Latest / Brian White Podcast / When Your Own Client Becomes the Problem

Transcript

When Your Own Client Becomes the Problem · Brian White Podcast

0:00
The biggest mistake that I've ever made
0:02
in a courtroom. I am a trial lawyer with
0:04
over 23 years of experience. I focus on
0:07
personal injury. Every attorney has
0:09
their own. How do I recover over $100
0:13
million per year? Asking people how long
0:15
that they were looking [music] at at the
0:17
phone can be tricky. You know, of
0:19
course, the insurance company doesn't
0:20
want to pay very much money on that.
0:22
>> You kidding me? Come on.
0:24
>> Oh, auto accident. You better call
0:26
attorney Brian White.
0:27
>> Who's Brian White?
0:30
Better than just a law license. He's
0:32
board certified.
0:39
>> You've been in an accident, so call
0:41
attorney Brian White.
0:42
>> Go to attorneybrianwhite.com
0:44
and set up your free consultation today.
0:48
>> Welcome to the Brian White [music]
0:49
podcast. Thanks for tuning in.
0:52
>> Welcome to the Brian White podcast. I am
0:54
a trial lawyer with over 23 years of
0:57
experience. I focus on personal injury.
1:00
Every attorney has their own area. Mine
1:03
is personal injury. Last year, I
1:05
recovered over $100 million. This is my
1:08
podcast. By the way, before I get
1:10
started, I just want to tell you about
1:11
our sponsor. It is called vdire.com.
1:15
This is a tie that is made by vi.com.
1:19
They also do other clothing. It's sort
1:22
of clothing that's made for attorneys.
1:24
If you want to go in front of a jury and
1:27
you want to look great, but you don't
1:28
want to look like you're wearing an
1:29
Armani suit, bory.com is the place that
1:33
you should go. Okay, so in this episode,
1:36
I'm going to be asked questions and
1:39
hopefully giving good answers and
1:41
hopefully people can get an insight on
1:44
how do I recover over $100 million per
1:47
year? You know, it's not just by sending
1:50
out, you know, like a letter asking for
1:52
money. It's actually doing the work. So
1:54
maybe if people pay attention to these
1:56
podcasts, they can learn how we do this.
1:59
>> And on this section, we want to know
2:01
what would Brian actually do.
2:03
>> What would Bri, what would I actually
2:05
do?
2:05
>> Okay.
2:06
>> As opposed to what I, you know, wouldn't
2:08
do. What? Like fake do. This is actually
2:10
what I would do.
2:11
>> Okay.
2:12
>> Have you ever discovered your own client
2:14
was lying to you?
2:15
>> Oh man. Have I discovered my client was
2:18
lying to me? Yes. it. Unfortunately, I
2:20
mean, it's so frustrating, but it
2:23
happens all the time. And so, one of the
2:26
worst things that you can do in a case,
2:29
the worst things that you can do is lie.
2:32
Because that's what we're doing as an
2:34
attorney is we're trying to find areas
2:37
where the other side has lied so that we
2:39
can impeach them. Okay? And that's how
2:42
you undermine their credibility. And
2:45
once you sink their credibility, all of
2:48
the facts about how the crash happened
2:51
or if they're hurt kind of like go down.
2:54
So our main objective is to try to catch
2:58
people lying. So we explain this to
3:00
people. Don't lie. You know, smart
3:02
people don't have to lie.
3:05
>> Have you ever realized in the middle of
3:07
a trial that things were going badly?
3:10
>> Have I ever realized in the middle of a
3:12
trial that things are going badly? The
3:14
answer is yes. Look, we do a lot of car
3:16
wreck cases and there's a lot of bias,
3:19
you know, obviously against people who
3:21
sue other people for a car wreck and
3:24
also on top of that bias, there's a bias
3:26
against the attorneys that handle those
3:28
kind of cases. So, you know, we can kind
3:30
of see it when when we're picking the
3:32
jury because we're asking people sort of
3:34
like what they think and there's so many
3:36
people that hate this kind of case.
3:38
They're so upset that they're even there
3:40
for, you know, that kind of case. But
3:41
every now and then, one of those people
3:43
gets on to the jury because they didn't
3:45
talk. Okay. So, I had a case where it
3:49
was a red light case and I'm doing my
3:53
opening and I'm standing up. This is the
3:55
very first part of the case. Okay?
