Trial War Stories - Two Sisters, One Fight with Nick DiCello

Two Sisters. One Fight. Justice Delivered.

Welcome to Trial War Stories — where host Andy Goldwasser sits down with some of the nation’s best trial lawyers to unpack unforgettable cases that tested their limits, shaped their careers, and redefined justice in the courtroom.

In this episode, Andy talks with Nick DiCello, a top Cleveland trial lawyer and current President of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. Nick shares the inside story behind a powerful wrongful death trial — a case involving two sisters who fought for justice after losing their sibling in a nursing home.

Together, Andy and Nick go beyond the verdict to explore:

• How trial teams prepare for high-stakes cases.
• The power of demonstrative exhibits and real-time storytelling.
• The strategy behind managing damages, jury selection, and credibility.
• Why authenticity and preparation can change everything in front of a jury.

This is more than a trial recap — it’s a masterclass in advocacy, strategy, and human connection inside the courtroom.

If you’re a lawyer, law student, or just fascinated by courtroom drama and the craft of persuasion, this episode will inspire you to think differently about what it means to fight — and win — for justice.

Subscribe to hear more Trial War Stories from leading trial lawyers across the country.

Transcript

0:00

Two sisters, one fight. Justice delivered. You're going to learn a lot from today's episode. I know I did, and you're going to learn it from a great lawyer. Every trial lawyer has that one case. The one that pushed them to the edge, changed how they practice or kept them up at night. This is trial war stories. And I'm your host, Andy Goldwasser. I sit down with great trial lawyers to unpack unforgettable cases. The strategy, the chaos, the pressure, and the moments that turn the tide beyond the transcripts and verdicts. And now to the show. My guest today is the one and only Nick to cello. Nick is a fantastic lawyer, and I mean that sincerely. You really are. Thank you. And what you and your firm have built in our legal community is. I think it's second to none. I mean, what people don't probably know about you and your firm is not. They know about your success, but what they don't know about is all the things that you and your law firm do to give back to the legal community. Right now, you're the president of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association is how is that going? It's a lot of work. As I told you on the walk in, it's an interesting time to be a president of a bar association. But as we were also discussing, Cleveland has an incredible bar. And we are we are a nationwide leader in how to run and operate a bar association. And that's reflective of the members of the bar here in Cleveland. No, no question about it. We really do have a great bar. And the collegiality amongst our bar is really incredible. I mean, look, we do the same thing. A lot of what we do overlaps, but there's never a competition. It's a friendship. It's a desire to help. I mean, I've never been able I've never held back calling you for help. And you've always been incredibly gracious when I call. So thank you for that. And I know your partners are also leaders in the community, and, one of your partners is what president of the federal, you. Know, local, for the Federal Bar Association, the local chapter. Jeremy tour. Okay. And, Dustin Herman is president of the local trial lawyers association. Cata Cleveland Academy of Trial attorneys. That's that's awesome. All at the same time. Yeah, yeah, it's, and that's kind of just the legacy of our firm all the way back to Craig, Spang and Berg, who was, I think I'm the sixth president of the Bar Association and or its predecessor entities over the 80 plus year history of my law firm. What a legacy from him. And now through you and your partners. Congratulations. Thank you. It's really outstanding. And thanks for all that you do. Thank you. Speaking of Dustin, he was your trial partner on this case that we're going to talk about, right? He was. Awesome. I want to hear about that. I want to hear about the trial teams. We're going to talk about that. So why don't we start with you? Tell us about the trial that you had. And it was relatively recently, which I just got to interrupt for one second before you even start. What's really cool about this podcast, the other three we talked about trials that were old. Yeah, this trial is new. Yeah, this trial is fresh and new. And we had great lawyers. So tell us about the case. Yeah. The trial started on June 23rd. It lasted about two weeks. It was down in Hamilton County in front of a judge who had never, tried a civil trial before. And I thought she did a wonderful job. My partner, Dustin Herman, and I tried this case on behalf of our clients, two sisters who lost their sister. And, you would categorize this, Andy, as as a nursing home case. It was a wrongful death case. And so, the defendants included, corporate nursing home, and some of those entities and then a nurse practitioner that was employed by a separate corporate entity, those were the defendants. And there were a couple sets of law firms