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
