Life Beyond the Briefs
At Life Beyond the Briefs we help lawyers like you become less busy, make more money, and spend more time doing what they want instead of what they have to. Brian brings you guests from all walks of life are living a life of their own design and are ready to share actionable tips for how you can begin to live your own dream life.
Life Beyond the Briefs
Gray’s Anatomy of a Verdict: From Voir Dire to Victory | Sharif Gray
He left Big Law after 90 days to chase juries. Now Sharif Gray, Richmond trial lawyer and co-host of the RVA Trial Lawyers podcast, breaks down how authenticity (not interrogation) wins over jurors and drives real results in the courtroom.
We get into the hard stuff: valuing cases beyond medical specials and policy limits, the “speed-trial” mindset of cutting what doesn’t serve the story, and why parachuting in close to trial can actually sharpen your case. Sharif also shares a tough crime-victim matter that shows what accountability really looks like—and why some cases are worth saying “no” until it pays.
In this episode:
- Make authenticity your unfair advantage in voir dire
- Price pain and conduct—not just bills and limits
- Speed-trial thinking: cut to win
- Parachute-lawyering: fresh eyes, clearer themes
- Build a career around trials vs. running the business
- Get real reps (JAG, prosecution) when jury trials are scarce
- Intake filters that find clients who want accountability, not just a check
Sharif’s Event
Voir Dire to Verdict 2025 — practical training from top trial minds. Proceeds support the Wounded Warrior Project.
Info & tickets: https://rvatriallawyers.com/events/
Connect with Sharif
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharifgray
YouTube (RVA Trial Lawyers): https://www.youtube.com/@RVATrialLawyers
Apple Podcasts (RVA Trial Lawyers): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rva-trial-lawyers-virginias-trial-lawyer-podcast/id1669382040
Contact page: https://rvatriallawyers.com/contact-us/
Firm bio: https://graybroughton.com/team/sharif-gray/
____________________________________
Brian Glass is a nationally recognized personal injury lawyer in Fairfax, Virginia. He is passionate about living a life of his own design and looking for answers to solutions outside of the legal field. This podcast is his effort to share that passion with others.
Want to connect with Brian?
Follow Brian on Instagram: @thebrianglass
Connect on LinkedIn
Like I have learned that the more real I can be with someone else, right? The allow my the guard down, I connect better with others. And whereas I think at a younger age, well I think I'm still young, I hope I'm still young, even though I have two kids and bills and responsibilities, but I I would have been m much more afraid to ever say, Well, I'm wrong about that, or to give off any appearance that I may not know what I'm doing. Whereas I think I've learned through therapy and through the Jerry Spence stuff and that that um that it's okay to just kind of be you and and that people will will accept you and appreciate you for that, and chances are you'll develop a deeper connection. And then on the flip side, if they don't, well then screw them. Like you probably don't want to be around them anyways, right?
SPEAKER_02:Hey friends, welcome back to Life Beyond the Briefs. If you're a lawyer torn between billables in the box, this one's for you. Today I'm talking with Sharif Gray, Richmond trial lawyer, co-host of the RVA trial lawyers podcast, and dad of two who spends Sundays hopping rocks in the James River. Sharif walked away from big law after just three months to chase what actually lights him up, trying cases. We dig into why authenticity beats interrogation and far gear, how therapy and the Jerry Spence approach sharpened his voice, and why cutting everything that doesn't serve the story is the fastest way to a clean burning. We'll talk real case value, not just policy limits for medical specials. Sharif also shares a hard story from his crime victim, Mark, that shows what accountability really looks like. Hit play and build a life beyond the briefs.
SPEAKER_03:Hello, everybody, welcome back to the show. Today's guest is Sharif Gray. Sharif is a trial lawyer from down in Richmond, runs the RVA trial lawyers podcast. He's putting on an event which conflicts with the Great Legal Marketing Summit. But if you are trying to be a great trial lawyer, you're not going to learn it at my event. So you should go to Sharif's What Ear to Verdict coming up at the end of October. And above everything else, Sharif has a dad of two little boys that he takes out to the James River to play on the rocks every Sunday. And I see that on LinkedIn. Sharif, welcome to the show.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you. And I'll tell you what, I didn't know that our event conflicted with your guys' event. And when I found that out, I was like, dang it. But thankfully, I think they're two very different trainings. So hopefully, in terms of those who are interested in the stuff that I'm offering, that's one type of lawyer. And then the the business, the marketing stuff that you guys are offering is just a different type. Equally as important. In fact, I'd argue even what I've learned the last few years more important. Because without a sound business or the ability to get cases, there is no trialware. So, anyways, I'm a as you know, I'm a big fan of what you and your dad have taught over the years. And I do my best to follow in your footsteps.
