The $20M Case No One Wanted | Sharif Gray and Gray Broughton

Most lawyers would have said no to this case.

No clear damages.
Messy facts.
A client with a complicated history.

Three firms already had.

Sharif Gray and Gray Broughton said yes anyway.

And that decision turned into a $20 million verdict.

But this episode isn’t really about the verdict.

It’s about the way they think.

We get into what it looks like to build a firm that doesn’t chase the easy, high-volume cases. A firm that is willing to take risks, invest time, and bet on cases that don’t fit the usual formula.

They walk through how this case came in, why they decided to take it, and how they proved damages without relying on the typical playbook of medical bills and diagnoses. There’s a moment where everything shifts. Where the case stops being about what’s easy to measure and starts being about what was actually taken from the client.

We also talk about trial strategy, focus groups, jury selection, and the mindset it takes to stand in front of a jury and say a number out loud with conviction.

If you’ve ever wondered whether you’re playing it too safe in your practice, this conversation will push you to rethink that.

Because the real takeaway here isn’t just about winning big cases.

It’s about building a firm that’s willing to take the kind of swings that make those outcomes possible.

Connect with Sharif and Gray

Sharif Gray
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharifgray
Website: https://www.graybroughton.com

Gray Broughton
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gray-broughton-2a8a265
Website: https://www.graybroughton.com

____________________________________
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

Transcript

When Harm Is Not Physical

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Okay, sure, we see liability, but what's the damage, right? And I mean I almost feel weird even just saying that now considering h what we ended up doing. The damage ultimately, I think the shortcut is the damage ultimately didn't manifest itself in physical injury. It was the emotional distress. It was the lack of trust, the loss of dignity, the loss of hope. Right? And that was never, I guess, truly appreciated by the defense or the insurance companies, hence both sides going completely divergent ways and and seeing the case just wildly differently.

SPEAKER_03 0:32

Hey friends, welcome to Life Beyond the Briefs, the podcast for lawyers who are building a life and a practice they actually want to show up to on Mondays. Let me ask you something. How many times have you passed on a case because it didn't look clean enough? No clear damages, weird facts, too risky. Well, today's guest did the exact opposite. Sharif Gray and uh Gray Broughton took a case that three other firms turned down and uh turned it into a$20 million verdict. But this episode isn't just a just about a big number. It's about how they think, how they evaluate risk, and why they've built a firm that runs toward the hard cases while everyone else is chasing easy settlements. We get into how this case came together, how they proved damages without the traditional playbook, and what it actually looks like to build a trial first firm in a world that's moving further and further away from the courtroom. If you've ever wondered whether you're playing it too safe in your in your practice, like this one's gonna make you think, all right, let's get into it. All right, we're sitting here talking with Sharif Gray and Gray Broughton. Last time we talked with Sharif, he was a lawyer at Broughton Injury Law, and now it's become Gray Broughton Injury Law down at Richmond, Virginia. Guys, welcome to the show.

SPEAKER_02 1:47

Thanks for having me. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 1:48

Yeah, Gray decided to make his full name, the firm name. Super convenient. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:55

Just very fortuitous.

SPEAKER_03 1:56

And uh talking with you guys, because you you just rocked not a school system, but a private institution in Winchester for a$20 million verdict in a case where three other law firms had passed and said there's no damages there. I want to talk to you about that. But that Sharip just told me that was 10 days on the heels of a shoulder surgery, car accident case where there were like nine months in between the car crash and the initial complaint of shoulder pain or something like that. I'm messing up the details to make you sound better. But you guys have have built a firm where you're taking these cases that a lot of other law firms would have said no to. And I'm I'm really curious, in an age where everybody is looking for the quick hit, easy win, you know, click to buy kind of case, after we acquire that case, let's push it down the pipeline as far as we can to a VA somewhere to work the case up. You guys are are going the exact opposite way in Virginia, which is traditionally considered a conservative state. So before we jump into the details of this case, can you talk kind of about what you're building at your law firm?

Building A Trial-First Law Firm

SPEAKER_02 2:57

Sure. So we want to we're happy to take on, of course, a you know a normal rear-end case that has clear liability and orthopedic injuries and and all that sort of stuff. But we kind of pride ourselves on taking cases that are maybe a little bit more difficult, have kind of an odd fact pattern and really finding value, especially if there are serious injuries or if there's if there's corporate wrongdoing and if there's some sort of cover-up or some sort of something that could maybe push it into a punitive type case. We just find that there's significant value there and cases that maybe don't quite fall into the mold of like the cookie cutter uh good personal injury case. We're we're happy to take those on. It might it might end up in a$20 million verdict, it might end up being in a loss, it might end up in something that we're we're cutting loose after 30 days, but um we're we're excited to at least give those cases a look.

