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.
-
32 – Jim Adler – Building a Firm on Reputation
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
(7 votes, average: 4.57 out of 5)
Loading...
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with prominent Texas attorney, Jim Adler, AKA “The Texas Hammer,” for a discussion on building a law practice on a solid reputation.
Running an efficient law firm that has allowed him the ability to spend quality time with his large family (4 kids and 9 grandkids) didn’t happen overnight. Having started his practice doing everything by himself, learning to delegate and understanding the business and marketing side of running a firm are two areas where Adler has focused on the most to build the successful law firm he has today.
Adler recalls back in “those days,” when he was starting out, thinking that it would have been ridiculous to believe he would ever make $100,000. When he started, he was struggling to support his family and manage to do everything himself. He initially started advertising in the “green sheets” and got a little business. But it was when he started using a company called “Lawyers Marketing Services,” that he saw more success. He was told to “try it, you’ll like it,” and went into TV advertising which quickly had his phone ringing off the hook. Of course, it didn’t come without its fair share of social pressures not to advertise to the public back then, due to the stigma that other attorneys attached to the tactic. Adler has also found himself bearing the brunt of parodies on TV, even being referenced on Beavis & Butthead as “Joe Adler.” To which Michael points out, “you know you’ve made it when a national tv show is referencing you.”
Now going on his 5th generation of TV viewers, The Texas Hammer has found himself up against finding the attention of younger people who don’t want to pay for TV, AKA “cord cutters.” These are the individuals who are watching entertainment on their Slingbox, Roku, PlayStation, Netflix, and YouTube, which makes it especially hard to reach them. People don’t have “TV” anymore, so you have to find them elsewhere, which is why Adler has a saying in his firm, “if we’re not changing, we’re dying.” It is this mindset and desire to continue to learn and adapt (more on that later in the episode), which continues to keep his name and brand so strong.
The conversation then turns to when Adler became partners with a well-known U.S. District Judge, Robert O’Connor, who wanted to get back into practice. Judge O’Connor knew that Adler was wasting his time doing divorces, bankruptcy, and real estate and this was “the age of the specialization.” Taking that advice and focusing on personal injury cases has grown his firm to a staggering 30 attorneys and roughly 300 staff! Michael and Adler both agree that having so many people working for the firm is a lot of moving parts. But as Michael points out, it can be “a lot harder to run a business than to be a lawyer.”
Adler goes on to describe the way his firm has created a departmentalized system to take care of clients every step of the way. His intake department has specialists that only take new client calls and are separated from an operator who accepts all calls. His case management department with case managers who are assigned to each case and are supervised by a lawyer essentially works like a mini law practice within his law firm. The packaging department with specialists in preparing settlements and gathering all the hospital records, are all just the tip of the iceberg when you look at the organization he’s built.
In fact, evolution has been long and everchanging with the times. Adler recalls how all of these departments work well, but he received feedback that clients hated being passed around. Since then he has utilized his case managers to tee up the transition better and give the client a clear sense of what each step in their case is going to be. He goes on to describe their closing department, as well as their administrative departments and accounting departments, a strong litigation department, and an internet department, which ties into the firm’s marketing efforts. Over time, the evolution from having one secretary and an assistant, to set up all the different departments, developed through the use of statistics and formulas. From assessing how many cases a case manager could handle, to how many calls can an intake person handle, to how many cases can a lawyer try and/or settle, all of his operations were fine-tuned through statistical analysis. Adler describes himself to be a big believer in customer service and tries to promote their “service marketing” agenda to everyone throughout the firm in order to provide “over the top service” to their clients. He points out that if a lawyer does a good job for a client, he or she will likely be referred, 7 new people. Whereas the “bad-mouthers” are likely to tell 100 people if they didn’t have a good experience, regardless of the end result of their case.