3:57
Nothing else has happened yet. I'm just
3:59
telling everyone what happened. Okay?
4:02
And this is the first two minutes maybe.
4:05
I say, "This is a red light case. My
4:08
client, Mrs. So and so had a green
4:11
light. Mr. So ando had a red light. And
4:15
I see a woman going, she's shaking her
4:18
head and saying no and like taking notes
4:20
like as if I was like she had busted me
4:24
lying about it. So I realized it wasn't
4:26
going so well at that point. But it was
4:29
all because of how we picked the jury
4:31
and you know we let someone on the jury
4:33
that we didn't talk to. Okay. By the
4:36
way, when that happens, I don't think
4:38
it's a bad idea if if you are in your
4:41
opening and you have a juror express an
4:46
emotional outburst based upon, you know,
4:49
just like an objective fact or something
4:52
they that they would have no reason to
4:55
think that was untrue and then they act
4:57
like that. I don't think it's wrong for
5:00
the attorney to like look directly at
5:04
them and be like, you know, almost like,
5:07
I heard that. And, you know, not in a
5:10
rude way, but just like, you know, hey,
5:12
actually, you're not going to win them
5:14
over, but what you're going to do is
5:15
you're going to try to prevent them from
5:18
poisoning everybody else. So, and all
5:21
and and everyone else will see that
5:23
you're focusing on them. like, you know,
5:26
they heard them make that noise. They
5:28
now see you staring at them and they're
5:32
kind of like, "Well, I'm, you know,
5:34
maybe I I should like be quiet and
5:36
listen to all of the facts and make up
5:38
my mind and tell people afterwards like
5:41
the rules say instead of making comments
5:44
and sounds and things like that during
5:46
the trial."
5:48
>> Have you ever turned down a case and
5:50
then later regretted it?
5:51
>> Have I ever turned down a case and later
5:53
regretted it? Yes. And so I had a person
5:57
call me and they gave me a fact pattern
6:00
that I thought wasn't real because it
6:01
was too good to be or it was too
6:03
unbelievable but it turned out to be
6:05
true. So what happened was that there
6:08
was a person who had a personal injury
6:10
case and they hired an attorney. That
6:13
attorney settled their case without
6:16
telling them and kept the money. And so
6:20
they call me and they're like, "My
6:22
attorney settled the case and they kept
6:24
the money." And I was like thinking in
6:27
my mind, that's BS. Nobody would like
6:30
how would you even be able to do, you
6:31
know, there's no way, you know? So I
6:35
passed on it. And later I heard from the
6:38
person who actually signed it up that
6:41
sure enough that's exactly what
6:42
happened. All it took was one letter
6:46
from that attorney saying, you know, I'm
6:49
about to sue you. You know, the guy
6:50
wrote a check. So, I don't know how much
6:53
of a fee you can really charge for that
6:54
kind of thing, but it was like a slam
6:56
dunk case and a righteous case. You know
6:59
what I'm saying? Would have been
7:00
extremely satisfying, even though it
7:03
probably wouldn't have made a bunch of
7:04
money because I don't think you could
7:05
charge like 40% on that. But that is one
7:08
where I'm like, man, I I I got that one
7:11
wrong. I'm sorry to that person that I
7:14
didn't think they were telling me the
7:15
truth. They were. So, yeah, that's one.
7:17
>> What's the biggest mistake you've ever
7:18
made in a courtroom?
7:21
>> The biggest mistake that I've ever made
7:23
in a courtroom was failing to bring a
7:27
videographer
7:28
in a trial where we were playing videos.
7:32
[laughter]
7:33
So, of course, what happens is we get to
7:36
a video that's very important. It's a
7:39
deposition of a treating orthopedic
7:42
surgeon that we need in this case. This
7:44
is a case where there's broken bones and
7:46
a surgery. So, we need to have the
7:49
surgeon to testify about the treatment
7:52
and that it was reasonable and that it
7:55
was necessary. We go to put in the I say
7:59
a disc, obviously, it wasn't a disc, but
8:02
for the purpose of this, I'll say a
8:04
disc. We go to put in the video and we
8:07
hit play. The video plays, but there's
8:10
like only 10% sound and we're like, you
8:14
know, and everyone's like shaking their
8:16
head and everything and you know, you
8:18
see the judge and we're trying to figure
8:19
out how do you turn up the volume and we
8:22
can't figure it out. We there's no way
8:24
to fix it. Like we don't know how to fix
8:26
it. Me and a parallegal, we're like we
8:28
don't know what to do in this situation.