SPEAKER_03 3:53

What is kind of the the intake and the workout process on a case like like this one where a child is assaulted inside of an institution? What are you doing in the first month or two months to figure out is this something we're gonna hold on to and take all the way, or is this a case that we're gonna cut loose after 30 days?

SPEAKER_01 4:08

So I think, I mean, I in terms of this specific case, it's a better question for Gray, because I wasn't with Gray when this case came in the door. But generally speaking, if it's outside of the mold of or of the traditional kind of personal injury case, either our intake team will know to get Gray or I on, either come talk with us or have us. And I mean, and then oftentimes it's like, well, I'd love to. I don't see it, we don't see an angle here. But then sometimes it's like, you know what, we do. Let's give it a shot. And our I think our risk tolerance is fairly high. And uh it doesn't mean that we're going to be successful, but we have found some success in in a lot of these kind of traditional crime victim type cases lately. But Gray can talk more about this specific the the 20 million, that specific case and when it came in.

unknown 4:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 4:58

Yeah, so Greg, tell me about this case.

Intake That Bets On Investigation

SPEAKER_02 5:00

Yeah, so uh this is the Clark case. The dad came to me, he had already gone to three or four other law firms, had been turned down, uh basically talked about his, you know, his son having been um physically abused and how it was, you know, um they they they tried to cover it up and make it seem like it wasn't a big deal. It was one of those things where at the time I didn't have a video, I didn't have um taking the father kind of at his word, um, which, you know, I don't know if he I didn't think he was lying, of course, but like maybe it's being embellished because it's his son. Who knows what the actual truth is and what the video will bear out. But I think, and this applies to kind of like the way we handle things otherwise, if it's if it's a clear case where it's like it's not gonna work out. There's not, there's no, there's no path to liability, there's no path to recovery, then we'll we'll turn that case down. But if there's a a shot, if it's a if it's a decent case on its face, we're willing to invest the time, invest the money to sort of see if it see if that ferrets out, you know, spend 30 days, 60 days signing them up, getting the FOIA, getting the videos. And in this case, we ended up eventually getting the videos, and the videos were were pretty, you know, were heinous. And they certainly I mean, they're out there um, you know, on the internet and social media and and news sites and stuff, but kind of the lead up to and and and the um the verdict that we received. But it was a case where the video itself was pretty heinous, but there weren't a lot of damages. There weren't uh this is a you know a young man who was uh in a psychiatric residential treatment facility because of past prior abuse. Um and it was a you know, we can get more into like what that part of the case was was like, but just in taking the case on, we basically invested the time to take the time to see how it played out and in and investigate. Um whereas think a lot of firms, if it doesn't kind of fall in that clear fact pattern, maybe the intake department is turning it away, like, yeah, I'm sorry that it happened to you, but it's really not something we can can handle. It certainly doesn't fall into the model of sort of your stereotypical like mill type firm that's just trying to like get the car crash, um, get it and put it in pre-let and get your your best offer and and cut it loose.

SPEAKER_03 7:10

Had there been a criminal investigation done in this case? Was there something you could get by FOIA or was everything post-litigation?

SPEAKER_02 7:15

No, there was there was a criminal investigation, which ultimately resulted in a not guilty finding, which was kind of crazy. But there was a that's this whole thing where there was a retired judge who was sitting in in the g in, I guess it was a general district court case, um, and he dismissed it. Um no one quite understands why, but um, yeah, it didn't get any traction. There'd also been like a CPS investigation as well. So we got we were able to kind of on the back end be the recipients uh of a lot of that work.

SPEAKER_03 7:42

I guess we should back up. So this is uh it's in a uh psychiatric residential treatment facility, and you have um, I don't know, a student, a patient. I don't know what the what the term is, student or patient there.

SPEAKER_02 7:52

Yeah, I guess they call him a client um there, a 13-year-old boy.

SPEAKER_03 7:57

And he's as I understand it pulled out of a classroom or one room into another, either by his jacket or by his hair, and then left out in uh in a hallway. So tell me tell me about exactly what happened on this video.

The Case Other Firms Rejected

SPEAKER_01 8:07

Sure. So there was so there are two set there are two video sets uh what we that existed at one point. When it came time for trial and in the workup for this case, there was only one video. The other video ultimately was not was was not preserved by the facility. The f initial incident was it was a couple days before Christmas, I believe it was December of 2022. I believe the incident. Yeah, the or Yeah, I believe the incident was actually December 21 of 2022, not that that matters, but the the one of the caregivers was interacting with our client and clearly had lost her temper. And you see in the video, starting for her like starting to just kind of push him in his room, right? Just I I think our client, I guess, was I'm sure words were exchanged, who knows? But it was just a little bit too aggressive. And then at one point, it seems like the caregiver just had enough, grabs our guy by his shirt, and then starts dragging him out across the dorm outside. And as she's dragging him, his shirt kind of starts coming up around his neck. And so I mean the video is awful, especially if you slow it down because you see an adult woman dragging a 13-year-old child by the neck, and obviously, I mean, he's not in great shape, but the story doesn't really end there. She then puts him in the hallway. Our client has a history of self-harm. It's at a facility that is very experienced with clients who have those issues. She leaves him in the hallway alone for, I believe, around 40 to 45 seconds. This is all captured on video. Another employee from that facility eventually comes and finds him because he's screaming and he's attempting to harm himself at that point. That video was not preserved. There was significant motions practice, much of which Zach in our office led on the spoliation preservation issues. But that, all in all, was the incident in terms of medical treatment or injuries, medical treatment. He had bruising on his arm. He had a couple scrapes. That was the extent of it. I mean, there, but there were real bruises. And it wasn't the incident wasn't reported to anybody by some by, or excuse me, no staff person at the at the institution reported it. It was when the nurses came in, I guess, did their check-in that evening. It's when our client made it known to the nurse that something had happened to. And then, of course, other things happened that I that went into the trial. But from a traditional like personal injury case focus, like, and we even struggled with this ourselves, is okay, sure, we see liability, but what's the damage, right? And I mean, I almost feel weird even just saying that now, considering what we ended up doing. It's the damage ultimately, I think the shortcut is the damage ultimately didn't manifest itself in physical injury. It was the emotional distress. It was the lack of trust, the loss of dignity, the loss of hope, right? And that was never, I guess, truly appreciated by the defense or the insurance companies, hence both sides going completely divergent ways and and seeing the case just wildly differently. And knock on wood, we were able to do a good job and get the results.

SPEAKER_03 11:19

How do you manage or explain to the jury that the loss of trust and the emotional trauma as against whatever his baseline was for being in a residential treatment facility in the first place? Yeah. That's that was a huge point of the case.

SPEAKER_02 11:31

Yeah, I mean, really the case was framed, and probably Sharif can speak more on this, but really the the lack of trust, you know, and this is a young man who he like he'd been dealt a bad hand from an early age. He was the subject of abuse starting at like age three, and he'd been abused much of his young life. And so he was someone who was already um had already been through a lot. And this particular the individual defendant, uh, Michelle Yates, um, she was one of the caretakers, the person who ultimately ultimately assaulted him. He was actually one of the people that he really trusted and liked him at the facility. And of course, you know, he we reported it to the nurse. He then almost fearing that he was going to get her in trouble, tried to recant, was asked why he, you know, didn't want to do anything. He said, Well, I don't want her to lose her lose her job. I like her, which is really kind of heartbreaking if you think about it. Here's this young man who is just he's been abused his entire life. He goes somewhere where he's supposed to feel safe, where he's supposed to get better, and and this is done to him. Um and he's the one who's having to act like an adult and trying to protect someone um when in fact it's his abuser that he's that he's trying to protect. Um I think it really that really resonated with the jury. I think another thing that um that really sort of resonated with the jury, and it was something we didn't find out until we did a focus group, and we were just kind of maybe we had blinders on. It was it was pointed out to us by members of a focus group that so like when he was when Charlie was dragged across the floor and deposited out into the hallway, there was another employee who actually opened the door for this individual defendant and and like allowed it to happen. He basically like assisted her in doing that. And you've got these kids who are between the ages of like nine and twelve who were also in the dorm at the time, and they're just kind of watching but no one it's almost like this is commonplace. Like you you get the if you're looking at it, you're looking at all the other players. Of course, you're focused in on the actual incident itself. But if you're looking at the wider picture, you're like, this looks like this happens at this place every day. And that was the takeaway that we got from a lot of the members of the focus group and something you really sort of honed in on the trial. I think it really resonated with the jury. Like, here's this facility that is, you know, the the jury did not get the impression that this was a one-off, that this was just like this is a more than one bad day uh over the course of many years.

SPEAKER_03 14:58

Is that a point you were able to overtly make with the jury, or or do you just have to kind of skate around that? I mean, it seems um speculative and prejudicial if I'm a defense lawyer to to draw that inference from watching the video. How did you handle that at trial?

SPEAKER_01 15:13

I believe we Nathan may have mentioned it in the first close.

SPEAKER_02 15:17

Well, I think really just maybe asking qu frame it in terms of asking questions and maybe directing the jury to to focus its attention on, you know, look at the look at the other children, look at the, you know, look at I forgot the woman's name, look at this woman who's who's opening the door for the individual defendant, you know. Does this does this look like something that is, you know, that that has never happened here before, or does this look like something that's relatively commonplace?