on the other side. And on our side was me, Dustin. And, because we were in Cincinnati, we otherwise would have brought, you know, our paralegal with us. But because we were in Cincinnati, it was just the two of us down there. So who did your trial graphics? We did them all. You did them yourself. I say we. And by that, I mean Dustin. Okay. Dustin, I think is at the forefront nationally on trial demonstratives. And I mean that we, we were using demonstratives that we created during our depositions and then utilized them again at trial, or we would recreate them again at trial to have that moment in the courtroom. Dustin is convinced of this. I've tried a number of cases with him. I'm convinced of this. Creating a demonstrative with a witness on the stand together in the courtroom creates a moment, and the jury's participating in that moment, as opposed to showing them something that was created earlier by someone else. Do you remember at your deposition when we talked about this? That can be effective, but creating something in the courtroom and then in closing argument, referring back, and you look, you say, remember when doctor so-and-so was on the stand and the jury is looking at you going, yeah, we remember when we were all in the room and you created that. That is absolutely amazing. So I'm probably old school in that regard. I, I do a similar thing, but I don't create electronic demonstratives because I just don't have that capability. But I love going to the whiteboard. Yeah, I love working on a smart TV. Yes, and writing things down during the course of an examination, but it seems like you and Dustin have taken it to the next level. But let's get back to the trial. Yeah. So tell us about the rest of the trial. Yeah. So, the case involved the death of a 52 year old woman who had end stage Ms.. Is how they referred to it. And, it was progressive. So this woman had a story to tell. And when one of the themes at the end of the case was, this this woman was not just this horrible disease, as you could imagine, the defense wanted to capitalize on on what a difficult situation she was confronted with. But she had lived a pretty full life until she got to the point where she was rendered incapable of caring for herself. She was more or less, quadriplegic. She had some use of her right arm. And so she was dependent on the nursing home for everything. And our case involved, as we alleged, the failure to send her to the hospital in a timely fashion when her super pubic catheter, a catheter that's placed kind of in the belly region to drain her bladder because as a result of her condition, she could not do that on her own. It became infected, as they're known to, to become infected. And on a Saturday, she had a change in condition that we alleged was not properly managed and dealt with between the nursing home and the nurse practitioner. And there was about a 12 to 14 hour delay in getting her to the hospital. When she got to the hospital, she was, diagnosed with sepsis. And she passed about nine days later. Wow. So the did the nursing home create the infection or was the claim really? No, it was the delay in diagnosis and treating the infection that led to her death. Or was it a combination of both? So, this is a that's a good question. You know, my approach to these cases is during discovery, I'm willing to chase down the rabbit holes. I'm willing to cover it all. And, a couple of days before trial, Dustin and I, you know, made some tough decisions. You know, we're not going to present everything. It overwhelms the jury. And, it's good to get some perspective from people who know nothing about the case. And you start overloading them with all this, and they can't handle all of it. And so we really were disciplined. What do we absolutely have to prove to win this case? And the way we work the case up, the defendants probably thought, as you just said, well, was the nursing home responsible for the super pubic catheter becoming infected? And arguably the answer is yes. And we had experts who would say that. But at the end of the day, we made a difficult decision to say we're not going to take that on, because if we don't win that, then maybe we lose the whole case and we didn't feel we needed to prove that. Rather, what we did is let's give these folks the benefit of the doubt. She had had a history of these infections. They're difficult things to manage. They can get infected. So we thought we had more credibility with this jury to say, listen, it got infected. We're not pointing the finger at anybody for that. She's at high risk for that. It can happen. But knowing that you have to be diligent, you have to send somebody to the hospital when they show signs and symptoms of an infected super pubic catheter. Yeah. You almost turned it on its head, right? You said, hey, look, she's prone to infection. It's happened before. That's all. The more reason you should be more diligent in watching for the signs and symptoms. So that you could prevent something like what happened here. And so, you know, now we're not pointing the finger at three, 4 or 5 different people. And, frankly, I think the jury probably, thought that they at the end of the day, they probably were responsible for