Welcome to Trial and Error | The Truth About Winning Cases

Welcome to the very first episode of Trial and Error with Donte Mills.

This isn’t your typical legal podcast.

In this episode, trial attorney Donte Mills breaks down what “trial and error” really means—inside the courtroom and in real life. From building multi-million dollar cases to making high-stakes decisions under pressure, this episode sets the foundation for everything that’s coming next.

You’ll get a real look at:

• The mindset it takes to win as a trial lawyer
• What people misunderstand about lawsuits and settlements
• How mistakes (in life and law) can either cost you—or make you
• The difference between thinking like a lawyer vs. thinking like everyone else
• Why most people lose before they even step into the courtroom

This episode is about perspective, strategy, and learning how to move smarter—whether you’re dealing with a legal issue, building a business, or navigating everyday decisions.

Because at the end of the day, success comes from one place…

Trial and Error.

👍 Like | 💬 Comment | 🔔 Subscribe

Drop a comment: What’s a mistake that taught you the biggest lesson?

New episodes every week breaking down:

• Lawsuits & legal strategy
• Business & negotiation tactics
• Real-life decision making

Trial and Error with Donte Mills

Turn experience into advantage.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

Alright, so I'm a teacher at Temple Law School. This is the first lesson that I start with every semester because it's a pillar. I teach trial advocacy, uh, which is uh it's a class dedicated to teaching incoming lawyers, the people who are in law school, how to try cases, how to be an effective advocate. Fun fact only 1% of lawyers try a case. 99% of lawyers will never try a case. There's so much more to being a lawyer than being on trial that it's very important. But I think trial lawyers are a distinctive group. It's really set apart from everybody else because it's so rare that a lawyer does, in fact, try cases. A lot of people think all lawyers go to court. That's just not true. A lot of lawyers are afraid to step into the courtroom. A lot of lawyers uh learn ways to advocate on paper, you know, in motions that you write. But not every lawyer can stand in front of a jury and convince them. You have to be uh an effective advocate, uh, you have to uh be able to control the situation, and you also uh really have to be convincing and because you're speaking on behalf of your client. We have to realize that as a lawyer, you are the mouthpiece, you are that advocate for your client. Generally, when they're in a situation they don't understand, they don't know how to get out of, they really need your help, and you're the person who's supposed to take in everything that they're going through and spit it out in a way that advocates on their behalf. If you listen to their story, and then you can convert that into uh whether it's an opening statement for a jury or a conversation that you're having uh with co-counsel or a judge, you have to be able to present what happened to them in a way that everybody else will understand and in a way that will uh make it clear that your client should be the victor in whatever situation you're in. I know a lot of times lawyers are afraid to talk as if it's a winner or a loser in these situations, but that's what we're hired for. I tell my students all the time it will make no sense that we are uh brought into a situation to be just fair and open. You know, we want the you know that we want all of the information out so you can decide. No, I'm an advocate for my client. My job is to show you what happened to them or present their situation in a way that's advantageous for them. Why else would anybody hire me if I can't do that? If I can't move the needle in their direction, you shouldn't hire me. You shouldn't hire any lawyer who can't do that. Uh, and a lot of people just don't understand it. They think a lawyer means that you're an effective advocate, that's not at all the case. They think a lawyer means that you try cases, that's not at all the case. Um that's not at all the case. So uh the first lesson that I give for every uh semester for these law students, and I want to give it to you now. Um you don't have to be enrolled in law school, but uh it's a good uh basis for anybody that's interacting with people. You don't have to be a lawyer for this information to be effective or useful in your day-to-day interactions. There's two pillars. The first pillar is controlling the narrative, the second pillar is being yourself. I'm gonna talk about both of those pillars. It may seem as if they're obvious, but they're not. Controlling a narrative, which is the first pillar, that's really about making sure that the story that you're telling, right, the picture that you're painting, is the most effective picture to get you a result. A lot of times, as I just talked about a little before, people come in thinking they should just, oh, I'm just gonna lay everything out, put all the facts on the table, um, you know, I'm just gonna make sure they have every all the information they need. Yes, you want a jury, you want the person you're speaking to to have enough information, but you want to present that information in a way that advocates for your position. You have to control the narrative. I know a lot of people, you know, this may be controversial because he's a very controversial figure, but the perfect example of somebody that can control the narrative is Donald Trump. Uh, President Donald Trump is very effective at controlling the narrative. He will uh make any conversation that you come to him about, he will turn that into a conversation that he wants it to be that's advantageous for him. You can ask him any question in the world. It almost doesn't matter what you're asking him because his answer is going to shape the conversation and push it in one way or another. I play this fact game with my students when we open up that first class and I talk to them about control of the narrative, and the game really goes like this. You just put out any fact. The fact can be that it's 50 degrees outside. And I tell one student you have to say why that's a good thing. I tell the other student you have to say why that's a bad thing. The fact won't change, it's 50 degrees. But somebody can say, Well, it's 50 degrees, and that's amazing, that's incredible because it was 30 degrees last week. I really couldn't. I left the house and my hands were cold, my feet were frozen. Um, but now that it's 50 degrees, I walk outside, I feel a bit of sunrise, you know, some sun. Uh I can put on just you know a hoodie or a light jacket and you know just be outside and walk around a little bit without uh feeling like my fingers are gonna fall off. So it's the most amazing thing in the world that it's 50 degrees. And you start to think, oh, it's a good thing that it's 50 degrees. But then I go to the other student, I say, well, you present it in a way that shows that it's a bad thing. They say, Well, it's 50 degrees. It's you know, it was it was uh 70 degrees last week. So this to me is a