Toxicology Expert Issues in Trucking Cases

Toxicology

1. United States District Court, D. Kansas. Tammy Fanning  v. Sitton Motor Lines, Inc. and James F. Duke, Defendant. Case No. 08CV2464 CM/DJW 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116809, 2010 WL 4261476 (D. Kan. 2010).

The Plaintiff/Decedent was struck and killed while walking in or near the roadway. The Plaintiff, Fanning, moved to strike the expert testimonies of toxicologist, Dr. Michael Corbett and psychiatrist, Dr. Rosalyn Innis, who opined that Fanning’s death was a suicide caused by a drug withdrawal. Plaintiff’s motions were denied in part and granted in part, both experts were precluded from testifying that Fanning’s mental condition ultimately lead to his death.

 

2. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Julio Elvin Ruiz-Troche, et al. v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Company, et al.. Case No. 98-1163.  161 F. 3d 77, (1st Cir. 1998).

Trial judge excluded the Defendant’s expert pharmacologist, James O’Donnell, from testifying. He opined to the amount of cocaine present in the decedent/driver’s body at the time of the accident, and subsequently, how this would impair the driver. O’Donnell used a methodology called “half-life” to determine the amount of cocaine in the decedent’s body at the time of the accident. This methodology was an accepted technique and had scientific literature to support it. Despite O’Donnell’s sound methodology, the Trial judge precluded it on the basis that it lacked scientific liability. This also limited testimony as to how the cocaine would have impacted the decedent’s driving ability and led to crash. The Defendants appealed the decision and Appellate judge found that the trial court had abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of O’Donnell, subsequently reversing judgment in the favor of the Defendants.

 

For additional information on toxicology, check a past blog post about synthetic drugs. If there is anything we can do to assist you in the defense of one of the most essential industries, trucking, in America, please call me. 

 

Even if you only have a question about an expert, I will be be glad to consult with you initially at no charge.

 

Recent Cases on Experts in Reconstruction Issues in Trucking Accidents

The following cases address the expertise of various reconstruction and the scope of accident investigator's testimony. We often get requests about Lew Grill. There are two opinions addressing the scope of his testimony. Also, I have a box of depositions and articles by Lew Grill if you're interested.

Reconstruction

1. United States District Court, D. Montana. Tanner J. Parrick, individually and as Personal Representative of the estate of Jerry J. Parrick, Deceased, and on behalf of Thais D. Parrick and Maria Elliot, Plaintiff, v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Bridgewater Trucking, LLC, Sergey Buslayev, and Vladimir Kochukov, Defendants. Case No. CV 09-05-M-DWM-JCL.  U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96414, 2010  WL 3724429 (D. Mont. 2010).

The Plaintiff moved to preclude the Defendants’ reconstruction expert, Dave Beaufort. No party requested a pretrial Daubert hearing, instead, both Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ experts submitted affidavits. The District Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice, finding that the existing record indicated only a disagreement between the opposing experts.

 

2. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. Kathleen Crockford v. Lawrence M. Spencer and Metals USA Plates and Shapes Northeast, L.P. Case No. 3:10CV813 (HBF)  (2012 WL 2129356 (D. Conn. 2012).

The Defendants moved to preclude the expert testimony of the Plaintiff’s trucking expert, Lew Grill. Grill opined as to what the Defendants should have done to avoid accident. Defendants claimed that Grill lacked a foundation for his opinion, as he never reconstructed the accident, only using information from the police report. Court denied the Defendants’ motion, stating that there was no requirement for an expert to reconstruct the accident to give an opinion, when the facts relied upon are accurate.

3. Court of Appeals of Arizona, D. Mary Cameron, a single woman, individually, for her personal injury, and individually, for the benefit of the children of Martin Cameron, for the wrongful death of Martin Cameron, deceased  v. Kathyrn Kay Westbrook and John Doe Westbrook; Paul Horta, Jr. and Jane Doe Horta; John Christner Trucking; Royal Express Incorporated Case No. 1 CA-CV 10-0398. 2012 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 141, 2012 WL 385633 (Ariz. App. Div. 1 2012).

