Maryland Injury Law Center

I have started a little series on David Ball’s Damages 3 book on how to prepare and try a case. I will keep that going. But, today, I will turn to another “must-read” book for plaintiffs’ lawyers (and, shhh, probably for defense lawyers too): Polarizing the Case by Rich Friedman.

Ultimately, plaintiffs’ lawyers sue because of one of two things in dispute: liability or damages. If you are regularly filing lawsuits where both liability and damages are significant issues, you will be putting your resume out there soon. Because your firm is going under.

If the trial is ultimately about damages, the likelihood is that some element of the defense is that there is a chasm between the plaintiff’s claim of the pain and consequence of the accident and reality. If liability is clear and there is no claim of a preexisting injury, this is the only defense to the case. Rarely are both lawyers telling the jury, “Hey, we all agree on the injury and the impact on the Plaintiff, we just need to know what the value of these injuries is.”

There is a tension in the defense lawyers’ argument. Usually, their play is to say, “Believe me, we are not calling the Plaintiff a liar. We would never do that. But we will convince you she is that “L” word that we can never say. Don’t believe a word that comes out of her lying mouth. And let’s work together during the trial to call her the “L” word without saying that. (Because we would never do that.)” Continue reading

No, this isn’t another polemic about how personal injury lawyers should blog or tweet. I don’t care if you blog or tweet.

Social media has been a boon for two types of people: stalkers and defense lawyers. Personal injury lawyers are not using social media offensively in great measure. Not a lot of doctors are tweeting “I knew I should have counted the instruments before I closed on Mr. Smith. Alcohol makes me silly.” And while you might occasionally hit the jackpot, it is unlikely the guy who rear-ended your client on I-83 tweeted out pictures of himself red-faced and hoisting a giant peach margarita at Water Street a half an hour before the accident.

More often than not, jury trials are about the credibility of our clients. Our clients’ veracity or lack thereof is usually the fulcrum on which the outcome of a case hangs. Social media is a great opportunity for defendants to find – maybe out of content or maybe in context – evidence that contradicts our client’s claim. Continue reading

You are the Plaintiff’s lawyer. You are bent on getting your case ready for trial from the moment you file a lawsuit. After you have almost completed discovery, you send out requests for admission to truly narrow the issues you will face at trial. Good job. You are more thorough than probably 99% of Maryland personal injury lawyers.

But ninety-nine percent of the time, you will get obstructionist answers to your requests for admission. Even good, reasonable defense lawyers file woefully inadequate responses. Two reasons for this: (1) No one wants to admit anything before trial (including, ironically, the things they have already admitted); and (2) there is little chance anyone will hold their feet to the fire.

The reason for the latter is simple: it is painfully tedious to file a motion to compel evasive answers so most personal injury lawyers don’t.

Steve McConnell writes a post for the Drug and Device Lawyer Blog about an angry liar of a plaintiffs’ lawyer who keeps hitting 8-figure verdicts and settlements.

How can this happen? Steve figures out the solution to this problem the way most of the vexing litigation challenges are solved. This lesson came during an invariably pandering lunch with an in-house counsel client who figured the paradox of why juries reward dirtball plaintiffs’ lawyers with big verdicts. The answer is that an angry jury — no matter the source of the anger — is bad for the defense.

Their message in all of this for trial lawyers is clear: we should turn hundreds of years of psychology and trial advocacy on its head because some in-house counsel type – who may or may not have taken trial ad in law school – offers his solution during a suck up lunch.

I will give Steve the benefit of the doubt here and assume he is acting as a double agent disseminating bad information for plaintiffs’ lawyers. I could send the Drug and Device Law Blog the zillion of trial advocacy/trial strategy books my firm has bought over the last 10 years. (I could put the Drug and Device Law Daughter mentioned in the post through college with the money we have blown on these books.) No one has remotely suggested this is a wise tactic. Ever. This flies in the face of not only conventional wisdom but “new school” trial advocacy (see, for example, David Ball on controlling a witness without controlling a witness.) Making people not like you is just a bad idea.

Continue reading

“There is only one reliable tool for undermining defense experts,” David Ball tells us in Damages 3.

What? There is only one? Really? This is a big deal because, as any trial lawyer will tell you, cross-examination of defense experts can sometimes make or break a personal injury case. Even assuming this is a bit of hyperbole, if the Dean of Damages thinks there is just one thing, it is worth making sure – at a minimum – you know what that one thing is.

So take a second. What do you think David Ball says is the only reliable tool to use when you cross-examine experts? Continue reading