Julian C. Gomez Law Firm and has practiced there since.
Julian has a national and international practice focusing primarily on catastrophic product liability and negligence cases, mass torts, and contingent commercial litigation. Julian is a past Chairman of the American Association for Justice’s Products Liability Section (the largest organization of plaintiffs product liability attorneys in the U.S.); on the executive board of and the vice president of continuing legal education for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, on the board of directors of and co-chair of continuing legal education committee for the Attorneys Information Exchange Group (the largest organization of plaintiffs automotive product liability attorneys in the U.S.); has served on plaintiffs’ committees in national mass tort litigation; is a graduate of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College; is a graduate of the American Association for Justice’s Leadership Academy; is the special liaison to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on behalf of both American Association for Justice’s Products Liability Section and the Attorneys Information Exchange Group; regularly speaks at international, national, statewide, and local continuing legal education courses on topics ranging from federal jurisdiction to products liability; is the 2017 Men’s 40-44, –69k Texas Weightlifting Champion; and has a 3:45 marathon time.
Julian is a U.S. Coast Guard licensed captain, is on the board of directors of the USA Weightlifting Foundation (the foundation for United States’ Olympic weightlifting athletes) the board of directors of McAllen Educational Foundation (the foundation for the McAllen Independent School District), and the board of directors of the Texas International Fishing Tournament (the largest fishing tournament in the State of Texas). In his free time, Julian loves spending time with his number one legal assistant, his daughter, Averri; and is an avid outdoorsman, rancher, photographer, snow skier, and tarpon fly-fishing angler.
For more information on Julian C. Gomez visit his website at https://www.jcglf.com/
-
36 – David Ball – Finding the Alignment – Understanding What Jurors Want
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with a special guest, Dr. David Ball. David is a trial consultant, speaker, and one of the “fathers” of the book “The Reptile in the MIST.” His name and his books have been mentioned on numerous episodes not only Michael Cowen, but many of our Trial Lawyer Nation guests. With several books of David’s to choose from, Michael can’t help but note how “David Ball on Damages 3” has been very useful in helping him craft opening statements and serving as an outline for many trials. He also highly recommends all trial lawyers have this book within arms-reach of their desk (more on this later in the episode). And for those trial lawyers who don’t know David personally, it is important to also note he has probably done more good for trial lawyers than anyone else in the industry.
Having started down his path many years ago, David’s mission of trying to help trial attorneys make complicated things clear, originally came from his background in theatre, where much of what he had learned in theatre has been extremely useful for trial lawyers. In fact, working with a more classical repertoire theatre with works from Shakespeare, he wondered how he could make those plays crystal clear for the audience who is listening to it and how it might relate to the legal industry. His conclusion? “I realized lawyers have 2 problems: 1. They’re boring as hell and 2. They’re not very clear about what they’re talking about.” Today David describes what he does as helping to strategize cases to maximize the principles of what we’ve learned in the neurosciences and apply it to how people really make conclusions, how decisions are made, how we know things, and how logic has very little to do with any of it. Essentially, working as a bridge between the neurosciences and the courtroom.
So, how do we get jurors to see things the way we want them to? Logic doesn’t deal with the law school version of tell them your case, they’ll understand your case, and if you’re in the right, they’ll give your client a just verdict. Justice has nothing to do with how people make decisions. How do we translate that into things you’re allowed to do in trial and in a way that will motivate jurors to do what we want them to do? David says, people don’t make their decisions on the basis of “justice,” but rather justice is simply the result of something you think you want. He goes on to explain why trial lawyers need to look at what they’ve got and then put this “stew” together into something someone REALLY wants, for it to end the way we want it to. The whole process of trial, as David describes it, is an alignment.
