WEBVTT
00:00:33.750 --> 00:00:36.790
But really the big unanswered question is, you know, what is the case worth?
00:00:37.110 --> 00:00:40.790
Maybe a case that I, you know, before this would only ask for a couple of million on.
00:00:40.870 --> 00:00:45.990
It became a case that the data said, look, you're probably going to end up with$9.3 million on this case.
00:00:46.230 --> 00:00:52.070
So it actually came in at$9 million, which was the largest verdict in that courthouse in Connecticut.
00:00:53.030 --> 00:01:00.790
This is Courtroom Stories and Tactics by RVA trial lawyers, hosted by Sharif Gray and Niall Abuzaki.
00:01:02.630 --> 00:01:07.349
Before we get into the episode, I want to take a minute and introduce you all to Eve Legal.
00:01:07.750 --> 00:01:12.870
Our law firm uses Eve on every single one of our cases from intake through trial.
00:01:13.030 --> 00:01:23.990
It helps us move through thousands of pages of records quickly, analyze and brief pleadings, develop our trial strategy, and handle tasks that helps us focus on getting the results that our clients deserve.
00:01:28.390 --> 00:01:33.349
E is an AI-native operating system that is built specifically for plaintiff law firms.
00:01:33.670 --> 00:01:39.430
We help firms use AI across the entire life cycle of a case, everything from intake through resolution.
00:01:39.670 --> 00:01:47.270
So their teams can work more efficiently, uncover more case value, and ultimately spend more time doing what lawyers do best, getting justice for their clients.
00:01:47.670 --> 00:01:47.909
Awesome.
00:01:48.070 --> 00:01:51.350
And Melissa, if people want to learn more about Eve Legal, what should they do?
00:01:52.070 --> 00:01:55.030
The best way to reach us is through our website at Eve.legal.
00:01:55.510 --> 00:01:57.670
You can book a meeting or even schedule a demo.
00:01:57.750 --> 00:02:02.230
Or always feel free to email me directly at melissa.breen at Eve.legal.
00:02:04.150 --> 00:02:05.109
All right, we're back.
00:02:05.270 --> 00:02:09.750
And today we've got Andrew Garza joining us out of Connecticut.
00:02:10.069 --> 00:02:13.590
Andrew and I met at the Outer Realm last year.
00:02:13.750 --> 00:02:22.870
Well, but before that, I've been following you, Andrew, for a while now, especially after once you teamed up with Sean Claggett and them over there in Las Vegas.
00:02:23.030 --> 00:02:33.189
But so been a fan, but I got to sit next to you that whole two, three-day conference out at the outer realm, got to know you, got to uh really learn more about what you and your firm are doing.
00:02:33.430 --> 00:02:47.349
And I tell you what, there just aren't that many people who are getting hundred million dollar results and then and continuing to get significant results using the same methods and tools that you are using, especially here on the East Coast.
00:02:47.509 --> 00:02:49.349
So I'm super excited to have you.
00:02:49.509 --> 00:02:53.189
Why don't you take a second, go ahead and introduce yourself before we get into it?
00:02:53.590 --> 00:02:56.150
Yeah, it's a pleasure to be here and thank you for having me.
00:02:56.310 --> 00:03:06.469
Um yeah, I think Outer Realm is one of those organizations and places where you meet people and you kind of find a kindred spirit who does the work the way you do, and that's always nice.
00:03:06.710 --> 00:03:12.710
So I am one of the co-owners and lead trial attorneys here at Claggett's Lakes and Garza in Connecticut.
00:03:12.870 --> 00:03:20.710
Um we've been open now for about two years and have a six, seven lawyers who are all dedicated to doing this work at really the highest level.
00:03:20.950 --> 00:03:28.469
Data focus groups, you know, any cutting edge approach, we're here to learn and to teach and to do what the best we can for our clients.
00:03:28.870 --> 00:03:32.629
Before we get into it, let's actually take a second and talk about what the outer realm is.
00:03:32.950 --> 00:03:37.110
I remember getting a I don't know, it was a card or an email.
00:03:37.270 --> 00:03:38.950
Gosh, I don't even know what it was at this point.
00:03:39.030 --> 00:03:43.990
I still have some of the outer realm stuff over there sitting on my shelf, but I was like, what the heck is this?
00:03:44.229 --> 00:03:52.789
And it was like show up in Los Angeles on this day by this time, and that was it, right?
00:03:52.950 --> 00:03:57.670
Like, and uh, I I think at one point, I mean, there was thought about wait, is this legit?
00:03:57.830 --> 00:03:59.750
Like, am I about to get abducted, right?
00:03:59.909 --> 00:04:01.750
Or is this a timeshare presentation?
00:04:02.229 --> 00:04:16.550
Kind of a modern lawyer equivalent of the uh men in black scene where you know Will Smith gets kind of dragged into a room and or invited and you're not quite sure what it is, but you're you know, you're I think intrigued by the the message and the person it came from.
00:04:16.789 --> 00:04:17.509
Oh, of course.
00:04:17.670 --> 00:04:26.950
And so knowing it came from Claggett and Rowley, I I mean, there's little hesitation on my part, despite my my colleagues here being like, What are you doing, Sharif?
00:04:27.189 --> 00:04:28.870
To book the ticket and to get out there.
00:04:29.029 --> 00:04:35.750
And so, and yeah, and you were you were there along with uh a number of just really awesome travelers from around the country.
00:04:35.909 --> 00:04:58.870
And one of the great things about what the Outer Realm did and is doing is it didn't just bring people together who are good at their work, it brought people together who not only are doing good work for their clients, but genuinely care about doing this work the right way and helping others, like people who embody that the a rising tide lifts all boats, a mentality.
00:04:59.110 --> 00:05:10.950
And so I know I know I got a note, I guess a week or two ago, that the Outer Realm is doing another event this fall, which they're opening it up a little bit more, which is really exciting and I'll certainly be there.
00:05:11.110 --> 00:05:24.950
But well, anyways, before we kind of get into this case, I think it's really important first to talk about kind of prior to the data, right, in this case.
00:05:25.269 --> 00:05:31.509
What was your mentality when it came to working up cases and getting them into trial?
00:05:31.909 --> 00:05:32.230
Sure.
00:05:32.470 --> 00:05:40.710
So the folks that I worked with had all been people that, you know, were formerly at the you know, Keenan Ball College, which became the Keenan Trial Institute.
00:05:40.789 --> 00:05:47.990
And, you know, I was fortunate to sort of encounter that group early in my career and it sort of shaped the way that I looked at cases and worked them up.
00:05:48.230 --> 00:05:54.149
But this was a little bit different because this is, you know, kind of a different approach to getting data in a case.
00:05:54.310 --> 00:06:00.789
I mean, we'd run focus groups with eight to twelve people and you know glean insights and get better at that and develop skills.
00:06:00.950 --> 00:06:14.950
But when I heard about this, I thought, well, if we can actually accurately predict data and you know, calibrate the ask at trial, among many, many other things you can do with data, that has immense value to our clients and to us as advocates.
00:06:15.350 --> 00:06:18.950
Andrew, can you share with our listeners this thing called big data?
00:06:19.110 --> 00:06:19.909
What is it?
00:06:20.389 --> 00:06:20.710
Sure.
00:06:20.870 --> 00:06:33.110
So I mean, essentially the way it works is it enables you to get a lot of column focus group participants for, you know, lack of a better phrase, uh, all at once across all issues in your case.
00:06:33.350 --> 00:06:42.230
So instead of a sort of small focus group, which we run for, you know, over 10 years, maybe you get eight to 12 people on a Saturday in person or you have them on Zoom.
00:06:42.470 --> 00:06:49.509
This is a way that really you can you can get you know hundreds of people to look at your case and tell you what they think.
00:06:49.669 --> 00:06:58.629
And, you know, like in-person focus groups or Zoom focus groups, it requires you to have a good sense of sort of what your case is about and what you're looking to test.
00:06:58.789 --> 00:07:03.750
But the advantage to the increased numbers is increased reliability and predictability at the end of the day.
00:07:03.990 --> 00:07:10.549
And you know, my partner Sean Claggett and, you know, his co-authors, Alicia and John Campbell, wrote a book called Jury Ball.
00:07:10.629 --> 00:07:18.789
And really one of the premises is that if you really can kind of step outside of you know your closeness and your attachment to your case, your case is a product.
00:07:18.870 --> 00:07:27.110
We are asking people who don't know your client, don't know your case, don't know you to weigh in on your case subjectively and tell you what they think.
00:07:27.350 --> 00:07:28.629
Are they buying it or not?
00:07:28.710 --> 00:07:41.269
And I don't mean some story or narrative that you're creating, but you know, if you're asking them to assign a value to it and to your client's harms and losses, what do normal people or people you're likely to see in your jury think about that case?
00:07:41.429 --> 00:07:43.350
We have to be objective as lawyers.
00:07:43.509 --> 00:07:54.549
And so it's a really valuable tool for helping, number one, to you know, get to a place where you can find, you know, a damages ask that is right for your case, but also to address really key issues.
00:07:54.629 --> 00:08:03.990
And for those of you that don't or haven't run a big data study, in a nutshell, you create uh, you know, uh, you know, uh like basically a factual narrative about your case.
00:08:04.149 --> 00:08:12.549
And you know, if you're running a big data study with a couple hundred participants, we just finished one last Friday drafting the narratives, you have a plaintiff and a defense narrative.
00:08:12.710 --> 00:08:19.190
And the plaintiff's narrative is it's a you know, it's advocating for your client and your case and the case that you're likely to put on, right?
00:08:19.269 --> 00:08:26.149
And the defense narrative, as much as you can predict and as much certainty as you have, is the defense is best case and best day.
00:08:26.310 --> 00:08:36.629
And if you've got demonstratives, videos, exhibits that you think are important, you test those alongside your side your narrative and you get answers to questions on liability, damages, recklessness.
00:08:36.789 --> 00:08:43.429
You know, you can test the value and importance of specific pieces of evidence down to exact photographs and exact exhibits.
00:08:43.509 --> 00:08:49.269
But the short answer is a lot of folks read and respond to that, and you get information about what they think.
00:08:49.429 --> 00:08:56.710
There's an analysis at the end and a report, and it tells you here's the really the best indication of where you should go from here on certain things.
00:08:57.190 --> 00:09:08.550
We've all been in those mediations where you're sitting there and you're with the client and the mediator comes into the room and it's like, well, you know, you never know what's going to happen in front of a jury, right?
00:09:08.710 --> 00:09:17.030
You never I've been doing this for 30, 40 years, and I've seen things go this way, and then I've seen things go the opposite way, and you just never know.
00:09:17.350 --> 00:09:32.870
What big data, and we've run a big data test before on a case at our office, and what big data does or is attempting to do is to demystify how the juror potentially could see and value this case.
00:09:33.110 --> 00:09:37.590
And what's really incredible is how accurate it's been.
00:09:37.990 --> 00:09:59.110
I mean, one of the when we were doing our big data study, when we went to mediation, we we used the big data study in the mediation with the mediator, and John Campbell wrote a memo for us that had a number of results lined up in comparison with the data studies run, and the numbers are astonishing, right?
00:09:59.269 --> 00:10:04.470
I mean, we're talking within uh uh uh typically it underestimates, right?
00:10:04.629 --> 00:10:11.590
Um, but you're still within a certain percentage of what the actual run what the actual verdict ends up being.
00:10:12.310 --> 00:10:14.149
Why is that and how is that?
00:10:14.310 --> 00:10:20.149
And for the non-believer, the person who's never seen this and is like, eh, this is all voodoo, what do you tell them?
00:10:20.629 --> 00:10:30.389
I mean, we'll we'll get into it more, but it it works, and you know, have have the confidence, uh, even though I'll tell you how I struggled to do that, um, to trust the data.
00:10:30.550 --> 00:10:42.710
And and the the way the reason it works is because I I think as much as we want to believe that specific data or specific opinions have to come from the exact people in the exact jurisdiction in your state that will hear the case.
00:10:42.950 --> 00:10:45.830
There are a lot more similarities to people than you think.
00:10:45.990 --> 00:10:54.230
You know, a Trump voter in you know rural Connecticut has a lot more in common and a lot more belief overlap with somebody in Ohio than you might think.
00:10:54.389 --> 00:10:58.710
And, you know, really there are things that matter in your case and there are things that don't.
00:10:58.870 --> 00:11:06.629
And they may be the things that you as a trial lawyer in your experience have come to believe are true about your case, but that may be the exact opposite.
00:11:06.710 --> 00:11:10.389
You know, in you know, one of the cases we tried, there were jurors.
00:11:10.550 --> 00:11:17.670
I think every trial lawyer, I think, gets to a place where they understand that there are jurors who might be good for one case that aren't good for another.
00:11:17.830 --> 00:11:23.190
You know, the same person who I might have in a rear-end motor vehicle collision might kill me on a premises case, right?
00:11:23.350 --> 00:11:29.190
But it it sort of helps you focus in on what's important and it's you know all signal and no noise.
00:11:29.590 --> 00:11:37.670
You know, questions like should I dismiss a defendant, or what percentage of fault is my client likely to receive, or is my client credible or likable?
00:11:37.830 --> 00:11:39.430
Those are all testable things.
00:11:39.590 --> 00:11:50.149
And you can get information and don't just assume if the case merits it as an approach, you do it because it's helpful to shape your trial strategy and to really try your best case.
00:11:50.629 --> 00:11:53.190
Let's go back to this to 2024.
00:11:53.509 --> 00:11:56.389
You all get brought into a case to try.
00:11:56.550 --> 00:12:01.110
And my understanding is big data becomes a part of the workup.
00:12:01.190 --> 00:12:01.910
Tell us about that.
00:12:02.310 --> 00:12:15.750
Yeah, so we had tried um my co-counsel Alexa Mahoney and I had tried a number of cases together, and the cruise case that you mentioned, where you know, there's a hundred million dollar verdict, and we had a went right into a brain injury case after that, that multi-million dollar verdict.
00:12:15.830 --> 00:12:22.310
And we had used focus groups and had been for years, on 10 or more on Cruise and a bunch on the subsequent trial.
00:12:22.389 --> 00:12:23.430
And we like that approach.
00:12:23.509 --> 00:12:32.310
That's a that's an approach we use then, we use now, because focus groups and small focus groups still have value as a tool and they still help you test components of your case.
00:12:32.550 --> 00:12:35.030
But I had known and heard about big data for a while.
00:12:35.190 --> 00:12:53.110
I mean, Sean and John and Alicia have been talking about it for years at TLU, and you know, around that time, not really in January, but later, um, you know, Sean and I decided that we wanted to join up together, and our folks all came with me to to develop this firm that was focused again on doing trial work at a high level.
00:12:53.350 --> 00:13:00.310
So we got this case, and it's a case where I think if a lot of your listeners got asked to bring in, they might, they might hesitate.
00:13:00.790 --> 00:13:08.710
So, you know, it's essentially it's a premises liability case that had been pending for six years, five years, uh contested liability case.
00:13:08.790 --> 00:13:13.269
And in a nutshell, you know, a guy in his 30s went to a water park in in Connecticut.
00:13:13.350 --> 00:13:19.030
I don't know if they have quarries around the country, but here sometimes they get repurposed as you know, you can swim in them.
00:13:19.190 --> 00:13:20.870
And this one had inflatables, right?
00:13:20.950 --> 00:13:26.629
Like your blob, your climbing mountain, your, you know, discs that you can run across in the water off of a dock.
