Latest / Coopers' Code / Ask an Adjuster: Self-Driving Cars and the Future of Claims, Jury Credibility & More

Transcript

Ask an Adjuster: Self-Driving Cars and the Future of Claims, Jury Credibility & More · Coopers' Code

• 0:00
  The biggest mistake people make, and I see it time and time
• 0:03
  again, because I think at the beginning of trial it's pretty
• 0:06
  even or even the plaintiff has an advantage because people feel
• 0:09
  bad that they're there and even though they don't know the
• 0:13
  defender of the plaintiff yet, they feel bad for what happened
• 0:16
  and they should. But what happens is people start
• 0:21
  getting caught in not telling the truth, and I've had so many
• 0:26
  defense verdicts in my career where that's happened.
• 0:30
  How do you and welcome to the show.
• 0:32
  Cooper's Code focuses on legal issues and notable
• 0:34
  practitioners, distilling wisdom so we all achieve the best
• 0:38
  results for our clients. I'm Miles Cooper and I'm very
• 0:41
  excited for this conversation with Peter Kirk.
• 0:43
  Peter is a career claims representative with decades of
• 0:46
  experience helping manage risk and assess the value of claims
• 0:49
  made. I feel like one of my main jobs
• 0:51
  is to make sure I have the right attorney based on the facts and
• 0:55
  the exposure of the case. So I would start getting to know
• 0:59
  people and then getting to know who I needed to use based on the
• 1:03
  case and the exposure. In terms of working with the
• 1:09
  assigned attorney and, and this may have changed over time
• 1:13
  between being in house or outhouse.
• 1:15
  So to help me if it's different, it sounds to me based on all of
• 1:21
  your reading of jury works weekly and keeping track of, of
• 1:24
  what experts and other things. How involved are you with, with
• 1:28
  the team in terms of identifying, say what action
• 1:31
  reconstructionist or what independent medical examiner
• 1:36
  the, the, the team that's being put together?
• 1:38
  Is that something that you're directing?
• 1:39
  Is that something that you're working with the attorney on?
• 1:41
  We work on it together and ultimately I need.
• 1:44
  I'm the one who decides who all the experts we're going to
• 1:48
  approve for a case are and who they are and which ones we
• 1:53
  approve. But it's based on, a lot of it
• 1:56
  is based on the recommendations of the attorneys that I work
• 1:59
  with. But I'm the one who decides what
• 2:02
  experts we have. I'm the one who decides case
• 2:04
  value. They provide recommendations.
• 2:07
  If you're going into mediation, how long before a mediation do
• 2:11
  you want information that say the mediation brief to be able
• 2:14
  to properly assess? The earlier the better because
• 2:17
  it gives me time to go through it and be ready for mediation
• 2:20
  going on to the subject mediation in, in, in this whole
• 2:22
  thing. I, I actually there's a, a
• 2:27
  mediator up in the Sonoma County.
• 2:29
  He just recently retired at 90. He mediated a case last year at
• 2:34
  90 before he retired. His name is Fred Hirschfield.
• 2:37
  Oh yeah, yeah. And Fred is a plaintiff.
• 2:39
  He was a plaintiff attorney he his whole career, but he was my
• 2:42
  favorite, one of my all time favorite mediators because he
• 2:46
  always insisted that we would have a, a joint session with
• 2:49
  the, with the plaintiff and he would ask a few questions to the
• 2:53
  plaintiff. And if it was OK with the
• 2:55
  attorney, if I had any questions to ask, let me ask questions,
• 2:59
  not like a deposition, but just some basic thing.
• 3:01
  And I, I, I would get to know them.
• 3:03
  I think one of the worst things that could happen in mediation
• 3:06
  is letting both the plaintiff and the defence attorney to open
• 3:08
  your statements, because all it does is get both sides further
• 3:11
  apart. And, and, and, and it's just,
• 3:13
  it's not effective in my opinion.
• 3:15
  And then the other thing that Fred was brilliant at was he had
• 3:17
  an opinion about what cases are worth, just like I do when
• 3:20
  everyone else does. He wasn't just going back and
• 3:22
  forth with offers and demands with no opinion.
• 3:25
  He's not. We know it's not a binding
• 3:26
  arbitration, but the whole idea of the mediation is making both
• 3:29
  sides feel uncomfortable and coming up to a number when they
• 3:32
  leave that you know it's not their perfect number.
• 3:34
  But the case is settled, and it's probably better for both
• 3:36
  sides. I had a big smile on my face
• 3:39
  when you're talking about the, the opening statements because
• 3:42
  I've, I, I went through the era of people coming into a joint
• 3:47
  session and, and they're being big presentations sometimes
• 3:52
  during some of these sessions. And that would be the morning,
• 3:56
  and a good portion of the rest of the day would be the meteor
• 3:59
  trying to bring the temperature back down because everyone got
• 4:02
  inflamed. It doesn't work, Yeah, but
• 4:04
  what's even worse now, I mean that's bad, but you know, the
• 4:08
  whole mediation world has changed.
