Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with Ohio attorney, Andy Young, who like Michael, specializes in trucking cases.
Andy’s journey over the past 20 years of practicing law and ultimately specializing in trucking cases started by accident when his hobby for rehabbing trucks, as well as starting a trucking company, turned out to be more valuable than he expected where he was being asked to speak at various trucking litigation groups. Essentially his passion for “anything on wheels” and his upbringing around big equipment propelled him toward the industry as well. He goes on to establish upfront that he indeed does not hate the trucking industry as some might conclude by having become a trucking attorney. Andy cares deeply for the truck drivers as well as the component of the industry that treats the drivers well while also explaining in great detail the parts of the industry he does not care for, which abuses the drivers and stokes safety issues all in the name of profits. He goes on to say that everything he does “ultimately is in favor of safety and in favor of the truck drivers too.”
Beyond filing lawsuits to try and improve the trucking industry, Andy is also involved in several advocacy efforts having originally become involved through some articles he had written and published back in 2011 on underride crashes, which have evolved all the way through giving testimony to Congress on the issue. He talks through some of the efforts that he’s been a part of in shining a light on the issues that surround truck crashes, specifically underride guards and rear guards, where the industry has made significant strides to reduce fatalities from crashes involving underrides in Europe, but continue to lack in the United States. While Andy has started to see the needle move a little bit in regards to instituting safety features that would prevent such fatalities, he also sees the trailer manufactures resist the urge to make their products safer while using federal regulations as a scapegoat for not making these life-saving improvements. This transitions into Andy sharing how helpful it can be for the families who have lost a family member to a truck crash to become active in safety advocacy as a way to give them some purpose to their loss.
Michael asks Andy, with his unique perspective as a truck driver and running a trucking company, what he’s learned to make him a better trucking lawyer. Undoubtedly, Andy refers to his time behind the wheel as being the most valuable and suggests that those who are looking to be great trucking lawyers do what Michael Cowen did and go to truck driving school to get a more intimate understanding of what truck drivers experience as well as a better understanding of what it’s like to maneuver such large pieces of equipment. Andy also continues to use his truck driving skills as a part of a small race car team where he drives the truck that carries the car and finds himself constantly thinking about his cases every time he gets behind the wheel. This has allowed him to more effectively communicate with truck drivers better and understand things that perhaps other attorneys might not consider. He goes on to describe several examples of how this has come in handy citing personal experiences that have helped him to debunk some theories placed on truck drivers in cases when it comes to the speeds they travel at in relation to what gear they are in, which he notes has “been very, very beneficial.”
The conversation shifts to Andy discussing his great results in the face of some fairly tough fact patterns, where Andy goes into detail regarding his litmus test on how he decides whether to take on a case. It’s worth noting that he does not think it matters whether his client has hit the back of a truck, has had a DUI, were speeding, or had some other issues going on. Instead, he looks at the truck driver and the truck company to see if they created a hazard whereby a crash would not have happened otherwise to determine if the case is worth pursuing or not. He goes into further details on case selection tips, including spending some money upfront to explore how the hazard was created and/or how it was confronted.
Moving the conversation into the courtroom, and wrapping up this podcast, Andy describes some of his techniques and analogies he uses to keep his case in a positive light including one he uses with his clients who are angry about their loss (rightfully so) but are in need of help to not become their case’s worst enemy by displaying their hostility. Another analogy he uses with his clients refers to how to determine what’s important and what’s not at trial, which he’s found to resonate well with his clients when he establishes the analogy with his clients early on. Andy also uses a technique where his client’s home is used as a witness, which is truly fascinating and the way he walks through it, literally and figuratively, can really give things a whole new perspective. Truly some incredible strategies and techniques worth listening to and incorporating into any case that’s going to trial.