mismanaging the super pubic catheter. But we didn't have to take that on, so we didn't. So our case was focused primarily on the failure to send her to the hospital on a timely manner and some poor communication between the facility and the nurse practitioner that day. Was there any settlement offers going into the case? There were, one of them, I think, you know, you could describe as in this kind of case, if if there's a way to categorize them. It was I think the defense thought relatively significant. Our clients weren't interested in something like that, which made it easy for us to take the case to trial. So the decedent obviously died. Who were the plaintiffs in the case? Like who were the so-called victims here? Yeah, two sisters, one of whom was the power of attorney. Wonderful. Women very involved in their sister's life. At the facility on a daily basis. And one of whom was at the trial just about every day. My approach is a little different. And for years, people have, you know, raised eyebrows at me. But you'd have to convince me why my client should be at the trial. My baseline is I don't want them there. That's interesting. My attitude is I want the jury to understand that the reason we are here in this courtroom is because of what the people who are all sitting at that table did, and that's the focus. And maybe later on in the trial, when they've heard the story, then they can start seeing my people. But I very much want the jury to understand we're here because of what these people did not because my person decided to file a lawsuit the way the courtroom was set up in this particular case, my power of attorney, sister, Pam, like my client, she was able to kind of sit like, in. It was almost like a first row where she was there, but she wasn't the focus of the jury. And so she did attend on a daily basis. So do you not have your client at the table with you? Correct. Is that how you do it? Most of the time, yes. That is such a different and unique approach. Do you ever get have a defense lawyer stand up and say that your client's not even interested in the case, because where are they? Yeah, I've faced that. And it's a case by case determination. But I found that these jurors are hypercritical and they are constantly assessing. And as you know, Andy, they they love to think that maybe they saw something when none of the lawyers were in session and just the risk of my client maybe not knowing that she didn't hold the door for somebody, or my client appearing disinterested for 30s during a weeklong trial, or my client smirking or rolling his or her eyes. You know, those little things. Sometimes jurors can be so hyper focused on, and I think it's risky. So some cases I've had good reason to tell the jurors in voir dire, you know, we're going to be looking at some photographs. We're going to be talking about autopsies. And I just want to tell you that my client's not going to be here. She's going to come and testify, and she'll be here at different parts of the case. But she's not going to sit here every day, day in, day out. Does anybody here have an issue with that? And the jurors, they don't they don't know. And I've never had a juror raise their hand and say, well yeah I do. I think she should be here every day. Never I it is I, I love talking trials. It's I could do it all day every day. And you're the first plaintiff lawyer I've ever heard say what you just said. It's such a different, unique. But what a fantastic approach. And one that I'm probably going to steal from you for for years to come in. Do you do that in more than just wrongful death cases? Yeah. Yeah, most, most cases. I try to do that. I remember I was trying a case and, a lawyer we both know and respect. Chris Paterno was in the courthouse and this was years ago. And he came out and he goes, where's your client? I said, he's not here. He was a young man, and he he was attending, college. I said, he's not here. And he gave me, you know, well, you're in big trouble. And then, you know, when the verdict went my way, of course, Chris, you know, Chris came and said, you know, great job. That was the right decision in that case. Yeah. So it is it's, it's not common. But that's the way I feel comfortable. I'm I'm committed to that approach. That's it's so interesting. So I, I want to sort of start backwards and then, and then go to the beginning of the trial. So I want to understand this a little bit. You have a decedent who's 52 years old and stage Ms. in a nursing home. No economic losses. Correct. Unmarried. Yeah. Mother, from what I understand, had advanced dementia. Yes. And so you have these two sisters. What is your damage model here? How do you build damages in a case like that? And we didn't pursue any medical bills, so we had zero damages we could put on the board, as we say. And, I started very early. I like to challenge myself to see what the, the, the number is that I can get to that I believe in, in my heart of hearts, I can look myself in the mirror and ask for it. And so very early on, I commit myself to disclosing that to the jury. Do you do that in jury selection of your dear? What did you tell the jury? I told the jury that at the end of the trial, we're going to ask for in excess of $20 million. And what did you ultimately ask for? We asked for a range because there was different claims. And, depending on how the jury added it up, we proposed ranges. We had a wrongful death claim, we had a survivorship claim, and we had a nursing home Bill of rights claim, which was an interesting claim. And so when we totaled up the ranges, the high end of the range, I think was 25 in the low end, I think was 15. And the jury came back at just under 18. Amazing, amazing. So, so getting back to this, this damage analysis, how did you how did you arrive at that number? Did you focus the case? Did you I mean, how did you do that? A lot of it was my previous experience at trial. I do focus groups. I rely on them. I don't find them incredibly reliable for the number. I tend to think they're hyper inflated. So I rely on my past experience at trial and, the numbers that we've obtained. And again, what what I feel in my heart, I can say and believe in it, and I push myself to that, to that outer limit. So that's what we did in this case. I talked about it a lot with Dustin, and, I committed myself to it early in the way I introduce it is just that part where we're talking about non-economic damages in a wrongful death case. It's helpful to say to a jury, which could be a conservative jury, could be a liberal jury, could be something in between. Right. But to say that the Ohio Constitution guarantees that there are no limit on a wrongful death case, and you start there and you tell them how important that is and that this is really I don't do criminal law. And there are there are cases in this courthouse that deal with with death on the criminal side. And those are the most serious cases on the civil side. This is the most serious case that can be brought in a courtroom. And I introduce the idea of no caps guaranteed by our Constitution. Who here might have a problem with that? And then I reference other jury verdicts. And sometimes I get, an objection. In this case I did not. And they're real cases and they're public record. And I referenced, a jury verdict that a former associate of ours got Michael Hill in a nursing home case not that long ago. That was $26 million. And I used that to say, who here without hearing any facts. And the facts of that case are different than the facts of this case, I'll tell you that. But who here, when they hear a number like that, just says there's no way that they could ever entertain a number like that. They don't care what the evidence is. And I and so I engage in that. If I find somebody who raises their hand and I, then I draw that out. But what you see happen is when I do that early and then the defense tries to start talking about numbers, it really they either avoid it or it seems to work against them. When they try to start talking about big numbers. Because I've been totally transparent. I tell them I'm an advocate, I go, my job is to advocate, and I'm going to advocate for the number that I believe in for my clients. It's such a great approach because for two reasons, really. The first is I am convinced that juries can see through the bullshit course, and you have to be sincere in what you're saying. So if you could look yourself in the mirror, you could certainly look at a jury and say, this is right. And I think they could see it and they could feel it. And the second reason it's such a great approach is you're really conditioning, almost conditioning a floor. Right. Your wood. That way when you go to final argument they're like oh my gosh. Sometimes you ask for these huge numbers. Jury thinks you're out for a lottery ticket. But if you conditioned them early on, which is what you did, fantastic approach. Right? I want them to hear the evidence. Like if I'm going to lose, I'm going to lose. And that can happen. But if I'm going to win, then the evidence is going to be compelling enough to win. I want them to hear that evidence through the lens of we trust Nick. If I'm going to win, do they have to trust me? If I win, they think I'm credible. If I win, they believe my evidence and I want them. If I if I've obtained that in the trial, I want them receiving all of that within the context of. Nick told us he was going to ask for over $20 million. You don't want to accomplish all those things. And then for the first time in closing, you get up and say, and we we are asking for $20 million and everybody's, whoa, where did that come from? Wow. You had me until that. That you're you're so right. I mean, we've talked about this on the other podcast. Credibility is so important in a courtroom. It's to me it's almost everything. And when I was a junior lawyer trying cases, I screwed that up all the time. I'd go after people and the jury would be looking at me saying, why the hell is this guy losing his stuff with this witness? We don't know anything about this witness. So to build that credibility and then continue it all the way through the trial rate approach, I want to get back to it, though. So here's your case. You've thought about it. Did you focus the case? Did you actually have a mock. When you did? It wasn't a full mock, but we did do a focus group in Hamilton County. Did you have a professional do that or you do it yourself? We did