• 4:10
  Its COVID. I would say that because of of
• 4:13
  Zoom, 90% of the cases are now done via Zoom and not in person,
• 4:18
  which I think is a shame. I do believe it's nice on a
• 4:22
  Friday afternoon if I'm having a mediation Oakland, not having to
• 4:25
  drive 2 hours home, which is very nice, not have to do.
• 4:28
  But so many of these cases, and I just had one about three
• 4:32
  months ago, we had a mediation scheduled and they didn't bring
• 4:35
  their client. The main attorney assigned to
• 4:38
  the case wasn't there. And I'm like, this is just
• 4:42
  horrible. I mean, it's a waste of my time.
• 4:45
  It's a waste of money for the, what we had to pay for the
• 4:47
  mediation. So I believe that it's very
• 4:51
  helpful to have the person there so we can meet him even online
• 4:54
  and to have the information to us as early as possible.
• 4:59
  And, and one of the thought on that is that it's not our only
• 5:02
  case. You know, his right now.
• 5:05
  Typically I have sometimes 6 demands pending at once.
• 5:09
  And it's strictly, it's a lot of stress and, and I exercise a lot
• 5:14
  to keep the stress so from going down.
• 5:17
  But the early we can get the information, I can take the time
• 5:19
  to really be prepared at mediation and to speak
• 5:22
  intelligently and, and hopefully have a good result.
• 5:26
  I mean, it's been my, my personal belief, I've mediated
• 5:29
  over 1500 cases in my career. That for me, 90% of the cases
• 5:36
  settle at mediation, that I, that I mediate and one of my
• 5:40
  rules at mediation, I've always stood by and I think it's, it's
• 5:43
  helpful because I've tried so many cases is that I always tell
• 5:48
  the mediator when this is my final offer.
• 5:51
  I don't ever change. I, I think one of the worst
• 5:54
  things people can do is either to the mediator, to the other
• 5:56
  side, say this is our final offer and then come back with
• 5:59
  another one. So that's just my home basic way
• 6:03
  I go about doing things. And one, one other kind of fun
• 6:07
  fact about that is that I met my wife through work, and she was
• 6:13
  working at jams at the time. This was a long time ago.
• 6:16
  And at the time she had sold this program where the claims
• 6:23
  reps in the different offices would go to two days of treaty
• 6:25
  mediation with the Pepperdine professors.
• 6:28
  Yeah. And then they would agree to go
• 6:32
  to have seven of their cases go to mediation.
• 6:35
  And at that time, there was all these rock stars at jams like
• 6:39
  Bettinelli and Coley Fannin and Judge Weinstein.
• 6:42
  And so I, I've had that in my, my wife went on to a a career in
• 6:48
  mostly recruiting. She left that area.
• 6:51
  But it's kind of been fun for me to have someone in my household
• 6:55
  who knows about cases. And it's actually gives me a bad
• 6:58
  time if she thinks I'm being too conservative.
• 7:00
  But that's that's me. It's funny, it is refreshing to
• 7:03
  hear your interest in in person mediation.
• 7:06
  That is something that we are are doing more of post COVID and
• 7:13
  sometimes we're the only ones there.
• 7:16
  What I mean by that is we'll show up with our client and be
• 7:20
  at an office, JAMS, ADR services, what have you.
• 7:23
  Meteor will be there, but the defense sometimes chooses not to
• 7:26
  be there. That's too bad, but I think
• 7:28
  people are getting so comfortable not doing anything
• 7:32
  that we're moving away from the more effective way to do it,
• 7:35
  which is in person. But again, everybody has their
• 7:38
  own opinion. There's a lot of people that
• 7:40
  don't want to be bothered with driving and there's a lot of
• 7:43
  people who will say, well, our claims reps are out of state and
• 7:46
  they can't do it and it's not possible.
• 7:48
  But I'm here, so that's why. And I always have been here and
• 7:51
  I've always been willing to go if if if possible, because I
• 7:55
  think it's more effective. Well, the other piece that I, I
• 7:57
  found fascinating is we always prepare our clients for the
• 8:02
  possibility that the adjuster might want to meet them, whether
• 8:05
  we're in person or whether we're on Zoom.
• 8:07
  And and, and typically it's that same kind of format of, of what
• 8:10
  I would describe as softball or, or how you doing the questions,
• 8:13
  not, not hard hitting the stuff. Correct.
• 8:15
  Just to get to know them a little bit.
• 8:16
  And so they're always not prepared like they have a canned
• 8:20
  speech, but prepared like this might happen.
• 8:22
  Don't be nervous, it'll be fine. The the media will control it.
• 8:26
  And I am surprised when we make that offer at how many adjusters
• 8:30
  say, no, no, I've read the depo or no, I'm not interested.