00:13:26.710 --> 00:13:32.950
And unfortunately, this particular obstacle got installed, it was purchased at a discount at a bankruptcy auction.
00:13:33.030 --> 00:13:37.430
It wasn't installed correctly, it had a really poor secure mechanism.
00:13:37.590 --> 00:13:42.950
And our guy runs across it and just absolutely slices his foot open to the bone, cutting nerves.
00:13:43.110 --> 00:13:47.030
And it's really just a really, really bad injury.
00:13:47.350 --> 00:13:50.950
And liability is contested, trials in four months.
00:13:51.030 --> 00:13:55.269
There's about 750,000 left on a million-dollar eroding policy.
00:13:55.430 --> 00:14:07.269
He's got about$13,000 in past medical treatment, never missed a day of work, still relatively high activity level, you know, still was uh, you know, a black, double black diamond instructor skier, you know, his whole life.
00:14:07.430 --> 00:14:11.430
Now he still skis a half a day with his kids, but can't ski at that level.
00:14:11.670 --> 00:14:16.310
So, you know, you have someone who I think most people would say is hurt.
00:14:16.470 --> 00:14:21.269
And when you sort of see the injury pictures and things, you're like, it's pretty awful.
00:14:21.350 --> 00:14:23.830
Uh, but for us, it was a real challenge to value.
00:14:23.990 --> 00:14:27.030
We felt pretty comfortable in how we would try the liability case.
00:14:27.190 --> 00:14:37.670
And I'd be lying if, you know, one of the motivations wasn't that it had the same defense lawyer who we had on cruise, who I pretty much would take any case almost for free against him.
00:14:37.910 --> 00:14:39.590
Um, but it was it was a tough decision.
00:14:39.670 --> 00:14:47.110
And we we talked to the client, we met the client, we really liked him, we believed in the case, but we really didn't want to guess on value.
00:14:47.190 --> 00:14:50.950
We wanted to understand, you know, what we should ask for, what the best way to do that was.
00:14:51.030 --> 00:14:54.230
And so we decided to run our first big data study.
00:14:54.310 --> 00:15:03.509
So you you know, you sit down, you take the time to really understand every aspect of your case, to narrow it down to what's essential, to make it neutral, and test it.
00:15:03.750 --> 00:15:09.110
And Andrew, was this I'm I'm I'm presuming that you took on the case prior to running the big data study, right?
00:15:09.350 --> 00:15:09.590
I did.
00:15:09.670 --> 00:15:10.230
Yep, yep.
00:15:10.310 --> 00:15:12.310
No, we just said, look, we're we're in.
00:15:12.470 --> 00:15:17.269
Um, I I mean, I'm usually uh it doesn't take much to persuade me to take a trial.
00:15:17.430 --> 00:15:23.990
So of course um, you know, I think I think we all, you know, most of us get a little itchy after a while if we haven't seen a courtroom.
00:15:24.149 --> 00:15:25.190
So, you know, we take it.
00:15:25.350 --> 00:15:28.710
Alexa and I say, look, let's, you know, we're in, we'll do this and we'll try it.
00:15:28.790 --> 00:15:30.389
And what comes comes.
00:15:30.550 --> 00:15:36.470
And, you know, we we think this guy's really hurt and he hasn't been treated fairly, and we're interested in trying the case.
00:15:36.710 --> 00:15:43.590
So we take the case, you know, we we get into it and you know, all the aspects and understand everything that's happened in it.
00:15:43.750 --> 00:15:50.070
And there had been some small focus groups run by the firm that, you know, we're grateful trusted us to kind of take it over for trial.
00:15:50.230 --> 00:15:53.509
But really, the the big unanswered question is, you know, what is the case worth?
00:15:53.750 --> 00:16:03.430
It had a lot of pros, it had also a lot of things that I think traditionally people and plaintiffs' lawyers too look at and say, well, that might drive down the ask that I might make.
00:16:03.590 --> 00:16:07.350
Maybe a case that I, you know, before this would only ask for a couple of million on.
00:16:07.590 --> 00:16:15.750
We weren't sure, you know, became a case that the data said, look, I think you're probably gonna end up with$9.3 million on this case.
00:16:16.070 --> 00:16:16.950
That's incredible.
00:16:17.110 --> 00:16:19.750
And I mean, we know what the how the story ends, of course, right?
00:16:19.910 --> 00:16:21.830
It it it hit right then.
00:16:21.910 --> 00:16:23.350
I mean, it hit very close to that number.
00:16:23.830 --> 00:16:30.149
As my friend liked to tell me, so it actually came in at 9 million, which was the largest verdict in that courthouse in Connecticut.
00:16:30.310 --> 00:16:32.310
He says, Well, where do you think he went wrong?
00:16:32.550 --> 00:16:34.629
And so that's probably a question for the jury.
00:16:34.790 --> 00:16:47.509
But um, no, it was it was really an exceptional result, and it was really something that, you know, sort of the process of of deciding to use that and even more importantly, becoming comfortable sort of trusting the data.
00:16:47.750 --> 00:16:52.950
Because I think we all know as plaintiff, plaintiff lawyers, like, you know, we're starting behind the starting line.
00:16:53.030 --> 00:17:00.710
You know, jurors look at us and they have an expectation that we're greedy, and you know, we do our best to change that perception of jurors when we go in for voidir.
00:17:00.870 --> 00:17:03.670
But a lot of people say it can't work here, it can't work in Connecticut.
00:17:03.750 --> 00:17:06.549
You know, we have a very, very weird jury selection.
00:17:06.629 --> 00:17:10.629
Uh, I say weird because it is to outsiders to us, it's a constitutional right.
00:17:10.789 --> 00:17:14.470
You have a right here constitutionally to question jurors individually.
00:17:14.710 --> 00:17:22.629
So that means that every single person who comes into a pool, they go into a room and it's led by lawyers, unless it's a criminal case, right?
00:17:22.789 --> 00:17:23.670
The judge is there then.
00:17:23.829 --> 00:17:26.549
But and we just get to ask questions one at a time.
00:17:26.629 --> 00:17:34.869
It can take 30 to 45 minutes per potential jur before you get to a decision on whether you're going to exercise a peremptory or a cause challenge.
00:17:35.109 --> 00:17:41.509
So it can take two to three days to pick a jury in a car accident case, a case like Cruz, two or three weeks.
00:17:41.589 --> 00:17:44.149
But this case was relatively quick with a single defendant.
00:17:44.470 --> 00:17:46.549
And people say, well, it can't work in our state.
00:17:46.629 --> 00:17:57.909
You know, Connecticut has a unanimity requirement, you have individual voidir, and then you run data and you're like, the data came back, and really it there wasn't a lot that was going to matter to our jury composition.
00:17:58.069 --> 00:17:59.589
This isn't gonna be rocket science.
00:17:59.669 --> 00:18:05.829
But if a juror comes in and believes in tort reform and caps on damages, they believe there's too many lawsuits.
00:18:05.909 --> 00:18:09.269
I mean, those are things that aren't good for my client in this case.
00:18:09.509 --> 00:18:18.069
But, you know, by and large, that there wasn't like, you know, if they were Democratic or Republican or male or female, that really was really changing how they felt about the case.
00:18:18.230 --> 00:18:26.949
And really to our surprise, you know, jurors who I I think I told you I probably wouldn't have sat in a different case, and it would have been against my instinct to seat them in this case.
00:18:27.109 --> 00:18:32.629
The data said, look, uh, you know, people that are highly technical are going to be good for you on this case.
00:18:32.709 --> 00:18:36.789
So those are things that like I don't know how you get there without making an assumption.
00:18:36.949 --> 00:18:41.269
And I'm not sure I'd ever seat that person based on that assumption, based on a small focus group.
00:18:41.349 --> 00:18:44.549
I think that might be might be a little too risky for my taste.
00:18:44.789 --> 00:18:46.709
But, you know, it said, look, these are good people.
00:18:46.869 --> 00:18:48.069
And that shape too, we sat.
00:18:48.149 --> 00:18:57.509
You know, you set up sat a nuclear engineer, we sat people who I would have probably run from conceptually or used strikes on in the past as bad fits, and they ended up being our best jurors.
00:18:57.750 --> 00:18:59.750
So basically trust your instincts.
00:18:59.909 --> 00:19:08.549
You know, certainly if I got put in a room and they said you have to try this case in five minutes, I would do my best with my baseline and my experience to pick the best jury.
00:19:08.789 --> 00:19:19.829
But if you have the time uh to test your assumptions, then it's worth running data on the right case to sort of pick pick your best jurors, your best evidence, and make sure you get the damage ask dialed in.
00:19:20.069 --> 00:19:21.349
Especially with the damage ask.
00:19:21.509 --> 00:20:24.059
Like if someone told me, go ask for$25 million in this case, I think everybody would tell me you're crazy.
00:20:25.339 --> 00:20:26.539
Jury's gonna give you zero.
00:20:26.699 --> 00:20:32.459
I think we all know that if if you go too high, you need to make a jury mad, and you know, you could lose your case.
00:20:32.539 --> 00:20:37.979
So there's always a concern there that asking for too much money, you know, results in a negative outcome for your client.
00:20:38.219 --> 00:20:45.819
But if you can have confidence that you can go in and to the best data can tell you, not leave money on the table, you're not gonna make a jury mad.
00:20:45.979 --> 00:20:53.339
Maybe they disagree with you and they say, look, you know, uh respectfully that's too much, but they're not punishing your client and they give you a good verdict.
00:20:53.419 --> 00:20:56.299
You know, those are really important things to know about your case.
00:20:57.659 --> 00:20:58.939
Let's take a step back.
00:20:59.179 --> 00:21:06.539
So a challenging case comes in the door, it's against a defense attorney that you just had, massive, massive win against.
00:21:07.339 --> 00:21:11.739
Happy to take on a case against him, frankly, probably irregardless of what the facts are.
00:21:12.619 --> 00:21:16.219
See, it's a trial, another point as to why you take the case.
00:21:16.539 --> 00:21:18.299
You do the big data study.
00:21:19.259 --> 00:21:23.899
What makes you confident in the results?
00:21:24.219 --> 00:21:41.179
And I I say that because it's one thing to do the study to get the results, it's another thing to get the results to truly come to terms with accepting this was a sound study and that the results are reliable.
00:21:41.339 --> 00:21:52.379
And then it's another thing to sit down with your client and say, Hey, I think we can go the distance in part of that analysis is relying on this data set.
00:21:52.859 --> 00:21:59.419
Yeah, so those are all great questions and things that I think anybody who implements data on a case of trial, you know, has to confront.
00:21:59.579 --> 00:22:06.779
And, you know, I think it would have been a lot harder for my partner, Sean, to have been the first person to use it.
00:22:06.859 --> 00:22:15.979
It's a little bit easier for me, and I think less of less of an act of courage to be able to trust people who I trust and to know that he's had such success.
00:22:16.139 --> 00:22:22.779
And really, as long as you're taking the care to be honest about the narrative, if if your narrative is garbage, your data's garbage.
00:22:22.859 --> 00:22:27.659
So if you're putting your thumb on the scale on the plaintiff's side, just crumple it up and throw it away.
00:22:27.899 --> 00:22:35.259
But if you're doing your best to be honest about your case, and if you can't do it, have one of your other colleagues do it or have John and Alicia do it as well, right?
00:22:35.339 --> 00:22:38.459
They'll they'll be happy to tell you about the ups and downs of your case.
00:22:38.539 --> 00:22:44.459
And so being honest about how you draft and view the case and is is really the first step.
00:22:44.539 --> 00:22:51.579
But then yeah, having people who have been there before you and who have done that is a luxury, and it made it a little bit easier for us in this case.
00:22:51.739 --> 00:22:55.819
And, you know, candidly, it was the kind of case where they never gave us a chance.
00:22:55.899 --> 00:23:03.499
I think we were committed to trusting the data and trying it either way, and we'll we'll never know whether we would have done something different if they offered, you know, more money.
00:23:03.659 --> 00:23:08.219
But this was a case where you know they had already chewed up part of a million-dollar policy.
00:23:08.459 --> 00:23:11.259
We knew we had to come in and give them one more chance to tender it.
00:23:11.339 --> 00:23:12.619
Uh, we thought they might.
00:23:12.859 --> 00:23:22.299
You know, if we because we came in, entered an appearance, they admitted liability, they started to do things a little bit differently than they had done in the last case we tried against them.
00:23:22.459 --> 00:23:25.019
And, you know, we thought there's a real chance they'd pay this.
00:23:25.099 --> 00:23:26.619
And fortunately they didn't.
00:23:26.699 --> 00:23:30.139
And not only did they not pay the$750, but I think the last offer was.
00:23:30.539 --> 00:23:31.099
450.
00:23:31.179 --> 00:23:48.859
And so, you know, we told our client, look, here's what the here's what the you know, the data says this, and I can't promise you a jury is going to give you$9 million, but I feel really, really good they're going to give you more than$750, more than$450, and um potentially many, many multiples more than that.
00:23:49.179 --> 00:23:55.899
So, you know, having people that you trust who you can rely on to talk about new techniques and who have been there before you, I think is a huge asset.
00:23:56.059 --> 00:23:59.499
And I'm happy to do that for any listeners, my colleagues, all the time.
00:23:59.659 --> 00:24:01.019
It's something we all enjoy.
00:24:01.259 --> 00:24:03.419
But that's really, you know, that that's one of the hard parts.
00:24:03.499 --> 00:24:07.259
And then you get to a place that's sort of the like how you make the decision to do it.
00:24:07.339 --> 00:24:16.139
But then there's the part about, you know, because I think it's true that that juries know when you don't believe in your case or you don't believe in your ask.
00:24:16.299 --> 00:24:22.059
And so not only do you have to try something new, but you have to put yourself mentally in a place where you believe it.
00:24:22.299 --> 00:24:27.899
You believe that this is the most likely result, and you're gonna ask them for it because it's what full justice is.
00:24:28.059 --> 00:24:30.299
So definitely having to work on yourself.
00:24:30.379 --> 00:24:36.859
And the advice I got when I opened my law practice in 2013 was if you're gonna do it, just jump in with both feet, right?
00:24:37.019 --> 00:24:40.619
Once the decision was made to trust the data, it was full steam ahead.
00:24:40.779 --> 00:24:54.379
Obviously, there's still room for creativity in your case, and you know, but some of the decisions we were gonna make about what evidence to include or not, and certainly the damage asked were now going to be dictated by the study, and that was it.
00:24:55.579 --> 00:24:59.579
What changes, if any, did you all make to your presentation based on the data?
00:24:59.659 --> 00:25:00.939
And I recognize it might be a lot.
00:25:01.099 --> 00:25:09.739
Because and actually, before we get into that, so you do the big data submission, which for my recollection is a ton of work, right?
00:25:09.819 --> 00:25:16.939
I mean, you are you are putting the entire case on paper, including exhibits, demonstratives.
00:25:17.019 --> 00:25:19.659
Sometimes in ours, we included deposition clips.
00:25:19.979 --> 00:25:25.259
If you're gonna do it right, I mean, because at the as you said or reference earlier, garbage in, garbage out, right?
00:25:25.339 --> 00:25:31.339
I mean, if you have to do it right, it's a tremendous undertaking to do the actual data write up correctly.
00:25:31.499 --> 00:25:45.739
And then what you get back, if I remember, it was about a 50-some page report, and it had all types of stuff from win rates to jur demographics to comments, um, both for against.
