Finding The Right Expert Witness When Your Case Depends On It

Episode Notes

Transcript

Dave Scriven-Young:

Roundtable Group is a premier sponsor of the A litigation section. On this Litigation Radio episode, we will hear from Deena Peck, senior Manager of Expert Witness Services at Roundtable Group about vetting experts. The selection of the Roundtable Group as a subject of this interview should not be construed as an endorsement by the American Bar Association of the Roundtable Group and its services. Hello and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Dave Scriven- Young. I’m a litigator practicing environmental and construction law in the Chicago office of O’Hagan Meyer, and I also coach young lawyers and how to accelerate their careers without burning out. On this show, we talk to the country’s top of litigators and judges to discover best practices in developing our careers, winning cases, getting more clients, and building a sustainable practice. Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcasting app to make sure that you’re getting updated with future episodes.

This podcast is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association. It’s where I make my home in the ABA. The litigation section provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients. Learn more at ambar.org/litigation. Today’s episode is part three of a series on best practices for utilizing expert witnesses. In parts one and two. We uncovered the best ways to search for and retain potential experts using various means to get there, but how would you vet a potential expert? In other words, once you found a potential expert, reviewed her CV and determined that she looks great on paper, what do we do next to ensure that the expert will be the best person for our case? Well, our two guests on today’s episode will help us with best practices on vetting potential experts. Our first guest is Deena Peck.

She’s senior manager of Expert Witness Services at Roundtable Group, which helps lawyers and law firms find and retain expert witnesses for their cases. DNI has over 20 years of experience in the legal industry ranging from public defender to writ clerk for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. She began working in expert referral services in 2012 and has served in a variety of roles leading to her current role where she works closely with her attorney clients to determine their expert needs and match them with experience and qualified professionals for litigation purposes. She guides her clients and experts throughout each step of the expert retention process. Welcome to the show, Deena.

Deena Peck:

Thanks. It’s great to be here, Dave.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And our second guest is Dan Elms. He’s a shareholder in Greenburg Tribes Dallas office, Dan Litigates and Arbitrates Complex business issues for clients of all sizes across myriad industries in state and federal trial courts and courts of appeal, the American Arbitration Association, the International Chamber of Commerce, and finra. Dan is a longtime leader in the a litigation section where he currently serves as a division director assisting several of our publication related committees. Glad to have you on the show, Dan.

Dan Elms:

Dave, thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, Deena, let’s start with you and let’s assume that an attorney has found an expert that seems on paper at least to check all of the boxes in terms of experience, education and expertise. Presume also that that expert has cleared conflicts for the case. So we’re getting into hypotheticals here. What’s the best way to start the process of vetting the expert?

Deena Peck:

Well, Dave, I believe that CVS are meant to be highlights of an expert’s knowledge and experience, and realistically, they’re not going to have everything that they’ve done in that cv. So by scheduling a call with the expert, it gives an attorney an opportunity to delve deeper into the expert CV and background and get a better sense of how much experience or knowledge that the expert has on the relevant topic. Prior to covid, the way that we did this was just a regular run of the mill conference call, and when I look back on that now, it’s interesting to me that that worked, that there weren’t more issues created down the road in an engagement because now when Zoom took off during CO, it became such a better way to actually learn more about the expert and whether or not that expert was going to be a good fit. Even if an expert does have the relevant experience and knowledge, having that Zoom call gives the attorney an opportunity to see if that expert can really explain their knowledge and experience in a concise and clear manner, how they’re going to present to a jury and just the opportunity during that Zoom call to determine the expert’s overall demeanor and presentation style. That’s all an extremely important part of the vetting process for the attorney, but I’ll let Dan talk about that in a little more detail.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, Dan, I mean it’s interesting that Dana raises the point that now that we have Zoom and teams, we have the option to do these virtual meetings where you actually get to see the potential expert live and almost in person. So what types of questions do you like to ask during these meetings and any interesting things that you’ve seen during some of these virtual meetings?

