Just Verdicts

Most cases are decided before they're filed. Working from that premise, host Brendan Lupetin builds a case-selection method around Berkshire Hathaway partner Charlie Munger's principle of inversion: "invert, always invert." Before falling in love with a promising file, Brendan argues, you should first figure out how you would lose it. He walks through the four questions he asks of every case, and confesses his rookie failure of not knowing what jury instructions even were — a mistake that taught him to review and write out those instructions before he ever drafts a complaint, then build the entire case around them. Figure out how you lose, Brendan says, and you will know how to win.Episode PreviewBrendan opens with attorney David S. Casey's lesson from Trials and Triumphs: Lessons from Legal Giants: the most important part of any case is the detailed preparation done before you file it.Brendan borrows Charlie Munger's two-word mantra — "invert, always invert" — and applies it to case selection.Your first instinct on a promising case is to picture the verdict. Brendan explains why that rush of excitement is the trap itself, and how falling in love with a case subtly bends every fact toward the answer you already want.Every case hides landmines. Brendan reveals the four-question test he runs on each one before he'll commit years of his life and his firm's money to a single file.Brendan shares his rookie failure coming fresh out of law school, where he had to ask opposing counsel to explain what jury instructions were in his first-ever jury trial.Learn More and Connect☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeReady to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

The single biggest driver of a trucking verdict isn't always the injury — it's the "piss-off factor." Clancy Boylan, managing partner of Morgan & Morgan's New Jersey and Philadelphia offices, explains how a defense that refused to accept responsibility fueled a $26 million verdict in a case with only non-operative spine injuries and a mild TBI. Host Brendan Lupetin digs into the 2019 Route 30 crash in Lancaster, the snowy-conditions speeding violations under FMCSR 392.14, the deposition PowerPoint that trapped the driver and safety officer, and the bifurcated trial that produced a $25 million punitive award against the company. Clancy shares how jury anger and an unanswered "I'm sorry" shaped an unforgettable win.Learn More and Connect☑️ Clancy Boylan | LinkedIn☑️ Morgan & Morgan | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter/X | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewClancy Boylan built Morgan & Morgan's New Jersey and Philadelphia region from a one-man operation into roughly 30 attorneys and 130–140 total staff in about five and a half years.In the 2019 Clemens crash, an old-school driver who was fully off Route 30 with his four-ways on was rear-ended just after midnight by an Ecore tractor trailer.The client's injuries were modest—neck and back herniations and post-concussive symptoms, with no surgery—which makes the size of the verdict all the more striking.Snowy, icy conditions triggered FMCSR 392.14's "extreme caution" duty; the driver was going about 63 in a 55 zone when he should have been closer to 32–33.Rather than admit fault in a clear rear-end case, the defense blamed the parked client for a shoulder-parking violation—supercharging the "piss-off factor.”A bifurcated verdict delivered $1.2 million in compensatory damages—less than the pre-trial offer the client turned down—plus $25 million in punitive damages against the company.Clancy says the verdict rewired his strategy: on well-funded trucking defendants, his settlement demands now run sky-high to reflect uninsurable punitive exposure.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

A near-billion dollar Philadelphia verdict in October came down to a seatbelt engineered to add four inches of slack when only three inches separated Ru Amagasu's head from the roof. Houston trial lawyer Wes Ball of Farrar & Ball explains how his firm got there — and why he'd say the trials are picked for them rather than the reverse. Host Brendan Lupetin asks how Wes and partner Kyle built the practice with no mentors at all. Wes lays out the three kinds of focus groups his firm runs, why Philadelphia jury selection is about retention rather than strikes for cause, and why his opening rules are built to force the defense to answer before they stand up.Learn More and Connect☑️ Wesley Ball☑️ Farrar & Ball LLP☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewWes and his law school friend Kyle opened their own firm in their late 20s, about three and a half years out of law school, with no mentor in the next room to learn from.Their training was entirely self-built — book after book, cross-examination after cross-examination, every idea criticized and critiqued between the two of them, then tested by trying small cases.In the toe case in Polk County, Iowa, they refused the settlement money on the table because it would never have moved their client, Yvonne To, out of a nursing home equipped for the elderly rather than a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic.Before the Philadelphia trial, the team ran a full focus group of roughly 30 people, recalculated their message, ran a second focus group, and then layered jury analytics on top.The Amagasu case turned on a seatbelt rip stitch designed to add four inches of slack when only three inches separated Ru Amagasu's head from the roof of the car.Mitsubishi's own owner's manual stated that a belt whose rip stitching had deployed even slightly was no good and had to be replaced.Jury selection in the Philadelphia trial took about four hours, and Wes didn't pick the jury himself — Kyle did, with a Philadelphia lawyer who had spent years aiding jury selection in that courthouse.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