00:25:46.139 --> 00:25:58.219
And uh, one of the beautiful things about running focus groups in big data is the case doesn't necessarily live or die based on what the results of those tests are.
00:25:58.539 --> 00:26:11.579
Now the cases can be, I guess, improved or reframed to accommodate or to get around maybe some of the the weaknesses that the data points out, or the or your traditional focus group.
00:26:11.899 --> 00:26:17.419
What are some of the major things that you ultimately changed as a result of getting that data?
00:26:17.899 --> 00:26:24.059
Um so really uh we we decided to make the case much, much shorter, much tighter.
00:26:24.299 --> 00:26:34.539
I mean, I I know from trying you know cases over years that there's so much anxiety and fear that I've had when I've tried those cases, there's such a temptation to overtry your case, right?
00:26:34.699 --> 00:26:42.779
To call that extra witness, to put in that extra piece of evidence, because just in case, guess you know what I mean, just in case, let's give the jury more so that we have more than enough.
00:26:42.939 --> 00:26:55.979
But, you know, one of the hardest things, I think, as a trial lawyer is to learn what not to have in your case and what evidence you don't need, and to have the confidence to know that you can leave it out and still get a good result for your client.
00:26:56.299 --> 00:26:59.499
And that's one area I think data can help.
00:26:59.579 --> 00:27:06.539
Um, you know, certainly we've always tried very hard to try a very simple case and to know the whole universe, but then to narrow it, right?
00:27:06.619 --> 00:27:10.299
To to make it simple, to not have anyone who doesn't add something different.
00:27:10.379 --> 00:27:17.579
If we're gonna call damages witnesses or before and after witnesses, they they say something different from one another, usually.
00:27:17.819 --> 00:27:31.419
And, you know, you may have themes that you want to build through them, and so that there's there's a purpose to it, but we really try to be respectful of the jury's time, to have them feel like we're they're not hearing the same thing over and over and over again, and that you know, we're in, we're in, we're out.
00:27:31.499 --> 00:27:42.219
So what was gonna end up being a weak trial, we trimmed it down to I think a day and a half of our our case was a day and a half, including opening and opening instructions too.
00:27:42.539 --> 00:27:49.819
Because number one, they admitted liability, so that shortened the case for us, but we really learned from the study what you know what truly mattered.
00:27:49.979 --> 00:27:51.979
Did we need more damage as witnesses?
00:27:52.139 --> 00:27:53.179
The answer was no.
00:27:53.419 --> 00:27:59.259
Um, you know, we ended up submitting for the first time, I think, in a long time, our treating neurologist.
00:27:59.339 --> 00:28:02.699
We just put his records in, not even his deposition.
00:28:03.019 --> 00:28:17.259
And really, the case was our client, a couple of folks who were fac witnesses that day, some damages, and then we actually cross-disclosed their neurologist and used him for what he added to our case and sat down.
00:28:17.899 --> 00:28:29.099
So it was really understanding what resonated in the case, you know, what was noise, and cutting that and having the confidence to cut it, and then to just try a very short, clean case.
00:28:29.259 --> 00:28:48.539
Because I don't think, you know, when I first started practice in 2012, if someone had told me you could go in, try a case in a day and a half that wasn't a death case or something bigger, and you know, get a nine million dollar verdict, it's just, you know, I think that that's sort of anathema to the fear and anxiety that comes with growing as a trial lawyer.
00:28:48.619 --> 00:28:53.019
You just think you have to do more, it has to be a long trial, it has to be a certain kind of injury, right?
00:28:53.579 --> 00:28:56.219
How many witnesses did the defense call?
00:28:56.299 --> 00:28:59.419
Or better question, how long did the defense's case take?
00:28:59.739 --> 00:29:02.699
So I think their case was longer than ours by the end of it.
00:29:02.779 --> 00:29:20.619
I think they they about to recall one of the so like we called a very short, like, corporate witness before and after the client's wife, co-worker of our client talked about damages, played a small portion of the video deposition of their neurologist, and then our clients direct, and that was our case.
00:29:20.939 --> 00:29:34.059
They called and had a full examination of their neurologist, and I think recalled some of the liability folks, but I think in the end, like their case presentation was longer than ours and extended into a couple days.
00:29:34.379 --> 00:29:45.899
I wonder something that I've been thinking about recently, and and actually kind of it's been the product of a few trials we've had, and we're actually thinking about it in reference to a trial we have coming up next week.
00:29:46.379 --> 00:29:53.339
I think there might be something when your case is very short to the point, I mean it's effective, right?
00:29:53.419 --> 00:29:59.659
It's sufficient, and the defense's case is long and has numerous witnesses.
00:29:59.899 --> 00:30:03.979
Like I think there's some level of like polarization just with that.
00:30:04.299 --> 00:30:11.019
It r in the sense of you know what you're doing, you're driving your point, you're confident, you're in, you're out.
00:30:11.179 --> 00:30:19.819
Meanwhile, the defense has to put 10, 15 people up there, and who by doing that, they're still not accepting real responsibility, right?
00:30:19.899 --> 00:30:26.459
Because every time they keep putting on witnesses is another statement that, yeah, we've got more excuses in some respects.
00:30:26.699 --> 00:30:35.099
But but it but then also when you contrast the two sides and you're take you're taking a step back and like, well, who's more credible, who has it more put together?
00:30:35.259 --> 00:30:42.939
I wonder if there's at least some impact on the jury when it comes to looking at the side that actually was short and concise.
00:30:43.339 --> 00:30:47.979
So I don't know, something I'm thinking about, but uh it sounds like you've experienced that yourself.
00:30:48.459 --> 00:30:49.739
Yeah, and I think that's true.
00:30:49.899 --> 00:30:52.859
I think it's a little bit of, you know, they jurors are smart.
00:30:53.019 --> 00:31:01.019
Um, number one, I think they get impatient if they feel like their time's being wasted, or you're adding the same witness because you assume they don't understand you, so that can backfire.
00:31:01.179 --> 00:31:04.379
But I think it's a little bit like is this a quantity over quality approach?
00:31:04.539 --> 00:31:06.219
Like, you know, thou doth protest too much.
00:31:06.299 --> 00:31:16.699
You tell me it's simple and the the plaintiff, you know, it's the plaintiff's fault, or he's not that hurt, but then why do you need so much justification for a position that's that that's not important or it doesn't have a factual basis, right?
00:31:16.939 --> 00:31:19.419
And there's there's always gonna be a you know comparison.
00:31:19.579 --> 00:31:30.859
We're always gonna look at how we try a case and how what our approach is and whether it's clean or professional or you know, technologically um, you know, savvy and and what the defense do.
00:31:31.019 --> 00:31:35.019
And I think also they they just look at it, and to your point, that affects credibility.
00:31:35.179 --> 00:31:46.219
Um, if you're redundant or you're disorganized, or it's low tech and ours isn't, and fundamentally, what is an easy case where they come in and they admit liability and even causation of some of the damages.
00:31:46.379 --> 00:31:53.739
The jury's like the plaintiff's lawyer told me this is really just about one question regarding damages, and here we are over days.
00:31:53.819 --> 00:31:57.339
So why are they saying they admit liability, but it seems like they're not, you know?
00:31:57.739 --> 00:31:57.979
Yeah.
00:31:58.219 --> 00:32:02.059
Yeah, well, it comes to what level of responsibility are they truly admitting, right?
00:32:02.139 --> 00:32:02.299
Right.
00:32:02.379 --> 00:32:06.139
It's the whole the whole uh baseball going through the window analogy, right?
00:32:06.219 --> 00:32:06.299
Right.
00:32:06.459 --> 00:32:11.259
Yeah, they say they're in they're at fault, but they're asking you to fix the window with some scotch tape.
00:32:11.339 --> 00:32:14.539
They're not willing to go and do the work to actually replace the window, right?
00:32:14.619 --> 00:32:22.219
And so it's it's yeah, it's it's always interesting how that they're kind of in there in it's not an easy position to be in as a defense attorney, right?
00:32:22.299 --> 00:32:37.579
When you're you're trying, I mean, I think the scariest thing a defense attorney could do to us, and knock on wood, it hasn't happened yet, but they come in, they truly like really admit liability, like truly admit it, and then truly say, like, yeah, they're hurt, and I'm so sorry they're hurt, and we're ready to pay.
00:32:37.739 --> 00:32:39.979
Just we have a disagreement as to what that number is.
00:32:40.139 --> 00:32:45.739
I mean, good luck to us then trying to show that the defense is actually being unreasonable.
00:32:45.819 --> 00:32:49.099
I think that puts us in a very difficult position as a plaintiff's attorney.
00:32:49.179 --> 00:32:51.419
Have you ever had a defense attorney do that?
00:32:52.139 --> 00:32:53.579
Not sincerely, no.
00:32:53.739 --> 00:32:55.499
Um, but it but I agree with you entirely.
00:32:55.659 --> 00:32:59.099
I think it's important to look at every case and why you're trying it.
00:32:59.339 --> 00:33:05.499
And I think you you have to understand that the jury is going to question who's making us be here?
00:33:06.059 --> 00:33:10.139
Are we here because they want too much money or because they're being unreasonable?
00:33:10.299 --> 00:33:22.219
And I I do think if a defense lawyer comes in and really the optics at the end of the trial, despite how you try or that you're just there because you're greedy and you want more money, I don't that's usually not going to be a good day for you.
00:33:22.299 --> 00:33:22.939
I haven't had that.
00:33:23.019 --> 00:33:28.859
I've had them admit, like you said, um, you know, they they admit they broke the window, but they don't want to pay for it, right?
00:33:28.939 --> 00:33:33.739
Or they wanna they want to replace it with a you know with a subpar window or some plastic wrap.
00:33:33.819 --> 00:33:35.259
It's just like they don't want to pay for it, right?
00:33:35.339 --> 00:33:38.699
So I think when they come in and they say, you know, we're responsible for this.
00:33:38.859 --> 00:33:48.699
And you know, I also think that, you know, in this case in particular, um, and I I credit Sean and others with this, you know, we're often concerned, juries are told no sympathy, right?
00:33:48.859 --> 00:33:59.579
I don't think it's novel, but let's say I think trial lawyers who are weaving their themes throughout Wadir that they're gonna then use through trial, or at least they're gonna come back to in closing, I think it's effective.
00:33:59.659 --> 00:34:03.819
And that's something that we we did in this case and we do in in in all of our cases.
00:34:03.979 --> 00:34:08.380
And in this case, there's sort of a really devastating sympathy question.
00:34:08.539 --> 00:34:11.739
And it's it's really a sympathy for the defendant question.
00:34:11.900 --> 00:34:23.179
And I think a lot of folks think about, well, you know, the defense is concerned about sympathy for the plaintiff, but in this case, the quarry owner was was it's it's a local business, but it's owned by a larger corporation.
00:34:23.340 --> 00:34:29.340
And the question was, well, like, are they actually going to award a verdict of this size against that business?
00:34:29.420 --> 00:34:33.420
Or are they going to be worried about the implications to the business or something else, right?
00:34:33.500 --> 00:34:37.500
And so in Voidir in this case, and there's ways to kind of fine-tune this question.
00:34:37.579 --> 00:34:41.179
I mean, we came right at that with every single potential juror, right?
00:34:41.420 --> 00:34:45.179
So, you know, in cases like these, sympathy comes into the case in two ways.
00:34:45.340 --> 00:34:52.539
You come in and you see someone who's very hurt and you like them, but they don't prove all of their injuries to you, right?
00:34:52.619 --> 00:35:00.460
But because you like them, you go back into the jury room and you say, well, we should give them money for all of these things, even though they didn't prove their case.
00:35:00.699 --> 00:35:05.500
You know, we agree, the defense lawyer and I agree, they don't love it when you do that, but they can't disagree with us.
00:35:05.659 --> 00:35:12.139
That if you gave someone money for those injuries that they haven't proven, that that's the wrong verdict for the wrong reasons.
00:35:12.300 --> 00:35:15.260
But sympathy also comes into cases like these another way.
00:35:15.500 --> 00:35:30.139
The plaintiff does come in, they prove their case, they prove someone's responsible, they prove their injuries are serious, they're permanent, and at the end of the case, the jury goes back into the deliberation room and they say, like the plaintiff, very hurt, but man, that's a lot of money.
00:35:30.219 --> 00:35:31.820
You know, is this gonna go out of business?
00:35:31.980 --> 00:35:33.579
Are people gonna lose their jobs?
00:35:33.820 --> 00:35:37.340
So you lower the verdict in that case because of those concerns.
00:35:37.579 --> 00:35:44.780
We agree, the defense lawyer and I, that those are also, you know, that it's the wrong verdict for the wrong reasons.
00:35:45.019 --> 00:35:52.140
And so, you know, a lot of people don't look at it that way, and I never had, but we use that in that case, and we talked about it, and it's fundamentally true.
00:35:52.300 --> 00:35:54.700
Nobody wants sympathy in a case.
00:35:54.860 --> 00:35:57.420
And at the end of the case, I came back to that in closing.
00:35:57.500 --> 00:35:59.820
I said we talked about it in Wadir.
00:36:00.140 --> 00:36:03.900
You all said that you could set sympathy aside, and that means sympathy for both sides.
00:36:04.220 --> 00:36:13.740
So I think, you know, when the defense comes in and they admit liability and they don't want to take responsibility for it, or they tell you a verdict's too high, but they don't have great reasons.
00:36:13.820 --> 00:36:21.579
I mean, for saying why my damn my damage ask is too high or it's just too much money, or they talk about some of these things about the employees and the community.
00:36:21.740 --> 00:36:25.099
You know, you have to pick your spots, but you can you can call it out for what it is.
00:36:25.180 --> 00:36:29.180
I mean, this is a request for sympathy that they come back to the fact that they've admitted this.
00:36:29.500 --> 00:36:30.619
You know, nobody agrees.
00:36:30.700 --> 00:36:31.260
Of course they did.
00:36:31.340 --> 00:36:32.059
What were they gonna do?
00:36:32.220 --> 00:36:38.700
Deny that the razor sharp object they installed in the water didn't cut my client's foot wide open immediately upon impact?
00:36:38.780 --> 00:36:39.579
No, of course not.
00:36:39.740 --> 00:36:42.700
They did what you'd expect them to do, not deny the obvious.
00:36:42.940 --> 00:36:50.700
So I think it can be be helpful to kind of you know frame it that way if you're stuck with the damages only case and call that out if that's what they're looking for.
00:36:50.780 --> 00:36:54.059
If you're looking for sympathy by you know through the admission.
00:36:54.780 --> 00:37:04.700
There's uh I've noticed, especially in like your individual car cases, um, some defense attorneys, and I don't know if they're doing it intentionally or not, who knows, but but they'll say, well, I'm just trying to humanize my client.
00:37:04.860 --> 00:37:07.579
And it's like, well, where do you work and what do you do for them?
00:37:07.740 --> 00:37:10.460
And who's uh tell us about your family, all that stuff.
00:37:10.619 --> 00:37:16.460
We now we file motions on that stuff before we ever get in the court because there is no relevance to that stuff.
00:37:16.619 --> 00:37:21.420
It is very much an invitation to for an invitation to sympathy, right?
00:37:21.500 --> 00:37:30.780
It's the well, this person works at Starbucks, how are they gonna the implication is how are they gonna afford to pay this significant verdict that the the plaintiff is asking for?