sign that winter is almost here because we're at the end of fall and I don't like the winter because you know it's cold outside and you get snow and it gets dangerous, and um, but uh you know, last week we was still had great weather where I was able to have on a t-shirt and I was able to enjoy it. 50 degrees, you know, you can't have your top down. I like riding around with the top down in my car, and you just can't do that. So, so whenever it hits 50 degrees for me, you know, I just feel a little bit depressed because I know that you know that that perfect weather, that beautiful weather that I enjoy so much, that 70, 80 degree weather is over. So, to me, 50 degrees is just a signal that um you know we're moving on to darker times where it's gonna get darker early, and you know, it's just not it doesn't put me in the best mood. The fact is the same, it's 50 degrees, but it really depends on how you control the narrative around it. How do you take something that both sides have? That's the beauty of trial work. All of the facts, by the time you get the trial, both sides know everything that's involved in the case. What happens on TV generally doesn't happen in real life, where you know somebody reveals something that nobody ever heard before, that just doesn't happen in trial because you have something called discovery where you get information about the case and both sides have the opportunity to learn about the case. So we're not talking about a lot of surprise scenarios. So when you get on trial, and most times when you're advocating to anybody, both sides have information, and a lot of times it's the same information. But how do you take the information that you have and present it in a way that makes your side more compelling? That's what trial advocacy is, that's what advocacy is. Um, how do you do that? There's a skill to that. Um, there's a skill to not only accept what the fact is as is, but to frame it in a way that makes sense for your client, makes sense for your argument, makes sense for you. And again, that game, I you know, I play it often just in my head with myself, and I like to play that game with my students, and you can truly use any fact in the world. I my lunch was $20, and you have somebody that says, Oh, oh, lunch was $20, that's a that's incredible. Because usually when I go to lunch, I've been spending $30, $35, but I found this one place where I can get everything. Everything's so expensive now, I don't like to buy food. Um, you know, but I found this place that they have this combo where I can get a nice salad, I can get a drink. Um, it comes with soup that I love, and you know, it's something I can treat myself to uh once a week. Uh, and and for $20, it's not that bad. It fits within my budget. I feel like I get a lot of food, it fills me up, uh, and that's like my favorite place to go to. Like, I know okay, I'm gonna hit this place. It's not gonna cost me too much, but it's gonna be great, it's gonna be nice. That's my treat every week, and it's really it's only $20, it's not bad. Then you have somebody else come and say, $20? That's crazy. Like, I I would never play, I can't afford $20 for lunch. Imagine if I had to do that every day and I'm paying $20. Once it's a hundred dollars a week that I have to spend out of my pocket to eat. Like, I can't afford to do that. I would rather I can spend $100 on groceries that's gonna last me all week. I eat breakfast, lunch, and then I make my lunch at home. Um, and I bring it in. We have a microwave and refrigerator in the office. Um, if there's a chance where I can't bring it in, I know this good spot where for $7 I can get a sandwich. I may add some chips and a drink, $10 max. I would never, there's no chance that I would ever pay $20. I just can't afford to pay $20 for lunch every day. To me, that's just a waste of money. Right? The fact is the same. Lunch is $20. But the approach to it is going to be different. So who has that skill that can take that fact and control the approach, control the narrative around that fact. So when somebody else who's listening, when they leave the conversation, they're gonna think that either that $20 is good for lunch or bad, based on the arguments that were presented to them and who was the most effective advocate, who controlled the narrative the best. And that's what that's the skill that as an attorney, as a trial attorney, as an advocate, that you want to hone. You want to be able to step into any situation and say, all right, what happened? Well, here's why that makes sense, or here's why that's a good thing, or here's why that's a bad thing. That's your job as an advocate, as an attorney, um, to take what happened to people and frame it in a way that's going to be most advantageous for you. So that's the number one pillar. Uh, when we talk about trial advocacy, is controlling the narrative. The other pillar, uh, it's the second that I'm talking about, but I think it's equal in its importance is being yourself. And that's the one thing where people are like, oh, that's that's easy, right? I'm me, but that's not true. That's not how a lot of people operate. And it's sad to say, but a lot of people feel like they have to be someone else in order for people to listen to them. And that comes from a lot of different things. And I and I'm not gonna go deep into you know that mentality of I guess not someone feeling like they're not enough, or they have to present somebody that they're not, they have to act a way that is not consistent with their normal behavior. Um the person you are is always going to be enough. You got where you are right now because you were that person, not because you were faking to be somebody else. Imagine faking to be somebody else for years. Like how tiring that has to be. That every time you get up to speak, you put on this this persona or this voice, or or or whatever you do because you think that's what people want to hear. You're not convinced of that, so nobody else is going to be. Um we've seen examples, and I'm not gonna call people out, but we've seen examples of people being um inauthentic, not being themselves, trying to put on a persona, and that never works. You can't convince someone of something when you're being phony. That that sincerity that that's really what they look for, and that's also what you're the best at. No matter your personality, no matter your voice, no matter your talking style, um, no matter uh what it is, whatever you do the most, who you are naturally is who you're the best at. You have to feel comfortable protect uh perfecting that person. And I'm not saying you don't grow, I'm not saying you don't fine-tune your skills so that you learn better pacing and you know with your speech. Uh ways to uh you know have the right pace with your language and and use of your hands or use of your nonverbal cues. I'm not telling you not to perfect your speaking style, um, but your persona, who you are around your friends, is who you should be around everybody. Because that's who you're the most comfortable being. And when you're around your friends and you're having a conversation, you're trying to convince your friends to go somewhere or to do something or not to do something that they're trying to do, but you think is a bad idea, that's when you're the most affected. Trust me. So when you get up in front of other people and uh you put that to the side and you become someone that you're really not, it's not going to translate. Because you haven't worked on that as much as you've worked on you being you. You're yourself every day, except in those moments where you decide not to be. If you take away those moments and be yourself all the time, it allows you to be your most effective uh self and present yourself in the most effective way. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and that's something that we have to learn about ourselves. It's very important for us to learn what our strengths are and learn what our weaknesses are. And what you do is you perfect your strength. If this is what I'm good at, I'm going to be the best at it. Because that's the easiest path. I don't think you look at your sweet strengths and weaknesses and say, okay, I'm gonna find the thing that I'm the weakest at, and I'm gonna make that my strength. That's that's tiring. It's probably improbable. Uh nobody's good at everything. We just have to acknowledge and accept that there's going to be some things we're just not good at. We have to learn to hide those things so they don't impact us. But it may not be the most efficient use of your time to be to try and become the best at something you're the worst at. Just take something you're good at and be the best at that. Magnify that and make that the most important thing that you're doing, and then learn to hide what you're not good at so that it doesn't come out in that moment and impact what you're doing your best at. Um that is part of advocacy. Really learn who you are. If you have this persona that's that's kinder, gentler, then use that. When you're talking to people, you want to talk to them in a way that invites them in and want, makes them want to be on your side and with you. And that's how you're gonna convince them. If you're more uh just kind of robotic, and you're that person that just needs to lay out uh the facts in a way that's going to be compelling, but say, This is what you need to do. You need to do this, this, this, this, and this. Um, and people say, you know what, you're right, this guy's, or those ladies that they're clearly right. They know what they're talking about. I feel like they're they're confident, they're assertive, they're aggressive. I need to do, I need to follow what they're saying, and I need to do uh what they're telling me to do. Both of those ways are effective, but both are completely different. So if you are that kind person, don't try and be mean. Um, so you know, it but perfect your kindness and learn how to use that in a way that you get people to open up to you so that when you show them the narrative that that you're presenting, they're open to it, they listen to it, they're persuaded by it. Those are just examples of differences in who we are as people. Um, some are very loud, some are quiet, some are aggressive, some are not. Uh, but you have to know your character, know who you are, know what you're good at, what your strength is, and perfect that. I mean, I think that would be a key even outside of trial advocacy. It's just in life, if you can find really what you're good at and make that the most important thing that you're doing, that's how you win. Um I it would be weird for you know that sports is an easy example to use uh in a lot of situations, but even in this one, if you're a great baseball player or in a bad basketball player, why would you be like, you know what? Basketball is my weakness, but I want to make that my strength. I'm gonna just become a basketball player. Uh I know I'm great at baseball, but I want to I want to be well-rounded. Like I how much really sense would that make? Um, if you enjoy baseball, you're great at it. Perfect that. Um, and be the best baseball player you can be. That same thing applies to your personality, that same same thing applies to your approach, that same thing applies to how you interact with people. You know how you interact and what works for you, what doesn't. It's the same thing that works for you with your friends, with your parents, with your family. That should translate to the business world, it should translate to a jury, it should translate to your client, it should translate to a judge, it should translate to your advocate, um, to your to your adversary, um, whatever the lawyer is on the other side, you want to have that same approach. There's going to be nuances, yes, where you have to mix it up a bit. You know, if if you're in a heated in a conversation and it has to take a left where you're um putting something in front of them that they haven't seen before for effect, that's different because that's intentional, right? And within you perfecting yourself, you're gonna know, okay, this is my lane, this is my strength, and if I need to divert, this is how I'm going to divert because I know that may throw them off a little bit and I can gain an edge. If I see that this isn't working, I can just throw that curveball, but that's gonna be intentional. Your base is always going to be the same, and that is being yourself. You have to be comfortable being yourself, comfortable making that your base. Those two pillars controlling the narrative and being yourself, those are the most important things that you can do in trial advocacy, uh, in any situation where you have to advocate. You want to assess the facts and say, How can I present these facts in a way that's advantageous for my position? And then say, How can me as a person take those facts that I want to present now and the way I want to present them and get those across so I can relate to the person on the other side. Um, that person will see that you're being authentic, they'll see that your narrative makes sense, and they'll be convinced, and that's how you become effective as a trial lawyer. Um there have been many times where I've had examples where I've been on trial, and one of the favorite ones that I like to tell uh I was on trial, I was in Brooklyn, and it was a resident in an apartment building, and it was a real bad slum lord. Um, bad guy, he didn't take care of the building. Uh he left a lot of things in disrepair, and if something happened, he didn't want to spend the money to fix it. Um, so he would send someone in there to find the cheapest fix possible. How can I rig this to work so I don't have to spend money to get something that's actually supposed to be there or useful or really work? So, in this scenario, uh my client was in the apartment and the light in his bathroom, the fixture went out, the fixture broke. So it wasn't a fact of just changing the light bulb, the fixture itself was broke. The landlord did not want to change the fixture in the bathroom. So he sent someone in there to run a, and this is a true story, to run an extension cord from the kitchen. It was an outlet in the kitchen that worked, ran an extension cord from the kitchen to the bathroom, and