SPEAKER_03:I think you can be good at both, but it is hard. Especially, I mean, you're you're you look young. You're not that young. You're a couple years younger than I am. But early in your career, like it's really hard to learn both skills. And and frankly, the reason that we selected that weekend and time slot for our event is there, you know, there's something to do every weekend and most weeks from September to November, there's a conference to go to, right? So we just picked the one that we thought we would overlap with the least, which is MTMP. And we scheduled right over top of MTMP because our clientele is least likely to go out to Vegas and and learn mass torts of all the conferences that you could go to. And, you know, your the niche that you're in, which is teaching people how to be better trial lawyers, is a totally underserved niche, and it's not something we're doing. So there's roles for for both of us. And I think it's it's really important, like for a lawyer at some point in their career to figure out what they want to do. Do I want to be a great trial lawyer? Do I want to run a business? I talk to lawyers all the time who go, I don't want to do any more trial work. I just want to run the business. You probably talk to lawyers who are at the other end of the spectrum who want nothing to do with running the business and want to associate with somebody who's good at generating cases, is good at handling all the administrative and and personnel staffing things, and just let me go and try cases.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. And uh it's funny how like the we almost like self-select like who we interact with, because when you said that immediately I can think of three or four people who I know fit the same kind of mold that I that that I'm in, right? Or at least want to be in. It's I'm not good with QuickBooks, I'm not good with with the managing people, but if you give me a case file and give me some autonomy, then I will do everything I can to get the best possible result and I'll have a great time doing it.
SPEAKER_03:So And you've done that your your whole career. So JAG officer, prosecutor. Um you had a three-month stint in big law, I see. That's right.
SPEAKER_00:I've got actually, you know what? It's weird, but that that short stint was really kind of a silver lining or a blessing in disguise in many ways, because it is what forced is the wrong word, but encouraged me or motivated me to kind of pursue the path I'm on. And I'll explain. So like I remember I let's see, I was Army Jack, I clerked for a federal district judge, then a federal circuit judge, and then I'll then the big law firm came calling, and I was super excited. I mean, we didn't even have an interview. It was a 30-minute phone call, and that was it. Wow. I was like, wow, they want me, and presumably I'm thinking they want me based on my experience and having just clerked. And I and I obviously don't know what they were thinking, but they're probably thinking, hey, this is a young, smart guy who's a hard worker. We'll put him in a seat, we'll pay him a lot of money, and it'll get done. Meanwhile, in my head, I'm like, no, I want to use, I actually want to continue to litigate. Well, I know I wouldn't be in court every day at one of those big firms. I thought, at least looking at some of the bios on the website, I was like, well, this I can do that, right? And I remember getting there and learning very quickly. I think I walked into the senior associate's office with a form to wave into the Eastern District of Virginia because I was like, the work I was doing at the time I was not interested in. I was doing white-collar work, uh, which sounds very sexy from afar, but in reality, memos, document review, fitting in interviews, stuff like that. Just it wasn't fun. And I was like, well, I just clerk, I'd done criminal defense. Let me see if I can get on the Criminal Justice Act panel with the federal court. So at least I have something on the side, like doing some sort of litigation, some sort of real criminal work to at least keep me motivated. And I remember walking in with the form to the senior associate or that group, and I remember she told me three things. It was like, one, oh no, I've never done that before. I've never actually waived in. The other was like, I've actually never been in a courtroom in the capacity as a lawyer. And the other thing was like, yeah, and I kind of like it here because we really don't litigate. And I remember going home and I knew that day.
SPEAKER_03:Litigation department telling you we really don't litigate.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. Well, uh, but to to be fair though, like it was white, it's a very good group. It's white-collar criminal defense, and their clients are Fortune 500 companies who the last thing they want is to be in litigation, right? They're trying to do everything they can to avoid the indictment. And and and that's that's great, like, but it just wasn't something that was interested to me, interested that I was interested in. And I remember leaving that night and I knew like this isn't gonna work. Um it certainly was terrifying thinking we I mean my family had just moved to Richmond, Virginia, didn't really know anyone in the area, was super excited about the job, loved the paycheck, thought the people were great, and of course the resources were amazing. But I but I also after a couple weeks, I was like, I could feel it. Like I was like, this isn't gonna work. I called, went, talked to my boss, it was COVID, so I called my boss and we talked, and he's like, listen, if you want to try cases, like it's not gonna be here. And so he was almost in some respects, and I appreciate this, was happy that I recognized that so early on, versus waiting six, nine months a year, and then things just got miserable, right? And so it was choosing to make that decision. Cause at that point, I had been what I when I look back, I had been like climbing the ladder, right? Like went to a good law school, did well, did the army jag, did the whole federal clerkship thing, made it to the big law firm thing, right? And thinking, okay, I've I've climbed to the top of the mountain in the in the legal sense, right? And to realize like it wasn't for me and to accept that, and then to realize that like I'm in charge of my own career, I'm in charge of my own happiness, and then to actually just have to do it, right? Was really a great lesson. And I remember at that point having a lot of conversations with people. And one of the things that came up was, well, trial, I mean, there just aren't that many trials anymore. Like, what are you thinking? And I remember thinking, like, well, I mean, is this I can either accept that and try something else completely, or I can say, you know what, there's sure there aren't that many trials, which means there aren't that many trial lawyers, but this is something I really enjoy doing. So maybe instead I will just niche down and say, I love it. I double down, do the work, get the training, and maybe one day I can be someone who is associated with being a decent trial lawyer. And that's what I did. And and I think it's working. I really do. So I'm super, I love where I work. I teamed up with Gray at the Broughton injury firm a couple of years almost two years ago now. I think almost two. My math is terrible, hence I'm not the business person. And I get to do the trial work, and we're getting some great results, and we're all right, we have a fantastic team, and I truly love what I do. Um, but so yeah, I that was a very short comment that led to a long story, but in weird ways, it was that very difficult experience that ultimately led to me to make the decision to double down on something I enjoyed doing, and and I think really set the foundation for where I am today.