00:37:30.940 --> 00:37:32.940
And to your point, it's not consistent with the law.
00:37:33.099 --> 00:37:35.500
It's so it's uh for the wrong reasons, right?
00:37:35.740 --> 00:37:46.700
Nowhere in the jury instructions, at least in our state, and I'd be surprised if, with the exception of maybe punitives, I'd be surprised if it really showed up anywhere, where is the defendant's capacity to pay?
00:37:46.860 --> 00:37:47.980
It's not a thing, right?
00:37:48.059 --> 00:37:51.660
The jury is supposed to act like a group of appraisers.
00:37:51.820 --> 00:38:03.820
Uh it's just we're asking them to appraise something a little bit more important and but also but intangible, and that's ultimately the value of the harms and losses, the value of what was taken from their their health and their quality of life.
00:38:04.140 --> 00:38:06.539
And those are the hardest frickin' cases, too.
00:38:06.700 --> 00:38:09.099
Like the individual defendant, oh my gosh.
00:38:09.340 --> 00:38:12.300
And I know you guys have had plenty of those.
00:38:12.619 --> 00:38:23.019
Yeah, W, we had a case, um, you know, older elderly defendant, um, clear liability caused the collision, admitted, and you know, oh, you know, are you still driving and or oh, you're still working?
00:38:23.099 --> 00:38:25.180
And do you ever plan on retiring anytime soon?
00:38:25.340 --> 00:38:29.019
And just, you know, and and uh yeah, we have a lot more success.
00:38:29.260 --> 00:38:31.180
We we do move to preclude it now.
00:38:31.260 --> 00:38:40.380
Uh it's judge by judge, but if liability is admitted, you're more likely to get have success with that, you know, because you get the well, they're entitled to a little bit of background and understanding.
00:38:40.460 --> 00:38:43.420
But to your point, some of those questions just flatly inappropriate.
00:38:43.579 --> 00:38:46.780
If there's no wage claim in this case, does it matter what my client makes?
00:38:47.019 --> 00:38:47.340
No.
00:38:47.660 --> 00:38:51.420
So why does it matter what you know what they do or where they live or how the business runs?
00:38:51.579 --> 00:39:10.539
I mean, so I mean, it's I think smart of defense lawyers to try to inject that, but even smarter to try to get ahead of it and point it out for what it is because you're either going to get preclusion or you know, the judge is savvy to it, and I've had the judges, you know, really rein them in once an objection's made, which is always like a tough one to do, right?
00:39:10.700 --> 00:39:10.940
Yeah.
00:39:11.180 --> 00:39:21.099
Because it seems like background, and you give them some latitude and you say, Your Honor, this uh, you know, respectfully, this I think we're in the territory of my motion, and and and then she'll tell them to move on, you know.
00:39:21.180 --> 00:39:31.820
So it's like I think it can help to flag it or preclude it, but you have to you have to do what you can for your client, and certainly that includes keeping out, you know, sympathy pleas and defense cross or defense directs.
00:39:32.220 --> 00:39:33.340
Without question.
00:39:33.500 --> 00:39:52.140
Um, one of the things that we ran into, coming back to big data, one of the things that we ran into, at least when we used it, we got some pushback and said, well, we who's to tell that this big data is from the same locality, right, or municipality that our case is in, as if people are so wildly different from town to town.
00:39:52.300 --> 00:39:53.099
They're not, right?
00:39:53.260 --> 00:40:06.220
I mean, what's your been an experience with I mean, not having used big data before and not necessarily and or in knowing that the participants all didn't come from your perspective jury pool?
00:40:06.539 --> 00:40:14.860
Yeah, I think too, that that's having a little bit of confidence in the methodology and looking, you know, if you read jury ball, through there's a section that talks about that.
00:40:15.019 --> 00:40:21.180
And what I know is that people smarter than I who are better than data analysis have have come to that conclusion.
00:40:21.340 --> 00:40:25.579
I haven't taken it on blind faith, though um, if asked to, I might in the future.
00:40:25.740 --> 00:40:35.500
Uh but you know, you then you look at the results too, where the studies say it's gonna be one way, and none of those participants are from anywhere near geographically where the case is ultimately tried.
00:40:35.660 --> 00:40:37.340
And it's spot on.
00:40:37.420 --> 00:40:42.860
It's within, you know, less than half a percent of whatever the number was predicted to be.
00:40:43.019 --> 00:40:52.059
It's hard to ignore results like that despite misgivings or or you know, that sort of wanting to believe that you know it has to be a one-to-one match.
00:40:52.140 --> 00:40:52.940
You know what I mean?
00:40:53.340 --> 00:40:54.700
And are people that different?
00:40:55.019 --> 00:40:58.220
And what I what I mean by that is like, like for example, we're in Virginia, right?
00:40:58.300 --> 00:41:05.820
And there's at least in our we're in central Virginia, we've got the city of Richmond, which is considered a good plaintiff's uh venue.
00:41:05.980 --> 00:41:08.539
Granted, I've lost cases there, won and lost.
00:41:08.940 --> 00:41:12.780
We've got Hanover, which is north of us, which is considered very conservative.
00:41:12.860 --> 00:41:17.579
And if you talk to a traditional PI attorney in Virginia, they'll say that's where cases go to die.
00:41:17.660 --> 00:41:24.780
And then south of us, you've got Petersburg, and then people will tell you that same group will say, We got a case in Petersburg, you're good to go, right?
00:41:24.940 --> 00:41:29.019
I've heard of big wins in both in both places, I've heard of losses in both places.
00:41:29.260 --> 00:41:37.980
But I keep and I could be, I am a lunatic, I get it, but I don't believe people are that different just because they live a few miles apart, right?
00:41:38.059 --> 00:41:48.860
I mean, I get I guess I could see a difference between, yes, the urban city of Richmond and maybe somewhere in Southwest Virginia, where it's just a completely different world.
00:41:49.019 --> 00:41:53.980
Uh, but even then, I mean, we're all on social media, we're all watching the same news, right?
00:41:54.059 --> 00:41:56.860
We're all, I mean, I and people move, right?
00:41:56.940 --> 00:41:59.180
So I don't know, what are your thoughts on that?
00:41:59.500 --> 00:42:01.820
It's almost like a philosophical question, right?
00:42:01.980 --> 00:42:05.900
Because I think everyone wants to believe in their own uniqueness.
00:42:06.059 --> 00:42:13.420
And it's not that we all don't want that or have that, or there aren't things that are different or unique that makes everyone special.
00:42:13.579 --> 00:42:14.860
But I I do think you're right.
00:42:15.019 --> 00:42:30.700
I think sort of a lot of some of the at least the things that may matter for a verdict or liability or damages, that a lot of those really are fairly consistent, and that if people come in and they listen to the evidence, there's a consistency to how they will make decisions.
00:42:30.940 --> 00:42:33.260
And I just think at this point the data is overwhelming.
00:42:33.340 --> 00:42:38.860
It doesn't mean that everybody's the same and they see everything the same or even see a different case the same way.
00:42:39.019 --> 00:42:44.780
But if the data comes back and says these folks see this case this way consistently, there's a lot of commonality there.
00:42:44.860 --> 00:42:49.820
And it and it's not really variable based on geography if you're if you're screening the right way.
00:42:50.220 --> 00:42:55.660
For people who've listened to us the last 40 minutes or so and they're like, you know what, like, okay, you got me.
00:42:55.740 --> 00:42:57.420
But I want to I'm I still want to learn more.
00:42:57.579 --> 00:42:58.460
Where do you tell people to go?
00:42:58.539 --> 00:43:03.980
I mean, I know you referenced the book, but where do you tell people to go to learn more about this and how it works?
00:43:04.300 --> 00:43:06.860
Yeah, I mean, that's sort of the number one place to start.
00:43:06.940 --> 00:43:15.579
Um, you know, twice a year there'll be a conference if, you know, in the fall, in I think October, November, this jury ball Vegas, uh, folks just got back from Spain.
00:43:15.740 --> 00:43:26.700
So there's also twice a year where you can go and talk to folks who are using this and implementing this and see how they're using the data and what their results are and and kind of you know what they struggled with or how they've implemented it.
00:43:26.780 --> 00:43:31.980
And so really it's the book in conferences and you know, or reach out to somebody you know that that uses it.
00:43:32.059 --> 00:43:36.619
I mean, I'm always happy to take a call because it really can be, I think it can be scary.
00:43:36.700 --> 00:43:38.380
I mean, it's a number one, it's expensive.
00:43:38.460 --> 00:43:44.619
I've talked to people and they say, well, you know, we're happy to have you talk about it, but really I don't think anyone's gonna be interested in that.
00:43:44.940 --> 00:43:46.300
And it's like, yeah, I mean, it is.
00:43:46.380 --> 00:43:55.500
Um, you know, it can be tens of thousands of dollars if you buy one study, or you can work with people who you know will share the fee with you because they're they're lawyers, most of them.
00:43:55.740 --> 00:43:57.420
I mean, the at least the ones that I work with.
00:43:57.579 --> 00:43:59.420
Uh, you know, so there are ways to do it.
00:43:59.500 --> 00:44:01.420
And it's not, you can't use it on every case.
00:44:01.500 --> 00:44:02.780
There are other solutions too.
00:44:02.860 --> 00:44:14.220
You can you can run smaller data studies, but fundamentally, you know, a case that I think a lot of folks might have settled for$350,000, you know, is a case that we ended up with a$9 million verdict on.
00:44:14.380 --> 00:44:17.180
It was taken to 13.2 with pre-judgment interest.
00:44:17.260 --> 00:44:22.300
And that's because we had the confidence to try it because the data said that was the right thing to do.
00:44:22.539 --> 00:44:38.380
And as sort of a fun aside, it made post-verdict motions fun because there there was a filing that I had before trial where I was sort of papering basically the defense lawyer being unreasonable in settlement negotiations to build what's ultimately a bad faith case.
00:44:38.460 --> 00:44:42.539
And I said, look, our data has you know, this verdict as high as$9 million.
00:44:42.780 --> 00:44:46.380
It's interpleting, it's a little bit like pointing to the fence.
00:44:46.700 --> 00:44:55.260
My colleague and I were, and then it comes in, and then it is pretty fun because then you get, I mean, post-verdict motions aren't a lot of fun, unless that's really your thing.
00:44:55.420 --> 00:44:59.019
But um, you know, a motion for remitted her that says that this shocks the conscience.
00:44:59.180 --> 00:45:00.539
Well, what's shocking?
00:45:00.700 --> 00:45:02.539
Something that's unanticipated, right?
00:45:02.940 --> 00:45:08.059
Not only is this anticipated, I I told you this is what the the result was likely to be.
00:45:08.140 --> 00:45:17.500
So we don't always do that, but it's kind of interesting to say, look, we this is where we think it's gonna be, it ends up there, and then we point back to it and say we talked about this, and you ignored us.
00:45:17.740 --> 00:45:19.019
Yeah, that's incredible.
00:45:19.180 --> 00:45:19.579
Gosh.
00:45:19.740 --> 00:45:26.140
And uh, I bet um with that defense attorney in particular, it's probably very satisfying to have gotten the result.
00:45:27.500 --> 00:45:30.380
Yeah, and to be able to say, We told you, right?
00:45:30.460 --> 00:45:32.700
So they could they could have paid the policy, yeah.
00:45:32.860 --> 00:45:34.220
No, that's just that's the crazy thing.
00:45:34.300 --> 00:45:36.539
It's like, look, like my client would have taken it.
00:45:36.619 --> 00:45:45.579
I mean, I was secretly hoping he wouldn't, if I'm, you know, because there's I think yeah, a little bit of a little bit of lunatic is is in all of us who really do this work and and and love doing it.
00:45:45.740 --> 00:45:49.180
But yeah, no, I mean it's I'm glad that we did it in this case.
00:45:49.340 --> 00:46:02.460
And you know, you you are gonna have to cope with the fact that not only do you have to get comfortable doing it, but then you're gonna have to not spend too much time looking backward at your cases and wishing you had done it before and questioning whether you left money on the table, right?
00:46:02.539 --> 00:46:09.579
I mean, you just you're you have a trial or you are because of the experience, and you know, you everybody gets better by being open to new ideas.
00:46:10.300 --> 00:46:11.500
Well, this has been a lot of fun.
00:46:11.660 --> 00:46:20.059
Before I let you go, if you could go back in time to when you first started doing this work, knowing what you know now, what would you tell yourself?
00:46:20.460 --> 00:46:21.820
Run data sooner.
00:46:23.099 --> 00:46:23.980
Yeah, that's it.
00:46:24.220 --> 00:46:36.220
I you know, I had so many cases I look back on, and and I cases we worked really hard on, we tried them well, but you know, we just I I didn't have the courage to ask for I I think what the money, you know, could have been.
00:46:36.380 --> 00:46:39.420
Not not for me, but for my clients, and they were happy with the verdicts.
00:46:39.579 --> 00:46:44.300
But you know, you it does make you question, you know, how many times do we leave money on the table for clients?
00:46:44.460 --> 00:46:47.180
Because we just again we were going off of assumptions.
00:46:47.260 --> 00:46:50.539
Everybody says that kind of verdict can't happen here, it can't happen in Connecticut.
00:46:50.619 --> 00:46:52.700
No Connecticut jury will give you that amount of money.
00:46:52.860 --> 00:47:05.180
And my takeaways fundamentally from using it now in multiple trials is they they can and they will, and really it's like we are our own obstacle as plaintiffs lawyers by just convincing ourselves and psyching ourselves out.
00:47:05.260 --> 00:47:08.460
It's like Bill Belichick throwing the ball on the one-yard line.
00:47:08.539 --> 00:47:09.980
Uh, I'm not a Patriots fan.
00:47:10.140 --> 00:47:11.740
Uh, you know, it's just run the ball.
00:47:11.900 --> 00:47:17.340
I mean, like we'll follow the data, get the data, and implement it, and do the best job you can.
00:47:17.500 --> 00:47:19.019
And that's that's my advice.
00:47:19.099 --> 00:47:24.380
I wish I'd run data sooner, and you know, we'll run it on really any case we try from here on out.
00:47:24.940 --> 00:47:26.539
Data, data, data.
00:47:26.619 --> 00:47:27.180
I love it.
00:47:27.340 --> 00:47:29.820
Uh well, Andrew, it's been a lot of fun having you.
00:47:29.980 --> 00:47:30.539
Thank you so much.
00:47:30.700 --> 00:47:33.579
I look forward to seeing you at the next trial or a conference.
00:47:33.660 --> 00:47:35.019
I'll be at the outer realm again.
00:47:35.099 --> 00:47:36.380
So see you there.
00:47:36.700 --> 00:47:39.180
And I really want to make one of those jury ball conferences.
00:47:39.260 --> 00:47:41.019
I've heard nothing but great things.
00:47:41.260 --> 00:47:42.380
So awesome.
00:47:42.539 --> 00:47:43.019
Well, thank you.
00:47:43.340 --> 00:47:43.579
Thank you.
00:47:45.420 --> 00:47:53.660
Thanks for listening to Courtroom Stories and Tactics by RVA trial lawyers, hosted by Sharif Gray and Nial Abuzaki.
00:47:54.380 --> 00:48:02.220
Please subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or any major podcast platform.
00:48:03.019 --> 00:48:09.579
Together, we're building a tribe of trial lawyers to remind the world what human life is truly worth.
00:48:09.820 --> 00:48:11.579
One verdict at a time.