Dan Elms:

Well, that’s right. I think Deena raises sort of two distinct but overlapping issues. I agree with her a hundred percent that the CV or resume that an expert puts together is not at least for an expert of any measurable experience, it’s not going to fully capture her experience, her capabilities, what she’s really good at, what she might be able to address in an effective way. The other part, and Deena mentioned this as well, is with the evolution of Zoom being a common almost unavoidable technique for interviews and vetting these days, you get to see a new and different layer of expertise or of capability with the expert, namely how they present, how they communicate and that sort of thing. With respect to the first one, this idea that the CV and resume don’t tell you everything, I do try to ask questions that are particular to my issue, right?

So have you done work before on this specific issue? Do you think you would be a good fit for this engagement? Which of course requires a little bit of download from the lawyer so that the expert can answer that question with at least a preliminary understanding of what’s going on. What are your initial thoughts, what kind of information and documents would you want and expect to review first? And then the last one may be the most important. Right? And I try, I encourage the expert to ask what questions she has for me because there may be parts to the engagement that we’re talking about that I’m not thinking of that she is, and so I try to encourage the expert to tease that out if it’s something that I’m not thinking of at the moment. The other aspect Deena mentioned, and Dave you did as well, is the use of Zoom and it’s absolutely essential.

You get the benefit of seeing how the expert interacts with people, whether it’s just me on the call or maybe Deena or maybe an associate. The more eyes and ears you can have engaging with that expert candidate through Zoom, the more observations and feedback you can get on whether she might present well, whether she might be a good fit for your case. When I go through that process, Dave, I’m thinking of expert witness sort of as separate concepts. Certainly I need an expert, I need someone who is capable and experienced and can do the substantive work, but the second part of it that is someone who is a witness in my case both for deposition and for trial or arbitration. That’s just as important and you can learn a lot about that aspect of it from a Zoom.

Dave Scriven-Young:

What else can you find out about a witness on a Zoom call regarding perhaps their presentation style or personal appearance or that sort of thing? And I hate to bring up maybe those kind of issues, but certainly those are issues that a jury might be looking at down the line as well. So are those the types of things that you might judge as well, and are there any instances where perhaps you discovered, oh, this witness may not be right because maybe they unable to put together their thoughts in a coherent way or perhaps they are addressed inappropriately or things of that nature?

Dan Elms:

What I look for on that topic when I’m interviewing a witness through Zoom, I’m looking for the extremes. So I’m looking for a witness who comes off maybe excessively nervous or overly formal or even aloof, someone who might have trouble engaging or connecting with a judge or a jury in the way that they would feel comfortable in trusting that person with respect to whatever opinions they might offer. The other extreme that I look for is what I would call the inappropriately casual or formal. There have been times Deena and I had an experience some months ago where we had a candidate whose resume and CV were impeccable for what I needed. I remember when I saw the cv, I had a thought along the lines of if I were going to write out a CV for someone who would be perfect for this engagement, this is very much what it would look like.

So I was excited to meet this person. We set up a Zoom and I honestly thought the zoom was going to be sort of perfunctory in the sense that, yeah, you’re perfect, excited to have you on the team. So we get on and this woman is, I can’t remember exactly if she was eating her breakfast or putting on her makeup or fixing her hair or something that I remember. My thought Dave was, I’m not sure that she realizes her camera is on because whatever it was she was doing was really, it was out of sorts for the type of call that we had had and for the engagement we were discussing, and ultimately we went a different direction with another witness that Deena provided who was outstanding, excellent in every way, but it was a learning moment for me because as great as this person was on paper, that experience in how seriously she was taking our call was eyeopening.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, and Dean, I mean, it’s interesting because no matter whether she thought her camera on was not, I guess is besides the point because I guess if you need to be prepared for that call and perhaps fully engaged in having that conversation, right. So interesting to hear your perspective on that issue, Deena, and any other kind of thoughts you might have on those issues.