• 8:34
  And and so it's refreshing to hear that you that you are
• 8:37
  interested when that Oh my. Answer is always yes.
• 8:39
  First of all, it's, it may help them settle their case.
• 8:42
  If I really like them, I may be inclined to offer more money if
• 8:46
  they make a really good witness. Plus it just gives me a better
• 8:48
  connection and, and, and it just, it helps me and I, I think
• 8:51
  it helps them as well. And, and it's worked really
• 8:54
  well. Like I said, Fred was the one
• 8:57
  Fred Hirschfield who constantly did this and I, I just thought
• 9:00
  it was so effective. One other piece that we haven't
• 9:04
  touched on is whether you end up in the situations where whether
• 9:10
  it's multi defendant or multi layer, so farmers being the
• 9:14
  primary and they're being umbrella or excess, are there
• 9:16
  situations where you have to work with other adjusters in
• 9:21
  assessing value? Very rarely because we're not
• 9:24
  like into the. There's so much like complex
• 9:27
  litigation out there with different levels of coverage.
• 9:30
  You know, we're, if we have coverage, it's usually just the
• 9:33
  auto or homeowners, which I handle and then the umbrella and
• 9:36
  I'll handle both. OK.
• 9:37
  So it doesn't happen very often. There could be once in a while a
• 9:40
  situation where they may have an umbrella with another carrier,
• 9:44
  but I've never had a case go to trial where that was the case
• 9:47
  where I had another person involved with me like that.
• 9:49
  It was just that we had multiple defendants because of Prop 51.
• 9:53
  Understood. Yeah, part of the the the lead
• 9:55
  in for that question was whether you need more lead time if
• 9:59
  you're dealing with a different, different companies umbrella or
• 10:02
  access in terms of being able to to work with the other, other
• 10:05
  claims. It does happen, but not that
• 10:07
  often. OK.
• 10:09
  Anything else you think we should cover on the mediation
• 10:10
  side in terms of things that you like to have or, or or or trends
• 10:15
  that you've seen from early days to to now in terms of mediation?
• 10:19
  I think that there's all sorts of different things that can
• 10:22
  happen, like for example brackets.
• 10:24
  Some people really like brackets.
• 10:27
  I'm actually a fan of something that has become more common,
• 10:30
  which is the mediator's proposal.
• 10:33
  And I'm not naive to think that that's what the meteor thinks
• 10:35
  the case is worth. The most mediators think that
• 10:38
  you like to think that they they're listening to you and
• 10:40
  they understand why you think this is.
• 10:41
  But you have to be smart enough to know that there's two sides
• 10:44
  to every case. You can't just think
• 10:46
  everything's going to go your way, especially it whether it's
• 10:49
  in mediation or trial. You have to be prepared for what
• 10:52
  the other side could have. So I like mediators proposals
• 10:55
  because obviously we haven't settled the case, but it gives
• 10:58
  us both sides maybe 3 or 4 days. It depend on whatever the meter
• 11:02
  decides to either accept or reject a proposal.
• 11:05
  If you reject it, there's no harm.
• 11:07
  If you both accept it, you settled the case.
• 11:09
  Ultimately, my goal is to settle as many cases as I can, as
• 11:12
  quickly as I can. I think there and, and, and
• 11:15
  again, this is an opportunity to test some some myths, whether
• 11:18
  they're a myth or fact. I think that there is sometimes
• 11:21
  a perception on the plaintiff's side that a meteor's proposal
• 11:24
  number, which would have become much more common over the past
• 11:28
  five years. It seems that it helps provide
• 11:33
  the adjuster some additional cover, so to speak, when they're
• 11:38
  going back to the company to say, well, the mediators thinks
• 11:41
  that this is an appropriate number to resolve the case.
• 11:43
  Is it is is that of any assistance to you?
• 11:46
  I, I think that it can't hurt because it's, again, you've
• 11:49
  tried to settle within your case and the proposal is, is where it
• 11:52
  is. And you can think about it if
• 11:53
  it, if you need to review it with someone else, you can and
• 11:56
  then make that decision. So it can't hurt at all.
• 11:58
  And it is a situation where we are, we don't see it this way,
• 12:01
  but this person does. Maybe we should consider doing
• 12:04
  this even though that was more than we, we thought we wanted to
• 12:07
  spend, but it will settle the case.
• 12:09
  That's why I think the Meteor's proposal is, is effective.
• 12:13
  I mean, I, I see when we do meteor, when I do Meteor's
• 12:16
  proposals, I would say 4 out of five cases with Meteor proposals
• 12:20
  resolved. And I, I think that's pretty
• 12:22
  good. I agree with you.
• 12:24
  The the one area where I have had a challenge with Meteor's
• 12:28
  proposals and we're trying to turn this into a question is
• 12:33
  once a mediator gives a Meteor's proposal, if it doesn't get it
• 12:37
  done, I've found those cases can be more challenging to get back
• 12:42
  on track towards resolution and I don't know if you had the same
• 12:45
  experience. Yes, I have, but they're rare,
• 12:49
  so I don't worry about it too much.