Michael becomes curious about whether Adler had to figure these things out on his own or if he brought in any kind of consultants. Adler shares how he has read tons of books on business, such as The CEO Nextdoor by Elena L. Botelho and Kim R. Powell, Good to Great by Jim Collins, FOCUS by Daniel Goleman, as well as many other business publications like The Wallstreet Journal and Forbes Magazine. Thinking back to law school, Adler also recalls that they teach you how to be a good lawyer, but they don’t teach you how to become a good business owner. Adler has learned a lot from talking to people who were trying to sell him something, talking to other lawyers about how they do things, and going to TTLA meetings. Michael points out his own evolution from the mentality of being “a great lawyer and people should just line up at our firm’s door” to opening his mind to see other successful practices like Adler’s, and how they keep clients happy and run their firm in general. He also notes that although he doesn’t do TV advertising, he still spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on marketing to his referral partners.
Both Adler and Michael reflect on the importance of treating people with respect and dignity, even down to the importance of returning a phone call. The 45 seconds you take to let someone know you received their call and you are looking into their question or concern, can have a dramatic impact on the attorney/client relationship, even if just to tell them that you are in trial and will get back to them as soon as possible. Adler also goes a step further to ask for referrals when a case concludes and to remind their clients of all the different cases they handle.
The conversation certainly would have been remiss if Michael hadn’t brought up the obvious question – How did you come up with the name “The Texas Hammer?” Adler explains that it was Hayden Bramleigh, from the lawyer marketing service, who first suggested to him that he needed a trademark, similar to how every big brand has a trademark. Moreover, “The Texas Hammer” went through some evolution of its own through various focus groups and seeing how people around the country responded to the name being associated with other lawyers in different states. Admittedly, although some people might not know Adler’s name, they can still associate him with “The Texas Hammer” which is still an effective marketing tactic for him. Adler also points out that it’s been a long road, fighting battles with others who don’t agree with legal advertising, which oddly enough, he points out, tend to be other lawyers and not the end consumer.
The conversation with Adler goes on to talk about his strategies on developing lawyers in his firm, the tests they give to new lawyers joining their firm, transparency in reporting to the firm on settlements and new cases, professional training they’ve developed, the resources they use for case management, getting over the fear of public speaking, and so much more. The organization that Adler has built over the years is nothing less than astounding and we are so appreciative of the time he spent with us on this episode.
“Please note the TLN19 discount code mentioned in this show has now expired.”
BACKGROUND ON JIM ADLER
Famously known as “The Texas Hammer,” injury lawyer Jim Adler has been hammering for victims for over 40 years, championing “the little guy” against big corporations and big insurance companies which would deny their legal rights.
That mission is why he launched his own law firm in 1973 with a one-man office in downtown Houston. Today, Jim Adler & Associates has offices in Houston’s Uptown/Galleria area, Channelview, Dallas, and San Antonio, with two dozen attorneys and more than 250 legal support staff. They share Jim Adler’s mission of helping injured Texans get the money they deserve from those who were at fault.
Family Man, Giving Back
You may know Jim Adler only from his media appearances and tough-talking TV ads. But he’s more than that. He’s also a family man who loves children and devotes much time and his firm’s resources to children’s charity causes.
In 2009, former Houston Mayor Bill White appointed Jim Adler to the Board of Directors of the Joint City/County Commission on Children, recognizing his lifelong devotion to helping children.
“I believe we all should give back to our communities,” said Adler, a Dallas native who speaks fluent Spanish. “I believe in helping people and doing good works.”
In fact, unlike his fierce TV image, Jim Adler is “a people person. I enjoy being around people from all walks of life. I love the joy of life – of just being alive.”
He’s also even more active than his busy legal work suggests.
“I love to sweat,” says the avid tennis player, snow skier, jogger and golfer. “I love sports of all kinds, and I work out five or six days a week — 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of weightlifting. I’m also really big on nutrition and watching what I eat.”
Boosted by this commitment to health, he has no plans to retire — even now that son Bill Adler has joined the firm as an attorney.
