Group 4 Created with Sketch.
 

Litigation

All Audio
Updated On: Nov 04, 2023
Total Stations: 12
Total Audio Titles: 436
Vurbl Ambassador
Peeps' Creek™ The Café
More info
 
description
D'Ontae D. Sylvertooth is the host of Peeps’ Creek: the Cafe Podcast and offers a well-rounded POV on litigation. His podcast is dedicated to bringing current and controversial conversations about love, politics, family, and more. The randomness of it all makes it even more intriguing. Step into Peeps' Creek Cafe, order your favorite drink, and join the conversation! …Read More

Popular “Litigation” Stations

Peeps' Creek™ The Café Who are we? Welp, a Podcast dedicated to bringing current and controversial conversations about love, politics, family, and more. The randomness of it all makes it even more intriguing. Step into Peeps' Creek Cafe, order your favorite drink, and join the conversation!

We also have video episodes on Youtube, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter & Trovo
Supreme Court Legal Oral Arguments: Federal and State Court Listener, a non-profit, has made the audio from legal opinions from federal and state courts available to Vurbl listeners. With Court Listener, lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can research an important case, stay up to date with new opinions as they are filed, or do deep analysis using our raw data.

The Oral Arguments on this Vurbl station date back to 2014 to present. Courts include The Supreme Court and Appeals circuits, covering arguments from: Court of Appeals | Eleventh Circuit, Court of Appeals | First Circuit, Court of Appeals | Tenth Circuit, Court of Appeals | D.C. Circuit, Court of Appeals | Federal Court, Court of Appeals | Fifth Circuit, Court of Appeals | Fourth Circuit, Court of Appeals | Ninth Circuit, Court of Appeals | Second Circuit, Court of Appeals | Seventh Circuit, Court of Appeals | Sixth Circuit, Court of Appeals | Third Circuit.

Popular “Litigation” Playlists


Come take this journey with me as we dig into the following podcasts, A Minute or Two with Mikey, Humanity and Society, Law360’s Pro Say – News and Analysis on Law and the legal Industry, Funny Millionaires Podcast, I Like Beer the Podcast.” id=”funny-legal-stories-where-humor-and-law-collide” vid=”funny-legal-stories-where-humor-and-law-collide” id-for-player=”funny-legal-stories-where-humor-and-law-collide” link=”/playlists/funny-legal-stories-where-humor-and-law-collide/” is-authorized=”false” csrf=”XWocqY6zNCxgXadR2FAUflNNzZBJeUqCWqbdAqSG7r7HcgP3UKsvSBc53VQxICNw” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
Funny Legal Stories: Where Humor & Law Collide The Law can be funny…this playlist is dedicated to audio files that are legal in nature, but make you go, “No way!” The law can be weird, funny, or wild!

Come take this journey with me as we dig into the following podcasts, A Minute or Two with Mikey, Humanity and Society, Law360's Pro Say – News and Analysis on Law and the legal Industry, Funny Millionaires Podcast, I Like Beer the Podcast.
Peeps' Creek™ The Café
Let the Litigation Play This playlist contains snippets of podcasts that will spark your interest and take you on a journey into the world of litigation. Peeps' Creek™ The Café
Lady Justice Are You Really Blind? Justice is supposed to be fair. Justice is supposed to be blind to a person's race, color, religion, and etc. Justice is supposed to be equal. Yet, for so many, this is not the story. This playlist attempts to highlight how folks force lady justice to be consistent with fairness through litigation. Come take a listen with me… Peeps' Creek™ The Café