SPEAKER_01 15:45

I'm thinking I probably mentioned it in opening because we had a punitive claim against the institution. We eventually dropped we lost that at the motion to strike level, and then we chose to actually forgo the punitive claim against the individual. I wouldn't be surprised, I'd have to look at the transcript, but I wouldn't be surprised if we touched on that from the very beginning. But one thing I do want to mention, I mean, I think one of the things that a lot of lawyers get stuck on, and we all do, and I'm I'm guilty of it as well, is we think like when we're talking about like your question about, well, how do you even get over the base? What's the baseline? He's had a traumatic history, right? Well, we sh I mean, Gray and Zach, when they I before I was involved in the case, they brought in an expert, they paid a ton of money, and the expert, some psychiatrist, right, was it basically said, listen, I I can't say that there's any sort of diagnosis that's different based on his history. And I think we often get too caught up on, well, we need to prove the TBI, we need to prove the PTSD, we need to prove this da da da, and you name your injury. But the reality is nowhere on the verdict forum does it say do they prove this medical diagnosis because our cases aren't about medical diagnosis, right? And so Joe Freed is a friend and mentor to our phone.

SPEAKER_03 17:05

I was gonna say, I know you're a Joe Fried student, and this is classic Joe Freed.

SPEAKER_01 17:09

He's incredibly kind to us, and we actually met with him a couple days ago. And one of the things I think I have learned from him, and our firm has learned from him, is he has this analogy he uses. He says it's not about the broken foot, right? It's not about the diagnosis, it's about the feeling like that one loses, right, because of the injury. So, for example, with the broken foot, the lady who likes to wear high heels, and some people around the office joke, me, no, I'm joking, but uh the lady who likes to wear high heels, but she can't do that. So, what is the feeling that she had when she wore white high heels? And now that she can't do that, that's now been taken from her at no fault of her own. Or for the guy, let's say, who every weekend he goes and he works on his classic car, and what gives him joy and this feeling of sense of purpose is hitting the gat the gas pedal, right? Revving the engine. But because of the broken foot, he can't do that. The case isn't about, at least from a damages perspective, the diagnosis. It's about the loss of that feeling. Because frankly, that's what's important, one to the client, but that's what the jury can also relate to, too. Because everyone's got that feeling, it just may take a different form. And so I think the way that we presented this case, at least from a damages perspective, was very much in line with that. And that's where the words like betrayal of trust, the loss of hope, the loss of dignity fall under the umbrella of mental anguish, which is in jury instruction 9.0, right? And then of course, I mean, you don't get verdicts like this unless, frankly, unless the defense helps you. And help, I mean, when I say helps, basically is we're able to polarize and say they're being unreasonable, we are being reasonable. And I would like to think that uh with the spoliations issues, with some of the arguments that defense ultimately made, we were able to capitalize on that and show that we were actually the reasonable party. And I'm I'm confident that that in some way had an effect on the verdict.

SPEAKER_03 19:04

What did the defense ask them to do in closing? Was it a complete defense verdict or was it to give them something fair and reasonable, but whatever Sharif has just asked for is not fair and reasonable. What did they do there?

SPEAKER_01 19:14

They didn't give a number. They didn't give a number. I'm no, they argued for they argued a liability defense, right? I mean, I think they might have done a weak kind of even, even if argument, but no, they I mean contributory negligence, self-defense.

SPEAKER_02 19:27

They threw the kitchen sink. We had four lay witnesses, they had 14 total witnesses, including two medical doctors. Um, and they argued for everything. And they did you have a medical doctor? No.

SPEAKER_03 19:38

No. We didn't need to. You weren't putting any any medical bills into evidence, so you didn't need the medical treatment.

SPEAKER_01 19:45

It's a pacch of neosporin was a medical treatment.

SPEAKER_02 19:47

And we even had a we had a counselor, a therapist who was supposed to testify, but she lived over four hours away and quite frankly became such a pain just before trial that we had to cut her loose, even though she was subpoenaed um because she just wouldn't wouldn't agree to come to Winchester for trial. So we didn't even have like a treating therapist. We had our client, his dad, friend of the family, and a law enforcement officer.

SPEAKER_03 20:15

So how long did your case take to put on? A day, and then they were the other four days, or three days, and then closed.

SPEAKER_01 20:21

So jury selection took well, I'll give you the two weeks. So that Monday, Nathan, Zach, and I were up there for like a four or five hour hearing. And then this is Winchester, and we're in Richmond, of course, so for us it's it's a bit of a little bit of a drive. Friday, Zach and I were up there for an eight hour hearing, painful.

SPEAKER_02 20:40

From one p.m. to nine p.m.

SPEAKER_01 20:41

Yeah. And then good judge. Hangouts on night. It was actually I mean, yeah. While we d I certainly didn't agree with a handful of his rulings, he was pleasant to practice in front of. I'd do it again. But we I mean very thought, very thoughtful. Very thoughtful. Yeah, he it was good. Again, like didn't agree with all his rulings, especially his rulings on Voidir. But on I mean, we filed a 15-page motion to reconsider on Sunday regarding his rulings for Voidir.

