Latest / Brian White Podcast / What is it really like to go from law school to practicing law?

Transcript

What is it really like to go from law school to practicing law? · Brian White Podcast

• 0:00
  all this AI stuff that's out there where
• 0:02
  people are talking about how AI is going
• 0:03
  to take your job. I can guarantee you
• 0:05
  one job that is not going to be taken by
• 0:08
  AI is a trial attorney. Not anytime
• 0:10
  soon, maybe never, probably never.
• 0:14
  >> You kidding me? Come on.
• 0:17
  >> Auto accident? You better call attorney
• 0:18
  Brian White.
• 0:19
  >> Who's Brian White?
• 0:20
  >> Yo, I'm abogado Brian Blanco.
• 0:22
  >> Better than just a law license, he's
• 0:24
  board certified.
• 0:25
  >> Solo el 3% de los abogados de Texas son
• 0:28
  certificados [music]
• 0:29
  por la barra de abogados.
• 0:31
  >> You've been in an accident, so call
• 0:33
  attorney Brian White.
• 0:34
  >> Go to attorneybrianwhite.com
• 0:36
  and set up your free consultation today.
• 0:40
  >> Welcome to the Brian White Podcast. I'm
• 0:42
  a 23-year trial attorney, board
• 0:45
  certified. Only 3% of Texas attorneys
• 0:48
  are even board certified. I also have a
• 0:50
  podcast. Today, I have a special guest,
• 0:53
  one of our actually our best attorney in
• 0:56
  the entire office, Ryder Haag.
• 0:58
  >> You know, I wish it was that easy.
• 1:00
  >> Ryder's awesome. Listen, if you are
• 1:03
  someone who is thinking about maybe
• 1:04
  going to law school, someone who's been
• 1:06
  to law school, or if you're just someone
• 1:08
  who thinks you're going to like this
• 1:11
  episode. We have all kinds of things to
• 1:13
  talk about, Houston, but also more like
• 1:16
  law stuff, um and life in general. Um
• 1:19
  so, Ryder, can you introduce yourself
• 1:22
  for the ladies and gentlemen?
• 1:24
  >> My name is Ryder Haag. I'm a personal
• 1:25
  injury attorney here in Houston, Texas.
• 1:27
  I handle a lot of the catastrophic uh
• 1:30
  premise docket here at the firm, as well
• 1:32
  as some of the 18-wheeler wrecks and
• 1:34
  other crashes.
• 1:36
  >> How many years have you been practicing
• 1:38
  law?
• 1:38
  >> So, I've been practicing for 2 years.
• 1:40
  I've been here for 3, and then during
• 1:42
  law school, I also worked on the defense
• 1:44
  side for about a year.
• 1:45
  >> So, you're a fairly new attorney, I
• 1:47
  would say. Is that right? You could say.
• 1:49
  Uh but, there's two different kinds of
• 1:51
  attorneys in my mind, okay? There's the
• 1:55
  uh
• 1:55
  people who don't understand proactivity
• 1:58
  and sit there and react to things. And
• 2:01
  then there is the proactive types that
• 2:03
  make things happen. And you know that
• 2:06
  sometime in the future, this guy is
• 2:08
  going to be like everybody's going to
• 2:09
  know who he is.
• 2:10
  >> Mhm.
• 2:11
  >> I feel like you're one of those guys.
• 2:13
  Um there's not a bunch of those guys. I
• 2:15
  mean, and I'm not just, you know,
• 2:17
  blowing smoke because you're on the
• 2:18
  Brian White Podcast, you know, but it's
• 2:21
  true. It's It's true.
• 2:22
  >> We should talk about my my uh vice
• 2:24
  compensation for the year with all the
• 2:26
  flattery.
• 2:26
  >> We'll We'll talk about that.
• 2:28
  >> I'm ready to negotiate.
• 2:29
  >> [laughter]
• 2:31
  >> But it's true. Um you know, some people
• 2:33
  have the secret sauce and some people
• 2:35
  don't. I mean, it's just true. And so if
• 2:38
  you want to know how to have the secret
• 2:40
  sauce, maybe it would be a good idea to
• 2:43
  hear what he has to say or just kind of
• 2:44
  like get the energy because this is what
• 2:46
  you're going for. Okay, so in this
• 2:48
  episode, we're going to talk about a few
• 2:50
  things just so everyone knows. First,
• 2:51
  we're going to get some war stories from
• 2:54
  a new lawyer. And also we're going to
• 2:57
  talk about depositions. You always hear
• 2:59
  about this and what is it and how does
• 3:00
  it work? And then finally, we're going
• 3:02
  to talk about current events. There are
• 3:04
  some crazy current events that we're
• 3:06
  going to be talking about giving you our
• 3:08
  color on them and they are hilarious. So
• 3:12
  So we're going to start off with fun and
• 3:15
  crazy stories. Tell us about the
• 3:18
  craziest one that you've had so far.
• 3:20
  >> So I had a lot of them, like more than
• 3:23
  just a few. I actually have a I keep a
• 3:25
  list running that one day it's probably
• 3:27
  going to be in like a memoir of like all
• 3:29
  the fun crazy ones that I have. I think
• 3:31
  one of my more
• 3:32
  the funnier ones that I've had recently
• 3:34
  was there was a company here in Houston
• 3:38
  and they were digging these really deep
• 3:40
  data trenches. But the trenches weren't
• 3:42
  big. They were like small. They were
• 3:43
  probably the size of maybe 2 ft by 2 ft.
• 3:47
  Um and one of these trenches was really
• 3:49
  close to a big bush. Uh the bush is
• 3:51
  about 8 ft wide, 8 ft tall. It's very
• 3:53
  tall. So some and it's behind the bush.
• 3:56
  So some landscapers, which are our
• 3:58
  clients,
• 3:59
  they There's two of them. They both have
• 4:02
  uh they're going to go trim the bush and
• 4:04
  try to like limit it down.
• 4:06
  So client number one, he's he's going on
• 4:09
  the bush and he's going boom boom boom
• 4:10
  boom and this hole is covered by the
• 4:14
  bush and he can't see it. And so he's
• 4:16
  going going and then whoosh and into the
• 4:19
  hole he goes.
• 4:21
  >> Wait, so how deep is this hole that he
• 4:23
  falls in?
• 4:24
  >> 8 ft.
• 4:25
  >> Okay, so there's
• 4:25
  >> to 9 ft.
• 4:26
  >> 8 ft holes just randomly
• 4:29
  on a bush line
• 4:30
  >> Yeah. Bush line and and into it into in
• 4:33
  they go. Problem is they they have the
• 4:35
  >> 8 ft like over his head.
• 4:37
  >> Yeah, and so he's hurt. He crawls out
• 4:39
  but his buddy is on the other side of
• 4:42
  the big bush and he's still like going
• 4:45
  so our guy he's walking out he he limps
• 4:48
  himself out of the hole and he's limping
• 4:50
  back to the house. Our guy and the other
• 4:52
  client, the other guy that's doing the
• 4:54
  bush he sees him limping out but he
• 4:57
  doesn't know what's going on yet cuz he
• 4:58
  can't hear because of the machine is
• 5:00
  going and he just thinks that maybe he's
• 5:02
  tired or something. So he's going do do
• 5:04
  do do do
• 5:05
  and he's going around the bush and the
• 5:08
  other guy he's like too hard he's
• 5:09
  crawling back to the house and then our
• 5:11
  guy goes
• 5:12
  into the hole again.
• 5:14
  And so then we have a second guy who's
• 5:16
  fallen in the hole and he's all hurt.
• 5:18
  >> And I'm sure that the company was
• 5:20
  saying what they always say which is
• 5:22
  this was an open and obvious hazard.
• 5:24
  Therefore, we cannot be responsible. So
• 5:26
  why was it not an open and obvious like
• 5:29
  why did these guys
• 5:31
  fall into a freaking hole in the ground?
• 5:32
  >> Other the first client obviously he
• 5:34
  didn't see it cuz the bush was
• 5:35
  concealing it. And also the second time
• 5:38
  the guy that fell in, well the first guy
• 5:40
  didn't have the time to be able to trim
• 5:42
  the bush anymore so the hole was still
• 5:44
  concealed there.
• 5:45
  And then into the hole he goes and so
• 5:47
  the defense tried to argue like hey, he
• 5:49
  should have seen it. Problem was is no
• 5:51
  one could hear anything because the
• 5:53
  machines were they were trimming all the
• 5:54
  bushes and then also in my own in the
• 5:56
  client's own words, well I was too busy
• 5:59
  trying to get to the top of it trying to
• 6:01
  trim the top and as I was walking around
• 6:03
  into the hole they go. Now, I'm sure
• 6:05
  that when the insurance company first
• 6:08
  gets this claim,
• 6:09
  they probably say, "We're not paying on
• 6:11
  this. You know, there's there's no
• 6:12
  freaking way. Your guy like
• 6:15
  voluntarily stepped into a hole. You
• 6:17
  know, it's his fault. You know,
• 6:19
  and so how did you overcome that?" So,
• 6:22
  at the end of the day we we took that
• 6:23
  positions. We kept going.
• 6:25
  It was starting to get closer to trial.
• 6:27
  And then as it got closer to trial, they
• 6:29
  saw that, "Hey, we're taking this. We're
• 6:31
  going. We're this is being taken
• 6:32
  seriously." And then ultimately the
• 6:34
  claim gets they settled it I think
• 6:36
  probably two or three days before trial.
• 6:39
  And it was a good claim. It was fun.
• 6:40
  >> So, I mean, in order for you to get the
• 6:43
  full value on a case, sometimes you have
• 6:45
  to work the case up for the courtroom.
• 6:48
  Is that right?