8:30
You know what I'm saying? And it's kind
8:31
of hard. So, what we ended up actually
8:33
doing to fix it was we actually said,
8:37
"Okay, we're actually going to read the
8:40
deposition, but instead what we're going
8:43
to do is we're going to play parts."
8:46
Okay? So, I played the part of the
8:48
doctor. So, I went and I sat in, you
8:52
know, like the witness box and then my
8:55
parallegal played the part of me, you
8:57
know, questioning him. And so so
9:01
[laughter]
9:02
it actually worked perfectly because we
9:06
got to read it and then I would answer.
9:08
But there was one part of, you know, the
9:11
whole thing where there was a little bit
9:13
of a zinger in the deposition. The
9:15
doctor didn't really he was a little bit
9:17
flat. You know what I'm saying? But I
9:19
got to read his part. So I was like so
9:22
you know she was like and isn't it true
9:24
that you know X Y and Z? And then I was
9:26
like and I looked over at the jury.
9:30
Yeah, that's true.
9:33
Then everyone was like, [laughter]
9:35
you could see their faces. They were
9:36
like, "Oh my god, he pulled it off like
9:38
and that was awesome." And it was it was
9:40
really good. So that was a major screw-
9:42
up. I would say if you're ever going to
9:44
be playing a video in a courtroom, bring
9:46
a videographer unless you're, you know,
9:49
an expert. But if you're not, bring one.
9:52
Can one sentence from a witness destroy
9:55
an otherwise great case?
9:58
>> Pretty much. People can, you know, say
10:01
stupid things and people can say stupid
10:03
things that go to the core of the
10:05
matter. And if they say, you know,
10:07
something that goes to the core of the
10:09
matter, then that can destroy the case.
10:11
And it does happen sometimes. I I
10:14
haven't had a case killer like that.
10:16
We've we've we've had things where
10:18
people will lie about certain things
10:21
where you're like, "Oh, dude, why did
10:22
you just say that?" You know, but
10:24
usually, you know, if if it's someone
10:27
Well, let's just say this. I had a trial
10:29
one time where the defendant driver the
10:33
whole time was saying that they were not
10:35
responsible for the crash. They didn't
10:36
cause the crash. They didn't do anything
10:38
wrong. In the courtroom, they said that,
10:41
"Yes, I did." Because it wasn't going
10:43
well for them. I think that they decided
10:46
it would be better for them just to fall
10:48
on the sword as far as who's at fault so
10:51
that they could then fall back on well
10:53
but the guy wasn't hurt. I'm here to
10:55
tell the truth. It was my fault. You
10:57
know, but that actually killed their
10:59
case because I showed all the times over
11:02
the last three years where they said it
11:04
wasn't their responsibility.
11:06
>> All right. So, we're going to change it
11:08
a little bit and I'm going to ask you
11:10
some scenarios.
11:11
>> Okay. And the question would be, would
11:13
you take that case?
11:15
>> Would I take that case?
11:16
>> Yes.
11:16
>> So, like, if it's a person out there and
11:19
they're wondering if they have a case
11:21
that's like this, a personal injury
11:23
case, would Brian White take that case?
11:25
Would the best Houston personal injury
11:28
lawyer, attorney Brian White, take that
11:30
case?
11:31
>> So, a man walks into your office. He was
11:34
rearended two weeks ago. His back and
11:37
neck hurt and the insurance company has
11:40
already offered him $3,500.
11:42
Would you take that case?
11:44
>> Yes. And I'll So I'm going to say that
11:47
I'm and then I'm going to give you the
11:48
reasons why. I can't help from you.
11:50
>> Yeah.
11:50
>> Um explaining what I got to explain. So
11:53
yes, I would take that case. And the
11:55
reason why is because that happens all
11:56
the time. Insurance companies make
11:58
lowball offers after you're in a crash,
12:01
hoping that you'll settle the case
12:02
before you figure out how badly that
12:05
you're hurt.