Son at His Side
“Having my son at my side at the firm is the best thing that’s ever happened to me,” Jim Adler says. “He’ll ensure that all the work I’ve put in over the years and the family’s tradition of serving underdogs will continue.”
That family includes Jim Adler’s wife of 38 years, their four children and their five grandchildren.
Bill Adler was raised in Houston, but Jim Adler was raised in Dallas. He went to Austin to earn his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas, followed by his law degree from the UT School of Law.
He then served in the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy and was appointed a judge for the Office of Civilian Health and Medical Programs United Services (OCHAMPUS), adjudicating health and medical disputes for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel. He then launched his law practice in Houston, home of his principal office today.
Jim Adler was admitted to practice law by the Supreme Court of Texas and is licensed to practice in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit and U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of Texas.
He is a member of the State Bar of Texas, Houston Bar Association, Texas Bar Foundation, Dallas Trial Lawyers Association, Dallas Bar Association, American Bar Association, and American Trial Lawyers Association.
He’s also a director of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Trial Lawyers Association.
As a passionate advocate for injury victims, Jim Adler has handled lawsuits involving auto accidents, trucking accidents, offshore accidents, Jones Act cases, refinery accidents, construction injuries, burn injuries, brain injuries, on-the-job accidents, slip-and-fall cases, railroad accidents, electrical accidents and many other types of personal injury.
Getting payments for victims can be a battle. But Jim Adler became a lawyer to fight those battles.
“I always had a desire to help underdogs, the little guy, against big corporations and big insurance companies, and to level the playing field for accident victims,” he says.
Charitable Works
Jim Adler’s good works also include many charitable causes. He’s contributed to the American Cancer Society, Armed Forces Relief Trust, Association for Community Television, Alzheimer’s Disease & Related Disorders, Arthritis Foundation, American Heart Association, American Health Assistance Foundation, Special Olympics, Child Advocates of Fort Bend County, The Center for Hearing & Speech, Covenant House, Easter Seals Society and Galena Park Choir Boosters.
Still more of his causes include the Habitat for Humanity, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Federation of Greater Houston, Guild for the Blind, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, March of Dimes, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Primera Rosa De Saron, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Texas Bar Foundation, Texas Children’s Hospital, US Olympic Committee, University of Texas Law School Foundation and UTMB Burn Care Research.
“I wish there were more hours in the day,” says Jim Adler. “I always want to do more.”
“Basically I believe in doing good works. Seeing families whose child was injured by an 18-wheeler or a defective drug puts me in a fighting mode. My good works then are about helping them recover financially. Those good works are my life’s mission.”
Thus, after decades of fighting for justice, Jim Adler is still on the case, helping those who need it the most. As thousands of injured Texans have learned when he fought for their legal rights, there’s only one “Texas Hammer.”
-
63 – Sonia Rodriguez – “You Got Me”: Discrediting Defense Paid Opinion Witnesses
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 his law partner Sonia Rodriguez for an overview of deconstructing defense-paid opinion witnesses. They highlight many of their favorite strategies to use when dealing with a witness who won’t answer your questions, their favorite unexpected “gifts” from witnesses, and the importance of why someone becomes a defense-paid opinion witness in the first place. This episode is full of shocking real-life examples you don’t want to miss.
Michael begins the episode by highlighting the defense strategy to hire someone to discredit their client. He asks Sonia, “What do you do to deal with this?” Sonia describes the first action she takes, which is reviewing what organizations they show they are affiliated with on their CV (curriculum vitae). Most professional organizations have ethical guidelines which these witnesses must abide by. She’s found success in displaying these guidelines to the witness during the deposition and using them to prevent the witness from stating biased information.
Michael then describes the common narrative these witnesses all portray which every plaintiff attorney listening is sure to relate to. Any injury from the crash goes away in 6-12 weeks, but any injury from 10 years ago is most certainly the cause of everything today, even if they haven’t been to a doctor for it in 9 years. Sonia has combatted this in medical witnesses by focusing heavily on the client’s description of pain. Most doctors will admit that the patient’s description of pain is a very important part of the diagnosis. She uses this information to put the witness in a position of saying, “the records aren’t adequate,” which does not play well with the jury.