hung a one of those, like the orange light fixtures with the cage part in the front. Um, hung one of those on the shower rod. And the shower rod, you know, the shower rod was there. This light fixture was hanging from the shower rod with the light bulb in it. It's like the thing you get from Home Depot, it's orange, uh, orange light bulb in it, cage over the light bulb. Um, but the light bulb was exposed, and it hung that on the bathroom shower rod, and that is what my client had to use whenever he went into the bathroom. Um, unfortunately, he didn't have you know the means to call a contractor himself, um and he relied on what the landlord did. Um so he's using it, and sure enough, I don't think this is gonna be a surprise to anyone. Uh he's using the light, he's using the shower, he's in the shower, he gets electrocuted, he's ejected from the tub, uh, he hits his head, he has a very significant injury to his head. And I'm on trial, and my argument is that this landlord created a hazardous condition. Um, the way the law is set up, you can't. Blame, I mean, I guess you can uh try to blame the victim, but as a landlord, you had the responsibility to provide a safe condition, especially if you've been on notice. So if he told you the light wasn't working, you should decide to make that the fix, you're responsible if something happens as a result. So we're on trial and I'm presenting the case, and uh my case goes in, I explain the situation and how everything happened. The defense now is up, and and their defense, part of their defense, is that um, yes, the landlord probably should not have put that in. Uh, you know, they can't ever just agree to what they did wrong, they probably shouldn't have put it in, but that's not what caused the electrocution. That's not what caused the client to be ejected from the tub uh and to hit his head on the floor. Uh, and they brought in an engineer to say that you know it was impossible, it couldn't happen that way. And the engineer said it couldn't happen that way because the light fixture uh was on the shower rod and it was above the um water spout. So where the water was coming out of, uh the the shower part where the water was coming out of was below where the light fixture was. And the engineer came in and said, you know, in order for there to be an electrocution, it has to be a stream of water running from the shower, like the spout, to the shower bulb, or to the light bulb, which exploded and we say caused the electrocution once it exploded and injected my client. The expert came in and said there had to be a steady stream of water running from the shower spout to the light bulb and down to the bathtub in order for my client to be electrocuted. And he said, because the shower spout was lower than the light bulb, it was impossible, it just couldn't have happened. So I had to deal with that. Um and this is an engineer. I'm not an engineer, I'm a lawyer. You know, you have to that's one of the good things about and the things I love about the practice of law, especially the type of law of practice, um, you deal with a lot and you have to learn different specialties, different scenarios. You know, if it's a car accident case, I have to learn the rules of the road. If it's a construction site case, I have to learn uh the safety rules of that site, and uh different regulations and OSHA rules and uh things that apply to that. No matter what the situation is, if a medical malpractice case, I have to learn the medicine, you know, what a doctor is supposed to do in a situation so I can know what was done wrong or what was supposed to happen and what was not supposed to happen. So I really love that about the law and my practice and what I do because it's not that monotonous. You know, I I have to learn on a consistent basis, and it allows me to just go through a lot and expand my mind a bit and run across some interesting things. So, in this situation, I had this engineer saying that. And again, I'm not an engineer, uh, I understood the mechanics of it because I needed to coming into this trial. I assumed it and I I predicted that's that was going to be one of their arguments, but this engineer was very compelling, and the way he told that it was, it's it sounded as if um it may carry the day, and that a juror could be listening to that and say, well, wait, if if there wasn't this steady stream and the spot was lower than the light, how could the water kind of jump up and you know, and then steadily stream down to the bathtub and cause the electrocution? And I'm sitting there and I know that I can't out engineer an engineer. It's nearly impossible. It's asking a lot. I'm very uh good at what I do. I'm an effective advocate, but that's his specialty. If I get into the weeds of this conversation, he's going to know a term that I don't know. He's gonna be able to maneuver in a direction that I can't anticipate because I haven't studied engineering. Um, and even if he's making something up, you know, if he just gets deep into those woods, how can I contradict him on the spot without the proper training to do so? So I had to control the narrative in this situation. I had to figure out how do I make his testimony not matter? Because ultimately that that's what it's about. You know, I explained the case, my case to the jury, and my case made sense. This was a defense to the case. So I had to make the defense not matter. Um, so the way I did it is I pulled up his CV, um, his his resume. Uh, and looking through the resume, uh, it mentioned that he was an engineer, mentioned that some courses that he took, some books that he uh had written, um, some articles he written he wrote um and jobs that he had, you know, just his work history. But nowhere in there did it mention anything specific about electricity. In addition to that, um, he was in from out of town. We were trying this case in New York, it was a big case, but they brought this expert in from out of town, uh from a different state. So this was my cross-examination of that engineer. I said, and I came in and I said, listen, you you um you've been doing this for a long time, right? You know a lot of engineers, you you um know just the engineer communities where they gather, where they have conferences. Have you been to conferences? Uh yes, have you been to conferences in New York? I have. You know engineers from New York? I do. I said, are there a lot of engineers in New York? Uh there sure are. You know, New York is a big place, you know, they have great professionals here. I've I've been to conferences here, I spoke at conferences here. Um, you know, I I I know a lot of people in New York. People know me, you know, I have a great reputation. I said that's that's incredible. Um and I said, uh round number, you know, the number of engineers in New York. And I walked through all of that. Um, this is the amount of engineers here in New York, and um I said, uh there's no reason why um I mean you don't l live here now, right? You don't really practice or or do anything here. Um you spoke here, but you know, you you come here, you see all the great engineers here in New York, and then you leave. Yes.

