Get documents about "THE UPDATE SDDL San Diego Defense Lawyers
Document Sample
THE UPDATE
Fall 2002
Volume 7
Issue 3
San Diego Defense Lawyers Association
The Path to Justice: details of attorneys’ arguments and witnesses’
In This Issue How Jurors Process Information testimony, they are using systematic processing.
Although jurors are tasked with a unique and Systematic processing occurs when jurors devote
Path to Justice 1 the substantial cognitive energy necessary to
formidable decision-making responsibility, their
Ins and Outs 2 information processing strategies are the same as attend to the details of the attorneys’ and wit-
President’s Message 4 in many other decision-making contexts. Attor- nesses’ messages (e.g., arguments, facts, opinions
neys often believe that they can stretch jurors’ and evidence). Stated differently, jurors use
Juror’s New Math 4 systematic processing when they base their
motivation and capabilities for information
Bottom Line 5 processing due to the significance of their case. individual or psychological verdicts upon the
Treating Physicians 7 However, like in many other decision-making message-based information they learn during the
arenas, jurors are ‘cognitive misers’ and their trial. By contrast, heuristic processing refers to
New Calderon Process 8 situations in which jurors use ‘cognitive rules of
information processing tendencies should serve as
SDDL Officers 9 a buoy when preparing to navigate the perilous thumb’ for evaluating evidence and testimony.
Membership Info 10 waters at trial. Heuristics are non-message based cues (e.g.,
credibility, representativeness, availability,
SDDL Golf Tournament 11 Jurors’ Information simulation, nervousness) that jurors use as a basis
Processing Tendencies for evaluating arguments, evidence and testimony.
Whereas only a minority of jurors are motivated Because heuristics require significantly less
to pay close attention to all of the information cognitive energy to process information than
presented during trial, the majority are less systematic processing, jurors overwhelming prefer
concerned with tracking what can be an over- to process information and base their decisions on
whelming amount of detail. Moreover, jurors are heuristics.
different with respect to their information process- Stories are jurors’ preferred method of organiz-
ing capabilities. Some jurors are able to attend to, ing information because they simplify their
comprehend, and organize substantial amounts of cognitive task. Heuristics information processing
information, whereas other jurors become easily works well for jurors because it is consistent with
confused when they are confronted with a large their preference for thematic presentations.
corpus of evidentiary information. A common Heuristic processing often appears to be irrational
characteristic of all jurors, however, is that they or illogical to attorneys because it is not the
prefer information to be simplified and thematic. logico-deductive model lawyers hope for. Nonethe-
Certainly, the nature of a legal dispute will less, it is the cognitive posture assumed by jurors
affect jurors’ motivation to devote their undivided and it serves them well. Jury research provides an
attention to attorneys’ presentations during trial. A opportunity to study how jurors’ heuristics affect
criminal trial teeming with sordid details is likely jurors’ understanding of the case.
to capture jurors’ attention as opposed to a long Although some jurors may start out at trial
and pallid anti-trust case. Even an interesting trying to digest the ‘informational feast’ prepared
business torts case chock full of ‘vivid and juicy’ by the attorneys and witnesses, jurors will quickly
testimony will lose its hypnotic hold on jurors if become sated by the information overload and rely
the trial drags on for a substantial period of time. on heuristic processing as the preferred cognitive
We often hear clients remark that, “If the jurors strategy for arriving at their individual verdicts
would just listen to the message I am trying to give and damage assessments. Because information
them, they should have no trouble finding for my overload quickly sets in for jurors even in a short
client.” If it were that simple, trial consultants trial, jurors opt for a less cognitively demanding
would be reading the Want Ads. To many attor- strategy for evaluating the relative merits of each
neys, jurors information processing and decision- side’s case. Heuristics are like ‘cognitive shortcuts’
making appears to be capricious and lacking a that jurors use so as to simplify their daunting task
rational foundation. It is disheartening to many of tracking, organizing, and evaluating a seem-
attorneys that jurors do not seem to hone their ingly voluminous body of material.
attention on the details of the evidence presented. Heuristics
Jurors do have a rational and logical format for
processing and organizing information — a story. Jurors rarely make a conscious decision to use
However, the manner in which jurors piece heuristics to simplify their cognitive tasks during
together the story may not always comport with trial. Rather, heuristics just ‘kick in’ automatically,
attorneys’ expectations. much like a default option in computer software,
when jurors perceive very little vested interest in
When jurors are motivated to attend to the processing courtroom proceedings, or become
overwhelmed by an enormous body of information.
www.sddl.org Moreover, even if jurors get caught up in their
2 Volume 7 · Issue 3
civic duty when sworn in by the court and hang on reinforce jurors’ already dim view of attorneys
Ins & Outs every word during opening statements, the effect is and, as a result, undermine their client’s case
ephemeral and, before long jurors are using while elevating the value of the witnesses’ testi-
heuristics as the cognitive cipher for understand- mony. For example, impeaching a witness is a
Mike Neil of Neil, Dymott, ing case storylines and evaluating witnesses. painful process for the witness and the jurors. The
Perkins, Brown & Frank jurors empathize with the witness’ public humilia-
was appointed a vice- Although there are a number of heuristics that
affect jurors’ decision-making, the current discus- tion. When jurors perceive that attorneys derive a
president of the presti- sadistic pleasure from their triumph over a
gious Federation of sion will focus on a few of the cognitive shortcut
that play a more prominent role in affecting jurors’ witness, they hold this against the attorney, and
Defense and Corporate the attorney’s client (DecisionQuest, 2000).
Counsel (FDCC). decision making as a trial unfolds. Three heuris-
tics have emerged as having a substantial impact Because of their credentials, the war of experts
Dana M. Reeder of Bacalski, on jurors’ evaluation of evidence, arguments, can be won before a rhetorical shot is fired on the
Byrne & Koska eloped to witnesses, and attorneys: (a) credibility, (b) courtroom battlefield. However, even the most
St. Lucia in May and has representativeness, and (c) availability. credentialed expert must be believed by the jury.
changed her name to Credibility. The credibility of the source is Despite the fact a witness may be telling the
Dana M. Pustinger. Not arguably the most significant heuristic employed ‘truth,’ jurors may doubt the veracity of the
to be outdone, the firm by jurors. It is the most significant for two reasons: witness due to his/her composure under fire. To be
also committed itself to a (a) it is invoked most frequently by jurors, and (b) sure, jurors expect some degree of nervousness
new relationship and it exerts the most influence on jurors’ evaluations from witnesses. Jurors rely to a large extent on a
changed its name to of attorneys’ arguments and witnesses’ testimony. witness’ verbal and nonverbal behavior to evaluate
Bacalski, Byrne, Koska & Credibility is a multidimensional construct the veracity of a witness (deTurck & Miller, 1985;
Ottoson. Gary Ottoson, consisting of five components: (a) expertise or deTurck, Feeley & Roman, 1995; Feeley &
formerly a managing competence, (b) character or trustworthiness, (c) deTurck, 1996).
