Don't Just Assume That It's Nothing | Elliott Buckner (Personal Injury Lawyer)

The defense asks you a seemingly innocuous question, and it's tempting to assume that whatever their angle is, it's probably nothing. 

Elliott Buckner learned the hard way that even the most mundane motion can cause major headaches to your case, especially in the hands of a crafty defense lawyer. 

If it's not setting off alarm bells, look again. Ask for a second opinion. Ask your friends on the defense bar for their opinion. You can, and should, be collegial with other lawyers, but at the end of the day, we're all here to do the best for our clients. Be prepared.

Elliott talks about his experiences with DUI cases, how different insurance coverage can affect your case, and his role as president of the the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association (VTLA) during the pandemic. He reflects on high-profile cases such as the UVA shooting and VCU hazing incident, and the complexities of legal challenges faced in the education sector, particularly in Virginia, where contributory negligence plays a significant role.

And we explore the importance of non-economic performers, which can be valued by your clients and juries just as much as the monetary performers.

"Is there a better feeling than standing up when the judge says, "Is the plaintiff ready?" "We are, your Honor." And it's your turn to go?

I feel an immense privilege and responsibility to be there as the voice for my client. It's a lot of pressure, but that to me is the thrilling aspect of what we do."

In this episode, we discuss:

◼️ How collaboration among lawyers enhances the practice of law. You don't need to have your elbows up all the time.
◼️ How homeowners insurance can cover unexpected incidents.
◼️ Why contributory negligence in Virginia can be a barrier, but also has its advantages.
◼️ Why high-low agreements can provide security for clients, and help you gain more trial experience.
◼️ Identifying the value drivers that push your case forward.
◼️ The maxim: "Don't be complacent. Don't make assumptions."

Chapters

00:00 Learning from Mistakes in Legal Practice
09:09 The Importance of Community in Law
12:06 Elliott's Role in VTLA 
18:04 Handling High-Profile Cases: UVA and VCU Hazing
20:52 Understanding Insurance in Legal Claims
30:18 Legal Complexities in School Cases
33:44 Understanding Contributory Negligence in Virginia
37:12 The Importance of Trial Experience
42:27 The Thrill of Trial Advocacy
50:53 Lessons from Experience: Advice for Young Lawyers

Courtroom Stories & Tactics | RVA Trial Lawyers
Available on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, and at RVATrialLawyers.com 

Based out of Richmond, Virginia, Courtroom Stories & Tactics by RVA Trial Lawyers exists for lawyers who try cases to juries on behalf of people. Through our podcast, we hope to learn from them, support them, connect them, inspire them, and preserve their work for future trial lawyers.

If you are willing, we would greatly appreciate it if you left us a 5-Star Google Review by clicking here. Your review will help people find us.

Thank you!

Sharif Gray and Nael Abouzaki

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:00

When some defense attorneys ask me for something and I can't figure out what the angle is, I don't just assume, oh, it's nothing. Now I'll walk down the hall to one of my partner's office and say, all right, put your defense attorney hat on. What's your game with this? This is what they're asking for. This is what they want to do. What are they trying to accomplish? What's the end game of this? And how am I going to get screwed with this?

SPEAKER_02 0:19

Right. This is Courtroom Stories and Tactics by RVA trial lawyers, hosted by Sharif Gray and Nial Abuzaki.

SPEAKER_00 0:30

All right, we're back. And today we've got Elliot Buckner with us. Elliot Buckner is a very well-known and reputable trial lawyer with cancer granna Buckner Bucci. Did I say that right? You did.

SPEAKER_03 0:40

Here in Richmond for a little emphasis on the Buckner part of that would be helpful. But yeah, you got the four names for it.

SPEAKER_00 0:45

I kind of was stumbling. Is it Bucci first or is it Buckner first? But I think I got it right.

SPEAKER_03 0:49

You got it right.

SPEAKER_00 0:50

All right. Well, you've been on the podcast, but you're on it before Bucci. So you win in Marbook for sure. Perfect. Now, Elliot, former president of the VTLA, big time when it comes to education and helping out the Plaintiff Spar in Virginia. Also big time when it comes to helping out with the lobbying efforts on the behalf of the Plaintiff Spar. So just all over the place. But one of the coolest things about Elliot, it has nothing to do with the courtroom. So Elliot is a longtime barbecue pitmaster. And I've actually tasted Elliot's food, his firm, and specifically Elliot, it spent a lot of time and put a lot of resources into supporting the millhouse group. The millhouse group, they help out those who are suffering with brain injuries. And Elliot, I think you do this every year. Remind us how many years have you been doing it? I think this past one was our 16th year. Oh, wow. And so you guys help with a fundraiser, cook the barbecue. I've been to lunch there once and had it, and it's great stuff. So really excited to have you. Why don't you take a minute, introduce yourself, and we'll get after it.

SPEAKER_03 1:50

Not sure I could have done much of a better job than what you did. I like that you called me reputable. That's a good start for our conversation this afternoon. I just had my 25th reunion a couple months ago at William and Mary for law school. And it's amazing to me to think that I've been doing this for 25 years now. Time goes really, really fast. But I've enjoyed it. I like what I do. I like being a plaintiff's attorney. Couldn't imagine doing anything else. Enjoy doing stuff with the mill house and getting out in the community. And my personal stuff, I've got two kids both in college. I've got a very tolerant wife and uh two pretty cool dogs.

SPEAKER_00 2:24

That's awesome. What type of dogs?

SPEAKER_03 2:26

We've got a golden retriever and a chocolate lab.

SPEAKER_00 2:30

Beautiful. Both puppies. Ooh.

SPEAKER_03 2:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 2:33

So the kids left the house and you had to fill it with dogs, right? So you're back to potty training. So we have a chocolate lab as well. It's named Maximus Decimus Meridius Gray I. And um, I'm at the point where I don't understand why people have dogs who are not golden retrievers or labs. I think they're by far the two best dogs there are, and I recognize I'm about to alienate a bunch of our listeners, but I think every other dog is inferior to those two breeds.

SPEAKER_03 3:00

I tend to agree with you. You can end up with a cool dog that's not those breeds, but it's not as guaranteed as it is with those two breeds.

SPEAKER_00 3:07

Absolutely. Absolutely. Now, the chocolate labs I've noticed are a bit crazy. And they say it has nothing to do with the color. I don't believe it because there's something about the chocolate labs.

SPEAKER_03 3:16

I I think it's that genetic inferiority that kind of comes out sometimes. But ours is six months old and he is so cool and so chill. And so I'm knocking on wood that he stays that way. Right.

SPEAKER_00 3:27

Until you find him with one of those shoes you got, right? So he leaves the shoes alone. Ours does as well. So I don't get it. But uh one day I'm gonna be uh set for a rude awakening. Well, let's get into it. I want to take you back a number of years. My understanding is you're handling a DUI, punitive damages, car accident, or we typically say car wreck case. Tell us what's going on? What are you doing? So I'm repping a family.