• 6:49
  >> Yeah. No, I have a lot of those. We have
• 6:51
  quite a few times. I Probably this year
• 6:53
  alone I've tried I've already tried four
• 6:56
  cases this year.
• 6:58
  We've been busy. And so, what we do is
• 7:01
  we're always always always drafting the
• 7:04
  pre-trial disclosures and getting ready
• 7:06
  for trial. Usually when I'm sending in a
• 7:08
  demand, I'm making the pre-trial
• 7:10
  documents as I'm making the demand. And
• 7:12
  the the option is is you're either going
• 7:14
  to take the demand or you're going to
• 7:15
  try the case. And so, that's how we get
• 7:17
  the best value on it.
• 7:18
  >> Yeah. So, I mean, I'm sure that there's,
• 7:20
  you know, plenty of people out there who
• 7:23
  try to settle cases without even filing
• 7:25
  suit. Okay? Do you think that would have
• 7:27
  ever worked in this case?
• 7:28
  >> No. No, not not in this one. I I I have
• 7:31
  an adjuster telling me, "Are you kidding
• 7:33
  me? He they fell into a hole."
• 7:36
  But then again though, what they don't
• 7:37
  tell everyone later on is afterwards the
• 7:39
  company goes and puts cover wooden
• 7:41
  covers on all over the city cuz they had
• 7:44
  a few of these hundred holes that were
• 7:46
  outstanding. And they went and covered
• 7:48
  every single one.
• 7:49
  >> out there, you know, no big deal.
• 7:51
  Um so, um
• 7:53
  tell us about um
• 7:55
  why it's important to
• 7:58
  show the other side, opposing counsel,
• 8:01
  that you're getting ready for trial as
• 8:03
  opposed to just your paper pushing and
• 8:05
  those kinds of things.
• 8:06
  >> You know, I think there's a lot of firms
• 8:08
  that don't want to try a case. Uh Uh
• 8:10
  there's quite a few firms out there, you
• 8:11
  know, and you know this, there's a lot
• 8:13
  of firms that are pre-litigation
• 8:15
  um firms where they will handle a case
• 8:17
  pre-litigation, but then they're not
• 8:18
  trial attorneys. And then ultimately,
• 8:21
  you need a trial attorney working it up
• 8:23
  um because if you don't, you need to get
• 8:24
  someone early on to lay that foundation.
• 8:27
  Uh they pay out well because they know
• 8:29
  we're going to try the case. Um and and
• 8:32
  they also for sure
• 8:33
  >> only way they pay out. Like that's, you
• 8:35
  know, the the only way to get the other
• 8:38
  side to pay the maximum value is to
• 8:41
  create maximum pressure. That's the
• 8:44
  correlation. And maximum pressure really
• 8:47
  doesn't happen until you've worked up
• 8:49
  your case for the courtroom and you're
• 8:52
  just like days away from having to go to
• 8:55
  the courtroom. Or you try the case even.
• 8:57
  Um but the maximum pressure, the
• 9:00
  what I call the pressure cooker,
• 9:02
  it really doesn't start to compound
• 9:04
  until you have everything ready and
• 9:06
  you're ready to go try the case and
• 9:08
  you're close in proximity.
• 9:10
  Because then that's when opposing
• 9:11
  counsel is like, "Damn, you know, they
• 9:14
  really are going to try the case.
• 9:15
  There's some risk here. If I get popped
• 9:17
  on this case, am I going to get fired?
• 9:20
  Um is the client never going to hire us
• 9:22
  again? And plus, that means I'm going to
• 9:24
  have to work like for the next two
• 9:26
  weekends, um you know, cancel plans with
• 9:30
  my wife, you know, I got to pay these
• 9:32
  guys." And that's when they finally pay,
• 9:34
  right?
• 9:34
  >> Yeah, that's right. I agree.
• 9:36
  >> So, it's like um if if you're not
• 9:39
  working up a case for the courtroom,
• 9:41
  then you're probably not going to get
• 9:43
  maximum value on your case.
• 9:46
  >> Tell us about something that you've done
• 9:47
  that's fun.
• 9:48
  >> Well, I did I mean, this isn't
• 9:49
  necessarily funny, but it was something
• 9:51
  where it's like the universe came
• 9:52
  together on a case when I was young and
• 9:54
  it seemed to um sort of like help guide
• 9:57
  me for the rest of my career. I had a
• 9:59
  man come into my office saying that he
• 10:01
  had uh a gentleman who worked for him
• 10:03
  was an old man. Name was Harley and it
• 10:05
  was a motorcycle case.
• 10:06
  >> What was he driving?
• 10:07
  >> Oh my goodness. He was actually driving
• 10:09
  a Ducati Monster. So, imagine your mind
• 10:12
  an elderly man on a Ducati Monster.
• 10:15
  Okay. That's what he wanted and he saved
• 10:17
  up for years and he bought this thing
• 10:19
  and anyways, this man comes to my office
• 10:21
  and he says, "I have an employee who's
• 10:23
  at the hospital and he's an older man.
• 10:26
  He's been in a motorcycle accident. Do
• 10:29
  you handle motorcycle crash cases?"
• 10:31
  >> Okay.
• 10:31
  >> And I'm like, "Yes, I do. I am the
• 10:33
  motorcycle guy, you know." And maybe I'd
• 10:36
  handled one or two or but not any big
• 10:38
  ones.
• 10:38
  >> Confidently looks at him.
• 10:40
  >> But he was like, "But he was like,
• 10:41
  but his question was,
• 10:44
  'Will you
• 10:45
  care about this man? You know,
• 10:47
  what I'm trying to find is someone who
• 10:50
  will actually care about this man.
• 10:52
  I need for you to come to the hospital
• 10:54
  with me right now.'"
• 10:56
  And it was, you know, kind of a bizarre
• 10:58
  thing, you know, doesn't usually happen
• 10:59
  where you have someone come in and say,
• 11:02
  "The main qualification is I want
• 11:04
  someone who will care about him."
• 11:06
  And I'm like, "Yes, I I will care about
• 11:07
  it."
• 11:07
  >> You know, I
• 11:09
  >> At that point I was thinking like big
• 11:10
  cases, I care about that.
• 11:12
  So, I go to the hospital and what I see
• 11:15
  is old
• 11:17
  man and he's in a bed and he's got,
• 11:19
  looks like, every
• 11:22
  bone in his body looks like it's been
• 11:24
  broken, basically. He's in this thing
• 11:26
  where he's got both arms are like this.
• 11:29
  Legs where, you know, both of them are,
• 11:31
  you know, broken.
• 11:33
  His feet have all kinds of things in
• 11:35
  them.
• 11:36
  He's got stuff around his body and he's
• 11:38
  just like, you know,
• 11:40
  "You know, I really, really, really,
• 11:41
  really hurt." But he could talk and what
• 11:43
  he was saying was that,
• 11:45
  you know,
• 11:47
  he doesn't have any money.
• 11:48
  He's a caretaker
• 11:50
  at a car wash.
• 11:52
  And he was at Ben Taub. And Ben Taub
• 11:56
  essentially told him that,
• 12:00
  "Your
• 12:01
  ankles,
• 12:02
  particularly your
• 12:04
  left ankle, is broken so badly that it's
• 12:08
  going to require more surgery, including
• 12:11
  hardware,
• 12:12
  or we're going to have to just amputate
• 12:14
  your leg. And he didn't have the money
• 12:17
  for the surgery and especially the
• 12:18
  hardware.
• 12:19
  So, they had scheduled to amputate his
• 12:22
  leg the next morning. And so, their plan
• 12:24
  was to amputate and then the next day he
• 12:28
  was going to be released. Which means
• 12:30
  that they were going to have him go back
• 12:32
  to his van where he lived
• 12:34
  with an amputated leg. Um and he would
• 12:36
  die on probably. Uh so,
• 12:38
  I remember going home and I was like,
• 12:40
  well, how the hell do I What the What
• 12:42
  the hell do I do about this situation?
• 12:43
  You know, I've never even
• 12:45
  like this isn't what they taught me in
• 12:47
  school. I don't know how what I'm
• 12:48
  supposed to do because I knew
• 12:51
  that
• 12:52
  this was a bad thing for him. So,
• 12:55
  I actually
• 12:57
  called one of the doctors that I've had
• 13:00
  against me on cases. As we all know,
• 13:03
  insurance companies hire doctors to
• 13:06
  basically say that our clients are not
• 13:08
  hurt. Sometimes they hire doctors with
• 13:11
  really good credentials. So,
• 13:14
  I actually called that doctor. Um and he
• 13:17
  was like, oh, he's the biggest jerk
• 13:19
  whenever I had to deal with him, but he
• 13:20
  has really good credentials.
• 13:23
  And I called him. I told him what
• 13:25
  happened.
• 13:27
  One, he took my call.
• 13:28
  Um
• 13:30
  but two, he said, okay, I will help him.
• 13:32
  So, I figured out how to get this guy
• 13:34
  transported
• 13:36
  to some place, I can't remember, you
• 13:37
  know, some
• 13:39
  place to hold him um until they could do
• 13:41
  the surgery and I paid for the surgery.
• 13:44
  Right now, this man is walking around
• 13:46
  with a pretty good leg. You know, I I
• 13:48
  think the case was meant to be because
• 13:50
  it was like I was young, I was hungry
• 13:52
  and I needed money. I needed that also
• 13:55
  the confidence. I needed it to feel like
• 13:57
  I was doing the right thing and it all
• 13:59
  came together.
• 14:01
  And then the guy's name happens to be
• 14:02
  Harley. You know,
• 14:03
  it was it was it was just, you know,
• 14:05
  kind of one of those things where I'm
• 14:06
  like, yeah, I think I'm doing the right
• 14:07
  thing. This is uh this is cool. So,
• 14:09
  I would get calls for years and it would
• 14:12
  be Harley. I'm like, oh, you know, hold
• 14:13
  on, it's Harley. I've got to talk to
• 14:15
  Harley. Brian, how you doing? You know,
• 14:17
  so.