partner at Haight, Brown sociability or likeableness, (d) composure or Representativeness. The representativeness
& Bonesteel has been nervousness, and (e) extroversion or outgoingness. heuristic is tied directly to how we characterize or
named partner in charge Jurors often pay little attention to what a witness stereotype other people and situations. The
of new office space in has to say, but weighs the value of the witness’ question jurors ask themselves is: “How likely is it
downtown Los Angeles. contribution based on his/her credentials and/or that Person A or Event B is a member of Category
Ottoson has over 33 years communicative ability. Rather than hang on every X?” For example, jurors may ask how likely is it
experience in large word of a witness’ testimony, jurors prefer to sit that the physician (person) is honest (category)?
complex trials including back and say to themselves, “She is a top expert, Jurors answer this question by matching up the
many high profile cases whatever she says must be true.” Or, jurors may characteristics of Person A with the defining
including Hinckley v. evaluate the witness according to how they characteristics of Category X. There is no univer-
PGE (of Erin Brockovich communicate, “He really seems very relaxed and sal set of category-defining characteristics used by
fame) and Directo v. comfortable, he must be telling the truth.” all jurors.
Johns-Manville, the Jurors weigh the relative importance of the five For example, a witness may be introduced as
second asbestos case tried dimensions based upon the role of the individual with an impeccable reputation. However, if jurors
in California. He is a (attorney, expert witness and fact witness) and the believe that the witness ‘looks shady,’ and they
Fellow of the American nature of the case. For example, in medical perceive a lack of eye contact and a nervous
College of Trial Lawyers, malpractice suits, jurors’ concerns regarding the tremor in the voice, they are likely to question the
a member of American physician are focused almost exclusively upon his/ veracity of the witness. In other words, the
Board of Trial Advocates her competence and likeability. Although jurors behavior and appearance of the witness was
and past President of both want to know that the physician was well-schooled representative of their defining characteristics of a
the Association of and trained, jurors most often evaluate a physician deceptive witness (deTurck, Texter & Harszlak,
Southern California based on his/her likeability - their perception of 1989). Jury research is a most useful vehicle for
Defense Counsel and the doctor’s ‘bedside manner.’ Because jurors revealing the defining characteristics most often
California Defense often decide medmal cases based on a physician’s used by jurors.
Counsel. Also joining Mr. likeability, witness preparation sessions assume a
Ottoson is Ellen Hurley In the case of an event, e.g., an individual
key strategic position in counsel’s and consultant’s injured by a product, jurors may find the manufac-
from the Haight firm. case preparation.
She is a 14 year attorney turer liable because of the fact that there are a
with expertise in contami- A majority of jurors come to the courtroom small number of other similar accidents. Despite
nation, employment and distrusting members of the legal profession; their the fact that the manufacturer has taken laudable
free speech matters. evaluations of counsels’ credibility is determined precautions in the design and manufacture of the
almost exclusively by his/her conduct during trial. product, as well as warning consumers of potential
Jurors expect attorneys’ to be overly aggressive hazards, jurors often may perceive that other
when advocating their client’s position, especially similar accidents to be indicative of a problem
when questioning witnesses during cross-examina- with the product. Stated differently, the prevailing
tion. By showing witnesses respect and proper defining characteristic in this example is the fact
deference, attorneys gain invaluable currency that jurors believe that several similar accidents
toward their credibility. are representative of a defective product and,
Attorneys who attack a witness or use sarcasm therefore make the attribution that the manufac-
toward witnesses and opposing counsel only turer is negligent, despite the fact that accident
www.sddl.org
Volume 7 · Issue 3 3
rates associated with the manufacturer’s product information. The more a given piece of evidence,
may be extremely low, e.g., 5 in 10,000,000. testimony or argument is linked with other Ins & Outs
The representative heuristic permeates jurors’ information, the more likely it is to be recalled if
decision making in other practice areas as well. In any other piece of information in that network is
recalled due to the number of close cognitive links Lincoln, Gustafson &
a fraud case, for example, jurors often determine if Cercos has added Erin M.
a fraud was committed based on their personal formed by the juror. Research generally indicates
that three repetitions produce the most positive Ferguson and Jill S.
defining characteristics for what constitutes a Dickerson as associates in
fraud, as opposed to instructions from the bench. persuasive outcome. Additional repetitions run the
risk of causing jurors to evaluate the information their San Diego office.
Jurors simply compare the alleged fraudulent Both are native San
actions with their own individual defining negatively due to overkill or overload. The
negative reactions by jurors to the too-oft repeated Diegans who received
characteristics of fraud. If the actions exceed a their J.D. from the
certain threshold, the jurors determine there was information will spread to other evidence put on
by counsel because of the cognitive networking by University of San Diego.
fraud. Some jurors may require only that an entity Ms. Dickerson received
made misrepresentations to decide there was a jurors.
her undergraduate degree
fraud without caring a lick whether the misrepre- In summary, jurors are cognitive misers who from San Diego State, and
sentations were material or relied upon. To these evaluate witnesses and evidence based to a large Ms. Ferguson received
jurors, there is only one defining criterion that extent on cognitive shortcuts or heuristics that hers from McCallister
matters, someone was not totally honest. simplify their decision-making task. Despite the College in Minnesota.
Availability. Availability refers to situations in fact that heuristics may at times appear to be
which jurors’ judgments are affected by informa- irrational to attorneys, they are a very logical The Law Offices of Kenneth
tion that is most easily recalled. Because jurors strategy for jurors. Jury research can provide N. Greenfield has moved
base their decisions on only a fraction of the invaluable insight as to how jurors are processing from its 8-year existence
information presented during trial, their evalua- key information. The results of the research can in UTC to the Rancho
tions are affected to a large extent by the ease with provide key strategic insight as to how to position Bernardo area. Ken was
which they can recall information. In other words, certain information so as to maximize its persua- inducted into ABOTA this
jurors do not base their verdicts and damage sive efficacy. year and has recently
awards on all of the information presented during References added Jill Grathwohl as
a trial; rather, they base their decisions on the an associate in his office.
DecisionQuest (2000). Annual juror outlook Ms. Grathwohl’s primary
information which is most easily recalled. Thus,
survey. Atlanta, GA: DecisionQuest. areas of practice are
jurors base their decisions on only a fraction of the
information they are exposed to; a small portion of deTurck, M.A., Feeley, T.H., & Roman, L. A. insurance bad faith
the information which most readily jumps to (1997). Vocal and visual cue training in behavioral litigation and general civil
mind. deception detection. Communication Research litigation in the areas of
Reports, 14, 249-259. commercial, construction
There are several factors that play a role in the
relative effects of availability: visual/graphic deTurck, M.A., Texter, T.A., & Harszlak, J.J. defect and personal
information and repetition. Jurors prefer visual/ (1989). Effects of information processing objec- injury/product liability.
graphic information because it requires less tives on ratings of witness perjury. Communica- She received her Juris
cognitive effort than textual information. More- tion Research, 16, 434-452. Doctor degree from City
over, graphic information is substantially more University of New York
.R.
deTurck, M.A., & Miller, G (1985). Decep- School of Law in 1997,
vivid than pallid textual information and, as a tion and arousal:
result, is more easily recalled. Simple graphics and her LL.M. from The
Isolating the behavioral correlates of deception. University of San Diego
with an “instantaneous take-away” message exert
Human Communication Research, 12, 181-201. School of Law in 2000.
a substantial impact upon jurors’ evaluations of
evidence, testimony and arguments. To the extent Feeley, T.H., & deTurck, M.A. (1996). Global Jill was formerly an
that jurors must expend a great deal of cognitive cue usage in behavioral lie detection. Communica- associate with The
effort to understand a graphic, the effect of the tion Quarterly, 43, 420-430 Lendrum Law firm and
visual is likely to be minimal, if in fact jurors do served as an extern law
not completely ‘turn off’ and ignore the graphic clerk to Justices Charles
display. It is imperative that graphics have a A. LaTorella and Edwin
simple, easy to understand message that can Kassoff of the New York
automatically be deduced by jurors. State Supreme Court.
Repetition also plays a role in the availability of
information for jurors because repeated informa-
tion is processed more deeply by jurors. Depth of
information processing refers to the number of
cognitive links a juror makes between a specific
piece of evidence, and other information presented
during trial, including a witness. As evidence is
processed more deeply, more links are created with
other evidence, testimony and arguments. In other
words, repeated information becomes more
centrally linked in a cognitive network of trial
www.sddl.org
4 Volume 7 · Issue 3
President’s Message Juror’s ‘New Math:’
Ins & Outs By: John Clifford How Jurors Calculate Damages
Drath, Clifford, Murphy, Wennerholm & Hagen Jurors’ calculus for awarding damages is
Grace Brandon Hollis LLP Summer is over and before the blink of an eye, it arguably the most idiosyncratic facet of the
has two new associates. will be the end of the year. It seems that with every deliberation process. Although jurors’ haggling
Aisha Shelton Adams year, the days and months slide by faster and over damages often appears to be irrational at first
joined the firm in August faster. blush, there is a logic underlying their methods
to work with Graham and the outcomes. Understanding jurors’ rationale
Fall is also a time to reflect on one’s accom- for damage awards can be most useful in deter-
Hollis and Coleen Lowe plishments of the year and goals for the future.
on product liability and mining if an alternative damage presentation is
This Fall is a particularly good time for reflection, advisable or tailoring a damages argument to a
construction defect cases. as we approach the one year anniversary of the
Aisha is a recent graduate jury so as to enhance its persuasiveness.
horrific tragedy of September 11, 2001. As I am
of the University of Iowa sure you will recall, once one learned of the
Law School and is Individual vs. Group Dynamics
horrible events, it caused us all to pause and to
awaiting California bar take stock in our personal and professional lives. Individual Dynamics
results. Eugene “Skip” The recent passing of Thomas M. Dymott, who Due to the spate of news coverage on high
Shank is a new bar was awarded the Inaugural SDDL “Lawyer of the profile cases over the years, jurors have psycho-
admittee who starts Year” award in recognition of his outstanding logically adjusted to hearing about large damage
September 3rd. Skip is contribution and service to the Civil Defense Bar awards. Jurors’ individual evaluations of damages
currently a senior engi- of San Diego also causes me to reflect. are strongly affected by the figures plaintiff’s
neer with Boyle Engineer- counsel tenders during trial. Jurors have a psycho-
ing. He will be working It is with those thoughts in mind that I would
encourage each of our members to become more logical latitude of acceptance for damage awards,
principally with Thomas or a range of damage figures, they are willing to
Byron in the defense of proactive in both their membership within the San
Diego Defense Lawyers Association and as entertain. To the extent plaintiff does not ask for a
design professionals. damage figure that exceeds jurors’ latitude of
practicing attorneys.
acceptance, many jurors will trust plaintiff’s
CAMPBELL, SOUHRADA As you will hopefully recall, a little more than damage request as a reasonable sum. Thus, many
& VOLK announced that year ago, the SDDL began collaborating with the jurors use plaintiff’s damage request as an anchor
Mr. Shawn Robinson, Mr. San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program to provide for evaluating or comparing defense’s damage
Scott Stonehocker, and lawyer volunteers with an emphasis on elder abuse figure, if an alternative damage theory is prof-
Ms. Eileen Luttrell have cases within the County of San Diego. While that fered.
joined the firm as associ- program continues, the San Diego Volunteer
ate attorneys. Mr. Lawyer Program encompasses a broad spectrum of Jurors’ individual assessments of damages can
Robinson will staff the issues, many of which involve standard represen- vary greatly for a number of reasons. Jurors’
San Diego Office and Mr. tation of clients in areas of consumer fraud, civil experiences and attitudes are the most important
Stonehocker and Ms. rights, and foster care. Additionally, the SDVLP factors influencing their individual damage
Luttrell will staff the Las will soon be handling due process hearings for assessments. Jury research is an effective tool for
Vegas Office. special education cases involving the various identifying jurors’ experiences and attitudes that
school districts within the County. SDVLP also differentiate punitive from non-punitive jurors. By
John C. Pytel has recently provides clinics and needs volunteers to assist using jury research to identify the decision path
joined Koeller, Nebeker, those in need of legal guidance. I would strongly jurors follow to arrive at their damage awards,
Carlson & Haluck as an encourage each of you to become involved. Please defense counsel can better plan a strategic re-
associate in the San Diego contact Jerry Polansky at the SDVLP. He can be sponse to overcome jurors’ tendencies.