• 12:50
  I still think going through the process of you can settle 4 out
• 12:53
  of five. Remember my feeling is you can
• 12:55
  settle 9 out of 10 cases of mediation, then that's a pretty
• 13:01
  good percentage. And if you, if it takes 4 out of
• 13:04
  five, and this is just my own in an exact science of numbers,
• 13:08
  yeah, then it's, it's worth that risk.
• 13:11
  I I did have one recently that didn't settle at a meteor's
• 13:13
  proposal and it did go off track for about 6 months, but
• 13:17
  eventually the case settled. So it just depends.
• 13:22
  But overall, I think it's worth the effort.
• 13:24
  I've had two cases where almost exactly what you described
• 13:27
  happened where it was off track for about 6-6 months or so.
• 13:30
  We eventually got there, but it, it took more effort and, and one
• 13:36
  of them required an MSC in order to, to get past the, the
• 13:40
  impasse, I guess. So you've talked about seeing
• 13:43
  your cases through trial. I'd love to hear when when you
• 13:49
  recognize that it's not going to get done.
• 13:52
  What shifts for you as far as your handling of the client?
• 13:56
  The thing that really shifts is just making sure that we have
• 14:01
  all the information so that you know, if it, if I need to get
• 14:05
  authority from from above me, which I do on any case, that I
• 14:08
  have all the information to review it.
• 14:10
  But more importantly that we have all the proper experts
• 14:16
  ready to go to trial. That is not easy.
• 14:20
  And then you go through all the expert testimony and that could
• 14:23
  change. That's a frantic time when it
• 14:26
  could change for both sides how the case is going.
• 14:30
  As you're going through that process, how are you being kept
• 14:34
  up to date on the Are you getting daily reports, emails of
• 14:39
  transcripts, or summaries of transcripts?
• 14:41
  What involvement are you having from the attorney to make sure
• 14:44
  that you stay current on the case?
• 14:46
  It's not like set across the way.
• 14:48
  Everyone has their different personalities.
• 14:51
  I've been lucky in that in the last 20 years that I've been now
• 14:56
  handling Northern California and all of California.
• 14:59
  But in Northern California, we have certain attorneys who
• 15:03
  handled the higher exposure cases and I've had developed 20
• 15:07
  year relationships with them. There's one who just retired,
• 15:11
  John Horahan, who I work with for 38 years, who was just, in
• 15:14
  my opinion, just a brilliant trial attorney.
• 15:18
  And so they're really busy, but they try and it depending on the
• 15:23
  case, of course, I, I usually get resume summaries of the
• 15:26
  expert depositions and on, on how all that is going.
• 15:30
  And that's one of the reasons why I always try to go to all my
• 15:34
  trials in person. I don't want the attorney to
• 15:37
  have to spend the time to tell me what's going on in trial
• 15:39
  because they're under a tremendous amount of stress.
• 15:43
  I remember and I can't, I have so much respect for trial
• 15:46
  attorneys. There's a lot of pressure.
• 15:50
  It takes a special person on both sides to go to trial.
• 15:53
  And I remember when I would compete and track, getting that
• 15:56
  feeling in your stomach before big meets and, and, and you're
• 15:59
  so nervous and after the race you go, oh, I don't know why I
• 16:01
  was so nervous, but it's that adrenaline.
• 16:03
  And I, I would imagine it's the same thing for the attorneys.
• 16:06
  And I have so much respect for them, but they're under so much
• 16:09
  pressure and they have so little time because they're preparing.
• 16:13
  A lot of them tell me that when they focus on one case, they
• 16:16
  really like it, especially once they get to trial because
• 16:18
  they're not juggling everything else going on in with all the
• 16:20
  other cases. But I also for that reason,
• 16:23
  don't ask them to provide me reports during trial.
• 16:26
  I, I don't think it's fair to ask them to provide me reports
• 16:29
  when they're thinking about their cross examination for the
• 16:32
  next morning, calling the doctor to make sure they're there to
• 16:34
  testify, all the different things they have to do.
• 16:38
  I like to be there in person and also I like to be there because
• 16:42
  I can see how our experts do on cross, I can see how the
• 16:48
  plaintiff does on direct and cross, I, I can see how talented
• 16:52
  our attorneys are. So I, I, I have confidence in
• 16:55
  what they're doing. And sometimes things happen in
• 16:59
  trial on top of that. Like I remember one time up in
• 17:01
  Sonoma County, one of my Co workers asked me to go to a
• 17:04
  trial for a day and it was a traumatic brain injury today.
