EP 818- Opposing Counsel Conditioning

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to Heels in the Courtroom, a podcast about successfully navigating law and life. Featuring the women trial attorneys at the Simon Law Firm.

Liz Lenivy:

Hello and welcome back to another episode of Heels in the Courtroom. I’m Liz Lenivy, and today I’m joined by Amy Gunn, Mary Simon Elizabeth McNulty and Erica Slater full house. Hello ladies. Hello. And today we are going to talk about something that I have been experiencing in particular with one individual. Of course we never use names, but I feel like this particular attorney is maybe it’s always a he. It’s always a, just wanted to point that out.

Amy Collignon Gunn:

No, not always. There was this one gal, I remember Mary talking about this one gal, you’re irritating.

Elizabeth McNulty:

Yep.

Amy Collignon Gunn:

I’ll never forget her. In the history

Erica Blume Slater:

Of attorneys who have wronged

Elizabeth McNulty:

Us,

Amy Collignon Gunn:

There’s one gal,

Elizabeth McNulty:

Should we tell them what we’re talking about?

Liz Lenivy:

Alright, so we’ll let you in on what we’re talking about. So we’re talking about opposing counsel conditioning, and what I mean by that is when you are working with an opposing counsel and they are just constantly reminding you of everything wrong with your case. And so in this particular situation I’ve got it is every time I see this particular attorney at court, as we’re walking out of court together, he begins telling me everything wrong with my case and everything wrong with my client reminding me of that, of his personal opinions of my client, which I get very defensive of. But it’s not just walking out of court. It is when we are at depositions, whether in person or over zoom, he will take time out of the zoom to tell me about how bad my case is in emails, in letters. And at some point my initial reaction was to, well, let’s argue about it.

If that’s what we’re doing right now, if this is the game that we’re playing, you’re going to tell me everything bad with my case. Great. Now I get to tell you everything bad with your case. But as this litigation has gone on and it’s gone on and on and on, I’ve gotten to the point where the last interaction we had we’re walking out of the courthouse and he begins his spiel again about everything wrong with my case. He’s telling me this for the eighth hundredth time. And I finally turned to him and I said, what are we doing here? What is the purpose of this conversation? What are we going to accomplish having this conversation again? Well, I’m just telling you my client’s position. I go, I understand that. I understand what your client’s position is because you’ve reminded me of it. I can also pick up on it myself.

I’m aware of those strengths and weaknesses of my case just as I’m aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your case. And frankly, I think we just work this case up and if we can’t resolve it, we let a jury decide and the jury gets to tell us who has a stronger or weaker case. I mean, I think that this is a waste of energy. It’s a waste of our breath. This isn’t accomplishing anything. And I think he was a little taken aback by me being as blunt as I was. And maybe I was just in a bad mood that morning. I don’t know, because usually I try to be a little friendlier with folks even if they’re not friend with me. But I just, I’ve kind of had it with this guy and I don’t talk to me about this anymore unless we’re in front of a jury and you’re telling it to someone else.

I don’t need to hear the same story over and over and over again. And I have not seen him since. So I don’t know if my conversation will have worked, but it is something that I have never had to have that conversation with someone before. And I think in this particular situation, this guy has laid it on thicker than maybe I’ve had with other opposing counsel in the past. So maybe that’s why it really is sort of resonating with me right now. But I wanted to bring this up today and hear from you all on how you respond with conditioning or whatever we want to call this by opposing counsel. So Erica,

Erica Blume Slater:

So lemme ask you a question now. I’m going to cross examine you about your experience. Have you done any research asking around to other people who have worked against this guy? Is this just his tactic or do you think it’s something that he’s just trying to get your goat?

Liz Lenivy:

So I have asked other people about this guy and no one seems to have worked against him before. So it’s a weird situation where he’s been practicing for a while, but I can’t seem to find anyone that has been opposite of a case against him. So I don’t know if this is a him thing, if it’s a me thing. I am not quite sure.

Erica Blume Slater:

As you were talking, and I think we’ve all had this experience where you have someone, I even can’t stop telling you how bad your case is, but just don’t talk to me about the case when we’re not in a hearing. I’m actually not interested too much unless, unless the opportunity is to surprise me and make my day and tell me how good do you think my case is and how much money you want to pay me on it. Cool. I am open for business to talk about that. But other than that, be a human, have an interaction, say hello, stop being this overcharged like, oh, I’m going to intimidate you so much. I’m telling you how your case is so bad. It seems like a weird playground tactic that we’ve seen it before and it just seems so obnoxious.

