EP 601- Legal Research and AI Part Two

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to The Jury is Out a podcast for trial attorneys who want to sharpen their skills and better serve their clients. Your co-hosts are John Simon, founder of the Simon Law Firm, Tim Cronin, personal injury trial attorney at the Simon Law Firm and St. Louis attorney Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth:

Welcome to another episode of The Jury Is Out. I’m Erich Vieth.

John Simon:

I’m John Simon. We’re back with MJ Voss. We’re talking about Legal research and ai. Welcome back.

MJ Voss:

Thanks. Thanks for having me.

John Simon:

So when I started practicing, I was at a large defense firm for four and a half years, and I literally spent probably a hundred percent, 90% of my time doing research. I wasn’t taking depositions, I wasn’t getting to argue the motions in my background. I never clerked anywhere. I clerked at an accounting firm. My background was in accounting and I was in their tax department doing tax stuff. But I did very little research and it was a learn on the job because I didn’t really know where to go or how to access it. I took the basic legal research in writing, but that was it. And even here, our new lawyers do a lot more stuff in court, motions, depositions, but I would say at least half of their time for the first two or three years is research

MJ Voss:

My experience as well. When I was working, I left law school not knowing there was a thing called Missouri approved jury instructions. Right.

John Simon:

They’re pretty helpful.

MJ Voss:

They’re extremely helpful, the end of the case, but if you want to know how to craft your case and where you should start,

John Simon:

Start there. Start there,

MJ Voss:

Right. Exactly. And so that’s a tool that some students now know exists. We have updated copies. We have a large law library where we have alums that come in looking for an old criminal statute because that’s what it was initially charged under, and they want to know how to, we show them how, well, why don’t we start with the digest? That’ll help you physically, the books from back then.

So now you’re not starting in Westlaw, which doesn’t care really what happened to a statute, how it changed in 1980. We can actually now go to the shelf that has everything that you’re going to be looking for is going to be on this set of shelves, the digest from that time period, as well as the cases from this period. So the report is from that period. So let’s start there. And that helps just, oh wait, I can do that. Librarians and especially law librarians organize information. That’s what we do so that we can get access to it and we can know what’s there and also what’s not there. So this is a tool that a basic understanding of what a librarian does is basically the old word for librarian was basically either book hoarder or keeper of the books or the person with all the charts, all of the keys to find out how to get the book on the old monastery shelf. So that is what librarians do, and we do that in the world of law. And so like you said, you don’t know what you don’t know, but as you go, if you understand how this works in this one world or this one schema of the statutory structure, it’s probably going to apply the same way over in a different state. Or when I get out of the statutes and go into the regulations, is it organized very similarly

Erich Vieth:

To the point where we done our soul searching, asking questions about that are just trying to determine what I do know and don’t know, and I’m thinking about my own life, but now I want to get down to the doctrinal law. What is the law in this area? I don’t know anything. It used to be in the old days you’d go to a LR or am J or Corpus Juris or maybe law Reviews. Although when I started out, Westlaw was, I think it was $5 a minute and it was like the partners say you can use Westlaw, but use it only for three minutes. Get in and hit that button and get the hell out of there. And so you can’t linger, but those are the resources or things like that. So are they still around? Because I don’t use ’em and I use other ways to try to get the lay of the land as far as what the law is in this big area that I know nothing about.

MJ Voss:

Yeah, I mean those are still there. The sort of dinosaurs of legal research where to start the secondary source material, that’s kind of where you want students to start so they can get an understanding in legal research writing. They’ve got a specific case on a nuisance Missouri statute on nuisance, and they need to figure out how to parse out. If they were to create their own statute on nuisance, what would it be? I direct them to the Missouri practice guide to start with. That’s where they need to kind of look at what the actual lawyers are looking at. And that’ll help them give that basic understanding without having to get to the actual statutory scheme yet, that they’ll have to, that’s not necessarily written in a way that’s clear and concise. So the summarization parts of it there, and not only are those dinosaurs there, but there is a multiplicity of new secondary source material that all of these companies, Bloomberg, Westlaw, and Lexus to be the main three are putting out there. And the other thing too is I want them to understand that what they’re looking at is a business when they go to Westlaw. I mean first off, even though you’re paying for it, they’re using your searches to feed their algorithms and make it, they’re making money off of your work. And second, what you’re doing is government documents are non copyrightable. Government doesn’t copyright, I think government printing office, anything they put out, which includes everything again from statutes, all