office. John’s practice reached at (619) 235-5656, ext. 113. Although there is not a single set of defining
focuses on insurance I would also encourage our membership to experiences or attitudes that characterize punitive
coverage disputes and become active in the San Diego Defense Lawyers. jurors across all cases and venues, several trends
complex, multi-party We will soon be requesting nominations for board have emerged from our research. Jurors who have
construction defect membership for 2003, and I would strongly experienced a recent trauma in their life (e.g.,
litigation. John earned his encourage individuals to participate with the divorce, separation, loss of a loved one, victim of
undergraduate degree wonderful individuals who are currently on the crime) tend to be more punitive than their peers
from the University of board to keep this a great organization for the who have not had similar experiences. In addition,
Wisconsin-Madison and benefit of civil defense lawyers in San Diego. jurors who perceive that they have been victims of
his J.D. from USC Law some injustice, whether at work or in another
School. In closing, I hope you enjoy a wonderful fall and context, are likely to be more motivated to award
I look forward to seeing you at upcoming SDDL higher damages than other jurors.
events, including
the golf tournament Jurors’ personalities also exert a substantial
to be held later this influence on their desire to award damages. Jurors
month, as well as with an authoritarian personality are more likely
the Moot Court to be punitive than jurors having a different
Competition to be personality type. Individuals with an authoritarian
held in October, personality have a low tolerance for mitigating
and our continuing circumstances or ambiguity and a rigid adherence
legal educational to social hierarchies. As a result, jurors with a
www.sddl.org seminars.
Volume 7 · Issue 3 5
high authoritarian personality believe that devia- Trends
tions from the rules of expected behavior (indi- We have observed a number of trends in how THE BOTTOM LINE
vidual or corporate) should be punished. Jurors jurors factor in a variety of issues during their
high in dogmaticism are very similar to those high deliberations. Although the court rarely allows
in authoritarianism, but are more apolitical. They Case Title: Gabriel Rosas,
jurors to hear arguments regarding the role of
perceive issues and people in ‘black and white’ Mary-Bell Rosas, as
workers’ compensation, insurance, and fees in
with no shades of gray. husband and wife; Linda
plaintiff’s damage requests, some good defense Torres, an individual;
jurors raise these factors during deliberations in an
Group Dynamics effort to hold damages down. By contrast, plain- Wanda J. Filbin, an
Two psychological processes affecting jury individual; Elizabeth E.
tiff-oriented jurors have been inflating damage
damage awards during deliberations are the Shick, an individual;
awards because they believe that the award will be
polarity shift and the groupthink phenomena. Errol H. Curl, Kathleen G.
reduced when appealed. This is a relatively new
‘Polarity shift’ refers to situations in which a Curl, as husband and
trend, whereas solid plaintiff jurors have long been
group makes a more conservative or riskier advocating for an increase in damage awards so as wife; George A. Pastrana,
decision than the aggregate of the individual to ensure that plaintiff has enough money after Maria A. Pastrana, as
juror’s decisions. There are two primary factors contingency fees are taken out. husband and wife; John
that underlie the polarity shift phenomenon: (a) Hoover, Karen Hoover, as
Sometimes jurors’ calculus for computing husband and wife;
social comparison, and (2) persuasive arguments. damages is nothing more than holding an auction.
Social comparison refers to the time when jurors Josephine Silva, an
The foreperson may merely act as an ‘auctioneer ’ individual; Dana Daly, an
first begin to discuss case issues during delibera- starting off the ‘bidding’ at an agreeable figure,
tions and they learn of the other jurors’ attitudes. individual; Josephine C.
e.g., one million dollars, and throws out escalating Long and Kathleen A.
Jurors compare their own opinions to attitudes of dollar amounts as individual jurors continue to
the other jurors as a means of seeing how they ‘fit Robinson, as co-trustees
agree to a higher damage figure until the bidding
in’ the group. Some jurors hold back on expressing of the Long Family Trust;
stops. It can be a most daunting lesson to observe and Judith Marsh, an
their damage awards for fear that they may be too one of these auctions as the damage award jumps
extreme (small or large) and would not fit in with individual v. Aztec
from one $100,000 to $5,000,000 in a matter of a
their peers. However, when jurors learn that others Homes, a business entity,
minute or two. Moreover, in a situation like this, if
in the jury advocate similar or even larger damage form unknown, Signs &
only one juror agrees to a higher figure, the
awards than they do, they become more psycho- Pinnick, a business entity,
auction continues. In other words, the foreperson
logically comfortable with awarding more extreme form unknown, Tom C.
does not seek to determine if all the jurors agree to
damage figures. As a result, the jurors as a group Dyke, an individual dba
each new figure thrown out for bid; rather, the
become more secure with awarding a larger foreperson continues the auction until finally, none Tom C. Dyke Drilling &
damage figure than they decided upon as individu- of the jurors can support such a large damage Blasting, a business entity,
als prior to deliberations. figure. form unknown, and
DOES 1 through 50,
Persuasive arguments refer to the fact that as Because jurors may be more concerned with inclusive.
jurors deliberate, they hear novel arguments from avoiding conflict than holding damages down, Case No.: San Diego
their peers that they had not previously consid- some juries get caught up in a feeding frenzy of Superior Court, Case No.
ered. During deliberations jurors unveil their awarding damages. GIC749077
personal positions on the issues, evidence and In a recent jury research project, I observed Judge: Hon. Geary D.
testimony. As a result of hearing new arguments several of these factors working in concert to Cortes
from other jurors, the critical mass of jurors’ devastating effect. The foreman held an auction Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J.
attitudes regarding key issues increases until it and the award jumped from $250,000 to Stark and James A. D’
achieves a threshold from which it is nearly $10,000,000 in only a minute or two. Afterward, Ambrosio, Law Offices of
impossible for jurors to overcome. the lone holdout defense juror sarcastically Patrick J. Stark
The groupthink phenomenon was so named as a mentioned that if the jury really wanted plaintif f to Defense Counsel: Sean T.