BACKGROUND
Andrew (Andy) R. Young concentrates his practice on catastrophic truck crashes and wrongful death litigation. He holds an active, interstate, Class A Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and regularly drives his own Peterbilt semi-tractor and 45-foot racecar trailer. He has testified as a Truck Safety Advocate before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. He is a member of the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). He has testified on behalf of OOIDA and the Ohio Association for Justice’s Truck Safety Section before the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee. He serves as an Executive Officer of the AAJ Trucking Litigation Group and is the immediate, past-president of the Lorain County Bar Association (LCBA). Mr. Young is “AV” rated by Martindale-Hubbell, has been included in Ohio Super Lawyers, and has received numerous awards from AAJ TLG, OAJ, and was the LCBA Member of the Year in 2016. Mr. Young serves on the Board of Regents for the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys (ATAA) and serves as the ATAA’s current Education Chair. He lectures frequently at continuing legal education programs on trucking litigation and trial advocacy. Mr. Young has served as a Moderator and on the Organization Committee for two industry “Truck Underride Roundtables” hosted at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) at their crash test facility in Ruckersville, Virginia. Mr. Young is also member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). Mr. Young is a partner with Young and McCarthy, LLP, located in Cleveland, Ohio and works with attorneys throughout the nation.
-
18 – Jude Basile – A Trial Lawyer’s Favorite 2 Words: All Rise
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with well-established and extremely accomplished trial lawyer, Jude Basile, from San Luis Obispo, CA. Growing up, Jude knew early on he had a tremendous desire to become a trial lawyer, a profession he describes as one where he can talk to ordinary people about what’s right and what’s wrong.
Jude’s passion for jury trials is palpable from the very beginning of his conversation with Michael where he describes the evolution of how our “enemies” approach us and the power of the jury. He talks about the numerous delay tactics to drag things out, throw broad nets in discovery, and other roadblocks to stop us from getting to trial. And he reveals the power a jury has to level the playing field, which is getting hard to hold on to. In fact, if there was one thing he could change, he says it would be some legislative enactment where we could limit those obstacles so we could have easier access to a jury, because it seems like the only cases which can go to jury now are very big and very expensive cases. This is likely why his two favorite words are “all rise.” He goes on to describe how the 7th amendment has seemingly evolved over the years into the right to present a case to an arbitrator, or to an adjuster, or a mediator. Of course, there are cases that reach a jury but there is a tremendous fight to get to a jury trial, in his experience. Michael notes this fight also tests your determination and desire to get there, because not everyone has it and there are different forces at work with each case.
Michael asks Jude his advice for aspiring trial lawyers on the things to be done to develop trial skills. Like many great attorneys will tell anyone looking to become a trial lawyer, continuous education is important (as he notes several of the great authors of the books in his office such as Moe Levine, Jim Perdue, Mark Mandell, and others), but there is no substitute for trial experience. Jude recommends starting by working with a local prosecutor or public defender’s office. He suggests if you can try a DUI case you can likely try any type of case: they have direct and circumstantial evidence, eye witness testimony, expert testimony, breathalyzers and other scientific equipment, chain of custody, blood samples, and you can learn all the evidentiary components in a case.
Trial lawyers are great story tellers to which Michael explores how to find the right story to tell. Described as the fundamental understanding in which all communication is a “story,” Jude explains the importance of understanding our own story first before trying to understand the other side’s story. He recalls a trial where understanding his own story helped him essentially win a case during jury selection after a potential juror questioned if Jude was “in it for the money.” His answer was not only truthful and heartfelt, but also brilliant, proving that sometimes the most difficult moments during a trial allow the most powerful things happen. Michael also points out when you deny truths, even when they are inconvenient, you lose credibility. Jude goes on to share another story about a case he is looking forward to trying in the coming months where the impact of money is of little importance versus the non-monetary considerations important to be met. Both Michael and Jude agree sometimes there are factors more important than money such as education, or the impact of change which can lead a case in the direction of betterment of everyone, which make them truly satisfying cases.
Michael and Jude conclude their conversation with a discussion on the fears (and successes) of turning down cases. This is a hard practice to implement, but the benefits can be surprisingly tremendous toward living the life you want to live… a habit few understand and even fewer are successfully able to implement.
For more information about Jude Basile, visit: http://www.basilelaw.com/
Jude Basile has been instrumental in developing and presenting compelling case stories to move juries to do right. His practice is based out of San Luis Obispo California. He concentrates on working with other lawyers, throughout the state, as lead trial counsel, to continue to share, develop and expand the method of simple, yet powerful truth telling.
He has received 6 Outstanding Trial Lawyer awards from Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, including Trial Lawyer of the Year. He has been named California Central Coast Trial Lawyer of the year 3 times. He is past president of the Trial Lawyers College having been personally selected by legendary trial lawyer Gerry Spence.