John Simon:

Statutes, codes, regulations,

MJ Voss:

The Congressional research Service, all of the offices within agencies that do legal work, all of that that’s published out there, the circulars, et cetera, those are all there. So what does Westlawn Lexus do? You need to know they’re the value added. They’ve taken that free information and they’ve created new ways of organizing it, new ways of connecting things. The whole key system in izing are value added things to the law. And so they have to understand the history of that, right? You don’t know where you are unless you know what came before you. And so that history of that, and then what is going on now is this multiple secondary other sources that are coming out on a regular basis. Practice guides everything and it just is going to keep growing. But then how do you evaluate even those, right? We know that dinosaurs, we trust those, but what’s the main treatise on copyright that I want to look at?

How recently is westlaw’s owned, treatise been updated compared to Lexis? It’s like you want to get the most current law. So you want that there. And also a treatise is likely going to have opinions just like a journal article is going to have in it, right? So you’re going to get the basic understanding of the law, some cases, information about the case histories, how they’re different distinguishing, et cetera. But then especially with new areas of law, you’re going to have the author of that treatise opining on things, right? And you’re going to get a bias in there. So being able to evaluate even within the secondary sources, the inherent bias that comes in the creation of that value added aspect of what’s put on to the law. So just a critical eye and a critical thinking skills. The two things I want them to leave out is a better understanding of their own deductive reasoning and a continuous curiosity in developing their critical thinking skills. That’s what I want them to

Erich Vieth:

Leave. You mentioned nuisance. So that invited me to tell you this story from last week. So I am with co-counsel suing the city of St. Louis for nuisance, and there was a motion to dismiss filed against our complaint. And I expressed to several people, I’m going to read every one of their 30 cases and I can almost guarantee there’s good stuff for us in their cases. And there it was great stuff. It was amazing. It was a paragraph and the most recent case anybody cited that obliterated all their other cases distinguish it explicitly. And so I would offer that to anyone who’s thinking of researching. That’s a great place to find the best cases is your opponent’s citations. And that’s because people are rushed, they’re impatient, maybe they’re young,

MJ Voss:

They’re young,

Erich Vieth:

Whatever’s going on. They’re just cherry picking their favorite sentence from a case.

MJ Voss:

That’s the thing is, and again, I’m not trying to be ageist in either direction here, but I’m kind of in the middle. I’m in my mid forties. And yeah, it’s the belief that, okay, there’s some negative stuff in this case maybe they didn’t even know there was, but no one’s going to read it. They just want me to show that piece of paper up. Maybe the judge might read it, but they’re going to be busy, like you said, they got 30 motions today that they’re going to be hearing what, and then all you need to do is actually just sit down and take the time. And that’s why I want them to slow down dramatically.

John Simon:

So there’s a story for your students that you should probably tell them. We had a case, I won’t even mention the jurisdiction, and it was outside of St. Louis and we did all of our hearings on Zoom and the judge was very strict, no nonsense. And we had a large firm with multiple attorneys on the other side. It was a big case. And we had one of the motions, maybe it was a pretrial motion, and we had had at least a dozen over a two year period and we’re all on the screen. I think we were in this room and I’m sitting there with two of the attorneys from this office and the other side had filed a brief on some issue, maybe it was a motion to stay or something in the case. And the judge gets us all on, and the first thing he says, before we start on, he said, before we start on any of these motions, this brief that was filed on this issue, and the defense had filed it, he said, I would like to know who wrote that brief. And he wasn’t saying it in a complimentary way. So I mean the whole zoom got quiet and what had happened is something he believed was intentionally misquoted

In that brief and the whole thing melted down. You wouldn’t believe there were four signatures, four or five because all the attorneys signed it and he read everything. He read the depositions. This went on through the whole case and by the end of this 15, 20 minute discussion, and the judge did all of the talking, huge firm out of town, and he said, by tomorrow at five o’clock, I would like a show cause memo as to why shouldn’t hold your firm. And each of the lawyers who signed this in contempt of court, and then we went on to the other motions. And so we

Erich Vieth:

Just sat there quietly. That’s reminding me of that joke, Mrs. Lincoln. Other than that, how was the play?