12:05
>> So then you start learning more about
12:07
the facts. Here's one of the facts. He
12:09
waited 10 days before seeing a doctor.
12:12
Would you still take it?
12:13
>> Yes, I would. But it makes it harder,
12:15
but I would still do that.
12:17
>> He has three prior back injuries.
12:19
>> I would 100%. And this is one that's a
12:23
common misconception. People think all
12:25
the time that if they're in a car wreck
12:28
that they've got to hide their previous
12:31
back problems or surgeries and things
12:33
like that. And so sometimes what people
12:36
even do is that they will lie about it,
12:38
which is the worst thing possible
12:40
because they're going to catch you in
12:41
that lie 100% of the time and then it
12:44
just destroys your case. But if you tell
12:46
the truth about your history, especially
12:49
about the history of having surgeries in
12:51
your back, what do you think happens if
12:53
you have a back surgery, do you think
12:56
that makes you more sturdy or do you
12:59
think it makes you more vulnerable to
13:01
being hurt if you're in a crash? It
13:03
makes you more vulnerable. So, if you
13:06
have a history of back surgeries, it
13:08
makes your case better.
13:10
>> What if he admits he was looking at his
13:12
phone when the crash happened? So, it
13:15
depends. If he admitted to the police
13:17
officer at the scene that he was looking
13:19
at the phone and there's a disagreement
13:22
about who is at fault for the crash and
13:24
maybe there's a lane change case or
13:26
something like that or probably that
13:28
that's pretty rough. But if you're
13:30
looking at your phone and someone else
13:33
does something wrong, hey, just because
13:35
you're looking at your phone doesn't
13:36
mean that the other person didn't do
13:38
something wrong.
13:39
>> Maybe asking them how long were you
13:40
looking at the phone? asking people how
13:43
long that they were looking at at the
13:44
phone can be tricky and the reason why
13:47
is because it involves like uh
13:49
speculation you know like all but what
13:52
people do is they'll say a certain
13:55
amount of time but if you're smart as
13:57
opposing counsel you know if if you have
14:00
someone on the other side of you say I
14:02
was looking at my phone for this amount
14:04
of time that is fertile grounds for
14:07
cross you can cross someone on that oh
14:09
so you timed that you know and and Then
14:11
even if they say that, yeah, yes, I
14:14
timed it. It was 5 seconds that I was
14:16
looking at my phone. Then you can say,
14:18
well, you know, well, how long did it
14:19
take you to perceive your phone when
14:21
when you first started? You agreed. You
14:22
don't just, you know, so you can
14:25
actually show that whatever they tell
14:27
you is actually under the minimum of
14:31
what they actually took to go back to
14:35
paying attention.
14:36
>> So, he already gave the insurance
14:38
company a recorded statement.
14:41
Okay. So, if people after a crash, if
14:44
the adjuster for the other driver's
14:47
insurance contacts you and gets a
14:49
recorded statement, that could be
14:51
problem. That could be a big problem.
14:53
Kill your case. So, insurance adjusters,
14:56
of course, are trained to reduce the
14:59
value of your case. That's what
15:01
insurance companies want to do is they
15:03
want to pay as little as possible on
15:05
claims and of course, they want to
15:06
charge as much as they can for premiums
15:07
because they want to make profit. Okay?
15:10
So after a crash, what happens is that
15:13
the adjuster for the other driver's
15:16
insurance will contact you and they'll
15:18
say that they want to get a recorded
15:20
statement. You are under no obligation
15:23
to provide one. And if you do, just
15:26
remember that that's their job to try to
15:28
mess up your case. That's what they're
15:29
doing. If they just wanted to get
15:31
information about the crash, they could
15:34
ask you for the information. The only
15:37
reason why they want to record the call
15:39
is to mess you up and ruin your case.
15:42
>> What if he has a criminal record?
15:44
>> So if I get a call from someone and they
15:47
get a criminal record, my answer is this
15:49
is Houston. So that happens every single
15:53
day. We have people call here that all
15:55
that have all kinds of criminal civil
15:59
history. Of course, there's plenty of
16:01
people that have no history, but you
16:02
know, the rules of evidence are pretty
16:04
clear about what can come in, and we're
16:07
pretty good at keeping things out of
16:08
evidence that are improper character
16:10
evidence.