00:00:33.750 --> 00:00:36.790
But really the big unanswered question is, you know, what is the case worth?
00:00:37.110 --> 00:00:40.790
Maybe a case that I, you know, before this would only ask for a couple of million on.
00:00:40.870 --> 00:00:45.990
It became a case that the data said, look, you're probably going to end up with$9.3 million on this case.
00:00:46.230 --> 00:00:52.070
So it actually came in at$9 million, which was the largest verdict in that courthouse in Connecticut.
00:00:53.030 --> 00:01:00.790
This is Courtroom Stories and Tactics by RVA trial lawyers, hosted by Sharif Gray and Niall Abuzaki.
00:01:02.630 --> 00:01:07.349
Before we get into the episode, I want to take a minute and introduce you all to Eve Legal.
00:01:07.750 --> 00:01:12.870
Our law firm uses Eve on every single one of our cases from intake through trial.
00:01:13.030 --> 00:01:23.990
It helps us move through thousands of pages of records quickly, analyze and brief pleadings, develop our trial strategy, and handle tasks that helps us focus on getting the results that our clients deserve.
00:01:28.390 --> 00:01:33.349
E is an AI-native operating system that is built specifically for plaintiff law firms.
00:01:33.670 --> 00:01:39.430
We help firms use AI across the entire life cycle of a case, everything from intake through resolution.
00:01:39.670 --> 00:01:47.270
So their teams can work more efficiently, uncover more case value, and ultimately spend more time doing what lawyers do best, getting justice for their clients.
00:01:47.670 --> 00:01:47.909
Awesome.
00:01:48.070 --> 00:01:51.350
And Melissa, if people want to learn more about Eve Legal, what should they do?
00:01:52.070 --> 00:01:55.030
The best way to reach us is through our website at Eve.legal.
00:01:55.510 --> 00:01:57.670
You can book a meeting or even schedule a demo.
00:01:57.750 --> 00:02:02.230
Or always feel free to email me directly at melissa.breen at Eve.legal.
00:02:04.150 --> 00:02:05.109
All right, we're back.
00:02:05.270 --> 00:02:09.750
And today we've got Andrew Garza joining us out of Connecticut.
00:02:10.069 --> 00:02:13.590
Andrew and I met at the Outer Realm last year.
00:02:13.750 --> 00:02:22.870
Well, but before that, I've been following you, Andrew, for a while now, especially after once you teamed up with Sean Claggett and them over there in Las Vegas.
00:02:23.030 --> 00:02:33.189
But so been a fan, but I got to sit next to you that whole two, three-day conference out at the outer realm, got to know you, got to uh really learn more about what you and your firm are doing.
00:02:33.430 --> 00:02:47.349
And I tell you what, there just aren't that many people who are getting hundred million dollar results and then and continuing to get significant results using the same methods and tools that you are using, especially here on the East Coast.
00:02:47.509 --> 00:02:49.349
So I'm super excited to have you.
00:02:49.509 --> 00:02:53.189
Why don't you take a second, go ahead and introduce yourself before we get into it?
00:02:53.590 --> 00:02:56.150
Yeah, it's a pleasure to be here and thank you for having me.
00:02:56.310 --> 00:03:06.469
Um yeah, I think Outer Realm is one of those organizations and places where you meet people and you kind of find a kindred spirit who does the work the way you do, and that's always nice.
00:03:06.710 --> 00:03:12.710
So I am one of the co-owners and lead trial attorneys here at Claggett's Lakes and Garza in Connecticut.
00:03:12.870 --> 00:03:20.710
Um we've been open now for about two years and have a six, seven lawyers who are all dedicated to doing this work at really the highest level.
00:03:20.950 --> 00:03:28.469
Data focus groups, you know, any cutting edge approach, we're here to learn and to teach and to do what the best we can for our clients.
00:03:28.870 --> 00:03:32.629
Before we get into it, let's actually take a second and talk about what the outer realm is.
00:03:32.950 --> 00:03:37.110
I remember getting a I don't know, it was a card or an email.
00:03:37.270 --> 00:03:38.950
Gosh, I don't even know what it was at this point.
00:03:39.030 --> 00:03:43.990
I still have some of the outer realm stuff over there sitting on my shelf, but I was like, what the heck is this?
00:03:44.229 --> 00:03:52.789
And it was like show up in Los Angeles on this day by this time, and that was it, right?
00:03:52.950 --> 00:03:57.670
Like, and uh, I I think at one point, I mean, there was thought about wait, is this legit?
00:03:57.830 --> 00:03:59.750
Like, am I about to get abducted, right?
00:03:59.909 --> 00:04:01.750
Or is this a timeshare presentation?
00:04:02.229 --> 00:04:16.550
Kind of a modern lawyer equivalent of the uh men in black scene where you know Will Smith gets kind of dragged into a room and or invited and you're not quite sure what it is, but you're you know, you're I think intrigued by the the message and the person it came from.
00:04:16.789 --> 00:04:17.509
Oh, of course.
00:04:17.670 --> 00:04:26.950
And so knowing it came from Claggett and Rowley, I I mean, there's little hesitation on my part, despite my my colleagues here being like, What are you doing, Sharif?
00:04:27.189 --> 00:04:28.870
To book the ticket and to get out there.
00:04:29.029 --> 00:04:35.750
And so, and yeah, and you were you were there along with uh a number of just really awesome travelers from around the country.
00:04:35.909 --> 00:04:58.870
And one of the great things about what the Outer Realm did and is doing is it didn't just bring people together who are good at their work, it brought people together who not only are doing good work for their clients, but genuinely care about doing this work the right way and helping others, like people who embody that the a rising tide lifts all boats, a mentality.
00:04:59.110 --> 00:05:10.950
And so I know I know I got a note, I guess a week or two ago, that the Outer Realm is doing another event this fall, which they're opening it up a little bit more, which is really exciting and I'll certainly be there.
00:05:11.110 --> 00:05:24.950
But well, anyways, before we kind of get into this case, I think it's really important first to talk about kind of prior to the data, right, in this case.
00:05:25.269 --> 00:05:31.509
What was your mentality when it came to working up cases and getting them into trial?
00:05:31.909 --> 00:05:32.230
Sure.
00:05:32.470 --> 00:05:40.710
So the folks that I worked with had all been people that, you know, were formerly at the you know, Keenan Ball College, which became the Keenan Trial Institute.
00:05:40.789 --> 00:05:47.990
And, you know, I was fortunate to sort of encounter that group early in my career and it sort of shaped the way that I looked at cases and worked them up.
00:05:48.230 --> 00:05:54.149
But this was a little bit different because this is, you know, kind of a different approach to getting data in a case.
00:05:54.310 --> 00:06:00.789
I mean, we'd run focus groups with eight to twelve people and you know glean insights and get better at that and develop skills.
00:06:00.950 --> 00:06:14.950
But when I heard about this, I thought, well, if we can actually accurately predict data and you know, calibrate the ask at trial, among many, many other things you can do with data, that has immense value to our clients and to us as advocates.
00:06:15.350 --> 00:06:18.950
Andrew, can you share with our listeners this thing called big data?
00:06:19.110 --> 00:06:19.909
What is it?
00:06:20.389 --> 00:06:20.710
Sure.
00:06:20.870 --> 00:06:33.110
So I mean, essentially the way it works is it enables you to get a lot of column focus group participants for, you know, lack of a better phrase, uh, all at once across all issues in your case.
00:06:33.350 --> 00:06:42.230
So instead of a sort of small focus group, which we run for, you know, over 10 years, maybe you get eight to 12 people on a Saturday in person or you have them on Zoom.
00:06:42.470 --> 00:06:49.509
This is a way that really you can you can get you know hundreds of people to look at your case and tell you what they think.
00:06:49.669 --> 00:06:58.629
And, you know, like in-person focus groups or Zoom focus groups, it requires you to have a good sense of sort of what your case is about and what you're looking to test.
00:06:58.789 --> 00:07:03.750
But the advantage to the increased numbers is increased reliability and predictability at the end of the day.
00:07:03.990 --> 00:07:10.549
And you know, my partner Sean Claggett and, you know, his co-authors, Alicia and John Campbell, wrote a book called Jury Ball.
00:07:10.629 --> 00:07:18.789
And really one of the premises is that if you really can kind of step outside of you know your closeness and your attachment to your case, your case is a product.
00:07:18.870 --> 00:07:27.110
We are asking people who don't know your client, don't know your case, don't know you to weigh in on your case subjectively and tell you what they think.
00:07:27.350 --> 00:07:28.629
Are they buying it or not?
00:07:28.710 --> 00:07:41.269
And I don't mean some story or narrative that you're creating, but you know, if you're asking them to assign a value to it and to your client's harms and losses, what do normal people or people you're likely to see in your jury think about that case?
00:07:41.429 --> 00:07:43.350
We have to be objective as lawyers.
00:07:43.509 --> 00:07:54.549
And so it's a really valuable tool for helping, number one, to you know, get to a place where you can find, you know, a damages ask that is right for your case, but also to address really key issues.
00:07:54.629 --> 00:08:03.990
And for those of you that don't or haven't run a big data study, in a nutshell, you create uh, you know, uh, you know, uh like basically a factual narrative about your case.
00:08:04.149 --> 00:08:12.549
And you know, if you're running a big data study with a couple hundred participants, we just finished one last Friday drafting the narratives, you have a plaintiff and a defense narrative.
00:08:12.710 --> 00:08:19.190
And the plaintiff's narrative is it's a you know, it's advocating for your client and your case and the case that you're likely to put on, right?
00:08:19.269 --> 00:08:26.149
And the defense narrative, as much as you can predict and as much certainty as you have, is the defense is best case and best day.
00:08:26.310 --> 00:08:36.629
And if you've got demonstratives, videos, exhibits that you think are important, you test those alongside your side your narrative and you get answers to questions on liability, damages, recklessness.
00:08:36.789 --> 00:08:43.429
You know, you can test the value and importance of specific pieces of evidence down to exact photographs and exact exhibits.
00:08:43.509 --> 00:08:49.269
But the short answer is a lot of folks read and respond to that, and you get information about what they think.
00:08:49.429 --> 00:08:56.710
There's an analysis at the end and a report, and it tells you here's the really the best indication of where you should go from here on certain things.
00:08:57.190 --> 00:09:08.550
We've all been in those mediations where you're sitting there and you're with the client and the mediator comes into the room and it's like, well, you know, you never know what's going to happen in front of a jury, right?
00:09:08.710 --> 00:09:17.030
You never I've been doing this for 30, 40 years, and I've seen things go this way, and then I've seen things go the opposite way, and you just never know.
00:09:17.350 --> 00:09:32.870
What big data, and we've run a big data test before on a case at our office, and what big data does or is attempting to do is to demystify how the juror potentially could see and value this case.
00:09:33.110 --> 00:09:37.590
And what's really incredible is how accurate it's been.
00:09:37.990 --> 00:09:59.110
I mean, one of the when we were doing our big data study, when we went to mediation, we we used the big data study in the mediation with the mediator, and John Campbell wrote a memo for us that had a number of results lined up in comparison with the data studies run, and the numbers are astonishing, right?
00:09:59.269 --> 00:10:04.470
I mean, we're talking within uh uh uh typically it underestimates, right?
00:10:04.629 --> 00:10:11.590
Um, but you're still within a certain percentage of what the actual run what the actual verdict ends up being.
00:10:12.310 --> 00:10:14.149
Why is that and how is that?
00:10:14.310 --> 00:10:20.149
And for the non-believer, the person who's never seen this and is like, eh, this is all voodoo, what do you tell them?
00:10:20.629 --> 00:10:30.389
I mean, we'll we'll get into it more, but it it works, and you know, have have the confidence, uh, even though I'll tell you how I struggled to do that, um, to trust the data.
00:10:30.550 --> 00:10:42.710
And and the the way the reason it works is because I I think as much as we want to believe that specific data or specific opinions have to come from the exact people in the exact jurisdiction in your state that will hear the case.
00:10:42.950 --> 00:10:45.830
There are a lot more similarities to people than you think.
00:10:45.990 --> 00:10:54.230
You know, a Trump voter in you know rural Connecticut has a lot more in common and a lot more belief overlap with somebody in Ohio than you might think.
00:10:54.389 --> 00:10:58.710
And, you know, really there are things that matter in your case and there are things that don't.
00:10:58.870 --> 00:11:06.629
And they may be the things that you as a trial lawyer in your experience have come to believe are true about your case, but that may be the exact opposite.
00:11:06.710 --> 00:11:10.389
You know, in you know, one of the cases we tried, there were jurors.
00:11:10.550 --> 00:11:17.670
I think every trial lawyer, I think, gets to a place where they understand that there are jurors who might be good for one case that aren't good for another.
00:11:17.830 --> 00:11:23.190
You know, the same person who I might have in a rear-end motor vehicle collision might kill me on a premises case, right?
00:11:23.350 --> 00:11:29.190
But it it sort of helps you focus in on what's important and it's you know all signal and no noise.
00:11:29.590 --> 00:11:37.670
You know, questions like should I dismiss a defendant, or what percentage of fault is my client likely to receive, or is my client credible or likable?
00:11:37.830 --> 00:11:39.430
Those are all testable things.
00:11:39.590 --> 00:11:50.149
And you can get information and don't just assume if the case merits it as an approach, you do it because it's helpful to shape your trial strategy and to really try your best case.
00:11:50.629 --> 00:11:53.190
Let's go back to this to 2024.
00:11:53.509 --> 00:11:56.389
You all get brought into a case to try.
00:11:56.550 --> 00:12:01.110
And my understanding is big data becomes a part of the workup.
00:12:01.190 --> 00:12:01.910
Tell us about that.
00:12:02.310 --> 00:12:15.750
Yeah, so we had tried um my co-counsel Alexa Mahoney and I had tried a number of cases together, and the cruise case that you mentioned, where you know, there's a hundred million dollar verdict, and we had a went right into a brain injury case after that, that multi-million dollar verdict.
00:12:15.830 --> 00:12:22.310
And we had used focus groups and had been for years, on 10 or more on Cruise and a bunch on the subsequent trial.
00:12:22.389 --> 00:12:23.430
And we like that approach.
00:12:23.509 --> 00:12:32.310
That's a that's an approach we use then, we use now, because focus groups and small focus groups still have value as a tool and they still help you test components of your case.
00:12:32.550 --> 00:12:35.030
But I had known and heard about big data for a while.
00:12:35.190 --> 00:12:53.110
I mean, Sean and John and Alicia have been talking about it for years at TLU, and you know, around that time, not really in January, but later, um, you know, Sean and I decided that we wanted to join up together, and our folks all came with me to to develop this firm that was focused again on doing trial work at a high level.
00:12:53.350 --> 00:13:00.310
So we got this case, and it's a case where I think if a lot of your listeners got asked to bring in, they might, they might hesitate.
00:13:00.790 --> 00:13:08.710
So, you know, it's essentially it's a premises liability case that had been pending for six years, five years, uh contested liability case.
00:13:08.790 --> 00:13:13.269
And in a nutshell, you know, a guy in his 30s went to a water park in in Connecticut.
00:13:13.350 --> 00:13:19.030
I don't know if they have quarries around the country, but here sometimes they get repurposed as you know, you can swim in them.
00:13:19.190 --> 00:13:20.870
And this one had inflatables, right?
00:13:20.950 --> 00:13:26.629
Like your blob, your climbing mountain, your, you know, discs that you can run across in the water off of a dock.