John Simon:

Yeah, right. So anyway, we were sitting there, it was Tim Cronin was with me in the case, and I’m just sitting there going like, oh man, oh man. And of course I’m hoping that God, we did all of our, but the judge, it wasn’t a mistake. I mean he pointed out that it was his belief. He said, actually he said any first year law student would know that this was not the case holding in the case. And so he did sanction them monetarily and actually one of the lawyers fell on the sword for everybody and said, oh, it was my fault and I’ve been doing this for so many years and never been saying whatever. But he sanctioned them in that case for something that was in that brief. And I thought, oh, because like I said, I don’t do the research. I read it to see how it sounds and when we’re going to argue it, if I’m the one arguing, I’ll get the cases and read ’em. But that is so unbelievably important, the credibility if you cite something, and even not egregious, but if you’re on the fence or if you say a case says something and it really doesn’t,

You’re done. I mean you are done.

MJ Voss:

You an officer of the court, the candor and truthfulness to the tribunal is paramount. All you have as a lawyer is your reputation.

John Simon:

That is it. Absolutely.

MJ Voss:

That is it. I mean, there’s nothing else other than that really ultimately, and that reputation is either built up over years and destroyed in seconds. If it’s intentional, then that’s where you’re getting into

John Simon:

The, there was a case that I had, and I tell the younger lawyers this all the time, I’ve said it I think on this podcast, and it was a case I was four or five years out of school doing plaintiff stuff and it had to do with an easement. An easement, and whether the easement owners had the same duty to somebody on the property, and I had researched it, it was a big case and that was the issue, and they were trying to dismiss it. And I had done research on it and I found a really old Missouri case. It was early 19 hundreds or something, and it was bad. It was bad for me and it wasn’t in my brief or the other side’s brief. It was before I was researching it, before we were going to argue it. And I pointed it out to the court, I pointed it out to the court, and I still know that judge went on to be an appellate judge, and I’ve tried multiple cases in front of her, and I did that as a young lawyer and it really screwed up my case, but I pointed it out and the judge ruled against me on that issue.

I just felt it. I just knew it because the judges, all lawyers talk about judges, judges talk about lawyers. I got a much different reception in that courthouse in the next 10 or 15 years, not just from that judge, but from other judges too. When I cited something, they were like, okay, when there was a time to get the benefit of the doubt, I felt like I would get it on something. But it is just, you are absolutely right. I mean there is nothing more, that’s all. You have your credibility and your reputation. It takes you years and years to develop it and you can destroy it in one

MJ Voss:

Minute. And it’s important for them just to understand that when they walk out the doors, when they graduate law school, that this, it is a close knit world of lawyers and you’re not just representing the client that you have in court that day. You’re also representing any future client that you might ever have. Obviously you make decisions and the client is the final arbiter in terms of what decisions are made for that case. But understanding the way in which you handle yourself, the way in which you presented your arguments, and also the preparedness that you present is not just for that client that day. It’s for all future clients.

John Simon:

It’s not nine times out of 10, it’s hardly ever intentional, but just the sloppiness, not looking carefully at something, not being fully prepared. That’s the same thing. You go up there unprepared. And the other thing too is you got good smart lawyers on the other side of every case, and if you misstate something, it’s going to get shoved in your ear and they’re going to make it look like you were trying to pull a fast one or something. So yeah, that is so critically important.

Erich Vieth:

And the time pressures push a lot of people along and the fatigue. And so you’re tempted to take shortcuts and progress is sometimes at the end is asymptotic. Like you get good progress for a while and then it’s 9:00 PM and you want to go home and be with your family and you think, I think I got it tied up. Maybe the bow is almost tied, but it’s tempting to say it’s good enough. And you take these shortcuts, you say, I’ll check Google, but then if that’s wrong, it’s like, judge Google told me this answer. You can’t dabble. You can’t dabble in it. You got to fully immerse yourself. You got to tie the bow. Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you’re there.