• 14:19
  Um Harley, if you're out there,
• 14:21
  hello.
• 14:22
  So, next I would like to talk about
• 14:24
  something um
• 14:25
  that is
• 14:27
  um important lawyer work, and that is
• 14:30
  depositions.
• 14:31
  >> Okay.
• 14:32
  >> Okay. Um
• 14:34
  so, tell us what is a deposition?
• 14:36
  >> So, deposition in in just simple terms
• 14:39
  is when you're asked questions under
• 14:40
  legal oath, and they're trying to figure
• 14:42
  out the story of what happened uh during
• 14:45
  the time of your injury.
• 14:47
  >> And it's a um thing that happens outside
• 14:49
  of the courtroom that is put into a
• 14:51
  transcript or like a video that can be
• 14:54
  played in the courtroom just as if it
• 14:56
  was happening at that time.
• 14:57
  >> Exactly.
• 14:58
  >> And so, you always hear about this um
• 15:01
  and maybe you don't know what it is.
• 15:03
  It's basically courtroom testimony that
• 15:05
  happens outside of the courtroom, and
• 15:07
  that's it. But, there's the rules. So,
• 15:09
  you you you have to go by the rules. You
• 15:11
  can't just um go into a deposition and
• 15:15
  have a swearing match or um all all
• 15:17
  these kinds of things unless you're
• 15:19
  somehow doing a swearing match
• 15:22
  inside the confines of the rules.
• 15:24
  >> You know, I've actually had a few
• 15:25
  people. I had one case, client super
• 15:29
  nice guy, very very tall, and this this
• 15:32
  case caused me to change my entire prep
• 15:35
  sessions for when I'm we're getting
• 15:36
  ready for a deposition. But, a client's
• 15:39
  sitting there and opposing counsel's
• 15:41
  trying to rile him up. He's getting him
• 15:43
  and he's doing a good job doing it. And
• 15:44
  I keep like saying, "Hey, you need to
• 15:46
  relax. You need to relax." And at one
• 15:48
  point, the client stands up and goes,
• 15:49
  "Well, you can kiss my ass." and walks
• 15:52
  out of the room. And I'm sitting there
• 15:54
  going, "Oh, no." Um and so, after that
• 15:58
  though, the I remember the defense
• 16:00
  counsel looks at me. He kind of gives me
• 16:02
  a smile and he goes, "You sure you want
• 16:04
  to take this one to trial?" And I'm
• 16:06
  sitting there going, "I'm going to have
• 16:08
  to talk to him."
• 16:10
  Um and we've had if I've had once or
• 16:12
  twice have we had some real some clients
• 16:15
  go It's always the clients you always
• 16:16
  think are going to be the nicest ones.
• 16:18
  >> And they snap.
• 16:19
  >> Okay, so listen.
• 16:21
  What what I tell people
• 16:23
  whenever I'm preparing them for their
• 16:25
  deposition, I this is the first thing
• 16:27
  that that I always say to people and I
• 16:29
  say, you have to be likable. Not because
• 16:32
  you
• 16:33
  like opposing counsel or you you like
• 16:35
  me, but you want people that are
• 16:37
  watching this video to like you. This is
• 16:40
  a competition that you're in. So, when
• 16:42
  you go into the courtroom, it's like a
• 16:43
  popularity contest. So, even if
• 16:48
  the guy is asking you rude questions,
• 16:51
  his whole thing is to try to get you to
• 16:52
  be unlikable and hopefully to lie. So,
• 16:56
  very first thing is if you want to win
• 16:59
  this case, if you want money, you will
• 17:01
  be likable. Do you understand? And
• 17:04
  people are like, "Well, you said that
• 17:05
  I'm not likable." I'm like, "I'm not
• 17:06
  saying you are. I'm not saying that you
• 17:08
  aren't. I'm saying
• 17:09
  what the game is here. The game is for
• 17:12
  you to be super likable. And so, I've
• 17:15
  had you know, clients that are extremely
• 17:17
  unlikable, if you know who I'm talking
• 17:19
  about.
• 17:20
  >> them.
• 17:20
  >> Um I think I talked to one of yours
• 17:21
  before.
• 17:22
  >> Oh.
• 17:23
  >> [laughter]
• 17:23
  >> You know,
• 17:24
  >> I did.
• 17:24
  >> We got that good case good We got that
• 17:26
  settled for a great result.
• 17:28
  >> And remember when I met with her?
• 17:29
  >> Oh, there was a few. Yeah.
• 17:30
  >> And remember uh and I I was telling her,
• 17:34
  you know, I could read her very very
• 17:36
  clo- you know, she was a very angry lady
• 17:39
  um who
• 17:40
  >> Nice lady, though.
• 17:41
  >> Just
• 17:42
  >> Angry.
• 17:42
  >> Angry. Um
• 17:44
  and in her life
• 17:45
  >> she probably was used to getting things
• 17:46
  her way. Um kind of like seemed like
• 17:49
  that.
• 17:50
  Um and in cases, I'm sorry, you're not
• 17:53
  always in control of the process. So,
• 17:54
  she was very frustrated with the process
• 17:56
  and it was visible. It was, you know, uh
• 17:59
  but what she was going to do is ruin her
• 18:01
  deposition. She was going to go in there
• 18:03
  and act like a
• 18:04
  >> 100% yeah.
• 18:05
  >> So,
• 18:07
  I saw it within 1 second and I was like,
• 18:09
  "Look, you know,
• 18:10
  you got to be likable, you know?" And
• 18:13
  she didn't take offense uh to it. More
• 18:15
  importantly,
• 18:16
  she went in and how did How did
• 18:18
  >> She
• 18:19
  >> like a pro. Like that was a very good
• 18:21
  deposition. Like genuinely good. I
• 18:23
  walked out and I'm like, man, if only it
• 18:25
  would have been this easy during
• 18:27
  everything else in this process. Um but
• 18:29
  it she did a great job.
• 18:30
  >> Yeah. So, I mean it's so important, the
• 18:33
  very first thing that I think you should
• 18:36
  do is to make sure people understand
• 18:39
  you're on camera, but your whole job is
• 18:41
  to get people to like you, you know?
• 18:43
  Character and credibility in a case
• 18:46
  is the most important thing. So, every
• 18:49
  other fact in a case is viewed through
• 18:51
  the prism of character and credibility.
• 18:53
  >> Yeah.
• 18:54
  >> And so, every single witness, that's
• 18:55
  what they should be concerned primarily
• 18:58
  about is about, you know,
• 19:00
  showing that they have good character
• 19:01
  and credibility, which means in my mind
• 19:03
  sort of like likable. So,
• 19:06
  tell us about the craziest experience
• 19:10
  that you've had in a deposition.
• 19:13
  >> Oh.
• 19:14
  There's been a few. I think they're fun.
• 19:16
  I love depositions, though. Because I
• 19:18
  like to do a little bit different. We we
• 19:20
  show up
• 19:22
  to the deposition, and usually there's
• 19:24
  some attorneys, everyone has their own
• 19:25
  different style. I like to immediately
• 19:28
  we immediately just launch right in. I'm
• 19:30
  not I'm not sitting around. I'm not
• 19:32
  going to go
• 19:33
  "Where were you born? What's your last
• 19:35
  name?" We immediately hit two.
• 19:38
  >> Don't you hate it when they when when
• 19:39
  opposing counsel will like ask questions
• 19:42
  for like, you know, 20 minutes, 30
• 19:44
  minutes about just stuff that's like
• 19:47
  not ever going to do anything.
• 19:49
  >> It's just stupid.
• 19:51
  >> It's stupid. It just yeah, I agree. I
• 19:54
  mean, if if you need to have like
• 19:55
  identification of a person
• 19:58
  for some kind of purposes or something,
• 19:59
  that's one thing.
• 20:01
  But when you get like reams of paper of,
• 20:04
  you know, background or whatever crap,
• 20:07
  I mean, to me, I would look at people
• 20:08
  and be like, this guy has never tried a
• 20:10
  case. This guy is not going to try a
• 20:11
  case. They're just
• 20:13
  doing what they think they're supposed
• 20:14
  to do, which doesn't have anything to do
• 20:16
  with what you're supposed to do.
• 20:17
  >> I once took a 12-minute deposition of a
• 20:19
  defendant that genuinely
• 20:21
  >> Because you got what you needed?
• 20:22
  >> Yeah. I walked in and I go, "Sir, can
• 20:25
  you please tell you tell us your name?"
• 20:26
  Yes. You know, there's a lot of
• 20:28
  attorneys they're going to sit here for
• 20:29
  hours asking you a bunch of questions. I
• 20:31
  don't do that. "Do you know why we're
• 20:33
  here?" Yes, I am.
• 20:35
  Yes, I do. And then I asked him I go,
• 20:37
  "Are you at fault for the crash?" Yes.
• 20:39
  "What happened?" I rear-ended her. "What
• 20:40
  happened? Why did you rear-end her?" I
• 20:42
  wasn't paying attention. [music] And
• 20:43
  then he goes, "I think the sun was kind
• 20:45
  of in my eyes." And then I go,
• 20:46
  "Actually, let's talk about that though.
• 20:47
  You Did you have sunglasses in your car
• 20:49
  that day?" Yes. "Were you wearing them?"
• 20:51
  No. "Do you have a sun visor in your
• 20:53
  car?" Yes. "Were you using it?" No. "Do
• 20:56
  you think you should have been?" Yes, I
• 20:57
  should have been. "Do you think the
• 20:59
  client" You know,
• 21:00
  >> Yeah. [laughter]
• 21:00
  >> You know, "Do you think the client my
• 21:01
  client's telling the truth about her
• 21:03
  injuries?" Yes, I do.