00:13:26.710 --> 00:13:32.950
And unfortunately, this particular obstacle got installed, it was purchased at a discount at a bankruptcy auction.
00:13:33.030 --> 00:13:37.430
It wasn't installed correctly, it had a really poor secure mechanism.
00:13:37.590 --> 00:13:42.950
And our guy runs across it and just absolutely slices his foot open to the bone, cutting nerves.
00:13:43.110 --> 00:13:47.030
And it's really just a really, really bad injury.
00:13:47.350 --> 00:13:50.950
And liability is contested, trials in four months.
00:13:51.030 --> 00:13:55.269
There's about 750,000 left on a million-dollar eroding policy.
00:13:55.430 --> 00:14:07.269
He's got about$13,000 in past medical treatment, never missed a day of work, still relatively high activity level, you know, still was uh, you know, a black, double black diamond instructor skier, you know, his whole life.
00:14:07.430 --> 00:14:11.430
Now he still skis a half a day with his kids, but can't ski at that level.
00:14:11.670 --> 00:14:16.310
So, you know, you have someone who I think most people would say is hurt.
00:14:16.470 --> 00:14:21.269
And when you sort of see the injury pictures and things, you're like, it's pretty awful.
00:14:21.350 --> 00:14:23.830
Uh, but for us, it was a real challenge to value.
00:14:23.990 --> 00:14:27.030
We felt pretty comfortable in how we would try the liability case.
00:14:27.190 --> 00:14:37.670
And I'd be lying if, you know, one of the motivations wasn't that it had the same defense lawyer who we had on cruise, who I pretty much would take any case almost for free against him.
00:14:37.910 --> 00:14:39.590
Um, but it was it was a tough decision.
00:14:39.670 --> 00:14:47.110
And we we talked to the client, we met the client, we really liked him, we believed in the case, but we really didn't want to guess on value.
00:14:47.190 --> 00:14:50.950
We wanted to understand, you know, what we should ask for, what the best way to do that was.
00:14:51.030 --> 00:14:54.230
And so we decided to run our first big data study.
00:14:54.310 --> 00:15:03.509
So you you know, you sit down, you take the time to really understand every aspect of your case, to narrow it down to what's essential, to make it neutral, and test it.
00:15:03.750 --> 00:15:09.110
And Andrew, was this I'm I'm I'm presuming that you took on the case prior to running the big data study, right?
00:15:09.350 --> 00:15:09.590
I did.
00:15:09.670 --> 00:15:10.230
Yep, yep.
00:15:10.310 --> 00:15:12.310
No, we just said, look, we're we're in.
00:15:12.470 --> 00:15:17.269
Um, I I mean, I'm usually uh it doesn't take much to persuade me to take a trial.
00:15:17.430 --> 00:15:23.990
So of course um, you know, I think I think we all, you know, most of us get a little itchy after a while if we haven't seen a courtroom.
00:15:24.149 --> 00:15:25.190
So, you know, we take it.
00:15:25.350 --> 00:15:28.710
Alexa and I say, look, let's, you know, we're in, we'll do this and we'll try it.
00:15:28.790 --> 00:15:30.389
And what comes comes.
00:15:30.550 --> 00:15:36.470
And, you know, we we think this guy's really hurt and he hasn't been treated fairly, and we're interested in trying the case.
00:15:36.710 --> 00:15:43.590
So we take the case, you know, we we get into it and you know, all the aspects and understand everything that's happened in it.
00:15:43.750 --> 00:15:50.070
And there had been some small focus groups run by the firm that, you know, we're grateful trusted us to kind of take it over for trial.
00:15:50.230 --> 00:15:53.509
But really, the the big unanswered question is, you know, what is the case worth?
00:15:53.750 --> 00:16:03.430
It had a lot of pros, it had also a lot of things that I think traditionally people and plaintiffs' lawyers too look at and say, well, that might drive down the ask that I might make.
00:16:03.590 --> 00:16:07.350
Maybe a case that I, you know, before this would only ask for a couple of million on.
00:16:07.590 --> 00:16:15.750
We weren't sure, you know, became a case that the data said, look, I think you're probably gonna end up with$9.3 million on this case.
00:16:16.070 --> 00:16:16.950
That's incredible.
00:16:17.110 --> 00:16:19.750
And I mean, we know what the how the story ends, of course, right?
00:16:19.910 --> 00:16:21.830
It it it hit right then.
00:16:21.910 --> 00:16:23.350
I mean, it hit very close to that number.
00:16:23.830 --> 00:16:30.149
As my friend liked to tell me, so it actually came in at 9 million, which was the largest verdict in that courthouse in Connecticut.
00:16:30.310 --> 00:16:32.310
He says, Well, where do you think he went wrong?
00:16:32.550 --> 00:16:34.629
And so that's probably a question for the jury.
00:16:34.790 --> 00:16:47.509
But um, no, it was it was really an exceptional result, and it was really something that, you know, sort of the process of of deciding to use that and even more importantly, becoming comfortable sort of trusting the data.
00:16:47.750 --> 00:16:52.950
Because I think we all know as plaintiff, plaintiff lawyers, like, you know, we're starting behind the starting line.
00:16:53.030 --> 00:17:00.710
You know, jurors look at us and they have an expectation that we're greedy, and you know, we do our best to change that perception of jurors when we go in for voidir.
00:17:00.870 --> 00:17:03.670
But a lot of people say it can't work here, it can't work in Connecticut.
00:17:03.750 --> 00:17:06.549
You know, we have a very, very weird jury selection.
00:17:06.629 --> 00:17:10.629
Uh, I say weird because it is to outsiders to us, it's a constitutional right.
00:17:10.789 --> 00:17:14.470
You have a right here constitutionally to question jurors individually.
00:17:14.710 --> 00:17:22.629
So that means that every single person who comes into a pool, they go into a room and it's led by lawyers, unless it's a criminal case, right?
00:17:22.789 --> 00:17:23.670
The judge is there then.
00:17:23.829 --> 00:17:26.549
But and we just get to ask questions one at a time.
00:17:26.629 --> 00:17:34.869
It can take 30 to 45 minutes per potential jur before you get to a decision on whether you're going to exercise a peremptory or a cause challenge.
00:17:35.109 --> 00:17:41.509
So it can take two to three days to pick a jury in a car accident case, a case like Cruz, two or three weeks.
00:17:41.589 --> 00:17:44.149
But this case was relatively quick with a single defendant.
00:17:44.470 --> 00:17:46.549
And people say, well, it can't work in our state.
00:17:46.629 --> 00:17:57.909
You know, Connecticut has a unanimity requirement, you have individual voidir, and then you run data and you're like, the data came back, and really it there wasn't a lot that was going to matter to our jury composition.
00:17:58.069 --> 00:17:59.589
This isn't gonna be rocket science.
00:17:59.669 --> 00:18:05.829
But if a juror comes in and believes in tort reform and caps on damages, they believe there's too many lawsuits.
00:18:05.909 --> 00:18:09.269
I mean, those are things that aren't good for my client in this case.
00:18:09.509 --> 00:18:18.069
But, you know, by and large, that there wasn't like, you know, if they were Democratic or Republican or male or female, that really was really changing how they felt about the case.
00:18:18.230 --> 00:18:26.949
And really to our surprise, you know, jurors who I I think I told you I probably wouldn't have sat in a different case, and it would have been against my instinct to seat them in this case.
00:18:27.109 --> 00:18:32.629
The data said, look, uh, you know, people that are highly technical are going to be good for you on this case.
00:18:32.709 --> 00:18:36.789
So those are things that like I don't know how you get there without making an assumption.
00:18:36.949 --> 00:18:41.269
And I'm not sure I'd ever seat that person based on that assumption, based on a small focus group.
00:18:41.349 --> 00:18:44.549
I think that might be might be a little too risky for my taste.
00:18:44.789 --> 00:18:46.709
But, you know, it said, look, these are good people.
00:18:46.869 --> 00:18:48.069
And that shape too, we sat.
00:18:48.149 --> 00:18:57.509
You know, you set up sat a nuclear engineer, we sat people who I would have probably run from conceptually or used strikes on in the past as bad fits, and they ended up being our best jurors.
00:18:57.750 --> 00:18:59.750
So basically trust your instincts.
00:18:59.909 --> 00:19:08.549
You know, certainly if I got put in a room and they said you have to try this case in five minutes, I would do my best with my baseline and my experience to pick the best jury.
00:19:08.789 --> 00:19:19.829
But if you have the time uh to test your assumptions, then it's worth running data on the right case to sort of pick pick your best jurors, your best evidence, and make sure you get the damage ask dialed in.
00:19:20.069 --> 00:19:21.349
Especially with the damage ask.
00:19:21.509 --> 00:20:24.059
Like if someone told me, go ask for$25 million in this case, I think everybody would tell me you're crazy.
00:20:25.339 --> 00:20:26.539
Jury's gonna give you zero.
00:20:26.699 --> 00:20:32.459
I think we all know that if if you go too high, you need to make a jury mad, and you know, you could lose your case.
00:20:32.539 --> 00:20:37.979
So there's always a concern there that asking for too much money, you know, results in a negative outcome for your client.
00:20:38.219 --> 00:20:45.819
But if you can have confidence that you can go in and to the best data can tell you, not leave money on the table, you're not gonna make a jury mad.
00:20:45.979 --> 00:20:53.339
Maybe they disagree with you and they say, look, you know, uh respectfully that's too much, but they're not punishing your client and they give you a good verdict.
00:20:53.419 --> 00:20:56.299
You know, those are really important things to know about your case.
00:20:57.659 --> 00:20:58.939
Let's take a step back.
00:20:59.179 --> 00:21:06.539
So a challenging case comes in the door, it's against a defense attorney that you just had, massive, massive win against.
00:21:07.339 --> 00:21:11.739
Happy to take on a case against him, frankly, probably irregardless of what the facts are.
00:21:12.619 --> 00:21:16.219
See, it's a trial, another point as to why you take the case.
00:21:16.539 --> 00:21:18.299
You do the big data study.
00:21:19.259 --> 00:21:23.899
What makes you confident in the results?
00:21:24.219 --> 00:21:41.179
And I I say that because it's one thing to do the study to get the results, it's another thing to get the results to truly come to terms with accepting this was a sound study and that the results are reliable.
00:21:41.339 --> 00:21:52.379
And then it's another thing to sit down with your client and say, Hey, I think we can go the distance in part of that analysis is relying on this data set.
00:21:52.859 --> 00:21:59.419
Yeah, so those are all great questions and things that I think anybody who implements data on a case of trial, you know, has to confront.
00:21:59.579 --> 00:22:06.779
And, you know, I think it would have been a lot harder for my partner, Sean, to have been the first person to use it.
00:22:06.859 --> 00:22:15.979
It's a little bit easier for me, and I think less of less of an act of courage to be able to trust people who I trust and to know that he's had such success.
00:22:16.139 --> 00:22:22.779
And really, as long as you're taking the care to be honest about the narrative, if if your narrative is garbage, your data's garbage.
00:22:22.859 --> 00:22:27.659
So if you're putting your thumb on the scale on the plaintiff's side, just crumple it up and throw it away.
00:22:27.899 --> 00:22:35.259
But if you're doing your best to be honest about your case, and if you can't do it, have one of your other colleagues do it or have John and Alicia do it as well, right?
00:22:35.339 --> 00:22:38.459
They'll they'll be happy to tell you about the ups and downs of your case.
00:22:38.539 --> 00:22:44.459
And so being honest about how you draft and view the case and is is really the first step.
00:22:44.539 --> 00:22:51.579
But then yeah, having people who have been there before you and who have done that is a luxury, and it made it a little bit easier for us in this case.
00:22:51.739 --> 00:22:55.819
And, you know, candidly, it was the kind of case where they never gave us a chance.
00:22:55.899 --> 00:23:03.499
I think we were committed to trusting the data and trying it either way, and we'll we'll never know whether we would have done something different if they offered, you know, more money.
00:23:03.659 --> 00:23:08.219
But this was a case where you know they had already chewed up part of a million-dollar policy.
00:23:08.459 --> 00:23:11.259
We knew we had to come in and give them one more chance to tender it.
00:23:11.339 --> 00:23:12.619
Uh, we thought they might.
00:23:12.859 --> 00:23:22.299
You know, if we because we came in, entered an appearance, they admitted liability, they started to do things a little bit differently than they had done in the last case we tried against them.
00:23:22.459 --> 00:23:25.019
And, you know, we thought there's a real chance they'd pay this.
00:23:25.099 --> 00:23:26.619
And fortunately they didn't.
00:23:26.699 --> 00:23:30.139
And not only did they not pay the$750, but I think the last offer was.
00:23:30.539 --> 00:23:31.099
450.
00:23:31.179 --> 00:23:48.859
And so, you know, we told our client, look, here's what the here's what the you know, the data says this, and I can't promise you a jury is going to give you$9 million, but I feel really, really good they're going to give you more than$750, more than$450, and um potentially many, many multiples more than that.
00:23:49.179 --> 00:23:55.899
So, you know, having people that you trust who you can rely on to talk about new techniques and who have been there before you, I think is a huge asset.
00:23:56.059 --> 00:23:59.499
And I'm happy to do that for any listeners, my colleagues, all the time.
00:23:59.659 --> 00:24:01.019
It's something we all enjoy.
00:24:01.259 --> 00:24:03.419
But that's really, you know, that that's one of the hard parts.
00:24:03.499 --> 00:24:07.259
And then you get to a place that's sort of the like how you make the decision to do it.
00:24:07.339 --> 00:24:16.139
But then there's the part about, you know, because I think it's true that that juries know when you don't believe in your case or you don't believe in your ask.
00:24:16.299 --> 00:24:22.059
And so not only do you have to try something new, but you have to put yourself mentally in a place where you believe it.
00:24:22.299 --> 00:24:27.899
You believe that this is the most likely result, and you're gonna ask them for it because it's what full justice is.
00:24:28.059 --> 00:24:30.299
So definitely having to work on yourself.
00:24:30.379 --> 00:24:36.859
And the advice I got when I opened my law practice in 2013 was if you're gonna do it, just jump in with both feet, right?
00:24:37.019 --> 00:24:40.619
Once the decision was made to trust the data, it was full steam ahead.
00:24:40.779 --> 00:24:54.379
Obviously, there's still room for creativity in your case, and you know, but some of the decisions we were gonna make about what evidence to include or not, and certainly the damage asked were now going to be dictated by the study, and that was it.
00:24:55.579 --> 00:24:59.579
What changes, if any, did you all make to your presentation based on the data?
00:24:59.659 --> 00:25:00.939
And I recognize it might be a lot.
00:25:01.099 --> 00:25:09.739
Because and actually, before we get into that, so you do the big data submission, which for my recollection is a ton of work, right?
00:25:09.819 --> 00:25:16.939
I mean, you are you are putting the entire case on paper, including exhibits, demonstratives.
00:25:17.019 --> 00:25:19.659
Sometimes in ours, we included deposition clips.
00:25:19.979 --> 00:25:25.259
If you're gonna do it right, I mean, because at the as you said or reference earlier, garbage in, garbage out, right?
00:25:25.339 --> 00:25:31.339
I mean, if you have to do it right, it's a tremendous undertaking to do the actual data write up correctly.
00:25:31.499 --> 00:25:45.739
And then what you get back, if I remember, it was about a 50-some page report, and it had all types of stuff from win rates to jur demographics to comments, um, both for against.