The Plaintiffs disclosed commercial trucking expert, Joseph Peles, to testify in regards to accident reconstruction and whether the defendants complied with FMCSR. The Defendants moved to preclude Peles, claiming he was not qualified to testify regarding standard of care. The Trial judge granted the Defendants motion only allowing Peles to reconstruct the accident. The Appellate court later affirmed the Trial court’s ruling.

 

4. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.  Amber Scull, et v. Jose Ventura Hernandez, Case Nos. B220166, B221256. Nov. 30, 2011. 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9162, 2011 WL 6004288 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011).

The Plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the Trial judge erred in precluding their trucking expert, Lew Grill. Grill opined as to what the Defendant/driver, Hernandez,  should have felt and heard during the accident, challenging Hernandez’s account of what occurred. Grill had vast experience regarding the industry standards of commercial trucking, however, he was not qualified in accident reconstruction. Therefore, he was not allowed to opine about what Hernandez should have experienced during the accident. The court did not err in limiting Grill’s testimony to his area of expertise.

 

5. United States District Court, D. Nevada. Apostolos Hiropoulos v. JeremiahJuso, et al.,  Case No. 2:09CV307 JCM (RJJ). July 29, 2011. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83933, 2011 WL 3273884 (D. Nev..2011).

The Plaintiffs moved to preclude testimony of biomechanical expert, Dr. France. They claimed that he lacked a factual basis to form an opinion, because he never visited the accident scene. However, Dr. France used the event data recorder from the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as well as other information and reports, to conclude that the accident was not severe enough to cause the alleged injuries of the Plaintiff. This motion was denied by the court with regard to Federal Rule 702.

Investigating Police Officer Opinions & Diagrams

6. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division. Teri Reagan, Individually and as personal representation of the Estate of Roger Reagan; and Maverick Transportation, LLC,  v. Dunaway Timber Company; Morgan Quisenberry; John Doe Trucking; and John Doe Incorporated, Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs v. Barry McCoy, Third Party Defendant. Case No. 3:10CV03016. 011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126034, 2011 WL 5184218 (W.D. Ark. 2011).

The Plaintiff moved to preclude Corporal Evans from testifying on behalf of the Defendants. This case addressed the question of whether someone can be recognized as an expert in the field of accident investigation or reconstruction. The court, after considering Daubert and Rule 702, granted and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion. Corporal Evans had appropriate knowledge, experience, training and evidence to testify regarding the investigation of the accident. However, he could not testify in regard to his reconstruction of the accident.

 

If you have any cases in north Louisiana or northeast Texas that you need insight on experts, judges, lawyers or the venue, feel free to call me. NO CHARGE for initial consultation.

More Decisions on Trucking Experts: Hiring and Safety Stats

Negligent Hiring & Entrustment

1. United States District Court, D. Kansas. Terry L. Frederick and Donna F. Frederick v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Robyn L. Getchel  Case No. 06-1332-MLB. Sept. 10, 2008. 591 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2008).

Swift moved to exclude the Plaintiff’s expert opinion regarding the hiring of the driver. The expert opined that Swift violated “good industry practice” and was negligent in hiring Ms. Getchel who failed driving exam multiple times. However, no federal regulations required a driver to pass exam within a certain number of tries. The court granted Swift’s motion stating that the jury could evaluate this information without expert testimony.

2. District Court of Oklahoma.  Deanna Bender, individually and as parent and next friend of Brittany Lee Bender, and Christina Marie Bender, minor children v. Kathy Sue Fracasso, an individual, Werner Enterprises, Inc.; the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; Continental Casualty Company, and Markel American Insurance Company Case No. CJ-2002-258. WL 24302737 (Okl. Dist. 2003).

The Defendants moved to exclude the Plaintiff’s expert, Kelly Anderson, from testifying in regard to Werner’s hiring, training and supervision of their employees. The Defendants successfully argued that Anderson’s opinions were not based on any trucking industry standard, law or regulation; but rather his experience from working at one company (CFI). One company’s way of business operations cannot be assumed for an entire industry, thus, Anderson was precluded from testifying.

Safety History & Ratings

3. United States District Court, D. Kansas. Terry L. Frederick and Donna F. Frederick v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Robyn L. Getchel  Case No. 06-1332-MLB. Sept. 10, 2008. 591 F. Supp 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2008).