All “Litigation” Audio

The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 161 – Humanizing the Corporate Defendant Dr. Steve Wood discusses the topic of humanizing the corporate defendant. The data doesn’t support that making the argument to jurors that the corporation is made up of regular people who just go to work and try to do their best. Mock trials and actual trials have consistently demonstrated that jurors see through these arguments and don't buy into this. Jurors also discount arguments made about how the company supports other worthy causes, recognizing that those charitable contributions are tax write-offs and calling those actions out as insincere or tainted. 
Based on all this, what can be done to humanize the corporate defendant?
1) Work with your corporate representatives by getting them involved early to ensure they are prepared for trick questions in deposition, present well at deposition and trial, and that their testimony and demeanor is credible; 
2) Have a plan for communicating in a crisis. Work with an experienced crisis management and crisis response team to define the narrative of the incident and the company's response. A strategic and thoughtful crisis communication response can defend and even bolster the reputation of the company even before the possibility of litigation arises; 
3) Get an idea of anti-corporate bias in jury selection by asking more insightful voir dire questions and digging deeper into juror attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and personalities to identify explicit or implicit biases; 
4) Make a plan to address head-on the topic that plaintiff's counsel will bring up about your client valuing profits over safety; 
5) During trial, be cognizant of how the corporate rep is behaving and the impression the corporate rep is giving the jury, even while they are just sitting at the defense table. 
Humanizing the corporate defendant is possible, but it requires a deliberate approach and being aware of juror perceptions throughout the entire litigation process.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 162 – Develop & Deliver Opening Statements to Captivate Jurors Holly Howanitz, Partner, Wicker Smith joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about ways to prepare opening statements that attract and hold juror attention and engagement. Holly talks about using visual stimuli in openings, her thoughts on the length of her openings, and how she decides how long her openings will be. In addition, Holly discusses managing turnover within the firm when associates or attorneys leave to take another job, how her firm helps getting younger attorneys experience, and why clients need to understand the necessity of getting these younger attorneys valuable experience with witness prep, mediations, and trial. Bill and Holly also talk about managing disagreements with clients or a lack of alignment on the assessment or strategy of a case. Lastly they discuss the role of fitness and managing your physical and mental health when having stressful jobs. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/qNd
within the construction industry.” id=”mjcqHmX4Fe” vid=”mjcqHmX4Fe” id-for-player=”mjcqHmX4Fe” link=”/listen/ep-11-a-quick-guide-to-adjudication-mjcqHmX4Fe/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
Ep 11: A Quick Guide to Adjudication In Episode 11, Alicia speaks to Will and Pauline about adjudication, covering the pros and cons as a form of dispute resolution and why it is so commonly used
within the construction industry.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 160 – All About Florida HB 837 Civil Remedies – Florida Tort Reform Sorena Fallin, Partner & Matt Cassman, Associate Attorney from Ragsdale Liggett join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the recently signed tort reform bill in Florida,  HB 837. The changes apply to causes of action accruing after the effective date of March 24, 2023 and prior to the bill becoming law, reports state that plaintiffs’ firms filed approximately 100,000 lawsuits. Sorena outlines the bill and the impact it will have on defense firms and insurance companies. She shares details about the reduction in the statute of limitations and the change in the law that limits the amount of evidence of past medical bills to what has been paid versus what was billed. The new law changes Florida’s apportionment standard from a pure comparative negligence approach to a modified comparative negligence approach. Also under the new law, if a jury finds that a plaintiff is more than 50% at fault for their own harm, then the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages from any defendant. This may reduce the volume of litigation for defense firms and may allow more pre-suit resolutions. Sorena and Matt also talk about letters of protection, the overall impact on medical malpractice litigation in Florida, the reaction of the plaintiff's bar, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9JD
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 159 – Missing the Boat in Jury Selection Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about jury selection and why demographics and intelligence are not predictive of pro-defense jurors. A mistake defense counsel often make is identifying a few demographic criteria and then selecting a jury based on those criterion. Instead, voir dire should be conducted to gain a deeper understanding of a juror's attitudes, experiences, personality, and beliefs which are the key drivers of their evaluation and decision making process. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/CC1
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 158 – Managing Your Career as a Young Attorney Aaron Rolen, Senior Counsel with The Bassett Firm, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about managing your career as a younger attorney. Aaron shares his perspective as a younger attorney and the advantages he has realized from staying with the same firm for a number of years versus bouncing around to chase new opportunities. He also talks about what defense attorneys can do better strategically and logistically and offers his views on how to handle witness preparation. Lastly, Bill and Aaron discuss the difference between a litigator and a trial attorney, the importance of storytelling that trial attorneys exhibit when compared to litigators, and getting and accepting feedback on your story plan. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/vSx
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 157 – The Latest Report on Judicial Hellholes Doug Marcello, Chief Legal Officer with Bluewire, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about the latest report from the American Tort Reform Foundation on Judicial Hellholes. Doug shares his analysis of the report including some of the common denominators: anchoring and changing jury demographics in some areas. Bill and Doug also discuss how much of a danger nuclear settlements are and how little attention they are getting, as well as the role and purpose of training manuals and policies and procedures, and suggestions on better ways to manage the topic of safety. Lastly, Doug shares what he is seeing being successful in current litigation such as being proactive, being prepared against Reptile, and provides updates on Bluewire. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/iDs
Adding Value as In-House Counsel – Four Principles to Follow In Episode 17 of Certum Group’s podcast, Alternative Litigation Strategies, Kevin Skrzysowski interviews Jason Karp, a Partner with Outside GC LLC, a firm providing on-demand outside general counsel legal services. Kevin and Jason discuss the four main principles in-house attorneys should follow to add value to their organizations, including: know your client’s business, understand the real questions being asked, stop saying “No”, and take on more risk. Jason’s ideas flip the conventional wisdom that many of today’s in-house practitioners follow, and provide creative, outside-of-the-box solutions that make in-house departments more accretive to their companies.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 156 – Handling the Crisis Response to a Cybersecurity Breach Sean Murphy, Practice Leader for CSI's Crisis Communications Practice,  talks with Dr. Steve Wood about handling the crisis response to cybersecurity breaches. Sean offers good and bad examples of companies involved in cybersecurity crises, how they handled those situations, and what were the outcomes.  Sean shares a guide that companies who have successfully navigated cybersecurity breaches and risks followed by taking a methodical, strategic approach to a crisis:
1. Top management led the crisis response;
2. Communicated quickly and transparently about the breach; 
3. Designated an effective spokesperson; 
4. Offered a solution; 
5. Never played the blame game; 
6. Made a change in how they handled their customer's data to prevent this from happening again
Lastly, Sean shares his thoughts on how to handle internal communications. He covers the importance of having your crisis team work as part of the privileged team so that those communications are protected in any future potential litigation. And he also talks about the value of having a crisis plan in advance that outlines management of company policies on what and how employees can and should communicate and when.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 155 – JFK Assassination Revisited, Part 2 of 2 Attorney Larry Schnapf and author and JFK assassination expert Jefferson Morley join Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to continue the discussion about the legal issues and challenges being mounted to obtain the release of all government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Larry, Jeff, and Bill talk about the Schlesinger memo, the actions of the CIA in the early 60s, including their surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald, the Gannon memo, the fact that both President Trump and President Biden had committed to releasing all documents but both have found excuses to not do so, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/zUn
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 154 – JFK Assassination Revisited, Part 1 of 2 Attorney Larry Schnapf and author and JFK assassination expert Jefferson Morley join Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to discuss the lawsuit they have filed to obtain the release of all government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Larry, Jeff, and Bill discuss the results of the multiple mock trials that have been conducted related to the assassination, the JFK Records Act, the process they have been going through to get the remaining documents released, the role of the CIA and FBI, the process the government employs in classifying and declassifying documents, and much more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/6c8
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 153 – Assessing Jurors More Accurately in Voir Dire Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. describes how to assess jurors more accurately during the jury selection process by implementing specific measures. There are two primary ways to measure something: using dichotomous variables or continuous variables. Dichotomous is a singular (i.e. binary) choice between two options (e.g. yes/no).  Continuous variables offer multiple options, such as rating on a scale from 0-10 scale. Using continuous variables to measure juror sentiment allows you to understand the intensity of their position. Once jurors have selected a number, you want to ask probing questions to get to the why of their selection. A yes/no (i.e. dichotomous) doesn't get you that; you need to go deeper and get more specific by using continuous variables. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/jbK
Zack shares details of the litigation process, including th” id=”3aPVfGdoK2A” vid=”3aPVfGdoK2A” id-for-player=”3aPVfGdoK2A” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-152-anatomy-of-a-defense-verdict-against-a-pro-se-litigant-3aPVfGdoK2A/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 152 – Anatomy of a Defense Verdict Against a Pro Se Litigant Zack Fletcher, Senior Associate with Wood, Smith, Henning, & Berman in Chicago joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about a recent unique jury trial in which Zack had to defend his client against a pro se litigant in Cook County, Illinois.  
Zack shares details of the litigation process, including the fact that there were very few settlement negotiations that took place and the plaintiff decided to proceed pro se with very limited discovery. Because the plaintiff was pro se, the court gave the plaintiff lots of leeway which made defending the case even more challenging. Multiple motions in limine were filed with the majority denied. Zack describes his approach with jury selection, particularly in contrast to the plaintiff, and also shares what his thought process was for drafting his opening statement. The jury only deliberated for about an hour and came back with a defense verdict. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/VpO
The Murky Status of TCPA Standing in the 11th Circuit Listen to Episode 16 of Certum Group’s (FKA Risk Settlements’) podcast, Alternative Litigation Strategies, to hear Aaron Weiss and Charles Throckmorton, Shareholders at Carlton Fields, take a deep dive into the status of Article III standing in TCPA cases in the 11th Circuit. Aaron and Charles provide a masterclass in the nuances of the Florence, Salcedo, Cordoba, and Glasser decisions which address different subparts of the TCPA, their impact on cases filed under the FTSA, critical questions that were left unresolved by the Court, and predictions on the future of TCPA and FTSA filings in the 11th Circuit.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 151 – Medical Malpractice Cases Attorneys Jason Hendren & Jackie Clark, both Partners with Hall Booth Smith, join Dr. Steve Wood to talk about medical malpractice cases. The group discusses which med mal cases are the most difficult to litigate (birth trauma; wrongful death; paralysis cases) and the challenges with managing juror sympathy in cases with young injured parties. They talk about how juror perceptions of the reputation of well-known/top tier facilities impact juror decision-making, plus the challenges of traumatic brain injury (TBI) cases, the importance of counter anchoring for the defense, whether jurors understand the medicine, and how they manage co-defendants in their cases. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/T78
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 150 – Cognitive Momentum (aka The ”Yes” Train) Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about witness testimony and a concept in psychology called 'cognitive momentum' (the "Yes" train). Opposing counsel will rapidly throw out easy, factual questions to get your witness used to saying 'yes', speeding up their responses, lowering their defenses, and then eventually they fall prey to questions for which the answer should not be 'yes.' Witnesses must be trained to force cognition through sophisticated, neurocognitive training. Bill and Steve also discuss the concept of the 'repetition spin cycle' and what the brain is dealing with when being bombarded with repetitive negative stimulus like being asked the same question over and over again and how an untrained brain reacts to this repetition. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ySn
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 149 – The Problem with Pivoting During Deposition Testimony Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about witness testimony and the problems and dangers of pivoting during deposition questioning. They discuss how defense attorneys don’t realize how they are opening the door to counterattacks from opposing counsel when they encourage their witnesses to pivot and answer questions with phrases like "Yes, but…" Steve and Bill describe the psychology behind why providing detailed explanations in normal, everyday situations is very different than in the adversarial environment of a deposition. Another danger for witnesses they talk about is repetitive questions and how witnesses must be trained to hold their ground with plaintiff questions that are repeated over and over again. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/aJl
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 148 – New Year’s Resolutions for Managing Litigation Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. is joined by trial attorneys Shane O'Dell of Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee and John Nunnally of Ragsdale Liggett to talk about new year's resolutions and what they are changing or doing differently in how they manage their litigation. Shane and John share how they are encouraging their clients to be more proactive in their litigation and not wait for plaintiff's counsel to make the first move every time. They talk about pursuing early mediations for cases that lend themselves to earlier settlement discussions and continuing to educate their clients on the value and benefits of being proactive. Shane also discusses his goal to drive more communication and sharing within the defense bar. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/iWy
Eminent Domain Litigation with Jerome Pesick On this episode, Maxwell Goss interviews Jerome Pesick, a leading litigator in the areas of eminent domain and land use law. A frequent author and speaker on eminent domain topics, Jerry is a trusted authority for several print and broadcast news outlets.Jerry discusses some of the important matters he has handled, including a landmark case in which he secured for his client the largest eminent domain verdict in Michigan history. Throughout the interview, Jerry also provides useful insights on selecting a jury and on the unique challenges of litigating against government entities.—–“The appraisals are complicated. It’s something that most citizens never deal with in their everyday lives. So you have to get down into the nitty gritty, explaining to them the details of how we got here, what the property means to our client, and how the valuation process works.”-Jerome Pesick—–00:18 – Introduction01:32: About Jerome Pesick02:56 – What is eminent domain?07:28 – Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltz. Partnership17:04 – Juries and eminent domain18:54 – Gordie Howe International Bridge23:15 – Litigating against government entities25:10 – Local politics and eminent domain27:45 – Where to find Jerome Pesick online—–Jerry Pesick’s practice areas include eminent domain, condemnation, land use, and property taxation. Over his more than 40-year career, he has tried and settled condemnation cases across Michigan for tens of millions of dollars. He also regularly represents clients in major tax appeal cases involving all types of business properties throughout the state. Well-known for his talents and accomplishments, Jerry has represented clients in virtually every major condemnation project in Michigan, such as the Gordie Howe International Bridge; Poletown; the Detroit Waterfront Casino and Reclamation Project; Comerica Park and Ford Field; the I-696, M-59, M-5, Northwestern Connectors; and many others.—–Jerome Pesick’s Attorney Bio—–The Litigation War Room is hosted by litigation lawyer Maxwell Goss. Max represents clients in intellectual property and business cases throughout Michigan and around the country, bringing forceful advocacy and creative solutions to every case he handles.—–Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