David continues to describe this alignment by combining solid research along with all the things he’s learned in theatre about what real storytelling is. The fundamental thing about The Reptile, he describes, is by getting the jurors to want themselves to be safe and live in a safe world, that becomes their want. He also points out that in order to get their want, he also needs to get his client’s “want,” which is money. Michael adds to this by stating the only power the jury has in the courtroom is to give or deny money in the case. David goes on to say that if the attorney is presenting their case well, jurors will understand if they give a good verdict it will make their world safer, but also giving a bad verdict will make their world a more dangerous place than it is now. In other words, once the jurors walk into the courtroom, they will be walking out with either a safer world or a more dangerous world, but it will never be the same way as when they walked in. Furthermore, David explains when you ask a client why they are doing the case, not only will they say it’s because they need the money (compensation) but they also want to make sure this won’t happen to anyone else. To expand on his point, David shares an example from his early years watching the trial of a case involving a wealthy woman in North Carolina, who was rear-ended and clearly didn’t need the compensation from the case. The answer the woman gave him when he asked her why she was going through with the case, even though it was painful, is priceless. And it helps us understand why even the smallest cases are important in making the world a safer place. David also talks about the points he describes to the jurors regarding their potential complicities in what they allow the defense to get away with and the affects it will have on others who face the same situations in the future.
Which leads Michael to pose the question, “how do we figure out what the jurors want?” David goes through a laundry list of things we know about what jurors want, including through focus groups and the neurosciences what motivates us to want something. Boiled down to its core, David explains this with a great example of teenage boys as jurors, which will shock you and make complete sense. And he wraps up with describing the fundamental drives that keep us alive, as well as the impact of disrespect and humiliation.
The topic shifts at one point to talk about when the other side brings in what they call an “independent medical examiner,” three lies in one person’s title, David jokes (sort of). Rather than disagreeing with their conclusion, David proposes you show what they did wrong in their methodology, to show they purposely arrived at the wrong conclusion. He goes on to show how the right types of questions posed to your own experts can further point out the flaws in their conclusions without the need to call the defense’s independent expert a liar. Michael also adds how it can be very effective to discuss the idea of a defense’s witness as “independent,” when they’ve been picked and paid for by the defense, in helping the jury not feel like their intelligence is being disrespected. David continues to talk about the difference between describing the defense as someone who may lie in order to protect themselves vs. someone who is disrespecting the jury by insulting their intelligence and the impact this can have on a jury. He goes on to point out how it is analogous to the difference between a doctor lying to a patient, where the patient might be being disrespected but the juror is not vs. a doctor getting on the witness stand and deliberately misleads the jury, and as such, disrespecting them.
One of the things David describes as loving about what he’s been able to do, is when he started writing his first theatre for trial book, there was nothing. Nobody was doing anything in the way of teaching major overall strategy and there were certainly no books on damages or doing it. He’d like to think that the Damages book helped give rise to this whole other industry. In one hand he should hate it, he created all his own competitors, and on the other hand it is the greatest feeling in the world for him.
David also suggests for every attorney to page through their Damages 3 book on a consistent basis to examine it through the lens of the case you’re working on currently, in order to see things you never saw before. He suggests this, mainly because so much information is lost after seminars and reading other books, because the only things you likely retain are the things which pertain to the case you’re working on right now.
Michael and David move on to the topic of the principles of persuasion and how David has brought his theatre experience into the courtroom. Revisiting the idea of “real storytelling,” David talks through the actual history of storytelling and how it has evolved over time. He points out why you have to make people want to hear the next part of the story, AKA “narrative thrust,” using “dramatic tension” to create tension between this moment and the next moment, and the next moment could be an hour away or two minutes away. Crafting what David describes as “forwards” where everyone sees the anticipated moment in the story and wants to hear it for themselves. He also points out these forwards are very case specific, very particular to the story, and it is a relatively sophisticated thing to do for people who are not natural born storytellers, but you can learn to do it. And he describes why the context in storytelling and where you put pieces of information in the story matter significantly to shaping the story.
