strategy

64 – Mark Mandell – The Case Framing Mindset

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael is joined by legendary trial lawyer and author Mark Mandell. Mark wrote the must-read books “Case Framing” and “Advanced Case Framing.” Michael and Mark take a detailed look inside these books, including what case framing is, how to apply case framing, what “I just can’t get over” issues are, using “echoes” in trial, Mark’s trial closing strategy, and the story of the hardest case Mark ever tried.

Michael begins the episode by asking Mark to describe what case framing is. Mark starts at the beginning and explains how when he first started practicing, plaintiff lawyers were basically in “the dark ages.” Mark began looking for new ways to try cases almost immediately, but found each method he tried had holes in it. Then about 15 years ago, he started to study decision science and put together the basis of case framing.

Mark insists case framing is not just a method. As another great lawyer stated and Mark has since adopted, “It’s more than a model. It’s a mindset.” Mark explains how case framing has become a part of him, and influences everything he does both pre-trial and in trial. When he was first asked to describe case framing in one sentence, Mark struggled initially but then settled on, “Every single thing you present at trial needs to be framed and sequenced in a way that focuses the attention of the jurors on the points YOU most want to make.” He goes on to describe how a case is decided by what it’s focused on, so why would you want to focus on anything else? As Mark astutely summarizes, “A case frame is the heart and soul of the case. It gives the case meaning.”

Mark continues with explaining how a case frame needs to have two qualities. It needs to relate to the facts of the case, and it needs to have universal application in our society. He shares the detailed example of how he first came to understand this from the OJ Simpson criminal trial. Mark lists off the issues of the case and explains how they aren’t case frames. After exhausting these, Mark explains how the case frame was actually wrongful accusation and elaborates on why that is such a powerful case frame to use because of both its power and universal applicability.

Michael then asks Mark to explain the next level of case framing, which Mark named “I just can’t get over” issues. Simply put, it’s an issue that if a jury can’t get over, it’s going to guide their verdict. These issues can come from an almost endless amount of places, but they need to embody that statement.

As a follow up Michael asks what every listener must be thinking, what are some examples of defense “I can’t get over” issues and what can plaintiff lawyers do to overcome them? Mark gives a laundry list of examples and directs listeners to his book “Advanced Case Framing” where he details 16 different ways to overcome them. He briefly explains how to overcome these issues by refuting them or by “substituting them” or “overcoming them” with more powerful issues.

Another aspect of case framing Mark discusses in his books is “echoes.” Marks insists this is actually one of the hardest concepts to understand. An echo needs to either support or defend an issue, or Mark says you shouldn’t use it. It can be a document, idea, exhibit, or many other things that cause a good issue to reverberate throughout the jury’s head throughout trial. Mark explains how people need echoes to fully understand something because nobody can pay attention indefinitely. He then provides several examples of echoes he used when trying a DRAM shop case which he says is the hardest case he’s ever tried. Through this example, he highlights the importance of ignoring chronology and starting the case at the #1 “good for you” issue in the case.

The conversation shifts to a discussion of Mark’s different closing strategies. The first of those is that he never discloses his overall case frame until closing. He has numerous reasons for doing this, including that you need to leave something new to tell the jury in closing – and since the jury always goes into closing arguments undecided on something, what could be better to present to them than your overall case frame? His other reasons include rebuttal rules and that your case frame can change during trial, based on how it unfolds.

Mark is also known for using questions in his closing arguments, which Michael asks Mark to explain. Mark offers a surprisingly simple answer – people don’t like being told what to do. Mark continues by explaining that when you tell the jury what to do, YOU become the issue. When jurors come up with the answer themselves, “They own that answer now.”  He believes this causes them to go into deliberation much stronger. Michael adds that trusting the jury is both the most liberating and terrifying thing, to which Mark agrees. But, it makes trial a lot more fun AND leads to better results.

Michael and Mark conclude the episode by taking a detailed look at the DRAM shop case which Mark insists is the most difficult case he’s ever tried. Mark walks listeners through the shocking details of the case and explains how he applied his methods throughout. After being told by countless lawyers to drop the case, Mark walked away with a $21.5 million verdict after interest. This story truly needs to be heard to be appreciated.

This podcast also covers Mark’s advice on one of Michael’s more challenging cases, using anchors in trial, secondary case frames, beginning every witness examination with an “I can’t get over” issue, and so much more.