• 21:05
  Um and I look at defense counsel and the
• 21:08
  defense attorney's just sitting there
• 21:09
  going, huh. Uh and then I think the
• 21:12
  remainder of like the actual last 8
• 21:14
  minutes we're going over all of the
• 21:16
  family that he has in that county so
• 21:18
  that we can make sure we present Yeah.
• 21:20
  >> Now, that's it.
• 21:21
  >> So, I think you know, like a lot of
• 21:22
  people have that kind of a situation
• 21:24
  happen and they feel like they're
• 21:26
  supposed to because of some kind of like
• 21:29
  a paradigm that we're in that we're
• 21:30
  supposed to be there for at least an
• 21:31
  hour or something like that. And then
• 21:33
  what happens if if they ask too many
• 21:35
  questions?
• 21:36
  >> boring and it also allows the defendant
• 21:38
  to walk themselves out of like bad sta-
• 21:41
  facts that they've said.
• 21:42
  >> one question too many. And when you ask
• 21:44
  one question, that's
• 21:46
  always what like revives their case. You
• 21:48
  know, so uh
• 21:49
  >> It's easy though. It's I I get straight
• 21:52
  in. Um we get the good facts and then we
• 21:54
  we just we're out. I don't take 4-hour
• 21:57
  depositions. It's It's horrible.
• 22:00
  >> I mean, but I mean on the on the on the
• 22:02
  other hand of that there there is um
• 22:04
  some occasions where you must take a
• 22:06
  4-hour even a 6-hour deposition
• 22:09
  um for certain kind of witnesses you
• 22:11
  want to uh
• 22:13
  establish
• 22:15
  you know, a foundation
• 22:17
  um and sometimes that takes a long time.
• 22:20
  And
• 22:20
  >> other witnesses you might take a long
• 22:23
  time because you know that they won't be
• 22:25
  able to handle it. So, you're you're
• 22:27
  going to wear them down, you know, I'm
• 22:28
  going to wear you down for a good 2
• 22:30
  hours.
• 22:31
  And then your hair is going to be all
• 22:32
  messed up, you're going to be angry, and
• 22:34
  then I'm going to ask you questions
• 22:35
  about how the crash happened. So, then
• 22:37
  you're on video, you know,
• 22:40
  on hour three,
• 22:42
  already pissed as hell at me, and I'm
• 22:44
  asking you now just very simple
• 22:46
  questions that you respond to with an
• 22:48
  emotional response that make you look
• 22:51
  like you're the person at fault.
• 22:53
  >> Yeah.
• 22:53
  >> So, I mean, so there is some point I
• 22:55
  mean, you know, there's
• 22:56
  there's points where maybe you want to
• 22:57
  do that.
• 22:59
  You have how long
• 23:00
  uh to take a deposition? Or
• 23:02
  >> You have like on paper you have 6 hours,
• 23:05
  which and I've been in 6-hour
• 23:06
  depositions, they are horrible. It feels
• 23:09
  like you're running a marathon. Um but
• 23:11
  usually per the rules you have 6 hours,
• 23:14
  but I I just I fail to see how most
• 23:18
  cases need 6 hours unless it's like a
• 23:20
  really bad oil field well explosion or
• 23:23
  you have like
• 23:24
  >> Product liability cases with some kind
• 23:26
  of expert, those those actually can be
• 23:28
  longer than 6 hours. You can actually
• 23:31
  have to ask the court for more time
• 23:33
  because there's just simply so much that
• 23:36
  you have to go through.
• 23:36
  >> a jury
• 23:38
  as fun it is you know, as it is, a jury
• 23:40
  is just boring. It's just boring,
• 23:43
  especially if you're playing it via
• 23:44
  video.
• 23:45
  Um I try to keep my videos as short as
• 23:48
  possible cuz you're allowed to play the
• 23:49
  video of the deposition in court,
• 23:52
  especially in state court. Federal court
• 23:53
  not so much. Um but you can ask I mean,
• 23:57
  most time most of the time people are
• 23:58
  bored by like minute 15, and so I try to
• 24:01
  make the video cuts of like doctors and
• 24:04
  stuff as short as possible. Um the last
• 24:07
  case that I just tried with um with
• 24:09
  Will, um I mean, we had a total of
• 24:12
  3 hours to present the entire case.
• 24:15
  Yeah.
• 24:15
  >> Why did you only have 3 hours to present
• 24:17
  a case? Tell us Tell us about that. How
• 24:19
  you know, what is the situation
• 24:21
  in our country
• 24:23
  uh where where you have a client that
• 24:26
  has a real case,
• 24:28
  but a court says you only have 3 hours.
• 24:30
  >> Uh I think it was a really unfairable
• 24:32
  judge. But it's okay though. I
• 24:33
  ultimately I actually I really
• 24:35
  appreciate what the judge did in this
• 24:37
  case because
• 24:39
  we streamlined the case to be so fast. I
• 24:42
  loved it actually at the end of it. I
• 24:44
  was like, "This was great."
• 24:46
  >> And it was a car wreck case.
• 24:47
  >> Car wreck case, bad wreck. Uh like all
• 24:49
  vehicles totaled. Everyone was towed.
• 24:52
  Multiple uh hos- ambulances coming to
• 24:54
  the scene. Every- Someone had run a red
• 24:57
  light and it was a full T-bone uh going
• 24:59
  about 40 to 50 mph. Um I think we did
• 25:03
  our We did our doctor, the orthopedic
• 25:05
  surgeon, uh we took him on the stand
• 25:08
  like We didn't take him on the stand,
• 25:09
  but we did the video. Uh like 22 minutes
• 25:12
  of the entire thing. And I think our
• 25:14
  cost expert was like 18 minutes. And we
• 25:18
  moved right on.
• 25:19
  >> And even that probably still kind of
• 25:20
  felt long when you watch those videos
• 25:22
  and you know. Now okay, so here's here's
• 25:25
  here's a big thing a big mistake that I
• 25:28
  think lawyers make trying car wreck
• 25:31
  cases.
• 25:32
  They don't understand from the
• 25:34
  perspective of a jury what a car wreck
• 25:37
  case is.
• 25:39
  Juries uh people come down there
• 25:42
  for jury duty and they don't know what
• 25:44
  kind of case that they're going to be
• 25:45
  on.
• 25:46
  They hear about criminal cases. They
• 25:48
  they hear about these big fancy exciting
• 25:51
  criminal cases that they think they're
• 25:53
  going to be on. And then they find out
• 25:56
  that they're on a car wreck case, you
• 25:58
  know. And the moment that the pool
• 26:01
  figures out this is a car wreck case,
• 26:03
  you sort of see shoulders kind of slump.
• 26:05
  People don't like car wreck cases, okay?
• 26:08
  And they also think that these should be
• 26:11
  simple. It This should not take up days
• 26:14
  of their life, you know. And so
• 26:17
  stupid lawyers, what they do is they'll
• 26:20
  turn a simple car wreck case into like a
• 26:23
  three or four day process.
• 26:26
  That all that does is piss off the jury
• 26:29
  and bore everybody to death.
• 26:32
  You should be able to try almost any car
• 26:36
  wreck case in 2 days.
• 26:37
  >> Yeah, I agree with that. I think you
• 26:38
  can. I think actually I mean really we
• 26:40
  with the case that we tried is 1 day. We
• 26:43
  tried it in 1 day.
• 26:45
  >> 2 days feels like a long time, too, by
• 26:46
  the way, for for for anyone because
• 26:49
  think about it. Um they see like TV
• 26:52
  shows like CSI where where you have this
• 26:55
  whole entire, you know,
• 26:59
  situation resolved in 30 minutes.
• 27:01
  >> Yeah.
• 27:02
  >> That's way bigger than a car wreck.
• 27:03
  >> Correct.
• 27:04
  >> And but so now I got to sit here for
• 27:06
  like 2 days and listen to these guys
• 27:08
  drone on about
• 27:10
  um you know, a freaking car wreck, you
• 27:14
  know? And so if if you serve up this
• 27:16
  like thing that bores the hell out of
• 27:19
  people,
• 27:20
  people really start to not care about
• 27:22
  your case. And then what happens if
• 27:24
  people don't care about your case?
• 27:25
  >> You get nothing. But recently what I've
• 27:27
  started doing during voir dire Voir dire
• 27:29
  is when you're asking the jury
• 27:31
  um questions of do you think this is the
• 27:33
  right person or the right person to be
• 27:35
  on this case? Recently during voir dire,
• 27:37
  my last question, and I love this. I
• 27:40
  came up with this during the last trial,
• 27:42
  is I'll ask the jury. I'll go,
• 27:44
  "How many people here uh think that
• 27:46
  there's been an increase in people
• 27:48
  breaking the rules and getting away with
• 27:50
  it?" And the cards all just I mean
• 27:53
  there's 80 Yeah, 80 to 85% of the jury
• 27:56
  will throw up their cards. I think
• 27:58
  that's one of the reasons why, you know,
• 27:59
  we're I'm we're getting the success that
• 28:02
  I recently in these jury trials cuz I'm
• 28:04
  I'm winning way more than I'm losing.
• 28:06
  >> Okay.
• 28:06
  >> Um and so I think that's
• 28:08
  >> That's a beautiful question. Can you
• 28:09
  Okay, so
• 28:11
  the reason why that's a beautiful
• 28:13
  question is because on the other side,
• 28:15
  insurance company lawyers, they they
• 28:17
  always have the same argument that to
• 28:19
  every car wreck case. They will stand up
• 28:21
  there and they'll say, "This was just an
• 28:23
  accident. He's got to prove someone was
• 28:26
  negligent.