The conversation then shifts to the difficult but highly effective strategy of turning the defense paid opinion witness into your witness. Sonia explains why this is so difficult to do successfully, but has maneuvered these difficulties by focusing her depos on what she knows she can get from them. She shares an example of this where she was able to build up the witness’s credibility, then use it to get some simple, clear concessions.
On the other hand, Michael says his primary goal in every defense paid opinion witness depo is to make them his witness. Instead of fighting with them in an area where he does not have credibility, he spends his time researching the witness, reading prior depositions, and trying to find what they will give you based off those prior experiences.
Michael elaborates further on the importance of reading past testimonies by sharing a shocking example with a biomechanical engineer who claimed his client could not possibly have a herniated disc from the crash. Before trial, Michael read several of his previous depositions and went through all of the literature the witness cited in the case. He then shares an example of how he used those prior depos to discredit the witness, how his voir dire helped him do this while also relating to the jury, and why reading the literature can help your case.
Sonia wholeheartedly agrees and gives her real world experience using the literature to your advantage. She shares an example where a neurosurgeon used a study about the prevalence of herniated discs to claim her client’s pain wasn’t caused by the crash. After reading the article, Sonia found that it only referred to a specific type of herniated disc, which was not the type her client had. After revealing this, all the witness could say was, “You got me.”
Another all too familiar roadblock is the witness who just won’t answer your questions. While Sonia and Michael both agree this will always be a barrier, they both share insightful techniques on how you can overcome this. Sonia does this by always recording the testimony, so she can show the jury the witness was refusing to cooperate or concede to basic things. Michael then offers another strategy he employs with uncooperative witnesses – using basic, fair questions in a true or false format. While you may still need to ask the same question 10 times to get a response, you can always cut out the first 9 asks. The key to this is to never appear mad or frustrated because it doesn’t present well to the jury. Sonia agrees with this strategy and points out how well-suited it is for a Zoom deposition.
On a lighter note, Michael and Sonia share their favorite unexpected “gifts” they’ve received from paid opinion witnesses. Sonia details her experience of utilizing past testimony to prove an orthopedic surgeon was simply touting lies for money and highlights the importance of sharing information with other members of the plaintiff’s bar. Michael’s favorite “gift” was an ex-sheriff providing testimony on a drunk driving case, who made an incredibly racist statement in his deposition. The judge insisted the case not be made about race, which Michael had no issuing agreeing to. But when Michael asked the sheriff the same question at trial (assuming the witness had been prepped not to make the same mistake), he made the SAME racist statement he made in the deposition.
While these unexpected “gifts” are a huge blessing, they’re hard to come by on most cases. Sonia and Michael conclude the conversation by exploring why people become paid opinion witnesses in the first place. He accurately states, “This isn’t why people want to become doctors or engineers.” Michael explains how many of them either just weren’t good at their jobs or experienced an injury that rendered them unable to perform surgery.
This podcast also covers using before and after witnesses, focusing on the symptoms instead of the diagnosis, whether or not to “go in for the kill” in a deposition, verifying the qualifications of a witness, and so much more.
-
28 – Malorie Peacock – Storytelling in the Courtroom
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)Loading...
In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with Cowen | Rodriguez | Peacock partner, Malorie Peacock, for another installment of TLN Table Talk to answer the questions of our listeners. Today’s topic focuses on storytelling in trial and identifying the “characters” in your case.
They begin with the most obvious question on today’s topic, why do we want to tell a story instead of just presenting our facts? Michael explains that people don’t learn through cold, clinical facts and if you want a juror to connect to your client’s situation, they must relate to it. The easiest and most effective way for them to relate is oftentimes through a story. Michael adds that we are genetically programmed to think in story, going all the way back to the campfire in the cave scenario, also noting that people can tell when a story is not right. Malorie also describes what stories are on a very basic level, in that they aren’t something that is made up for a trial, but rather something that is very specific and still based on facts. A sequence of events with a beginning, middle, and an end with characters who have motivations for doing things.