unknown 28:39

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 28:40

I left it alone. Um then I said, well, uh, you know, I was looking at your uh C V uh and your resume, and and I see all of the just the articles that you have, the books, uh, the courses, um, your training. I said, you never wrote an article about electrical engineering, right? Um no. I said, well, you never I wrote a book about electrical engineering. No, I I don't see a c a specific course or or training set uh you know certificate or anything in here for electrical engineering. Um no, no. Um I said, in fact, um there's no the word electricity isn't mentioned in here not one time. Well, let me look at the I said, well, sure, look through it, but I'm telling you, the word electricity is not mentioned in your entire resume once. It's not, um it says nothing about um just electrical engineering as a title, it doesn't say electrical engineering um as a course, electrical engineering as a class. I said it doesn't even say electric slide. And one of the jurors laughed and said, um, you know, and one of the jurors laughed. The the opposing counsel jumps up and says, objection, uh the electric slide, that's irrelevant. And the juror says, he objected to the electric slide and laughed. And at that point, I knew um that I had done enough to redirect the jury um to the point where they would listen to my arguments. And I got the summation, closing arguments, and I brought all of those questions together and I said, listen, they bought you an engineer. There's literally probably 10,000 engineers here in New York, um of all levels, all different backgrounds, educations, different experiences. You're telling me there's not one engineer in this state that could have showed up and gave this opinion that they're telling you you should listen to? Not one? You're telling me of all the engineers in the state of New York, there wasn't one that they can call in to say this opinion that this expert supposedly has. And when you pair that with the fact that there's no mention whatsoever of him having a specialty in electricity as an engineer. So there's no reason, I could see, if he was the go-to electrical engineer of the country, that you go outside of this state to find that one person who is going to have that specialty recorded and shown and easily believed because it's everywhere throughout their resume. Clearly, this is the guy that you want to listen to when it comes to electricity and engineering and how things work. But I said that doesn't exist in his resume. So why do they have to leave this state to find somebody that gets that that talks about something that it's not even what they're known for? It's not even what they really do. Could it be that he has this belief that's so extreme that he's the only one that would be willing to come in here and say that? Could it be that they want this argument out there so much or they're looking so desperately for some kind of excuse that this is the only thing that they could find, and the only person that they can find that would come in here and tell you that he could not have been electrocuted that way. And when you do something like that, it removes the not the validity of what he's saying, but it calls into question why he's saying what he's saying and and really if it applies here. And to that jury, it was enough. That jury came back with a verdict in our favor, um a seven-figure verdict. Uh, you know, so so that client recovered. We're talking millions, right? Um, because I was able to control the narrative in that situation and not panic and not say, okay, the fact is uh this engineer is saying that it has to be uh a steady stream. I could have challenged him on that fact. Well, what if there's a job that I I would have been lost in that and I would have lost that case because that engineer would have talked me in engineering circles, but I decided to approach it from a different way and control the narrative and make that fact almost irrelevant. Because more importantly, it was not what he said, but why was this the guy saying this? And that was enough for this jury to understand that. Like that makes sense, right? There was nobody here in this whole state that could have given you that opinion, that you had to leave the state and find somebody who doesn't even do this specific role for a living to come up with this theory. And that's just an example of how you can, in any situation, control the narrative and make it clear that uh your argument, what you're putting forward, makes the most sense. Um, and that's where I don't want people to get lost and feel like they're stuck with oh, this this fact came out, or that's the smoking gun. They they said that it's over for me, it's never over. You can always figure out a way to show why that fact doesn't matter, or why that fact is advantageous for you, or why that fact is beneficial for you. And that's really what we want to learn, and what we're gonna talk about uh during this podcast, uh Trial and Error, is going to be about a lot of my situations that I've been through. I've tried a lot of cases, and some crazy things happen. Crazy things. Um I'll get into probably one of the craziest stories that happened to me uh you know as we close this out. Uh, but I I do I've tried a lot of cases, I've won a lot of cases. I haven't lost a lot of cases, but I'll tell you this. The cases that I lost is four. Two civil, two criminal. And I tried a lot of cases. Every single one of