SPEAKER_03:I have this memory of doing on-campus interviews when I was a um with Covington in Burling. And uh, and I said, Oh, I want to be a litigator, not really not knowing what that meant. And I mentioned being inside a courtroom and uh and the associate or the partner or whoever was there just kind of laughed and said, Well, it'll be at least 10 years until you're inside a courtroom as a lawyer at our firm. I'm like, all right, well, we got like 25 minutes left in this interview slot. Like, you just want to go get some coffee or something, because this is not gonna be for me. Um, what did you think when you like was there a disconnect when when they offered you that job and described the position? And maybe it was just that it was only a 30-minute, you know, phone call that led to that big law job. What was the disconnect between what you thought you were getting into and then like, no, actually, we don't actually go anywhere near the courthouse?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I think the one, it was probably my own ignorance, and maybe if I were to look back, I probably could have done some more due diligence on my part. I think if you look at the some of the lawyers' bios on their websites, it very much, I mean, they have a they the firm I was with had a lot of former Jags and they were highlighting some of their trial work, and I was like, well, if they're highlighting their trial work, then surely it's relevant to what they're doing now. And so I think that was incorrect in a and I made the wrong assumption there. I think also realistically, like just the position a lot of young lawyers are in nowadays, you come out with significant student loans, and when a big when a firm is offering you hundreds of thousands of dollars, you're looking for ways to say yes. And so I'm sure the ego had something to do with saying, wow, this firm wants me, and uh which led to it. And again, I mean hindsight's 2020. Had I known what I know now, would I have ever even attempted that? Of course not. But I did, and I learned a lot from it, and I've hopefully been able to kind of share what I've learned to others and and uh and again, it has nothing to do with whether big law is bad or good. It just is what it is. It's just some things, as we say in jury selection, this just may not be the right case for you, right? Like it's uh it's what is the right fit, and for me, it wasn't. And for those who it is the right fit, fantastic. We need people in it.
SPEAKER_03:So two things I I notice about you. Like you have a remarkable level, I think, of self-awareness. And then just in this conversation, like a very high degree of extreme ownership over your own decisions and your own ignorance gap and and saying, no, that's on me. Like I could have done more research and and then and then you you're quick to make a decision, opt out, and then change the direction. I'm curious if that's something that is from from your VMI background, from the military background, or something you were raised with, or something you learned somewhere along the way.
SPEAKER_00:I think it's a combination of all the above. Something that I am open about, which I think has helped me significantly is uh I mean, I've pro I've been in therapy for like over a decade. And so, and then some of the trial work stuff I do, like the Jerry Spence stuff, I went up to the ranch and all that isn't actually that far away from some type of I mean, it's it's about understanding who you are as a human, right? And so when so I think a lot of that has helped. And I think also seeing it work, right? Like I have learned that the more real I can be with someone else, right, the allow my the guard down, I connect better with others. And whereas I think at a younger age, I think I'm still young, I hope I'm still young, even though I have two kids and bills and responsibilities, but I I would have been much more afraid to ever say, Well, I'm wrong about that, or or to give off any appearance that I may not know what I'm doing. Whereas I think I've learned through therapy and through the Jerry Spence stuff and that that um that it's okay to just kind of be you and and that people will will accept you and appreciate you for that. And chances are you'll develop a deeper connection. And then on the flip side, if they don't, well then screw them. Like you probably don't want to be around them anyways, right? So like it's what I tell young lawyers all the time. It's like, if you have questions, just reach out, send them an email, call them, and pick ask to pick their brain, ask to get lunch or coffee with them. And nine times out of ten, if they're a decent person, they're going to say yes. They want to help you, right? And if they say no, then chances are you probably didn't want to meet with them anyways. Anyways. But so that's that's where it comes from. I mean, obviously, I'm it's still very much a work in progress. I'm sure my wife can add a lot to that. But uh, but it's it's been a hell of a journey.
SPEAKER_03:And I, you know, I see that kind of peppered in throughout the agenda to your event. You have the section on showing up as your real self, you how to tell story how to tell the right story from the start. There's there's another one, just my eyes can't find it right now, but about connecting with juries, right?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, that was probably the um Joe Fried section on Voidir. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and it's kind of like a different framework, right? It's like oftentimes we're taught as lawyers in jury selection, like, well, get rid of the engineer. Oh, if they've been in a car crash before, they're great for us. Or no, maybe they're really bad for us, right? It's it's less interrogation and more let's let's actually listen to you. Let's respect your opinion and let's have an honest conversation whether this is the right fit for you as a juror. And I have found a lot more success in that approach versus what I'll claim is the interrogation approach you see all the time.
SPEAKER_03:What what happens oftentimes is you end up with the seven people who haven't said anything.