Conversely, the real danger of not having a story, Michael explains, is that the jurors are going to come up with a story. For Michael’s team, the story might be about the greedy trucking company who pushed their drivers to drive more hours than are safe on the road, just to make more money. Whereas, a different story that could be formulated by a juror on their own might be about a greedy plaintiff’s lawyer who took a case and is trying to make a lot of money from it. And because the juror wants to be the “hero” of the story, they might stop the attorney from getting that money. This puts even more importance on the story that gets told, for the client’s benefit.
Does every story need to have a hero? Yes, and it’s always the same group of heroes (the jury). Michael refers to a book written by Carl Bettinger called Twelve Heroes, One Voice, that has really helped him to understand the dynamics of storytelling, heroes and villains, and how the jury must be the hero in a trial. He also notes that this book transformed his thinking from where he had thought he, as the attorney or his client needed to be the hero when in reality, the only ones who can do anything heroic are the jurors, because they’re the ones who can save the day.
Michael points out that it is important when starting to storyboard your case that you carefully consider who the “villain” is while also keeping an open mind to the idea that it could always change before going to trial. Michael has gone so far as to research and study playwriting and screenwriting books to find out what the common characteristics of villains are since most people have learned about heroes and villains through watching movies or tv and he wanted to be able to give people a story structure that they can relate to. He lays out his findings of the 5 ideal characteristics of a villain as he found them to relate to the courtroom, those being that they are: Powerful, Intelligent, Immoral, Deceptive, and an Individual (not a collective or an entity). Michael and Malorie go on to talk more about the immorality of these villains and the selfish quality that they portray, while also pointing out that these people are not typically evil just for the sake of being evil (like in some movies), but rather are just willing to risk others for the sake of their own gains. Again, it’s not that they actively set out to kill someone that adds to their guilt, but rather the act of knowing something is wrong and then doing it anyway, also known as conscious indifference, or as Malorie points it out, as a selfish quality to such villains.
Why is it so important to make the villain an individual versus a company or a collective? Michael explains that we just haven’t been programmed in our upbringing to see the villain as a corporation or collective and therefore it doesn’t translate as well into the courtroom. Corporations are not actual “people” and thereby do not have emotions or individual thoughts, again making it hard for them to take on the responsibility for making a decision. So, if you can find the person that made the decision, who knowingly endangered the public, it becomes so much more impactful to a jury, especially when that person is powerful, intelligent, deceptive, and immoral.
The focus shifts from heroes and villains to what role you, as an attorney, and your client (the plaintiff) play in the typical courtroom story, to which Michael sees the plaintiff as the survivor or the one who needs rescuing by the jury, and the attorney as the ones guiding the jury to the truth…like a courtroom Yoda. As a part of that Yoda-like role, Malorie and Michael discuss the need to stay calm and collected when dealing with people who are trying to be deceptive and allowing yourself to place the trust in the jury to see things for what they are and that they will do the right thing. Michael goes on to point out that going into the courtroom without that trust in the jury or suspicion that they may not do the right thing, will almost always do more harm than good to your case. It will show unconsciously in your body language, a tone of voice, and you will have a disconnect with the jurors. Michael also credits Joe Fried and Michael Leizerman on helping him to understand that concept as well.
This TLN Table Talk podcast continues with vital conversations on how you structure a story for a trial where the jury can come to their own conclusions about the villain on their own so not to “tell them what to think;” why it is less impactful to accuse someone of being deceptive, versus exposing it; being aware of the other stories being told in the courtroom so not to seem like you’re beating up the defense and inadvertently become the villain yourself; along with many other real-life, and some fictional, stories to illustrate Michael and Malorie’s insights. Clearly topics they both have a lot of experience with and knowledge that any attorney can find helpful.