• 17:06
  And I knew the attorney on the other side and he was very
• 17:08
  talented, but it was a bad day for him and his doctor did not
• 17:13
  testify. Well, his plaintiff did really
• 17:14
  bad on cross and he called me that night and lowered his
• 17:18
  demand by $500,000. So things happened in trial and
• 17:24
  I think it's important to be there to see what's going on.
• 17:28
  You've said that you you go and you watch your trials.
• 17:32
  Are you able? Are you there all day, every day
• 17:35
  when the case is is in trial? I am.
• 17:37
  I very rarely go to jury selection and I very rarely stay
• 17:43
  for when they deliberate. I had a case up in Sonoma
• 17:48
  County. It was a trip and fall in front
• 17:52
  of our insurance house in on in the town of Sonoma and it was
• 17:55
  flagstone walkway and someone tripped and had a really bad leg
• 18:00
  injury And our insured felt like she didn't do anything wrong,
• 18:05
  but she was elderly and worried. And we we went to trial and I
• 18:09
  didn't think we did anything wrong either.
• 18:11
  And it I waited with her during while the jury deliberated
• 18:15
  because she was, she was a little nervous and that ended up
• 18:19
  in a, in a defense verdict. That is, I would say above and
• 18:23
  beyond in terms of standing up for your insured.
• 18:26
  I really liked her and I thought it was the least I could do
• 18:28
  because she was, she was nervous and worried.
• 18:31
  And I talked to her. I always talked to all of our
• 18:33
  clients about trial and about why we're going to trial when
• 18:37
  we're going to trial, giving them the reason.
• 18:39
  And I want their buying and understanding and and.
• 18:42
  And in this case, I felt like that's what I needed to do.
• 18:45
  On the resolution during trial side, you talked about the
• 18:49
  lawyer who reached out to you after the lawyer had had a bad
• 18:53
  day and lowered the demand. Do you engage in direct, you
• 18:57
  know, person to person in the courtroom?
• 18:59
  Do you prefer to go through the a mediator?
• 19:01
  How do you like to engage during a case?
• 19:05
  So in that particular case, it wasn't my case, OK.
• 19:08
  And he knows me. We've had a long working
• 19:11
  relationship. He just called me and then I
• 19:12
  related to the person who was handling the case and then they
• 19:15
  they reached out to him the next day and they were able to reach
• 19:18
  an agreement and the case settled.
• 19:20
  When I'm at trial, I never talked to our attorney.
• 19:23
  I try and go in right after the jury goes in and I just sit in
• 19:26
  the back row. I mean, they probably wonder who
• 19:28
  I am, but I will talk to anybody.
• 19:31
  I won't talk to anybody till I leave and then maybe I'll call
• 19:35
  someone like our attorney if I have opinions about what I
• 19:38
  thought went right or wrong or, or things decisions that we have
• 19:43
  to do. One time I went to watch a trial
• 19:46
  and I did have to say something because there was a woman in the
• 19:50
  jury who I knew her. I saw her outside courtroom.
• 19:54
  I didn't talk to her, but I immediately told our attorney to
• 19:56
  tell the judge in the plaintiff attorney because I didn't want
• 19:59
  anybody to think there was any type of conflict there.
• 20:01
  And I did that. You know they needed to.
• 20:04
  To know that. Understood, but that's.
• 20:05
  The only time I ever talked, and that happened to me a couple
• 20:07
  times. Well, I'll do that, but
• 20:09
  otherwise I don't talk to anybody there.
• 20:10
  I'm kind of superstitious. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.
• 20:14
  Having sat through so many trials, do you have any
• 20:19
  observations on why experts are good experts or why certain
• 20:24
  lawyers are good lawyers? And any observations that you've
• 20:27
  gathered along the way? Yeah.
• 20:29
  So like my feeling is like at the beginning of a jury trial,
• 20:33
  like during jury selection, the jurors don't want to be there.
• 20:39
  Most most of them want to get out of it.
• 20:41
  And I think the really good plaintiff attorneys are the ones
• 20:44
  that get the juries angry by telling them they want a large
• 20:48
  verdict or something. So the ones that are going to be
• 20:50
  the most probably defense oriented, they don't.
• 20:53
  They're talking about how this is crazy that people are asking
• 20:56
  for millions of dollars or this or that.
• 20:58
  They're very vocal, but what it does is it kicks them all off
• 21:01
  the jury. So I've seen that and I think
• 21:05
  it's kind of a brilliant way to get out with having to take your
• 21:08
  challenges. You just get them out for cause.
• 21:10
  The other thing I would say is that a really good expert on
• 21:15
  either side or doctor treating doctor anything.
• 21:18
  They're really good when they're given the questions about their
• 21:23
  background, their education, all that stuff, and they're on
• 21:29
  direct, but what happens when they get across?
• 21:32
  And so I would say that I have three things I look for and a
• 21:37
  really good expert. One is their educational
• 21:40
  background. One if like for example, if it's
• 21:43
  a doctor, I want someone who is still working full time and not
• 21:47
  just being a professional expert.