Amy Collignon Gunn:

But don’t you think it works?

Erica Blume Slater:

I do not. Do you? I think it does. How so?

Amy Collignon Gunn:

We’re talking about it right now,

Erica Blume Slater:

But it works in the sense that it annoys you. Right? And is that the

Amy Collignon Gunn:

Point? Is that the point?

Erica Blume Slater:

Yeah,

Amy Collignon Gunn:

I mean I think that it is one of two things. It is a technique that this lawyer employs or he’s just kind of awkward and doesn’t know what else to talk about. Let’s take the first example. The first example is I do think there is some, I don’t know, science or at least anecdotal evidence behind this constant conditioning of how bad the case is to the lawyer, us who’s representing the plaintiff. And because we probably already know there’s never a case that’s perfect, every case has warts. And most of the time those warts are evident to all who take the time to look. And so poking at them, pushing at them could very well go a long way to diminish your belief in your own case. And what that means is not so much that you’re ever going to give up on it, won’t. We don’t do that.

But do you start believing it’s less valuable than you originally thought it was? I’d say yes, because let’s think about it. I mean, are we also not prone to do that when we see our opposing counsel talk about what a great client we have, what a great deposition they gave our experts are wonderful. I mean maybe not in just everyday parlance with these opposing counsel, but that’s going to be our first reaction is to defend, not defend because we’re promoting the case, but is to I guess, defend the client. And really we’re the one bringing the case, and I probably am very prone to talking it up. So it might be this lawyer’s technique to do just the opposite. He’s talking up his defense, which is usually that since we’ve got the burden of proof that our case isn’t as good as we think it is.

So I think that’s option number one. It’s very deliberate. It’s a tactic. It’s sort of a riff on don’t take the bait, which we always talk about. I can remember a time, this was when I did defense work and the plaintiff’s attorney sent this lengthy slideshow PowerPoint, I think it was technically like a demand letter. And at that time, 25 years ago, it was sort of unique. It was slide after slide about what a great case they had. I represented the gas company that there was an explosion. What a great case it was how terrible our facts were. What a great client they had all to run up to this humongous demand at the end of the PowerPoint. And I watched it and I was incensed. I was like, game on. Because I didn’t think any of it was true. I thought they had a terrible case.

Whatever. The partner I was working with Ted McDonald, still one of my favorite people ever was like, yeah, yawn. I mean his response was so benign and so unenthusiastic that I was really like, what are we talking about? Let’s go to war. And he said, Amy, that’s exactly the point. And his literal response to the lawyer when they were on the phone was okay. He got no response whatsoever out of Ted. No engagement, no fighting about it, no pushing back on any of the allegations. His response was, yeah, okay, I see your point. Let’s mediate. And I still remember that and I’ve still tried to learn from that because I think any of the engagement going back and forth is probably the point. So that’s option number one. It’s on purpose. He’s conditioning you to lose confidence in your case. Option number two is maybe a little awkward and doesn’t know what else to talk about.

Maybe wants to pump himself up by talking about what a terrible case you have. And in response, he’s a good lawyer because he’s defending the case strenuously, I don’t know. Or just plain kind of awkward, doesn’t know how to do small talk. Two different situations, call for the same response, which is kind of a yawn. You might be right. Or even saying, yeah, I got a terrible case. It doesn’t mean I’m going to pay you more. It doesn’t mean I’m going to take less. But I do believe strongly, and this is just another philosophy of mine, which we’ve shared many times, which is just don’t show your hands, don’t take the bait. It’s poker face a hundred percent. But it can be very irritating because all you want to do is go to court, do your job, and if you have a dispute over something like an actual dispute about who’s right on a particular thing, that’s what the jury’s for.

That’s what the judge is for. So at first, when I encountered situations like this, I did want to naturally fight back, protect your client, protect you because you’re the one that brought the case. You don’t want to seem like you’re not bringing legitimate cases, but I’ve learned over the years that it really doesn’t do that much good to engage or to push back. And it is much more irritating to the person who is arguing that we have a terrible case offline, so to speak, not in front of a judge, not in front of a jury like you said, Liz, let’s do it in front of the jury. It’s much more irritating to that person, not for you not to engage than it would be if you did.

Erica Blume Slater:

Amy. I think what I’ve always admired is what you’re talking about as far as the reaction that Ted McDonald had, because I always see those reactions coming with maturity and experience in our field. And when I’m thinking about the attorney who did the PowerPoint or whatever, and Liz thinking about the guy just harping at you with how bad your case is, I just kind of think of an excited puppy and you just want to kind of pat on the head and be like, okay, okay, settle down. And it’s just it’s true. I know. And I’m not trying to be a huge jerk. I’m sure there’s some passive aggressiveness in there, but it is so true. It’s like you can’t convince me that my case is not what I’ve assessed it to be, and I trust that you are assessing what our case is, that we’ve brought you good experts, that we’ve put together a case.

And if you don’t think that, then I’ve worried that this position is a little too cocky maybe because if you’re not taking me seriously or my case seriously, or my client seriously guess whose problem that is not mine. And I can’t sit there and talk to opposing counsel who’s been little laing me and people like me for the last 40 years and say, oh no, but I’m a good attorney and I’m going to do a great job. I think that, but that’s not for me to convince him. And unfortunately I think that it’s just like you said, cool, well there’s a jury who can just figure this all out for us. And I think quite frankly, it’s a stronger position and scares the crap out of people much more than if you were jumping to the defense on, but my client’s great, but our experts are good. Not that you’re doing that at all, but I always have that background chatter still, I may have matured or grown up in this profession to be able to have that outward reaction, but I still get the annoyance and the monologue in the back of my head wanting to shoot back. But it just always takes me to go do some research and I often find that other people are just as annoyed by them.

Liz Lenivy:

I think the thing that’s been bothering me the most about it beyond just being annoyed and having the same conversation and me shutting the conversation down every time, which I would hope at some point you would take the hint. It’s interesting because I have tried to initiate general small talk. I do think that this is a community that we’re in. I’m trying to be professional to people. I’ll ask about your family. So tell me about this. Just trying to get to know you as a human being beyond just my opposing counsel and this person has not made any attempt to try to get to know me back. He immediately just goes back to the case and I’m like, alright, all right. But part of me, I’m a little offended by it. I take it kind of like an insult to my intelligence and I don’t have these conversations with opposing counsel.

I don’t tell opposing counsel, here’s all the great things about my case and here’s why your case is a complete dumpster fire. I don’t have those conversations because I assume my opposing counsel that they are smart, intelligent, competent attorneys who know how to analyze case and can find what are the strengths and weaknesses with their own case. They don’t need me to tell them that. Just like I don’t need them to tell me that. And I will say, for the most part, my experience has been exactly what you’ve talked about, Amy, where just making small talk and once the zoom cameras are off or once we’re outside of the presence of the judge or whatever, we can talk normal human beings to each other and not just focus on our jobs.

Amy Collignon Gunn:

What about this though? What about he’s right? What about he’s got a point that your case does have problems? Why don’t we look at it? He’s showing his cards. In other words, he’s trying to say everything that’s bad about our case. Well first we probably already know, but maybe we don’t know all of it because he hasn’t named his experts yet or we haven’t really considered that angle because our expert didn’t bring it up or just haven’t occurred to us yet. So I’m wondering if it’s annoying to have to listen to him. Don’t worry, don’t get me wrong. But it’s also possible to let him just keep talking and let him show his cards and then you’re able to get in front of it. I mean, if it is talking about what legitimately could be wrong with your case, again, no case is perfect and I would like to believe that I see all angles of my case even before I file it, but I know that can’t happen. So let him just get it out of in system and then I don’t know, even do something fun. Yeah, you might be right. Yeah, blank, you might be right. I’ll consider that. Or I don’t know. Just embrace it and see how he responds to that instead of shutting down, instead of arguing with him. Just agree with him and see what happens.

Yeah, I think you’re right. I think you guys way better than mine. Oh, well, I don’t know. It just occurred to me that it’s an opportunity, kind of like when we go to a mediation, we know the case isn’t going to settle and a lot of times everybody feels like that’s just a waste of time. But sometimes I’ll go to a mediation just to see what they have to say, even though it hurts, right? It hurts for them to talk about how bad my case is or the mediator to come in and say, what about this issue? What about that issue that the defense has brought up? But once I get over that first cringiness of, oh, I haven’t thought about that, how am I going to respond? Then I’m thankful that I’ve learned about it now and not at trial or not in a deposition of an expert. So I don’t know if I try to look at every situation and say, okay, what can I learn from this? Lemme put away being irritated. I’m stuck here so maybe he’ll tell me something that I didn’t know that I can get ahead of and fix.

Mary Simon:

I dunno, just a thought. And I also think it’s case dependent in some circumstances. I was just thinking about a mediation and I had a case, just such a strong, great case, and I was hearing the same thing every deposition that would end on the way out or leaving the courthouse, how are you going to deal with this issue in front of the jury? And I’m just like, I don’t know, let’s just keep walking outside. I just kept ignoring it and ignoring it, ignoring it. And mediation. I told the mediator and we didn’t settle the case. It went to trial and ended up pretty well for my client. And at mediation I told the mediator when we sat down, Hey, just to save us some time, if they talk to you about this issue, this issue or this issue, I’m not concerned at all. So if they have something else they want to talk to me about, I’ve heard about those three issues for the last 18 months, I’m not concerned about them at all. So just let me know if there’s anything else they want to talk about. Mediator came back into the room and went, well, Mary, they are talking about it was the same. And I was like, no, no, no. I promise. Let’s just save our time, save your time, save my client’s time. We don’t need to talk about those three things. Those I’m not concerned about. But there was nothing new to add because it was never entertained. I was never concerned about it. Of course I knew about it. It’s nothing that I don’t already know

Amy Collignon Gunn:

Because they’ve talked about it for 18 months.

Mary Simon:

Exactly. And it’s not productive. It just wasn’t productive to have that conversation. I don’t think that I would’ve responded that way had I not had some experience under my belt to do that. I remember being more, feeling more insulted early on practicing to say there was an attorney who said the amount of money we’re offering is more than your client will ever see based on her education love or anything that, and it’s funny, it makes me think of a only had you not injured her that bad, right? They like seen from

Liz Lenivy:

Aaron Brockovich.

Mary Simon:

No. Well, it’s funny. It’s funny because it reminds me now of that the movie, it reminds me of the burial when they’re talking about, oh, this is more money than you’ll ever see. And the plaintiff’s like, oh, it’s plenty for me. It’s not enough for you

And only use that totally. It’s like hindsight’s 2020. But in my head I was like, why are you insulting my client? I mean, this has nothing to do with how money will impact her because of a dollar amount that she won’t see because of her education. It was so insulting on so many levels and I almost remember being kind of stunned in that moment. It was within easily the first year of practice where I had never heard anything like that. So I was like, oh, I didn’t know people actually say things like that. And then it’s also interesting because as time goes on, you kind of have to feel out your opposing counsel and whether or not you can trust, maybe trust their intention is the right way to say it because they also have a client. But there are some attorneys who I’ve worked with in the past that I know one of them when he picks up the phone and calls me and says, Hey, I’ve had a chance to look at all of this.

I think maybe after we get done with X, Y, and Z discovery, my client will be in a better position to assess. Maybe we can mediate. That’s a totally different than standing outside the courthouse saying, you’re not really going to go tell the jury about X, Y, and Z damages. Thanks for your 2 cents. It’s not productive here. Let’s keep working on the case. So I feel like it totally is circumstance dependent, but it’s nice when you find the attorneys who you do trust their intention with their client and you don’t feel like they’re just trying to intimidate you. But I don’t even think you get to a point where that can happen unless you’re able to shut it down initially or sometimes it can be so vague sometimes where they just want to get information from you of what are we doing here? I remember one attorney saying, what are we doing here? And I was working on my computer at the courthouse and I was like, I’m working on the exhibits. It’s like, but what are we doing with the case? I’m like, I’m working on the exhibits. I don’t know what, I have no idea what you’re needing from me. We have a hearing, I’m working on the exhibits, I’m looking at the records for the exhibits. That’s what you asked. I’m working on them. And it

Erica Blume Slater:

Was like, that’s such a skill I found of defense attorneys to ask you a question that tells nothing of what they want and it’s just designed to make you say whenever the first thing you’ll respond. And it used to irk me so bad and now I do it two other people. It’s just interesting. I don’t feel good about it, but it’s a great tactic.