His verdicts include 7 and 8 Ligure results against corporations and governmental entities, on behalf of individuals and families. He is an invited member of the prestigious Inner Circle of Advocates limited to 100 of the best plaintiff trial lawyers in the nation. He belongs to the exclusive membership of the Black War Bonnet Society, which stands for high achievement and discipline in the pursuit of physical mental and spiritual wellness.
He is a frequent, invited presenter to Trial Lawyer and Bar Organizations throughout the country.
He has practiced trial law since 1982. A member of the United States Supreme Court, California, Georgia and Federal bars.
He lives on the doorstep to Big Sur California with his wife and 3 children and enjoys hiking, and contemplation in the Coastal Mountains.
For more information about Jude Basile, visit: http://www.basilelaw.com/
-
73 – Pat S. Montes – The Secret Weapon: Your Client’s Story & The Human Experience
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with his good friend and “secret weapon,” Pat S. Montes. A practicing lawyer herself, Pat has developed a consulting business where she works with lawyers and their clients to help the clients tell their stories more effectively. They’ll take an in-depth look at her process for depo and trial prep and why it is so effective (and healing) for clients to tell their whole story.
They begin by looking at Pat’s background and how she got into her consulting business. A proud Mexican American and one of six siblings, she explains how her upbringing was hugely influential to her and played a substantial role in her success. She goes on to share how she attended the Trial Lawyers College in 2002 where she realized then that she didn’t really know her clients or their voices. She began a long journey of research and self-discovery, attending countless seminars on psychodrama and storytelling. While Pat does not do psychodrama herself, she utilizes many of the same techniques in her practice. She focuses on getting beyond the client’s outer layer to their inner layer, so they can show the jury what’s really going on inside them.
Pat continues by explaining what psychodrama is, which she simply defines as “finding truth in action.” In this process typically used for group psychotherapy, the “star” (the client) acts out scenes and stories from their life while the present group connects with that experience. In relation to the legal practice and our clients, it is a way of being able to connect with other humans and other human experiences and “finding the truth in the story.” Pat uses role reversal, teaches the clients how to “concretize” their feelings, and more to help them translate their feelings into a story for the jury.
They move on to dig into Pat’s process for preparing the lawyer and their client for deposition. Michael begins this section by asking Pat how she discovered that putting something into action helps the client describe it better. She shares how this process gets the client convicted about how they feel and always begins by asking about the effect of the crash on the client’s life. Their immediate answer to this first question reveals a lot about who they are and how they’ve processed this life-changing event. She will then dig deeper into that answer to uncover the “whole truth,” a process which Michael has seen Pat do with his clients many times and strongly believes is incredibly important to the case, cathartic for the client, and vital for the lawyer to fully understand their client. Michael also notes the importance of the client being completely honest with the jury, because “juries have great bullshit detectors” and will punish you if they sense you’re being dishonest.
Pat will then dig into the client’s “before,” something she thinks is crucial for the client to be able to explain vividly to the jury, saying “If the jury can feel the before, then the jury can feel the loss.” She goes on to say that it’s perfectly fine if the client’s “before” was less than perfect. For example, if the client was in a transition phase before the crash, the last thing they needed was a life-altering injury.
Another important part of Pat’s process is teaching the client how to describe their pain and how it makes them feel. This not only helps them explain it vividly to the jury, but it can even uncover injuries and ailments that have been unnoticed by doctors. She then explains how the lawyer should model this to the client by first describing a recent pain they’ve had. She provides her own example of dealing with Sciatica in such detail that listeners are sure to feel the exact sensation of her pain as she says it.
While this process is meant to build trust and understanding between the lawyer and their client, it also serves to prepare the client to bare the burden of proof for the jury. Many clients initially believe they shouldn’t have to prove anything, or that their story speaks for itself. But Pat will constantly remind the client of how what they say looks to a jury. For example, if the client doesn’t remember the date of the accident, that could appear incongruent with their assertation that “the crash was devastating.”
To help the client go into their deposition feeling emboldened or proud, Pat employs a number of insightful techniques. One example she gives even uses the client’s sense of smell to bring them into their “safe place” which has a number of useful applications in the courtroom and in life. This also makes their story more engaging to the jury and helps the lawyer connect with the emotions they felt in that moment.
