The Trial Lawyer's Handbook

In the United States, a trial by jury is a familiar cornerstone of the justice process. In Uzbekistan, however, trials unfold in a different way. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small shares his experience teaching the U.S. trial system in Uzbekistan by walking participants through the fictitious State v. Faulkner case as part of his pro bono work.While working with Uzbek lawyers and judges, Mr. Small broke down how jurors are selected in the U.S., the role they play and how the judge functions as a neutral referee between the defense and prosecution. Through a mock trial, he demonstrated the U.S. system in action, ultimately resulting in a "not guilty" verdict – nearly unheard of in Uzbekistan's legal environment at the time.Listen to the full episode to hear his reflections, key takeaways and the differences between the two countries' judicial systems.

For trial lawyers, developing core themes is essential to building a persuasive case. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small recounts his pro bono work in Uzbekistan, where he helped educate Uzbek lawyers and judges about the U.S. adversarial justice system. Mr. Small explains how he used the fictional murder case State v. Faulkner to teach participants the importance of theme development and demonstrate how both the prosecution and defense can construct plausible narratives from the same set of facts. After extensive discussion and practice, the Uzbek lawyers embraced the process, delivering thoughtful and compelling arguments from each side. Mr. Small concludes that the experience underscores a broader point: The adversarial system demands rigor, but it offers fairness through demanding advocates to find and develop connections that together tell a compelling, yet plausible, story.

In trial work, courage often means pressing forward even when the outcome is uncertain. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues his discussion of the mock case State v. Faulkner and explains how he used it in his pro bono work in Uzbekistan. Referencing themes from his book for the American Bar Association Lessons Learned from a Life on Trial, Mr. Small reflects on cases with significant legal obstacles and why believing in the right result can justify taking risks. He describes how the mock trial revealed deep cultural differences in legal systems, including the Uzbek participants' resistance to trying a case they might lose and their unfamiliarity with direct and cross-examination. Mr. Small recounts a pivotal moment when one of the defense lawyers questioned whether it was even possible in her country to challenge a government witness and describes how the workshop offered a glimpse of what a balanced adversarial system could look like. He closes by sharing that a decade later Uzbekistan amended its constitution to include the right to cross-examine witnesses, showing that meaningful change can begin with small steps.

What happens when an American trial lawyer carries the principles of justice halfway around the world? Litigation attorney Dan Small recounts his pro bono journey to Uzbekistan, where he worked with lawyers and judges seeking to reform a judicial system still shaped by former Soviet Union-era standards that gave judges most of the power. Using the fictional murder case State v. Faulkner as a teaching tool, he helped introduce the fundamentals of the adversarial process – cross-examination, competing narratives and rigorous truth-testing – to a legal culture with little experience in two-sided trials. The result is a compelling look at how one mock case became part of a much larger effort to open minds, challenge assumptions and support the slow yet rewarding work of judicial reform.

Trials can be stressful for attorneys, but the experience can be even more overwhelming for clients. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small explores how to navigate client relationships through the lens of a high‑profile corruption case he handled involving a former state governor.Mr. Small reflects on the ups and downs of the relationship with his client. Sometimes they argued or disagreed, but they also shared meals and attended events together to preserve a sense of normalcy amid the chaos of the trial process. This episode offers an inside look at the challenges he faced, the pressures of the case and the human side of working closely with a client under immense scrutiny.

Trials are human and thus imperfect, and sometimes those inherent imperfections can tilt the playing field before the jury ever hears the full story. Continuing his behind-the-scenes account of defending former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, litigation attorney Dan Small shares what happens when a case lands in front of a judge with a long memory and an even longer grudge. With Louisiana's tight-knit political world making neutrality hard to find, the defense team faced an extremely long uphill battle, as seemingly small rulings and daily setbacks compounded over nearly three months in court. However, Mr. Small emphasizes, the true lesson for trial lawyers is to remain prepared to vigorously advocate for their clients' interests, also making sure to keep a client's spirits up even when fairness seems impossible to obtain. As he says, "buckle up and keep playing anyway" and continue trying the case.

In a high-profile case, if you do not fill the silence, someone else will. In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues discussing his representation of former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards and the challenge of managing public opinion in a case that drew intense media attention. Mr. Small explains how his arrival from Boston quickly became a story of its own, fueling speculation that he had been hired to negotiate a secret deal. He recounts how, without clear information, rumors escalated into a televised narrative involving then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Mr. Small describes a courthouse press moment where Edwards used humor and timing to debunk the false storyline, and he closes with a reminder that in major cases, even offhand moments can be observed and turned into headlines.

Sometimes, cases arrive when you least expect them. For litigation attorney Dan Small, one such moment involved stepping into an already high‑profile federal matter. In the latest episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, he recounts being brought in from Massachusetts to Louisiana to represent former Gov. Edwin Edwards in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Small shares the background of the case and how it ultimately landed on his desk, offering an inside look at a complex legal challenge.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small continues the story of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) civil case against internet game company SG Limited, recounting how an initial courtroom win was undone when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the lower court decision against a motion to dismiss. Mr. Small uses this moment to explain the critical difference between "losing" narrow legal rulings and prevailing in the broader narrative, showing how the appellate court's own words validated SG's central theme: no reasonable player could have believed the game's "stocks" were real or profits guaranteed. He then walks through how that story powered settlement negotiations, culminating in a very unlikely outcome: return of most of the frozen funds, a face-saving escrow proposal for any truly misled "victims."