Deena Peck:

There’s so many things, unexpected things that happen on a Zoom call that can really either win the attorney over or scare them off. Let’s just say that from eating to continuously talking over the attorney as they’re trying to ask questions, working too hard to sell yourself. I’ve had experts who have basically just talked themselves right out of the job that they were a great fit that was going well, but the expert didn’t know when to stop and they’ve talked themselves right out of the job. Obviously appearance, being able to have a personality, just not just perfunctory answers very short. Even if it shows that you’re knowledgeable, that’s not the best way to demonstrate that you’re the best expert for the case. And as Dan mentioned, I think also just because some people might look good on paper, that’s not how they present themselves, so that’s very important.

I’d also say it depends on whether the attorney is looking for an industry expert versus an academic expert for the case. Those two types of experts can be very different and an academic you have to worry about they know their stuff, they’re very intelligent, they know their expertise very well. Can they explain that to laypeople on a jury with industry experts? You’re on the flip side of that. They’re going to know the industry that they have been involved in extremely well, but are they going to be intelligent is not the right word that I’m looking for because obviously these people are intelligent. I guess the word that I would look for I’m thinking of is maybe an ability to convey their knowledge in a way that the jury’s going to understand as well. So that’s another way of coming at the best way to vet an expert is what are you looking for from an academic expert versus what are you looking for from an industry expert? In Dan’s case that we were talking about, I think that expert had to be a little bit of both, wouldn’t you say, Dan? They had to have that industry knowledge and experience in the industry, but also have some academic credentials to back it up, and the expert that you ultimately retained was able to demonstrate both of those. Also while having a professional demeanor and a professional way of talking about the case and her experience, they have to be able to show the complete package.

Dan Elms:

Yeah, I remember distinctly the expert we chose, she had a really impressive academic background, but also had fairly deep experience in the industry itself, and so she had that wonderful sort of, I’ll say belt and suspenders sort of credential that really made her a compelling expert and on top of that, to your credit, she was articulate, engaging, kind of a dream to put in front of a jury or a judge. I agree. The only thing I’d add to Deena’s comments is that whether you’re talking about somebody from academia or with more of a focus in industry, it’s sometimes important to have an expert who has been around the block, if you get my meaning and what I’m saying is that an expert, you might want to be sure that the person you’re talking to knows what’s entailed in preparing a fulsome expert report that will satisfy the legal standards, whether those be state or federal or some other criterion.

You might want to make sure that this person knows what they’re in for when it comes time for deposition because you can expect your adversary to go at ’em pretty tough on their opinions and conclusions and so forth. So I would just add in addition to Deena’s, good point about thinking do you want more academic or do you want more industry or some of both? Add to that list, how important is it that your candidate have experience with things like preparing expert reports, standing up in depositions, taking the stand at a jury trial, all of which are new until you’ve done ’em a little bit,

Dave Scriven-Young:

You probably also need to gauge the expert’s workload and whether they can satisfy the demands of the case along those same lines because it probably depends on whether if you’re identifying an expert early pre-claim, there may not be necessarily be deadlines that you’re falling under, but if you’re getting close to an expert disclosure deadline and they’re going to have to quickly do maybe an inspection or do whatever they need to do an analysis and then write a report and help you get the disclosures ready, you probably need to in fairly short order, figure out can this expert satisfied the time demands? Is that right?

Dan Elms:

Exactly right. Those are some of the practical things that I try to make a note to myself to make sure to ask pretty early on, which is, are you available along the timeframe that we’re going to have a report required? What is your availability for deposition fairly closely after that is produced? Here’s our trial date. Can and will you be available at that time? It has happened where you get fairly down the road with an expert candidate only to discover that he or she is scheduled to be in Timbuktu on a three week long vacation or their daughter’s wedding or something like that during your trial week. It may not be at the top of your concerns when you’re looking at an expert, but I would not omit or fail to ask about the practicalities of timing, availability, bandwidth and that sort of thing because it obviously can bite you even with otherwise the best candidate out there if she’s not available and can’t get it done, it’s no good.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, and I guess we’ll go on to another topic in a second, but just wanted to circle back on one other issue that came to mind, which is whether this expert will be doing the work him or herself, or whether they will have a team of assistance or consultants who assist with data analysis and the like, because that probably goes into your judgment of whether to use that expert as well. That’s probably a consideration, correct, Dan?