EP 10: Introduction to Part 36 Offers In this episode, Alicia talks to Leah Kesby and Marie Smale in our Litigation and Dispute Resolution team about what Part 36 Offers are, and why they are important to consider throughout the litigation process.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 147 – Podcast Year in Review Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. close out 2022 with a podcast Year in Review. They talk about what they've learned this year including starting to see some clients operating more proactively and early in litigation and the benefits they are realizing by doing so. Steve and Bill discuss other topics covered during the year, and in particular, the importance of episodes dedicated to mental and physical health. They also preview a few topic ideas for podcasts in 2023 and share some additional holiday thoughts and observations.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 146 – Safety Language in Corporate Policies and on Websites Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about the risky language in company policies and procedures and the language and information on company websites. Many companies create a level of expectation for safety that is unattainable and put these organizations at risk of being attacked by plaintiff attorneys during litigation. Using language about safety being the top priority in manuals, training materials, policies, procedures, and on websites only creates litigation exposure that can be potentially devastating to the company and often serves no tangible benefit to the company when published. Plaintiff attorneys will use this language to demonstrate that the company didn't meet its own safety standards when focusing on specific incidents and litigation.
Bill also talks about how one of the main goals of Reptile is to beat you and outmaneuver you in discovery. Plaintiff attorneys are focused on destroying witnesses at deposition in order to increase their demand. Their preference is to remove your negotiating power and leverage and get you to settle for a huge amount earlier so they can get their money faster. Reptile is a neurocognitive attack on your brain which requires sophisticated training to protect witnesses from being tricked and trapped by Reptile plaintiff attorneys. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/RVp
About That First Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Class Action Settlement… Listen to Episode 15 of Risk Settlements’ podcast, Alternative Litigation Strategies, to hear Dan Blynn, a Partner at Venable LLP, take a deep dive into Alvarez v. Sunshine Life & Health Advisors, the first FTSA case to settle on a class-wide basis.  Kevin and Dan examine the avalanche of litigation under the FTSA, trending decisions on dispositive motions in these cases, the many unique nuances of the Alvarez settlement, and predictions on future settlements under the FTSA and other states' “mini-TCPA” cases.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 145 – Wellness and Managing Stress – Part 2 Wellness Specialist Jen Donovan joins Dr. Steve Wood for the second part of this episode focused on wellness and managing stress. In this episode, Jen demonstrates different simple exercises and movements as ways to relieve stress, including multiple breathing tips. Jen also talks about sound healing and sound therapy exercises. Lastly, Jen shares tips for how to get started, managing the timing of when to start, and how to make better, healthier choices. Jen's concluding thoughts: what you eat, drink, breathe, and think becomes your guide to physical and mental fitness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/uRF
State Mini TCPA Laws – The New Frontier Listen to Episode #14 of Risk Settlements’ podcast, Alternative Litigation Strategies, as Kevin Skrzysowski interviews Alex Krasovec, a Partner at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips on the proliferation of state “Mini-TCPA” laws around the country.  Kevin and Alex discuss why states are now getting into the mix, which states have mini-TCPA laws on the books, how these laws differ from the federal statute, and what guidance and advice should be given to sales and marketing companies to remain compliant and avoid potential litigation.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 144 – Wellness and Managing Stress – Part 1 Wellness Specialist Jen Donovan joins Dr. Steve Wood for a two-part episode about wellness topics, including the benefits of Rawfood Nutrition, and demonstrates some exercises to help manage the stresses of work and the holidays. Jen shares tips on eating properly, sleeping properly, breathing properly, and moving our body properly and the importance of devoting at least 3 weeks to any change to make it stick. Jen talks about the difference between mindlessness and mindfulness, about setting the environment of your space, the importance of good posture and of setting an intention for the day at the start of every morning. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/s6a
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 143 – Thanksgiving Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares what and whom he is grateful and thankful for. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oAJ
Arbitration Clauses and Class Action Waivers – A Plaintiff’s Perspective Listen now to take a deep dive into a discussion on arbitration clauses and class action waivers as Kevin interviews Sophia Gold of Kaliel Gold. Kevin and Sophia discuss threshold issues for arbitration, motions to compel and defenses against them, the impact of arbitration clauses on companies, consumers, and employees, the pros and cons of arbitration vs. litigation, recent court decisions and newly promulgated statutes.
Celebrity Divorce Lawyer Chris Melcher On this podcast episode, Maxwell Goss interviews celebrity divorce lawyer Christopher Melcher. Chris has been quoted and featured in media outlets including ABC News, CNN, Fox News, USA Today, and Entertainment Tonight. Chris gives his take on the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial and the custody battles between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. He also provides insights for all lawyers on how to handle cases involving explosive personal allegations.—–“Gone are the days of being quiet . . . Social media is dominant.Anyone can create a social media post, and if it’s about something interesting enough, it can just take off. I don’t think we have the luxury of waiting and saying, ‘let’s think about this for three weeks.'”-Christopher Melcher—–00:18 – Introduction01:12 – About Christopher Melcher02:55 – How Chris got into celebrity divorce law05:08 – Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard13:58 – The "Me Too" movement and the Depp/Heard trial18:39 – Likeability and credibility24:15 – The verdict and its implications26:11 – The Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie saga33:40 – Advice to attorneys handling bad facts36:36 – The pros and cons of going public39:08 – Where to find Chris Melcher online—–Christopher Melcher represents A-list celebrities, business owners, and trust beneficiaries in high-stakes divorces. With deep experience in complex family law litigation and premarital agreements, Chris provides tactical representation in the most challenging family law disputes. Chris has presented about 200 continuing legal education programs on complex family law issues, and wrote the only treatise on California premarital agreement law. Chris is also an adjunct professor of family law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu.—–About Chris MelcherChris Melcher on the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial on ABCChris Melcher on the Brangelina Split on Good Morning Britain—–The Litigation War Room is hosted by litigation lawyer Maxwell Goss. Max represents clients in intellectual property and business cases throughout Michigan and around the country, bringing forceful advocacy and creative solutions to every case he handles.———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
– How do you advise handling voir dire in federal court when you only have 30-60 minutes to ask questions of jurors?
– What are the opportunities with using a supplemental juror questionnaire?
– What i” id=”3YpxrmLW7i8″ vid=”3YpxrmLW7i8″ id-for-player=”3YpxrmLW7i8″ link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-142-frequently-asked-questions-part-5-3YpxrmLW7i8/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 142 – Frequently Asked Questions – Part 5 Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. continue answering podcast listener and viewer questions:
– How do you advise handling voir dire in federal court when you only have 30-60 minutes to ask questions of jurors?
– What are the opportunities with using a supplemental juror questionnaire?
– What is the best way to question my client during direct or rehabilitation examination?
– Are engineers bad jurors for the defense?
– What types of demonstrative exhibits work best for jurors? Should I always go high tech?
– If my witness has an emotional meltdown during their deposition, how do I get them back on track?
– How should I test evidence in a mock trial format if I don't know if the judge will let it in?
– How do I deal with a defendant who is experiencing extreme guilt and wants to admit guilt even though they didn't do anything wrong and it was just a bad accident?
– From a jury consulting standpoint, does a juror's health status matter?
To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2RM
– How is the movement of people from blue states to red states impacting the jury pool? 
– Can a Middle Eastern defendant win at trial with a predominantly white/rural jury?
– How do I ” id=”Q6TZWhBjDO” vid=”Q6TZWhBjDO” id-for-player=”Q6TZWhBjDO” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-141-frequently-asked-questions-part-4-Q6TZWhBjDO/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 141 – Frequently Asked Questions – Part 4 Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. continue their series of answering podcast listener and viewer questions:
– How is the movement of people from blue states to red states impacting the jury pool? 
– Can a Middle Eastern defendant win at trial with a predominantly white/rural jury?
– How do I mitigate damages at trial on a case when my client is admitting liability?
– Should I ask the judge to show a short clip of the plaintiff's day-in-the-life video during jury selection?
– In voir dire, what do I do with jurors who are quiet and won't say much?
– During jury selection, how useful is juror social media information?
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ibp
Tackling “Impossible” Cases with Daniel Callahan On this episode, Maxwell Goss speaks with legendary California litigator, Dan Callahan. Dan has the rare distinction of having achieved record verdicts and settlements in business, personal injury, insurance bad faith, and employment litigation. Dan discusses some of his biggest wins, including the $934 million jury verdict in a business contract and fraud case. Dan also talks about how he uses creativity and hard work to tackle what he calls “impossible" cases.—–“I prepare to meet the big bad wolf, the Goliath, in the courtroom.So I make my opposition into Goliath.And when we show up in trial, they are not really Goliath.But we come prepared to beat Goliath, and that’s why we get the results.”-Daniel Callahan—–01:28 – About Dan Callahan and his law practice05:52 – The importance of creativity in litigation11:34 – Neria vs. The City of Dana Point16:16 – The Beckman Coulter case20:59 – What a $900M+ verdict did for Dan’s law practice21:48 – The Farmers Insurance case23:43 – How Dan prepares for a case26:53 – Dan’s advice for litigators taking on difficult cases29:02 – The importance of preparation in litigation31:06 – Where to find Dan Callahan online—–Daniel Callahan opened his own law office on St. Patrick’s Day in 1984. Throughout his career, Daniel J. Callahan has always been known as one of the top trial attorneys in California. Daniel Callahan also provides corporate consulting to law firms and lawyers regarding litigation and strategy through Callahan Consulting Group LLC.Dan’s notable jury verdicts included a $934,000,000 jury verdict obtained after a three-month jury trial in a complex business dispute entitled Beckman Coulter vs. Flextronics. This unanimous verdict was the largest in California in 2003 and remains the largest in Orange County history. He also went on to obtain a $50,000,000 settlement in a road design case against the City of Dana Point. Exclusive of large class actions, this continues to be the largest personal injury settlement in United States history. Dan also obtained, after a two-month jury trial, a $38 million settlement on behalf of a class of newspaper delivery drivers against The Orange County Register. This is still the highest employment settlement in Orange County’s history.—–Dan Callahan’s “Mission Impossible” adCallahan ConsultingDan Callahan’s Attorney BioCallahan & Blaine Wins $934 Million Judgment—–The Litigation War Room is hosted by litigation lawyer Maxwell Goss. Max represents clients in intellectual property and business cases throughout Michigan and around the country, bringing forceful advocacy and creative solutions to every case he handles.———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 140 – Developing and Retaining Young Associates Shane O'Dell, Member at Naman, Howell, Smith, and Lee PLLC, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about helping younger associates grow through mentoring and development opportunities and how to keep those younger attorneys in your practice. Shane talks about the challenges for early career attorneys and what they can do to overcome. Shane shares his experience with recognizing the importance of developing relationships and trust over time as a path toward building a reputation and earning future opportunities. Shane and Bill discuss ideas on how to build a book of business and ways that the defense bar needs to evolve in the future. They also talk about how defense firms can keep young attorneys from job hopping and chasing new opportunities and the importance of helping clients understand why they need to be open to having younger associates work on their cases in order to help them develop. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5um
– What are some of the things that jurors are highly critical of at trial that I may not be aware of?
– How do jurors perceive out-of-town” id=”5Y75dVXlcLD” vid=”5Y75dVXlcLD” id-for-player=”5Y75dVXlcLD” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-139-frequently-asked-questions-part-3-5Y75dVXlcLD/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 139 – Frequently Asked Questions, Part 3 Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. answer frequently asked questions from podcast listeners and viewers. Some of the specific questions asked and answered:
– What are some of the things that jurors are highly critical of at trial that I may not be aware of?
– How do jurors perceive out-of-town defense attorneys?
– How do I get a former employee to cooperate for a deposition?
– Do jurors like attorneys who wear glasses?
– Do expert witnesses really impact jury decision making?
– How long should my opening statement be?
– Does it look bad in front of the jury if I object a lot?
Two specific ideas from Bill:
1) Writing – Write articles on topics that prospects and clients can get va” id=”5q2mBmoXhWV” vid=”5q2mBmoXhWV” id-for-player=”5q2mBmoXhWV” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-138-business-development-for-young-attorneys-5q2mBmoXhWV/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 138 – Business Development for Young Attorneys Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares tips and ideas for young attorneys to build a book of business. Doing business development is not easy, but taking the time and steps to doing it can really pay off.
Two specific ideas from Bill:
1) Writing – Write articles on topics that prospects and clients can get value from and get those articles published in a legal journal; look for niche publications which are often hungry for content. If you need help getting started on topics or with writing, partner with a seasoned attorney.
2) Speeches – Deliver presentations to different groups. Leverage the article(s) you've written and published to build your presentation content. Search out conferences where you can speak, particularly that include audiences with potential clients.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/W18
1) Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests there is a relationship between performance and arousal. Increased arousal can help improve performance, but only up to a certain ” id=”4BEQtR5fMtA” vid=”4BEQtR5fMtA” id-for-player=”4BEQtR5fMtA” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-137-four-psychological-concepts-behind-witness-testimony-e-4BEQtR5fMtA/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 137 – Four Psychological Concepts Behind Witness Testimony Errors Dr. Steve Wood describes four psychological concepts that help to explain why some witnesses make mistakes in their testimony performance: 
1) Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests there is a relationship between performance and arousal. Increased arousal can help improve performance, but only up to a certain point. At the point when arousal becomes excessive, performance diminishes. 
2) The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe they are smarter and more capable than they actually are. Essentially, low-ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. 
3) Evaluation apprehension is a human tendency to try to look better or the fear of being evaluated. This creates a lot of anxiety because of their concern about how they are perceived by others who are watching them and their performance. 
4) "Thin-slicing" refers to the ability of our subconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience or information. 
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/EdX