SPEAKER_00:Which is another issue in Voidir. It's and I always struggle with this because you know that as you know, you're in the courtroom, you're in the well, that everybody wants this thing to move along, the judge does, but everybody's got to talk. You gotta find a way to get everyone to talk, and that's something I'm still working on because Virginia, even though our law is fairly open when it comes to or permissive when it comes to jury selection and the voidier process, traditionally judges are very tight and there's very little, I mean, it's it's very difficult. I mean, there was a recent opinion, I think it was like the Burton opinion that was on the listserv a few months ago that came out and dealt with like judges rehabilitating jurors. But other than that, I mean, good luck finding people who are going to appeal these cases on jury selection issues, right? So like it's uh it's a very sensitive time.
SPEAKER_03:And jury selection is I mean, it's one of those things where so most law firms, most law firms in Virginia, plaintiff side, will try two to four cases a year, you know, most most small firms. And the person who's handling the jury selection and opening and closing in the cross of everybody who's important is not a younger lawyer. So how do young lawyers get reps at doing these things?
SPEAKER_00:I always I kind of punt on this question typically. And I tell them if you're a young lawyer, don't come be a civil lawyer. Like go be a criminal lawyer. Yeah. Go be a prosecutor, go be a criminal defense lawyer, go join the JAG Corps, where you can do both. Actually, every lawyer at our firm has was a former JAG, which is really cool for us. We've got two Army and one Marine, unfortunately. But uh I'm not the Marine, I'm joking. But I make fun of Zach all the time. He was the one Marine. But that type of on your feet experience at an early age, like I think when I was in the Army, I I forgot how many like court marshals and administrative boards, but they're all trial, like on your feet type stuff. I did tons. And at the time, as like a 25 to 29, 30 year old, like I was like, I I just assumed that everyone did this. And when I got out of the military, I looked around and I was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, like, this isn't the norm. And so getting that experience early on in the criminal world, I think is the way for a young lawyer to do it. Otherwise, you kind of gotta find a way to you gotta get you got to do your research and make sure that you're going to a law firm where one, the firm prioritizes trying cases. And then two, there will be lawyers, senior lawyers there who recognize the importance of getting their their um lawyers the reps that they need. That's easier said than done. In fact, it's very, very difficult to find that situation, but if you can, you're in good hands.
SPEAKER_03:And it's it's even harder. And so I graduated in 2008, and at the time the jurisdictional limit in general district court was fifteen thousand uh and everything was uh everything was appealable, right? And and most things got appealed. And so even if you were trying a car crash case that was worth twenty-five to forty, you were doing it in front of a jury. And if you got a ten thousand dollar verdict in GDC on a case that was, you know, the insurance company valued at five, guess what? You were trying it again in front of a jury, right? And so there were these relatively low risk ways for me early on to get in front of juries and ask those questions. But now the limits are fifty thousand, right? And so you're you you it's it's on balance, I think it's better for um for the plaintiff to be able to get through the system quickly and inexpensively and in front of a judge and have their$35,000 case heard within a year, within eight months typically. But it you it has comes at the cost of the next generation of trial lawyers ever being able to stand up in front of a jury before you're in there on like on a surgical case, on a case that might be worth six figures. And so it's even harder in 2025 than it was when I graduated to get in and get trial experience. And it's fewer and fewer civil jury trials every single year. You you have a sense for like why that is?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I think it's for the very reason you just mentioned. It's the fewer well, one, I mean, discovery and how uh costly some of these cases can get, personal injury less so compared to like to just general civil business to business litigation. But then the other thing is, as you'd mentioned, well, if you have less experience, you're going to be less apt to actually go to trial. And if you then become a judge, right, who's not who wasn't much who didn't have that much experience as a trial or well, you're probably going to be less apt to actually you may be pushing mediation more. You may be pushing settlement more, right? Like you there may be fewer and fewer trials. So I think it's kind of a vicious circle. And in some ways, other I guess uh we're trying to kind of push back against that. I think also valuation is something that can be an issue.