SPEAKER_03 3:52

It's a grandmother, mother, and daughter. All have been injured. They got rear-ended by a drunk driver out in Louisa County. And, you know, case is progressing per normal, and it's a statutory punitive case. So it's a 0.15 or higher. That's not what he blood tested, you know, a few hours later. So we had to hire a forensic toxicologist to extrapolate his BAC at the time of the crash. And I had handled several of those before. They all were, I call them kind of a linear case. It's just one step after another after another from start to finish. It's there's no wild things that happen. It's just a pretty linear progression of the case. You have your forensic toxicologist run the numbers like they always do. There's well-established norms for absorption and elimination of alcohol. And I was just doing all those things. And on the other side of the case was a very, very crafty, experienced defense attorney who I happen to get along with fine. I think a lot of folks in town don't get along with particularly fine. And he's okay with that. I'm not going to mention any names, but he's okay with that. He says, Hey, I need to file a motion and limiting. Can we just agree to stipulate some facts? And I said, Well, send me your stipulation. And he did, and it was all very standard stuff that, you know, he had a blood test of this at this time. Forensic toxicologists has used the average elimination absorption rates to extrapolate back to this point and a few other things. And I just didn't see anything weird about it, and it nothing set off any alarm bells in me. And I just made some assumptions that he had to do it. The carrier was making him do it. He was going to go put on a show and then he was going to lose, and we're going to continue forward in this linear case. And unbeknownst to me, he being a good, smart, crafty defense lawyer, had kind of cobbled together this defense of, you know, you're not supposed to use averages, and all the forensic toxicologists are using averages. And how do you know that your guys, this particular guy is within the average, unless you compare him to everybody that went into comprising the average? He was exactly right. I just assumed things were going to go a certain way, and I didn't take a step back and look at really what was he going to do, what was he trying to do, what possibly could he have done? I didn't, I didn't assume the worst case, I just assumed best case or normal case. So we go out there for the hearing, and I'm kind of blindsided by it. And I just didn't see it coming. And it shame on me. You know, looking over your shoulder, you got the VMI honor system at the bottom that says ignorance is no excuse. And I was looking at that before we started. I'm like, I got no excuse for what I did. That was just a stupid young lawyer making bad assumptions. And the only thing I was smart enough about that day was I said, Judge, I know we're doing this by stipulations, but I promise you this is only half the picture. I understand what your ruling is going to be today, but I would like you to give me leave to ask for reconsideration when I give you the rest of the information that will be developed as the case goes forward. He said, You have something else that you think changes this, go ahead. You've got leave to file. And so when I did is I went and got with my forensic toxicologist and said, This is what happened. This is the new defense. And I found out that Craig Davis, another lawyer in town, was having the same issue, same lawyer, the two of us just hadn't talked yet. He and I kind of put our heads together and we realized, well, to prove elimination, to prove absorption, you've got these averages that everybody uses. But the reality is there's a hard range. There's a max and there's a minimum for both of them. And if we just use those outer parameters and use the ones that are most favorable to the defendant, then he has to fall within that range of the numbers that they're using rather than the averages. So that's what I did with the forensic toxicologist. And then I used a deposition of the trooper to button up some other issues that I had. Went back to the judge. He said, Yeah, this is fine. You've covered it all. You're good. Your DUI punies are back on. And then found out they were doing that with other people and shared sort of the how-to with some other lawyers in town. And it took a few years, but eventually that defense kind of petered away once everybody figured out you've got to use the outside parameters of absorption elimination. So it was a rough way to learn that lesson of don't be complacent, don't think things are going to go smoothly, be prepared for things to go totally sideways.

SPEAKER_00 8:11

It's interesting you mentioned that because I had a similar situation in a case. We were adding some people to the we're piercing the veil or we're trying to pierce the veil on a premises case against the owners of the entity because they had divested their assets of the company three to four months after we filed the lawsuit. And I defense counsel asked me to remove one of the individual defendants. And I ended up doing it. And uh what was it, a few days after I think I filed the amended complaint? Removal notice to federal court. So I think it's gonna get back. I think, I mean, we're litigating whether it should be remanded for assets for a handful of reasons. But it reminds me, I mean, I remember at the time feeling, my gosh, how did I screw that up? Like, why didn't I take the time to really know and appreciate, like, wait, and uh just because the LLC seems like it's domesticated in Virginia, well, you have to look at the members and where they're at, right? And it's amazing. But I guess that's what they call the practice of all, right?

SPEAKER_03 9:09

Yeah. I mean, uh certainly the lessons I've learned of the hardest have stuck with me the best. It's unfortunate that it works that way. But yeah, I learned a lot from that screw up.

SPEAKER_00 9:19

Unfortunately, it wasn't a real painful screw up. Well, it sounds like you were able to come, I mean, to move the ball the right direction.

SPEAKER_03 9:24

I mean, you just had a couple little obstacles to get around, but yeah, but you know, it it's embarrassing when you have to go back to the office with your tail between your legs and say, I just lost that motion and limiting and our DIP unis are out, and here's why, and here's I think I got a fix for it. But you know, it's a little embarrassing to do that. And I was still a very young attorney at the time and still trying to impress my boss and mentor, and that was not a very impressive show. But I learned a lot from it. And you know, to this day, 20 years later, when defense attorneys, some of them, not all of them, but when some defense attorneys ask me for something and I can't figure out what the angle is, I don't just assume, oh, it's nothing. Now I'll walk down the hall to one of my partners' offices and say, All right, put your defense attorney hat on. What are you what's your game with this? This is what they're asking for, this is what they want to do. What are they trying to accomplish? What's the end game of this? And how am I going to get screwed with this? Right. And there have been times when they said there is no end game, it's nothing, and here's why. They've done it with me before, or whatever. So it's not always a bad thing, but I'm doing it the right way now that I'm actually asking those questions.

SPEAKER_00 10:28

Oh, when you learn something the hard way, it uh you don't forget. Yeah, yeah. And I'm very good at learning things the hard way. So my wife, I'm sure, can can second that. But well, one of the cool things, I mean, I'm a big fan of your firm. Stephanie Grana has been a friend, mentor. Joe is a good friend of mine. As I've mentioned, I mean, the only person who hasn't been on the podcast right now as a trial lawyer firm is Bucci, hence he's fourth, right? Um so hopefully, Scott, you're listening to this or will be listening to this when it comes out. You guys have a great team, but what's really cool about what your firm does, Elliot, is like your team is more than just the people in your office. Very involved in VTLA, very involved in Ibota, in AAJ, in getting out there and being a resource on the listserv, being a resource at these trainings. And so that community feel is something that I think you guys are a big part of in Virginia. So I'm very grateful for. And also I think it makes the practice of law just that much better. Because when you have issues like that, you can go to not just your partners, but you can go to the VTListserv or other plaintiff's attorneys around town. And I'd say probably nine out of 10 times, you're gonna have someone who's receptive and wants to help.

SPEAKER_03 11:36

Yeah, I agree that I think that's what makes this side of what we do so much fun. I mean, you and I are sitting here doing this together, and I guess if you strip it down, we're sort of competitors. I mean, we both want the same cases, you know. But I never would view you that way. I view you as a friend and a colleague and somebody that if I needed something, I could call and you'd help in an instant. And that's cool. I like that. You know, it's not, and I think folks on this side of the V tend to take a rising tide, lifts all ships approach. And I've always taken that with teaching and CLEs and the legislative stuff I do with VTLA. If I can help somebody else get a great result, I'm not jealous of that result. I'm happy for them because it's gonna help me that's right in my cases.

SPEAKER_00 12:20

That's right. And there's enough cases that go around. I mean, there's a lot of people who need help. And now I'm uh I mean, I know in the marketing world in our field, like people like, well, how many cases do you guys have? And da-da-da-da. I mean, all you need is one case sometimes, right? I mean, it's gotta be a good case, but the point of me making that statement is I mean, if you do this work the right way and like you really care about your clients and you really put in the work and try and do everything you can to get full value for the person you're representing, I mean, you don't need that many cases. You really don't. And I think the people who really view this profession, in my opinion, the right way, or granted I'm biased, have no problem sharing because, as you said, they recognize that we're all in this together. And um and it's really cool. I did a bunch of criminal defense work. I did a brief stint at Big Law, ran away fairly quickly, and prosecuted. I would say this job more than any, I've had that kind of community feel. I mean, prosecution certainly has it, and then criminal defense certainly has it. But I mean, the plaintiff's bar and the creativity and the collaboration and the conferences and the trainings, it's just it's it's incredible. Yeah. Um, it's really, really incredible. Also, just the lobbying efforts, too, right? Like you can you talk about your role as you were president of the Virginia Trialers Association, which I remember actually, this was a handful of years ago, you're coming around and talking about some of the work that you all were able to do to increase limits, or maybe it was the stacking. It was moving from a credit to the stacking and the role that you and the organization had in coordinating both sides of the aisle and making sure that that legislation came through. Can you talk a little bit? I don't want to get into all the nitty-gritty stuff, but just what it was like, one, to be the VTLA president, and two, like how do you decide, all right, well, how are we going to advance our mission?

SPEAKER_03 14:08

I had a weird VTLA president year. I mean, it's something to look forward to once you get on the track for it and you get on the EC and you kind of know that your ladder and you're seven years out, and you start looking forward to your year because your year you get to travel around all the other bar organizations and you get to meet a bunch of people, and you're kind of the spokesperson for the organization, and it's a busy year, but it's a great year and it's a fun year, and I was looking forward to all of that. And then a week before I became president, COVID hit. And so none of those things happened. I attended, I think, two Zoom conferences of other bar organizations, but most of it was just shut down. So it was kind of a quiet year. It was still a great year. I mean, it that was my best, most significant professional accomplishment. And I'll never have a better one. Name me the president of any other organization, and I'll still put VTLA first because it means that much to me, and the people mean that much to me. And I look back at the roster of past presidents, and it's a hell of a group of people to have your name included among. It really is a a bit of a who's who. And so it was a huge honor and privilege for me to do it. And uh I'll always enjoy it. I wish I had had more of an opportunity for a more traditional year, but you know, I talked to a friend of mine who was AAJ president at the same time. Theirs started halfway through COVID. Mine started right at the start of the shutdown of everything. And so I was four or five months into it, and I called him up just before he became president. And I said, This year is not going to be anything like you thought it was gonna be. All the plans you had in your head of what your year was gonna be like are out the window. But you will be president in a time when your organization needs you more than they've ever needed you because this is a weird, dangerous, odd time. And professional organizations all over the country were losing members and just getting hammered. We didn't lose a single member. I mean, I'm sure we lost some, but we gained some. Our numbers remain constant through that, which was amazing. And there was a lot of stuff that was going on during COVID that was important stuff for the organization, and to be able to be a part of that and a significant part of it was really cool. So I lost some opportunities that I was looking forward to, but gained some that I never saw coming.

SPEAKER_00 16:14

It's interesting also, like from the education standpoint. My understanding is that because everyone was kind of shut down, the CLEs got even better during COVID. Like the you start seeing like Charlotte University was born in some respects. Like you started seeing all these types of things to where now, I mean, for some people, I would argue it's overwhelming the amount of resources out there in terms of what you can find. And I know VTLA does a good job with that stuff and among a bunch of other organizations. But Ellie, I'd like to switch and talk a little bit about the cases that you'd like to handle. I know from reading about your cases and from talking to others that you guys aren't just handling the run-of-the-mill personal injury case. There's the VCU hazing cases, there's the UVA shooting case, kind of the crime victim type cases as well. Where do you focus most of your attention?

SPEAKER_03 17:07

You know, I I wish I could say I've got five cases and they're all huge. I've got a smattering of stuff because I took on a case last week that is a tiny, tiny case, but it was a good friend's good friend. And I'm not gonna say no to them. I'm gonna help them out. Um so I've got some little cases that drive my paralegal crazy. Yeah. But the bigger cases are I mean, listen, they're more fun to work on. They're typically more interesting, they involve novel legal theories, they involve a lot of times novel claims. They're harder. So there's more of a challenge, which I like. The majority of my time, I mean it's 80-20 rule, but you know, 80% of my time is spent on probably 20% of my cases, just by number, not by size or anything, but by number. And I've always got you know, 10 at any time, probably 10 or 12 big cases, a lot of wrongful death cases. I'm not sure how that's happened along the way, but a couple of years ago I I added them up, and at one point I had 18 wrongful death cases that I was handled, which was a lot of wrongful death cases at one time. I had three cases that were double wrongful death cases, you know, husband and wife cases. And so we handle a lot of bigger cases. I think folks recognize that we have handled them, we know how to handle them, we're equipped to handle them, our staff knows what to do, we know how to put the pieces together. So I think we tend to get a lot of referrals, and that's still, despite our best marketing efforts, that's still how the majority of our cases come in. It's referrals from other lawyers, from judges, from doctors, past clients. And you know, you made the comment of helping the client out and putting the client first. I'm a big believer if if you take care of your clients, ultimately your clients are gonna take care of you. My best cases have come from best past clients. My best. Because when they make that referral, when they say, hey, you need to call so-and-so, people aren't gonna go use Google, they're gonna trust their friend over anything else. Of course, you know, so I'm not sure I gave you a real specific answer about the type of thing.