00:25:46.139 --> 00:25:58.219
And uh, one of the beautiful things about running focus groups in big data is the case doesn't necessarily live or die based on what the results of those tests are.
00:25:58.539 --> 00:26:11.579
Now the cases can be, I guess, improved or reframed to accommodate or to get around maybe some of the the weaknesses that the data points out, or the or your traditional focus group.
00:26:11.899 --> 00:26:17.419
What are some of the major things that you ultimately changed as a result of getting that data?
00:26:17.899 --> 00:26:24.059
Um so really uh we we decided to make the case much, much shorter, much tighter.
00:26:24.299 --> 00:26:34.539
I mean, I I know from trying you know cases over years that there's so much anxiety and fear that I've had when I've tried those cases, there's such a temptation to overtry your case, right?
00:26:34.699 --> 00:26:42.779
To call that extra witness, to put in that extra piece of evidence, because just in case, guess you know what I mean, just in case, let's give the jury more so that we have more than enough.
00:26:42.939 --> 00:26:55.979
But, you know, one of the hardest things, I think, as a trial lawyer is to learn what not to have in your case and what evidence you don't need, and to have the confidence to know that you can leave it out and still get a good result for your client.
00:26:56.299 --> 00:26:59.499
And that's one area I think data can help.
00:26:59.579 --> 00:27:06.539
Um, you know, certainly we've always tried very hard to try a very simple case and to know the whole universe, but then to narrow it, right?
00:27:06.619 --> 00:27:10.299
To to make it simple, to not have anyone who doesn't add something different.
00:27:10.379 --> 00:27:17.579
If we're gonna call damages witnesses or before and after witnesses, they they say something different from one another, usually.
00:27:17.819 --> 00:27:31.419
And, you know, you may have themes that you want to build through them, and so that there's there's a purpose to it, but we really try to be respectful of the jury's time, to have them feel like we're they're not hearing the same thing over and over and over again, and that you know, we're in, we're in, we're out.
00:27:31.499 --> 00:27:42.219
So what was gonna end up being a weak trial, we trimmed it down to I think a day and a half of our our case was a day and a half, including opening and opening instructions too.
00:27:42.539 --> 00:27:49.819
Because number one, they admitted liability, so that shortened the case for us, but we really learned from the study what you know what truly mattered.
00:27:49.979 --> 00:27:51.979
Did we need more damage as witnesses?
00:27:52.139 --> 00:27:53.179
The answer was no.
00:27:53.419 --> 00:27:59.259
Um, you know, we ended up submitting for the first time, I think, in a long time, our treating neurologist.
00:27:59.339 --> 00:28:02.699
We just put his records in, not even his deposition.
00:28:03.019 --> 00:28:17.259
And really, the case was our client, a couple of folks who were fac witnesses that day, some damages, and then we actually cross-disclosed their neurologist and used him for what he added to our case and sat down.
00:28:17.899 --> 00:28:29.099
So it was really understanding what resonated in the case, you know, what was noise, and cutting that and having the confidence to cut it, and then to just try a very short, clean case.
00:28:29.259 --> 00:28:48.539
Because I don't think, you know, when I first started practice in 2012, if someone had told me you could go in, try a case in a day and a half that wasn't a death case or something bigger, and you know, get a nine million dollar verdict, it's just, you know, I think that that's sort of anathema to the fear and anxiety that comes with growing as a trial lawyer.
00:28:48.619 --> 00:28:53.019
You just think you have to do more, it has to be a long trial, it has to be a certain kind of injury, right?
00:28:53.579 --> 00:28:56.219
How many witnesses did the defense call?
00:28:56.299 --> 00:28:59.419
Or better question, how long did the defense's case take?
00:28:59.739 --> 00:29:02.699
So I think their case was longer than ours by the end of it.
00:29:02.779 --> 00:29:20.619
I think they they about to recall one of the so like we called a very short, like, corporate witness before and after the client's wife, co-worker of our client talked about damages, played a small portion of the video deposition of their neurologist, and then our clients direct, and that was our case.
00:29:20.939 --> 00:29:34.059
They called and had a full examination of their neurologist, and I think recalled some of the liability folks, but I think in the end, like their case presentation was longer than ours and extended into a couple days.
00:29:34.379 --> 00:29:45.899
I wonder something that I've been thinking about recently, and and actually kind of it's been the product of a few trials we've had, and we're actually thinking about it in reference to a trial we have coming up next week.
00:29:46.379 --> 00:29:53.339
I think there might be something when your case is very short to the point, I mean it's effective, right?
00:29:53.419 --> 00:29:59.659
It's sufficient, and the defense's case is long and has numerous witnesses.
00:29:59.899 --> 00:30:03.979
Like I think there's some level of like polarization just with that.
00:30:04.299 --> 00:30:11.019
It r in the sense of you know what you're doing, you're driving your point, you're confident, you're in, you're out.
00:30:11.179 --> 00:30:19.819
Meanwhile, the defense has to put 10, 15 people up there, and who by doing that, they're still not accepting real responsibility, right?
00:30:19.899 --> 00:30:26.459
Because every time they keep putting on witnesses is another statement that, yeah, we've got more excuses in some respects.
00:30:26.699 --> 00:30:35.099
But but it but then also when you contrast the two sides and you're take you're taking a step back and like, well, who's more credible, who has it more put together?
00:30:35.259 --> 00:30:42.939
I wonder if there's at least some impact on the jury when it comes to looking at the side that actually was short and concise.
00:30:43.339 --> 00:30:47.979
So I don't know, something I'm thinking about, but uh it sounds like you've experienced that yourself.
00:30:48.459 --> 00:30:49.739
Yeah, and I think that's true.
00:30:49.899 --> 00:30:52.859
I think it's a little bit of, you know, they jurors are smart.
00:30:53.019 --> 00:31:01.019
Um, number one, I think they get impatient if they feel like their time's being wasted, or you're adding the same witness because you assume they don't understand you, so that can backfire.
00:31:01.179 --> 00:31:04.379
But I think it's a little bit like is this a quantity over quality approach?
00:31:04.539 --> 00:31:06.219
Like, you know, thou doth protest too much.
00:31:06.299 --> 00:31:16.699
You tell me it's simple and the the plaintiff, you know, it's the plaintiff's fault, or he's not that hurt, but then why do you need so much justification for a position that's that that's not important or it doesn't have a factual basis, right?
00:31:16.939 --> 00:31:19.419
And there's there's always gonna be a you know comparison.
00:31:19.579 --> 00:31:30.859
We're always gonna look at how we try a case and how what our approach is and whether it's clean or professional or you know, technologically um, you know, savvy and and what the defense do.
00:31:31.019 --> 00:31:35.019
And I think also they they just look at it, and to your point, that affects credibility.
00:31:35.179 --> 00:31:46.219
Um, if you're redundant or you're disorganized, or it's low tech and ours isn't, and fundamentally, what is an easy case where they come in and they admit liability and even causation of some of the damages.
00:31:46.379 --> 00:31:53.739
The jury's like the plaintiff's lawyer told me this is really just about one question regarding damages, and here we are over days.
00:31:53.819 --> 00:31:57.339
So why are they saying they admit liability, but it seems like they're not, you know?
00:31:57.739 --> 00:31:57.979
Yeah.
00:31:58.219 --> 00:32:02.059
Yeah, well, it comes to what level of responsibility are they truly admitting, right?
00:32:02.139 --> 00:32:02.299
Right.
00:32:02.379 --> 00:32:06.139
It's the whole the whole uh baseball going through the window analogy, right?
00:32:06.219 --> 00:32:06.299
Right.
00:32:06.459 --> 00:32:11.259
Yeah, they say they're in they're at fault, but they're asking you to fix the window with some scotch tape.
00:32:11.339 --> 00:32:14.539
They're not willing to go and do the work to actually replace the window, right?
00:32:14.619 --> 00:32:22.219
And so it's it's yeah, it's it's always interesting how that they're kind of in there in it's not an easy position to be in as a defense attorney, right?
00:32:22.299 --> 00:32:37.579
When you're you're trying, I mean, I think the scariest thing a defense attorney could do to us, and knock on wood, it hasn't happened yet, but they come in, they truly like really admit liability, like truly admit it, and then truly say, like, yeah, they're hurt, and I'm so sorry they're hurt, and we're ready to pay.
00:32:37.739 --> 00:32:39.979
Just we have a disagreement as to what that number is.
00:32:40.139 --> 00:32:45.739
I mean, good luck to us then trying to show that the defense is actually being unreasonable.
00:32:45.819 --> 00:32:49.099
I think that puts us in a very difficult position as a plaintiff's attorney.
00:32:49.179 --> 00:32:51.419
Have you ever had a defense attorney do that?
00:32:52.139 --> 00:32:53.579
Not sincerely, no.
00:32:53.739 --> 00:32:55.499
Um, but it but I agree with you entirely.
00:32:55.659 --> 00:32:59.099
I think it's important to look at every case and why you're trying it.
00:32:59.339 --> 00:33:05.499
And I think you you have to understand that the jury is going to question who's making us be here?
00:33:06.059 --> 00:33:10.139
Are we here because they want too much money or because they're being unreasonable?
00:33:10.299 --> 00:33:22.219
And I I do think if a defense lawyer comes in and really the optics at the end of the trial, despite how you try or that you're just there because you're greedy and you want more money, I don't that's usually not going to be a good day for you.
00:33:22.299 --> 00:33:22.939
I haven't had that.
00:33:23.019 --> 00:33:28.859
I've had them admit, like you said, um, you know, they they admit they broke the window, but they don't want to pay for it, right?
00:33:28.939 --> 00:33:33.739
Or they wanna they want to replace it with a you know with a subpar window or some plastic wrap.
00:33:33.819 --> 00:33:35.259
It's just like they don't want to pay for it, right?
00:33:35.339 --> 00:33:38.699
So I think when they come in and they say, you know, we're responsible for this.
00:33:38.859 --> 00:33:48.699
And you know, I also think that, you know, in this case in particular, um, and I I credit Sean and others with this, you know, we're often concerned, juries are told no sympathy, right?
00:33:48.859 --> 00:33:59.579
I don't think it's novel, but let's say I think trial lawyers who are weaving their themes throughout Wadir that they're gonna then use through trial, or at least they're gonna come back to in closing, I think it's effective.
00:33:59.659 --> 00:34:03.819
And that's something that we we did in this case and we do in in in all of our cases.
00:34:03.979 --> 00:34:08.380
And in this case, there's sort of a really devastating sympathy question.
00:34:08.539 --> 00:34:11.739
And it's it's really a sympathy for the defendant question.
00:34:11.900 --> 00:34:23.179
And I think a lot of folks think about, well, you know, the defense is concerned about sympathy for the plaintiff, but in this case, the quarry owner was was it's it's a local business, but it's owned by a larger corporation.
00:34:23.340 --> 00:34:29.340
And the question was, well, like, are they actually going to award a verdict of this size against that business?
00:34:29.420 --> 00:34:33.420
Or are they going to be worried about the implications to the business or something else, right?
00:34:33.500 --> 00:34:37.500
And so in Voidir in this case, and there's ways to kind of fine-tune this question.
00:34:37.579 --> 00:34:41.179
I mean, we came right at that with every single potential juror, right?
00:34:41.420 --> 00:34:45.179
So, you know, in cases like these, sympathy comes into the case in two ways.
00:34:45.340 --> 00:34:52.539
You come in and you see someone who's very hurt and you like them, but they don't prove all of their injuries to you, right?
00:34:52.619 --> 00:35:00.460
But because you like them, you go back into the jury room and you say, well, we should give them money for all of these things, even though they didn't prove their case.
00:35:00.699 --> 00:35:05.500
You know, we agree, the defense lawyer and I agree, they don't love it when you do that, but they can't disagree with us.
00:35:05.659 --> 00:35:12.139
That if you gave someone money for those injuries that they haven't proven, that that's the wrong verdict for the wrong reasons.
00:35:12.300 --> 00:35:15.260
But sympathy also comes into cases like these another way.
00:35:15.500 --> 00:35:30.139
The plaintiff does come in, they prove their case, they prove someone's responsible, they prove their injuries are serious, they're permanent, and at the end of the case, the jury goes back into the deliberation room and they say, like the plaintiff, very hurt, but man, that's a lot of money.
00:35:30.219 --> 00:35:31.820
You know, is this gonna go out of business?
00:35:31.980 --> 00:35:33.579
Are people gonna lose their jobs?
00:35:33.820 --> 00:35:37.340
So you lower the verdict in that case because of those concerns.
00:35:37.579 --> 00:35:44.780
We agree, the defense lawyer and I, that those are also, you know, that it's the wrong verdict for the wrong reasons.
00:35:45.019 --> 00:35:52.140
And so, you know, a lot of people don't look at it that way, and I never had, but we use that in that case, and we talked about it, and it's fundamentally true.
00:35:52.300 --> 00:35:54.700
Nobody wants sympathy in a case.
00:35:54.860 --> 00:35:57.420
And at the end of the case, I came back to that in closing.
00:35:57.500 --> 00:35:59.820
I said we talked about it in Wadir.
00:36:00.140 --> 00:36:03.900
You all said that you could set sympathy aside, and that means sympathy for both sides.
00:36:04.220 --> 00:36:13.740
So I think, you know, when the defense comes in and they admit liability and they don't want to take responsibility for it, or they tell you a verdict's too high, but they don't have great reasons.
00:36:13.820 --> 00:36:21.579
I mean, for saying why my damn my damage ask is too high or it's just too much money, or they talk about some of these things about the employees and the community.
00:36:21.740 --> 00:36:25.099
You know, you have to pick your spots, but you can you can call it out for what it is.
00:36:25.180 --> 00:36:29.180
I mean, this is a request for sympathy that they come back to the fact that they've admitted this.
00:36:29.500 --> 00:36:30.619
You know, nobody agrees.
00:36:30.700 --> 00:36:31.260
Of course they did.
00:36:31.340 --> 00:36:32.059
What were they gonna do?
00:36:32.220 --> 00:36:38.700
Deny that the razor sharp object they installed in the water didn't cut my client's foot wide open immediately upon impact?
00:36:38.780 --> 00:36:39.579
No, of course not.
00:36:39.740 --> 00:36:42.700
They did what you'd expect them to do, not deny the obvious.
00:36:42.940 --> 00:36:50.700
So I think it can be be helpful to kind of you know frame it that way if you're stuck with the damages only case and call that out if that's what they're looking for.
00:36:50.780 --> 00:36:54.059
If you're looking for sympathy by you know through the admission.
00:36:54.780 --> 00:37:04.700
There's uh I've noticed, especially in like your individual car cases, um, some defense attorneys, and I don't know if they're doing it intentionally or not, who knows, but but they'll say, well, I'm just trying to humanize my client.
00:37:04.860 --> 00:37:07.579
And it's like, well, where do you work and what do you do for them?
00:37:07.740 --> 00:37:10.460
And who's uh tell us about your family, all that stuff.
00:37:10.619 --> 00:37:16.460
We now we file motions on that stuff before we ever get in the court because there is no relevance to that stuff.
00:37:16.619 --> 00:37:21.420
It is very much an invitation to for an invitation to sympathy, right?
00:37:21.500 --> 00:37:30.780
It's the well, this person works at Starbucks, how are they gonna the implication is how are they gonna afford to pay this significant verdict that the the plaintiff is asking for?