Mary Simon:

Well, and that’s the thing is all we do is learn more about where they’re headed when they want to share more information, but just like, what are we doing with the case? I’m like, I don’t know. When I go to my computer, I’m going to start working on it. I don’t know what that means when you say that we have a case, we’re going to go try the case,

Erica Blume Slater:

But that’s an appropriate response when you appropriately have your guard up. When I was first practicing those kinds of questions, especially from very seasoned attorneys, used to scare me quite a bit. Usually be directed to the younger attorney sometimes too, hoping they’re going to say something they maybe shouldn’t.

Mary Simon:

Yeah. Oh, I remember going back to the office. I don’t know whether it was on a case with you, Amy or my dad. I don’t remember what it was, but the attorney was just talking about how it was meritless. The claims were meritless, and I was at the courthouse thinking, and it was on some real, getting a trial setting or something. It was something that wasn’t this real contentious hearing. But I left the courthouse and was thinking, oh my God, this guy thinks we are just filing lawsuits left. And And I remember going back, I can’t remember if it was or my dad, and they’re like, yeah, of course he said that. It was like a don’t even, don’t give that any, don’t think about it on the drive home from the courthouse. Don’t think about it ever again, not an honest

Amy Collignon Gunn:

Embroker of that issue. Right. When the defense attorney tells you don’t have a case, you really have to take that with the grain of salt.

Erica Blume Slater:

Did I see your motion to dismiss? Get granted, sir.

Mary Simon:

Right. And I just don’t, just so funny being in a position where you first start working, you’re like, okay, I’ve got my affidavits. I’ve got all the little bells and whistles that you’re learning about. And then to hear the attorney say that, I was like, oh, we must have procedurally, maybe I need to go back and look at the petition that we filed. And it’s like, no, you don’t need to do that. It’s just filler.

Liz Lenivy:

This is the benefit of having been on the defense, even if it was for two minutes of, I don’t know if they ever saw a case that they thought had merit, and yet we still went to trial on cases and we still settled cases. And so I realized their opinions of merit or no merit really doesn’t typically mean a whole lot to me.

Mary Simon:

And I do. I think it’s beneficial to keep kind of the stay kind of even keeled throughout. Because if you do have a case that you want to get resolved and you change your, that’s what response is. It’s like no doubt. Doubt. Oh, Mary might be concerned about, but yeah, it’s just interesting to this, see how those have a greater effect on the outcome of a case.

Liz Lenivy:

If this attorney is constantly telling me everything wrong with all of my cases, and then we have a case where suddenly they’ve gone silent, right? You’re like, there’s no chatter from the peanut gallery. That kind of tells me maybe you are scared.

Mary Simon:

And what’s always interesting to me is with all the bad stuff that comes over, there’s also an increased offer.

Amy Collignon Gunn:

Yeah.

Mary Simon:

I’m like, okay, well that’s what I mean. It’s sort pick up the brain of salt. So you kind of got to actually just pay attention to your case.

Erica Blume Slater:

Well, and a lot of that, especially in the context of mediation, is conditioning and pointing that out for your clients. They hear that and they’re like, oh no, they really think that. And I’m like, oh yeah, don’t worry about that. They just came up a million bucks. Okay. Right, right. They just have to say something.

Amy Collignon Gunn:

Actions louder than words.

Erica Blume Slater:

Yes, certainly. But no, I mean there’s been a time or two where I’ve had someone in opposing counsel that you always hear dishing on your cases, and I’ve been like, yeah, I know all plaintiffs lie at school. Right, no problem.

Elizabeth McNulty:

Well, I just was wondering, it was something we alluded to at the beginning about how this is something that we find generally male attorneys employ a tactic that they’re using, but I’m just curious if it’s because we’re just automatically less trusting of them. And women do it too, but we sort of listen when they talk about it and maybe not engage with them, but take what they’re saying about our cases and aren’t automatically so defensive about it.

Liz Lenivy:

I think in my example, I’ll say that this guy is the, to tie it to recent events, the Olympic gold medalist for criticizing my case directly to my face. So it feels like this is more of a him problem. But I do hear you what you’re saying as far as do women do it, but maybe we just have a different response or maybe they approach it differently. Maybe they’re sneakier about it, maybe they’re more demure about it.