A 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in favor of injured plaintiffs — against a conservative court, with the Trump administration's Solicitor General arguing the other side. That's what Rena Leizerman and her firm pulled off in Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson. Rena, a partner at The Law Firm for Truck Safety and one of the country's foremost architects of freight broker liability law, joins host Brendan Lupetin to break down the 15-year battle that culminated in a landmark ruling affirming plaintiffs' right to sue freight brokers for negligent carrier selection. The episode covers the legal mechanics of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (FAAAA) safety exception, the strategic decision to frame the case around safety — not plaintiff's rights — and recruit conservative Supreme Court heavyweight Paul Clement, and what trucking lawyers must do now that the preemption fight is finally over. Learn More and Connect☑️ Rena Leizerman | LinkedIn☑️ The Law Firm for Truck Safety | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube ☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewFreight brokers like C.H. Robinson used a 1970s economic deregulation statute — the FAAAA — to argue that state tort claims for negligent carrier selection were preempted by federal law, threatening the ability of injured plaintiffs to go after brokers at all. Rena's firm had been winning this argument in lower courts roughly 70–80% of the time, but the case that became Montgomery arose from a Seventh Circuit loss, and client Sean Montgomery — a truck driver who suffered a below-knee amputation after a Carib Transport truck ran him off the road — chose to appeal all the way. The decision to take the case to the Supreme Court was as much an ethical question as a legal one: Rena had to weigh her duty to Montgomery against the risk that a loss could wipe out freight broker claims for plaintiffs across the country. To win before a conservative court, Rena deliberately framed the case around safety and plain statutory construction — not plaintiff's rights — and recruited former Solicitor General Paul Clement, widely regarded as the LeBron James of Supreme Court advocates, to argue the case.Twenty-eight states plus D.C. — including both California and Texas — filed amicus briefs supporting Rena's position, while C.H. Robinson's side managed to attract only two; the justices noted the unusual bipartisan alignment during oral argument. The Trump administration's Solicitor General filed on the side of C.H. Robinson just days before oral argument, a move Rena describes as nearly devastating — until the court ruled 9-0 in her favor anyway. With the preemption battle now resolved, Rena walks trucking lawyers through the new frontier: building a negligent selection case on the merits, including the discovery, expert, and causation requirements that will define future litigation. Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods

The "explainer-in-chief" doesn't try to out-medicine the defense experts — he makes the complicated simple, and lets the jury decide. That philosophy drove a $39 million birth injury verdict for Thomas Greer of Greer Injury Lawyers, a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates whose family legacy of law spans three generations. Host Brendan Lupetin sits down with Thomas to break down a case involving a healthy first-time mother whose son was born septic after physicians missed critical warning signs during a prolonged labor. The jury awarded $27 million in non-economic damages alone — $12 million more than Thomas asked for. Thomas walks through his “pay attention, recognize and respond” opening framework, the two client stories that outperformed every expert on damages, and his tactic of cross-examining the defendant about the defense's own upcoming expert to poison that witness before he ever took the stand.Learn More and Connect☑️ Thomas Greer | LinkedIn☑️ Greer Injury Lawyers | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | X | YouTube☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode PreviewThomas Greer of Greer Injury Lawyers is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates — one of the top 100 trial lawyers in the country — who comes from a three-generation legal family in Dunlap, Tennessee, where his grandfather served as a circuit court judge and his father tried over a hundred jury trials.The case, Berto v. UT Regional One Physicians, involved a healthy first-time mother whose baby was born septic after a prolonged labor during which physicians failed to recognize warning signs and act; the child, now nine, suffered intellectual disability and left-side impairment following a stroke at 10 months.Greer built his opening around two standards of care — "pay attention" and "recognize and respond" — and delivered the case narrative in layers, telling the story in different ways to give the jury the repetition they needed without boring them.Two small, human stories about the child — failing to notice his Chuck E. Cheese card had run out after an hour, and crying every time the family dog was taken to be groomed because he couldn't understand the dog would come back — proved more powerful to the jury than any expert testimony on the damages.Greer used a "cross-by-proxy" tactic, questioning the defendant doctor about the defense's own upcoming expert to poison that witness's credibility before he ever took the stand.In rebuttal closing, Greer incorporated a conch shell he had found on a Memphis sidewalk during the trial, using it as a live metaphor for the case: holding the truth up to the jury's ear and acknowledging that, like the shell, Cordell "wasn't supposed to be like this.”The jury awarded $8.2 million for the life care plan, $3.8 million in economic damages, and $27 million in non-economic damages — exceeding Greer's ask of $15 million for non-economics — for a total verdict of approximately $39 million.Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.Produced and Powered by LawPods