Michael and David touch briefly on social media and a trial lawyer’s first amendment right, where it is important to note David believes if you are a trial lawyer, you have accepted a fiduciary responsibility to your client which trumps your ability to have free speech. He also believes society has become so divisive these days on social media and now face to face, where we now have the challenge of bringing both sides together to fight for an even greater cause. David uses the example of 2 people fighting, but when someone comes in and tries to do harm to them, they will both unite because they are both in danger and need each other to save themselves. The heart of such a scenario, is the aim of every trial lawyer when working with diverse juries.
Digging deeper into David’s theatre background, Michael talks about how he has yet to see a trial lawyer facing a potentially multi-million-dollar trial rehearse as much as a community theatre where 30 people may be in the audience. David shares how being a trial lawyer is the only area of public performance where they don’t rehearse. He goes on to suggest you cannot fully rehearse on your own and, a full rehearsal, means a dress rehearsal. In the same way you cannot have football practice without eventually having a scrimmage with another side. When you are on the stage, you have a million other things on your mind, you’re being “Hamlet.” When you’re a lawyer, you’ve got your peers, the judge, and the jury all watching you. It distracts your attention from where it needs to be, so you seem very nervous. You cannot be a leader of human beings when you’re very nervous. And the best lawyers are leaders of human beings.
The podcast ends with a discussion on charisma in the courtroom as well as David’s important work in the criminal defense industry. And after spending this episode with David, it’s clear to see why so many trial lawyers look to him as a powerhouse in the industry.
“Please note the TLN19 discount code mentioned in this show has now expired.”
BACKGROUND
David Ball, who wrote trial advocacy’s best-selling strategy book – David Ball on Damages — is a litigation researcher and strategist with North Carolina’s Malekpour & Ball Consulting (JuryWatch, Inc.). He is the nation’s most influential jury consultant, communications expert, and advocacy teacher. His training is in science, engineering, and small-group communications, and he is a 30-year veteran of the professional theater.
Dr. Ball and his partner, lawyer/consultant Artemis Malekpour (artemis@consultmmb.com), consult on civil and criminal cases across the country. They are routinely credited with turning the most difficult cases into significant victories. They are the nation’s only trial consultants qualified to safely and comprehensively guide attorneys with Reptilian, David Ball on Damages, and David Ball on Criminal Defense methods and strategy. Their hundreds of brainstorming sessions – “WorkDays” – have become the gold standard for case-strategy development.
In addition to David Ball on Damages, Dr. Ball’s other landmark advocacy books include Theater Tips & Strategies for Jury Trials, Reptile (with Don Keenan), Theater for Trial (with Joshua Karton), Reptile in the MIST, and David Ball on Criminal Defense.
Dr. Ball has taught law students at North Carolina, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Roger
Williams, Loyola, and Campbell schools of law, and at Duke Law as Senior Lecturer. He’s an award-winning teacher for the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and the American Association for Justice’s National College of Advocacy. He has long been among the nation’s most in-demand of CLE speakers. His favorite job was taxi driver in the 1970s in Stamford, CT, and his Daddy was a Catskill Mountains bootlegger during Prohibition.
Dr. Ball is also a pioneer in adapting film and theater methods into trial techniques. His theater/film students have won Oscars, Obies, Tonies, and Emmies; his scripts have been staged at professional theaters off-Broadway, throughout North America, and overseas. He helped to lead the Guthrie Theater, as well as Carnegie-Mellon University’s renowned theater conservatory and, as Chair, Duke University’s Drama Department. His best-selling film and theater training book, Backwards and Forwards, has been the field’s standard every year since 1984, and is now in uses by trail lawyers as well. His crossover books, Theater Tips and Strategies for Jury Trials along with the new Theater for Trial, are the standards for the use of film and theater techniques in litigation.
Dr. Ball also wrote the cult classic film Hard Rock Zombies, though he made up for it by writing Swamp Outlaw, a novel about Civil War Era Lumbee hero Henry Berry Lowery, now under option for a motion picture. (TV viewers: Dr. Ball and Dr. Bull deny each other’s existence.)
RESOURCES
Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution
