TLC student rediscovers his passion for practicing law

Attendee of TLC's "Experience The Magic" Seminar in June 2013:

"I just tried my second jury trial since attending the 1-week program at the Trial Lawyers College last summer.  The cases were small so this is not a brag post!  But I put to use what I learned and I had both plaintiffs "re-enact" the crash and I saw that the jury was totally engaged.  The jury took notes and asked questions, which was the first time I experienced the jury asking me questions.

I came to Wyoming last June with little spirit, and too many losses.  In my head, I know that the facts are the facts, and we really don't get to try our good cases because all of those settle.  Still, in my heart, I always second-guessed myself.  I felt a difference in myself after I attended this program and that has translated into more confidence -- and success in the courtroom!  I received the best compliment I could imagine today from a couple of jurors who told me that they appreciated my passion.  It was very empowering to hear that my passion for what I do is coming across to jurors as a real emotion.  It finally feels natural and real and I am thrilled to try cases again -- a feeling I haven't had for a long time.  Please share my gratitude with the staff from this summer, and my thanks for all that the College has done for me and my clients."       

A Victory for Sisters

by Greg Reeves

I represent June and Carolyn. Sisters. Salt of the earth people. Quiet. Reserved. They had married, worked, raised children, buried family, and they found themselves at 76 and 79 years of age, living near to each other and living alone.  

Carolyn’s daughter was driving when a driver ran a red light. The impact spun their truck around 2 or 3 times. Instead of dinner, they were taken to a hospital, checked out, treated, and released.

The other driver denied liability, typical in Alabama, a contributory negligence state. The only independent eyewitness was very nervous, but, critical for us, as she said my clients had the green arrow.

I reviewed the medical records: pain, bruising, tests, doctor appointments.  Eventually, my clients improved. Carolyn had suffered a stroke years ago and had walked with a cane, ever since. But, June had only started to use a cane after the wreck.  

I saw no benefit to deposing a doctor or by introducing the medical records. The subrogation was $1,700 and $185, so the medical bills would have been pointless.

Before June and Carolyn came to see me they were offered somewhere around $1,200 each. This offer increased to $15,000.00 each before trial. We declined the offer.

I asked them to not use their canes in front of the jury. I escorted them to the witness stand. The only damage claim was for pain and suffering. Number of plaintiffs’ exhibits offered: zero. Not even a photograph or a diagram.  

The task of valuing pain is difficult. I admitted this to the jury. I asked them to consider $75,000, each, as an appropriate amount. I liked my clients. I believed in them. I felt that we, as lawyers, tend to complicate our cases. I wanted this case to be simple, basic and honest: my clients, their pain, and a request that the jurors agree to value pain.

We started the trial that Wednesday morning and had a verdict that afternoon:  $20,000 for Carolyn and $40,000 for June. This was double the total amount that had been offered by the insurance company.

TLC Faculty Member Antonio Ponvert ('04) obtains justice for his client

... And a $9.3 million verdict to boot!

Antonio recalled:

This particular case involved 66-year-old B. L., who went into the hospital with a urinary tract infection, was overdosed with a blood thinner, suffered a massive abdominal bleed, died and was revived. After being revived, B.L. underwent three surgeries to find and repair the bleed, contracting MRSA osteomyelitis (bone infection) in her clavicle. She had two surgeries on the abscess and a third surgery to remove part of her clavicle bone, after which she contracted C-Diff (another bacterial infection) that caused very uncomfortable intestinal complications.  She left the hospital 75 days later wheelchair bound and in a terribly deconditioned state.  Four years later, the abdominal incision from the three surgeries herniated, and the entire contents of her abdomen (her bowels, intestines, some organs) pushed through the abdominal wall to sit just under her skin in a large mound. 

Throughout it all, she remained a proud and dignified lady, with a sense of humor, life-affirming attitude, and a strong will to survive.  

B.L. had been through several lawyers before getting to my law firm.  She was universally disliked and considered off-putting, pushy and entitled.  I was brought into the case a month before trial, just in time to pick the jury and to take all of the damages witnesses and one of the defense experts.  Because of my TLC training, I spent about 20 hours with her in the weeks before trial, establishing a trusting relationship that allowed her to let down her guard and to reveal her true self.  

The best example of this concerned her clothing and appearance.  She dressed very well and appeared to be affluent.  She had her hair coiffed, wore expensive looking jewelry and makeup, and carried herself with a dignified (some might say haughty) air.  Her appearance turned many people off, and all of the lawyers before me insisted that she dress down for trial.  They wanted to turn her into someone she is not.  Honestly, that was my initial reaction and impulse too.  But after spending a lot of time with her, I learned the reason that she dresses and carries herself this way.  This knowledge led to some key testimony, an intensely emotional and compelling moment in the trial when her frustration, pain, embarrassment and suffering was displayed in an honest, totally raw way, causing the jury began to identify with her.  