• 28:28
  People as a ordinary course of driving
• 28:30
  get in accidents. That's not
• 28:32
  negligence." And they started winning
• 28:34
  those cases.
• 28:35
  >> Yeah.
• 28:35
  >> And the reason why is because juries
• 28:37
  don't like car wreck cases. They just
• 28:39
  don't like car wreck cases. So, if you
• 28:41
  give them some sort of a reason
• 28:43
  to like exercise that feeling,
• 28:46
  then you're going to lose the case. But,
• 28:49
  you know what they also don't like? They
• 28:51
  don't like rule breakers. It's It's a
• 28:53
  whole different thing, but they know
• 28:56
  there's people out there on the freeway
• 28:58
  breaking rules or doing other things in
• 29:00
  life. So, what what you're doing early
• 29:03
  on by asking that question is you're
• 29:06
  shifting the frame from
• 29:08
  this is a car wreck case, a slimy car
• 29:11
  wreck case, to something that um is
• 29:13
  relevant to them.
• 29:15
  >> Mhm.
• 29:15
  >> You know? So, you're you're giving them
• 29:17
  something else.
• 29:18
  >> Yeah.
• 29:18
  >> You're reframing the case, right?
• 29:20
  >> Yeah. And it really the juries, I think,
• 29:23
  recently I'm I'm feeling a a notice
• 29:27
  noticeable change in the room. They are
• 29:29
  really tired of it. They're tired of
• 29:31
  people crashing into people. They're
• 29:32
  tired of people being on their phones.
• 29:34
  Um nowadays, what happens is in every
• 29:37
  car wreck case, we're always asking for
• 29:39
  discovery of like uh you know, give us
• 29:41
  your cell phone records for that day, so
• 29:43
  we can see if you were texting people
• 29:44
  and all that. The defense attorneys are
• 29:46
  constantly fighting it. I am always
• 29:48
  having to do like either a motion to
• 29:50
  compel to get it. Um and what's
• 29:52
  happening is is on a ton of my cases
• 29:54
  recently, there's all these people
• 29:56
  saying, "No, I wasn't on the phone."
• 29:58
  They're texting. They're texting on
• 30:00
  their phone.
• 30:00
  >> my phone, but they're
• 30:01
  >> like they're
• 30:02
  viewing their phone. Like, maybe I
• 30:05
  I wasn't hitting send on a email right
• 30:07
  at the time that you're able to see.
• 30:09
  But, then if you actually get the phone,
• 30:11
  you can see that they were actually
• 30:12
  interacting with their phone at the time
• 30:13
  of the crash.
• 30:14
  >> And they're they're texting each other.
• 30:15
  And so, what I had recently was I had a
• 30:18
  This was just hilarious. A 44-year-old
• 30:21
  uh 44-year uh truck driver driving in
• 30:24
  his personal vehicle who first admits to
• 30:27
  me that he's trained not to admit fault
• 30:30
  uh through his training as a truck
• 30:32
  driver. But, also So tells me, "I
• 30:34
  absolutely wasn't on my phone, I wasn't
• 30:36
  doing anything like that. The very next
• 30:39
  day the subpoena that we had sent to a
• 30:41
  cell phone record provider comes back
• 30:43
  after the deposition. He's on his phone
• 30:46
  texting people, sending messages exactly
• 30:49
  at the time of the wreck. And and so I
• 30:51
  just sent it to defense counsel and I
• 30:52
  said, "Look,
• 30:54
  it's your call, but the jury's going to
• 30:56
  see this and then this is not going to
• 30:57
  look good."
• 30:58
  >> Rider,
• 30:59
  uh there are a
• 31:01
  lot of attorneys out there
• 31:03
  who would never find that information.
• 31:06
  >> Mhm.
• 31:06
  >> True? I mean, do you think I mean
• 31:07
  >> think a lot of people go get it.
• 31:09
  >> Okay. That's what I'm trying to say. And
• 31:10
  and and so
• 31:12
  what what I'm trying to get at is
• 31:13
  there's a lot of
• 31:15
  people that come to work in a job
• 31:18
  they're representing people in a car
• 31:19
  wreck
• 31:21
  and they never even try to get the phone
• 31:23
  records.
• 31:23
  >> Yeah, I don't think they
• 31:24
  >> Why so so why do you
• 31:27
  why do you care?
• 31:28
  >> I think it's fun. I get to have the
• 31:30
  pleasure of being able to represent
• 31:31
  people that hurt. It's awesome. But
• 31:33
  >> You get to win. It's also you get to
• 31:35
  win, you know.
• 31:36
  >> and I also get to and one thing and also
• 31:38
  when, you know, ties back into my voir
• 31:41
  dire question is when I'm asking people
• 31:42
  who how many people are tired of people
• 31:44
  breaking the rules and getting away with
• 31:46
  it. I'm one of those people that would
• 31:47
  have been raising my own card if if I
• 31:49
  was in that jury pool
• 31:51
  or in that venire panel.
• 31:54
  I'm I'm tired of it. It's just there's
• 31:56
  too much of it and there you drive on
• 31:58
  the freeways, 80 miles an hour, I will
• 32:00
  see an 18-wheeler driver texting on
• 32:03
  their cell phone or the other driver
• 32:04
  next to them texting as well and I'm
• 32:06
  like
• 32:07
  you're going you know,
• 32:09
  very quickly down the road
• 32:12
  and it's like 6,000 lb vehicle or for
• 32:15
  the CDL driver, the 18-wheeler driver, a
• 32:17
  lot more.
• 32:18
  I'm just
• 32:20
  enough of it.
• 32:20
  >> Yeah. So but we also do other kind of
• 32:23
  cases here. We're not we you know, we
• 32:24
  don't just you know, this isn't just a
• 32:26
  car wreck firm. There's nothing wrong
• 32:28
  with being just a car wreck firm. Um
• 32:30
  but we we do handle many other types of
• 32:33
  cases. What other kind of types of cases
• 32:35
  do you have?
• 32:35
  >> So I handle a lot of the premise
• 32:37
  liability docket. Premise liability is
• 32:39
  like slips, trips, falls, those types of
• 32:42
  injuries. They are very difficult cases.
• 32:45
  Um you have to show a total of three
• 32:47
  things in order to win them in Texas.
• 32:50
  Uh that's because the Texas legislature
• 32:52
  and the Texas Supreme Court have made it
• 32:53
  very difficult for a person to make a
• 32:56
  recovery.
• 32:57
  >> And the reason why that happened was
• 32:59
  because
• 33:00
  um you know,
• 33:01
  15 years ago or whatever it was now, um
• 33:05
  there were people going into grocery
• 33:07
  stores and they'd go to the produce and
• 33:10
  they'd sort of like elbow the produce so
• 33:13
  that it fall onto the floor and then
• 33:15
  they'd slip, you know, and then they'd
• 33:17
  make a claim against the grocery store.
• 33:19
  Um and it was all over the news that
• 33:20
  people were going in there and
• 33:22
  committing fraud basically in order to
• 33:24
  sue the grocery stores.
• 33:26
  So, what what what happened was that
• 33:28
  there was a reaction um in our court
• 33:32
  system that made it much harder to prove
• 33:35
  those kind of cases. Like you could no
• 33:37
  longer um just say, "Because I slipped,
• 33:40
  there was some kind of a defect." Um so,
• 33:42
  what did they do to make those things
• 33:44
  harder?
• 33:44
  >> So, you know, they've been premise
• 33:46
  liability though law in Texas has been
• 33:48
  like this for more than just a few
• 33:50
  years. It's been like this for over 60
• 33:52
  years.
• 33:52
  >> Well, I'm
• 33:53
  what I'm saying is the the the one thing
• 33:55
  that you have to prove whenever,
• 33:58
  you know, in in or you know, that's the
• 34:00
  thing that you know, that has happened
• 34:02
  since all all cuz I I think people
• 34:06
  still think the situation is that people
• 34:09
  can go into the grocery store and slip
• 34:12
  on produce and automatically get paid,
• 34:14
  which um opens the opportunity for
• 34:16
  fraud. And I'm I'm here to tell you that
• 34:19
  does not exist. And the reason why is
• 34:21
  because
• 34:21
  >> Well, so a premise liability claim you
• 34:23
  need to show three things or elements in
• 34:26
  order to establish a claim. The first is
• 34:28
  that the uh defendant knew or should
• 34:30
  have known about the condition, i.e. the
• 34:33
  water on the floor, the grape, um the
• 34:36
  broken up tile, that type of stuff. The
• 34:38
  second is going to be that it's
• 34:40
  unreasonably dangerous, meaning that
• 34:43
  um like it could cause a significant
• 34:45
  injury to a person. And the third is
• 34:47
  that it actually caused your injuries.
• 34:50
  The hardest portion about or part about
• 34:52
  a premises liability claim usually is
• 34:54
  the first one.
• 34:55
  >> Knew or should have known.
• 34:56
  >> Yeah, establishing it.
• 34:58
  >> So you got to prove that the grocery
• 34:59
  store
• 35:01
  knew that it was there, which of course
• 35:03
  that's almost impossible unless you have
• 35:05
  an employee admit that they knew that it
• 35:07
  was there and that they just didn't um
• 35:09
  care or they didn't have time or that
• 35:11
  they chose not to get to it.
• 35:13
  So usually what these cases are about is
• 35:16
  you should have known, okay?
• 35:18
  And what our courts say in order to
• 35:21
  prove that the store should have known
• 35:24
  that you have to say how long that the
• 35:27
  condition was there. And that's the crux
• 35:29
  of these cases is
• 35:31
  whenever
• 35:32
  uh a slip and fall happens, if the
• 35:34
  attorney is unable to give an
• 35:37
  approximation of how long that the
• 35:38
  condition was present, they throw the
• 35:41
  case out.