16:11
>> What if he sued someone before?
16:14
>> If a person has sued someone before for
16:16
a car wreck for the same exact kind of
16:18
case, generally that does not come into
16:20
evidence just because you've sued
16:22
someone before. Now it it can come in if
16:26
uh you know there's like overlapping
16:29
kind of like if you hurt your back in
16:30
the previous case and this is also a
16:32
back case then it it could conceivably
16:35
come in somehow that way but it would
16:38
really be up to the judge to you know
16:40
figure out whether it would be proper to
16:42
bring in the history of the previous
16:44
case because it's it's really more
16:47
prejuditial than it would be
16:49
probitative. It it it's really just
16:50
there to like confuse people, make them
16:52
think this is a person who sues all the
16:54
time. You have every right to sue
16:55
someone. It's not really probitative. If
16:58
you can prove rule 405, which is that
17:01
the risk of unfair prejudice
17:03
substantially outweighs a probitative
17:05
effect, then it will not come into
17:07
evidence.
17:09
>> So, you're talking to him, but he comes
17:11
across as extremely unlikable.
17:14
>> Oh god. Oh my god. Do I have to take
17:16
that case? I mean, so you know, we've
17:19
been doing this I, you know, for 20 over
17:22
20 years, 23 years. What we have figured
17:25
out is probably one of the biggest
17:27
factors in how much people get paid on
17:30
their cases, which is the most important
17:32
thing for them, is how likable that they
17:35
are. Okay? And that is because when you
17:38
go into the courtroom, it's a popularity
17:40
contest. So if you go in there and no
17:43
one likes you and everyone likes the
17:45
other side, they're going to find
17:46
reasons to think that what you're saying
17:48
is untrue or wrong, it's extremely
17:50
important to be likable, okay, in the
17:54
courtroom. So if we're handling a case
17:57
and a person is being a jerk and you
18:00
know, and there's people that are like
18:02
that. They're real stressed out. They
18:04
have things going on with their life and
18:06
they like to take it out on everyone
18:08
else. Everybody does that. The problem
18:11
is is that what we're trying to do is
18:13
analyze your case. And so one of the
18:16
things that we analyze almost like a
18:18
robot is likability score. Okay? Like we
18:22
we have to do that. So if you're coming
18:24
in here and you're being super
18:26
unlikable, what it's going to do is it's
18:29
going to reduce the value of your case.
18:32
Now, we're we're professionals, so we
18:34
always explain this to people. I mean,
18:36
because I want every person to get the
18:38
most amount of money on their case. So,
18:41
we will coach people about this and it's
18:43
kind of a little bit, you know,
18:44
sometimes it's not the easiest
18:46
conversation, but people start to get
18:48
it. It's like, hey, look, forget about
18:50
what I think, you know, it's it's like
18:52
what we think a jury would think about
18:55
you, and we we've got to get you to be
18:58
the hero. We've got to get you to be the
19:00
most likable person so that you can get
19:03
the most amount of money possible. and
19:05
then they kind of start to see, okay,
19:07
I'm not going to get offended that this
19:08
guy doesn't like my personality or
19:11
whatever because that's not going to get
19:13
me anywhere.
19:14
>> So, listening to all these facts, would
19:16
you still take the case?
19:17
>> If if you added up all of those cases
19:20
together, I would say that I've taken
19:22
that case almost every single week of
19:23
the last 20 years, whenever it comes in.
19:25
I mean, you know, if you're a good
19:28
lawyer, then you should be able to, you
19:31
know, prove up your case. And then also
19:33
sometimes when you get a case with kind
19:36
of like bad facts, you have to remember
19:39
something, you're only seeing like part
19:41
of the case right now. You don't know
19:44
what's going to happen. Like you could
19:46
go cross-examine
19:48
the other side. Like you could have a
19:50
person you think is unlikable. They're a
19:52
criminal. They have a history of prior
19:56
crashes. And you're thinking, "Oh my
19:58
god, this is like how am I going to get
20:00
out of this?" And then you go
20:02
cross-examine the other driver. And if
20:05
you prepared properly, you could crush
20:08
them. You could get them to say all
20:10
kinds of things. You could figure out,
20:12
you know, if if if they're not telling
20:15
the truth and impeach them about things.