If you’d like to learn more from Mark Mandell, visit his website and purchase his books “Case Framing” and “Advanced Case Framing” here.

 

Guest Bio:

Mark Mandell practices law at Mandell, Boisclair & Mandell, Ltd. in Providence, Rhode Island. He specializes in catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, medical negligence, dram shop and products liability cases.  He is triple Board Certified, nationally.  His certifications are in the areas of Civil Trials, Civil Pretrial and Medical Negligence Litigation.  Mr. Mandell is currently listed in “The Best Lawyers in America.” He is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates.  Mr. Mandell is a past president of American Association for Justice, Rhode Island Trial Lawyers Association, and The Rhode Island Bar Association.  He is the immediate past chair of the Board of Directors of the Roger Williams University School of Law. He has more million dollar verdicts and verdicts of over $10,000,000 than any other lawyer in Rhode Island history.  Mark has written two books “Case Framing” and “Advanced Case Framing”.  He has also published 24 articles in national and state trial law journals on a variety of subjects and has lectured in 48 states.

 

63 – Sonia Rodriguez – “You Got Me”: Discrediting Defense Paid Opinion Witnesses

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.

49 – Malorie Peacock – Applying 2 Seasons of TLN to Your Law Practice

Trial Lawyer Nation is proud to celebrate 2 years of podcast episodes! In this Table Talk episode, Michael Cowen sits down for a conversation with his law partner Malorie Peacock for a discussion about the last two seasons, their favorite takeaways from guests, as well as how this show has helped them create their 2020 resolutions.

The episode begins with Michael asking Malorie what she’s learned from the show and how she has been able to use and apply this to her cases. She responds with “you have to choose the kind of lawyer that you’re going to be” as a theme which has come up several times throughout the show. Whether it’s how you formulate your case strategy, how you run your business, or the kind of lawyer you are going to be, the first step is to go after this goal.

But this isn’t always easy and can be a struggle, which leads to Michael sharing his struggles and how he has overcome them. The “salesman in me wants to close every deal,” Michael reveals when discussing case selection. He explains how hard it can be when “you see the dockets getting smaller you have trouble not freaking out” and shares why it is so important to remain disciplined and stick with your business plan. And while a smaller case docket may be a business model for his firm, Malorie brings the conversation full circle by pointing out how not every business model should be the same.

The conversation shifts to a discussion on which episodes discuss how to turn “a good case into a great case” where Michael shares his thoughts on how Randi McGinn’s book and her skills as a former journalist help her dig deep into the story of a case. Jude Basile is another guest Michael brings up as he shares how inspiring it was to have spoken with him and understand how Jude was able to find value (and an excellent case result!) in a case involving an addict at an addiction facility when other lawyers may have turned the case away.

Malorie points out some of her favorite episodes have been those of Sari de la Motte and Michael Leizerman who help explain why you need to “do the work on yourself as well as in your cases.” When defense counsel does something on a case to cause you to react and become distracted, Michael shares how Leizerman has helped him understand “the zen” of it all and why it’s important not to let the other side upset you and take your energy away from your case. He also brings up the quote “how can they be right and we still win” and how this simple statement from Joe Fried has been so powerful in his cases. Malorie and Michael also agree on and discuss how this mindset can be helpful in a case with degeneration, in both liability and damages.

Entering the confession spirit as the year ends, Malorie asks Michael what his strategies are for enforcing what he says he is going to do. He reveals the lesson he has learned when taking on cases which do not fit his business model. Describing a serious injury case involving a TBI not fitting his “case on wheels” business model, Michael shares the extra time spent looking up case law and standards versus with a trucking case where he immediately understands about 95% of the rules and sources to cite and can do so very quickly. “It’s efficiency,” Malorie adds.

The topic of efficiency transitions nicely to another theme in the show, which is how the brilliant attorneys who have been on the show “create and enforce systems” within their firm so they can do the work they need to do on their cases. If you don’t do this then you’re constantly putting out fires and distracted from the work you should be doing. This also applies to the reality of “you can’t be a lawyer 24/7” and leads to a meaningful discussion on having a work/life balance and how burn out can not only impact your personal life but also your cases and effectiveness in the office.