• 35:41
  >> Yeah, that's right.
• 35:42
  >> And and and that is what has caused
• 35:45
  the
• 35:46
  90%
• 35:47
  reduction in these kinds of cases
• 35:50
  against grocery stores because people
• 35:52
  could no longer go in and do
• 35:54
  you know, slip because you you have to
• 35:56
  have some kind of indication of how long
• 35:58
  it was there, which means you have to
• 36:00
  have video, you know, that shows that it
• 36:02
  was there or some other kind of evidence
• 36:05
  maybe that shows, you know,
• 36:08
  footprints going through it, but you
• 36:10
  have to have evidence of that. You can't
• 36:12
  just have a I think there were footprint
• 36:14
  like if you don't have pictures of it or
• 36:16
  you don't have any kind of evidence of
• 36:17
  it,
• 36:18
  uh your case can get thrown out.
• 36:19
  >> Yeah.
• 36:20
  >> Okay, uh
• 36:22
  podcast can be both entertaining and
• 36:24
  educational. Um I believe that was
• 36:26
  pretty educational. Um but now we're
• 36:28
  going to talk about something a little
• 36:29
  bit more entertaining and that's some
• 36:31
  current events.
• 36:32
  I'm going to queue up a video.
• 36:34
  Okay, so I'm going to show you a clip
• 36:36
  >> Okay.
• 36:36
  >> uh
• 36:37
  um of a case that ended yesterday, okay?
• 36:42
  And what the situation is is it's a a
• 36:44
  plastic surgeon who's representing
• 36:46
  himself in a capital murder case accused
• 36:50
  of murdering a lawyer.
• 36:52
  Lawyer goes missing, blood spatter, all
• 36:54
  kinds of evidence.
• 36:56
  Um the doctor, um you can tell who hates
• 36:59
  lawyers,
• 37:01
  decides to represent himself in a case
• 37:04
  about murdering a lawyer.
• 37:06
  >> So, it's probably a really bad plan to
• 37:08
  represent yourself. It goes wrong every
• 37:10
  time.
• 37:12
  >> know. You you you already know that
• 37:14
  there's something. Okay.
• 37:16
  >> wonder, do you think there were other
• 37:18
  lawyers that even wanted to even
• 37:19
  represent him? Because again,
• 37:21
  >> he's been he's killed the other lawyer
• 37:22
  already. He's killed one lawyer. He's
• 37:24
  going to do it again.
• 37:26
  >> Well, I mean, after you actually meet
• 37:28
  this guy, possibly. But I'm sure there's
• 37:30
  lawyers that would be like, I I will
• 37:31
  take that case. But let's just see how
• 37:34
  good of a lawyer this guy is. Um
• 37:38
  Play this clip.
• 37:39
  >> All right, your main inquiry?
• 37:41
  >> On um
• 37:42
  the portion that was on the 21st on the
• 37:44
  Tamiami Trail when the device was
• 37:47
  heading
• 37:49
  uh eastbound.
• 37:51
  Uh were the timing records consistent
• 37:54
  with there being a stop at the dumpster?
• 37:56
  >> Yes, sir, they were.
• 37:57
  >> How much time was
• 38:00
  >> I didn't hear the question. I apologize.
• 38:02
  >> How much time was the device stopped at
• 38:04
  this dumpster?
• 38:06
  >> It's hard to say, but I would it's
• 38:08
  consistent with it being in the area for
• 38:10
  maybe a minute or so.
• 38:12
  >> A minute?
• 38:13
  >> Yes, sir.
• 38:13
  >> Okay. So,
• 38:15
  somebody stopped at the dumpster for 1
• 38:17
  minute.
• 38:19
  >> It The records are consistent with that
• 38:21
  happening. Yes, sir.
• 38:21
  >> Thank you.
• 38:23
  No further questions.
• 38:25
  >> Any redirect?
• 38:26
  >> No, your honor.
• 38:27
  >> All right. Thank you, sir. You may step
• 38:28
  down.
• 38:29
  >> Okay, so
• 38:31
  number one rule. If you are a doctor and
• 38:35
  you're accused of killing someone and
• 38:37
  you're in the courtroom wearing a
• 38:40
  Hannibal Lecter-looking outfit, do not
• 38:42
  act like Hannibal Lecter. That's the
• 38:44
  first rule.
• 38:45
  >> see how he's kind of like kind of
• 38:46
  giggling a bit? I don't know. Have we
• 38:48
  Have the Has the verdict come back on
• 38:49
  this yet?
• 38:50
  >> Uh yeah, he uh it was a 15-minute
• 38:52
  >> Oh.
• 38:52
  >> Yeah, it took 15 minutes It was This was
• 38:54
  a bench trial, actually. So, uh
• 38:57
  you know, he decided, I guess, it would
• 38:59
  be a better idea for the judge
• 39:01
  um to hear this evidence. Um but um I'm
• 39:05
  telling you that this guy
• 39:08
  thought he was very smart. And here's
• 39:10
  the thing is he he actually had um some
• 39:13
  points that he made
• 39:15
  um that could potentially
• 39:18
  raise
• 39:20
  reasonable doubt.
• 39:21
  >> I mean, he looked like he was kind of
• 39:22
  giggling though a little bit for a
• 39:23
  second there. I thought, "Huh?"
• 39:24
  >> you watch this,
• 39:26
  this is what happened.
• 39:28
  He presents as a parody of what someone
• 39:32
  thinks that a lawyer is supposed to do.
• 39:35
  >> Yeah.
• 39:35
  >> It's like evil parody, and he thinks
• 39:38
  that is the part that lawyers do because
• 39:42
  he himself hates lawyers.
• 39:45
  And so, he just presented as like, you
• 39:47
  know, Hannibal Lecter is what he looks
• 39:49
  like. So, um and I believe that he made
• 39:54
  the decision to um
• 39:56
  not have a jury because he figured that
• 39:59
  he had these little cross-examination
• 40:02
  uh points where he'd be able to raise
• 40:04
  some kind of reasonable doubt, and you
• 40:07
  know, perhaps he was worried that a jury
• 40:10
  would not follow the law
• 40:12
  um because they would know that he
• 40:14
  freaking did it. I mean, everybody knows
• 40:16
  that he did it. Um so, he thought maybe
• 40:18
  a judge would be more like antiseptic,
• 40:21
  you know, and be like, "Oh, that's
• 40:22
  that's reasonable doubt. That's
• 40:23
  reasonable. I I can't buy, you know,
• 40:26
  but what he didn't realize was you can't
• 40:30
  look like Hannibal Lecter um and his,
• 40:33
  you know,
• 40:34
  whole
• 40:35
  presentation
• 40:37
  was nowhere near what he thought it was.
• 40:39
  >> Yeah, that's your attorney's job to look
• 40:40
  like Hannibal Lecter. See?
• 40:42
  >> [laughter]
• 40:42
  >> So, we
• 40:43
  we come in strapped in on a on a on a
• 40:45
  plank.
• 40:46
  >> I have I've of a lawyer I'm not going to
• 40:48
  get into it too much, but but there has
• 40:50
  been a lawyer on a very big case who
• 40:55
  represented himself in a case.
• 40:57
  >> Okay.
• 40:57
  >> Um and the the the case was like
• 41:01
  uh very serious. They were going to take
• 41:03
  his bar license. Um maybe he was going
• 41:05
  to be going to prison.
• 41:06
  >> Okay.
• 41:06
  >> And his attorneys get sick. He goes
• 41:09
  ahead and he represents himself. Gets
• 41:11
  off. Um
• 41:13
  and
• 41:14
  you know, I I believe that
• 41:17
  the prosecution was politically
• 41:19
  motivated. Um so he should have I think
• 41:23
  it was a case. Um but still he
• 41:25
  he did it himself.
• 41:27
  And it was like the most badass thing
• 41:30
  because it was a huge case and he just
• 41:32
  went ahead and did it himself and he
• 41:33
  won.
• 41:34
  Uh so
• 41:36
  I guess maybe if you're like the very
• 41:38
  outlier of people out there that can
• 41:41
  handle that kind of pressure and you're
• 41:42
  also an attorney
• 41:44
  possibly, you know? I mean everyone was
• 41:47
  telling them not to do it. Um but he
• 41:51
  actually won. Um but
• 41:53
  >> Yeah, I don't know.
• 41:54
  >> epic but it's epic. But that doesn't
• 41:55
  happen. So
• 41:56
  >> That's a very rare Have you ever heard
• 41:57
  of the thing where like doctors make the
• 41:59
  worst patients? I would assume lawyers
• 42:01
  probably also make some of the worst
• 42:02
  clients of like trying to work with
• 42:04
  because they're difficult to work with.
• 42:06
  But oh, that's that's a real
• 42:07
  >> one So I've had a couple. Um
• 42:10
  I've represented maybe a handful of
• 42:13
  lawyers in cases
• 42:15
  and they've always been actually very
• 42:17
  hands-off.
• 42:18
  >> I've had um I've represented a few law
• 42:19
  students while they were still in
• 42:21
  school. Uh they make good clients. Um
• 42:24
  they're very very receptive and open to
• 42:26
  to working with you. They also
• 42:27
  understand kind of the situation what's
• 42:29
  going on.
• 42:30
  Um I haven't had any I've had a lot of
• 42:33
  my own friends send uh or have their
• 42:35
  friends call me if they get into wrecks.
• 42:37
  But I haven't had a lot of
• 42:39
  >> I've had defense lawyers. Uh yes, I've
• 42:42
  had uh and um completely hands-off.
• 42:46
  Um
• 42:47
  just
• 42:48
  didn't interfere at all.
• 42:49
  >> Yeah.