The Defendants moved to exclude expert testimony regarding government safety compliance audits. The Plaintiffs’ expert opined in regards to a safety compliance audit 5 years prior to case, which resulted in the motor carrier receiving a less than satisfactory rating. The Defendants argued that this compliance audit was inadmissible because: (1) a subsequent compliance audit yielded a satisfactory rating, and (2) there was no evidence that the earlier safety compliance audit had anything to do with the accident at issue in this case. As such, the Frederick court excluded expert testimony on this subject.

4. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. Winford Dallas Jones v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, INC. Case No. 7:06CV00547 . 558 F. Supp. 2d 630 (W.D. Va. 2008).

The Defendant moved to exclude the introduction of unsatisfactory safety ratings of their employee involved in the accident. Employee originally received an unsatisfactory rating which was then changed to a conditional rating. The Defendant asserted it had no duty to consider the safety rating when hiring, due to their expert, Sandberg, who opined that only the conditional rating was relevant. The court denied the Defendant’s motion stating that the unsatisfactory rating is relevant in evaluation of employee as a carrier and that Robinson could have found his ratings on the FMCSA website.

Daubert Challenges to Experts in the Trucking Industry

At the 2012 TIDA Annual Conference, Thomas C. DiSalvi, Scott W. McMickle and Christopher M. Vossler presented an informative session on Daubert and its Effect on Trucking Experts.

 

Thanks again to the Trucking Industry Defense Association and all the committee members who did an excellent job of outlining topics and speakers helpful the industry. Thanks to David Sauvey, and other pioneers of the organization, who realized how important it is to share ideas with each other.

As always, if I can be of assistance to you in north Louisiana or northeast Texas, please don't hesitate to call me day or night.

 

 

The following cases deal with Daubert Motions on Liability Experts pertaining to carrier selection and Equipment issues. Later, I will outline the Daubert motions pertaining the negligent hiring, police officer diagrams, safety history & ratings and toxicology. Later, I will post some key cases about Daubert motions of experts on damages.

Carrier Selection

Winford Dallas Jones v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Case No. 7:06CV00547 (W.D. Va. 2008). The Defendant moved in limine to exclude the Plaintiff’s expert, Thomas M. Corsi’s, testimony regarding carrier selection methods. This motion was granted and denied in part. Corsi was disallowed from making conclusions on carrier groups based on their SEA ratings or carrier selection practices due to his informal research performed before he was deposed. However, because of his experience with SafeStat, FMCSA data and tractor trailer accidents, he was permitted to testify on the meaning and reliability of safety information available to the industry in 2004.

Equipment

Lenore Kabasinskas, Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederic D. Kabasinskas v. William R. Haskin, individually, George W. Wesley, III, individually, U.S. Xpress, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, and U.S. Xpress Leasing Inc., a Tennessee corporation  2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57446, 2011 WL 2118641(D. Neb. 2011). The Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude three of the Plaintiff’s liability experts was granted. Proffered experts were disclosed to offer opinions on wheel lugs, pre-trip inspections and compliance with 49 C.F.R.§§ 392 and 396. The court ruled that these experts were not qualified to testify under Federal Rule 702.

Barbara Rose; Robert Rose v. Truck Centers, Inc., et al TRW Automotive, U.S., LLC, Case No. 09-3597. August 6, 2010. 388 Fed. Appx. 528, 2010 WL 3069613 (6th Cir. Ohio 2010). The Defendants moved to preclude the Plaintiff’s expert, who testified on the process of torquing steering gear bolts. He opined how failure to do so correctly could affect the integrity of the trucks steering. Although he was a qualified truck mechanic expert, his opinion as to how the accident occurred was not reliable under Federal Rule 702. The court granted the Defendants’ motion and entered summary judgment in their favor.

As a Witness, Know the Difference in Direct Examination v. Cross Examination

The following points distinguish between direct and cross examination testimony.

I am sure that these are not new ideas to attorneys, but for those of you who have never been deposed (or even those of you are are expert witnesses), it doesn't hurt to get some fresh ideas.