The podcast ends with Michael and Malorie discussing their 3 resolutions for 2020, which include Michael sharing his book deal with Trial Guides and his goal to continue writing, and Malorie sharing her idea on how she will be using the firm’s in-house graphic designer to work up her cases, which Michael describes as “brilliant” and “will scare the crap” out of defense attorneys.

An exciting piece of news shared on this episode is Michael’s commitment to hosting a Facebook Live session every month in the “Trial Lawyer Nation – Insider’s Circle” private group . If you haven’t already requested to join this group, we suggest you do so now in order to participate in the first Facebook Live in January 2020. The exact date will be shared on our podcast social media pages and also via email for those who are subscribed to our emails.

Thank you to everyone who has supported our show for the past 2 years. We look forward to sharing even more great shows with all of you in 2020 as we enter Season 3!

45 – Peter Kestner – Money and Strategy with “The Janitor”

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with acclaimed author, speaker, and trucking lawyer, Peter Kestner, for a conversation on going up against insurance companies. Peter’s experience is somewhat unique having started out in the insurance industry working for the second largest trucking insurer in the country, handling truck litigation claims.

Then, after going back to law school, he ran an excess program for a sister insurer under the Travelers Umbrella with 30 of the largest trucking concerns with self-insured retentions (SIR’s) where he would audit their claims files to make sure they had proper reserves. In some cases when it was a high exposure case, Peter would have to interject himself into the case to settle it or make the decision to take it to trial. He was even nicknamed “The Janitor” because he would “clean the messes up.” Not long after, he made a change to become a plaintiff’s lawyer when he decided he wanted to help people instead of defending corporations. Michael points out that Peter’s background and experience from the other side is extremely valuable since he’s been on the other side valuing and negotiating the cases and helping make the decisions.

One of the first insights Peter shines a light on is how much the insurance industry has changed over the years in that they now operate more like the banking industry where it is focused more on getting the premium dollars in to the company versus being in the business of risk management. Peter explains, those are dollars the insurance company works the hardest to bring in, as evidence by all the marketing campaigns aimed at bringing in new customers. They then can use those dollars to invest where, unlike the banking industry, there is little regulation as to what they can put in their portfolios as they are regulated at the state level. He clarifies why this is important looking back to 1991 and the advent to Colossus and Allstate, when the McKenzie company did an audit and determined that Allstate was paying too much in claims and suggested they reduce the amount of third party liability settlements in order to increase profits. The assertion of this being that if an insurer can find ways to bring the number of claim settlements down and pay less in overall claims, it would be an acceptable risk when the practice results in a rare bad faith case against the company, keeping more money overall available to invest. It’s obvious that this strategy has worked, as Peter points out that the insurers have grown substantially to where they are now Fortune 100 companies with billions in assets.

The conversation throughout the bulk of this episode focuses mainly on a deep dive insight on a few cases Peter has encountered and how insurance factored into them. One case referred to several times in this episode is a fascinating case which involved a 63-year-old retired Seal Team 6 member who was hit by an 18-wheeler on a dusty road in Nevada. The details surrounding this case are particularly interesting when you consider the two trucks involved were from the same company and Peter’s client was found to have been 8 feet over the center line and they were still able to settle the case, after 3 days of trial, for a sizable amount. Other details, which you need to hear to believe, involved conflicting positions on who caused the accident from within the company (the driver of the truck and the official position of the company) where a Facebook post helped solidify his client was not at fault.

Peter and Michael give some amazing advice to those taking on trucking cases and how to handle insurance companies including: strategies on how (and why) to separate yourself from the insurance negotiations and trial discussions; defense counsel bluffs – how to spot and call them without getting taken advantage of; how to leverage focus groups to put together the best case for your client, even if it means not entering all the client’s injuries; how 5 seconds of hard data can (and did) defeat a defense theory; and so much more. This episode concludes with a discussion around the top things Peter has seen plaintiff’s lawyers do which ends up leaving money on the table. His insider knowledge is extremely helpful when considering case strategy and the whole episode is worth listening to several times over.