It was an honor to represent her.

A Tribute to Danny Rodriguez

TLC Methods - Helping with life, not just the courtroom

by Rhonda Bruner - Cullman, AL - July 2011 Grad

Since I last saw Laurie at the 2012 Death Penalty Course, quite a lot has changed. I am now practicing law only sparingly. This past Thanksgiving my Mom was diagnosed with Stage IV Ovarian Cancer and stayed in the hospital until mid-February. Right before she came home, my Dad went for a routine check up, at which time his doctor found a tumor on his stomach. He was later diagnosed with late stage Gastric Cancer. Needless to say, my priorities changed. I moved out to the farm with them, closed and liquidated our family business, and have considerably scaled back my practice.

You know, God really does have a plan for my success and not my destruction. When I came to the ranch in 2011, that was timed by God. Twice before, I had downloaded the application, prayed about it, but did not apply. I needed to learn the TLC method. And I needed to learn how to use it. I also needed to learn how to cope with the method during times of "life or death". So, I came back for the Death Penalty course. Honestly, those were the best decisions ever made!

Both of my parents are still with us, defying all of the odds against their survival. Cancer is ugly. Chemotherapy stinks, especially when it is a double dose. I have had to use every psychodramatic technique I learned at the ranch. Doctors are not used to being questioned about the courses of treatment they choose for their patients. At least five of them now understand how important it is to really care about their patients and their families. And that has made all the difference.

What students learn at TLC is more than just ways to improve their practices. It is truly life changing. I encourage them all to take advantage of the glory of every single sunrise, as they usher in new hope for every day. I will come back to the ranch. For now, I will enjoy the time I have with family and friends and all 10 of my fur-kids (3 dogs and 7 horses).

Keep up the good work, Warriors!

The Last Chapter in the Crowley Prison Riot Litigation

by Bill Trine

The Fall 2012 issue of The Warrior magazine (pages 10-14) included an article on the litigation surrounding The Crowley Prison Riot and the evils of the private prison system.  I described the consolidated individual lawsuits brought by over 200 inmates who were non-participant victims of the Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF) prison riot in July 2004. The lawsuits were finally settled on an individual basis two weeks before the scheduled 25-week trial was to commence on March 11, 2013 against Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private “for profit” operator of prisons in the United States.

Many of you followed this litigation with some interest – perhaps because of the length and complexity. The lawsuits were filed individually (not as a class action) against CCA and individual employees, alleging State tort claims. We were prohibited from pursuing §1983 claims in State or Federal court, because none of the inmates had complied with the PLRA notice requirements and their cases would have been dismissed. Class action certification was highly unlikely and also not desirable. Colorado “tort reform” greatly restricted damages with abolition of joint and several liability, caps on non-economic and punitive damages, and permitting CCA to designate the rioters as nonparties at fault to diminish or eliminate any damage award. We claimed that CCA’s negligence was a cause of the riot.

So, with that background, we were in the appellate courts five times resulting in two published opinions; defended the depositions of 126 inmate/clients; took the depositions of 30 CCA employees; and reviewed over 150,000 pages of documents produced by CCA, the Colorado Department of Corrections and the Inspector General. Multiple motions were filed resulting in three interlocutory appeals, as well as 13 motions in limini filed shortly before trial. But how did we start with nearly 240 plaintiffs and eight years later end up with only 193 who received settlements? During those years several clients died; some were released and became homeless, and could not be located; and some did not respond to discovery requests or court orders and were dismissed. Only non-economic damages were claimed and those damages do not survive death in Colorado.

The Settlement Process

An early settlement of individual cases was impossible. CCA filed motions to dismiss all cases, claiming that the plaintiffs were required by Colorado law to exhaust remedies before filing suit. The trial court granted the motions, dismissing all cases, and was then reversed by the appellate court – which made new law favorable to prisoners’ rights; however, this delayed the litigation for two years. After preliminary discovery, I evaluated each clients non-economic damages consisting of fear, pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc. There were no viable economic claims for lost wages or medical expenses. Individual demands were then made for settlement in varying amounts on condition that there would be no confidentiality agreement.

CCA’s response was the filing of formal offers of settlement under the rules for $250.00 per inmate, conditioned on a confidentiality agreement. That ended negotiations until all formal discovery was completed years later and after numerous motions for partial summary judgment had been ruled upon as well as other motions that were subject to interlocutory appeals. The critical court rulings that finally precipitated settlement were several evidentiary rulings adverse to CCA resulting in dismissal of CCA’s counterclaims, affirmative defenses, and designation of non-parties. But unfortunately, the court ruling that forced the plaintiffs into settlement was the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for separate trials in groups of 10 and the appellate court’s refusal to intervene.