Direct Examination

 

1. Understand the purpose of direct examination. Direct examination is your attorney’s opportunity to ask you questions. You will know roughly what these questions are ahead of time. They are considered “soft-ball” questions.

 

2. Allow a conversation. Direct is more  conversational, with your attorney guiding the conversation with questions.

 

3. Expect open-ended questions. Your attorney wants the jurors to get to know you, and open-ended questions make it easy for you to do that.

 

4. Resist the temptation to blurt the whole thing out on the first question. Follow your attorney’s lead, one question at a time.

 

5. Look at the jurors. Look over at the jurors as often as possible during your responses (not during your attorney’s questions), anytime you have more than a word or two to say. Jurors must see your eyes to believe you, but don't be so obvious that you look like a robot turning your head from looking at the attorney and then looking back at the jurors. Just remember to look over at the jurors from time to time. They like regular witnesses better than the attorneys or experts.

 

Cross Examination

1. Understand the purpose of cross examination. Cross examination is opposing counsel’s opportunity to ask you questions. You may or may not know roughly what these questions are ahead of time. They are considered “hard-ball” questions.

2. Follow the question-answer format. Don’t be lulled into treating it like a conversation. The opposing attorney is NOT your friend.

3. Listen with all your might. Think! Opposing counsel seeks to tie you to “yes/no” answers to very precise questions. Think first and use qualifiers as needed to insure the accuracy of your responses. You can say " Yes, but..." The Judge will allow you to explain your answer so don't get rattled if the adverse attorney demands "Just answer the question, YES or NO!" That happens on televisions, but not in real life.

4. READ your deposition and learn from it.  Many of the same question types and style will be used by opposing counsel in cross as were used in deposition. Respond accordingly, but if something needs to be explained then do it.

 

Not long ago, I was getting ready for a trial and it was important that my witness explained some things that he did not in his deposition. The plaintiff's attorney was completely taken off guard by the witnesses detailed explanation of events he could not recall in the previous deposition. Why? Because I prepared him to explain it and why he could not earlier.

5. Remain neutral. Don’t argue with opposing counsel. “That’s not true!!” may be what you want to say, but remember you are not trying to convince he other side. You are trying to convince the jury so saying  “No I did not” is better testimony. “Yeah, but...” isn’t as effective as “In those circumstances, yes.”

Open Your Mouth in Your Deposition: Speak Clearly Please

Alright, I get that most people don't speak in public regularly; however, we ALL talk. When we want someone to understand us, we don't mumble. We speak clearly. Clarity is  essential in giving a deposition.

 

The following are few key points in clarity in a deposition.

 

 

1. Articulate. Speak clearly and distinctly.  This is particularly a problem with Southerners, but I can say that because I am one! I joke and tell folks that anyone can talk like a Red-neck by just keeping your tongue at the bottom of your mouth when you talk. Try it and see if you don't sound like Bubba. It's not a good practice in depositions. Don’t mumble!
 

 

2. Be aware of your volume. Speaking too softly makes it hard for jurors to hear you, speaking too loudly is intimidating.

 

 

3. Use full sentences. In response to “What were your duties?” “Manager” is less accurate than “I managed 2 teams in the IT department.”

 

4.   Use words, not sounds or gestures. Say “yes,” “no,” not “uh-huh” or “nah.” We may talk that like that normally, but the court reporter needs to ensure accurate responses. Shoulder shrugs, head nods, headshaking and other such are impossible to transcribe.

 

5. Know the Sequence of Events. Reviewing the sequence of events chronologically makes it easier to  remember what happened when. I have recently begun to use Casemap as a source of information to keep up organization of materials.

 

6.    Use common words and expressions we’re all familiar with. People don’t “exit from vehicles” they get out of a car.

 

7. Avoid jargon or industry-specific language. The jurors’ education, jobs and world experience may not match yours. Make sure you’re understood by everyone, not just a select few.

 

 

8. Translate technical terms. If your testimony requires you to use technical terms, translate those into“people-speak” as well. Doctors can be the worst with the techincal terms, but I think it's sometimes because they want to sound smart or because they to make the lawyer look foolish. Note to lawyer: look up the words in medical before you take the depostion!