SPEAKER_03:Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_00:I think we as a whole undervalue our cases in Virginia, and I think that's due to a few things. I think it's due to our over reliance on medical specials. Now, granted, I will, if I've got a few hundred thousand dollars in medical bills, for sure we're using them. But for example, we just filed a case or we're filing a case today with hundreds of thousands of medical bills, but the injuries are so severe that we're not claiming them in the complaint. So I guess the point I'm trying to make by this is we can get, we can allow ourselves to pull away from what the policy limits are. Policy limits have nothing to do with the value of a case. The medical bills is an argument, in my opinion, while there's certain certainly some correlation to maybe more medical bills, the more significant of an injury, yes, but at the root, it is an administrative billing decision by some sort of medical professional to say we're charging you this much. So then ask yourself, well, then why does that have anything to do with the full and fair value of a personal injury case? And in Virginia, there's 16 different damage elements. We're actually, we just submitted two recommendations to the Virginia Model Jury Instruction Committee, one of which is to break out jury instruction 9.000 into the kind of the dense paragraphs it is, into the 16 different elements. And so I think when we think about when we're able to unwed ourselves from what's the policy and what are the specials, and actually think, well, what it let's let's actually look at the full and fair value of what was taken from this person's health and quality of life, right? And and then also the other thing, which defense attorneys hate hearing, right, is what does the defendant here deserve to pay? Right. I mean, like if the conduct is egregious and punitives are potentially on the table, or even or if they're just on the line, right? Like that has value because tort law in some respects is about deterrence. And so suddenly, if you take this approach, your case that you may, I mean, we had a, for example, a case that I worked with Ben Rand at Blackburn Conti Show and Click. We worked here. We also I brought in a friend from the Jerry Spence method, Tanya Ortega, excellent lawyer out of California. And it was a case with almost like 10 grand in medical bills. And I mean, it was a hell of a fight. It was a brain injury case, client ultimately did well. But I mean, we we settled for not far off from a million dollars. It was a hell of a fight. But it was because we valued the case differently than the other side and were willing to work it up and frankly just say no enough times. And so I think if you're willing to to Joe Fried, this is a good way to sum this up. I was at a conference at Charlotte's Trawlers University a few years ago. I think it was my one of my first national conferences, and I was learning so much. It was incredible. I remember Rex Paris got up and he said, like, listen, I'm standing at the front of this room and you're not. And he said it in a kinder way than that, but for two reasons. It was one, you settle your good cases, and two, you don't ask for enough money. And Joe Freed kind of piggybacked and shared his the way he evaluates case value. And he said, if you take a step back and think about if this were to happen to the most vulnerable loved one you have, what's it worth? And when you do that, and it's funny, I I was one of my friends was visiting me a couple weeks ago and I asked him about case valuation. And I forgot, I think at first he said, like 200 grand. And then I said, Well, what about if this happened to you? How much would you want to trade your to trade for money? And he said, Oh, millions. And it's like, it's like, so if we're able to get ourselves in that headspace and to truly believe it, right? And also to be willing to take to do the work to discover the story, discover the conduct, discover the cover-up, and learn truly about how it's impacted our clients, not just by them visiting our office or us reading their medical reports, but to to hear the stories of how a day in their life is different as a result of this incident. I think then we can finally convince ourselves to say no and to believe that these cases have more value than they do. The adamn's bad too, right? Because in Virginia, we set we're required to set our adamnum before um and uh to that caps us really before the litigation starts. Whereas in most states you just certify it's more than worth a certain amount. And and so the adamn, I think people are too conservative in what they ask for because it kind of almost it kind of caps the case from the get-go. But anyways, I'm rambling.
SPEAKER_03:No, no, no. I mean, it just strikes me there's um you know, you could be in a lot of a lot of conferences in a lot of rooms where the question is, how many cases is is too many for my paralegal or lawyer team to have, right? And you can go and you hear these mass market firms, lawyers handling 200 cases. I talked to a guy once who, you know, he's he said some version of I never touched any of my files until the adjuster had an offer. So the paralegal would put together the demand package, uh, they would always demand 10x the medical bills, and then the adjuster would call him and tell him what was wrong with his case, and then he would go into the file and figure out is the adjuster correct and just start negotiating. It's like a plaintiff site adjuster, right? Uh and then and then you have you, and and I'm listening to everything that you you say about handling your cases and building them up, and and I'm uh like I'm really curious how many of those cases you can handle at any given time.
SPEAKER_00:It's uh right now I'm handling too many, I think. Uh, and I've slowed down on filing uh uh just to give us some more space and time because I I am a terrible negotiator. I'm wildly impatient. I don't I'm not good at the back and forth and and I've tried, but at the same time, it just it's just not my personality. So like I am quick to be like, all right, let's just file suit tomorrow. Yeah, the adjust or the adjuster gave me a low ball, I'll come down a dollar if they don't play a game. If they don't then uh and it's if it's not helpful, and that's a mistake on my part. But I don't know. I mean, it depends on the case. I mean, some of our cases take a significant amount of time. I mean, there's a case that we tried in Texas and we lost. We're it's on appeal now. And I mean, I probably spent I jumped in late January, we tried the case, was it late March or early April? And I probably spent who knows how many hours on that one case alone. So uh the real answer is it depends. I mean, your premises cases typically take up a lot more time um and more investigation. Uh and there's also there's also the question of like, I'm sure you can reach a point of diminishing returns on any given case. Yeah. There's a million things that can always be done. All right.
SPEAKER_03:Well, if you're not if you're not going to answer that question, let me ask a different question. There we go. How uh you know, knowing that you you have a finite amount of time, energy, and effort to devote to whatever the uh the number of cases is, how do you select this is a client uh who I can serve and who it would be beneficial for me and for the client to be in a you know 12 month, 24 month, 36-month relationship with versus now that person is probably not that hurt or like their story isn't all that compelling. Like, how much time do you spend on the front end figuring out whether you want to be involved in a case at all?