Dan Elms:

It is, and that also speaks to budgetary concerns. Every case will be different, every engagement will be different. It’ll have a different scope, different priorities, and may require a different budget or a different spend. In my experience, if an expert intends to use a bigger team to do whatever the work is, that can sometimes have an impact on the budget. It could become more expensive. I do recognize that sometimes the team is the best way to work depending on what issue is in front of you. But yeah, it’s a consideration for sure, particularly in the context, Dave, of how it can impact the budget and correspondingly how to advise your client what to expect and whether that’s the best person for you.

Deena Peck:

The team aspect of hiring an expert, I think there are variations of a team that can affect budgetary requirements. For example, I was on a call where a client said that they would have lower level associates do some of the background work to save money, but then on the other side of that, you could have them, these lower level associates doing work and also the expert that you’re retaining doing work, so they’re billing more. So understanding how they plan to use their team is important in your decision making. And then also if the lower level associates are going to be doing a lot of the background information or if there’s a lot of information gathering that has to happen for this case, the expert has to be able to speak to that, should they be deposed? So they’re going to have to have knowledge of the work that’s being completed by their staff or their team. So that’s something that needs to be part of the conversation as well.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely. Alright, so let’s leave the initial zoom call for a second. So we’ve done that. We’ve talked to the expert. We’re comfortable at least with moving on. So Dan, what is the next step then in vetting your potential expert?

Dan Elms:

The next order of business I think is to really two things, Dave. The first is to make sure the expert has a full complete picture of your case and what the expert particularly is going to tackle. I think context is important when you engage an expert, even though the topic that he or she will address is maybe just damages or maybe a discreet liability issue. I think it’s important for your expert to have a big picture understanding of what’s going on in your case. Sometimes you’ll find that an expert as they learn more about the case, will have ideas and angles to suggest that maybe you didn’t think of. They’ve been through a lot of litigation too. They’ve seen things that might not have occurred with the lawyer, and so the more they know, the better they’re able to both contextualize what they’re doing in their own work, but also provide thoughts and ideas as to things that you might not have considered.

So objective number one is to give them a full and complete understanding of the case and then within that, what their task will be. Then the second thing is to work collaboratively with the expert to start getting them the information that they need. One of the questions I find most troubling in a deposition or a trial with an expert is, did you Mr. Expert need or ask for information that you did not receive? So I try in every case to be as collaborative with the expert as I can to put everything in his or her hands from the standpoint of document or information or interviews with key witnesses, deposition transcripts, whatever it may be, so that the expert can sit up straight, proudly announce that every single piece of information that she sought for purposes of this engagement was provided. And then from there, the process should sort of carry its own momentum forward. The expert has a clear understanding of her task, she’s been now empowered with all of the information that you’re able to make available to her. That momentum should carry you through to your finish line.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And can you talk a little bit about continuing to use internal resources to make sure that this expert is the person that at least they presented themselves to be on the Zoom call? Because I know oftentimes when you’re thinking about using a potential expert, you see a lot of emails go around, Hey, I’m thinking about using Mr. Smith on this expert issue. Have you ever used him or her or dealt with him on this issue either on the plaintiff’s or defense side? So I assume there’s a lot of internal review and research that you might do on an expert before actually retaining him or her to be an expert in your case.