 

 

9. Leave the jokes at home. Humor is a subjective experience, and can easily be misunderstood or even used against you. This is one of the rules I get most annoyed when people break. There will often be unintentional humor in a deposition and that is fine. The intended humor never works.

 

10. Complete your answer. If you’re interrupted, wait until the interruption is over and say “I wasn’t finished with my answer. May I finish it now, please?” (unless the Judge or your attorney asks you not to).

 

 

 

Next week, I will cover some logistical things to remember when giving a deposition. If these ideas have been helpful, please let me know by making a post here or following this blogsite. It is primarily devoted to ideas in defending the trucking industry and I would like your thoughts.

 

 

As always, if there is anything I can do for your day or night, please don't hesitate to call. For more information about the firm, check out our website at www.perkinsfirm.com.

 

 

 

Actively Listen in a Deposition

 When I say this it makes me laugh because I can imagine you're thinking "How do I actively listen?" Do I strain my ears? Do I blow air out of my ears to hear better? How does one actively listen?

 

Well, obviously I mean that you should pay very close attention. Don't just HEAR the words, but listen to what is asked. Pay close attention that you understand the question and answer ONLY the question asked.

 

Here are few more tips on how to pay attention when being deposed.

1. Clear your mind of everything else, and listen carefully to every word of every question asked of you. Legal questions are frequently complex and require your full attention.

 

2. Listen to the question all the way through. Legal questions are often lengthy. If you start formulating your answer in your mind before the end of the question, you may miss the crucial part of the question and answer incorrectly.

3. Take your time. Don’t be in a rush to answer questions. You won’t get out of there faster, if anything, you’ll answer poorly and be testifying longer.

 

4. Pause before speaking. This  gives you time to make sure you fully understand  the question before answering, and to gather your thoughts before you open your mouth.

 

5. Think. Don’t answer on the fly, off the cuff. Everything you say is recorded and matters. Think before speaking. Jurors respect people who think, but when something is clearly easily answered. If you take too much of pause for obvious answers, it becomes obvious that you are trying to deflect.

Appearances Count in Depositions

Before people started wearing jeans and t-shirts to church, we used to tell people to dress for a deposition like they would for church. That may no longer be the best idea, but a witness shouldn't wear a tie if he usually doesn't wear a tie, but he also should not come to a deposition in his greasy work shirt.

 

The following are some good ideas on appearance at a deposition.

 

1. Be neat and clean. No matter your financial means, show up with your hair combed, your shoes shined, your clothes free of stains and your person clean, including fingernails and teeth. It’s a mark of respect.

 

2. Dress appropriately. Business persons generally wear suits; blue-collar workers, a shirt/blouse and pants/skirt; homemakers, PTA-meeting type outfits. Jeans are usually considered too informal for Court.

3. Dress conservatively and simply. Jurors should be interested in what you have to say, not distracted by your fashion statement. Save your wild plaids/florals, stiletto heels, cleavage-exposing, and midriff or backside-baring garments for other occasions.

 

4. Accessorize minimally. Less is more: keep your jewelry and bling to  non-showy minimum. The same goes for make-up, hair styles and nail fashions. Leave your shades in your pocket and hair out of your face; jurors need to see your face and eyes.

 

6. Keep your hands off yourself. Resist the temptation to run your fingers through your hair, pluck at your mustache, twiddle your earrings or pick lint off your clothes.

7. Use the Power-Sit™. Anytime you’re sitting, at deposition or trial, unless your physical condition precludes it, sit with your rear pushed into the “L” formed by the seat and seat-back, then rest your back on the seat back, and leave your arms on the arms of the chair, or

resting loosely in your lap. This will automatically give you good posture and confident bearing.

 

8. Maintain a serious, neutral expression on your face. Avoid extreme expressions, such

as looking wildly distraught, rolling your eyes, scowling fiercely, or flashing broad grins.

 

9. Keep your body language open and undefended. Don’t cross one or both of your arms over your chest, it’s read as defensiveness. Avoid slumping, slouching, twisting your body to

one side, leaning to either side, or supporting your chin with your hand, elbow on the table.