MJ Voss:

And I mean, I think what I tell the students, if you start seeing the same thing over and over again with your research, if you’ve gone to the, you’ve limited it to the right resource, that you’ve got the right kind of all of the fields to the left on your screen in terms of jurisdiction, timeframe, source material, all of that stuff has been correct and you’re there and you just start seeing the same thing over and over again, it’s okay. It is okay to stop. And it’s also okay if you don’t find the answer because sometimes there isn’t an answer. And this idea that they’re always going to get a positive result the first time or the second time or third, it’s going to take a while and you might not have an answer. It might be a case of first impression, in which case you need to note that and also be totally clear is again, you can say to the associate partner, obviously it’s an in office conversation, but I don’t know if I have an answer to you. This is what I have. And if you want to come into the door to the partner and say that you better have that research log, you better have the results. You better have looked

Yes to look to not know than to make it up at all. Yeah, it’s just understanding that no one’s inval. We’re going to have mistakes, but as long as you’re honest about it,

Erich Vieth:

Writing gets, I think a little more prestige than the researching. But it seems like good writing is 95% thinking and research. I mean, you could be an average writer and if you got the good stuff, I think that carries the day more than being a great writer and you didn’t get the right case or you didn’t get the right thought process, that’s going to zing it.

John Simon:

So mj, does your class cover writing also or just the research?

MJ Voss:

So they’ve taken legal research and writing before my class, but we do touch on the writing in terms of how I evaluate. Again, you pass my class if I can replicate what you did, if I have a clear understanding of what you did and why, but I do ask for answers and I do want them and expect them to have firm ready memos in terms of their responses, especially when I ask them to evaluate the resources, the plus or minuses of this versus that in their research. So that’s part of it too. And it can’t just be like, I like the interface. I really want them to have an understanding of what they’re looking at. And some students go above and beyond and they go, well, I looked up the authors on this section of that and here are their expertise. So I know that that is very, they publish X number of articles, et cetera, so they know that they can say that this is authoritative and y as opposed to just saying, I use this one source.

They actually look at who the authors are and their expertise within the field. And that’s the other thing too, is just you don’t know what you’re necessarily looking for when you begin research, but you know what you’re going to try to avoid during that process. And you don’t want to rely on something that’s going to be authoritative and isn’t going to be something that’s well esteemed. That’s why you can start with Google Scholar. You can start at Wikipedia. I don’t ever want to see any of those things on any of my answers here unless I told you to use Google Scholar. So that’s basically kind of understanding that they have to have the authoritative resources and sources material that can be vetted in their responses and articulate it well enough so that I can understand your argument and then replicate it.

Erich Vieth:

So this morning on X, I’m reading a tweet by mush tug Bilal. He’s a PhD somewhere. He said, finding relevant papers for a literature review takes a lot of time. So MIT researchers build undermined an AI powered search engine. It can generate well researched overviews on any topic, and it’s 10 to 50 times better than Google Scholar and it gives directions to how to use, and this stuff is popping up. Things like this are popping up regularly now it seems like it’s almost impossible to keep up. But I want to ask you some questions about ai. And John and I have been periodically having people talk about ai. I think we’re making a time capsule with these podcasts. It’s like we asked about a year ago and it was doing this and now it’s better. But a former law partner of mine, John Campbell, told me that he prepared for an a circuit argument oral argument by using the paid version of chat GPT and other things too. He batted the case around with me and with other people too. But he said, I spent some time with chat GPT and I hadn’t explored the paid version. And so I just signed up and I want to invite chat into this podcast. Lemme just ask a question and see if this works. Okay,

If I upload all of the briefs filed in an appellate case, can you help me prepare for oral argument?

ChatGPT:

While I can’t directly review uploaded documents, I can definitely help you prepare for oral argument by discussing the issues, exploring potential questions and brainstorming arguments based on summaries or key points you provide. We can work through the legal principles and strategies together to help you feel prepared.

Erich Vieth:

So I was batting some things around. I’ve uploaded petitions into Chachi. This is the general search engine. This is not the legal search engine, which is I think co-counsel is one of the search engines that uses chat as its backbone. But I uploaded a petition and I said, can you give me the questions I would ask on a deposition if I depose one of the name parties? And it came back with dozens of questions that most of them seemed perfectly appropriate. So it’s a little disconcerting.

MJ Voss:

It is.

Erich Vieth:

But I thought, let’s use that as a springboard. Talk about the AI tools out there now.

MJ Voss:

So we do incorporate that into our classes. Usually I want them to have a pre AI understanding before they begin, and then we’ll talk about the tools that have just now being unenrolled rolled out for students. And co-counsel is one of them. And that’s on Westlaw and it’s very, very, very powerful in terms of what it can do. And then in Lexi, you have Ask Lexi or Ask ai. And so these tools, it was telling when they started to promote them, both of these companies, but it was marketed in a very distinct way. It said just like walking down the hallway to ask another associate, you can use our tool for this or you can treat our tool as though it’s a senior partner who’s had years of experience in this field. So they’re marketing it already at the very beginning. This was a year, year and a half ago as replacing, replacing people.