What happens when the government treats online "play money" like real securities?In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small recounts a civil enforcement action brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against SG Limited, an early internet stock market game created by programmers overseas that built a large U.S. player base. He explains the SEC's attempt to characterize the game's virtual shares as unregistered securities and resulting allegations that the platform functioned as a Ponzi scheme, leading to a court-ordered freeze of approximately $5.5 million. Mr. Small walks through SG Limited's defense and the strategic choice to keep the case grounded in a clear, common-sense narrative, emphasizing that the platform presented itself as entertainment, not an investment. The episode spotlights the power of storytelling in trial advocacy, illustrated by how the district court responded to SG Limited's arguments in ultimately dismissing the SEC's case.Much like video games have a sequel, however, the story does not end there. In the next episode, Mr. Small continues the narrative at the appellate level.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small delves deeper into the naval architect negligence case introduced in the previous episode. During the trial, the two experts disagreed, resulting in a credibility contest. Mr. Small shares the strategy he used to successfully cross-examine the other side's expert witness. In technical cases such as this one, it is your responsibility as the trial lawyer to learn the specifics of the case. By mastering the technical details himself, rather than relying solely on his team and client, Mr. Small was able to go toe-to-toe with the plaintiff's expert during cross-examination, a key factor in ultimately winning the case.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small introduces a new case that illustrates a new strategy for trial. Naval architect Jack Gilbert was accused of selling a boat with stability issues and was sued by the owner of the 93-foot fishing vessel for negligence in federal court in Portland, Maine. Mr. Small provides an overview of the case and the technical details underlying it before describing the central role his "core themes" played at trial as he presented his arguments before the jury.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small continues the discussion of U.S. v. Rendle and explains why reading the room matters in court. Mr. Small shows how judges, juries and the pace of a trial should guide your choices across all aspects of the proceeding, not just your arguments. He shares a Boston case where a defense lawyer's approach at sentencing hurt the client, and a moment in U.S. v. Rendle when a lengthy cross-examination allowed the government to respond with a strong redirect. This episode offers clear lessons on timing, tone, selecting the right witness, when to object and how courtroom dynamics can lead to plea deals.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small uses the white-collar corruption case of United States v. Rendle and his experience before the famously pro-defense Judge Joseph Tauro to explore the central role of respect in the courtroom. Drawing on stories from his time as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Small explains how rigorous preparation and sound judgment – especially knowing when to push hard and when to "move on" – helped him earn the respect of a judge many colleagues feared. Mr. Small underscores why neither constant combativeness nor habitual capitulation works, how to "pick your battles" in motions and arguments, and why genuine respect must extend beyond the bench to clerks, court staff and everyone in the courthouse.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small underscores the importance of understanding the media as a trial attorney. He recounts lessons learned from a high-profile government corruption case in Boston, where he interacted with reporters from two competing newspapers. As he explains, he inadvertently gave an exclusive quote to one of the journalists, blindsiding and angering the other news outlet. Mr. Small's message: A trial attorney's job is to address the court and inform the press, without favoring one publication over another.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small recounts attempting to prosecute a New England mob boss and the challenge of filing a complex case before the statute of limitations expired. Mr. Small explains how the case moved between Miami and Providence, how venue and timing decisions shaped strategy and why the trial judge ultimately dismissed the case despite a grand jury indictment. He highlights lessons on venue, audience and the importance of aligning the forum with the story you need to tell.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook," litigation attorney Dan Small looks back on his experience prosecuting the notorious New England mob boss Raymond Patriarca — or lack thereof. As a 73-year-old man who had spent more than 30 years as the head of a criminal organization, it was not difficult for Patriarca to find a doctor to declare him medically unfit for trial. Mr. Small, needing a doctor of his own to keep the mob boss included in the trial, quickly discovered that Patriarca's reputation preceded him, and shares the difficulties he faced in getting Patriarca into the courtroom.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast, litigation attorney Dan Small discusses the opportunities and challenges of "climbing the ladder" in a corruption case. This approach starts with securing a defendant willing to testify against their superiors and then working to uncover what additional crimes or targets they can identify. He illustrates this strategy with the extortion case against Ted Anzalone, in which George Collatos, a Boston city employee, served as a key witness. Collatos was arrested for extorting cash from a building contractor. After he pleaded guilty, Mr. Small and his team brought him before the grand jury to ask about illegal fundraising and other unlawful activities in hopes of obtaining additional information. Eventually, Collatos revealed facts about Anzalone's activities, but it was not smooth sailing. Mr. Small explains why "climbing the ladder" proved to be difficult in this case and how it ultimately ended in Anzalone's acquittal.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small makes the case for "show and tell" in the courtroom. As he contends, jurors do not learn best by listening alone, so powerful demonstratives are essential, especially in complex financial cases. Drawing on the Anzalone money laundering trial, he explains how a simple poster depicting a web tracing $100,000 in cash split into 12 sub‑$10,000 checks clarified the scheme better than words ever could and kept the jury focused on the issues at play. The takeaway: Keep visuals clear, memorable and ever‑present. Ears to listen, eyes to see, hands to hold.

In this episode of "The Trial Lawyer's Handbook" podcast series, litigation attorney Dan Small unpacks the prosecution of Ted Anzalone, a top aide to Boston Mayor Kevin White, through two alleged money laundering schemes: a "birthday gift" check-planting operation that sowed jury confusion and led to acquittal, and a clearer $100,000 cash structuring scheme using sub‑$10,000 cashier's checks to evade bank reporting. Despite a compelling trial win on the structuring count, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that "the law is the law" and Congress hadn't yet criminalized that type of financial activity. Mr. Small reflects on the limits of prosecutorial creativity, a memorable bench rebuke and how the case ultimately spurred lawmakers to close the loophole – too late for Anzalone, whose conviction was vacated, but paving the way for successful prosecutions thereafter.