SPEAKER_00 21:07

So the Sunday before trial.

SPEAKER_01 21:09

Monday, we spent the entire day doing jury selection. Literally the entire day. Tuesday, opening our case, and the defense started their case towards the end of the day, and we went to seven o'clock, I think, every almost every day. And then so Wednesday, defense case, Thursday, mostly defense case, closings that night, right? Closing the case. And then the jury got it in the morning.

SPEAKER_02 21:35

Finished with our case Thursday night, jury got the case Friday morning.

SPEAKER_03 21:39

And jury was only out three hours? That's like 1220.

SPEAKER_02 21:43

So yeah.

SPEAKER_01 21:43

Yeah, like nine to twelve-ish. So yeah.

SPEAKER_03 21:46

But did you ask for a number?

SPEAKER_02 21:48

We yeah, we did, right? Well, no. We uh we asked for our ad damn number was thirty eight point four. Yeah, but we said it in opening. No, you said it in opening, but in closing. So yes, we said the number in opening. We did the briefcase. Said the number in opening multiple times, but then didn't give a number in closing, didn't say give us 38.4.

SPEAKER_01 22:06

That's right.

SPEAKER_02 22:07

And so yeah, that but they had that number and written that number down from before.

SPEAKER_01 22:12

And what I've normally done is, and we weren't allowed to do this in this case, but I will normally never mention the number. And and apart from Voidier. And uh and so and so the the ask ends up, or not ask, really the tell. I've learned this that it's and I'm who knows, things may change. I mean, we learned stuff. Like in this case, I used to do this thing where it's like, well, we're asking you for a number not to exceed such and such. I remember going to a training with Nick Rowley, and Nick Rowley said, You don't ask for a number, you tell them what this case is worth. And so opening at the very end, it was like, this case is worth$38.4 million, and ever and it's and it's worth every single penny. No hesitation. No I don't think there was really much hesitation from the jury when they heard it, because we said it with confidence and conviction. Conviction. And I think that was kind of it. How did you get to 38.4? We made it up. I mean, I mean, it's genuinely we made it up. But like I think the focus group would be helpful. I mean, because our focus, you want to talk about the focus group, that all that basically helped us convince us that one, we had a case, and Gray made the decision after the focus group. All right, you're all in it. Shree if you're doing a help with this case, da-da-da-da. Yeah, I mean the focus group. And then also, like, we're at our firm, we're not afraid to go after big numbers because I mean, in large part, we believe that as plaintiffs' attorneys, we can cap we can cap ourselves, right? So if and if we ask for too low, then chances are we're gonna, I mean, we're gonna get a low result. But if we can ask with conviction for a, I say ask, I mean tell and prove that the case is worth X amount, well then maybe they won't give us 38.4, but they might give us 20. Tell me about the focus group.

SPEAKER_02 23:46

Yeah, so the focus group, we started doing focus groups last year, and this was one of three cases that we put in front of a focus group. At the time, we weren't necessarily convinced that this was, you know, we didn't think this was the strongest of the three cases we had in the focus group, but it was presented to the focus group. There were no medical bills, no, you know, special damages, anything like that. Um, we showed the video, kept it sort of in the way we do focus groups is we really presented as though we're not the attorneys. We've been hired, we've been hired to, you know, as this third party to sort of present it, you know, fairly. Um and one of the questions we ask at the end is like who paid us to present this? Was it the insurance company? Was it the plaintiffs? You know, was it the defense? And so and those results are mixed. So come to kind of show like we weren't necessarily leaning too much one way or the other. But we presented this case, and um I remember clearly, you know, after when the focus group was being asked about it, one focus group member said, like, well, how much, how much are they asking for? How much is the plaintiff asking for? And we said, eight million. And he said, We'll just give them that. And this is a juror or a focus group member who before had been just like dogging on this other case and was very conservative, was very, you know, wanted to give sort of a minimal amount. And um, I kind of knew at that point, like, we've got we really have something here. If he's like without hesitation saying give them whatever they're asking for, it was at that time where we'd just been kind of we'd been handling the case for a while, we'd been slogged down, they they'd they'd filed every sort of motion, they were objecting to everything, you just kind of get in the into just the the slog of discovery and motions practice, if you will. And so I just decided like we're putting in every on the every attorney in the firm is getting in on this case. You know, Sharif, you're doing voir dear and opening, and you haven't been on this case at all before, but you're jumping in now. You know, Zach had been handling the case, played like this huge role uh in sort of directing things and and ended up doing um the rebuttal. Nathan, who just joined us less than a month before from the Richmond Commonwealth Attorney's Office, he was in charge of the closing and also in charge of like putting together all these video clips from the um defendant's website. All this sort of it was just this this fantastic team effort where we just went out of side, like we're putting all in on this case. And yeah, and that was and we were not we weren't afraid, we kind of we put it out there like we could we could go out there and get a zero. And if we had not, I think if we hadn't um done as good of a job on jury selection in Voardier as we did, there's a chance that like that could have been a zero.