SPEAKER_00:A good amount of time, and we we have some pretty we make sure that the cases that we're signing up are viable cases from the standpoint of proving liability and then proving damages. Now, in terms of the cases where like we're thinking, I'm thinking, no, we're gonna run this way, we're gonna run to the end on this one, right? We're gonna take it all the way through. I'm looking for a client who isn't interested in accountability, is interested in whatever you call justice and has made it clear that they're they're willing to go the distance, is that money is ultimately not their end goal. And then I'm also looking at conduct on the defense. Are we talking about uh an event case in which this happened, shouldn't have happened, person's gonna heal up and move on, or are we talking about a systemic failure case in which this is there's you've got the corporate defendant, you've got this incident, and then you've got multiple other incidents that should have put that defendant on notice. And so then the question is uh we why? And the answer is always the same. It's a prioritize money or or or money profit over safety of others. It's it that's the base that's the answer you get to at every point. The question is how and why. And so I think I hope I'm doing a better job answering this question. But it's it's uh I think if the injuries are there, if the conduct's bad and the injuries are significant enough to to support a large a large verdict and the clients willing and ready to go the distance, those are cases that I really want to invest in and make sure what I'm hearing from you is that you don't do a lot of mass market auto, right? I mean, so we we do have, I guess, which I I hate calling them small because they're not small to the client, right? It's a big deal to the client. I mean, we certainly have those, but I'm not as involved in right.
SPEAKER_03:Got it, got it. And so you're you're interested in corporate defendant systemic failure, you know, policy limit not an issue, kinds of cases. How how many so like if you're running a medical malpractice firm, you're probably looking at a hundred cases to find one or two viable ones. Do you have a sense for your like lead to qualified lead ratio when it comes to cases like that?
SPEAKER_00:We're working on on getting better when it comes to tracking. In fact, we had a call about that this morning. Uh but I I would say, I don't know, maybe are you talking about to hit that the that dream case for me?
SPEAKER_03:Well, to hit a case that's that's worth your time to work on, right? Because it somebody said to me once that every firm has a a weird shit magnet. Like the guy who looks at the weird fact pattern and goes, I could turn that into money. Um, and it strikes me that's that's probably you. Right. That's 100% me. Yeah. And so so, but when you're the weird shit magnet, there's a lot of cases that come through that, you know, it's it's the client's either the most interesting person in the world or they're insane. And a lot of times they're actually insane, right? And so you've got to vet through the stories that they're telling you um and find truth. And then that has to match up with injury and it has to match up with with bad conduct. And I I I'm just imagining that you have to sort through a lot of cases that you ultimately can't help with.
SPEAKER_00:That's right. And and once I find out I can't help with them, I typically explain I can't add value, and I try and refer them elsewhere. Um I just don't have a good sense of the actual number. Numbers in terms of like how many calls I'm taking. And we're we're working on that. We should have a better idea, hopefully, in the next few months when we get better systems in place. But but it's a lot. I mean, I do I spend probably too much time on intake, but also at the same time, like intake is the lifeblood of a firm, right? Like without new cases.
SPEAKER_03:It's funny. I mean, you you were running the opposite of most of the practices that I talk to, right? Most of it is like, how do how do we install a non-lawyer salesperson to do the intake and the sales? Because really we're looking at almost always red car hit a blue. My practice is like this. Almost always red car hit a blue car, relatively straightforward claim. And then like that's gonna make up the bulk of what we do. And then there's gonna be some weird shit up at the top. And that's where we can you know pull the levers and apply the most value. But the thing that's gonna keep the business running is those mass market kinds of cases. And maybe your firm does that, and you just aren't involved in those styles of cases. But most of the lawyers I talked to were like are worried, are are worried and is just running in different circles, social circles, are worried about um you know, qualified leads, time to sign, speed to lead. I hear speed to lead all the time. And you're like, how can we go slower and make sure that it's a good fit, maximize the benefit for everybody, which uh I think is amazing and there's a place for it. It's just the opposite of what most people in a market.
SPEAKER_00:No, I understand. I mean, we there's a lot of talk, I think, in our work about case numbers, right? And too many, too little, enough, right? What we sometimes I think don't give enough credence to, and it's easy to say, harder to accept, is sometimes all you need is a case, right? Like if you've got the right case and you're able to work it up to get real value, right? I mean, that could be your year. I mean, we had a case like that earlier this year with uh with a with a seven-figure result that that I I'm sure covered the revenue for the entire year, right? And so that's a hard balance. I think firms always struggle, and I'm sure we struggle in some sense to make sure that that balance is right. But I I think there is a place for both in a law firm. I just think that the leadership has to be very intentional about kind of carving people out. And so, like, I like, I mean, something I've also really gotten into lately is like the crime victim stuff. So I'm a part of the National Crime Victims Bar Association. Peter Everett's actually the one who's up by you guys, is actually the one who introduced me to it, and I love it. And it's those are cases that I've been taking more of. Like, for example, we just we represent a young man in his 30s who were nonverbal, autistic at a residential center in Southern Virginia, and he was left unsupervised, and another resident burned him, branded him with an iron, right? The center chose not to get him medical attention, chose not to alert his family, and of course, days later he's still marked, right, with a with the clothing iron. And those those are cases that I I see, and of course, there's no medical records and there's no medical bills, right? Because we took that case and it's it's over. It's a policy limits case. We're now working to get it get the court approval because it's of the disability. But those are the types of cases that I've really enjoyed lately. It's um very meaningful work and and it's interesting, and it's different from what you'd probably see at most personal injury for the case.
SPEAKER_03:How does a case like that find you? Is it from the crime victims group or is it just organically landed on your desk somehow?