SPEAKER_00 19:08

Because we have such a we handle such a wide variety, which makes this job fun, right? I mean, can you talk a little bit more about Peter Everett is someone who's been on this podcast and and I know he's very big in the crime victim world. Can you talk a little bit more about if you're able to, like either the UVA case or the VCU case? Because those are very I remember when the UVA case came out. I remember being kind of shocked. I was like, I didn't even realize like there was a claim, let alone one that would I mean clearly I didn't know the story.

SPEAKER_03 19:37

Yeah, I can tell you a lot about it because in a sentencing hearing for Chris Jones just happened back in November. So a lot of stuff came out during that. But there is still a lot of stuff that is unknown. I mean, they UVA hired those two or the Commonwealth hired those two outside firms after the shooting to come in and do an evaluation of UVA's response and then just sort of a more general security evaluation. And there was a lot of information that was contained in those reports that when they first came out, it was heavily, heavily redacted. You know, UVA said we can't disclose a lot of it because of FERPA, because it contains students identifying information. Most of it was Chris Jones, and he ultimately waived that for the families. So it's a limited waiver, so it's not out fully in the public. But I was able to see more of the reports, and frankly, most of the stuff that was in there came out during his very public sentencing hearing. So there's not a lot of secrets to that anymore.

SPEAKER_00 20:34

My understanding was that, and what I didn't know was that the crux of the case was that UVA was on notice that this individual had a firearm and then ultimately didn't do anything in response. Is that more or less I mean, obviously there's a lot more to what happened.

SPEAKER_03 20:52

That's that's more or less it. I mean, what our claims were when we sort of presented the case to them, and I will say at the outset, UVA did the right thing for our cases. Okay, I think there was some serious shortfalls in managing this very problematic student that they had, Chris Jones. But when it came time for our claim, UVA stepped up and did the right thing and didn't fight about it. And on the death cases, they paid the two million dollar limits. And I can say that because that you know that's court-approved, and so that's out in the public.

SPEAKER_00 21:26

Right.

SPEAKER_03 21:26

So they stepped up and did the right thing with that stuff, and I've got to give them credit for that. You know, with the Virginia Tech shootings, the state went to the mat on those, and and the people ended up getting nothing or next to nothing unless they settled for the relatively small pool of money that was out there. And there were some similarities. But what we were aware of when we made the claims was that there was some notice to the school that he was having some disciplinary problems, some potential run ins with the law, and that there was a concern about him having. A firearm that was enough for them to go by his dorm room and that they didn't find him, they didn't search the room, they just kind of walked away from it, and that was within you know a week or two of the shooting. So there was enough there that we were able to cobble a claim together that I think would have survived a demur that would have let us get into Discovery to find out more. And then the more that we ended up finding out after our claim was resolved, because again, UVA I think stepped up and did the right thing at the right time, what we ended up finding out was there was a lot of people at UVA that knew a lot of things about this guy, but each one of them only knew one piece. And there was not a good clearing center for everyone to know all of it. And if you go through the list of the stuff that was going on with this guy in like a year and a half period before the shootings, somebody, anybody would have just stepped up and said, This is a problem brewing and a big problem brewing. We got issues, we got to do something about it. When you look at each thing, sort of in isolation, it's easier to say, well, I don't know. Uh let's see how things go. Let's offer some help. Let's do this a little bit. But they weren't talking to each other, they didn't have a common resource center that was sort of aggregating all that information. Nobody had their eyes on all of it. And that's how I think this uh huge problem ended up manifesting itself because they didn't catch it early enough.

SPEAKER_00 23:20

Do they have that now?

SPEAKER_03 23:23

Do they have the pieces in place? Right. Yeah, so they've made a number of changes to their system and their safety system. And I'm blanking right now on what they call their like threat assessment group that they have there. And so they've made a number of changes and they've consolidated some of it. And you know, my hope is if there's a lesson for them to have learned, that's the lesson that you need your little disparate groups that are all out doing their own individual thing to have some person agency organization that's aggregating all that information so that you've got a complete picture of what's going on with somebody.

SPEAKER_00 23:58

Absolutely. That's one of the cool things about this work as well. I recognize we sound like cheerleaders for personal injury. So if you're not a personal injury lawyer, it's time to jump on the bandwagon. But um, I haven't really had the opportunity to do it yet. I've tried. We had a bouncer case and the terrible security. I mean, guy got knocked out, and then we found out in Discovery that two and a half months prior, same bouncer, same bar, same camera, captured the same guy knocking somebody else out, right? And just horrendous, right? Brain injuries, all that. And I remember really wanting to be like, well, let's make them like a part of a settlement. Let's have them like agree to do this certification program for their bouncers and all that. And the non-economic reforms. I think that's sort of something that's really cool about the work that we do. And I'm confident, right, the work that you guys did with UVA, I'm sure to some degree had an influence on getting them to take measures to make things safer.

SPEAKER_03 24:52

I hope it did. We put together a list of non-economic changes that we wanted to see. And they, before we even got the cases resolved when they had already implemented a number of them on their own. So again, I'm gonna give them a lot of credit for doing that. I hope that they are sharing their experiences and what they've learned with other schools because I think other schools could benefit from it. I think VCU has done a pretty good job with that. You know, the VCU settlement to the family's significant credit included really thoughtful, non-economic terms and significant things that they wanted the school to do in the future. And VCU stepped up and implemented a lot of those and worked with the family to implement those things. I think they've got a better system there now. They've got a program that the family comes and puts on every year for various colleges in the first year they did it at VCU. So you're right. I think that's one of the real positives and great things about what we do is that you have an opportunity to make these changes that make things better for the next folks so that they don't have to suffer like your clients suffer. That's right.

SPEAKER_00 25:50

Like you're helping people you never get to meet, right? In some respects. Can you give a brief snapshot of like what the VCU case was about?

SPEAKER_03 25:57

Yeah, the VCU case was a Hazen case. It was a fraternity that had a it was their big brother, little brother night. That's uh one of the three deadly nights in fraternity life. That the new pledges come in, they get assigned their big brother, and then oftentimes there's a family drink, and the pledges are encouraged to drink the drink through the night and finish it. And our young man's family drink was a handle of Jack Daniels, and he drank way too much, and they didn't monitor him through the night. They knew he was having some issues, laid him down on the floor, and when they came back the next morning, he was dead. So that was the case. And it was a problematic fraternity that the school had some prior run-ins with and some prior knowledge about, and had kicked him off campus or suspended him for three or four years, and then they fought it, and the school relented and let him come back again after a year and didn't kick out the existing brothers that were causing the problem. So that was another one. I mean, these claims against the Commonwealth, against the schools, they're hard because we've got sovereign immunity that you have to overcome and you've got to identify individuals. But that was another one that before we would have had to have filed a lawsuit, we had enough, and we had enough individuals that we thought significantly dropped the ball to have put a claim together that would have survived a murder. So they came in and resolved that case with us fairly early, and then we brought the case against the individual fraternity members that were negligent in how they handled the situation.