SPEAKER_01 26:25

Yeah. Good. Yeah, I just wanna I know when I said the number, like oh, we just made it up. While that's true, I the takeaway and how we come and again I'm I'm a big fan of Joe Freed for a million reasons, but what he taught has taught us and what I've learned from him is that when we think about what the appropriate number in our case, the test is not what you see on a listserv, not what you see from past results, it's from other people, uh, not what the insurance company's limits are. Take a step back and truly think to yourself, not if this happened to you, but if this happened to the most one of your more vulnerable loved ones, your young child, what's the number that you'd trade that for? Right. And then people come back and like, well, there is no number, it's priceless. And you say, all right, what's the number next to price, closest to priceless, right? And so that's I mean, I recognize that's not a scientific test, but that's ultimately how we got to the number that we asked for. So I didn't want to like leave that and say, oh, these guys are just kind of making it up willingly.

SPEAKER_03 27:28

I got you. I got you.

SPEAKER_01 27:28

To some extent, sure. Is there anything?

SPEAKER_03 27:31

But to some extent we are just And so is a jury, it's just making this stuff up because there is no chart or rules that they're given about the schedule of damages.

Focus Groups And A Bold Number

SPEAKER_01 27:41

And if there were, then every time you see a broken leg, whether it's California, Kansas, or Virginia, I don't know why I use those three states, you'd see r roughly the same result, but you don't, right? And so framing matters. And frankly, just the strength of the lawyers on the case and their conviction matters too.

SPEAKER_03 27:59

So, Gray, you you said you spent a ton of time on Voidir. You get you did a whole day's worth and you filed your 15-page motion. Did you have outside help selecting who would be a right juror for this case and who would not?

SPEAKER_02 28:10

No, we didn't have we didn't have outside help. I mean, it was we basically had four lawyers there plus a paralegal, uh kind of a division of labor. I mean, Shrief Shrief conducted Voidier, and I think really the the kind of the dichotomy, Sheriff was just connecting with with the jury from from the get-go. And then was able was able to later take those sort of connections that he made in Voirdire and even address the jury during opening. You know, I'm trying to think of like there was a someone who'd maybe had had some sort of experience, and you're able to say, like, you know, yeah, juror number seven, similar to like what you what you live through at this time. But yeah, it was there was the jurors that we were perhaps the most afraid of were the ones who didn't say anything. Because you know there'll be jurors who will who will just hold put everything close to their best. They're not gonna they're not gonna raise their hand on the given questions, and they're not gonna volunteer anything. And so you don't know like can't judge you can't judge by what their vocation is. You can't judge by what's the estimate of their house. So these sort of very limited inf information that you can use to um to look into jurors, but you can you can tell with um with sort of the interaction and actually engaging in a dialogue with them. And so there was if maybe you can tell about the interaction you had with um like the gentleman with the with the goatee.

SPEAKER_01 29:31

Yeah. Um Yeah, so keep in mind though, we were very restricted on voidier. The judge basically ruled that I what we weren't allowed to ask any open-ended questions to the group. Every question had to be a close-ended. We spent probably three hours of the judge and defense. Defense counsel objected to every single question that we had proposed. And so we spent probably three hours basically with the defense and the judge rewording every question that we had proposed, like in that hearing before. Like literally rewriting it, like truly, like and I'm like, all right, fine, I'll delete that, right? Like it's and uh and so we were very restricted. But what Gray's referencing is there was a question along the lines of talking about the invisible injury, and then I remember there was this one juror who ultimately, I don't remember if he was ended up being the four-person, but he was without question a leader on that jury. Said he was like, Well, I call bullshit to that, kind of just out of the blue. And I was like, Well, tell me more, right? And he was like, Well, isn't there this thing called PTSD, all that stuff? So I was like, All right, he's staying, but I mean jury selection's critical. I think the law in Virginia is very open as to jury selection, just in practice, it is very closed. And there's a number of reasons. We've got bench uh, well, it was a bench brief, but then I we learned that judges don't read bench briefs, so we turned it into a motion. So now at least they read it, but it's still basically a bench brief with a law on void direct. And actually, what we've done recently is we've taken a transcript where we did void here and and basically took segments of that transcript of what we believe an effective and a meaningful void dire in Virginia is and incorporated it into the motion. So it's like here's a law, here's what happens when you actually let it go this way. And we're able to show in a case where like the judge asks all these questions and no one raises their hand, and then after we do voidier, we've got five cause uh causes for strike granted, and the defense has uh has one additionally, and it's because of the questions we were allowed to listen. And so I I don't know, that's a crusade that I've had for a couple years now, trying to open open up void dire in Virginia because I think I mean it's critical. If you have people who are not open to the possibility of following the law, well then you don't have a shot, right? And Voidir is not about trying to convince or persuade. It's true, and this is a big argument that we had dur in this case. It's like, judge, yes, the defense is objecting because my our question is in line or similar to what a jury instruction is, but if that, if if if the role of Voidir was to talk about, I mean, to do something, then what's the point of Voidir, right? If we have jury instructions and the jurors are just presumed to follow the instructions, then we don't need voidir because they're robots. The point of voidir is to determine to the best of our ability whether the jurors will be open to following the judge's instructions. And that's a battle that we lost in this case, and we filed a motion to reconsider. But but anyways, I can go on and on. But voidir is important. Voidir, I think, translates into opening. I believe that voidir is just a part of the a trial in my mind now is a conversation. And it starts in voidir and it ends in rebuttal. Well, no, it doesn't end in rebuttal, it ends in the deliberation room. You're just not a part of it. And so if I think if you think of it that way and how things kind of flow together, it makes a lot more sense and it can just be a lot more effective.