those cases, I can walk into the courtroom right now and try. I wouldn't have to look at a document, I wouldn't have to look at a record. Those cases play back in my mind almost daily. It's it's probably it's a problem. Um, but daily, I replay those cases and and try to find a way to reshape those arguments to a point where I've convinced myself I should have won or I could have won. If only I would have presented it this way. Um that's the I guess the weightlifting that I do for my profession for trial advocacy. I I in my mind replay that instead if I had approached it this way, I know for a fact that it would have made a difference, and I could have once that I could have won that case, I could have convinced that jury. I I I take responsibility for that. Um I don't think you can win every case, I don't know. Uh part of me does. Uh I don't know if that's a realistic belief. I don't think you should go into a case if you can't win. I do believe that if I say yes to a client, it's because I believe in them, I believe in their case, I believe I can be successful and victorious. So I know that I've tried cases, especially early on, where you know, you're a young attorney, you're new, you're trying to get experience. They're not giving you million-dollar cases to try, they're giving you cases that are tough, that have problems. Um because, you know, the they're risky. Um so the more seasoned attorneys, they're taking cases that have a more confirmed value because they're trying to maximize it. The tougher cases that were they're they're figuring, oh, this is probably a loser. They're gonna give it to the new trial lawyer, uh, the new guy on the block. And that's how I sharpened my teeth because I would take anything. Uh anything that you don't want, send it my way, and I would convince myself I can win. And I did it all the time. Um, I've ever walked into a case thinking I would lose. And that's why those four cases really weigh on me and still uh sit heavy with me, and that's why I replay them and think of ways I can I should have, you know, um dominated that narrative in a way that I could have won. Um so the approach has to be going in thinking there's a way I can present this in my favor that people will listen to. And as an attorney, I'm telling you, if you don't feel that for a client, if you don't feel that for a case, you shouldn't take it. I think you're doing your client a disservice if you don't believe in it, because I promise you, I promise you, if you don't believe it, the other side will not either. Um, the jury will not either, the judge won't be convinced, the your adversary will know that you're not even, you're not uh, you don't believe, so you can't be an effective advocate. And they're gonna take advantage of that. That's gonna be the easiest thing to see if you walk in not believing in your client. I deal with that all the time. I get calls from people saying, Oh, my attorney wants me to do this, or take this deal, or take this settlement, or and and you look at the facts and you're like, wait, why would they do that? You know, this happened to you, that you should get better than that, or this deal doesn't make sense. You didn't do this crime, you didn't commit this crime. They can't prove that case. Why would they tell you to take this deal? And then you really look at it and you understand that the attorney just doesn't believe in their client. I've had plenty of situations on the criminal side where the attorney thought their client was guilty. So they're like, listen, just take a deal, get it over with, let's all go home. And they call me and I look at them, I'm like, wait, you didn't do this, they can't prove you did this. Why would you take that? It doesn't make any sense. And whether I'm coming into the situation and automatically, because of my belief, my advocacy, um, they can see that. The adversary, you know, they can see that. My job is to convince them that there's a chance they're gonna lose. So you need to get out of this because you can lose. And getting if getting out of this means giving me a better settlement, if getting out of this means giving me a better deal for my client, you better do that. Because if you lose, you're gonna look bad. Everybody thinks you should win this case. But I'm telling you, I have an avenue here. Um, so I suggest you find a way for us to get to to resolve this. That's what the attitude is. Um, and they see that, and it definitely makes a difference. Like I said, I walked into you know a courtroom after taking over a case, and and my client was given a much better offer. There's one in uh I was in the Bronx uh and I was brought in as trial counsel, uh, and that happens a lot because I told you earlier that most uh lawyers never try a case. They work up cases, they try and settle them, and if they get if they have to go to trial, they bring in a trial lawyer. So I'm that guy they bring in. Um so a lot of times I'll be brought in by another law firm, some other attorneys, they'll hand me the file and say, okay, this trial starts next week. If this trial starts in two weeks, here's the here's the box of you know, here's the case. Um, I'll go through that case, I'll ingrain myself with the facts of that case and be ready to try that case. But I remember specifically there's a time in the Bronx where uh the guy had a good injury. It was a good case. Um, but the guy had a background, he had a criminal background. And his his own attorney was convinced that the jury would