SPEAKER_00 27:20

Got a few questions about that. So actually, before we get to the individual fraternity members, my understanding is that, well, I'm about to spoil it, but it was homeowners insurance. Correct. Which is counterintuitive for most, right? When people think of homeowners insurance, most people think, well, somebody trips and falls at your house. How are you able to get the homeowner's insurance to apply in because presumably the homeowner's insurance policies didn't belong to the kids, right? I'm guessing it belonged to their families back wherever they were.

SPEAKER_03 27:51

Yeah, but it covers them as a resident of the household, you know, covers them as part of the family that lives in the house that's covered by that homeowner's insurance. And homeowners insurance is pretty broad. I mean, it covers a lot of negligent acts, as long as it's not an automobile accident. Right. But a lot of negligent acts that take place outside of the home. It follows you places. So, you know, I I tell people just because they're not at their regular abode doesn't mean homeowners isn't going to apply. And look to it. It may provide some coverage that you're not thinking about.

SPEAKER_00 28:20

I have a friend who actually what's crazy is a decent part of her practice is downhill skiing accidents in Colorado. Really? And homeowners insurance, right? Like who would have thought when somebody crashes into something else on the slopes?

SPEAKER_03 28:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 28:35

Yeah, that's right. Now, how do you I guess in a case like that, obviously, if it's deemed to be an intentional act, I'm guessing then you're in a little bit of a fight when it comes to whether the coverage applies. How do you stray that line? And then after that, I've got some questions about how you do it with the sovereign immunity at play.

SPEAKER_03 28:52

Yeah, that was a challenging needle to thread because our primary targets against the individual fraternity defendants, they also all had criminal charges brought against them.

unknown 29:01

Right.

SPEAKER_03 29:02

So we're facing the intentional act and we're facing the criminal act exclusions that are typical in a homeowner's policy. So you make those in your complaint, you make those allegations, but you also include simple negligence, you include some more premises sounding stuff. Right. So that you make sure you fall within the policy. Because that they all issue a reservation of rights as they should. You know, depending on how the case shakes out and what you end up tagging the defendants with, coverage may apply or it may not apply. So I understand why they issue their reservation of rights. But the way we draft our complaints, they've absolutely got a duty to defend. Right. You know, so I mean we've got a case going on against I'm gonna do the air quotes fraternity. It was not a real fraternity, not a recognized fraternity, but the JMU deaths that occurred a few years ago. Those cases are active now. And it's sort of the same thing that you know, you're alleging hazing, which is a crime. You're alleging some acts that arguably might be intentional acts, but we also include a lot of negligence and and other things in there. And so the file demurs, we're gonna survive demur. I'm not worried about that at all. And ultimately, I think there's gonna be coverage for all of them under the homeowners' policies because we know how to get a verdict that's gonna be for negligence. You know, we were smart enough to do that. We're not gonna plead ourselves, nor are we gonna argue ourselves out of coverage, right? Um, but you got to be careful with that. You got to be very careful about how you make your allegations and your distinct claims and what you want for overlapping facts. It's it's kind of going back to the first thing we were talking about. You need to take a step back and not imagine it's just gonna be linear. You gotta imagine what's the worst case, how are they gonna attack this? How's the insurance company gonna attack it? And you've got to be looking at around all of those corners.

SPEAKER_00 30:42

No, absolutely. And I bet it's and actually I'd love to ask you about that. I bet it gets even trickier when you're dealing with suing, for example, like a teacher, right, at a public school. Because you're you can't sue, with rare exception, right? You can't really sue the school absent like a Minnel claim or some other type of, I mean, uh sovereign immunity is a difficult thing to get around, right? And so you go after the teacher, for example, like in a rape case, like a teacher on student. But how do you do that in a way like and I'm guessing to some extent, well, the VCU's case is probably different because of course they didn't intentionally mean to haze this guy, right? And there were certainly VCU didn't have that.

SPEAKER_03 31:22

Yeah, that did make it a little easier in that case because if you look at the criminal statute, it doesn't require criminal intent.

SPEAKER_00 31:28

Right.

SPEAKER_03 31:28

You know, so it's kind of a weird criminal statute that smacks of a lot of negligence, to be honest with you.

SPEAKER_00 31:35

So the sex assault cases, which I know your firm does a decent amount of. I mean, there's always a defendant, right? I mean, you can always sue the individual, correct? But whether there is something to recover oftentimes depends on whether you can get the ent the third party on the hook, the entity, right? Yeah. In a case like that, how do you plead it in a way that the school ultimately ends up indemnifying the employee? Can you?

SPEAKER_03 32:00

It depends on the I think it depends on the school. I think it's gotten harder because we got that case that came out recently from the Supreme Court that said school boards are an agency of the Commonwealth. So that got harder, right? And now the school board isn't sitting in a city where you've got maybe arguably some way to get after them. They've got the same sovereign immunity as the Commonwealth now. So I I think that can be really hard sometimes. But I also think if you're bringing your claim against just the teacher, more often than not, there's going to be some coverage backing them up, whether it's through the school board or through somebody, through the Virginia Municipal League or whatever it is, that there's oftentimes some coverage backing those individuals up. And you like to have the entity there because I think it helps jurors feel more comfortable about really tagging somebody. That's right. It's hard. You also want to look like you know what you're doing. You know, I mean I we debate that. We've debated it recently with a case against a school. Do we include the school board knowing that they're gonna be out on a demur? I kind of wanted the school board in there just because I wanted to send it to them in advance and threaten them and make them look bad. But the reality is I'm gonna be out of my ear. Because I don't I don't have any claims other than negligence claims to bring against the school board. So they're out. Yeah, that's hard. That gets really that's part of what makes this job. No, exactly.

SPEAKER_00 33:18

I mean, look what we're talking about. I mean, it's again, like, oh it's a privilege to be able to help, but when we get to help on these kind of nuanced cases and really get to the bottom of it and figure out like, okay, what was the system failure here that caused this either this tragedy, this death, or this significant injury? And then to be able to use the law creatively to do that is pretty cool. And the nice thing about what we do, it's you know, it's flexible. What is negligence, right? I mean, it's it's the reasonable person standard, right? And so it's neat, it's a lot of fun.

SPEAKER_03 33:48

Yeah. And then when you run into a wall and you realize that that's not justice, then you contact VTLA and say, hey, can we look at a legislative fix for this?

SPEAKER_00 33:57

That's right. That's right. That's right. And Virginia is an interesting state in the sense that we are one of the four contributory state or negligent states in the country, pure contributory.

SPEAKER_03 34:06

I just read a good op-ed in Virginia Lawyers Weekly about that from somebody.