• 21:49
  There's a lot of experts out there that that's all they do is
• 21:53
  it seems like they testify and they're they're they're not
• 21:56
  actually doing the job that they have.
• 22:00
  So I think that's really important.
• 22:02
  And then the third thing is how are they going to hold up on
• 22:05
  cross? And I'll give you a couple
• 22:07
  examples I had. There is a doctor up in the
• 22:11
  Marine area that I used named Doctor Schechter.
• 22:16
  And he was kind of a well known orthopedic surgeon.
• 22:19
  He practiced for 41 years and he was in several trials that I
• 22:24
  had. And he was really undergraduate
• 22:30
  and medical school from Stanford practicing all the time.
• 22:33
  But what really made him an amazing expert was he never got
• 22:37
  broke on cross. But you know, the questions that
• 22:40
  always come about, are you getting paid to be here?
• 22:43
  You know, and they come on on every trial, right?
• 22:47
  He was so great to say. Well, I certainly hope so
• 22:49
  because I can't see any patients right now.
• 22:51
  I he just, he just could not be broken on a cross.
• 22:54
  He was just just an incredible witness at trial for those three
• 22:59
  reasons. And I just went to a trial in
• 23:03
  Marin in, in an auto versus bicycle TBI case for three weeks
• 23:08
  last summer. And there's an expert there that
• 23:11
  I have a lot of respect for who's an accident reconstruction
• 23:14
  expert. He's in the Bay Area.
• 23:15
  And Doctor Rajiv Kelkar inside tech and Doctor Kelkar and his
• 23:20
  firm are used by a lot of the really good plaintiff firms and
• 23:25
  they're used by defense firms. And I really like him.
• 23:27
  And it's not, I like him because he tells me what I want to hear.
• 23:31
  I like him because he tells me what he believes based on all of
• 23:34
  his education and experience and doing his analysis of the scene
• 23:37
  and doing everything he does. The biggest mistake you can do
• 23:41
  going into trial, in my opinion, is to just see it your way.
• 23:45
  You have to have that analysis of what is the other side's
• 23:48
  strong points, how they going to attack you.
• 23:52
  I know there was a case up in Sonoma County that I wasn't part
• 23:56
  of, but I believe you work with her, Cynthia Mcguinn and I, I
• 24:00
  heard she went up there and got a, she's a great attorney.
• 24:04
  And it, it's my experience that the number one thing you can't
• 24:06
  ever rule out is if you have a great trial attorney on the
• 24:09
  other side, you better give them a lot of a lot of respect and
• 24:14
  make sure before you go to trial against them.
• 24:16
  The Roger Dreyer's, the Bill Veans, the Cynthia Mcguinn's I'm
• 24:19
  I can go on and on with so many great trial attorneys out there
• 24:23
  and you better fact that it into your equation because they just
• 24:27
  keep going out and getting great verdicts.
• 24:28
  It's not a coincidence. And you know, there's another
• 24:30
  one lawyer up in our area, Scott Montgomery.
• 24:34
  And you know, he had a verdict over 40 million and he had a
• 24:37
  verdict over 20 million. They were both, I think, child
• 24:40
  sex abuse cases, but he's only 39.
• 24:42
  And about a month ago, he had put on LinkedIn that he had
• 24:45
  closing arguments in an auto versus auto DUI case.
• 24:49
  And I just decided to go. And what was fascinated about
• 24:54
  that case for me was that he had had his client and through
• 24:58
  social media have all these people show up.
• 25:01
  I've never seen that in all the trials I've had in my life.
• 25:03
  There must have been at least 30 people there for him.
• 25:06
  Department 16 in Sonoma is, is a small outside area.
• 25:11
  It's not like Marin where the jury goes into their own room.
• 25:13
  So on the, I noticed this during the break, all the jurors were
• 25:17
  out with all these people and that they knew why they were all
• 25:19
  there. I mean, I think that was pretty
• 25:21
  powerful. And then the other thing I would
• 25:23
  say the biggest mistake people make, and I see it time and time
• 25:27
  again, because I think at the beginning of trial, it's pretty
• 25:30
  even or even the plaintiff has an advantage because people feel
• 25:33
  bad that they're there. And even though they don't know
• 25:37
  the defender of the plaintiff yet, they feel bad for what
• 25:39
  happened and they should. But what happens is people start
• 25:45
  getting caught and not telling the truth.
• 25:49
  And I've had so many defense verdicts in my career where
• 25:52
  that's happened. And I had a case in Marin with
• 25:55
  an alleged back surgery case and the Doctor Who testified for the
• 26:03
  plaintiff is someone who's really well known to me, but the
• 26:06
  jury doesn't know that he, he made a did a fantastic job on
• 26:10
  his direct. And I'm like going, what's going
• 26:15
  to happen here? But I kind of knew what was
• 26:17
  going to happen. I, I knew what we had to do and
• 26:19
  our defense attorney knew what we had to do.