SPEAKER_03 32:45

Did you speak with any of the jurors after the verdict?

SPEAKER_01 32:48

Yeah. So actually, it's funny, the verdict came out and uh we were obviously pleased, but it's interesting like the reaction. It wasn't like, yay, jumping up with joy, it was almost more of a sense of relief because we I mean it was it was it was a result. And we I mean we were fairly confident, we thought we had done a good job, but we were also concerned because the defense had lowered their offer as the case went on. So we didn't. I saw that in your notes, yeah. Which is kind of insane, right? Yeah. But as soon as that happened, I I think I asked, like, well, Judge, is it appropriate for us to get feedback from the jury? Obviously, we'll have other cases. And then Gray ran down and was able to basically catch the jury as they were leaving. And they spoke with us for probably five, ten minutes.

SPEAKER_02 33:27

Yeah, they spoke with us for like, yeah, probably 10-15 minutes. The you know, of the seven jurors, there there was one actually who initially wanted to give zero because there was, you know, the finding that there was sort of like no damages. Like they're like he was maybe he was damaged goods before and this had didn't really have any sort of appreciable effect on him. The rest of the jurors, I think, wanted to give us the 38.4. And they ultimately, after some back and forth, landed at 20. Wow. But yeah, we we spoke with them, and I think they were I mean, obviously they were very positive. And so we we spoke to them directly after, and then we even followed up with them and spoke with them a couple days later to get some more feedback.

SPEAKER_03 34:08

Did your client testify, the minor? Did they cross-examine him? Yes. Yeah. Was that a mistake?

SPEAKER_02 34:15

I don't know if it was a mistake.

SPEAKER_01 34:16

It was like it would have been a mistake. It was a mistake.

Voir Dire Limits And Juror Trust

SPEAKER_02 34:18

You want to talk about what happened pretrial or yeah, so it was kind of wild. Um, so before the trial, like initially when we had the case, we were worried about how our client would present, and we really did not want him to even have to testify. Um, this is early on in the case. The defense fought to to be able to take his deposition. That was ultimately granted. And during the deposition, during his deposition, they were I mean, they were pretty rough on him. It was it was a very long deposition. Um, one of the questions during the during the the back and forth, our client eventually said, like, I just I just want to be normal. I just want to have a normal life. And one of the defense counsels says, Well, were you normal before this? And, you know, he even like kind of gives this look where it's like kind of a cruel thing to say to a young man who's been abused, he's in a psychiatric residential treatment facility, he's been subjected to all this stuff. He didn't ask for any of it.

SPEAKER_01 35:13

Uh yeah, they had another one too. It was the well, so you're saying that it bothers you when someone else strangles you, but when you're but it doesn't when you strangle yourself, right? And what's hilarious, it's not hilarious. I mean, it's sad, it's sick, right? Um, but I mean we didn't let that go, right? We made mention. I mean, I was a crazy one and wanted to play the clips during opening, and then eventually like I was talking. I don't know if those I think I just you guys just let me like eventually talk myself out of it. And so I do, I mean, we did mention it, and I said, you know, I I went I remember Gussain, I said, I know we know what the defense is gonna say because they they asked these very same questions during this deposition. They're going to say this, they're going to say that. And then I remember Zach when he was directing the uh Charlie, our child client. I mean, he asked at one point, did were you ever asked these questions? And then, of course, that defense attorney who would ask those questions in the deposition, objection, objection, objection. It's like, I mean, it's like it's just amazing to me. Like, how did you, how are you willing to like be that aggressive, right? And then try and cover it up.

SPEAKER_03 36:15

But they're robotic, you know. Defense lawyers by and large get hooked on whatever they think the theory is. It's very hard to get them off the theory and and they aren't thinking ahead to well, what happens if somebody plays this bad grass about it at trial.