SPEAKER_00 34:11

Yeah. I don't know who that was, but uh well thank you for the thing. I think it might have been you. It was too. So um yeah, I mean, it's interesting. I know contributory negligence, obviously, we're used to it, so it's not maybe as scary to us as it is to the person who's living in a pure comparative state. But it does seem strike me as just like, oh, like why? Of four of 50 states, we're one of four to uh to continue to hold on to. But at the same time, we also have the collateral source rule. We've got joint and several. I mean, we've got a lot of good rules. Virginia is for whatever reason we're contrib, but we've got a lot of rules that are, I think, very favorable to the plaintiffs bar.

SPEAKER_03 34:50

I did not disagree with anything you wrote in your op-ed for the reasons why contributory negligence is unnecessary and unjust. I will never advocate for getting rid of contrib because I haven't found it to be a particular barrier in getting recovery from my clients in the like one, two percent contributory negligence. The jury's not going to do seg them on that. You get the you know, 30, 40 percent, like they played a real active role, it's a real proximate cause. That's a problem. And I understand that, you know, sometimes those cases I can't help that person if they were in a pure comparative state, I could. But I think joint and several is so significant and so powerful, and it is such a club for us to use. And that's gone. We get rid of contrib. I think that's gone because if now you're just assigning percentages, then everybody just pays their percentage, right?

SPEAKER_00 35:43

That's right.

SPEAKER_03 35:44

And so having joint and several is huge in my opinion. And I would never give that up for comparative.

SPEAKER_00 35:52

No, and I I I tend to agree. I I also think that the contrib standard is feared maybe too much in the sense of it's not you should have done this differently. It's no plan if you were negligent. And not just that, right? I know I'm preaching the choir here, but like you were negligent and your negligence is what was a contributing factor to, and I think there's a distinction between, well, they could have done this differently, or they should have been walking and looking at where their feet were going or whatever. That's not contrib. I mean, it's ballsy to go to a trial and to have to make that argument, but I'd like to think if you've got a righteous case and a client who's come across well to the jury, chances are, as you said, the jury's not going to gooseag them.

SPEAKER_03 36:35

We've done tons of focus groups that have had contrib as an issue and we've tested it. And again, unless it's a really clear contrib, you know, juries just don't apply. I mean, you might get one that gets hung up on it, and then you end up with you know sort of your compromise verdict a little bit. But that's okay. That's how those are supposed to shake out, right? That now they're applying their own form of comparative, and that's okay. You're right, that's jury nullification. What you wrote in your article is a hundred percent right. I'm okay with that.

SPEAKER_00 37:09

Well, as long as we keep joining several. Yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_03 37:12

Yeah, you know, but I've talked to a lot of adjusters about that. I mean, anytime an adjuster raises contrib with me on a case when it's just a BS contrib. When I think if they raise it at trial, that's a good thing for me. I call them on it and I said, Listen, you've you've been around long enough. You know how this works, you know at best, you're gonna end up with a compromise verdict that leans in my favor. You know, contrib's not, they're not gonna goose me, egg me on contrib in this case. And 100% of them said, Yeah, I know you're right. Yeah, yeah, but we still get to argue it. And I said, Yeah, I guess maybe in a weird world you got a shot at this, but you really don't have a shot. Yeah, I know.

SPEAKER_00 37:47

Yeah, so we have an abuse case at uh like a psychiatric residential center with a kid that we're going to trial on in February. And I mean, they're arguing contrib. And it's like, thank God you're arguing contrib. Like, please argue harder. Like, we would love for you to argue contrib, right? Because I'm a big believer in a grant, I've only been doing this work for so long. But one of our primary goals as plaintiffs' attorneys when we step into a courtroom is to recognize that it's very likely that we're already starting a little bit behind. Why didn't they settle? They're just greedy plaintiffs' attorneys, da da da da da. How do we flip the narrative so that we're in this courtroom not because of us? We're in this courtroom because of the defense. And I think that's one tool, right? If they're arguing contrib over something just ludicrous and you can flip that, well, why are we here, Jerry? Well, one of the reasons we're here is because the defense believes that da-da-da-da, right? And so I think that can be a powerful tool when used correctly.

SPEAKER_03 38:39

I totally agree. I mean, that's one of the things that you got to look at in every single case. What are your value drivers? And sometimes the value driver in your case isn't the medical bills. Sometimes it's not the injuries, sometimes it can be, you know, just the personality of your client. Sometimes it can be an amazing lay witness that you're gonna bring in, that they are gonna push the value of this case up. But I'm always looking for the value driver of the piss-off factor. Oh, yeah. What's gonna piss the jury off? What's gonna piss the jury off on my side that I want to avoid, but what can I encourage the other side to do to piss the jury off? And that's a great one. I mean, because I think the personal responsibility thing that resonates with everybody. And so if you can tag them with, we're here because they're not taking responsibility, they want to blame her because she was looking at their clothes rack that they displayed purposefully for people to look at it, and they claim she should have been looking down at her feet. We know that's not how the real world works, but they want to say that that's her fault because they want to blame her to avoid responsibility. There's your piss-off factor to let them go back and say, that's crazy. If that was me, I wouldn't want them to treat me that way. I agree with you. Yeah, in some respects, it's a good thing, right? I agree with everything you put in your article, but I disagreed with the the advocate for a change.

SPEAKER_00 39:51

Yeah, advocating the change. Well, let's pretend that someone else wrote that last part then. Um but uh I I forgot what it was that prompted me to do that. I don't know what it was, but it's funny. So like I get these like little ideas, and I'm like, oh, I'm gonna go on this crusade, like the whole accident versus collision thing. Like I remember I had this motion that I would kept following, and I still follow it. That said, like because the model jury instructions, the default in like an admitted liability case is it uses the word accident. Like your job is to decide what damages flow from this accident. And my issue with accident is that it implies a mens ray, it implies a lack of intent, right? And so I think if in a case where one a defense is admitting liability, I think it's inconsistent to then call it an accident because they're admitting to negligence. I recognize that, and I recognize I sound like a massive nerd right now, but I think there's nuance. And I think collision, for example, is a much more neutral word where I could see the defense saying crash is not, because it implies a severity of an impact. But anyway, so I've filed this motion a handful of times to say, hey, let's change it. Like there's nothing wrong with collision where there is risk with accident, and the model jury instructions have the instructions that say you can change it to fit the case, right? And I've gotten a few orders in favor. And then I remember getting another judge who's like, nope, model says this, so we're just going with this. And I got so ticked off that I called your partner, Stephanie Grana, and I was like, How do I change this? Like, how do I do this? She's like, Well, just here's Justice McCullough's email. Just email him and petition the model jury instruction committee. And so for those who don't know, Justin McCullough is a justice on the Virginia Supreme Court. He heads the Virginia Model Jury Instruction Committee. And to his credit, I was able to kind of write on Stephanie's name. I mean, he met with me, he reviewed the materials that we submitted, and knock on wood. I think don't know if that's real wood, but uh, it should be changing. So we should, it should be going from not they're not getting rid of accident, but they're putting in in brackets collision next to it as an option.

SPEAKER_03 41:49

So that judge who is just wed to the model jury instruction and never going to change it, has permission now to see collision, right?