result of the Kennedy administration’s debates get $10,000,00 they should award $20,000,000 Cahill of Balestreri,
over the Bay of Pigs debacle. All of the govern- because of the attorney’s contingency fee. Not one Pendleton & Potocki
ment officials included in the debate tended to juror picked up on his sarcasm and the foreperson Type of Incident: Property
think alike with very few dissenting opinions. mentioned that it was a good idea and asked if damage, emotional
Groupthink in a jury occurs when the jurors take a anyone objected to going to $20,000,000. No one distress for fear, anxiety
vote and all, or almost all of the jurors feel the objected and in a matter of two minutes, the and apprehension related
same way. This may effectively circumvent jurors’ damage award increased exponentially. In fact, the to blasting operations at a
motivation to discuss the relative merits on both award increased eighty-fold! nearby housing develop-
sides of the case. Few jurors want to invite attacks Compromising With Damages ment
on themselves by others because they are holding Settlement Demand:
out. The result is that jurors pay only token lip Jurors use damages to achieve a compromise in
$707,000
service to the evidence, testimony, and arguments a number of different ways. For many jurors, the
Settlement Offer: None
presented by one of the parties. Taken together, need to get along with their fellow jurors is an
Trial Type: Jury
groupthink and polarity shift account for why a overriding consideration. To be sure, deliberations
Trial Length: Seven (7)
jury’s damage award is sometimes substantially can get very heated and personal. However, jurors
are highly motivated to maintain a civil atmo- days
greater than the average of the individual juror’s Verdict: Defense verdict -
sphere during deliberations and will go to great
damage awards. 16 plaintiffs
lengths to achieve that goal - even if it means
giving a little bit more in order to reach a compro-
mise. www.sddl.org
6 Volume 7 · Issue 3
Reaching a Verdict effective. An alternative damage figure arms
THE BOTTOM LINE Jurors frequently use damages as a bargaining strong defense jurors with a bargaining chip they
chip to gain leverage or break an impasse during can use during deliberations to hold damages
deliberations. Holdout defense jurors who will not down. When defense has a weak case on liability,
Case Title: Tuchscher v. it is critical to provide defense jurors with an
Lennar Corp., et al. concede on liability often use damages to advance
their persuasive agenda. These jurors suggest to alternative damage theory so as to outfit them with
Case No.: San Diego a persuasive weapon they can use against strong
Superior Court, their peers that they will switch and find for the
plaintiff if the panel agrees to limit damages. punitive jurors.
GIC758620
Judge: Hon. Sheridan Reed, Plaintiff-oriented jurors frequently agree to limit It should be noted that alternative damage
Dept. 68 damages so as to achieve their persuasive objective theories should not be complex. Jurors are not
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew - a win on liability. motivated to understand convoluted damage
S. Albert and Joel R. theories. They prefer simple ‘easy to digest’
Retrofitting Verdicts theories with ‘tangible’ damage figures. Jurors
Wohlfeil, Boudreau,
Juries are notorious for retrofitting verdicts to fit rarely possess the mathematical savvy to process
Albert & Wohlfeil
their damages decisions. More specifically, in elaborate damage theories.
Defense Counsel: John T.
personal injury and product liability cases, I have
Farmer and Dennis S. Because jurors often use plaintiff’s damage
observed numerous juries in our research find for
O’Neill, Farmer & Case figure as an anchor in deciding damages, it has a
the defendant in terms of liability. However, when
Type of Incident: Business very potent effect on them. However, if plaintiff
they reach the ‘bottom line’ for damages, they
tort case involving claims seeks a sum that exceeds a critical threshold,
suddenly reverse their position because they feel
of inducing breach of jurors often re-evaluate the plaintiff’s credibility.
the plaintiff deserves some money. This is com-
contract and intentional Advocating an excessive damage award often
mon in personal injury cases in which where
interference with prospec- results in what is known as a ‘boomerang effect.’
neither the defendant nor the plaintiff were overtly
tive economic advantage Plaintiff’s damage appeal then has the opposite
negligent and liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
relating to defendants’ intended effect - jurors will actually award less
Jurors harbor a need to take care of the plaintiffs
claimed interference with damages. Recently, one of my clients was defend-
in these kinds of cases. All too often my clients,
plaintiff’s exclusive ing an employment case in which plaintiff was
have prematurely declared victory during a
negotiating seeking an excessive amount in damages and, as a
research exercise when the mock jury finds for the
Agreement with the City of result, won only a very small fraction of what was
defendant on liability - only to observe an abrupt
Chula Vista to develop a sought. To be sure, juries are not reticent about
overturning the verdict because the mock jury
127 acre multi-use awarding large damages. However, the damage
wants to take care of the plaintiff by awarding
commercial/residential award must be consistent with the fact pattern.
some level of damages. Jurors retrofit their verdict
project on the Chula Vista
to be consistent with their desire to award some Effects of September 11, 2001
Bayfront with a build-out
level of damages to the plaintiff. There are a number of schools of thought that
value claimed at
$587,000,000. Co- Alternative Damage Arguments have emerged regarding the effects of the terrorist
defendant City of Chula attacks on jurors’ damage awards. The terrorist
Due to the outcome of the Pennzoil-Texaco
Vista settled before trial attacks may influence jurors’ damage awards
litigation, my clients frequently want to present an
for $850,000. Co- differently depending on a variety of factors
alternative damage figure to jurors in an effort to
defendant, former Port including, but not limited to the venue, nature of
counter plaintiff’s counsel from exerting a
Commissioner David the litigation, and the characteristics of the
unilateral influence on jurors’ damage awards.
Malcolm, was dismissed litigants.
However, when defense has a good case on
before trial on a successful liability, defense’s alternative damage figures often One school of thought holds that generally, the
Anti-SLAPP motion, the exacerbate the problems confronted by defense terrorist’ attacks are likely to have one of two
ruling on which is on because they ‘cut the legs out’ from under the good effects on juries. First, due to the tremendous
appeal defense jurors. Jurors often react very negatively to economic impact of the attacks, it is likely that
Settlement Demand: alternative damage figures because jurors teetering jurors will exhibit more of a ‘team’ attitude when
$34,000,000, reduced to on their evaluations of liability believe that when evaluating damages in civil cases. In other words,
$17,000,000 before trial defense offers a substantial sum of money while many jurors will not view themselves on the
Settlement Offer: $700,000, denying liability, they are, in fact, admitting opposite end of a political continuum from
increased to $2,000,000 liability. corporate America. They will tend to view all of
before trial America, corporate and consumer, as a team that
Trial Type: Jury Alternative damage figures frequently raise the
must hang together in these most turbulent times
Trial Length: 5 weeks persuasive hurdle too high for strong defense
if we are to pull ourselves out the economic mess
Verdict: $2,200,000, subject jurors to overcome. It causes defense-oriented
that was created in the wake of the attacks. Thus,
to post-trial motion for jurors to think that the defense has doubts about its
rather than juries having an ‘us versus them’
offset of City’s $850,000 own case. As a result, the defense runs a risk of
paying damages in a case in which it may have attitude when evaluating corporate America, they
settlement. are more likely to be motivated to protect corpo-
prevailed on liability. Rather than presenting an
alternative damages theory in a close case, defense rate America. Jurors are keenly aware of just how
fragile the economy is; many of them have
is best served by attacking plaintiff’s theory during
personal experience with layoffs resulting from the
cross-examination of its experts.