Dan Elms:

Sure. One of the things about expert witnesses is that once they get into the business, they tend to try to stay as busy as and get as many engagements as possible. So I dunno if it’s likely but not uncommon for your colleagues to have experience with Mr. Jones or whoever your expert might be. And so I have the good fortune to be with a big firm of excellent and busy lawyers, and so what I’ll do is I’ll circulate internally a message to all of my colleagues or at least all of them and who might have occasion to bump into this expert and ask whether they’ve used whoever it might be. And sometimes the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer will be, well, I didn’t use this expert but I was opposite him or her in a case. Either way, you can get some helpful feedback on what the candidate did, well, maybe the candidate’s limitations, but above all you’ll, you’ll get a candidate response talking to your own partners. So that can be a very, very helpful tool

Dave Scriven-Young:

And perhaps if you’re not in a big firm and to plug the a little bit or maybe state or local bar associations, people that you meet at conferences that practice in the same practice area that you do, you develop friendships over time and certainly you can ask one of your colleagues maybe even outside of your firms if they’ve used or know about a potential expert as well. So once you’ve done kind of that internal research, Dino, what’s kind of the next step then in that vetting process?

Deena Peck:

I think a lot of attorneys have in addition to reaching out to their colleagues or other attorneys in the state or local bar, things like that, they will also do some research on their own. For example, are there publications in the CV that the expert has submitted that they want to take a look at to see what the expert has said about the topic at issue? Are there any public transcripts out there where they’ve provided testimony that may or may not support your position in your case? There are, social media is everywhere now, so do they have Twitter accounts or Facebook or something like that where they may have made comments or made some posts that would seem to either support or contradict your position in the case that you’re currently working on? If that is something that could create some fodder for opposing counsel to use against that expert down the road when they’re trying to discredit their report or they want to get ’em when they’re getting crossed on deposition and they want to discredit their opinion. Those are things that attorneys will consider before making that decision on whether to hire the expert.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And it could be that after reviewing those additional materials, you might want to have an additional zoom call or call with a potential expert to find out more and kind how they would deal with those issues. Deena, have you seen that in the past?

Deena Peck:

Actually, that is something that is happening on a much more frequent basis where there’s an initial call with perhaps an associate or one or two associates and the expert and it’s just a very introductory call. They ask some questions, then they go back to their team, do this research that I just mentioned, looking at publications, looking at previous testimony, and then schedule a follow-up call. And that’s been official for multiple reasons. First, it gives you an opportunity to get that expert back on the meeting on a Zoom and say, Hey, this is something that we found. We don’t think it’s overly problematic, but if opposing counsel asks this question of you during deposition, what’s your response? So that gives you an opportunity to see how they respond to some of their past comments or publications being used against them in some way. You get to see their reaction and also gives you a chance to see how they would defend positions in a deposition or on the witness stand at trial.

Dan Elms:

Going back to some of the questions that we talked about, whether they would be during an initial zoom or as a follow-up as Deena describes, I think it’s very appropriate to sort of put sharp-edged questions to your expert. Maybe it’s about something they’d published in the past or maybe it was about a case they were involved in, or maybe it’s on something on social media that caught your attention. But I do think you can learn a lot about, as I said, the ability of your expert to sort of stand up straight and take some punches from the other side, which as we know is precisely what happens if you get deep enough into a dispute. But I think it’s entirely appropriate to push in a diplomatic and professional way, but see if you can tease out how your expert is going to respond to a question that has a little bit of an edge to it. There have been other times where I’ve been in contact with an expert, put some difficult questions to the expert, and I wouldn’t say that they folded, but I can say that the answers were not as polished and ready as I thought they might be. Surely wasn’t the first time they had thought about this publication or these events that I might be asking about. Sometimes the answers you get or even the demeanor around the answers that you get is not what you’re hoping for. So you can find out a lot.

Deena Peck:

And Dan, do you think that that is related, kind of going back to the beginning of our conversation to the amount of experience as an expert that this person may or may not have? Do you find that the more experience someone has, the better they are at handling those situations?