 

10. Engage steady eye contact with whoever’s asking you a question or speaking to you. Look away while you’re thinking if needed, but engage eye contact before speaking.

 

Next week, I will cover a few ideas on actively LISTENING. I often tell my clients that after giving a deposition, they should be mentally and physically tired if they are actively listening.

 

As always, if there is anything I can do for you day or night, please do not hesitate to call. For more information about the firm, you can check out the webpage and www.perkinsfirm.com.

Ten Tips on Deposition Attitude

"Trial" lawyers take more depositions than they direct and cross examine witnesses because most cases settle, particularly when you have done your job in preparation. Lawyers do this all the time, but the witness doesn't,  so we lawyers need to remember that a witness may be very anxious.

I always tell my client, you are not going to convince the other side that you are right and they are wrong. Don't even try. Just tell them what you know. No matter, there are going to be some witnesses who get angry, frustrated, or even hostile.
 

If you haven't seen the "old lawyer fight" video, it's worth watching to remind yourself of what NOT to do. Check it out on YouTube. I prefer not to post here because some of the language, but if you want me to send it to you, send a request to perkins@perkinsfirm.com.


Now, let's talk about attitude. The following are a few ideas on keeping the right attitude in a deposition:

1 Tell the truth. No matter how painful, scary, or awkward it may be, tell the truth. Your attorney can deal with anything, as long as it’s your truth.
 

2 Trust your attorney. Your attorney knows the case better than anyone. Follow his/herguidance, not Court TV’s, your family’s or your best friend’s advice.
 

3 Be sincere. Sincerity wins every time so eave your sarcasm, joking around, ‘whatever’ attitudes, coyness, seductiveness or cuteness at home.
 

4 Be straightforward. Don’t be evasive or beat around the bush. Stick to the facts as you know them as closely as possible.
 

5 Be accurate. Tell it like it is. Resist the temptation to over-state your case, dramatize, or otherwise embellish it.

Top Ten Verdicts Against Trucking !!

The following is the list of recent top ten verdicts involving 18-wheelers.* Obviously, these don't include the cases that settled. Even though the verdicts are high, who knows if the plaintiff's side was demanding much more. Fortunately, only one  of the top ten verdicts occurred in Louisiana.  Two were out of Illinois and two were out of Texas.

 

 

Note: the high verdicts were in SOUTH Louisiana. North Louisiana is still generally conservative. If you need information about the venues, judges or attorneys in North Louisiana, give me a call.

 

 

Now for the recent highest verdicts:

1.            $41,000,000 verdict (May 2010) (Kings County, NY): Insured's utility truck vs. pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk; single claimant, 52 year old sustained a moderate traumatic brain injury.

 

2.            $40,800,000 settlement (July 2011) (Portage County, OH): Multi-vehicle accident triggered by insured's tractor trailer; multiple claimants, including one fatality, a 12 year old who sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and a 16 year old who sustained severe facial fractures - the three were mother, son and son / brother and brother.

 

3.            $40,175,000 verdict (September 2011) (Cobb County, GA): Insured's tractor trailer vs. pick-up truck; single claimant, 45 year old fatality.

 

4.            $29,100,000 verdict (February 2011) (St. Charles Parish, LA): Insured's pick-up truck vs. tractor trailer; two claimants - one claimant sustained burns to over 40% of his body surface and expired 9 days later with approx. 1 to 2 hours of Conscious pain and suffering, the other claimant sustained only soft tissue Injuries.

 

5.            $27,700,000 verdict (February 2012) (Cook County, IL): Insured's tractor trailer vs. passenger vehicle; single claimant, 50 year old was rendered a quadriplegic and sustained a moderate traumatic brain injury.

 

"It's better to be more interested than interesting"

Do you remember the Billy Crystal segment on SNL years ago as Fernando Lamas: "It's better to rook good than to feel good." Well, that advice may not be the best, but in attempting to better serve a client  "It's better to be more interested than interesting."

 

 

I just returned from another conference in which many of my colleagues and I are vying for the attention of clients and potential clients.  There is always the opportunity to buy a drink, plan an event or go to dinner. I enjoy all of those times, but honestly, I cannot compete with some of "groups." There is always someone who can buy a more expensive dinner, do a bigger event or talk louder.