The Renewed Focus on Bank-Fee Class Action Litigation Don’t miss the latest episode of Alternative Litigation Strategies as Kevin interviews Katten Class Action Partner, Stu Richter, on overdraft litigation and its impact on banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions.  Kevin and Stu discuss filing trends, effective defenses, dispositive motion strategies, settlement and trial considerations, copycat lawsuits, class action settlement insurance, arbitration agreements, and best practices for businesses to avoid litigation.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 136 – Rebecca Brewster of ATRI on Trucking and Transportation Industry Research Rebecca Brewster, President and COO of the American Transportation Institute (ATRI), joins the podcast to talk with Dr. BIll Kanasky, Jr. about ATRI, a research and education organization. Rebecca shares details on her background and different ATRI research studies and how their research benefits and informs the transportation and trucking industry. Bill and Rebecca discuss specific research topics that ATRI has studied including nuclear verdicts, nuclear settlements, driver shortage, CDL age limit reductions, driver health, driver compensation, women in trucking, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2vH
1) You have to identify when a witness is guessing in their deposition. Key phrases to watch out for besides "I guess," are "I think," "I believe," "I probably," "I assume." You need ” id=”60hH3ZLO5iQ” vid=”60hH3ZLO5iQ” id-for-player=”60hH3ZLO5iQ” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-135-witness-guessing-and-witness-freezing-60hH3ZLO5iQ/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 135 – Witness Guessing and Witness Freezing Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers two witness deposition testimony topics: witnesses who guess and witnesses who freeze. 
1) You have to identify when a witness is guessing in their deposition. Key phrases to watch out for besides "I guess," are "I think," "I believe," "I probably," "I assume." You need to explain to your witness that even if they tell you they won't guess, their brain is wired to guess and they need to be educated on what a guess sounds like and must work with them to correct these guesses during mock deposition questioning. 
2) In addition to the well-known responses of fight or flight, there is a third response that doesn't get the same level of attention: "freeze". Referred to in psychology as "freeze appease", this survival response leads to the witness agreeing with the questioner on every question in order to appease them. When witnesses freeze, they have to appease to survive. Dealing with the freeze response requires neurocognitive training to help the witness be prepared during their testimony.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/V51
Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Class Action Lawyers Don’t miss the latest episode of the Alternative Litigation Strategies podcast as Kevin interviews Fred Burnside, a Partner with the law firm Davis, Wright and Tremaine. Kevin and Fred discuss the biggest changes and challenges to the practice of class action litigation over the last several years. The two discuss changes in fee structures, fix fees by phase, spending trends, increases in litigation volume, case strategy and bet the company litigation, best settlement practices including class action settlement insurance, and great advice for young litigators who are just starting out.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 134 – Insights for Effective Jury Selection Dr. Steve Wood shares his observations, insights, and experience with jury selection and what works and doesn't work when picking a jury. Steve talks about the dangers of selecting a jury based solely on demographics and the criticality of learning about a juror's experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. He emphasizes the importance of the specific questions asked and approach taken by the attorney during voir dire and recommends that counsel treat voir dire more like a focus group and dig deeper into juror responses. Get potential jurors talking to explain and express their beliefs and attitudes to figure out if they are a good juror for your side. Steve also cautions attorneys on social desirability bias which is the tendency of some jurors to give answers that make the person look good and which may be concealing their real feelings or attitudes. He suggests digging as much as feasible into juror responses and the details in their answers as a way to help support your position for striking for cause, if necessary. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/GG1
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 133 – 13 Cognitive Distortions Crippling Your Witness – Part 3 In the final part of this three-part topic, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. and Dr. Steve Wood discuss the last of the 13 cognitive distortions that cripple witnesses during testimony. Cognitive distortions are irrational thinking patterns where the brain makes connections that may or may not exist and can negatively impact testimony performance unless corrected via cognitive reframing. The cognitive distortions Bill and Steve discuss in this episode are: 11) Emotional reasoning – when witnesses’ emotional thinking replaces their logical thinking. Also known as “amygdala hijack,” (i.e., the fight or flight response) 12) Control fallacies – when witnesses believe they have no control over the testimony process, feel powerless during testimony, and often assume a submissive role in the question-and-answer interaction. 13) Fallacy of fairness – when witnesses believe the lawsuit isn’t “fair,” leading to intense feelings of anger and resentment and impacting their ability to deliver effective deposition testimony. All 13 of these cognitive distortions can be overcome through a neurocognitive assessment and training that addresses each individually. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/yxN
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 132 – Lessons Learned from Successful Plaintiff Attorneys Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares his experience working with plaintiff attorneys on cases. Bill works on the plaintiff's side when a corporation, which is typically the defendant, is the plaintiff and engages Courtroom Sciences for litigation consulting. This type of work has led to some very specific learnings about how plaintiff attorneys in commercial litigation operate and behave. Four key characteristics of successful plaintiff attorneys:
1) their desire to win is unmatched and often higher than the defense side;
2) they actively and consistently use focus groups and mock trials, and in particular, employ the test/retest methodology to tweak and adjust their case to improve it, leading to much higher accuracy and confidence;
3) they conduct their jury research as early as possible in the timeline of the case, allowing it to help them guide their discovery when it comes to case themes, case facts, witnesses, etc.;  
4) they are very open to, and actively solicit, constructive criticism and feedback from consultants in order to help make them better attorneys.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/G4a
Special Replay: Building a "Fireproof" Law Firm with Mike Morse On this special replay, we return to Max's interview with Mike Morse, a high-profile attorney known for his entertaining TV ads and his impressive wins on behalf of injured clients. Mike is the author of Fireproof: a Five-Step Model to Take Your Law Firm from Unpredictable to Wildly Profitable. Mike talks about how he went from being a true solo to becoming a household name. Mike shares some of his secrets for building what he calls a “fireproof” law firm.———-“What is the lawyer’s biggest case? The biggest thing in their life is their law firm. And I don’t see the same preparation in running a law firm as I do running their biggest case. . . . Spend at least the amount of time running your law firm that you do on your biggest case.”-Mike Morse———-00:19 – Introduction02:23 – About Mike Morse’s practice05:09 – The importance of delegation06:58 – Why Mike decided to write Fireproof08:38 – COVID’s impact on law firms09:24 – Mike’s television ads13:26 – The Jesus Moreno Case17:46 – Why Mike wrote Fireproof21:14 – Running a law firm like a business23:43 – The “Legal Jumbotron”25:37 – How Mike answers skeptics28:23 – Concluding remarks———-Mike Morse is the founder of Mike Morse Law Firm, the largest personal injury firm in Michigan. Mike lectures across the country on the practice of law and how to build a successful law firm. Recently, he was named a #1 Amazon Best-selling author for his book on this topic, FireProof: a Five-Step Model to Take Your Law From from Unpredictable to Wildly Profitable. Mike also hosts a weekly podcast, Open Mike, where he shares advice on the law and brings important legal topics to the forefront. He is also involved with many charitable organizations including Project Backpack, a program he founded that provides free backpacks and school supplies to students in need.Mike has received many awards and accolades, including being named one of America’s 50 Most Influential Trial Lawyers by The National Law Journal and The Trial Lawyer Magazine, Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law, DBiz Top Lawyer, and Super Lawyer’s Top Rated Lawyer. Mike has also received multiple Golden Gavel Awards for his award-winning commercials and garnered coverage from prominent news outlets and renowned publications such as The Today Show, Huffington Post, and Lawyers Weekly. He is often featured as a legal advisor on local news broadcasts in metro Detroit.———-Mike’s Book: FireproofMike’s Podcast: Open MikeMike’s Award-Winning Commercials———-The Litigation War Room is hosted by litigation lawyer Maxwell Goss. Max represents clients in intellectual property and business cases throughout Michigan and around the country, bringing forceful advocacy and creative solutions to every case he handles.———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 131 – Advantages and Importance of Early Case Management Mike Bassett, Senior Partner, The Bassett Law Firm joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. and Dr. Steve Wood to talk about early case management, the timing of working up a case, and what is best to do first and early. Early case management sets the tempo and helps gain momentum for the defense. Mike shares how in the first 30-60 days of a case conducting focus groups always him to know what resonates with jurors and what doesn't and the value of interviewing witnesses early. Mike talks about how defense attorneys need to educate their clients and carriers on why they need to be investing in this early case management, research, and witness prep. There is significant, tangible value in having juror perspectives while discovery is still open and before witnesses have testified. The plaintiff's bar tests cases at an exponentially higher rate than the defense bar and will test discrete issues to learn what will resonate with jurors. Bill, Steve, and Mike also discuss the characteristics of strong plaintiff attorneys: always pushing the file; always have a plan; develop their themes early; focus group cases early; create maximum risk and leverage in every deposition; are detailed oriented and very prepared. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OVJ
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 130 – Tips for Success for Trial Attorneys & Aspiring Associates Paul Motz, Shareholder, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, joins the podcast to talk about what it takes to become a successful trial attorney. Finding good associates is a challenge these days. A couple of reasons for this is the job-hopping of associates in pursuit of a bigger paycheck and also the shift in people wanting to find more work-life balance. But Paul points out that being a trial attorney requires a different schedule and a different mentality. So what can trial attorneys do to better prepare their associates? Attorneys must treat their associates right and provide them with lots of opportunities to learn and grow. Trial attorneys should include their aspiring associates in as much of the case that makes sense and think about how to build rapport, camaraderie, and connection with their associates. Allow them opportunities to take ownership in specific situations and help associates understand that constantly switching firms is short-sighted because for a trial attorney, having an associate you can count on is invaluable. Associates who aspire to be a successful trial attorney must be willing to work hard and show initiative and take advantage of every opportunity offered to them. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/0ek
Five Mediation Mistakes That Create Obstacles to Settlement In Episode 9 of the Alternative Litigation Strategies podcast, Kevin interviews Rachel Gupta, an independent mediator and arbitrator.  Rachel is the Founder and Principal at Gupta Dispute Resolutions and a JAMS Diversity Fellow.  Kevin and Rachel discuss the most critical behaviors the parties in an ADR should avoid in order to achieve a successful resolution.  Kevin and Rachel tackle issues such as; anchoring too high or too low, failing to adequately prepare (your clients) for the mediation, not accounting for compound risks, making premature ultimatums and simply being overly litigious.
Legal Wellness and Access to Justice with Your Lovable Lawyer – Danny Karon In Episode 10 of our podcast, Kevin interviews Danny Karon, a class action attorney, Chair of the ABA National Institute of Class Actions, professor, prolific author, and now the founder of the legal wellness movement and creator of the YouTube channel 'Your Lovable Lawyer.' Kevin and Danny discuss the societal bias to access to justice where people who need justice the most often get it the least, leading to his creation of Your Lovable Lawyer.  Through his website and YouTube channel, Danny encourages people to take control of their legal health through his clear, easy-to-understand informational videos about common, everyday legal problems that empower you to improve your legal wellness.  Through his informational videos, Danny makes justice more accessible by providing legal information to people who don’t know, can’t find or can’t pay for lawyers.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 129 – 13 Cognitive Distortions Crippling Your Witness – Part 2 In the second of a multi-part topic, Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss irrational thinking patterns. Steve and Bill describe how the brain makes connections that may or may not be connected in reality and how that type of irrational thinking can impact witness performance, requiring cognitive reframing to correct these irrational thinking patterns. Bill and Steve have identified 13 cognitive distortions that are crippling your witnesses and cover five additional distortions in this episode: 5) Catastrophizing – when your witness over-exaggerates the value of negative facts in the case, which leads to extreme anxiety; 6) Personalization – when your witness takes the litigation very personally, forgetting that plaintiff’s counsel is primarily focused on money; 7) Blaming – when your witness refuses to take any responsibility for their own actions or decisions, and instead blames others at the company or even the plaintiff; 8) Labeling – when your witness assigns a judgment to themselves based on one negative incident, instead of recognizing that no one is perfect, and that people can make honest mistakes; 9) Always being right – when your witness has the emotional need to always be right and/or to have an answer to everything; 10) 'Should' statements – when your witness falls into the trap of second guessing themselves regarding past conduct or decision. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Tib
EP 9: In conversation with James King of Quality Bailiffs, High Court Enforcement Officer In this episode, Robert and Ann from our Legal 500 tier 1 Debt Recovery team discuss with James King of Quality Bailiffs, national High Court Enforcement Officers, about how they assist with the enforcement of a Judgment.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 128 – Expert Insights from a Seasoned Expert Witness Kevin Quinley, President of Quinley Risk Associates, talks about his extensive experience in the insurance industry and particularly as an expert witness. Bill and Kevin discuss several tips for attorneys on issues that arise when Kevin is requested to serve as an expert witness, including: last minute scheduling; failing to succinctly frame key issues and not being specific about what's needed from the expert witness; expectations of an immediate opinion from the expert witness after sharing only minimal information; and price resistance. Lastly, Kevin shares his thoughts on how younger attorneys can get more trial experience. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/M43
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 127 – Law Enforcement and Healthcare Witness Preparation Joe Longfellow, Partner & Trial Attorney with Andrew, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, joins the podcast to talk about his work on civil rights defense cases primarily defending law enforcement officers, and also working with healthcare witnesses in med mal cases. Joe describes the challenges of witness prep of law enforcement and how he works with these often difficult witnesses. He also shares his approach to helping jurors understand the difference between negligence and deliberate indifference. Bill and Joe share their thoughts on preparing witnesses, the role that prior testimony plays in new litigation and how to prepare and handle, the goal of a witness at deposition, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/QHO
A Class Action Was Filed, Now What? – A 10 Point Response Plan In Episode #8 of the Alternative Litigation Strategies podcast, Kevin Skrzysowski interviews David Yeagley, a Partner and Trial Lawyer with the law firm Ulmer and Berne. Kevin and David discuss a comprehensive strategy for companies to follow after being served with a class action lawsuit. They dive into issues ranging from initial assessment, insurance and jurisdiction considerations, and defense strategy to discovery issues, expert witnesses, exit strategies, collateral risks and more.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 126 – Answering with ”It depends” During Testimony Baxter Drennon, Partner with Hall Booth Smith, joins the podcast to talk about responses to Reptile Theory questions, in particular the answer of "It depends." This response can make some defense attorneys uncomfortable. Steve, Bill, and Baxter discuss the circumstances in which "It depends" is the truthful and most accurate response. They talk about the validity and comfort of a witness varying their responses and what cognitive factors are involved in the way a question is responded to. Baxter shares the approach he takes with his witnesses and the importance of identifying the purpose of the deposition as a way to manage responses. The group talk about the dangers and risks of a witness pivoting when responding to opposing counsel questions, as well as, the opportunity and considerations with a follow-up question to an "It depends" response. Lastly, Steve, Bill, and Baxter discuss the necessity of educating witnesses on the strategy of the case, for them to understand the roles of the witness and the attorney, and what jurors respond to, positively and negatively, when hearing witness testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hLQ