Dan Elms:

Yeah, absolutely. As a general rule, that’s exactly right. An expert who has more experience and has been through these fights more than a few times is going to take that in stride, would not be offended by it, would not push back or have a harsh reaction. So the experience matters. But it’s an interesting question, Deena, going back to a comment you made earlier about the prospects of an academic expert or someone who’s just an industry expert, but without much experience as an expert witness, those candidates you’ll find sometimes taken aback a little bit when challenged, I don’t want to disparage academics, but academics have a reputation, I would say somewhat deserved of maybe resisting counter positions to a conclusion or an opinion that’s been offered. That’s certainly fine and you want your expert to be able to stand up and defend whatever position is being taken, but above all, they need to be able to do it in a sort of a professional diplomatic way because again, you’re planning all along for the ultimate moment where they’re in a deposition or even more so in a Courtroom in front of a jury and a judge.

And if there’s ever a time to be cool in defense of your position, it’s then. So yeah, Deena completely validate your point. The more experience an expert has, the more likely, generally speaking, they’ll be able to take those things in stride. But it is a good way to test and see what you’re dealing with.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Dean and Dan, we’re at the end of our time together and just so appreciate your thoughts and your tips because this is obviously not something that gets taught in law school and it is something that we practice over time and figure things out, and you’re helping our listeners figure it out as we go along. So thank you so much. So we just have some brief time for any last thoughts that you might have for our listeners.

Dan Elms:

Sure. My general observation, Dave, is that we need to be thorough in how we vet expert witnesses. Deena and her team are excellent in bringing high quality candidates to us, but our duties as advocates is to turn over those rocks and look behind those corners around those corners to make sure there’s nothing hiding back there. Our duty at bottom is to zealously represent our clients in all respects, in all matters, and I think part and parcel of that is being thorough and complete in assessing your expert witness candidate before you execute that engagement.

Deena Peck:

I think I would agree with what Dan just said, that it’s very important to know what you’re getting when you retain an expert for your case. As the attorney zealously advocating for your client, you want to make sure that you’re doing everything that you can to ensure that this expert is going to do the best job for your client, making sure that you know what their demeanor is going to be, making sure that they’re going to be professional and submit their information timely, that they’re going to do what they say they’re going to do. Obviously, you can’t guarantee nothing in life is guaranteed, but you can do a good job to make sure that you’ve done the work to find the expert that’s going to be best for your case.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely, and we certainly did the work today, so Deena Pack and Dan Elms, thank you so much both of you for your time and for your valuable tips for the podcast.

Deena Peck:

Thank you, Dave.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Thanks Dave, enjoyed it. Now it’s time for our quick tip from the A BA litigation section’s, mental health and wellness task force, and I’d like to welcome back Charla Stevens to the podcast. Charla is a lawyer and business consultant who provides workplace training, independent investigations, strategic human resources, consulting and mediation and conflict resolution. She previously practiced law in New Hampshire and Massachusetts for more than 37 years and spent the majority of her career at McLean Middleton, a regional law firm with more than 100 lawyers where she chaired the employment law practice group and also represented schools and healthcare practices. Welcome back to the show, Sharla. What is your quick tip?

Charla Stevens:

Thank you, Dave. Today I’m going to talk a little bit about post-election stress. According to a survey from the American Psychological Association, seven out of 10 adults reported that this election cycle was a major source of stress for them. These numbers were higher than in previous elections, highlighting how it impacts individuals and their families. Now that the election is over, it continues to affect many different people. We knew given the polarization which occurred pre-election, that people were nervous about the future of the country and the potential impact of the outcome on themselves and their families. We also knew that regardless of the outcome, about half of the country would be unhappy. Now that we’re about a month post-election, many people are still reeling and experiencing feelings ranging from sadness to fear, to anger. If the feelings have not dissipated by now, it may be time to take stock and consider how well you are handling things, especially in the midst of the holiday season when you may be spending time with family and friends who do not share your views.