Pat then notes the importance of the client describing the joy that their past activities brought to their life. For example, when she asks most clients about their past job, they’ll talk about how it brought them respect and made them feel fulfilled. They typically don’t even mention the money! And when we talk about what these things meant to the client’s life, Pat says that’s where we get the anguish and the “struggles.”
This leads Michael to ask her to explain more about “struggles” and what she means by that. Pat provides a common example of a client saying, “I can’t even walk,” when in reality they can. Many lawyers shut off at hearing this because they think the client is overexaggerating or overly complaining. But while they can walk, they are doing so in a lot of pain. She then makes it clear to the client that they shouldn’t diminish anything, but they should not exaggerate anything.
Michael also adds that when clients are overstating, they’re often scared that if they don’t exaggerate, nobody will listen to them. This is why trust between the lawyer and the client is key, and Michael credits Pat for helping build many of his most trusting relationships with clients. He poetically adds, “Even if it’s not the perfect story, the truth is so powerful in the courtroom.” Pat agrees and adds that the less you have, the more you lose. So even if the client’s “before” story is filled with missteps, it’s vital to tell the whole truth to the jury.
They move on to discuss an insightful way to find the best witnesses for the client. Part of this process is the client acting out scenes from their life, which inherently reveals some people in their life that were there for those moments. Usually, they’re not anybody who the client would list unprompted, but end up being the perfect person to attest to the client’s loss. As Pat puts it, “It’s who knows your character, not who can speak to it.”
While most of this episode has been about Pat’s depo prep process, she and Michael briefly move on to discuss her trial prep process. This involves setting up a mock jury and having everybody rotate positions to be the jury, the defense lawyer, and the client. This prepares the client for the scrutiny of the defense and the jury, giving them the confidence they need to survive the brutal attacks that can happen in the courtroom. They’ll also cover things like eye contact, what a juror needs, practicing a direct, practicing a cross examination, and more. Between this and the depo prep described in this episode, the client will come out prepared, trusting, and sometimes even “healed” from their emotional wounds.
If you’d like to contact Pat Montes about consulting on a case, you can email her at patmontes@monteslaw.com. She is fluent in both English and Spanish. Michael hesitates to say this because he’s nervous about her getting booked up, but in the spirit of truthfulness, he highly recommends working with Pat to develop your clients’ trust and storytelling skills.
This podcast also covers how long this process takes, going to trial without medical bills, why you should ask your clients who influenced them to be the person they are, why the connection you share with your client should be your voir dire question, how acting out a scene can help clients understand the mechanics of their injury, how lawyers can learn more about this process, why the lawyer needs to be present for this to work, why the plaintiff lawyer should NEVER play the defense lawyer in a role play scenario, why this process feels like therapy, and so much more.
-
67 – Brendan Lupetin – Masked Justice: Part 1
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with trial attorney Brendan Lupetin out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brendan, a self-proclaimed “trial nerd,” is one of just a handful of attorneys who has tried a case in the era of COVID-19, receiving a $10.8 million dollar jury verdict on his medical negligence case. They’ll discuss Brendan’s background, the details of the case, how he prepared, what it was like trying a case during a pandemic, and his advice for lawyers and courts across the country to start having jury trials again.
The episode begins with an overview of Brendan’s background and how he became the successful trial lawyer he is today. He explains how he began by trying about 10 bad cases where he lost “in brutal fashion,” and finally found his first victory with a $500 rear-end car case verdict. Since then, he’s focused on reading everything and anything he can on trials. Now, he’s tried 40 cases to jury verdict and has found great success in the last 10.
As a self-proclaimed “trial nerd,” Brendan spends most of his free time reading and studying the work of other great trial lawyers and legal scholars, citing Rick Friedman, Keith Mitnik, David Ball, Artemis Malekpour, Jude Basille, and many others. He and Michael discuss the difficulties of implementing all the trial theories and strategies available today, but Brendan explains how his approach is to blend them all together to find what works best for him. A sentiment echoed by Michael and certainly a recurring theme on the show.