SPEAKER_01 36:28

Yeah, and we debated, I remember because I like I really wanted to play the clip, but then I also didn't want to get in trouble, which is not which happens fairly often. And I remembered we were debating, like, well, is it hearsay? I mean it's a question, but but then it's not also evidence, right? It's just so ultimately, I mean, we put it on a screen. We put a big the quote, and then I w I talked about it with the jury. I mean, that was one of one of a number of things.

SPEAKER_03 36:53

Anything you guys would have done differently looking back on the the whole scope of the litigation and then the trial?

Verdict Feedback And Defense Missteps

SPEAKER_02 36:57

Anything that you're like that was a tactical misstep that we made that I think probably um hindsight being what it is, I kind of wish that we had focus grouped the case earlier and sort of the strategy where we landed kind of ended up happening by default, where we wanted to have this expert. You know, we spent over$20,000 expert fees to not have an expert. We tried to get all these different providers from like, you know, treating psychiatrists to therapists, all this different stuff. Um, and those ultimately didn't pan out. And so we're kind of like we were left with with a certain case, uh, and that ended up being fortuitous because the case we were left with ended up being the strongest case and probably where we should have directed our attention from the get-go. So I think it was it almost even tracks like the evolution of our firm to a certain degree to where you're you're doing these things, you're doing these things because you it's like the low it's the lawyerly thing to do. It's a thing you're supposed to do. You're supposed to work up the specials, you're supposed to focus on, you know, there's this sort of formula where um, you know, in this type of case it's X number the specials, in this type of case, it's Y times the specials. And um, and I think if we had earlier on focus group the case, really thought about how is you know, how is this going to present to a jury? What's what's gonna really resonate from a jury? I think that would have shaped how we did things from the get-go. But at the same time, it also the way that it ended up working out ended up being to our favor. I think it completely caught the defense off guard. And to a certain degree, because they threw everything but the kitchen sink at it, that that ended up playing into our favor as well. And we've kind of mentioned earlier, if they had it would have been a different case if they simply said, This is something that never should have happened. We are sorry. Charlie had been through a lot before this, this never should have happened to him. We are sincerely sorry. You know, and we want we think he should be compensated. And if they put out like a reasonable number, that would have been a different case. But instead, they they took the exact opposite tact and and made it so that like Shreef said, we were we ended up being the reasonable ones, and it worked out.

SPEAKER_03 39:14

Well, good for you guys. I want to um be respectful of your time and make sure make sure we wrap up here. Where do you want to direct people? Greybroughton.com?

SPEAKER_02 39:22

Yeah, so media. So we're we're on LinkedIn. But yeah, the easiest way to find us is greybrought.com. I mean, I think the thing that I would say is that um we we like taking cases to trial. We like we like talking with feather attorneys about cases that might seem a little bit difficult. It might be outside of someone's wheeled house, but like it might be a case where you feel like something, there's something there, but you're not quite sure what's there. And it doesn't quite fall into that normal mold of a good case, but there might be bad, there might be injuries, there might be bad conduct, there's something there that's making you think like this is this should be a case, but you can't quite think of like why it is. Um and then of course we're we're happy to happy to assist on traditional cases as well.

SPEAKER_00 40:07

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 40:07

And it's really kind of the ethos mindset of the firm, right? Like, I mean, I may have mentioned this earlier, but I mean, of the seven lawyers we'll have by the end of the year, right, like six of them were prosecutors, right? So we like going to court. The default is not discovery and and all this mediation. Like we I mean, up until recently, we just didn't mediate. We just didn't do it. We're changing that because in because we've learned a few things. But the going to trial and seeing you in the courtroom is kind of just the default thing you see in the criminal side, and we've just carried that over to the civil side, and I think it's more fun, and I think we ultimately get more value for our clients that way. And what we've seen recently is that uh especially because we had those two tr difficult trials in conjunction and to get those types of results, we're g we're being taken more seriously by insurance. Yeah, and it's it's been evident.

What They Would Change Next Time

SPEAKER_02 40:57

Yeah, it's been a marked difference. And so whereas before we wouldn't mediate because it ended up being a complete waste of time, we're now in a spot where, like Trice said, we're being taken more seriously. Cases that are maybe the 50-50 case uh where we're demanding policy limits. Um we're kind of showing that we can we can can take a case to trial and we can blow we can blow through the policy limits and you know, you're gonna be stuck with it.

SPEAKER_01 41:23

And if we don't, well then we'll get you next time, right? And I mean I think there's some we're not afraid to lose.

SPEAKER_02 41:28

We've had some losses too, and that's that's part of the journey as well.

SPEAKER_01 41:31

Well, cool guys, thanks for coming on today.

SPEAKER_02 41:33

Thank you for having us.

SPEAKER_01 41:34

Thank you, Brian.