20:18
Sometimes what you do if you want to
20:21
score points on a person in
20:23
cross-examination, this is an opposing
20:25
side, is you may start off questioning
20:28
them and letting them Why just a little
20:31
bit here and there. I call it the
20:33
Columbbo where you kind of act like kind
20:35
of play a little bit kind of dumb, you
20:37
know, you just let them sort of like and
20:39
then you'll see that they they get more
20:41
confident and and they get kind of a
20:42
swagger. You know what I'm saying? And
20:44
then you get them to say the bigger
20:45
lies. And then what I like to do because
20:48
it's fun is I'll just go to like maximum
20:52
Columbbo to where they'll just like
20:54
really get like brazen about it and then
20:56
I'll take a break and then I'll come
20:59
back and it'll be a completely different
21:00
person. It's not Columbbo anymore. It's
21:02
you know an angry man. I'm like, "Well,
21:05
I'm pretty confused about something
21:07
because you and you just go through all
21:09
the lies they just said." And half the
21:12
time what happens is halfway through
21:15
that they'll look over at their lawyer
21:19
and they'll be like, "Fuck." You know
21:20
what I'm saying? They're think like,
21:21
"Shit." You know,
21:24
you know, that didn't work. You can take
21:25
a bad case and if you're a good lawyer,
21:28
you can, you know, somewhat turn it
21:30
around.
21:30
>> Here's another scenario. Your client
21:33
says his back injury has completely
21:35
changed his life. Then the insurance
21:37
company sends you surveillance footage
21:39
of him deadlifting 35
21:43
pounds.
21:44
>> It's always deadlifting or doing squats.
21:46
So, we actually just had a trial here in
21:49
Houston where we represented a lady who
21:52
was in a car wreck with a back injury,
21:54
but she was also at the time of the
21:57
crash. She was just a couple of weeks
21:58
out from a bodybuilding show. actually a
22:02
couple months. And so she ended up
22:05
continuing working out after the car
22:08
wreck even though she had a hurt back.
22:11
Okay. And so what happens, of course, is
22:13
she posts all kinds of things about her
22:15
workout, of course, because people have
22:17
to post everything, you know. So she
22:20
posts a video of her doing squats while
22:22
she's in a case claiming a back injury.
22:26
And then she actually gets like second
22:28
or third place in the bodybuilding
22:31
contest, which is a couple months after
22:33
this crash. So, you know, of course, the
22:37
insurance company doesn't want to pay
22:38
very much money on that. And so, we
22:41
ended up going to trial on it because
22:44
our client was very likable
22:47
and the other party was not likable. So
22:51
the insurance company, you know, they
22:53
don't ever take that into account, but
22:57
we went to trial and we won. And not
23:00
only did we win, but we got a verdict
23:02
for more than the amount of the
23:04
insurance policy. So the insurance
23:07
company now is going to be paying more
23:10
than the amount of their policy because
23:13
they are freaking stupid.
23:14
>> So someone can legitimately be injured
23:17
and still have a terrible looking video.
23:20
>> Yes, of course. people can be in now.
23:22
So, but you have to like set this up
23:25
properly. Okay? You you can't have a
23:27
case where a person has bad videos and
23:30
just try to rely upon personality 100%.
23:34
It starts when you're picking the jury.
23:36
Okay? You you have to ask some questions
23:39
about who here uses social media and you
23:44
ask questions about this. And you can
23:46
also ask about, you know, have you ever
23:48
been going through parts of your life
23:50
and you, you know, did video? And so,
23:52
but you can ask these things and you get
23:54
people to say, "Yeah, you know, I know
23:56
someone that did this." Now, you can't
23:57
talk about your specific case. You can't
24:00
say, "Now, I have a car wreck case where
24:02
my client has a back injury and they
24:04
posted." You can't say that, but you can
24:06
kind of get close. But what will happen
24:08
is someone will like raise their hand
24:11
and they will say facts that are
24:12
identical to your case. Well, actually,
24:15
my friend was in a car accident and
24:17
afterwards he was posting pictures on
24:19
and then the insurance company came and
24:21
looked at him and then they didn't want
24:22
to pay him anything and it was really
24:23
unfair because they were just trying to
24:24
take advantage of that and you're like,
24:27
you know, and that's what happened.