Erica Blume Slater:

Here’s my first comment about that. I don’t litigate against enough women, and there are teams of attorneys at different firms that I have litigated against often, and I can think immediately off the top of my head of three or four where the woman on the team still a partner, but maybe a little less senior than the guy on the team who employs this tactic. And she and I get along great and have honest conversations, and I’m probably more forthcoming about my case with her. And one that I’m thinking of in particular, it’s a firm that has a couple offices in the state, and she is the partner in St. Louis that is usually on the case. And we had a mediation in the case last year, and she wasn’t at the mediation and it was a whole room of the adjuster, an adjuster who was in training, the male partner on the case, a male junior partner on the case from the office across the state.

So a whole room of guys, which again, it’s not just a gender thing, but she wasn’t there and we have been showing up for all the hearings together and have a great working relationship. And afterwards I talked to her and the mediation just fell apart and devolved with the mediator told me that the lead counsel was little lady, me and asking me who was going to try the case and all this stuff. And I’m like, oh, that’s fun for me. And I told her afterwards, I’m like, Hey, why weren’t you involved in the mediation? We might’ve really made some progress. And she just kind of laughed. She’s like, I know I should have been. And that was it. So it was kind of that. I do have several stories of that camaraderie of when women can get things done. I think in our profession now, I have a couple in mind, which it’s kind of the team all take the same approach of, you guys are always lying. And our defendants that we defend time and time again, have never done anything wrong. And that’s fine. It’s just kind of a culture thing. So I kind of wrap it up in that.

Liz Lenivy:

Is this a personal experience you’ve had, Elizabeth, where a woman, a female attorney, has

Elizabeth McNulty:

Tried to condition you? No, I think maybe the tactic isn’t as effective for women to go at it. The way the examples we’ve heard throughout the podcast, I think women are more likely to compliment your case. And that’s when I hear alarm bells in my head because I just, that’s aggressive. Oh no. Oh man. Reverse psychology your face. Exactly. That’s what I always think. So it’s when defense attorneys do the opposite that I start to,

Erica Blume Slater:

Oh, you don’t know where they’re coming at you.

Elizabeth McNulty:

Yeah, it freaks, man. Women are just

Erica Blume Slater:

True

Mary Simon:

Better at it.

Yeah, that’s a thesis. Yeah, I think for me, I’m trying to kind of run through cases and I will say I do think I’ve been pretty productive with a female attorney on the other team. I do think that it’s more productive sometimes. But I will say on those same cases, the lead attorney is a male attorney, so I don’t know on my side and on their side. So it is kind of interesting to think about that dynamic though. I only did this once, but I remember an attorney who has worked with my dad for years and they’re of the same tenure and he would say things about the case or the client, and I only did it one time, but I just said, would you say that to my dad about the case? He would just say it when it was just me. I’m like, would you say that to him?

He’s like, well, I know your dad wouldn’t even listen to blah blah. And I’m like, okay, then I’m not going to either. The conversations were different when he was there versus not for many reasons. Not just because he’s a guy, but that’s probably one of them. But I hear what you’re saying and I don’t know really what that comes from, but there have been cases that have been super contentious. But then if I’m on the case and there’s another female attorney on the other side, I’m like, she and I can move through this. I know we can.

Liz Lenivy:

Alright ladies, well thank you so much for another great conversation. I really liked all the insight and experience everyone has talked about today, and maybe this will change up my tactic going forward with this particular defense attorney and any other attorney who maybe takes this approach. But we want to hear from you all. If you have any stories or you have questions, you can reach out to us at heels in the Courtroom law. Remember new episodes, drop every other Wednesday and we’ll talk to you soon. Thanks. Bye.

Announcer:

Heels in the Courtroom is brought to you by the Simon Law Firm at the Simon Law Firm pc. We believe in the power of pooling resources in order to create powerful results. We often lend our trial skills and experience to lawyers around the country to achieve better results for their clients. Our attorneys welcome the opportunity to work with you on your case, offering vast resources, seasoned litigators, and a sterling reputation. You can contact us at 2 4 1 2 9 2 9 and if you enjoyed the podcast, feel free to share your thoughts with Amy, Liz, Erica, Mary Elizabeth at Heels in the Courtroom Law, and subscribe today because the best lawyers never stop learning.

Continue Reading