Killer Cross-Examination with Neil Rockind On this episode, Maxwell Goss speaks with prominent criminal defense attorney Neil Rockind. Neil talks about his victory in securing the acquittal of an individual charged with reckless driving following the highly publicized tragic death of a police officer. Neil shares insights on many aspects of trial practice, including the importance of humanizing the defendant, dealing with public scrutiny in high-profile cases, and how cross-examination can make or break your case.———-00:18 – Introduction01:57 – About Neil Rockind and his law practice03:43 – Some of Neil's high-profile cases05:10 – Oxford school case07:37 – "Killer" cross-examination11:33 – Learning effective cross-examination16:32 – People vs. Charles Warren16:58 – The criminalization of driving offenses23:38 – Hindsight bias30:20 – Cross-examination of the lead investigator33:35 – Verdict in the Charles Warren case37:21 – Handling cases with intense public scrutiny40:41 – Where to find Neil Rockind online———-Neil Rockind’s Attorney BioNeil Rockind’s Killer Cross-Examination PodcastJury Acquits Man in Traffic Death of State Trooper———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
All About Appellate – Summary Judgment Standard and Appellate Review Under Florida and Texas Law This Course provided insurance professionals and practitioners with in-depth background, practical and real-world tips related to summary judgment motions and issues in Florida and Texas. Florida’s recent adoption of the federal standard for summary judgment; requirements and procedures; burdens of proof and evidentiary issues will be covered, as well as appellate review of summary judgments. The types, nature and procedures for handling summary judgment motions in Texas were covered in-depth. Standards, requirements, burdens of proof and evidentiary issues were highlighted as well as appellate review. Finally, notable recent cases dealing with insurance issues were covered under Florida and Texas law.
The Recent Surge in Midwest Food Labeling Litigation In Episode 7 of the Alternative Litigation Strategies podcast, Kevin interviews John Zabriskie, a Partner and Trial Lawyer with the law firm Foley & Lardner.  Kevin and John discuss the proliferation of food mislabeling cases throughout the Midwest, the common causes of action, nuances among state laws of IL, CA and NY, the future of “flavoring” cases, and best practices for companies to follow to avoid advertising litigation going forward.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 125 – 13 Cognitive Distortions Crippling Your Witness – Part 1 In the first of a multi-part topic, Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss irrational thinking patterns. Steve and Bill describe how the brain makes connections that may or may not be connected in reality and how that type of irrational thinking can impact witness performance, requiring cognitive reframing to correct these irrational thinking patterns. Bill and Steve have identified 13 cognitive distortions that are crippling your witnesses and cover four of these distortions in this episode:
1) Polarized thinking – this type of thinking occurs when your witness feels they have to be perfect as a witness;
2) Mental filtering – when a witness magnifies negative aspects of the case and ignores or discounts positive facts;
3) Overgeneralization – this happens when your witness focuses on a single negative event from the past and makes an extreme conclusion that all other events in the future will be negative;
4) Jumping to conclusions – your witness is convinced that there is no chance at obtaining a favorable trial verdict or settlement.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ImG
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 124 – Reptile, Witnesses and Anchoring Nick Rauch, Attorney with Larson King in Minnesota, joins the podcast to talk about defending against the plaintiff Reptile Theory, particularly by starting defense preparation very early in the case. Nick and Bill discuss where and how early they are seeing Reptile in the litigation process, plus the importance and implications of a corporate representative's deposition testimony and having them prepared for potential Reptile attacks and traps. Nick also shares his perspectives on anchoring and counter-anchoring, how these concepts can start in the initial communications about the case, and making sure you are discussing the strategy for anchoring and counter-anchoring with clients so everyone is in alignment. Bill and Nick also discuss how to talk to witnesses about their role in testimony, how they fit within the broader strategy of the case, and the critical importance of likeability in testimony. Watch the video this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/KdZ
Batten Down The Hatches: Issues to Consider With Florida’s 2022 Storm Season Upon Us This podcast with Butler attorneys David Maldoff and Wiley Hodges will touch on and discuss issues to consider when storm related claims are reported. The podcast will further discuss how ensuing loss provisions in policies can affect how a claim show be examined, as well as address Florida’s current 25% re-roofing rule and how the new laws passed this year will alter the current law and the potential effects moving forward.
Countering Scorched Earth Tactics with Doug Lalone Maxwell Goss speaks with Doug Lalone, an engineer and patent attorney with the intellectual property firm Fishman Stewart. Doug tells the story of a very interesting case he handled involving a design patent for a rifle scope. The case involved not only cutting-edge issues in IP law but also intersected with a criminal prosecution. Doug offers insights on dealing with scorched earth litigation tactics and putting together a winning strategy in high-stakes cases.———-00:19 – Introduction01:49 – About Doug Lalone04:20 – Doug’s involvement with ACG05:13 – The Leepers rifle scope case12:41 – Trade dress infringement16:25 – Functionality and trade dress22:04 – Resolution of the rifle scope case24:18 – Doug’s advice for dealing with scorched earth litigators26:20 – Pleading the fifth in a civil case30:52 – Where to find Doug Lalone online31:38 – Sponsor Spotlight: Shaun Fitzpatrick of Fortz Legal Support———-Doug Lalone’s Attorney Bio———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook———-Fortz Legal: Court Reporting | Litigation Support | Legal Support
Protecting Shareholder Rights with Sara MacWilliams On this episode of The Litigation War Room, Maxwell Goss speaks with Sara MacWilliams, a business litigator described by one judge as an “outstanding legal mind” who “refuted all the claims made [by her opponent] with assurance and aplomb.” Sara talks about an important recent case she handled that clarified and amplified the rights of corporate shareholders. Sara provides insights about shareholder litigation and successfully litigating unresolved questions of law.———-01:59 – About Sara MacWilliams and her law practice05:11 – Murphy v. Inman09:26 – Cash-out mergers13:12 – Derivative versus direct claims18:00 – Corporate fiduciary duties20:00 – The opinion in Murphy v. Inman22:16 – Test for identifying direct claims24:17 – Duties of directors to shareholders27:13 – Broader implications of Murphy v. Inman30:58 – Sara's advice for attorneys32:45 – Where to find Sara MacWilliams online———-Sara MacWilliams’s Attorney BioOpinion of Justice Zahra in Murphy v. Inman———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 119 – Defining a Defense Win Baxter Drennon, Partner with Hall Booth Smith in Little Rock, Arkansas, joins the podcast to talk about the different ways the defense can define a win. The definition of a win may not be simply a defense verdict or a zero dollar verdict. The definition of a win needs to be based on the goals of the client and the legal team needs to understand what the client's expectations are. Steve and Baxter talk about a few different ways of defining a "win" including: plaintiff filing a motion for voluntary dismissal; motion for summary judgment granted; mistrial caused by plaintiff's counsel; directive verdict; zero dollars at trial; settlement that is agreeable or avoiding a nuclear verdict; verdict that beats an offer at judgment; verdict less than expected; and less than demand, but not less than expected. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9km
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 120 – Four Lethal but Preventable Mistakes in Civil Litigation Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. revisits the very first paper he wrote titled: "Four Lethal but Preventable Mistakes in Civil Litigation". Bill discusses these four mistakes in detail including: #1 making witness prep the last priority; #2 a weak visual presentation; #3 overreliance on expert witnesses; and #4 going on the defensive early. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/o4p
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 121 – The White Hat Movement for the Trucking Industry Doug Marcello, Chief Legal Officer with Bluewire, joins the podcast to talk about the genesis of Bluewire and the benefits for trucking and transportation companies. Bluewire software analyzes vulnerabilities for motor carriers and provides recommendations to reduce or eliminate those vulnerabilities. It allows for a strategic, proactive response to help trucking companies avoid nuclear verdicts. Doug also talks about Bluewire Connect which is an online community limited to trucking industry individuals, trucking defense attorneys, and trucking insurance representatives. The Bluewire Connect forum allows for a free and active exchange of ideas and information between members, as well as helping them find information on resources, experts, vendors, etc. that can be of benefit to their business. Lastly, Doug and Bill discuss some of the primary sources of vulnerabilities for trucking companies, plus some of the less obvious vulnerabilities, and the importance of motor carriers having a formal crisis response plan. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oTb
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 122 – Summer Break and A Look Ahead Dr. Steve Wood gives an update on The Litigation Psychology Podcast schedule for the summer and a preview of some of the topics that will be featured in new episodes when the podcast returns from a short summer break. Those topics include the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, preparing a former employee for deposition, the fallacy of the reptile brain, social influence in the courtroom, top excuses we hear for not conducting jury research, how to prepare emotional witnesses for testimony, plus many more. To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OzS
The Litigation Psychology Podcast- Episode 118 – Evaluating Corporate Representative Candidates Defense attorney Billy Davis, Partner with Bovis, Kyle, Burch & Medlin in Atlanta, joins the podcast to talk about his experience participating in a recent Courtroom Sciences Corporate Representative Witness Evaluation and Training with his client and provides his perspectives on the difference between standard witness prep and Courtroom Sciences' witness training program. Billy shares his thoughts on how the Corporate Rep witness training allowed his client to evaluate multiple Corporate Rep candidates and how the training helped them see that perhaps the person most knowledgeable may not necessarily be the best choice to serve as the Corporate Rep for the company. Bill and Billy also discuss how doing the training early benefitted the client, the impact of emotion at deposition, and how the speed at which witnesses answer questions is one of the areas of control available to the witness in a deposition. Lastly, they talk about the challenges law firms are experiencing with keeping young associates and what can be done to improve retention. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/LXa
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 123 – Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trial Dr. Steve Wood is joined by CSI Crisis Communications Practice Leader Sean Murphy to discuss the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. Sean describes how public opinion was being influenced daily during the trial and the narrative that was being communicated in the court of public opinion. Sean shares the approach that should be taken in litigation communications and what seemed to work for Johnny Depp's side and worked against Amber Heard's side during this trial. Steve talks about some elements of Reptile Theory that seemed apparent in closing arguments and they also share their assessment of how Johnny and Amber performed as witnesses, how they responded to questioning and cross-examination, and how they engaged with the jury. They conclude by noting how, although this is celebrity defamation case, its a good case to study to understand how to define and control the narrative of any trial. To watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/cCK
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 117 – Comma, Danger Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers two critical witness testimony topics: the dangers of long answers and the risks of pivoting. Long answers, which often include commas, are dangerous at deposition and at trial. At deposition, long answers from witnesses lead to the sharing of more information with opposing counsel, which leads to even more questions, and cognitive fatigue of the witness. At trial, the jury can't follow long answers and they get bored. 
Witnesses who pivot during testimony open the door to a counter attack. Pivoting just gives plaintiff's counsel more information and then testimony turns into an argument, which the witness can't win. 
Lastly, Dr. Kanasky talks about the anchor bias and how, once the anchor is set, all subsequent questions must be answered in the context of the anchor, and the only way to address this is to break down the cognitive schema in advance so witnesses don't fall for the anchor. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/T8c
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 116 – Impact of Consistent Messages on Our Perceptions Dr. Steve Wood discusses the impact and influence that constant and consistent messaging has on us individually, and on prospective jurors. Steve explains the concept of the Mere Exposure Effect and how the more we are presented with specific topics or ideas, the more we develop thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes about those topics. He also discusses the concept of Social Proof and how our brain processes something ambiguous by following the patterns of other people's behaviors or opinions. Lastly, Steve discusses what can be done to counter specific messaging, particularly as it relates to plaintiff trucking and transportation advertising. A counter offensive is critical since these negative messages are directly influencing the prospective jury pool. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/8Jz
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 115 – The Witness Game Plan Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. lays out what the game plan should be for witnesses before and during testimony. Bill talks about what attorneys need to be doing with witnesses the 24 hours before testimony, the four key things witnesses need to be coached and trained on as part of their preparation, and what witnesses should do during breaks in testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/WIn
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 114 – Breaking Down a Successful Defense Verdict James Feeney, Member, Dykama joins Dr. Steve Wood to discuss a recent defense verdict in a traumatic brain injury case. The plaintiff was injured in an vehicular accident and sued the automobile manufacturer for product liability. Jim provides details on how the defense for the case was constructed, what research was done with mock jurors, and the value of testing different combinations of evidence, themes, messaging, etc. in mock trials to help guide trial strategy. Jim also shares his philosophy on offering up alternate damage figures. Lastly, Jim tried this case recently so he also provides his perspective on jury selection and conducting voir dire with Covid restrictions and the challenges of trying a case with a socially distanced jury. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/kPp
1) too much information on slides (less is more);
2) too many mock jurors (recruit a more reasonable number of 12-15);
3) too long of a ” id=”AbKvy21ZoRO” vid=”AbKvy21ZoRO” id-for-player=”AbKvy21ZoRO” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-113-5-common-focus-group-mistakes-AbKvy21ZoRO/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 113 – 5 Common Focus Group Mistakes Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers five common mistakes being made when conducting focus groups, the consequences of these mistakes, and what adjustments should be made:
1) too much information on slides (less is more);
2) too many mock jurors (recruit a more reasonable number of 12-15);
3) too long of a day (juror fatigue is real; keep the days a reasonable length);
4) long presentations (juror attention span is short, keep presentations short);
5) the approach to testing damages (just want to get a feel for a range; a mock trial with juror deliberations is the method to get specifics).
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/tFi
TCPA Litigation Since Facebook – Where Are We Today? Listen to Risk Settlements’ latest podcast where Kevin Skrzysowski interviews Tery Gonsalves, a Partner and trial lawyer with the law firm Alston & Bird. Kevin and Tery look back on last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Facebook and its impact on TCPA litigation, including Tery’s winning Motion for Summary Judgment in Johansen v. Efinancial. The two discuss how to successfully raise the TCPA’s safe harbor provision as a defense to alleged DNC list violations, how the courts have split on the meaning of obtaining express prior written consent, the ongoing risks of using ATDS and RoSNG technology, and the best practices for remaining in compliance with the TCPA as it stands today.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 112 – Importance of Behavioral Consistency of Defendants Trial is a battle of perception and jurors pay very close attention to the behavior of the litigants, particularly the defendant. Behavioral consistency is highly correlated with honesty and truthfulness. In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. describes the 4 golden traits of an effective defendant including, 1) Professionalism; 2) Confidence/comfort; 3) Maintaining emotional poise; and 4) Engaged and attentive in the process. 