• 42:50
  >> Um
• 42:51
  they weren't uh
• 42:53
  you know, but they also weren't super
• 42:54
  happy, but they weren't unhappy.
• 42:56
  >> Yeah.
• 42:57
  >> It was just like um very business like.
• 42:59
  >> I've had defense attorneys send me cases
• 43:01
  though.
• 43:01
  Uh send me referrals and they were they
• 43:03
  they'll call me and they're like, "Hey,
• 43:05
  my friend's been in a wreck.
• 43:07
  Um can he please come and talk to you?"
• 43:08
  And I of course. Um and that's actually
• 43:10
  that's really kind of nice cuz it's nice
• 43:12
  to think that someone who's a defense
• 43:14
  attorney that's handling like a lot of
• 43:15
  other plaintiff's attorneys, I'm the
• 43:17
  person that you know, I'm the person
• 43:18
  they would think to call.
• 43:19
  >> all. I I find that to be greatly uh that
• 43:22
  that's very you know
• 43:23
  >> That's a compliment.
• 43:24
  >> flattering to me.
• 43:24
  >> Very big compliment.
• 43:25
  >> Um but I do like, you know, I I haven't
• 43:27
  had any attorneys.
• 43:29
  >> Well, I'm I'm sure you will, you know,
• 43:31
  they get crashes too or fall in holes or
• 43:34
  you know, what you know, whatever it is.
• 43:36
  >> You're going to be calling me on a
• 43:37
  Saturday night.
• 43:39
  >> I'm going to represent myself.
• 43:41
  >> Oh, no.
• 43:41
  >> We'll see what happens. Yeah. I mean,
• 43:43
  come on. I'm I am the one that can do
• 43:44
  it, you know. Uh
• 43:46
  Call myself as a witness, you know, and
• 43:47
  tell my story, you know.
• 43:49
  >> So wait, like do you think you like
• 43:51
  stage a mirror in So you stage a mirror
• 43:54
  at counsel's table and you're looking at
• 43:56
  the jury and then you look at the mirror
• 43:58
  asking yourself the question then you
• 43:59
  look back and try to like [laughter]
• 44:00
  That would be kind of fun.
• 44:01
  >> Well, I mean, uh you you could
• 44:03
  technically uh
• 44:05
  ask yourself questions and answer your
• 44:08
  own questions if if you're representing
• 44:09
  yourself, but you don't have to do that.
• 44:11
  What What you can actually do if if
• 44:13
  you're representing yourself
• 44:15
  is you can just give like a narrative.
• 44:17
  Um so you know, where
• 44:20
  an attorney might object to
• 44:23
  responsiveness of an answer that sort of
• 44:26
  doesn't apply, you you can just tell a
• 44:28
  long story about what happened. And then
• 44:31
  the other side says, "Well, I've got to
• 44:32
  unpack that." And then they come back
• 44:34
  and they cross-examine you based upon
• 44:36
  all the things that you said.
• 44:37
  >> So if you don't like your response to
• 44:39
  one of the own things that you said, do
• 44:40
  you think you can like try to object to
• 44:42
  non respon
• 44:43
  non responsive? Like you finish your
• 44:45
  line, you look at the jury and go, "Non
• 44:46
  responsive."
• 44:47
  >> Objection.
• 44:48
  >> Non responsive.
• 44:49
  >> I don't um you know, I don't know if you
• 44:51
  can do that, uh but I would imagine
• 44:53
  someone has done that before.
• 44:55
  >> You know, that'd be pretty funny.
• 44:56
  >> Someone's done that before, I'm sure.
• 44:57
  >> I've had defense counsel try to object
• 44:59
  to their own exhibits. I've had someone
• 45:02
  try to object to their own They admitted
• 45:04
  the exhibits, and then I start trying to
• 45:06
  use them and they go, "Objection, they
• 45:08
  haven't laid the foundation." And it's
• 45:09
  already been pre-admitted and
• 45:10
  everything. They've tried to fight me on
• 45:12
  their own exhibits. It is pretty funny.
• 45:13
  >> That's just silly. Um,
• 45:16
  about objections, let's let's talk about
• 45:18
  objections in trial.
• 45:19
  >> Okay.
• 45:19
  >> Okay. So, are you one of these people
• 45:22
  who, you know, uh, anytime that you can
• 45:25
  make an objection, you make one, or do
• 45:28
  you sometimes, you know, save your ammo
• 45:30
  for,
• 45:31
  you know,
• 45:33
  cuz if you object too much, maybe it
• 45:35
  becomes like
• 45:36
  >> It's boring. It's also annoying.
• 45:38
  >> Sometimes you want to over-object.
• 45:41
  Um, what, you know, how do you handle
• 45:43
  like the frequency of objections?
• 45:45
  >> Usually going into trial, and now
• 45:47
  there's been surprises before, but
• 45:49
  usually I know exactly what, uh, the
• 45:52
  defense is going to try to introduce
• 45:53
  that is objectionable, that's going to
• 45:55
  be a problem. So, most of the time I
• 45:57
  have maybe
• 45:59
  five, six real objections and briefing
• 46:02
  on that objection. But, a lot of the
• 46:04
  times, especially if it's like something
• 46:06
  leading or some, you know, if it's a
• 46:08
  leading question, um, I'm usually just
• 46:11
  going to try to see if, especially if
• 46:12
  it's a something that we need to get out
• 46:14
  there, I want them to be to lead the
• 46:16
  question.
• 46:17
  >> Why would you object to something that
• 46:18
  you want the person to say?
• 46:20
  >> Yeah, but also a lot of the times, since
• 46:21
  we're the ones that are going first, uh,
• 46:23
  in presenting our case, a lot of the
• 46:25
  times I the defense counsel doesn't even
• 46:27
  need to do that, because I've already
• 46:28
  gotten the story out there.
• 46:30
  Um, and so, the facts are out. Um, but
• 46:33
  usually I have, starting a trial, I'll
• 46:35
  have briefing on a good few select
• 46:38
  objections that I know are going to come
• 46:39
  up in the trial, um, that, you know,
• 46:41
  then we can really battle it out.
• 46:43
  >> Okay. Now, how about this?
• 46:45
  >> Okay.
• 46:45
  >> What about when the other side has made
• 46:48
  an objection to one of your questions?
• 46:50
  >> Okay.
• 46:51
  >> And you lose the objection.
• 46:54
  >> Mhm.
• 46:55
  >> Do you do anything after that uh to sort
• 46:59
  of like, you know, you can't do it maybe
• 47:00
  the first time, yeah, but do you sort of
• 47:03
  maybe sometimes give a little bit of a
• 47:05
  nod to the jury like uh-huh, they're
• 47:08
  trying to keep that like or or shaking
• 47:10
  your head or doing
• 47:12
  something some kind of flavor to let
• 47:14
  them know that this is or see
• 47:17
  they're trying to hide things or do that
• 47:19
  kind of thing, you know?
• 47:20
  >> bit, but usually it's not that bad.
• 47:22
  >> to be very cuz you're not allowed to do
• 47:23
  that, you know, by the rules, but it's
• 47:25
  like
• 47:26
  it's so subtle, you know, it's almost
• 47:29
  it's just an energy that that you have
• 47:30
  in your body.
• 47:32
  So, you know, you can't be accused of
• 47:34
  like explicitly doing something, but
• 47:36
  like the message will seep out that
• 47:38
  these guys are
• 47:39
  what they're trying to do is they're
• 47:40
  trying to block the truth, you know?
• 47:42
  >> I had a case uh this was earlier in this
• 47:45
  year and and it was a plaintiff jury
• 47:47
  verdict in uh it was a Bohn Stowers
• 47:49
  verdict actually. Uh we were I was
• 47:51
  questioning the defendant and it was
• 47:52
  clear the defendant, you know,
• 47:55
  with the facts and I wanted to bring in
• 47:57
  some photos that the defendant took of
• 47:59
  their own vehicle and defense counsel
• 48:01
  tried to prevent the uh the photos from
• 48:03
  coming in and it was just I looked at
• 48:06
  the jury as they make the first
• 48:07
  objection as I'm like sitting there and
• 48:09
  I go I'm trying to show the photos and
• 48:11
  then I look at the judge, the judge
• 48:13
  looks at him, we it gets overruled and
• 48:15
  then the photos come in and yeah.
• 48:17
  >> That's a stupid objection.
• 48:18
  >> Stupid.
• 48:18
  >> So, like people will make objections
• 48:21
  over evidence that they know that the
• 48:23
  jury wants to see, you know, and it has
• 48:26
  no chance of being granted.
• 48:28
  >> Yeah.
• 48:29
  >> So, it has a double whammy, right? It's
• 48:31
  like you know, you're admitting that
• 48:33
  this is some really bad evidence. Like,
• 48:35
  "Hey everybody, warning that this is
• 48:37
  going to be really bad for me. I'm
• 48:39
  trying to get rid of it so that you
• 48:40
  can't see it."
• 48:41
  >> Yeah.
• 48:42
  >> And then they lose and then it's like,
• 48:43
  "Oh, you know, you should never have
• 48:45
  made that objection in the
• 48:46
  >> then they they get too excited, but a
• 48:48
  lot of the times especially in trial so
• 48:50
  we have in depositions where you know,
• 48:52
  everyone's saying form objections and
• 48:54
  trying to prevent this question or
• 48:56
  whatever. In trial usually it's really
• 48:58
  watered down um because the defendant
• 49:01
  doesn't want that exact thing to happen,
• 49:03
  and nor do I want the jury to be looking
• 49:04
  at me going
• 49:06
  like, why do you keep objecting to this?
• 49:07
  And it's like, not
• 49:09
  It's a simple question.