not like him because of his criminal background, they wouldn't give him money because they don't like him because of that criminal background, so he should settle the case for essentially not pennies, but it was less than a million dollars. Uh, because he was the his the client's own attorney was convinced that the jury wouldn't like him because of his criminal background. So he tried to get his client to settle the case for less than a million dollars. And the client refused to do it. So the case had to go to trial. He calls me, uh the lawyer, and says, Can you try this case for us? Uh I took a look at the file. I said, Yes, uh I'm in. I think it's a really good case. He said, Well, just to warn you, the guy's a criminal record. What difference does that make? Um this accident happened to him. Uh well, they may think he's lying because he had a, you know, he was convicted of something that had to do with uh veracity and truthfulness. I said, we'll figure that out. Um we went to court, and the first thing the attorney says is, well, I told him we're not paying over a million dollars, so we might as well try this case. I'm here to try it, we're ready to go. I said, I'm ready to go too. And here's what's gonna be shown. And we did a conference with the judge, and I said, Judge, they're undervaluing this case. I said, I can tell you why, but I also can tell you why that doesn't make a difference. And I promise you that once the jury hears this, this, and this about how this accident happened, they're not gonna care that he was convicted of a crime before. It has nothing to do with this. And in fact, if he tries to convince this jury that his client should be let off the hook for how bad they injured this person because that person had a criminal conviction years ago, they're gonna punish him more. And I will make sure of that. That not only will get full value of this case, but I'm gonna make this jury hate the hate the defendant and give us more money because he's trying to get out of his responsibility and blame the client for a criminal conviction that happened years ago that had nothing to do with this accident. We walked out of there and the guy offered, it was like I think it was like 1.8. He didn't double the offer, but it was very, very close. Uh and we settled the case because I believed in that client. Um and also, you know, that belief translated into effective advocacy because I I knew what I believed and what I could convince someone else to believe. The prior attorney didn't believe it, so he didn't believe he can convince anybody else. And that's something that we fall into when you don't believe in what you're selling. Now, selling is a I don't know if that's the right word. Um, if you don't believe in what you're conveying, because our job is to take what happened to somebody else, be that advocate, be that mouthpiece, and translate it to our audience, whoever that audience may be a judge, a jury, your adversary, whoever that audience is. You gotta believe in it. Gotta believe in what you're doing. That's what that's part of what makes you an effective advocate. I'm gonna end. With, I told you I'll give you a fun story, craziest story that ever happened to me on trial. So I'm on trial, and the plaintiff, it's a personal injury case, guy had a bad injury. He's on a stand. And there's just a back and forth, and I get through my direct examination when I'm questioning my own client. He gets his story out pretty good. I think the jury's with us. Cross-examination, where the other uh attorney, the defense attorney, comes and starts questioning my client. And it's uh, you know, it gets a little heated. I guess I don't know why. I don't know why this happened when the story goes, but um we go to lunch, and and I guess when it got heated, my client thought because the judge had to get involved and uh sustain some some objections, overrules some objections. I'm gonna presume my client wanted to get in good graces with the judge. Makes no sense, but I'm gonna presuming that's what he wanted to do. I didn't even have much conversation with them about it after the fact because it was just so crazy. Anyway, we come back from lunch. He's sitting on the witness stand, um, and I'm back up questioning him, and I'm I'm doing redirect. So after cross-examination, from your own client, you get back up and you redirect them and and and address any issues that came out on cross-examination. So we're in the middle of redirect, I'm questioning my client, and I see his hand just go. So so he's sitting here, the judge is sitting next to him, but elevated. The judge's bench is raised, he's sitting elevated next to him. He's sitting in the witness stand right here. Court reporter is here, and then you know, the the the courtroom is in front of him, the jury is on this side. He's on the witness stand, and you just see this. And I look, I'm like, wait, did he just put his hand on the judge's like ledge? I I didn't even know what to think of. It's just so bizarre to me. I didn't even know what to think of it. But he I just see his hand go to the judge's ledge. And I just continue questioning. I didn't I couldn't even imagine what was happening. I just continued questioning. And the judge says, uh, Mr. Mills, you can stop, we need a recess. I'm like, okay. Uh she tells the jury to get out the courtroom, tells the client to get out the courtroom, which isn't happen often, and she calls the attorneys up and she says, Mr. Mills, uh, your client