SPEAKER_00:This one was kind of just organic, I think. It was just a few phone calls. I don't think I don't believe I was the first call. I think they found me online at some point and then gave me a call. And I at first I was like, eh, I mean, but then I listened more and asked more questions, and I was like, I think I might be able to do something. And and we signed it up, and lo and behold, the Department of Social Services has already had already investigated and found that the residential center at had neglected and and substantiated abuse findings, and so I was like, this is it. And so and then we pursued it, and it it's funny. The first adjuster was like, well, tell me what I mean, he wouldn't give us a policy limits, because you know in Virginia, in order to get the policy limits, you have to have twelve thousand five hundred dollars of medical bills pre-suit, and we didn't have any medical bills. And he was playing kind of game games in that sense, and then all then we were like, all right, we're done. We're we're sending a demand for however many millions. And within a day or two, they switched adjusters and offered I forgot, the pol and they offered the policy limits, which was, I thought, very low for an institutional defendant, but it's it is what it is. They did, frankly, the insurance company did the right thing because had they not think they would have potentially opened themselves up for some sort of bad faith type thing, considering how just egregious the conduct was.
SPEAKER_03:How how often are you working on cases that have you know initially come to you versus you're parachuting into some other lawyer's case to save the day and go to trial?
SPEAKER_00:The majority are ones that we have. I think I mean we had that Texas case, which I did parachute in, and I was very grateful to my co-counsel and friend who brought me in and hell of a fight we did not win, but there were some really good appealable issues that were up. Hopefully, we'll get we'll get some luck on. I mean, all without going into the whole story, it was I mean, there was an exhibit, a demonstrative that went back to the jury room that was on this massive TV screen that the judge had ruled was inadmissible and would not go to the jury room, and it had testing data of the vehicle in question from an expert witness who did not testify at trial. Absolutely ridiculous. It was a I believe it was a clerical error that led to that. But that to me, that's an obvious error.
SPEAKER_03:How did you how did you learn that was back in the jury room?
SPEAKER_00:So after the trial, we walked in with the judge and Ford's lawyers into the jury room to get some feedback. And actually the judge was the one who suggested it. And the judge is a fantastic judge. And um we were in there, we walked in there, and the one of the jurors who was there who we did not expect to be the a leader, and there wasn't any attorney-led voidier, so we didn't really have an opportunity to ask questions. Actually, we didn't we really didn't have much of an opportunity at all. And so he saw he was someone that we didn't actually, to your point, we talked about earlier, like he was a silent juror. We didn't know much about him. And we found out after the fact, because we got the list five minutes before we started, that he had identified himself as an instructional assistant or aide at a high school or something. And we found out that he, in fact, that was his retirement job. He in fact had been a associated or affiliated with the Duke School of Medicine and had published multiple papers, while not exactly on point to one of the issues in our case, um, had significant relevance. And so he's in there and he's doing all the talking, and then he points to this massive TV screen, and it's a federal court, super nice stuff. And on that TV screen is the very demonstrative that had been excluded. It had, and it had the data. I mean, it was a summary of Ford's version or their interpretation of the testing data of the vehicle in question. And I remember we walked out and we're like, that shouldn't have been there. And and so, I mean, we asked for him, we did a motion for new trial. It wasn't successful. I I as much as I respect the judge, I did not understand or or really understand his ruling, but it is what it is, and we're gonna take it up to the Fifth Circuit and hopefully get a result. But so that one was one. I've got one with a buddy in North Carolina right now, another one or two in DC, and that's it, I think, for out of state stuff. Everything else is in Virginia, but I like the parachute stuff. It's fun. I mean, I I go ahead.
SPEAKER_03:But what do you need to understand about a state's law or procedure in order to be an effective trial lawyer in somewhere where you're not licensed? Not much.