 

BACKGROUND

Peter Kestner has extensive experience with truck accident cases, both as a private attorney and representative for trucking insurers. He is a co-founder of the law firm McEwen & Kestner.  Prior to founding his law firm, Peter served for 10 years as a claims adjuster and litigation manager with one of the largest tractor trailer insurers in the U.S. Peter earned his B.S. from Skidmore College in 1989, and his J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in 2001. Peter now uses his defense experience to represent individuals injured by the negligent acts of trucking companies.  Peter has also served as personal counsel to policy holders in disputes with their insurers as well as serving as an expert witness in insurance litigation matters. He is the past-chair of AAJ’s Interstate Trucking Litigation Group, Chair of AAJ’s Bus Litigation Group, sits on the Board of Regents for the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, he is on the board of directors of Minnesota Association for Justice and he also holds a CPCU professional designation in insurance. He has litigated truck accident cases in 19 different states in both State and federal Court.  He is also Board Certified in Truck Accident Litigation by the National Board of Trial Advocates (NBTA)

  • Past Chair AAJ Trucking Litigation Group 
  • Chair AAJ Bus Litigation Group 2017-present
  • Co-Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee, AAJ Trucking Litigation Group 2011-present.
  • Minnesota Association for Justice Board of Directors 2012-present.
  • Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys- Board of Regents

 

LEGAL BACKGROUND

  • Admitted to Bar, 2001, Minnesota and US District Court of Minnesota
  • Appeared Pro-Hac Vice in Trucking Cases in the following jurisdictions: District of Colorado, Western District of Kentucky, Wyoming State Court, New York State Court, Iowa State Court, Illinois State Court, Wisconsin State Court, Kentucky State Court, South Carolina State Courts, District of North Carolina, Nevada State Court and North Dakota State Court, District of Utah, Texas State Courts, North Dakota State Courts, South Dakota State Courts, District of Mississippi.
  • Education: Skidmore College (B.S. 1989); William Mitchel College of Law (J.D. 2001)

 

PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES

  • Speaker: AAJ Summer Convention, Understanding the Transport Cycle, Summer 2019
  • Speaker: AAJ Jazz Fest, Negotiation Matters, Winter 2019
  • Speaker: New Jersey Association for Justice, The Defense Perspective, Spring 2019
  • Speaker:  Stratford Webinar- Finding the Hidden Motor Carrier, Fall 2018
  • Speaker: Kentucky Association for Justice- The Broker Defense, Summer 2018
  • Speaker: AAJ Members Only Truck Group- Trial of a Punitive Damage Truck Case
  • Speaker:  New Jersey Association for Justice: Maximizing the Recovery in Truck Cases, Spring 2018
  • Speaker: 2018 Winter Convention AAJ, Negotiations Matter
  • Speaker: National Board of Trial Advocacy, Summer 2018) (Understanding Broker Cases
  • Speaker: Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, Summer 2018- (Understanding the Transportation Cycle
  • Course Chair and Lecturer- AAJ Trucking College, Spring 2018
  • Course Chair/Moderator:  AAJ Annual Convention, Summer 2017, Trucking Litigation Group.
  • Speaker: Ohio Association for Justice, Spring 2017- Trucking Insurance
  • Speaker: Florida Justice Association Winter 2016: Hell on the Highways, Maximizing the Recovery in Trucking Cases
  • Speaker: ATAA Fall 2016 “Truck Insurance 101”
  • Speaker/Course Chair: 2016 AAJ Trucking College
  • Speaker:  “Rules in Trucking Cases” (AAJ Summer Convention 2016)
  • Speaker: “Mediating the Trucking Case” (Minnesota Association for Justice May 2016
  • Speaker: “Maximizing Settlement in Auto Cases” (360 Advocacy Seminar Spring 2016).
  • Speaker: “Understanding the Transportation Cycle” (New Jersey Association for Justice-Boardwalk Seminar 2016)
  • Speaker: “Mediating Trucking Cases” (Minnesota Association for Justice- Spring 2016).
  • Co-author: “Potential Source of Recovery in Commercial Trucking Case”  The Advocate, Vol. 41 #5 (Kentucky Justice Association Sept./Oct 2013)
  • Author- “SIR vs Deductible” (AAJ Insurance Section Newsletter Fall 2015)
  • Speaker: “Discovery In Trucking Cases” Webinar (Fall 2015)
  • Speaker: “Insurance 101” (New Jersey Association for Justice Spring 2015)
  • Speaker: “Insurance 101” (North Carolina Association for Justice, Spring 2015)
  • Author- “Broker Liability for Negligent Selection of an Independent Contractor”, Minnesota Trial, Volume 37, No. 4 (Minnesota Association for Justice Fall 2012).
  • Author- “Broker Liability for Negligent Selection of an Independent Contractor”, Interstate Trucking Litigation Group Newsletter (Fall 2012)
  • Author- “The MCS-90 Endorsement: No Coverage? No Problem, Minnesota Trial (Minnesota Association for Justice Summer 2008)
  • Author- “Trucking Insurance Chapter” Truck Accident Litigation, 3rd Edition, (American Bar Association 2012)
  • Speaker- “Debunking the Broker Defense” Interstate Trucking Litigation Group Broker Shipper Liability Seminar, October 2013
  • Speaker- “Debunking the Broker Defense” Interstate Trucking Litigation Group Broker Shipper Liability Seminar, June 2013
  • Speaker- “Finding all Defendants in Wrongful Death Trucking Cases” Minnesota Association for Justice Wrongful Death Seminar, May 2013
  • Speaker- “Technology in Trucking Cases” New Jersey Boardwalk Seminar, April 2013
  • Speaker- “ Insurance Company Rules” 360 Advocacy Group, Trucking Litigation Seminar, May 2012
  • Speaker- “ Insurance Company Rules” Kentucky Justice Association, Trucking Litigation Seminar, June 2012
  • Speaker- “ Insurance Company Rules” Tennessee Justice Association, Trucking Litigation Seminar, March 2012
  • Speaker- “Maximizing Your Recovery: Finding Insurance Coverage, Minnesota Association for Justice Successfully Litigating the Commercial Truck Case, November 2010
  • Speaker- “Insurance Company Rules: Strategies for Maximizing Recovery- IPITLA Seminar, September 2009
  • Speaker- “Defense of Trucking Cases, Why Commercial Motor Vehicle Cases are Different, May 2007