And that’s very telling, right? Because the law profession is a business. And so it’s constantly looking for efficiencies and it’s constantly looking for ways to increase revenue for its partners or in the sense some litigation, perhaps some competitors out there for you that do get litigation financing from these hedge funds and these companies that will fund litigation, especially in malpractice and in toxic torts and things like that. So they’re looking for ways to make more bang for their buck. And so one of those things is to reduce costs. And these tools, though not inexpensive, are becoming much more ubiquitous within the packages of Westlaw and Lexus. Much more easier, much more part of what’s wrapped up, what used to be just reserved for the higher firms, even though it wasn’t as good as it is now, is now being rolled out to students right now. Again, they’re giving you the candy that you hopefully get hooked on in law school, but there’s the detriment to them. I always advise them that you might not have any of this when you start practicing. You now have the Cadillacs of the Cadillacs in both. You’ve got a Mercedes and you’ve got Cadillac in these two different competing platforms, but you might not have any of ’em. So let’s at least know how the books are organized.

John Simon:

Do they give it to them free in law school?

MJ Voss:

Yeah, it’s not free. There’s law school pays for it. And we have pretty large, we have a law library is where this comes through. And so we have contracts with the various vendors on that. So you mentioned John Campbell and his use of AI in this. And so this is also akin to kind of like Lex Machina, these other resources that the law school pays for where John would’ve had this kind of tool with his jury predictability kind of database and resource, the same kind of stuff we have at the law library, ProQuest, jstor, Hein online, all of these other tools that the students use. It’s not free, but they get used to using it and they might graduate and not have access to any of that depending on what kind of firm that they’re at and where they’re working. But the AI tools are important to understand in terms of how they’re going to change the profession going forward and the students need to understand that coming in, right, everybody, I think I mentioned at the beginning, one new technology doesn’t replace the old except for the exponential rated, which it is.

It kind of seems like it’s immediate right now and it’s worrisome if we’re talking about email replacing a fax machine, but no real loss of job positions in that regard for the most part. However, what you’re doing is replacing an intelligent human being with an artificial intelligence. And that is, at least now from what I can tell, obviously it’s being accepted because it’s out there. The law schools have accepted, students will use this. We have a policy where they have to disclose, professors can limit or prohibit your use of ai, and if you do use it, it has to be disclosed in what way. You can’t just put up an iron curtain on and say it’s not coming through. It’s here and it’s happening. The students are able to summarize the lectures quicker. They’re able to get their outlines for finals done quicker. They’re able to, when they’re in legal research and writing, or if they’re in a seminar class, quickly get a summary of all the journals instead of having to read 15 journal articles in the next two weeks and make your notation on it, they can request ai, summarize these journal articles.

For the most part. There are some copyright issues obviously that is at play with that, but if something is out there or something’s within the world of what, if you’ve got the journal within Westlaw, you can ask Westlaw to summarize it for you. So these are the things that are playing out right now real time. It’s not just lawyers using chat GPT to draft a brief which they file and get sanctioned for when it cites hallucinated cases. And then when they get sanctioned for that, they use chat GPT again to create the brief and response, the motion for saying Michael Cohen’s lawyer. So it’s not just that, it’s also that this is being used as basically to replace those initial steps of legal research. It’s to begin that really clear part that I think is important for the students to know just so that they know, again, how the law is organized and where to find it.

If that goes away, if you don’t understand that, you’re really doing a disservice. I think to one of the main roles of lawyers is, which is sort of to perpetuate civics in our world. And if you take away the group of people that know where the law is and how to find it and how it’s made, and now you just have the world of AI generating it for you, even though it’s citing to correct primary law, there’s this risk. There’s always been this risk with technology. I remember back when I was in library school and the Patriot Act was being passed, not to get political on you, but the Patriot Act was a concern for librarians because we have this great system called the government Repository Documents program, right? Government law libraries and federal depository libraries. And so we received government documents, right at all these different libraries across the country when they was in physical form and only in physical form.