SPEAKER_00 41:55

And I think so. I don't know what it was for, but I occasionally I get these things, I'm like, why are we doing it this way? Let's just so I get on these these mini crusades, which it's it's fun, but gives me purpose, I guess.

SPEAKER_03 42:06

Those crusades are important, man. It's what changes it all for the good for all of us.

SPEAKER_00 42:09

No, it's fun. Well, I mean, so I've had you here for what 45 minutes now, and I can't believe there's still some stuff I want to ask you. You still have some more time? Sure. Okay. Can we talk about trial work just for a little bit? Sure. So I've heard you speak before and how much you love the trial. What is it about the trial that gets you going?

SPEAKER_03 42:27

Well, I hate the three, four weeks leading up to trial. I think we all do. I think we do.

SPEAKER_00 42:31

We're in that right now for two of them, and it's awful.

SPEAKER_03 42:33

It's awful. It's terrible, terrible, terrible. But man, is there a better feeling than when you stand up when the judge says a plaintiff ready? We are, Your Honor, and it's your turn to go. And I feel an immense privilege and responsibility to be there as the voice for my client, as the advocate for my client. And it's a lot of pressure. But that to me is the thrilling aspect of what we do. We do a lot of boring stuff every day. But the trial work, the advocacy, the persuasion, the presentation, the style that you use, the trying to connect with the jurors. I mean, all of that stuff, that's the stuff I enjoy. That's the fun stuff of what we do. You know? I'm sure you grew up playing sports. You practice, practice, practice, and practices are boring as shit. But then you get into a game and that's fun, and that's what you go to the practices for, and that's what you work hard for. But you want to play in the game. You want to, you know. I've never regretted resolving a case for my clients. I've had a couple that have bugged me over the years, but I've settled a few on the courthouse steps, I've settled a few after Voidir, and I'm like, boy, I really want to try this case. But if it's the right thing for your client, you gotta you gotta do it.

SPEAKER_00 43:48

You know I'm a big fan of the high low. Huge fan of the high lows. And I'd like, I hope our firm will do more of them if we have the opportunity. And what is a high low? Right, you know, but it's you're preserving an amount for your client at the end of the day. Also capping your recovery. So for example, for our listeners, let's say you come to an agreement where the high low is the low is $500,000, the high is $1.5 million. If the verdict is below $500, you get $500. If it's in between $500 and $1.5 million, you get that. If it's above $1.5, so let's say it's three, it's reduced to the $1.5. And that allows you one, no appeal, two, a settlement, regardless of the outcome. And three, the opportunity to go try a case. And you don't have that, uh-oh. And we're going to get goose egged on the trip. Right. So that stress is gone. You can show up and do a terrible job and still at least walk away with something for your client.

SPEAKER_03 44:38

Yeah, that's right. No, a high low is great. And I think it's great for both sides. If the carrier is going to agree to a high low, they're getting a discount. That's right. So that's good for them. They've eliminated the risk on their side. You've managed the risk on your side. You can have a little bit more fun with it. You can try some things that maybe you wouldn't be willing to try if you had the risk of a goose egg. And what to me is great for the client is you're going to get paid in two weeks. Yeah. This is over for you after this. There is value in that to regular folks. I mean, out of hundreds of clients, I may have had a couple that were really genuinely interested in going to trial. Even the ones that say, I really want to go to trial, I want to have my day in court. They really don't. It scares the crap out of them. Right. When you're doing their trial prep with those bullish people, you see that they're no longer bullish. So the high low is to me great when you can get it. And I don't know why the other side doesn't do it more.

unknown 45:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 45:30

Because I think it's a really good thing for them as well.

SPEAKER_00 45:33

And it's a way for lawyers to get trial experience too, which is critical, right? I mean, it's really I was lucky to do a lot of criminal work when I was first became a lawyer. And I don't think I appreciated like just the opportunities I had at the time. I mean, it was an Army Jag, and I forgot how many courts martials and administrative set boards, which are like modified kind of jury panel trial type things. Did a lot, like 30 plus cumulatively, if not more, in the span of a few years. And at the time, I was like, well, this is just what all lawyers do. And then I remember getting out of the military and I was like, wait, wait, people don't try cases as much. And so high lows enable people to go to court, to go to trial. And especially I think for the young lawyers. I mean, now unfortunately, my advice, maybe it's not unfortunately, but my advice to young lawyers, and I'd like to think I'm still one of them, is that go do criminal work first. That's what I tell people. Unless you can find a civil trial firm that really is committed to getting you in a courtroom, which I think is hard to find. Go do criminal work because it takes some time to at least get your C legs, right? Like to at least get comfortable in a courtroom. And it's just hard. It's really hard now, I think, on the civil side, for somebody to come out of law school, not have that thrown into the deep end kind of experience and to be expected to be comfortable going and doing a jury trial, especially considering that most civil firms, I mean, if you've got three or four jury trials a year, that's a good year, right? That's a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. They're not throwing the first year associate on it, right? No.

SPEAKER_03 47:05

No, and it's hard because unless you want to go someplace that is well, on our side, you go someplace that's a high volume firm, you might get a lot of experience in general district court, but that's not the same as a jury. It's very different. It's not bad. You know, you're still thinking on your feet, you're making presentations, you're making arguments. Better than nothing, and it's a lot of fun. Have you have you done a GDC trial recently?

SPEAKER_00 47:25

It's been a while, but yeah, it's a different beast.

SPEAKER_03 47:27

It is, but that's sort of the fun without the three weeks of pressure. Yeah. But still, there's nothing like a jury. And you're right, people aren't getting the experience for trying cases, unless they want to go to an insurance defense firm that's going to do it or they want to go in-house someplace. And you know Ryan Walker here in TV.

SPEAKER_00 47:44

I'm a big fan of Ryan Walker. I think I actually, Ryan Walker, I credit to gosh, a lot of and maybe this maybe he's not gonna be happy about this, but the way I practice, I think, in large part has been based on what Ryan Walker taught me.

SPEAKER_03 47:58

That's a good person to learn from.

SPEAKER_00 47:59

I think really I think Ryan's exceptional.

SPEAKER_03 48:01

I think very, very highly of Ryan. He actually came to work for us. He was working for another lawyer here in town and came to work with us as our associate. And what we realized was Ryan was young and he needed to get in the courtroom, and we did not have the right case mix to get him into the courtroom. And so we encouraged him to consider going someplace where he could get courtroom experience and ended up going with Geico. It was hard to say goodbye because I really, in addition to thinking very highly of him as a lawyer, I really like him as a guy, as a person who's a VMI guy, so it's obviously great. I'm not gonna hold that against him, but he so that was hard, but I was glad to see him go get the experience he needed to be the trial lawyer that I think he is now.

SPEAKER_00 48:41

He's exceptional.