38 – Wayne Pollock – The Court of Public Opinion

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with attorney and founder of Copo Strategies, Wayne Pollock, for an in-depth discussion on the court of public opinion [copo] and how it can affect your clients, cases, firm, and reputation.

Having graduated college and working in public relations for a PR firm for about four years, he was introduced to the legal world through one of his clients at the time, Fox Rothschild, now an AM Law 100 law firm, which inspired Wayne to go to law school. Graduating law school from Georgetown University, he went to work at a big law firm for six and a half years as a litigation associate while he never stopped liking public relations. Wayne describes himself as an attorney focused on the court of public opinion, which really means he helps other attorneys and their clients, ethically, strategically, and proactively engage public opinion in order to help those clients resolve their cases favorably. Wayne does this work to help the attorneys build their practices, he also goes in as a consultant to law firms, and other times as limited scope co-counsel to the actual clients. Overall, his goal is to help clients resolve their cases favorably through the media and through outreach to the public, essentially blending media strategies with legal strategies, and ethical compliance with defamation avoidance.

Wayne describes the launch of this offering from his firm, mainly because he didn’t see this kind of fixture being offered to attorneys and clients. Often, he describes seeing, attorneys and clients who are talking to the media in connection with active litigation, but they didn’t seem to have a strategy. They don’t seem to be thinking about what’s happening in court when they’re saying things publicly. They certainly aren’t always thinking about the ethics. And he’s also seen plenty of press releases where the PR firm or the law firm is clearly defaming the other side. So, he took that need in the market and thought his services could be used in a different way, thereby launching his firm a couple of years ago, to do just that.

When it comes to being in the media, Wayne admits it’s daunting for many attorneys, mostly because unlike a normal litigation practice, there are no rules. There are literally no rules of evidence, no rules of procedure, and it’s somewhat of an “every person for themselves” type environment, and that’s difficult for attorneys to get used to. He points out there are obviously ethical rules and defamation rules, but in terms of how you engage with the media and what you say, there’s really no set core set of practices that are established. Regardless, Wayne still encourages his clients, and their end clients, to always be thinking about the court of public opinion and engage it head on as a part of their legal toolkit, because often times, they find that what happens in the court of public opinion impacts what happens in the court of law in this era of social media, online news, and the viralness of both. From Michael’s previous experience, he’s also found competing mindsets of the ego of wanting to be on TV and wanting to be quoted, pitted against the fear of not wanting to cause harm to anyone, especially his clients. Wayne goes on to discuss the privilege issue and how it is a huge problem when law firms hire outside PR firms. He explains it all in detail, but once he realized that he could help get around the privilege issue by serving as an attorney, the light bulb went off and he said to himself, “I guess I’m just going to have to do this myself.”