downturn in the economy due to the attacks. Jurors
Conversely, in cases in which defense is may still award damages, but be less punitive in
handicapped by a weak case on liability, an the amount they award. Thus, jurors may be more
alternative damage presentation can be very
www.sddl.org
Volume 7 · Issue 3 7
willing to try to be fair to defense so as not to push TREATING PHYSICIANS:
a corporation over the financial brink and exacer- Potential Scope of Trial Testimony
bate the already poor economic situation. By: Lynde Selden III, Esq., Neil,
Jurors are also likely to view personal injury, Dymott, Perkins, Brown & Frank
medical malpractice, and products liability cases Expert testimony is
in a similar light. Jurors may use the horrific defined in California
images of the carnage caused by the attacks as an Evidence Code Section 801
anchor for evaluating plaintiffs’ damage claims. If as: opinion testimony
jurors do use the aftermath of 9/11 as an anchor related to a subject matter
for evaluating pain and suffering, many plaintiffs’ “sufficiently beyond the
damage claims are likely to be perceived as far less common experience”, based
severe than the catastrophic loss experienced by upon information within the
the Americans killed or injured in the attacks. special training, knowledge,
Indeed, jurors may minimize damage awards skill, experience, or education
when compared with the atrocities perpetrated on of the testifying witness, and
innocent people on September 11, 2001. could assist the trier of fact. Based upon
A second reaction that is likely is for jurors to this definition, its seems implicit that a treating THE BOTTOM LINE
become more polarized or extreme in their damage physician, a person clearly trained in a particular
awards. Although some many jurors may be more field of medicine, should be able to provide an
forgiving of corporate infractions following expert opinion. As it turns out, this implication is Case Title: Marcello
September 11th, if jurors sense that a corporate born out by the case law. Hernandez, an Individual,
entity intentionally violated a standard of conduct, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034 and Guardian ad Litem
they may very well become more punitive toward delineates between treating physicians and for minors Marcella
the transgressor then they otherwise would have retained experts implying both may offer expert Hernandez and Marcello
been prior to September 11th. In other words, if opinions. Hernandez Jr.; Maria
jurors perceive that someone on the ‘American Hernandez, an Individual;
team’ is taking advantage of another ‘American CCP Section 2034(a)(1) requires parties to a
and the estate of Rosalva
teammate’ jurors are likely to take it upon them- lawsuit to exchange the names and addresses of
Hernandez, Deceased vs.
selves to sanction the corporate transgression any person from which a party intends to elicit an
Lawrence W. Schenden,
severely. In an already bleak economic situation, expert opinion as evidence at the time of trial.
M.D.
jurors are not likely to sit idly by while a ‘corpo- Importantly, 2034 (a)(2) delineates between any
Case No.: San Diego
rate teammate’ takes advantage of one of an person who will offer an expert opinion at the time
Superior Court, GIC
already suffering citizenship. This unpatriotic of trial and an expert who will testify from a party
759741
behavior is likely to draw the ire of jurors more so that is “an employee of a party” or “retained by a
Judge: Honorable Frederic
than it would have prior to the attacks. party.”
Link
It is difficult to project how long jurors will be Section 2034, subsection (f), describes differing Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph G.
influenced by the images of 9/11. The fear of procedures for the exchange of information Maiorano, Esq., Maxine
future attacks, and the role of the media in keeping regarding experts dif ferentiating between those D. Kersh, Esq.
the images in front of the public are likely to make who have been retained, as in Section 2034(a)(2), Defense Counsel: Daniel S.
the effects of 9/11 linger in the minds of jurors for or others, as in Section 2034(a)(1). Specifically, Belsky, Esq., Belsky &
a while. Jury research has long been an invaluable 2034(f)(1)(A) requires a party to set forth the Associates
tool in revealing jurors’ reactions to case themes, name and address of any person who may offer an Type of Incident: Medical
witnesses, and evidence. Given the uncertainty of expert opinion at the time of trial while subsection Malpractice/wrongful
jurors’ reactions to 9/11, the need for jury research (f)(2) requires, if this expert is a retained expert as death
greater than ever. in Section 2034(a)(2), the expert witness list be Settlement Demand:
accompanied by a declaration from a party’s Plaintiffs’ settlement
attorney providing qualifications, general sub- demand before trial was
stance of proposed testimony, an affirmation that $500,000
Both The Path to Justice: How Jurors Process the proposed expert will agree to testify at trial, an Settlement Offer: Defen-
Information and Juror’s ‘New Math:’ How affirmation that the proposed expert is familiar dant made a CCP §998
Jurors Calculate Damages were reprinted with enough with the case enabling him to render a offer for zero dollars and a
permission by DecisionQuest. For further meaningful opinion, and a provision of the waiver of costs
information, please visit www.decisionquest.com expert’s hourly rate. Simply put, a treating Trial Type: Jury
or contact Dr. Allan Colman at 1-877-8DECI- physician is not regarded as a retained expert as Trial Length: 5 days
SION. DecisionQuest is a nationally recognized defined in Section 2034(a)(2). (Schreiber v. Estate Verdict: Defense (12-0)
trial consulting firm. DQ consultants have of Kiser (1999) 22 Cal.4th 31, 37; Huntley v.
provided creative thinking and strategic Foster (35 Cal.App.4th 753-754, 756; Hurtado v.