Why are these qualities so important? Jurors use their observations of defendant behaviors and reactions to judge your client. This process begins in jury selection and continues through opening statements, testimony of all witnesses, and closing arguments. So, defendants must maintain behavioral consistency on all fronts to give jurors a positive, consistent impression throughout the entire trial. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/tRI
Effective Depositions with Nicole Westbrook On this episode, Maxwell Goss chats with Nicole Westbrook, a litigation partner with the law firm of Jones & Keller in Denver, Colorado. In this wide-ranging conversation, Nicole discusses deposition skills, the pros and cons of arbitration, the challenges of remote technology, and her advocacy for women in the law.Nicole also dives into an interesting case she handled concerning a multi-level marketing business, and talks about some of the unique legal challenges facing players in that industry.———-00:18 – Introduction01:18 – About Nicole Westbrook02:19 – Legal challenges for multi-level marketing (MLM) companies08:45 – Nicole’s federal clerkship12:12 – Retaining women in the legal practice14:10 – Nicole’s work with the National Institute for Trial Advocacy15:47 – Preparing for depositions18:11 – A recent case involving an MLM business22:25 – Nicole’s critique of the arbitration system26:10 – The challenges of remote depositions35:11 – Nicole’s advice on conducting an effective deposition37:47 – Where to find Nicole Westbrook online———Nicole Westbrook’s Attorney BioJones & Keller———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook———-Fortz Legal: Court Reporting | Litigation Support | Legal Support
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 111 – Alternative Causation plus more Frequently Asked Questions In this episode Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss the importance of alternative causation, plus answer podcast viewer and listener questions. Steve and Bill talk about how jury research demonstrates that jurors don't care that the plaintiff has the burden of proof on causation and that human information processing requires them to identify cause. Because of this, defense attorneys must help jurors by providing alternative causation considerations in order for jurors to move to considering damages. Steve and Bill share their insights on planting seeds for your case in voir dire to ensure jurors will follow the judge's instructions and the value of using mock trials to test liability well before trial. 