• 26:21
  And on, on cross, like a lot of things people come across fall
• 26:25
  apart on cross. They just do time and time
• 26:27
  again, they, they start arguing, they get defensive.
• 26:31
  And in this case, he was asked questions about the prior
• 26:34
  records and he admitted that he didn't review any prior records.
• 26:41
  And then when his client went on the stand, she had lied that she
• 26:46
  had no prior treatment. And that was devastating that we
• 26:50
  got a defense verdict and, and, and there was a significant
• 26:53
  offer made on that, on that case.
• 26:54
  And I've, I've had significant offers on a lot of cases that
• 26:56
  have turned out with defense verdicts.
• 26:58
  And it usually comes down to people are not prepared to make
• 27:02
  sure that their clients are telling the truth and they have,
• 27:04
  they've been truthful about all the prior treatment.
• 27:07
  I would say that's the most common theme I could give to
• 27:09
  someone. So, and, and, and this I think
• 27:13
  dovetails nicely with one of the things you said very early on in
• 27:16
  this is you want to see the prior medical records so that
• 27:19
  you can get a sense as to whether there was something that
• 27:22
  existed before this incident. Absolutely.
• 27:25
  And that's something that the plaintiff's lawyer should
• 27:27
  absolutely know so that there's nothing that comes back to bite
• 27:30
  them. I think that's the biggest
• 27:32
  mistake I could say I've seen people make.
• 27:33
  And I when you get a jury who's kind of favoring them at the
• 27:38
  beginning of the case starting not to favor them because of of
• 27:44
  what happened, that that's very powerful.
• 27:46
  And it usually ends in a good result from for me.
• 27:50
  It's funny, I, I will say that as a plaintiff's lawyer, what we
• 27:55
  are taught and, and how I feel is that I come in with the least
• 27:59
  amount of credibility of anyone in the room.
• 28:01
  And I have to earn it. Because people are so used to
• 28:05
  the idea of there being billboard lawyers and sleazy
• 28:07
  lawyers and, and trying to get money lawyers that it takes me a
• 28:12
  good, you know, several days of being honest and forthright and
• 28:16
  making sure I don't make any mistakes to establish
• 28:19
  credibility. Our side has the least power in
• 28:21
  the room. I don't think that's necessarily
• 28:24
  the case. They definitely have sympathy
• 28:26
  for the plaintiff. The people who are the most
• 28:28
  vocal are the ones I think get kicked off the jury before they
• 28:30
  even get get sit, sit, sit down. Yeah.
• 28:33
  And like I have to say this, when Scott Montgomery did his
• 28:36
  closing arguments and I had met Scott one time like 15 years
• 28:40
  earlier, there was a credible trial attorney's office named
• 28:43
  Pat Emery. And Pat had AUM case and wanted
• 28:46
  me to beat his clients before he asked for arbitration to see if
• 28:49
  we could resolve the case. And I met Scott at a meeting at
• 28:53
  their office. But Scott did such a powerful
• 28:56
  job in front of the jury. First of all, he did a great job
• 28:58
  of mixing having the media up on the screen and then remembering
• 29:03
  everything. So he wasn't relying on that.
• 29:04
  Because sometimes I see plaintiff attorneys and do such
• 29:08
  a great job on their closing, but then when they have the
• 29:10
  rebuttal, they're not. It's not all on a computer for
• 29:12
  them to look at and they fall apart.
• 29:14
  What Scott did, because I always wondered how does someone get a
• 29:17
  $25 million verdict for general debt?
• 29:19
  There's a $31 million verdict. They agreed on 700,000 in past
• 29:23
  medical and 4 million in future before the jury did not have to
• 29:26
  decide that. And he did such an incredible
• 29:29
  job of telling the jury my client has lost the last three
• 29:34
  years of her life because this horrible injury.
• 29:37
  It did not have to happen if this person didn't leave the
• 29:39
  room and they weren't under the influence of drugs.
• 29:42
  This is 3 years. But even at this point after
• 29:44
  they were in a wheelchair and then a cane was like they are
• 29:48
  now. This is their maximum
• 29:50
  improvement and they're going to steadily decline for the next 20
• 29:53
  years. And you cannot, when you're on
• 29:56
  the jury, factor in if they person has the financial means
• 30:00
  to pay this, you can't factor in it.
• 30:02
  They have insurance. You have to figure out on the
• 30:04
  jury what they deserve for what they've been through.
• 30:08
  And then he gave instead of like a dollar amount per day, which
• 30:11
  I've seen a lot. I've seen pictures of the Mona
• 30:13
  Lisa. I've seen so many things in my
• 30:15
  career. He did a very powerful job of,
• 30:18
  of showing the jury or telling the jury based on just millions
• 30:22
  of dollars based on what they went through for this amount of
• 30:24
  time. And then $1,000,000 going
• 30:27
  forward to the last few years of life where it's going to get
• 30:29
  really bad again. And so that was really powerful
• 30:32
  for me to watch because there's a lot of really good attorneys
• 30:36
  out there, a lot of young attorneys who are, who are
• 30:38
  trying cases now and like the next generation has come.