solutions to counsel in more than 10,000 high- Western Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d
risk engagements. They are experts in the art of 1198, 1202-1203.) But beware, the Second
persuasion - offering strategy and theme District recently ruled that treating physicians
development, witness evaluation and prepara- listed in the expert exchange as simply “all past or
tion, demonstrative exhibits, jury profiling and present examining and/or treating physicians,”
selection, litigation public relations, CaseSoft without at least a name identification of the
products, and courtroom technology. intended experts, was insufficient compliance with
www.sddl.org
8 Volume 7 · Issue 3
the “letter or the spirit” of CCP section 2034, The New Calderon Process: 60 Days
THE BOTTOM LINE resulting in the exclusion of the physicians’ Later
testimony at trial. (Kalaba v. Gray, supra at pp. by: Timothy J. Grant of Fredrickson,
1418, 1423; Cal. Civ. Proc. Section 2034 (a)(1); Mazeika & Grant
Case Title: Marshall v. The Cf. Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser, supra at p. 31
Baldwin Company, et.al. [Treating physicians were listed in the CCP The new Calderon Process has
Case No.: San Diego section 2034 designation placing defendants brought subcontractors, design
Superior Court, GIC on notice].) professionals, and their
725825 liability carriers into the
Judge: Honorable Kevin A. Extent of Opinions permitted by Treating pre-litigation negotia-
Enright Physicians: tion and discovery
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen A non-retained treating physician may testify at process. Enacted in 1996, Civil Code § 1375
M. Strauss, Procopio, trial as both a percipient treating physician and created what is commonly known as the Calderon
Cory, Hargreaves & may also offer opinion testimony. A treating Process. Its scope was, and still is, limited to
Savitch physician is distinguished from a retained expert construction defect claims arising in “common
Defense Counsel: Nanette by the context in which he learns the facts of the area” developments. These multi-family unit
Souhrada of Campbell, case, not the content of his testimony. (Schreiber v. projects seemingly went out of favor in the mid-
Souhrada & Volk Estate of Kiser, supra at pp. 35; Hurtado v. 1990’s with Southern California developers, who
Type of Incident: Construc- Western Medical Center, supra at pp. 1203.) instead focused on more profitable single family
tion Defect Accordingly, as long as the treating physician has home developments. However, now that the
Settlement Demand: $1.9 not gained the information from which her Southern California real estate market is at one of
million formulates his observations or opinions from the its highest levels, more and more common area
Trial Type: Jury party calling him, but rather within the context of projects are being built to meet the demand for
Verdict: Defense (12-0) the treatment he has provided, an expert treating affordable housing. Therefore, while the Calderon
physician may express both fact and opinion Process typically has no impact on single family
testimony. (Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser supra at home developments, there is an entire new
Case Title: Harper v. Hard pp. 35-36.) inventory of projects now being built which will be
Rock Hotel, et. Al. As the court states in Schreiber “[A]s to any impacted by the Calderon Process in the near
Case No.: Clark County opinions formed on the basis of facts indepen- future.
Superior Court, A395208 dently acquired and informed by his training, The intent of the Calderon Process was to
Judge: Honorable Ron skill, and experience.…[a treating expert’s decrease the number of construction defect cases
Paraguirre testimony] may well include opinions regarding filed in the court system, and to therefore signifi-
Plaintiff Counsel: Robert causation and standard of care because such issues cantly reduce the costs to the construction and
A.Winner, Barker, Brown, are inherent in a physician’s work.” (Id. at pp. 39) insurance industry of construction defect claims
Busbie, Chrisman & This revelation indicates that it is imperative that which plagued both industries. However, the
Thomas at the time of the deposition of a treating physi- original Calderon Process mandated only the
Defense Counsel: William P. cian, the party deposing the witness must deter- inclusion of the HOA and the developer. The
Volk and A. David mine the basis upon which the witness has formed subcontractors and design professionals potentially
Mongan of Campbell, any opinions or observations and whether or not exposed to the developers’ formidable indemnity
Souhrada & Volk he or she will be expressing any causation or claims were notably absent, as were those parties’
Type of Incident: Personal standard of care opinions. It should be noted that liability insurance carriers. The absence of these
injury, slip and fall. if, at the time of their deposition, the treating parties from the process doomed the Calderon
Plaintiff walked past “Wet physician in question has not reviewed anything Process from the start because rarely was a
Floor” sign, slipped and other than his own records or independent developer (or its insurance carriers) willing or able
hurt knee. Plaintiff is a research, and a question is posed asking for an to settle with the HOA and then sue the subcon-
hemophiliac who alleged opinion with respect to standard of care or tractors and design professionals for indemnity.
injury created need for causation, the ubiquitous objection “calls for an The recent amendment of Civil Code § 1375 and
genetically engineered expert opinion” is mostly hot air as this objection the enactment of Civil Code § 1375.05, both of
product which facilitates is clearly unsupported by the law (although it may which became effective July 1, 2002, were the
clotting and costs thou- prompt the witness to reconsider offering an Legislature’s answer to these perceived shortcom-
sands of dollars per opinion). ings in the Calderon Process.
ounce. Plaintiff alleged
need of 3-4 doses per Bottom Line with Treating Physicians The insurance carriers potentially included in
week. as Experts: the new Calderon Process are AI carriers, primary
Settlement Demand: $ 1.7 and excess carriers, even primary or excess
1) Put the names and addresses (if possible) of carriers who have taken a position of “no cover-
million plus $400,000 in treating physicians in the expert designation;
attorney fees age.” Within 100 days of the HOA’s first notice to
Settlement Offer: Offer of 2) Take the deposition(s) of any treating the developer, all parties theoretically could be
Judgment for $10,000 physician(s) plaintiff has listed in their designa- joined, a special master selected, and a CMO
Trial Type: Bench tion (if not already done) adopted. The initial 180 day term, combined with
Verdict: Defense 3) Ask the treating physician(s) in their deposi- another added 180 days without unanimous
tions what they have reviewed and whether or not consent of all parties, has remedied the problem of
they have formed an opinion as to standard of only a 90-day term. (Some may argue that the
care, causation or damages. longer term merely provides the developer even
more opportunity to incur recoverable costs and
www.sddl.org
Volume 7 · Issue 3 9
fees without the trades being able to Finally, from both the viewpoint of the insured
make a CCP § 998 Offer.) In any and the carrier, given the punitive effect of a
case, with the punitive provisions party’s failure to “timely” participate, of special
of the newly enacted Civil Code § concern is whether a given carrier is an “Insurer,”
1375.05, the new process promises and thus required to comply with the procedures of
to finally provide a means to the Calderon Process. The description provided in
enforce participation and compli- the statute of the term “Insurer,” whose participa-
ance of all parties concerned. Those tion is required under the Calderon Process is as
punitive measures which can be taken follows:
against a party for it’s failure to timely “insurers, and the insurers of any additional
participate in the Calderon Process include the insured... whose potential responsibility appears
following: on the face of the notice...” Civil Code 1375(e)(2).