The digitization of information was just starting. This was like the late nineties. And we did that. We had that program because of the thoughtful thinking of the dissemination of information into different locations physically in our country protects the security of that law, the authorship and the ability to change or modify what’s in printed format can happen if you have a change in administration and you change in power. And so one of the things that happened was all of this documentation that I think the EPA had put out in CD ROM format at various locations about the waterway system. When nine 11 happened, department of Justice and the newly Homeland Security Department came to libraries and wanted to take all those CD ROMs out of there, just as an example because of national security concerns. So that is a prime example of things being taken. But once you centralize all of that into a digital world where everywhere that you see, whether you’re in Dallas or whether you’re up in New York can be changed like that.

Erich Vieth:

You can rewrite history,

MJ Voss:

You can rewrite history. So there is this underlying problem, and I’m not trying to be Stanley Kubrick on us, but ai, it is a centralization. It is a complete another further example of the centralization of information. And if you lose the sense of how this law was made and what its purpose was for and where you can find it and make sure that it isn’t being doctored, it’s a little scary. That’s where I get worried, but we’re not there. That’s fear mongering. But I do have that general concern. My understanding is within the legal profession though, is this going to replace jobs? It’s definitely going to make things more efficient, and I think the focus is for instead of spending 20 hours over two days reading briefs, you now can have it summarized within 20 minutes for you. That’s an efficiency tool, and I think that’s being embraced wholeheartedly by firms.

Erich Vieth:

There’s probably not a lot of people who look forward to summarizing medical records, for instance.

MJ Voss:

Exactly. Or reading through deposition transcripts for Yeah, it is quite a lot. And summarizing that, so if you can have that done for you, but the question is, does that replace a young associate? I can definitely see it downsizing the number of associates that get hired each year from 70 at one of these big firms to 40. Are you going to still, are you going to trust the brief that’s drafted or the memo by AI more than the young associate? Not yet. Not yet. But that’s it. Not yet. Not yet. Right. Ultimately, like you said, it’s the signatures on the page that’s submitted to the court that are responsible for what’s submitted. So you still want the human touch. You still want the human eyes, even if it’s somebody that’s a neophyte in the profession, it doesn’t necessarily know you wanted multiple eyeballs looking at anything before you submit it to the court. Right.

Erich Vieth:

So you want the human touch.

MJ Voss:

Yeah.

Erich Vieth:

Here’s one more query I asked Chad today. I’ve been working on an appellate brief all day and I’m really tired and frustrated. What should I do?

ChatGPT:

It sounds like you could use a break step away from the brief for a bit to recharge, a change of scenery, some food or a little relaxation can help clear your mind. When you come back, you’ll likely find it easier to make progress with fresh eyes.

Erich Vieth:

Excellent advice. That voice is so expressive. It’s seductive. It’s like you’re talking to a person who’s like my sister, who’s just encouraged me. The

MJ Voss:

Intonation, the rhythm, all of that is there, and that’s what’s a little bit more unnerving to me is how human it sounds, right? So I told you for a walk a couple weeks ago, and I was like, I’m not afraid about ai, but I’m going to be afraid of it when we just start calling it intelligence. Intelligence was co-opted by the spy community, but it’s just going to be called intelligence, and then therefore we feared the dumbing down and we don’t need it. Yeah, we don’t need to be intelligent. It’s outsourced.

John Simon:

Just like with information 30 years ago when I was in undergrad in school, actually having information was valuable. There’s no need to have information anymore.

MJ Voss:

You just go to Wikipedia, find you, right? You get it in your phone.

John Simon:

Yeah,

MJ Voss:

You go to your phone

John Simon:

Right here in my hand. I’m holding the source of all human knowledge in my pocket, which is phenomenal in a lot of ways. And scary in some ways too.

MJ Voss:

Yeah, more than any time in history. Mj, thank you for joining

Erich Vieth:

Us. Thank you very much. This has been great, and thank you for joining us for both of the episodes that we just did. Very thoughtful stuff. Look forward to talking to you again in the future on these topics. This has been another episode of The Jury is Out. I’m Eric, be.

John Simon:

I’m John Simon. We’ll see you next time.

Announcer:

The Jury is Out 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 3 1 4 2 4 1 2 9 2 9. And if you enjoyed the podcast, feel free to share your thoughts with John, Tim and Erich at Comments at The Jury is Out law and subscribe today because the best lawyers never stop learning.

Continue Reading