24:29
>> Let's make it a little bit worse. What
24:31
if under oath they testified, I haven't
24:34
been able to work out since the
24:35
accident? Well, if a person lies under
24:40
oath about a core issue in a case,
24:44
that's a pretty bad deal. We would
24:46
probably in in that case, if a person
24:48
flat out said, "I have not been able to
24:50
work out since the accident and the
24:54
insurance company has a video of them
24:57
working out after the accident." And
24:59
this is like, you know, unambiguous
25:02
working out, like at the gym with
25:04
weights. then you take whatever money
25:07
that they will offer you because you
25:09
know that's that's pretty hard to get
25:10
around.
25:11
>> Have you ever fired a client because you
25:13
caught them lying?
25:15
>> Over the years I have fired a couple of
25:18
clients because we caught them lying and
25:21
so you know and I don't want to say that
25:24
we don't fire clients because they lied
25:26
to us because you know but most of the
25:29
time we don't because it's like that's
25:31
part of our job. We understand people,
25:33
you know, humans propensity to
25:37
lie about things. Even when we warn
25:38
them, they'll they'll still do it. And
25:40
it's our job to fix it up. Just like a
25:42
doctor, you know, if if a patient was to
25:45
lie to their doctor, it's not like the
25:48
doctor would refuse to treat them. Okay?
25:51
But sometimes in cases
25:54
you have to drop the case when you
25:56
realize it's like a fraudulent case, you
25:59
know, like the crash didn't really
26:01
happen or turns out they weren't in the
26:03
car, you know, things like like you you
26:05
know that's absolutely not what we're
26:10
here for. So if if it's something like
26:11
that, we will drop them in a heartbeat.
26:13
>> Here's a different scenario. You've
26:15
prepared your client for hours. You told
26:18
him, "Listen carefully. Answer the
26:20
question, then stop talking. Opposing
26:23
council asks, "Were you looking at your
26:26
phone immediately before the crash?" And
26:28
your client answers, "No, I just
26:30
finished texting my wife. Would you take
26:33
that case?"
26:34
>> That's a case that's ongoing because
26:35
they asked a question. So, in that
26:38
situation, okay, so let me just, you
26:40
know, this kind of goes to like a
26:42
deposition. The person that is being
26:44
questioned, you only answer the question
26:46
that's being asked and go no further.
26:49
Anytime that you try to throw in extra
26:52
things to that you think are going to
26:53
help your case, almost every single
26:55
time, those are the things that hurt
26:58
your case. So, only answer the question
27:00
that's being asked. No further facts.
27:02
>> What is a deposition?
27:04
>> A deposition is a process where you get
27:08
testimony from a witness, but it's not
27:11
in the courtroom. Okay? So it's really
27:14
hard for witnesses to all converge in
27:17
the courtroom at the same time, you
27:19
know. So, and it's also very risky for
27:22
the parties to assume that some one's
27:25
going to show up. So, what we do is we
27:28
we protect ourselves by getting that
27:31
testimony outside of the courtroom under
27:33
oath and that's called a deposition.
27:37
>> So, there's no judge that's involved in
27:39
there. No, there's a court reporter who
27:41
is putting down everything that you say
27:43
into a transcript and that can then be
27:46
read back or played back in the
27:48
courtroom just like you were saying it
27:50
just then. So theoretically, an opposing
27:54
council could object, but because of the
27:57
way that the procedures are, usually you
27:59
have a hearing before trial where you go
28:03
through the transcripts and then they
28:05
have a chance to make their objections
28:08
so that you have a chance to edit your
28:10
video. Otherwise, they would be making
28:13
an objection in trial and then if they
28:16
win, then you can't play that part. Then
28:19
it would just be a mess. So there's no
28:21
judge involved in it, but there will be
28:23
a hearing where a judge is going to
28:25
review it before it's played in the
28:27
courtroom.
28:28
>> Do they still have to answer the
28:29
question?