00:37:30.940 --> 00:37:32.940
And to your point, it's not consistent with the law.
00:37:33.099 --> 00:37:35.500
It's so it's uh for the wrong reasons, right?
00:37:35.740 --> 00:37:46.700
Nowhere in the jury instructions, at least in our state, and I'd be surprised if, with the exception of maybe punitives, I'd be surprised if it really showed up anywhere, where is the defendant's capacity to pay?
00:37:46.860 --> 00:37:47.980
It's not a thing, right?
00:37:48.059 --> 00:37:51.660
The jury is supposed to act like a group of appraisers.
00:37:51.820 --> 00:38:03.820
Uh it's just we're asking them to appraise something a little bit more important and but also but intangible, and that's ultimately the value of the harms and losses, the value of what was taken from their their health and their quality of life.
00:38:04.140 --> 00:38:06.539
And those are the hardest frickin' cases, too.
00:38:06.700 --> 00:38:09.099
Like the individual defendant, oh my gosh.
00:38:09.340 --> 00:38:12.300
And I know you guys have had plenty of those.
00:38:12.619 --> 00:38:23.019
Yeah, W, we had a case, um, you know, older elderly defendant, um, clear liability caused the collision, admitted, and you know, oh, you know, are you still driving and or oh, you're still working?
00:38:23.099 --> 00:38:25.180
And do you ever plan on retiring anytime soon?
00:38:25.340 --> 00:38:29.019
And just, you know, and and uh yeah, we have a lot more success.
00:38:29.260 --> 00:38:31.180
We we do move to preclude it now.
00:38:31.260 --> 00:38:40.380
Uh it's judge by judge, but if liability is admitted, you're more likely to get have success with that, you know, because you get the well, they're entitled to a little bit of background and understanding.
00:38:40.460 --> 00:38:43.420
But to your point, some of those questions just flatly inappropriate.
00:38:43.579 --> 00:38:46.780
If there's no wage claim in this case, does it matter what my client makes?
00:38:47.019 --> 00:38:47.340
No.
00:38:47.660 --> 00:38:51.420
So why does it matter what you know what they do or where they live or how the business runs?
00:38:51.579 --> 00:39:10.539
I mean, so I mean, it's I think smart of defense lawyers to try to inject that, but even smarter to try to get ahead of it and point it out for what it is because you're either going to get preclusion or you know, the judge is savvy to it, and I've had the judges, you know, really rein them in once an objection's made, which is always like a tough one to do, right?
00:39:10.700 --> 00:39:10.940
Yeah.
00:39:11.180 --> 00:39:21.099
Because it seems like background, and you give them some latitude and you say, Your Honor, this uh, you know, respectfully, this I think we're in the territory of my motion, and and and then she'll tell them to move on, you know.
00:39:21.180 --> 00:39:31.820
So it's like I think it can help to flag it or preclude it, but you have to you have to do what you can for your client, and certainly that includes keeping out, you know, sympathy pleas and defense cross or defense directs.
00:39:32.220 --> 00:39:33.340
Without question.
00:39:33.500 --> 00:39:52.140
Um, one of the things that we ran into, coming back to big data, one of the things that we ran into, at least when we used it, we got some pushback and said, well, we who's to tell that this big data is from the same locality, right, or municipality that our case is in, as if people are so wildly different from town to town.
00:39:52.300 --> 00:39:53.099
They're not, right?
00:39:53.260 --> 00:40:06.220
I mean, what's your been an experience with I mean, not having used big data before and not necessarily and or in knowing that the participants all didn't come from your perspective jury pool?
00:40:06.539 --> 00:40:14.860
Yeah, I think too, that that's having a little bit of confidence in the methodology and looking, you know, if you read jury ball, through there's a section that talks about that.
00:40:15.019 --> 00:40:21.180
And what I know is that people smarter than I who are better than data analysis have have come to that conclusion.
00:40:21.340 --> 00:40:25.579
I haven't taken it on blind faith, though um, if asked to, I might in the future.
00:40:25.740 --> 00:40:35.500
Uh but you know, you then you look at the results too, where the studies say it's gonna be one way, and none of those participants are from anywhere near geographically where the case is ultimately tried.
00:40:35.660 --> 00:40:37.340
And it's spot on.
00:40:37.420 --> 00:40:42.860
It's within, you know, less than half a percent of whatever the number was predicted to be.
00:40:43.019 --> 00:40:52.059
It's hard to ignore results like that despite misgivings or or you know, that sort of wanting to believe that you know it has to be a one-to-one match.
00:40:52.140 --> 00:40:52.940
You know what I mean?
00:40:53.340 --> 00:40:54.700
And are people that different?
00:40:55.019 --> 00:40:58.220
And what I what I mean by that is like, like for example, we're in Virginia, right?
00:40:58.300 --> 00:41:05.820
And there's at least in our we're in central Virginia, we've got the city of Richmond, which is considered a good plaintiff's uh venue.
00:41:05.980 --> 00:41:08.539
Granted, I've lost cases there, won and lost.
00:41:08.940 --> 00:41:12.780
We've got Hanover, which is north of us, which is considered very conservative.
00:41:12.860 --> 00:41:17.579
And if you talk to a traditional PI attorney in Virginia, they'll say that's where cases go to die.
00:41:17.660 --> 00:41:24.780
And then south of us, you've got Petersburg, and then people will tell you that same group will say, We got a case in Petersburg, you're good to go, right?
00:41:24.940 --> 00:41:29.019
I've heard of big wins in both in both places, I've heard of losses in both places.
00:41:29.260 --> 00:41:37.980
But I keep and I could be, I am a lunatic, I get it, but I don't believe people are that different just because they live a few miles apart, right?
00:41:38.059 --> 00:41:48.860
I mean, I get I guess I could see a difference between, yes, the urban city of Richmond and maybe somewhere in Southwest Virginia, where it's just a completely different world.
00:41:49.019 --> 00:41:53.980
Uh, but even then, I mean, we're all on social media, we're all watching the same news, right?
00:41:54.059 --> 00:41:56.860
We're all, I mean, I and people move, right?
00:41:56.940 --> 00:41:59.180
So I don't know, what are your thoughts on that?
00:41:59.500 --> 00:42:01.820
It's almost like a philosophical question, right?
00:42:01.980 --> 00:42:05.900
Because I think everyone wants to believe in their own uniqueness.
00:42:06.059 --> 00:42:13.420
And it's not that we all don't want that or have that, or there aren't things that are different or unique that makes everyone special.
00:42:13.579 --> 00:42:14.860
But I I do think you're right.
00:42:15.019 --> 00:42:30.700
I think sort of a lot of some of the at least the things that may matter for a verdict or liability or damages, that a lot of those really are fairly consistent, and that if people come in and they listen to the evidence, there's a consistency to how they will make decisions.
00:42:30.940 --> 00:42:33.260
And I just think at this point the data is overwhelming.
00:42:33.340 --> 00:42:38.860
It doesn't mean that everybody's the same and they see everything the same or even see a different case the same way.
00:42:39.019 --> 00:42:44.780
But if the data comes back and says these folks see this case this way consistently, there's a lot of commonality there.
00:42:44.860 --> 00:42:49.820
And it and it's not really variable based on geography if you're if you're screening the right way.
00:42:50.220 --> 00:42:55.660
For people who've listened to us the last 40 minutes or so and they're like, you know what, like, okay, you got me.
00:42:55.740 --> 00:42:57.420
But I want to I'm I still want to learn more.
00:42:57.579 --> 00:42:58.460
Where do you tell people to go?
00:42:58.539 --> 00:43:03.980
I mean, I know you referenced the book, but where do you tell people to go to learn more about this and how it works?
00:43:04.300 --> 00:43:06.860
Yeah, I mean, that's sort of the number one place to start.
00:43:06.940 --> 00:43:15.579
Um, you know, twice a year there'll be a conference if, you know, in the fall, in I think October, November, this jury ball Vegas, uh, folks just got back from Spain.
00:43:15.740 --> 00:43:26.700
So there's also twice a year where you can go and talk to folks who are using this and implementing this and see how they're using the data and what their results are and and kind of you know what they struggled with or how they've implemented it.
00:43:26.780 --> 00:43:31.980
And so really it's the book in conferences and you know, or reach out to somebody you know that that uses it.
00:43:32.059 --> 00:43:36.619
I mean, I'm always happy to take a call because it really can be, I think it can be scary.
00:43:36.700 --> 00:43:38.380
I mean, it's a number one, it's expensive.
00:43:38.460 --> 00:43:44.619
I've talked to people and they say, well, you know, we're happy to have you talk about it, but really I don't think anyone's gonna be interested in that.
00:43:44.940 --> 00:43:46.300
And it's like, yeah, I mean, it is.
00:43:46.380 --> 00:43:55.500
Um, you know, it can be tens of thousands of dollars if you buy one study, or you can work with people who you know will share the fee with you because they're they're lawyers, most of them.
00:43:55.740 --> 00:43:57.420
I mean, the at least the ones that I work with.
00:43:57.579 --> 00:43:59.420
Uh, you know, so there are ways to do it.
00:43:59.500 --> 00:44:01.420
And it's not, you can't use it on every case.
00:44:01.500 --> 00:44:02.780
There are other solutions too.
00:44:02.860 --> 00:44:14.220
You can you can run smaller data studies, but fundamentally, you know, a case that I think a lot of folks might have settled for$350,000, you know, is a case that we ended up with a$9 million verdict on.
00:44:14.380 --> 00:44:17.180
It was taken to 13.2 with pre-judgment interest.
00:44:17.260 --> 00:44:22.300
And that's because we had the confidence to try it because the data said that was the right thing to do.
00:44:22.539 --> 00:44:38.380
And as sort of a fun aside, it made post-verdict motions fun because there there was a filing that I had before trial where I was sort of papering basically the defense lawyer being unreasonable in settlement negotiations to build what's ultimately a bad faith case.
00:44:38.460 --> 00:44:42.539
And I said, look, our data has you know, this verdict as high as$9 million.
00:44:42.780 --> 00:44:46.380
It's interpleting, it's a little bit like pointing to the fence.
00:44:46.700 --> 00:44:55.260
My colleague and I were, and then it comes in, and then it is pretty fun because then you get, I mean, post-verdict motions aren't a lot of fun, unless that's really your thing.
00:44:55.420 --> 00:44:59.019
But um, you know, a motion for remitted her that says that this shocks the conscience.
00:44:59.180 --> 00:45:00.539
Well, what's shocking?
00:45:00.700 --> 00:45:02.539
Something that's unanticipated, right?
00:45:02.940 --> 00:45:08.059
Not only is this anticipated, I I told you this is what the the result was likely to be.
00:45:08.140 --> 00:45:17.500
So we don't always do that, but it's kind of interesting to say, look, we this is where we think it's gonna be, it ends up there, and then we point back to it and say we talked about this, and you ignored us.
00:45:17.740 --> 00:45:19.019
Yeah, that's incredible.
00:45:19.180 --> 00:45:19.579
Gosh.
00:45:19.740 --> 00:45:26.140
And uh, I bet um with that defense attorney in particular, it's probably very satisfying to have gotten the result.
00:45:27.500 --> 00:45:30.380
Yeah, and to be able to say, We told you, right?
00:45:30.460 --> 00:45:32.700
So they could they could have paid the policy, yeah.
00:45:32.860 --> 00:45:34.220
No, that's just that's the crazy thing.
00:45:34.300 --> 00:45:36.539
It's like, look, like my client would have taken it.
00:45:36.619 --> 00:45:45.579
I mean, I was secretly hoping he wouldn't, if I'm, you know, because there's I think yeah, a little bit of a little bit of lunatic is is in all of us who really do this work and and and love doing it.
00:45:45.740 --> 00:45:49.180
But yeah, no, I mean it's I'm glad that we did it in this case.
00:45:49.340 --> 00:46:02.460
And you know, you you are gonna have to cope with the fact that not only do you have to get comfortable doing it, but then you're gonna have to not spend too much time looking backward at your cases and wishing you had done it before and questioning whether you left money on the table, right?
00:46:02.539 --> 00:46:09.579
I mean, you just you're you have a trial or you are because of the experience, and you know, you everybody gets better by being open to new ideas.
00:46:10.300 --> 00:46:11.500
Well, this has been a lot of fun.
00:46:11.660 --> 00:46:20.059
Before I let you go, if you could go back in time to when you first started doing this work, knowing what you know now, what would you tell yourself?
00:46:20.460 --> 00:46:21.820
Run data sooner.
00:46:23.099 --> 00:46:23.980
Yeah, that's it.
00:46:24.220 --> 00:46:36.220
I you know, I had so many cases I look back on, and and I cases we worked really hard on, we tried them well, but you know, we just I I didn't have the courage to ask for I I think what the money, you know, could have been.
00:46:36.380 --> 00:46:39.420
Not not for me, but for my clients, and they were happy with the verdicts.
00:46:39.579 --> 00:46:44.300
But you know, you it does make you question, you know, how many times do we leave money on the table for clients?
00:46:44.460 --> 00:46:47.180
Because we just again we were going off of assumptions.
00:46:47.260 --> 00:46:50.539
Everybody says that kind of verdict can't happen here, it can't happen in Connecticut.
00:46:50.619 --> 00:46:52.700
No Connecticut jury will give you that amount of money.
00:46:52.860 --> 00:47:05.180
And my takeaways fundamentally from using it now in multiple trials is they they can and they will, and really it's like we are our own obstacle as plaintiffs lawyers by just convincing ourselves and psyching ourselves out.
00:47:05.260 --> 00:47:08.460
It's like Bill Belichick throwing the ball on the one-yard line.
00:47:08.539 --> 00:47:09.980
Uh, I'm not a Patriots fan.
00:47:10.140 --> 00:47:11.740
Uh, you know, it's just run the ball.
00:47:11.900 --> 00:47:17.340
I mean, like we'll follow the data, get the data, and implement it, and do the best job you can.
00:47:17.500 --> 00:47:19.019
And that's that's my advice.
00:47:19.099 --> 00:47:24.380
I wish I'd run data sooner, and you know, we'll run it on really any case we try from here on out.
00:47:24.940 --> 00:47:26.539
Data, data, data.
00:47:26.619 --> 00:47:27.180
I love it.
00:47:27.340 --> 00:47:29.820
Uh well, Andrew, it's been a lot of fun having you.
00:47:29.980 --> 00:47:30.539
Thank you so much.
00:47:30.700 --> 00:47:33.579
I look forward to seeing you at the next trial or a conference.
00:47:33.660 --> 00:47:35.019
I'll be at the outer realm again.
00:47:35.099 --> 00:47:36.380
So see you there.
00:47:36.700 --> 00:47:39.180
And I really want to make one of those jury ball conferences.
00:47:39.260 --> 00:47:41.019
I've heard nothing but great things.
00:47:41.260 --> 00:47:42.380
So awesome.
00:47:42.539 --> 00:47:43.019
Well, thank you.
00:47:43.340 --> 00:47:43.579
Thank you.
00:47:45.420 --> 00:47:53.660
Thanks for listening to Courtroom Stories and Tactics by RVA trial lawyers, hosted by Sharif Gray and Nial Abuzaki.
00:47:54.380 --> 00:48:02.220
Please subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or any major podcast platform.
00:48:03.019 --> 00:48:09.579
Together, we're building a tribe of trial lawyers to remind the world what human life is truly worth.
00:48:09.820 --> 00:48:11.579
One verdict at a time.