just passed me a lottery ticket. I said, what? Your client just put a lottery ticket on my ledge, just passed me a lottery ticket. I said, a lottery ticket? I couldn't believe it. Sure enough, I go outside. I said, Did you pass the judge a lottery ticket? Oh, you know, I was at lunch and you know, it was a little hidden, and then we talked about something about the lottery came up, um, you know, in some of your conversations. So I uh, you know, I was I was at lunch, I stopped at the store, I got myself a ticket, I said, you know, I'm gonna give the judge one. I said, Do you really think it's appropriate to get the judge a lottery ticket? One and then pass her a lottery ticket as you're on the stand being questioned? It made no sense. It was bizarre. So I go back in, I said, Judge, I apologize. I obviously didn't know that was gonna happen. Clearly, he just doesn't know the rules of the court. It was absolutely inappropriate. Um, but you know, I all I can do is apologize and say there was no ill intent behind. Um she said, Well, I don't know if he was trying to bribe me or anything. I said, I this is wild. Um, Judge, I don't I don't believe he was trying to bribe you, I think he was just trying to be nice. Um again, he doesn't know the rules of the court, but whatever you want to do. She said, Well, Mr. I'll leave it to you guys. Do you want to miss trial or do you what do you want to do? Me, I was younger and and believing I can recover from anything, I said, just let's press forward. I don't think the jury saw what it was because I didn't see what it was, and I was closer to him than the jury was. They may have seen a hand go up, but you know, to them it could have been anything. You know, a note, a tissue, or something like that that's not inappropriate. They don't know it was a lottery ticket. So I said, I don't believe that we need to miss you know, have a mistrial here. Other side agreed. She breaks for the day, though. She it was just so bizarre for everybody. She breaks for the day. Um, and she's like, Mr. Mills, talk to your client. I go outside, I talk to someone, I say, dude, what are you doing? You have a good case, it's going well. What are you doing? Just be regular. Just you can't do that. And you shouldn't know you can't pass the judge a lottery ticket as you're being questioned on the stand. Um, just stop. Oh no, I didn't know I'm sorry, I didn't know. Alright, it's over. We're gonna move on, we're gonna continue this trial, but just just that's it. Alright. I come back the next morning. I leave the court storming out, I'm sure, pissed. I come back the next morning, and you can't, when somebody's on the in in the middle of questioning, you can't talk to them about the case. So I didn't talk to my client overnight because he was still in the middle of that redirect examination. I'm not allowed to conference with him about the case, you know, in between when he's on the stand already. So I come back the next morning, and when I show up, there's three court officers in the courtroom. And it's not normal, usually there's one court off bailiff that kind of just directs the traffic. Um, it's civil court, it's not criminal court, so there's really no nothing to be afraid of or concerned about. There's three officers in the courtroom. So I walk in and I'm just looking around. I did something happen. I was, and and the court clerk says, Uh, you're gonna have to meet with the judge, but let's wait for your the other side to get here, wait for your uh defense counsel, your adversary to get here. Okay. Defense counsel gets there, we go in the back, and the judge says, Mr. Mills, we left court yesterday, and this judge was deaf in one ear. Says we left court yesterday, and um I went to the the market, they have an open air, like farmer's market kind of thing, um, close to the courthouse. I'm shopping and I feel somebody because I can't hear from this air, I feel somebody right behind me, you know, on this side behind me. I turn around and it's your client. I said, What? It's your client standing right behind me at this market, trying to whisper something in my ear, but I can't hear it. So she like essentially runs away from me. It was the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. I was pissed, pissed. Because again, this is a good case. It was going in well, I was pissed. I go outside, I said, Did you say something to the judge yesterday? Did you see her outside? Oh, I you know, I I I know I messed up when I passed her the lottery ticket, so when she left out, I saw her, I I just you know, I saw where she went, so I just went to apologize to her. What needless to say, it was a mistrial. Um, she did the right thing. I I won't get into much after this, but it was the most bizarre situation I've ever had. This one client passed the judge of lottery ticket when he was on the witness stand, and that day, at the end of court, after I stormed out, he followed her to a market. And I guess was whispering or trying to tell her I'm sorry in her ear, but she's deaf. So she turns around, and this guy is just standing there mouthing something. Oh my god. Oh my god, one of the craziest stories. Um, but it's true. I still apologize to that judge on behalf of that client, um, and I pray that it never happens again. But we'll have some good stories for you on trial and error. Uh, there's a lot of good, some bad, uh, some in between. So we appreciate you being with us. We look forward to everything that's coming up. I'll see you later.