• 30:42
  And they're really good and they, they do a great job of, of
• 30:46
  using technology. And you know, another thing that
• 30:52
  I've actually become kind of fascinated with what you've had
• 30:54
  on your podcast is the whole discussion about whether you
• 30:57
  have a jury consultant, which Scott uses on all his and swears
• 31:00
  by whether you have mock trials. All this stuff is very
• 31:04
  interesting in me and and I think technology is playing a a,
• 31:07
  a factor in how things go in trial moving forward.
• 31:10
  That is one question I did not ask you, and that is whether on
• 31:13
  some of your big exposure cases, whether your team ever uses
• 31:18
  focus groups or mock trials to help try and assess value, when,
• 31:22
  when, after you you've realized you're not going to get it
• 31:25
  resolved. I'm not saying this in a cocky
• 31:27
  way, but in my own way, I kind of feel like I have a feeling of
• 31:30
  what the case is and I don't do that.
• 31:33
  Plus, trust me, I've had several cases I had where the Co
• 31:35
  defendant got hit for over $10 million.
• 31:38
  So it's not like I don't handle those.
• 31:39
  But for the most part, we have had cases with jury consultants
• 31:44
  in my trials. I have it personally, it's not
• 31:47
  that common for, I mean, I, I can't speak for everyone else,
• 31:51
  but I personally have not. But I think it's I, I, based on
• 31:55
  what's happening right now, you have to say that.
• 31:57
  You have to give it some serious consideration.
• 31:59
  And the other good kind of hot topic of of of the day is, is AI
• 32:03
  and whether you're finding tools on your side on the analysis of
• 32:09
  claims, are you using any sort of AI tools to help help you in
• 32:12
  that process? So AI is just starting and I'm a
• 32:16
  dinosaur. I'm old and I'm not good with
• 32:18
  technology. I don't embrace technology very
• 32:20
  good. But I'll, I'll say this, I'm not
• 32:23
  using it and we're not using AI to review medical records or
• 32:25
  anything like that. We're doing it ourselves, OK?
• 32:28
  And I'm doing it myself. Where AI probably will help me a
• 32:31
  lot more would be with letter writing.
• 32:33
  And I need a lot of help in that area.
• 32:36
  So I think that would be something that I definitely
• 32:38
  should try and embrace as I go on it.
• 32:40
  It just takes me a little bit of time to change.
• 32:43
  Yeah, that makes sense. And also, I think that corporate
• 32:47
  structures and the decisions in adopting technology are much
• 32:51
  different than, say, you know, a smaller law firm where, you
• 32:54
  know, fewer people are making that decision.
• 32:56
  Right. But I think AI is definitely
• 32:58
  going to have a factor. And also think about one other
• 33:01
  thing, Miles, which I think is quite interesting.
• 33:03
  This whole thing with Waymo karzing, I don't want to get a
• 33:06
  long discussion at this, but I'll say this.
• 33:08
  I don't think there's been a DUI killing in a Waymo car because
• 33:13
  they don't drink, right? That's kind of I mean, but what
• 33:16
  I meant by that is I think that even though there's controversy,
• 33:19
  as time goes on, there's probably going to be less
• 33:21
  accidents. If, if we ever get to a point
• 33:22
  where people can have their own way MO car is what I'm saying,
• 33:25
  because there's just not as many accidents.
• 33:28
  But that's a whole AI and self driving cars are are going to
• 33:32
  are going to have an effect on the future I believe.
• 33:35
  And hopefully a +1 from their perspective of of there being
• 33:38
  less injuries. I agree.
• 33:39
  That's what I think it's going to happen.
• 33:40
  I think it's already happening with the taxis.
• 33:43
  Well, Peter, I've enjoyed what we've covered thus far as
• 33:47
  anything else that you think that we should touch on in terms
• 33:50
  of might be something that might be useful for our listeners.
• 33:53
  No, it's been just an honor to be here today.
• 33:56
  I've really enjoyed our conversation.
• 33:58
  Likewise and and it's I, I think it's really unique perspective
• 34:02
  and I appreciate you taking the time to, to come in and talk
• 34:04
  with us. Thank you.
• 34:05
  Thank you. Pierre.
• 34:06
  Yeah. And thank you for listening
• 34:08
  today. Please e-mail us at podcast at
• 34:09
  Coopers dot law with questions, comments, feedback and
• 34:12
  suggestions for who you should have on the show.
• 34:15
  Like what you heard? Show us with a colleague and
• 34:17
  leave us a five star review on your podcast platform of choice.
• 34:20
  All of you doing justice out there.
• 34:21
  Happy hunting.