• 49:11
  >> Yeah. So, um
• 49:14
  when you make an objection in in the
• 49:16
  courtroom, you're supposed to only state
• 49:19
  the basis of the objection.
• 49:21
  >> Correct.
• 49:21
  >> Okay.
• 49:22
  Um so,
• 49:23
  >> Supposed to.
• 49:24
  >> So, what is the difference between
• 49:26
  that and what they call a speaking
• 49:28
  objection?
• 49:29
  >> So, speaking objection is when you're
• 49:31
  you Well,
• 49:33
  it's what I would do usually at trial.
• 49:34
  No, I'm just teasing.
• 49:35
  >> but you can do it Here's the thing is
• 49:37
  you can do a speaking [snorts] objection
• 49:41
  if the other side doesn't object to it.
• 49:45
  >> Yeah. [clears throat]
• 49:45
  >> If they if they let you just run
• 49:47
  freaking over them and they don't know
• 49:49
  the rules, and then you're going to do
• 49:50
  speaking objections.
• 49:51
  >> Yeah, speaking objection is when you
• 49:53
  make the objection and then you keep
• 49:55
  listing out the basis of the objection
• 49:58
  as we're going on.
• 49:58
  >> They don't want
• 50:01
  Judge, they don't want the jury to see
• 50:03
  these photos because they're relevant.
• 50:06
  You know, or something like that in
• 50:07
  instead of they're relevant.
• 50:09
  >> Actually, this was another trial that we
• 50:11
  uh we that Tiffany and I just recently
• 50:13
  won.
• 50:14
  Uh the defense attorney is like super
• 50:17
  aggressive, playing like dirty games
• 50:20
  during trial. And at one point, I we had
• 50:23
  just won a motion, and he you know, the
• 50:25
  judge leaves the room, and he looks at
• 50:27
  me and goes,
• 50:28
  "You think you can play dirty? I can
• 50:30
  play even dirtier than you." And I'm
• 50:31
  like, "What the heck? Wait, this was
• 50:33
  just a normal, you know, exclusion
• 50:35
  motion." Um and so,
• 50:38
  uh what happened though is during trial,
• 50:40
  he keeps like he keeps trying to do
• 50:42
  specific things that he's not allowed to
• 50:43
  do. And then ultimately, he says a
• 50:45
  question, and I go, "Judge, objection.
• 50:48
  It misstates the testimony we've already
• 50:50
  heard from this witness, this witness,
• 50:52
  this witness of this." He He gets all
• 50:55
  mad cuz it's a it's, you know, it's
• 50:56
  still a running objection. He jumps up
• 50:58
  and goes
• 50:59
  This is like a 60-year-old uh 60-year
• 51:01
  trial attorney. He goes, "He can't do
• 51:03
  that. He can't do that." And the judge
• 51:05
  is like looking at him going like,
• 51:06
  "Really?" And the jury's looking at him
• 51:08
  going, "Really?"
• 51:10
  Um and then ultimately the jury ruled in
• 51:12
  our favor as well.
• 51:13
  >> So, um him um
• 51:15
  objecting in that way ended up
• 51:18
  backfiring on you.
• 51:19
  >> Yeah.
• 51:19
  >> So, like you you have to sometimes be
• 51:21
  careful with your objections.
• 51:24
  If it's a
• 51:25
  matter that you know that the jury wants
• 51:27
  to see or hear about and you have a
• 51:30
  greater than 50% chance of not winning
• 51:32
  the objection, don't make the objection.
• 51:34
  >> Yeah.
• 51:35
  >> Like
• 51:36
  people are so dumb, but they do it like
• 51:38
  all the time.
• 51:39
  >> I've had though I've had cases where
• 51:41
  clearly this was, you know, admissible
• 51:43
  evidence and the judges agreed with
• 51:45
  their objection and then we just move
• 51:47
  on. We find another way to get it in.
• 51:48
  >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So,
• 51:50
  when there's an objection on something
• 51:53
  that you really badly want to get in or
• 51:54
  say or whatever
• 51:56
  and you lose, you can't get it in. What
• 51:58
  do you do?
• 51:59
  >> So, usually prior to trial I've already
• 52:01
  prepped it. So, knowing that there's
• 52:03
  probably going to be a lodged objection
• 52:05
  against me, I'm already prepped with my
• 52:06
  arguments.
• 52:07
  >> With your pivot.
• 52:08
  >> Yeah, and the pivots of hey, if this
• 52:09
  doesn't come in, there's so many other
• 52:11
  ways around this to be able to introduce
• 52:14
  this.
• 52:14
  >> That's right. Okay. So,
• 52:16
  what I'm talking about is, you know,
• 52:18
  you're talking about like how to get the
• 52:19
  evidence in, but in that moment
• 52:22
  like when you lose that objection cuz
• 52:24
  for the jury they're like, "Ooh,
• 52:26
  [clears throat] that's a diss." You
• 52:27
  know, they're like, "Ooh, he got
• 52:28
  dissed." You know what I'm saying?
• 52:30
  Cuz they don't sometimes they don't know
• 52:32
  what is important in a case, you know,
• 52:34
  and they don't really know, but so if
• 52:37
  someone loses an objection, maybe that's
• 52:39
  a diss. Maybe this is just a whatever,
• 52:42
  you know, and so
• 52:44
  um
• 52:45
  you have to pivot at that point.
• 52:46
  >> Yeah, I just take it in stride.
• 52:48
  >> Yeah, exactly. Like you you cannot
• 52:51
  you know, show any sort of like, "Ooh,
• 52:54
  you know, because then it's like, ooh,
• 52:55
  he did get dissed."
• 52:56
  >> Yeah.
• 52:56
  >> So, I think the best way to handle
• 52:59
  whenever you
• 53:01
  lose an objection, it's to go like
• 53:04
  you know, it's like act like it was like
• 53:07
  who cares? And
• 53:08
  then you and then you ask something
• 53:09
  else, but it's a really good question.
• 53:11
  >> Yeah.
• 53:12
  >> You know, so you're like
• 53:14
  you know, you basically like you're
• 53:16
  you're swatting away a gnat. Like this
• 53:18
  little gnat like Anyways, here's the
• 53:21
  question. You know, and then you Yes,
• 53:23
  and then you you ask a really good
• 53:25
  question. They completely forget about
• 53:27
  the objection and it makes the other
• 53:29
  side look like a little gnat that you
• 53:31
  just you know
• 53:32
  >> I've done that.
• 53:33
  >> Swatted away, you know. Um
• 53:34
  >> I agree with you.
• 53:35
  >> You can't do it every time.
• 53:37
  Um and you can't do it with certain
• 53:38
  people. Um like you can't like let's say
• 53:40
  that you're trying a case against, you
• 53:43
  know, like a young female. You you you
• 53:46
  couldn't do that. You couldn't like swat
• 53:48
  her away cuz now you're the guy like
• 53:50
  you know, doing that. But if it's some,
• 53:52
  you know, grumbly old man, you can
• 53:54
  definitely swat them away like a little
• 53:56
  gnat and kind of make them look silly.
• 53:57
  >> Actually, it makes it easy nowadays cuz
• 53:59
  a lot of the trial attorneys Trial
• 54:01
  attorneys there's becoming less and less
• 54:02
  of them. Uh
• 54:04
  and good ones, too, even less.
• 54:06
  Um and I have a feel I'm actually
• 54:08
  looking forward for the next cuz I'm
• 54:09
  going to be here for a while.
• 54:11
  Uh the I have a feeling the future's
• 54:13
  going to look like there's a very few
• 54:15
  trial attorneys.
• 54:16
  >> True.
• 54:16
  >> Um a lot of them are now aging out um or
• 54:19
  they're no longer trying cases. I'm most
• 54:22
  of my cases have been against people in
• 54:24
  their actually 60s and 70s. Uh very very
• 54:28
  rarely or in their like maybe late 50s.
• 54:31
  Um that's starting to become more and
• 54:32
  more
• 54:32
  >> Rider, uh so um happy to have you here
• 54:35
  today. Rider, it's been a great podcast,
• 54:38
  I think. Um yes, it's fun. Um I I hope
• 54:42
  um if people are out there and they're
• 54:44
  considering do I want to be a lawyer? I
• 54:47
  hope they see that it's a pretty fun
• 54:50
  job.
• 54:50
  >> It's It's a lot of fun and to be able to
• 54:52
  help help people is it's great and it's
• 54:55
  very rewarding. But also the stories
• 54:57
  that go along with it and the insanity
• 54:59
  is it's
• 55:01
  >> And one more thing I'll say that there's
• 55:02
  a future in it because all this AI stuff
• 55:05
  that's out there where people are
• 55:06
  talking about how "Hey, AI's going to
• 55:07
  take your job." I can guarantee you one
• 55:10
  job that is not going to be taken by AI
• 55:12
  is a trial attorney. Not anytime soon,
• 55:14
  maybe never. Um probably never. So,
• 55:17
  uh if if you want to go into a field
• 55:19
  where you can make a bunch of money, you
• 55:21
  can help people, you can have fun, but
• 55:24
  it's only for certain people. Um if
• 55:26
  you're not willing to work hard and if
• 55:28
  you're mentally weak, it's got, you
• 55:31
  know, not going to be the job for you.
• 55:33
  Um but if you are strong
• 55:35
  and you want to have an exciting job,
• 55:39
  it's a pretty good job.
• 55:40
  >> It is a good job.
• 55:41
  >> Pretty good job. So, anyways, uh that's
• 55:43
  our podcast. Um thank you very much for
• 55:45
  watching.
• 55:46
  >> Thanks for tuning in to the Brian White
• 55:48
  Podcast. [music]
• 55:49
  Don't forget to like, share, and
• 55:50
  subscribe and hit that notification
• 55:52
  button so you don't miss an episode.