Questions asked and answered in this episode:
– Can multiple witness be trained at one time and how does that work?
– Does a juror's social media activity have an impact on verdicts?
– How have damage awards changed since the onset of Covid?
– Does social inflation cause nuclear verdicts?

Watch the video of the episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fMg
Ep 8: In conversation with… Emma Ganley, Costs Consultant In this episode, Alicia talks to Pauline Lépissier and Emma Ganley about the importance of considering and effectively managing the costs involved in litigation, the process of cost budgeting and recoverability.

-” id=”2c5347DqT2w” vid=”2c5347DqT2w” id-for-player=”2c5347DqT2w” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-110-common-themes-in-birth-injury-cases-2c5347DqT2w/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 110 – Common Themes in Birth Injury Cases One of the most emotional, challenging, and difficult cases are birth injury cases. Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. discuss some of the common themes they have seen during focus groups and mock trials for birth injury cases. Specifically, they share insights from jurors on these topics: 

– jurors' perceptions and lack of understanding of the employment status of physicians as independent contractors vs. being employees of the hospital; 
– jurors' awareness of the comparative time nurses spend with patients vs. doctors but who they hold ultimately responsible for care and why this can be a problem for the doctor; 
– jurors' opinions on the communications between all involved parties (nurses, doctors, hospital)
– challenge of dealing with the potentially conflicting situation of sympathy of jurors toward the plaintiff, their positive perceptions of healthcare professionals, and how this impacts their process in awarding damages; 
– jurors' perceptions of adherence to hospital rules and policies; 
– effectiveness of day in the life videos;
– and more.

Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/upr
Non-Compete Litigation with Daniel Quick On this episode of The Litigation War Room podcast, Maxwell Goss chats with Daniel Quick, a leading business litigator, partner with Dickinson Wright, and co-author of Michigan Business Torts.Dan discusses his successful litigation and trial of a non-compete case against celebrity chef Matt Prentice. Dan discusses the fascinating facts of this case and the interesting opinion from business court judge Michael Warren. Dan also offers insights on handling contentious business cases and on the state of non-compete legislation and litigation nationwide.———-00:18 – Introduction01:19 – Daniel Quick's professional background3:04 – The value of bar associations6:01 – The Matt Prentice case13:21 – Non-compete law in Michigan24:29 – Daniel Quick's victory in the Matt Prentice case28:44 – The use and misuse of non-compete agreements31:30 – Judge Michael Warren's opinion in the Matt Prentice case———-Daniel Quick’s Attorney BioMichigan Business Torts———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
1) Control the pace of the questioning, 
2) Avoid pivoting, 
3) Deliver short, concise answers, and
4) Respond appropriately to emot” id=”5ebWSrpVnCf” vid=”5ebWSrpVnCf” id-for-player=”5ebWSrpVnCf” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-109-four-keys-to-successful-trial-testimony-5ebWSrpVnCf/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 109 – Four Keys to Successful Trial Testimony Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares a case study from a recent trial to highlight the elements of successful trial testimony. Four keys of successful trial testimony are to: 
1) Control the pace of the questioning, 
2) Avoid pivoting, 
3) Deliver short, concise answers, and
4) Respond appropriately to emotional attacks by plaintiff's counsel. 

Bill also discusses tips on managing cases where you have a co-defendant and the challenges and opportunities with finger-pointing. Bill has been working on a number of cases recently where there are co-defendants and talks about the research that is necessary to determine if your co-defendant should be adverse to you. He shares the importance of testing and running mock trials to determine how juries are assigning blame and the value of knowing this information early in order to use in mediation and in developing trial strategy. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/u3z
The Surge of Litigation Against Food & Beverage Manufacturers Description: Don’t miss the latest episode as Sascha Henry and Christopher Van Gundy, Partners at the law firm, Sheppard Mullin, and Co-Chairs of the 6th annual Food Law Conference, join Risk Settlements Director, Kevin Skrzysowski, for a robust discussion of the most impactful litigation trends in this industry today.  Listen now as they discuss the biggest threats food companies are currently facing, the science and substantiation behind health-related claims, lessons from the Covid pandemic, and dispositive motion, trial and settlement strategies.
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 108 – Working with Traumatized Witnesses Dr. Alyssa Parker, Litigation Consultant and an experienced Clinical Psychologist, joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about working with witnesses who are dealing with trauma associated with a catastrophic accident or fatality. Alyssa and Bill discuss mistakes that the defense side often make with these emotional and traumatized witnesses, including ignoring or downplaying the suppression or avoidance of the memories of the traumatic event. They also talk about the necessity for these traumatized witnesses to get treatment for their trauma but how the stigma of therapy and mental health issues often limits how many seek out treatment. Lastly, Alyssa and Bill provide insights on what defense attorneys can do as they work with these traumatized witnesses and how each witness needs to be assessed in advance of any discussion about the litigation or preparing for their deposition testimony. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1AE
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 107 – Focus on Improving Your Craft Baxter Drennon, Attorney with Hall Booth Smith in Little Rock, Arkansas joins the podcast to talk with Dr. Steve Wood about a range of topics around attorney credibility and improving as a trial lawyer. Baxter and Steve discuss the definition of a win, the necessity of gaining direct experience in trying cases, the philosophies about whether to go to trial or settle a case, and what types of training would be useful for defense attorneys to keep pace with the plaintiff's bar as they invest in their craft. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/H2e
Shaping Your Case for Success with Dan Sharkey On this episode, Maxwell Goss speaks with Daniel Sharkey, a supply chain litigation attorney who has been ranked by Super Lawyers as a top 10 lawyer in the state of Michigan.Dan discusses an automotive case in which he helped his client achieve a great result by shaping the factual record long before a lawsuit was filed. Along the way, Dan offers great insights on counseling business clients and strategically positioning a case for success from start to finish.———-“There’s a classic risk-return tradeoff. You can’t go nuts about every potential risk or you’d never leave your porch. But at the same time, there’s a tradeoff there. And when you see a client who is biting off a huge potential risk, we have a duty at least a flag it, make them aware of it, and say, ‘You can sign it, but this is what you are getting into.’”-Dan Sharkey———-00:19 – Introduction01:14 – Dan Sharkey's trial experience as a JAG attorney02:25 – More about Dan and his law practice04:32 – Auto supply chain litigation06:49 – Thoughts on the supply chain crisis11:24 – The value a seasoned litigator can add at the contract stage13:02 – The Bilstein case23:02 – Thoughts on contract negotiation27:36 – Dan's advice for setting the table for a dispute30:51 – Where to find Dan Sharkey online———-Daniel Sharkey’s Attorney Bio———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
Invention2Exit: Patent Case Study Interview with Lynette Robinson Invention2Exit: Patent Case Study Interview with Lynette Robinson Lynette is a sought-after speaker & performer, entrepreneur, and business coach who specializes in helping entrepreneurs go from lightbulb moment to launched in a fraction of the time, so they can skyrocket their sales and create the life and business of their dreams. Site: https://www.successacceleratorlive.com/join
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 105 – Mindfulness and Stress Relief for Attorneys Wellness Specialist Jennifer Donovan of Wellness 4 Judiciary joins the podcast to talk to Dr. Steve Wood about mental and physical wellbeing and what attorneys can do to relieve stress and anxiety and achieve clarity and tranquility. In part 1, Jennifer shared exercises to help witnesses and in this part she demonstrates several exercises for posture, breathing, and mental focus and intentional thought, which help with calmness and concentration. Jennifer also shares additional exercises and practices that help to calm the nervous system and achieve a sense of serenity in the mind. Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/NpF
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 106 – Peremptory Challenges Eliminated in Arizona Heather Bohnke, Partner with Gust Rosenfeld PLC in Arizona, joins the podcast to talk with Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. about the recently enacted ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court which has done away with peremptory strikes as January 1, 2022. Arizona has become the first state in the nation to eliminate peremptory challenges. Heather talks about the background behind why the Arizona Supreme Court made this ruling and what the impacts are, for both plaintiff and defense attorneys, in navigating the elimination of peremptory challenges. Bill and Heather discuss how attorneys will need to manage their voir dire without access to peremptory strikes and the increased importance of juror consulting and juror questionnaires in jury selection. They also talk about healthcare litigation, the challenges of working with healthcare witnesses, how healthcare marketing fuels plaintiff reptile attorneys, and how to deal with multiple co-defendants in healthcare litigation. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/cqp
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 104 – Mindfulness and Stress Relief for Witnesses Wellness Specialist Jennifer Donovan of Wellness 4 Judiciary joins the podcast to talk to Dr. Steve Wood about mental wellbeing, mindfulness, and what witnesses can do to reduce stress levels, particularly when testifying. Jennifer demonstrates several helpful exercises to help relieve stress and create calmness, clarity, and focus. The exercises, which can be done either seated or standing, include attention to posture, breathing, shoulders, head & neck, and the jaw, plus intentional thoughts and visualizing positive outcomes for better self care. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/b6u
EP 7: Dealing with hostile social media In this podcast, Matthew Garbutt and Pauline Lépissier will give you an overview defamation, including when defamatory statements are posted online and the laws surrounding the duties of internet hosts. They will explain the steps to follow to seek to delete defamatory posts or websites, including by anonymous posters, and what the Courts can do to help.
Chat with Former U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider On this episode, Maxwell Goss talks with former U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider of the Honigman law firm. Matthew tells never-before-heard stories about how his office handled major law enforcement challenges including the COVID outbreak and protests following the death of George Floyd.He also talks about busting the leadership of the UAW on corruption charges, and about his current practice handling internal investigations. Finally, Matthew offers advice for attorneys looking to make a career in public service.———-“Be nice to everyone. If you do just that,it's going to come around and benefit you.”- Matthew Schneider———-00:18 – Introduction02:07 – About Former U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider05:23 – UAW investigation08:58 – Career and appointment as U.S. Attorney10:54 – Law enforcement environment during COVID13:13 – Protests of the summer of 202015:20 – Why protests in Detroit were different17:59 – Matthew Schneider's work with Attorney General Bill Barr21:18 – Working behind the scenes during the COVID crisis23:10 – Matthew Schneider's white collar and investigations practice25:07 – Advice for attorneys looking to pursue public service27:02 – Civility in modern politics29:01 – Where to find Matthew Schneider online29:37 – Mini-interview with Mike Morse———-Honigman———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook

– How to handle a defensive witness who is also young and inexperienced?