Michael then asks Brendan about the details of the medical malpractice case he recently tried. While the difficulties of trying a case during a pandemic are apparent, Brendan insists his job was made easier by the fact that this was truly a great case. Brendan’s client, a 41-year old father and project manager, went to the hospital for an MRI. He had an allergic reaction to the contrasting chemical they injected him with. While the hospital had policies in place to protect patients in the event of an allergic reaction, none of those policies were followed and Brendan’s client was unfortunately left with a severe brain injury.Michael then notes that Brendan ended up with such a simple theory, which Brendan explains was a long road to get to. They originally had 3 defendants, but after numerous focus groups and hiring John Campbell of Empirical Jury to run a study after Brendan “serendipitously” listened to his podcast episode 3 ½ weeks before the trial, they decided to drop one of the defendants because he complicated the story. Michael agrees that this was a smart move, quoting Rodney Jew by saying, “If you chase two rabbits, you won’t catch either one.”
Brendan also kept in mind Mark Mandell’s case framing theory throughout the trial and describes how he was tempted to dispute the defense’s timeline of events because he found they were about a minute and a half off. But after employing the case framing theory, he and his partner decided to leave that out because it drew away from the main focus of the case – “Policy violations caused delay, and delay is never good in an emergency.”
Michael then asks Brendan what else he’s learned throughout his study of advocacy that he used in the trial, to which Brendan simply replies, “everything.” He describes his journey to crafting the perfect opening statement, employing techniques from David Ball, Nick Rowley, Keith Mitnik, and many others. He also recorded the final product and shared it on his YouTube channel. It’s clear throughout the episode that Brendan is truly a lifelong learner and is constantly honing his craft as a trial lawyer.
After gaining insight into the case and Brendan’s trial techniques, Michael asks the question on everyone’s mind – What was it like trying a case during the pandemic? Brendan first gives credit to Judge Jackie Bernard and the court system for setting up an incredibly safe and effective trial plan, and emphasizes the need for more courts to follow suit and begin holding jury trials again.
The court began by sending out a questionnaire to potential jurors which asked hardship questions, immediately excluding anybody who had health concerns or was extremely uncomfortable attending a trial because of COVID-19. Voir dire was held in a huge courtroom with 45 people in the room, and 45 others in a separate room watching on video. The process was so streamlined and well planned that they were able to select the jury in less than four hours.Once the trial began, this attention to detail became even more evident. Everybody wore masks for the duration of the trial, there was plexiglass around the judge and witness stand, and the jury was spread out around the room in a way so creative you have to hear it to believe it. By using these precautions, the trial went on without a hitch and with a significantly lower risk of infection than a traditional trial set up.
Brendan and Michael agree that without a significant threat of a trial, their big cases won’t result in a fair settlement. They discuss the immediate need for courts to find a safe solution to continue jury trials and the need for plaintiff lawyers to work together to persuade their courts to do so.They end the episode on a surprising note. Brendan explains how everybody thinks trying a case during the pandemic is this crazy experience, but he said it really didn’t feel very different from trying a case in a courtroom you haven’t been in before. You always need to adapt to a new judge’s rules, a new courtroom set up, etc. This wasn’t much different than that. And by implementing the safety precautions Brendan described, courts around the country can begin to open and allow the pursuit of justice instead of pushing trials off further and further. As Brendan poetically put it, “Hope is not a plan.”
If you’d like to learn more from Brendan Lupetin, visit his firm’s website and subscribe to his YouTube channel.
This podcast also covers Brendan’s favorite closing strategy, obtaining a representative jury during COVID-19, the “freaky” accurate results of Brendan’s Empirical Jury study with John Campbell, and so much more.
Interested in hearing more COVID Era trial stories? Check out our other Masked Justice episodes:
Bio:
Brendan is a trial lawyer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He focuses on medical malpractice, product defect and personal injury law. He loves helping the people he represents and trying their cases to jury verdict when necessary.
Brendan is a trial nerd and truly enjoys reading trial books, studying trial videos and seminars, watching trials and “talking shop” with fellow trial lawyers.
The son of a doctor and trauma counselor Brendan learned early on the importance of compassion, empathy and to always stand up for what is right, no matter the consequence.
Following a four-year tenure as a scholarship swimmer, Brendan received his B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh in 2000 and his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 2005.
During his career, Brendan has tried numerous cases of all types to jury verdict. Over the course of the past several years, Brendan has obtained numerous multi-million-dollar verdicts for his clients – all of which far exceeded the highest offers of settlement.What Brendan loves more than anything, however, is spending time with his wife and high school sweetheart Lacey and their three sons Nathan, John and Owen.