 

Believe it or not, some lawyers struggle with "ego." Well maybe they don't struggle with it; they fully embrace it! They often like to "blow their own horn" rather than  take an interest in the client. Maybe it works for the moment, but I tend to think about  the "long-term."

 

Scott Dinsmore, contributor to Forbes Magazine, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Connecting With Absolutely Anyone" advising that "interested people" are set apart from all of the others.
 

His finding are simple and just about any lawyer can do them. Dinsmore points out... "I don’t care what your goals, industry or interests are, there’s no getting around it: Personal relationships run the world."

 

If you are a potential client, do you consider you are a friend or a commodity? As a provider of services, do you care more about what you can get or what you can give? The following are some points that Mr. Dinsmore makes that are worthy of  consideration:

1. Be genuine. The only connections that work will be the ones that you truly care about; the world will see through anything short of that. If you don’t have a genuine interest in the person, then stop trying.

2. Provide massive help. Even the most powerful people in the world have something they’d like help with. Too many people never reach out to those above them due to the fear that they wouldn’t be able to offer anything in return. But you have more to offer than you realize. You may write an article about them, share their project with your community, and offer to spread their message through a video interview with them.

Are you getting the point here? It's NOT about you! Give real thought on how you can benefit their goals. If it turns out you can’t be helpful, at least you made an authentic gesture.

3. Pay ridiculous attention. if you don’t pay attention -- genuine attention -- then how can you expect to be of service? Do your research by reading blog posts, books and articles about the connection beforehand. Learn about their backgrounds and passions. Invest genuine time in learning what really matters to them and how you can help.

 

4. Connect with people close to them. You arrive with credibility when referred by a mutual friend to someone you want to meet . Spend more time connecting with your current network of friends and colleagues and see where it leads.

 

Have you ever been to an event, where you are talking to someone and then he  sees someone "more important" and snubs you? That person will never get a recommendation from me. Don't make the same mistake by snubbing someone you think is less important.

5. Persistence wins. The first attempt is just the very beginning. Realize that the first try may get you nowhere, but the fifth or the tenth tries are the ones that start to yield results. An unreturned email or voicemail doesn’t mean they don’t want to connect with you. It’s your job to be persistent! Usually only about 2 percent of the initial contacts ever follow up. Don’t be in a hurry, but don’t be invisible either.

6. Make real friends. Think about how you’ve made the friends you have. That’s all this is. You only make friends with people you genuinely want in your life.

 

I have learned this lesson from Dirk Beckwith from Michigan. Dirk and I met several years ago as we served on an ethics panel at the annual Transportation Lawyers Association. I like Dirk. He is easy to chat with and there is no "hard sale" and he really wants to know how you are doing.  He doesn't over think it. He enjoys getting to know people and spending time with them, even if it's not a client contact.
 

Be human, be helpful and most people will happily be human in return, regardless of who they are.

7. Remain unforgettable. This doesn't mean being an obnoxiously loud, overbearing "know it all." Instead do more memorable things such us send birthday cards. Mail your favorite book with a signed personal note from you on the inside flap. Be genuinely helpful. You’d be surprised how the simplest things actually never get done. Being memorable isn’t as hard as some think!" I recently made a note that one of my clients is particularly interested in the Louisiana Brown Pelican so I am on the lookout for an interesting picture or token. 

 

Also, I try to send tokens of appreciation unique to Louisiana. Many of our clients appreciate the pralines and Community coffee that we send. It's just a way to be different, but all of that is completely for nothing if we don't genuinely care. 

 

 

The world is run by relationships... yes, even today in this highly digital world of Facebook, Linked in and other social media. Take some time to  enjoy asking people questions and getting to know them. You can't do that in digital world like you can over a cup of coffee.

 

I think I get most bothered when I lose a client that I have fostered a friendship, but there are many reasons that this can happen and none of them may be because of a relationship problem. At least I made the effort of developing a relationship and caring about the client's interests than just having a client because of the short-term gain of a few dollars. 

 

 

The lawyer that gets this will certainly have an easier time practicing law... and actually making a good living at it.

Not to mention being happier... relationships make our lives richer!