– What type of assessment(s) should be done of witnesses before they are p” id=”7M1qOi4yipM” vid=”7M1qOi4yipM” id-for-player=”7M1qOi4yipM” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-103-frequently-asked-questions-part-2-7M1qOi4yipM/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 103 – Frequently Asked Questions, Part 2 Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. answers more frequently asked questions from viewers and listeners of the podcast. Questions asked and answered in this episode:

– How to handle a defensive witness who is also young and inexperienced?

– What type of assessment(s) should be done of witnesses before they are prepped for deposition?

– What is a shadow jury?

– How is commercial litigation different than personal injury or catastrophic injury or death cases?

– Is it okay to Reptile my co-defendant who is adverse to my client?

Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ztm
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 102 – Witness Training for CEOs and Executives Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talk about witness training for CEOs and some of the challenges with training C-level executives for deposition and trial testimony. Steve and Bill discuss how they work with these types of witnesses and some of the steps that these executives must be open to in order to maximize the benefits of the training and perform well during testimony. They describe the social psychology concept of state dependent learning plus how an executive's potential negative attitudes about attorneys can impact their approach to their witness preparation. Steve and Bill talk about the impact an executive's anger related to the litigation can have on their preparation and also why CEOs have to be okay with saying they don't know something, even if that is uncomfortable for them. Lastly, they cover the importance of how one dresses during testimony, the criticality of taking cognitive breaks while testifying and not just using breaks to catch up on work, and how their behavior at the defense table can impact juror perceptions during jury selection and the trial itself. Watch the video version of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/akV

– the importance and necessity of communication and sharing of information amongst th” id=”BbHQPM3Tam” vid=”BbHQPM3Tam” id-for-player=”BbHQPM3Tam” link=”/listen/the-litigation-psychology-podcast-episode-101-a-look-ahead-at-podcast-topics-in-2022-BbHQPM3Tam/” is-authorized=”false” custom-styles=”margin: 0 24px 24px 0;”>
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 101 – A Look Ahead at Podcast Topics in 2022 Dr. Steve Wood delivers a preview of topics that will be addressed on The Litigation Psychology Podcast during 2022. A few of the hot topics that Steve and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. will be discussing during the year:

– the importance and necessity of communication and sharing of information amongst the defense bar; 

– celebrating defense bar victories, including insights on what's working for the defense, and what's leading to those wins and successful outcomes;  

– witness behavior, including recent observations and commentary on defendants taking the stand in their own defense and what's been successful and unsuccessful in those situations;

– mental health topics, covering witness, juror, and attorney mental health issues and their impact on litigation; 

– attorney leadership and the importance of providing opportunities and training for younger attorneys; 

– juror perceptions of different industries and individual roles of people who will be called to testify and how to improve and change any negative impressions;  

– plus much more.

Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/P6G
Blocking and Staging in the Courtroom with Eliot Wagonheim On this episode of The Litigation War Room, Maxwell Goss speaks with Eliot Wagonheim. Eliot is a seasoned litigator as well as a frequent public speaker and podcaster. He is also the creator of WagonheimU, a learning platform for construction subcontractors. Eliot discusses some of the interesting construction litigation cases that he handled, and shares insights on physical presence, or what he calls "blocking and staging," in the courtroom.———-“All movement should be intentional. It shouldn’t look like a quirk or something you forgot on the other side of the courtroom. And it shouldn’t look threatening, like now you’re rushing the witness stand. There should be a method.”-Eliot Wagonheim———-00:19 – Introduction01:38 – About Eliot Wagonheim and his law practice02:39 – What makes construction cases unique04:24 – Eliot on being a public speaker06:47 – WagonheimU07:57 – The Universal case11:02 – Arbitration provisions in construction cases17:05 – Playing different roles with juries19:55 – Balancing planning and improvising23:53 – The Elevated case29:31 – Eliot's advice for using blocking and staging as a litigator32:12 – Where to find Eliot online32:38 – Eliot's podcast, So Here's My Story34:08 – Business Law Symposium preview with Roy Sexton———-With 30+ years of experience, Eliot serves as general counsel to small to mid-sized businesses in a wide array of industries in both litigation and corporate matters. Over the course of his career, Eliot and his team have served as buyer’s counsel as well as seller’s counsel in transactions ranging from $50,000 to $100,000,000. From a litigation perspective, Eliot has both won and successfully defended cases ranging from multi-million dollar, bet-your-company cases to smaller, District Court actions.In addition to working with clients, Eliot also supports organizations and people by teaching online webinars, workshops, and Master Classes through the online platform WagonheimU; and speaking virtually and in-person.———-Eliot Wagonheim’s Attorney BioWagonheimU Subcontractor TrainingSo Here’s My Story podcast———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 100 – Practical Advice for Civil Litigation Defense The 100th episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast features trial attorneys Paul Motz from Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney and Brad Hughes from Clark Hill. Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. talk to Paul and Brad about the challenges of connecting with jurors during trials where masks are required and ideas on what to do. The group discuss their thoughts on counter-anchoring damages, why the insurance adjuster playbook doesn't work, and steps that need to be taken to diffuse a nuclear verdict before getting to trial. Paul and Brad offer their suggestions on how younger attorneys who lack experience can be provided opportunities to learn and talk about the difficult conversations that attorneys must have with their clients and their insurance companies about the investments that are necessary to avoid the ever-increasing nuclear verdicts and settlements. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/VWF
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 98 – Decision Making in Trial Practice Chris Patton, Partner at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann and John Adams, Trial Lawyer at Gibson Dunn, join Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. to talk about commercial litigation and the article they co-authored titled Give the Jury What It Wants: Decision-Making in Trial Practice. Chris, John, and Bill discuss the importance of storytelling in trial and why and how to get the jury's attention early to frame the trial narrative. The group also talk about the availability bias and how jurors interpret and consider the information and litigants based on when and how much they are talked about by the attorneys. John and Chris share how they handle explaining complex concepts to jurors to help them understand so that they can properly evaluate the case facts and how they leverage sympathy and emotion in business litigation to help jurors relate. Lastly, the group talks about how to identify the right witnesses for the case, the way they handle bad facts at trial, and their perspective on bringing up tough questions during voir dire. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Rpe
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 99 – Trial Preparation, Part 2 Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discuss trial testimony, preparing witnesses for trial, and the steps necessary for the best results at trial. They talk about the process that should be followed and where witnesses and even attorneys fall short, leading to bad outcomes at trial.  Plaintiffs are continuing to increase demands and are wanting to go to trial as they see that as an advantage for them, especially against ill-prepared and under-prepared defense counsel. And the only way to be ready for trial is to invest in the weaponry (mock trials, jury research, witness training, jury selection, trial consulting, counter-anchoring) necessary to fight fire with fire and win. Bill shares the result from a recent case that just went to trial, where the demand was a nuclear demand and what led to a non-nuclear verdict that the legal team and client were thrilled with. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/uZU
The Litigation Psychology Podcast – Episode 97 – The Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation of the Reptile Program Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. share the latest updates on the Reptile training program. Recently, the program has gone through an evolution and some rebranding. There appears to be a phasing out of the "Reptile" term but the program is alive and well and there are now even more options for the plaintiff's bar to receive training on these variations of the Reptile Theory. Steve and Bill talk about the concept of cognitive schema and cognitive dissonance, which are keys to the success of Reptile attorneys, and why witnesses' brains need to be rewired and rebuilt to keep them from being taken advantage of by plaintiff attorneys. They also answer viewer mail including questions about doing a mock trial or focus group if you don't have videos of witnesses and the pros and cons of doing online surveys vs. a mock trial. Watch the video version of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/bXZ
Litigating Parental Alienation with Ashish Joshi On this episode, Maxwell Goss talks with high-stakes family law attorney, Ashish Joshi. Ashish handles disputes involving the mistreatment of children, allegations of child abuse, and recovery of abducted children across the United States and around the world. An authority on the subject of parental alienation, Ashish is the author of Litigating Parental Alienation: Evaluating and Presenting an Effective Case in Court. In the interview, Ashish offers insights drawing from his deep knowledge and experience in this important area of law.———-“I think it’s an absolute misconception that litigation does not help children,that it’s never in the child’s best interest for the parents to litigate.I think if there are allegations that can be settled by fact-finding, it is important to litigate as early as possible. Otherwise, you are going to have theories from each side, and the ghosts of these theories are going to haunt the case and the professionals involved for months and for years.”-Ashish Joshi———-00:18 – Introduction01:52 – About Ashish Joshi and his law practice04:37 – Practicing law in India vs. the United States07:58 – Ashish's book Litigating Parental Alienation09:37 – What is parental alienation?20:12 – Guardians ad litem and parental alienation25:35 – Judicial recognition of parental alienation30:46 – The biggest obstacle to getting a good result in a parental alienation case36:10 – Alienation vs. estrangement42:07 – Ashish's advice for litigators handling parental alienation cases45:11 – Where to find Ashish Joshi online45:53 – Business Law Symposium preview with Powell Miller———-Ashish Joshi serves as the lead counsel in high-stakes, complex disputes and litigation matters. Mr. Joshi has counseled and/or represented clients in state and federal courts across the United States and internationally, including in India, United Kingdom, Canada, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, British Virgin Islands, and China.Mr. Joshi’s focus lies at the intersection of forensic sciences, human rights, and complex disputes in situations involving severe parental alienation and psychological maltreatment of children, false allegations of child abuse, recovery of abducted children and/or hidden assets in foreign jurisdictions and multi-jurisdictional disputes. He has served as lead counsel in some of the most significant matters in these specialized areas of law. Mr. Joshi and his team have represented clients around the country and internationally.Mr. Joshi is privileged to serve as the Editor in Chief for Litigation, the journal of the American Bar Association’s Section of Litigation and on the Advisory Board for Champion, the journal published by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Mr. Joshi also served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers based in Washington, D.C.———-Ashish Joshi’s Attorney BioLitigating Parental Alienation: Evaluating and Presenting an Effective Case in Court———-Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook
Load More