0:04
parachute Council means jumping into a

0:07
case

0:08
that’s a problem that’s either set for

0:10
trial mediation or arbitration usually

0:13
imminently

0:19
imminent can be a trial date either a

0:22
week or even days away from my initial

0:25
assignment

0:30
I’ve been trying cases for 30 years my

0:33
initial trial experience came as an

0:35
assistant district attorney in San

0:37
Francisco I could literally be walking

0:39
out of the building to go to lunch and

0:41
I’d be handed a file and told I’d be

0:43
picking a jury that afternoon that’s a

0:46
skill either you have and improve upon

0:48
or you don’t have it and you find

0:50
another line of work now I’ve developed

0:53
that ability and brought it to civil

0:55
litigation if I know a client I know

0:57
their products and their activities I

0:59
can jump into a case with a moment’s

1:01
notice

1:06
most of the cases that I handle as

1:09
parachute Council don’t go to verdict I

1:12
take a fresh look at the case as it sits

1:14
right now with no ownership history with

1:17
regard to how it has worked up and find

1:19
the best outcome for my client usually

1:22
they resolve

1:28
I’ve been called to jump into cases as

1:30
parachute Council in Philadelphia

1:32
Pennsylvania New York City Madison

1:35
County Illinois Honolulu Hawaii Alameda

1:39
County in Los Angeles California they

1:42
sound like they’re diverse but there is

1:44
a common theme among all of them they’re

1:46
known as judicial hellholes from the

1:48
defense point of view

1:54
when I jump into a case’s parachute

1:56
Council I have no ownership over how the

1:59
case was prepared I look at it

2:01
objectively as it is when I entered the

2:04
case in some cases I have to make a

2:07
drastic change in the underlying defense

2:10
strategy for example in one case it was

2:13
worked up as defense lawyers normally do

2:15
they deny liability and they try to

2:18
dispute the damages but the client’s

2:20
conduct was so bad that there was no way

2:23
to really defend its conduct it was

2:27
better to admit liability by admitting

2:29
liability it excluded evidence of

2:31
conduct and the conduct would have been

2:33
a multiplier in terms of Damages in

2:36
another case defense Counsel had

2:38
retained the normal experts again to

2:41
dispute liability but the experts didn’t

2:44
fit the case we were actually better

2:46
using the plaintiffs experts against

2:49
them rather than and using the retained

2:52
defense experts the retained defense

2:54
experts would have given up portions of

2:57
the defense so we excused those experts

3:00
doing that led to resolution of the case