First, realize that you’re not alone and seek the company of others who truly care about you. They don’t necessarily have to be like-minded individuals. Chances are that you’re not alone in how you feel. No matter how alone you might feel. That means you probably have others you can turn to. Beware of those who won’t allow you to express your true feelings and opinions. Though engaging with them could make you feel worse or raise your level of stress or anger. Consider a respite from the news in social media. There’s a lot of speculation as to what might happen over the next several months. If history is any indication, the pundits really do not know what will happen. These predictions and warnings, depending upon who they come from, may unnecessarily get you riled up or fearful. Try not to catastrophize. I love that word. You may have legitimate concerns about what the new leadership may do, and it’s important for all us citizens to be well-informed and vigilant about what any political leader might do.

It doesn’t take that much for a country to descend into polarization as we’ve seen. You should never assume that you’re always going to be safe and happy, but there’s a difference between being vigilant and taking steps to protect your rights versus assuming that the worst will happen and descending into depression. As we always say in these situations, practice self-care and do things that make you happy. It can be tempting to drown your sorrows in alcohol or unhealthy foods. While a little indulgence may provide some temporary comfort, don’t end up punishing your mind and body. Remember to take care of yourself, try to get enough sleep, eat well. Stay physically active. At the same time, do things that make you happy, like spending time with friends and engaging in recreational activities. Try to put things into perspective and take things day by day. Again, the future is always full of uncertainty and you never know for sure what will happen.

Even if your favorite candidate had one, that doesn’t mean that things would’ve been perfect. Focus on the here and now and try taking things one step at a time. Use this as a learning experience. Treat everything as a learning experience. One thing that should be clear by now is that not everyone thinks the same way you do or has had the same experiences as you have. Respect that diversity. Approaching differing opinions with curiosity rather than the hope that you will change people’s minds may be helpful in treating this as a learning experience. Take action instead of playing the victim. Think about how you can change things even in little ways, especially in your own community. Support the people in organizations fighting for what you believe in. Support nonprofits and community volunteers, especially around the holiday season. Little things can add up and make a big difference when done consistently over time.

Most importantly, know when things have gone so far that you may need some professional help if you are still reeling post-election and consider yourself to be steeped in depression or anxiety. If you’re finding it all too much to handle, don’t be afraid to seek help. The National Alliance on Mental Illness provides information on how to get this help, including the NAMI helpline at 1-800-950-NAMI, and that’s available Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM Eastern. If you find yourself not able to function or having thoughts of harming yourself, call or text the nine eight eight Suicide and Crisis Lifeline as soon as possible. Remember, we’re all in this together, and hopefully you can rely on your friends and family in making you feel happy and healthy during this holiday season.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, Charla, thank you so much for your tips and thanks for being on the show today.

Charla Stevens:

Thank you Dave,

Dave Scriven-Young:

And that’s all we have for our show today, and I’d love to hear your thoughts about today’s episode. If you have comments or questions you’d like for me to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact me at dscrivin young at O’Hagan meyer.com and connect with me on social. I’m at Attorney Dsy on LinkedIn, Instagram X and Facebook. You can also connect with the ABA Litigation Section on those platforms as well. But as much as I’d like to connect with you online, nothing beats meeting you in person at one of our next litigation section events. So please make plans to join us at the 2025 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee, CLE seminar in Tucson, Arizona for March 5th through the eighth. Learn about the latest developments and insurance law from leading lawyers and insurance professionals, network with practitioners from around the country and enjoy a variety of outdoor activities only Tucson can offer For the complete program lineup and to register, go to ambar.org/litigation insurance.

If you like the show, please help spread the word by sharing a link to this episode with a friend or through a post on social and invite others to join the show and community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcasts, it’s super helpful. Even a quick rating at Spotify is incredibly helpful as well. And finally, I want to quickly thanks some folks who make this show possible. Thanks to Michelle Oberts, whose on staff for the litigation section. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the litigation section’s audio contact committee, Haley Maple and Charla Stevens. Thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network. And thank you. Last but not least, so much for listening. I’ll see you next time.

Continue Reading