SPEAKER_03 48:42

And I think he's terrific. And he wouldn't have gotten that if he didn't go and just grind in trials with Geico. He wouldn't have gotten that experience with us. You know, he would have gotten into court a couple times a year on a trial. You know, he would have gone for other stuff, but you know, instead he was probably doing two a month. And so it really is you look at younger folks now and you wonder how are they gonna get the same experience that we had. And maybe they're not gonna need it. Maybe we're gonna end up with like a barrister's type of a situation where you've got a group of folks like yourself who love trying cases, who are students of trial advocacy, and you work hard at it and you try a bunch, and you're gonna have people that have no idea what they're doing, and they're gonna work cases up and settle them, and when they can't, it's gonna go to you. Yeah, and they're just not gonna have that experience. Maybe that's where we're headed, and we're gonna have people that specialize in just trying cases. And I guess for the people who like doing that, maybe that's not a bad thing. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 49:37

It'd be a lot of fun because then maybe you can find a way to like avoid the two to three weeks beforehand. You just show up, right? But uh Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 49:43

And I think you know, if that is where the system goes, it's not a bad thing. I would rather have people that are gonna go in and do a really good job in front of that jury than somebody just dabbling. Yeah, you know, because ultimately I want good cases presented by good lawyers. Right.

SPEAKER_00 49:57

That that's what and the people deserve it. They really do it. That's right. And and there's something also on this point, like trial work is a constant education, right? We're always learning. In fact, like that's one of the cool things about this line of work is like if you you want to get good results, like you can't stop learning. And so it's always evolving. It's something that you have to continue to be a student of. And it's not something that, oh, you went to law school, well, then you're ready to go try a case. It's not, it's different, it's a different skill set, and it's a skill set that takes a lot of time and intentionality to do right. But it's also just a hell of a lot of fun, despite how stressful and how hard it is, especially that preparation. Yeah. Um well, Elliot, I like to end these podcasts with this question. It's if you could go back to your younger self when you were first starting out as a lawyer, what would you tell them? What advice would you give?

SPEAKER_03 50:53

You know, it's um I suppose I can go back and tie it into the first story we started all off talking about when I made the mistake of thinking I had a linear case and not thinking through what the other side was trying to do to me. And the easy takeaway from that is don't be complacent, don't make assumptions that things are always gonna work out in your favor, that it's gonna go a certain way. Be skeptical, worry about everything, look around the corner and see what's coming. Assume that things are coming at you because they want to do you harm rather than help you out. That's the easy takeaway from that, I think. But I think that's sort of self-evident in the story to a certain extent. To me, the things that have been most helpful for me in my career are necessarily things I learned the hard way that way. Most of them I just learned from I got super, super lucky that my boss and mentor and maybe career savior was Irv Canner. And so I got to learn everything from him. And he's an amazing lawyer, amazing trial lawyer, and just a great person. And the way he practiced law is the way I think everybody should practice law. He was honorable. I've never found a defense attorney that has a bad thing to say about him. That doesn't mean he's been a pushover. He's gotten great results for his clients. He's tenacious in preparing for cases, preparing for trial at trial, but he does it all the right way. You know, he's not a jerk to people. He wants to be cooperative when he can be. He recognizes that you can disagree without being disagreeable and treat people the right way. Treat your opposing counsel the right way. We're so lucky here in Richmond. I understand there might be some folks listening to this at some point that don't live in central Virginia. That's a shame. It's a great area to live in. But we're really lucky here in in Richmond and down towards the beach to some extent, and maybe up to Fredericksburg, Northern Virginia.

SPEAKER_00 52:47

Not anymore north, though. Not anymore.

SPEAKER_03 52:49

Not any further north, that's right. But we're very lucky that we've got a very collegial bar between plaintiffs and defense lawyers. I mean, listen, we've got some problems on our side and they've got some problems on their side, but for the most part, we've got good people on both sides. And if you're easy to work with and you're trustworthy and you're honorable, your life is gonna be so much easier. You can have real conversations with the lawyers on the other side about your cases. If you need some help, you got a deadline looming and you're just busy with other stuff, you can call and get an extension, they're gonna give it to you because they know you're gonna give it to them.

SPEAKER_01 53:21

Right.

SPEAKER_03 53:22

So my big advice to young lawyers is soften those elbows. You can be very successful at this without being an a-hole. You really don't need to be. Be yourself. Some people just by nature, I guess, are kind of an a-hole and there's nothing they can do about it. But you know, that was other big advice that Irv always gave to me was always be yourself. Don't try to be somebody else. You know, you watch other lawyers, and you're like, damn, they're good. That was an amazing cross-examination. Or what a great closing, or the way they held themselves in front of the jury. And you think, well, I could probably do that. Maybe I shouldn't. If that's not me, then I shouldn't do it because then that comes across as disingenuous, and I've I've lost my credibility with the jury. And there's nothing that you can do or say that's more important than your credibility to that jury. Because you you can have every word of truth come out of your mouth, but if they don't think you're credible, they're not going to believe a word of it.

unknown 54:16

Right.

SPEAKER_03 54:17

So I learned so much from Irv, and it was such a great experience being a young lawyer coming up with him, watching him practice, watching how he engaged with other people. And it's just he does it, has always done it the right way. And I hope that's all rubbed off on me. And I hope that if you asked opposing counsel that they'd say, yeah, it's a good guy to have a case with. Not because I'm easy, but because I'm easy to get along with.

SPEAKER_00 54:39

Well, this has been a lot of fun. Thank you. It has been fun. Thank you. And I remember actually the last time we talked, I asked you like best barbecue spot in town. And I remember you said that for the value, Mission Barbecue is up there.

SPEAKER_03 54:52

I believe in mission. Yeah, for the dollars that you spend, you get some really good barbecue there. And I wasn't crazy when they came into town because it's a chain and I feel like that, you know, you can't. Yeah, but they they do a good job though. But they do a good job. And the people that own the local ones, I got to know them, they are the nicest people. So I have no problem supporting them. I mean, ZZQ is fantastic, but I don't think I've gone in there and had a lunch where I didn't spend 40 bucks.

SPEAKER_00 55:15

Yeah, that's fair.

SPEAKER_03 55:16

But part of that's on me when I say I'll take a slice of that and I want one of those and I want one of those. Yeah, I could probably moderate what I get put on my tray and come out a little cheaper, but that's great barbecue. But day-to-day mission, I think, is fantastic.

SPEAKER_00 55:27

I'll have to give it a shot again. So, well, Ella, again, thank you very much. It's been a lot of fun. I've enjoyed it. Thank you. Thanks.

SPEAKER_02 55:33

Thanks for listening to Courtroom Stories and Tactics by RVA Trial Lawyers, hosted by Sheriff Gray and Niall Abuzaki. Please subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or any major podcast platform. Together, we're building a tribe of trial lawyers to remind the world what human life is truly worth. One verdict at a time.