Challenges and techniques for brain injury cases with unhelmeted cyclists The lawyer, reviewing the case facts, considered the issues. The cyclist, an urban commuter, had been taking her regular three-mile route to work, primarily using protected bike lanes. An adult with a job that required a professional appearance, she did not feel it necessary to ruin the work she put...
Read More
Evaluating, pursuing, and mediating personal contribution cases The lawyer thought about the case. Two cyclists struck from behind at 45 miles per hour by a driver with dementia. On a clear day, with a straight road, the meandering driver drifted across the fog line, plowing through the riders. The driver told the investigating officer that the riders spontaneously fell, and...
Read More
We contribute to our historic legal fabric by doing our best in all things The lawyer thought about the place an individual plays, one small mote in this great timeless universe. Document review can do this to a person. How can one’s actions, seemingly small and potentially meaningless in the vastness, have any effect? Whether document review, a privilege log,...
Read More
Avoiding traps: central differences between federal and California state courts The lawyer evaluated the fact pattern, considering venue potential. This case was likely headed to federal court, with complete diversity of citizenship. While a local defendant could be added to defeat diversity, the question remained: was the case better served in federal or state court? Grandeur Most knuckle-dragging personal injury...
Read More
Preparing for and delivering motion practice oral argument The lawyer arrived early in the law and motion department. The tentative for defendant’s summary judgment motion? “Parties to appear.” Not a lot to go on. Stacked on the dais’s edge were actual books. Squinting, the lawyer made out numbers on the California Appellate Reports spines. One applied to the lawyer’s case,...
Read More
The mediator, an older male retired judge, spoke directly to the lawyer, ignoring the lawyer’s boss. The mediator did this despite the fact lawyer’s boss was without question the power in the room. While a long time ago, it still should not have happened. It was so off base it took the lawyer some time to recognize the behavior for what it was. The mediator, ignoring the lawyer’s boss, talked past her because the mediator saw her as insignificant. She was a woman, after all.
The lawyer listened. The situation had gone off the wire. Not fatal. Also not good. How had it happened? Ultimately the lawyer owned it. And within leader ownership, it was important to determine what led to the issue. Process failure, delegation failure, communication failure? All of these? None? Time to dig in, grab those involved, and conduct an After-Action Review.
The lawyer looked at the butcher block, counting up the incidents the lawyer and the witness had discussed. “I’m sorry – that’s, let’s see – one, two, three, four, five collisions involving your truck driver in the 18 months before he runs over a pedestrian in a crosswalk?” The jury glowered at the witness. The butcher block exhibit was having its effect.
The lawyer reviewed the material from defendants in the federal action. Rule 26 mandatory disclosures were wonderful. They kicked the case off and made federal cases much easier on the discovery front. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if California state court had something similar?
The lawyer looked around the room. With the lawyer was the team – skilled counsel handling a multi-plaintiff case. The clients? Unique individuals, all. A business leader, a social media maven, a researcher, a transactional lawyer – seated around a large conference table at mediation. The clients’ only commonality? They were a few of the many cyclists injured over several days by a paving defect, created and left unresolved despite a multitude of calls following a trenching operation.