- Waiver of right to select the special master or That broad scope is further described as SDDL Officers
challenge its appointment;
“all insurance carriers, whether primary or
- Bound by the amount of any settlement excess and regardless of whether a deductible or President
reached; and self-insured retention applies, whose policies were John R. Clifford
- Waiver of right to conduct or participate in site in effect from the commencement of the construc- Vice-President
testing or inspection. tion of the subject project to the present and which Peter S. Doody
For several months now, my partner, Billie potentially cover the subject claims.” Civil Code
1375(e)(2)(A) Secretary
Jaroszek, and I have been spreading the news Dennis Aiken
about the new Calderon Process to subcontractors, Based on the broad scope of the given definition
carriers and TPA’s in Southern California. The for the term “Insurer,” the term “Insurer” would Treasurer
carriers we have visited have raised concerns appear to include any carrier which has issued a Anna T. Amundson
about how the claims process is to be staffed, and CGL policy to, or an additional insured endorse- Directors
what role counsel will play in the process. This is ment in favor of, any Developer entity, Subcon- Robert E. Gallagher
especially problematic in instances where the tractor or Design Professional, when such policy Clark R. Hudson
carrier views their defense obligation to be imposes upon the carrier a potential duty to defend Billie J. Jaroszek
triggered by the service of a “complaint” against the insured or indemnify the insured or additional Coleen H. Lowe
its insured. In that same vein, the trades raise the insured (AI) for losses resulting from the type of Timothy D. Lucas
concern about their mandatory early involvement, claims of alleged defects identified in the Initial Norman A. Ryan
which will force subcontractors to retain counsel at Notice. This would include primary as well as Christopher J. Welsh
a much earlier time. If a subcontractor cannot be excess policies, and regardless of whether a
released from the process, is not deemed a deductible or self-insured retention applies.
peripheral party, and its insurer will not defend it
without a complaint, how is it to adequately THE BOTTOM LINE
defend itself or participate in any settlement
without depleting its own precious resources?
The yet to be proven benefits of the new process Case Title: Phillip Baum vs.
Thank You
also come with a high cost to the trades. The J. Byron Wood, M.D.
subcontractors must now share the costs of the Case No.: GIN 014084
process, even if they potentially have only a small Judge: Marguerite L.
amount of liability for the claimed defects. While Wagner
they always could seek designation as a “periph- Plaintiff Counsel: Christine
eral party,” they will still be required to participate A. Carlino of Law Office
to some extent and share the costs of the special of Christine A. Carlino
master. The nature and extent of destructive San Diego Defense Lawyers Defense Counsel: Kendra A.
testing also will undoubtedly present an area of Ball of Neil, Dymott,
constant dispute for the trades. Until now, the would like to thank Perkins, Brown & Frank
Type of Incident:
decision by the trades to conduct destructive Brenda Peterson Laparoscopic hernia
testing is based entirely on the nature and extent of
the testing done by the plaintiff and the developer. of Peterson & Associates repair with alleged injury
Usually, especially with the strict view on extrapo- to the testicle.
for sponsoring our Settlement Demand:
lation of defects now being adopted by the trial
$100,000.00
courts, the less destructive testing conducted, the Brown Bag Luncheon programs
better the trades’ position may be in subsequent Settlement Offer: Waiver of
litigation. However, the trade’s failure to partici- held in her offices at: costs
pate in destructive testing during the Calderon Trial Type: Medical Mal-
Process now may operate to waive that party’s practice
right to conduct testing after post-Calderon Trial Length: 5 day
530 “B” Street · Suite 350 Verdict: Defense
litigation commences, so the trades, their counsel,
and their insurers will be faced with a difficult San Diego · CA · 92101 · 619.260.1069
question on how to proceed in any given case.
www.sddl.org
10 Volume 7 · Issue 3
It is plainly evident that an Insurer with a valid
Membership policy exclusion would be exempt from participat-
San Diego Defense Lawyers Mock Trial
Information ing in the Calderon Process once it received the
Respondent’s Notice. The above clause “all Competition Udate
insurance carriers ... whose policies ... potentially Plans for this year’s Mock Trial Competi-
Membership is open to cover the subject claims” leaves a large loophole tion are moving full speed ahead! At this
any attorney who is prima- in terms of whether a liability carrier needs to time we have 16 teams confirmed from the
rily engaged in the defense participate. In the final analysis, should the carrier following schools:
of civil litigants. Member- choose to rely on an untested Montrose-type of
ship dues are: $ 90 for exclusion or a “prior known loss” exclusion, it Western State University College of Law
attorneys in practice less does so at its own peril if the exclusion ultimately Hastings Law School
than one year and $120 for is found to not apply. The potential bad faith issues University of San Diego School of Law
attorneys in practice more presented promise to open an entire new area of
than one year. Applications appellate review. Whittier Law School
are available on the web at In conclusion, over 60 days after its effective Pepperdine University School of Law
www.sddl.org. date of July 1, 2002, few if any construction defect McGeorge School of Law
claims have been brought forward under the new Fordham University School of Law
Calderon Process. It may be that this is just the
“calm before the storm,” but the more likely Chapman University School of Law
reason is that plaintiffs’ and developers’ counsel Thomas Jefferson School of Law
are still struggling with just how to most effi- The competition will be held Thursday
ciently invoke the new process. In the final October 24th and Friday the 25th at the
analysis, while the updated Calderon Process does downtown courtrooms with the finals being
address many of the perceived problems of the held at California Western School of Law on
earlier version, new questions arise concerning its Saturday the 26th. This year’s case will be
effect on the newly included parties and their particularly interesting as it will involve
insurance carriers. The next year or so should tell legal issues arising from a bar fight! Please
us whether or not we have simply traded one set of notify Pete Doody at doody@higgslaw.com if
problems for another, even thornier set of prob- you are available to participate as a judge for
lems yet to come. this competition.
Matt Beran of USD’s Winning Mock Trial Team
Presents Evidence at the 2001 SDDL Mock Trial Competition
THE UPDATE is published for
the mutual benefit of the SDDL
membership, a non-profit
association composed of defense
attorneys, judges and persons allied
with the profession as suppliers of
goods or services.
Views and opinions expressed in
THE UPDATE are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of
SDDL. Products and services
advertised are paid adver tisements
and not endorsed by SDDL.
We welcome the submission of
articles by our members on topics of
general interest to our membership.
Please submit material to Clark R.
Hudson at Neil, Dymott, Perkins,
Brown & Frank, 1010 Second
Avenue, Suite 2500, San Diego, CA
92101. Phone: 619- 238-1712,
Fax: 619- 238-1562,
E-mail: chudson@neil-dymott.com.
www.sddl.org
Volume 7 · Issue 3 11
www.sddl.org
12 Volume 7 · Issue 3
LEGAL REPROGRAPHICS INC.
FAST • Q UALITY S ERVICE • DAY OR NI G H T
P H O T O C O P Y I N G • D O C U M E N T I M A G I N G • G R A P H I C D E S I G N
REPROGRAPHICS INC.
Legal Reprographics Inc. has successfully committed itself to remain the leading
photocopying, document imaging and graphic design service bureau for the legal
industry in San Diego. We have dedicated our resources in management, sales and
production to provide the best quality product and service in a timely manner to our
clients. Experience the difference, call us today.
110 West C Street
Suite 1600
San Diego
California
92101
phone: 619.234.0660
facsimile: 619.234.0668
Learn More about us at sales@legalrepro.com
www.legalrepro.com
www.sddl.org