Without separate trials, all 193 plaintiffs were scheduled for a 25-week jury trial. The barriers to proceeding in that fashion became insurmountable. First and foremost, it was virtually impossible for a jury to remember the damage testimony and render individual verdicts for each plaintiff. It was apparent that the trial would end in a mistrial, hung jury, or inconsistent verdicts, followed by one or more additional trials and appeals. With every year of delay, we were losing an increasing number of clients who would not receive justice.

In addition, as we prepared for trial, many of the clients who had been released from prison were scattered in several states, some with jobs and many on parole, who could not get employers or parole officers’ permission to travel to court to testify. Without testimony, their cases would be dismissed. As plaintiffs, the court would not permit telephone testimony over CCA’s objection. They would have to testify in person. Those still incarcerated could testify by telephone or video conference, but only if the prison would permit it. The Washington prisons said no. Therefore, we were making arrangements to bring suit in the state of Washington to compel their prison system to permit such testimony. The Colorado court had no jurisdiction to do so. The cases of those who failed to testify would be dismissed.

CCA decided to settle, but wanted to make a lump sum offer, and not individual offers to each plaintiff. We could not ethically do so. We made individual demands, again conditioned on no confidentiality agreement. The state of Colorado appointed one of its senior retired settlement judges to mediate. Finally, CCA made individual offers and after several rounds of negotiations, all 193 cases were settled individually for amounts varying from a low of $1,500 to a high of $17,000 for a total of about $600,000.

In my opinion, the settlements were totally inadequate, but necessary. We had exhausted our attempts to get appellate intervention for separate trials and separate trials were necessary to obtain a semblance of justice. Perhaps justice could have ultimately been obtained for a shrinking number of clients in future years after additional trials and appeals, but the prospects were dismal.

When the trial date was vacated pending completion of the settlements, my wife asked me how I felt. My response: “ I feel relieved and depressed. I feel like a pregnant elephant that has just given birth to a mouse.” My last hurrah was a moan.

The only ray of sunshine in this epic eight year battle was the opportunity to work with my daughter, Cheryl, whose contributions were enormous. We also received some satisfaction from the many clients who expressed delight and gratitude with their settlements -- particularly those who are now homeless.

How Justice Was Served

Ken Turek attended TLC in 1998 and has been on the TLC Faculty since 1999.  Earlier this year, TLC alum Howard Kitay asked Ken to help on the case of Dan Bean, a 42-year-old man who was rear-ended at a light. After the collision, Dan was treated intermittently for neck pain for two and a half years, but was then struck again in a more violent rear-end collision. Within a year he underwent a C3-4 neck fusion and recovered very well. The second collision had been earlier settled for $15,000 policy limits and the case was going to trial against the first driver in a couple months. The experts disagreed on what injuries were caused by the crashes but both sides saw no future medicals or loss of earnings. The first driver’s counsel offered $70,000 and never went higher.

Ken began his work by spending time with Dan and his doctors, family and friends in an effort to understand Dan and how the injury affected him. In preparing for trial, fellow TLC Faculty Member Ben Bunn (TLC ’97) helped Ken by conducting a session for Ken to explore his own fears of inadequacy and loss as well as to discover Dan’s story. Ken continued to work with Dan until he was comfortable reversing into him to truly experience Dan’s fears of being less valuable in the workplace, being less able to take care of his aging mother and losing the camaraderie he had through participating in extreme sports with lifelong friends.

Ken also did his medical homework and had Ben critique a first run-through of his opening.

“I was acting like a lawyer, not a person, and didn’t tell the story very well, so we worked on it and it got better,” Ken says.

He and his co-counsel Vickie Ross then spent the four Saturday mornings before trial with focus groups working on discovering the story and running through Voir Dire, Opening and Direct and Cross of Dan.

During trial, Ken showed his “mine” first in Voir Dire on personal injury cases and money, pain and suffering damages and feeling for a driver who makes a mistake. His Opening told a story this time, using scene setting, the present tense and all five senses. Direct of Dan and others took the jury to treatment rooms, sport fields, job sites and to Dan alone at home. Ken’s crosses came in part from the third chair, and in Closing Ken stepped into first person as Dan, the other driver and Dan’s spine.

The jury was out a day after a five-day trial, found liability and awarded Dan $1,271,594 ($126,594 in past medical expenses and $1,145,000 in pain and suffering, of which $850,000 was for future damages). The verdict was greater than Howard’s earlier statutory demand, so with costs and prejudgment interest, the result was over $1.4 million.

Ken says, “This was a pure TLC win.”

Ben summed it up, saying, “Everyone should know Ken immersed himself into Dan Bean’s life in an amazing and powerful way. Using TLC methods requires extreme commitment, dedication and love. Ken was a model for all these things. As a result, Dan grew to trust Ken and Vickie and together they were able to trust this jury. The jury cared about Dan and Ken and wanted to do the right thing. It was really beautiful.”