28:30
>> Yes. So in a deposition,
28:33
witnesses must answer every question
28:36
unless they're instructed not to answer
28:39
by their counsel.
28:40
>> What's one of the questions that they
28:42
wouldn't have to answer? Like for
28:44
example, a question that's abusive,
28:47
harassing, or if it's a question that
28:50
might implicate them in a crime, they
28:52
could plead the fifth. Those kinds of
28:54
things, your attorney should like step
28:56
up and, you know, say, "Don't answer
28:57
that."
28:58
>> What's the worst deposition answer
29:00
you've ever heard?
29:01
>> What is the worst deposition answer I've
29:05
ever heard? When I was a very young
29:07
lawyer, maybe my first year, I had to go
29:12
take a deposition of a tugboat captain.
29:16
And it was this old man. I won't say his
29:18
name, but super old man,
29:21
grouchy, grouchy like guy. He He was
29:25
super pissed that he had to be there.
29:27
And I was brand new, you know, nervous.
29:31
And I asked him his name. I was like,
29:34
"You start the deposition and you say,
29:36
please state your name for the record."
29:39
And I said that and he was like, "I
29:42
don't even know what you're talking
29:43
about. What are you?" Because he didn't
29:45
know like for the record confused him.
29:48
And it confused me that he was confused
29:50
and it was just so awkward. And that's
29:53
how the entire deposition he couldn't
29:55
even get past saying his name.
29:58
>> It was pretty bad.
29:59
>> Can you fix a terrible deposition?
30:02
Can you fix a terrible deposition? The
30:04
way that you fix a terri I mean, okay,
30:06
so can you come back and like say I
30:08
answered that wrong. Technically, you
30:10
can after the deposition fill out a
30:12
sheet where you can change your
30:14
testimony, but it's only for if the
30:17
court reporter transcribed it
30:20
incorrectly, like they heard the word
30:22
wrong. And you'll be surprised sometimes
30:24
they will say like exactly the opposite
30:27
of what you said. Like you'll say
30:30
unresponsive and and they'll just hear
30:32
responsive or something like that. Yeah.
30:34
>> So you can make that kind of a change.
30:36
But I think what you're saying is if a
30:38
person did a really bad job on a
30:40
deposition, can you fix it afterwards?
30:43
And the answer is no. But the way that
30:45
you fix it is by going and killing the
30:47
other side in your own depositions. Like
30:50
your client just got killed. Now, what
30:51
you got to do is you got to put in your
30:53
time and effort and preparation on how
30:56
are you gonna go kill the crap out of a
30:58
bunch of their people so that they
31:00
aren't even thinking about your guy.
31:02
They're just worried about how badly all
31:04
of their guys did.
31:05
>> So, we're going to do a rapid fire.
31:08
>> Okay.
31:08
>> The client in the case.
31:10
>> Okay.
31:10
>> So, you have to answer immediately.
31:12
>> Immediately. Okay.
31:13
>> Great facts or great lawyer?
31:16
>> Great facts.
31:18
>> Great client or great witness? Great
31:20
client.
31:21
>> One amazing witness or five decent
31:24
witnesses.
31:24
>> One amazing witness.
31:26
>> Video or eyewitness?
31:28
>> Eyewitness.
31:29
>> Likable client or articulate client?
31:32
>> Likable client.
31:34
>> Nervous witness or overconfident
31:36
witness?
31:36
>> Nervous witness.
31:37
>> Harder to represent. A dishonest client
31:40
or an unlikable client?
31:42
>> Unlikable client.
31:43
>> Can a great lawyer win a bad case?
31:46
>> Yes.
31:46
>> Can a bad lawyer lose a great case? Yes,
31:51
>> that's it. [laughter]
31:52
>> Awesome. Okay, well, thanks for the
31:54
questions and that's a wrap. Thank you
31:56
for listening to the Brian White
31:58
podcast. And remember, if you're ever in
32:00
a car wreck and you are looking for the
32:02
best Houston personal injury lawyer,
32:04
call attorney Brian White.
32:05
>> Thanks for tuning in to the Brian White
32:07
podcast. [music]
32:08
Don't forget to like, share, and
32:10
subscribe, and hit that notification
32:12
button so you don't miss an
32:13
>> [music]