Wayne defines the “court of public opinion” as people who are not parties to a legal dispute, but whose perceptions of the dispute could impact how the dispute is resolved and how the litigant’s reputation or prosperity could be affected. He goes on to describe the many different types of pools of people who can be affected by the court of public opinion, as well as organizations who stand for the same kind of qualities a client, or their case, do which can help bolster a case by piggybacking on the case and drawing more attention to it. Wayne also describes the effects of the ripple far and wide when information is spread in the court of public opinion, whether it is compelling others to call in with crucial evidence or even developing additional suits with others who have experienced the same thing being tried in a current case, all of which adds to the snowball effect that is created. He’s even had judges tell him they will dot their i’s and cross their t’s that much more closely when they know they’re involved in a high-profile case because they know more eyeballs are on them. And he adds exactly how plaintiff attorneys can use the court of public opinion to their advantage to fight the David v. Goliath fight against the big law firms hired to represent defendants.

From a marketing perspective, Wayne talks about how being seen in public media outlets can give an attorney instant social proof of the work you’re doing, by literally seeing you in action. “It’s not just you sending a press release or someone visiting a website. They see you quoted in an article, they see you being an advocate for a client, and they think to themselves, wow, he/she really knows what they are doing. Maybe I should contact them. That’s a lot different than just Googling ‘trucking attorney in Texas’ and hoping that somehow they get to you.”

Michael and Wayne explore a myriad of topics surrounding the court of public opinion throughout this episode, including: the ethics surrounding being in the media and the change of societal narratives and perceptions; anchoring – a tactic rooted in psychology and persuasion; the rules of professional conduct when engaging with the media; getting consent from a client, especially with the understanding that there are many mean-spirited people in the world who are ready to say bad things; core factors to consider when determining if a case is newsworthy and how to frame cases to be “sexier” in the eyes of the media; and so much more. This episode is one to listen to several times for attorneys who are thrust into the spotlight feeling unprepared, as well as for attorneys with cases that could have greater potential through exposure from the court of public opinion.

“Please note the TLN19 discount code mentioned in this show has now expired.”

 

BACKGROUND

Wayne founded Copo Strategies in 2016 after spending over a decade achieving favorable legal and public relations results for his clients.

Prior to starting Copo, Wayne was a litigator at Dechert LLP, one of the largest and most prominent law firms in the world, with more than 900 attorneys worldwide, and more than $1 billion in annual revenues. In his more than six years at the firm, he obtained favorable outcomes for clients by analyzing and presenting complex legal and factual issues. While at the firm, Wayne worked on high-stakes, high-profile matters that were often reported on by local, national, and international media outlets. For example, he was on the Dechert team that represented the ten former independent directors of Lehman Brothers in the wave of investigations and litigation triggered by Lehman’s September 2008 collapse. He was also on the team that represented Takata, a leading automotive parts manufacturer, in litigation and regulatory investigations related to the company’s recall of tens of millions of potentially defective airbags. And, Wayne was on the team that represented the Marshall family in litigation against Vickie Lynn Marshall (a.k.a. Anna Nicole Smith).

 

Before law school, Wayne practiced public relations at The Star Group, a one-time Advertising Age “Top 100” marketing communications firm. In his four years at the firm, he developed and executed public relations and marketing initiatives on behalf of regional, national, and international clients. While at Star, Wayne cultivated relationships with journalists and secured dozens of placements for clients in national and regional media outlets including USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, regional television network affiliates, and national trade media outlets.

Publications, Media Appearances, and Speaking Engagements

Please click here for a list of Wayne’s publications, media appearances, and speaking engagements.

Education

Wayne graduated in 2009 from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was Senior Special Projects Editor for The Georgetown Law Journal.
Wayne graduated magna cum laude in 2002 from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, where he majored in public relations.

Court Admissions

Wayne is admitted to practice law in all state courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is also admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Personal

Wayne resides in Center City Philadelphia. If you keep an eye out, you might find him running on one of Philadelphia’s numerous running trails, desperately trying to keep Father Time away from his knees.

 

Scroll to top Secured By miniOrange