SPEAKER_00:I mean, uh yeah, I don't I don't I mean, because it's I mean, for the most part, a trial is a trial, right?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:I mean, jury selection, sure, can have some differences, but there's jury selection, opening statement. I mean, as you know, there's all I mean, it's for the most part, you walk into any courtroom across the country, it's kind of gonna look the same. I mean, especially when you come in so late where you're not doing depositions, you're not I mean, you're past all those deadlines. It's uh and I think that's why. I mean, like my dream job, as I've told you, or dream position, is to to be able to do more parachute type work because I I love it. And there are some really amazing travelers out there who I look up to that I'm by no means anywhere close or I even and would never even compare myself to these people, but the Keith Mitniks of the world or the Nick Rowley or in fact Keith Mitnick's team at Morgan and Morgan is full of people who all they do is travel around the country and parachute in a couple weeks before these cases go to trial. And I think it's can be done because if you think about it, right, like there's some real benefit to it for the lawyer who's lived with their case for years. I mean, they may in some respects even be blinded to some of the issues. And so for someone to be able to come in and be able to look at the case and figure out the best way or at least what they believe the best way to present that case and then do so, I think can be some real value add. And I mean, certainly it's a lot of work, but putting on an effective trial presentation, we've heard of Joe Fried's like speed trial stuff in the last couple of years. Speed trial is not go faster, it's cut what you don't need. And that's what it is. And so a lot of times I think us lawyers, we get bogged down in all the complexity and detail. And if someone with fresh eyes who likes and is and does a good job at the presentation aspects of things can come in and help tell the story in a simple way that um that resonates with a jury, then I think you can that person can really add value. I mean, I mean, if we really, if we take jury selection, really, I mean, other than knowing some of the the issues in the case, um there's not much more you need to know about that, right? I mean, uh about a specific case, other than what are your glaring concerns that you need to vet with this jury. Opening statement, you sh I mean, you should that's a lot of work. In my mind, opening statement is the map of the entire case. So opening statements where I think I end up spending, when I do get on these cases, spending a significant time going through the case file and trying to to tell the story and create the opening statement. I mean, direct examination, cross-examination, you're just you're meeting with the witnesses, you're trying to tell the story, you're outlining things, you're figuring out the points that you want to make, a lot of which you've already done through preparing your opening statement, and then closing. I mean, opening is the story of the case. Closing, in my eyes, is the story of what happened in the trial. And so in closing, we can talk about what happened in the trial. We can give guidance and practical guidance to the jury about the real closing argument, which is what happens when the case ends and they go into the deliberations room. I mean, a lot of that is not something that you needed to spend years preparing for. So it can be done. I've done it now, and I I really enjoy the work because the thing that gets me motivated about being a lawyer is in addition to helping people, it's I mean, I it's the trial work. I mean, to me, there's nothing more professionally exciting than being in a courtroom and the competitiveness of that and and also just like the the pressure. I mean, it it's it's stressful to the key. But I mean, it's I have I have never more dialed in, and I'm sure you can you say the same thing when you've got to juggle all these different things and do all this cost benefit analysis within seconds before you stand up and either make that objection or don't say this or don't say that. So anyway, I went on and on, but that's that's awesome.
SPEAKER_03:I and I'm sorry I'm missing your event because I'd love to see you fired up and teaching this stuff.
SPEAKER_00:Well, what's cool is I'm not teaching anything. So it's uh and and that's probably a good thing. I'm bringing in friends and people who I've learned from to share with everyone else. So and uh and and and we had I did have a heavy hand, me and my co-host to the podcast now, who's actually a judge now, judge now I was a key, which is fun. And we uh we had a heavy hand in terms of like how we wanted to structure the day. So it's not come see this guy at this time, then come see this person at this time. I mean, our day is very intentional. It starts off with authenticity by a guy named Andrew Capel Shaw, who's just incredible, a trial consultant, witness prep guy, and to talk about well, what is authenticity? Why does it matter? How does one become more authentic, right? I mean, very kind of odd but important questions. And then we move into case framing with a friend named Eric Girard. He and I actually are working a case in DC right now. He's out of Texas, he's a UVA guy like me. We connected a while back and he's gonna come in and talk about case framing. It's like, what story do we tell? Do we tell, do we walk in and say, hey, jury, like our client's really badly hurt, please give them a lot of money? Or do we walk in and do we tell the story, well, the real reason why we're here is because of the bad conduct. And oh, by the way, that led to our client being tragically hurt. And and what goes into framing and setting the stage for how you even approach these types of cases. And then we go to Joe Freed, who's incredible, who's going to do something on Voidir. We moved, we've got Artemis Malakapoor during the lunch break coming in and showing like clips of focus groups and how they have deliberated on cases in the past to give us lawyers a sense of like, well, maybe we think this is what's going to happen. But clearly other people who aren't lawyers have different opinions to get us at least thinking about using focus groups more. Then we go into opening statement where Kenny Berger, who uh who's a friend and he's affiliate he's got his own firm in South Carolina, he's affiliated with trial lawyers for justice as well. An excellent lawyer is gonna do a talk. Then Judge Abuzaki is gonna talk about cross-examination and direct examination, then Joe Freed's gonna come back and close it out with closing statements. So it's a very intentional program, and we're really excited about it. And I'm also kind of blown away to think that we've sold as many tickets as we've had, and that these incredible speakers and lawyers are willing to come give us a day in Richmond to uh to help make everybody better. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03:And and your tickets are ungodly cheap. Um looking at right now.
SPEAKER_00:I've gotten a lot of criticism for that, but it's too cheap. I mean, I th I guess any just a comment. Well, no, I've gotten real criticism.
SPEAKER_03:You're giving away all the all the profit anyway, is is being donated to the bigger.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, we're not keeping any money. It's all going to go to the Wounded Warriors project, which I mean we're not I've already made a donation, I'll probably make another one, but like we're not making any we're I'm the podcast, we're taking a loss on this, but it's the first time we've ever done something like this. The goal isn't to make money or promote our brand, even though, of course, we are promoting ourselves in some respects by doing this. The goal is to add value. And if we can do that, then great. And then maybe we'll be able to do it again. Cool. Well, Sharif, I appreciate your time.
SPEAKER_03:If you are out there and you don't want anything to do with the business of law and you only want to be a better trial lawyer, go to Sharif's event at the end of October. And if you want to be a better trial better businessman and the trial law stuff is like, eh, that's not really for me. Come to my event and next year we'll de conflict them. Yes, we will. So well, Brian, this has been a lot of fun. Thanks for having me on. Thanks, brother.