it ourselves. In this case, we did it ourselves. Dustin and I did it ourselves and the worst thing I think that can happen at those is when, you know, you win the mock trial. You're right. And it was one of those where we didn't get too much feedback on what are our problems, what are our blind spots. And the jury pool was that we got in a mock was not very representative. So we got good feedback. And it was it was nice to hear that those particular jurors were very receptive. So we did do it. We did do it helps you. Theme your case. Of course. And especially in a case like this where you have maybe multiple themes that you just haven't fine tuned yet for trial. So of course, so, so I know from talking to you before this session that there was really an interesting event amongst the defense team. Yeah. Right before trial. What happened? Yeah, I had read about this. You know, if anybody's read Randy Mcginn's book, she, she talks about a trial where the day of trial, a whole new trial team showed up and tried the case that she had never met. And I thought, wow, that, that's interesting. And that happened to us in this case, a local firm in Cincinnati, very reputable firm. Good lawyers. You and I know the firm well, and they're they're very good lawyers. They know what they're doing. Defended the case over a period of a year plus. And then, the Thursday before trial, we were notified that, trial team from Arizona was going to come in and try the case. They filed their motions on Friday for permission, and the judge granted them Monday morning. And, we started voir dire. I had never met these lawyers. They turned out to be. They were both two men. They, from Arizona. They turned out to be very competent and professional, lawyers. And so we tried the case against them. That's that's amazing. I you know, I wouldn't be I would never be concerned about a new lawyer coming in. That's not the point. What? What is the point, though, is, you know, from all the work that you do leading up to trial, sort of where the defense is going. Yeah. You sort of know how the defense lawyer is going to cross-examine witnesses and their style and their approach, and especially in our community in Ohio. Right. I mean, you try cases all over the state of Ohio, you sort of get a feel for what certain lawyers are doing, which other lawyers don't. And here you have an out of state lawyer. We had all worried about that. Like what is how is this person going to treat the defense of the am I going to see something new that I've never seen before? Yeah, it was. And you know, you agonize before a trial and if you're not nervous, then, you know, I don't think you you're doing your job. And there were times where I thought, oh, I've told this guy's a nursing home specialist and he's got this incredible record. And so I was I was a little nervous, like, you know, I wonder what this guy's got. But I'll say at the end, you know, it almost built himself up to too high of a standard. And my expectations were really high. And I realized, know, it's just another lawyer who puts his pants on the same way as the rest of us. And he was highly competent, but he didn't have any magic sauce that blew us away. And, he did a very competent job trying the case. And, so it was interesting. Yeah, I for for sure. And I think there were two Lloyd defense lawyers in your case. Yes. Yeah, yeah, there was a defense lawyer, who's been trying cases. I think he's tried over 300 jury trials. A real stalwart, a real professional. And it was a real privilege to try the case against him. I think he's been trying cases now for over 50 years. And, I really relished the opportunity to try a case against him. Yeah, you must have. So it was sort of funny when we were talking this morning and you told me who that lawyer was, and I had heard of them, but I had not met him. I called my brother. Who? Who's a longtime medical defense lawyer in Cincinnati. Oh, yeah. I said, what do you know about this guy? Says, I know him real well. I've had a lot of trials with him. So I know you like what you were up against. And he is a really I mean, I don't know if any lawyer doing that kind of work who's more skilled in a courtroom room, formidable or I should say experienced in a courtroom. Yes. And his approach is he'll go in with I don't know if the camera can see this, but a card or a one sheet of paper and try the case. The whole case. You know, we got our computers and exhibits and boxes and he had nothing. He had this, small briefcase. That's all I needed. At times, he was. He was brilliant and very talented, and very professional. And it sounds like he was really credible, too, in the sense that he admitted what he had to admit and then defended what he could defend. Absolutely. Yeah. It was just came natural to him. And his client, the nurse practitioner, was was a pretty honest lady, as well. So the verdict ended up being 95% attributed to the nursing home and 5% attributed to the nurse practitioner. Amazing. So we talked a little bit about how you got prepared for the case with the focus group. Was there a certain juror that you were looking for? I mean, you're from Cuyahoga County, which is for those listening, is in Cleveland, Hamilton counties in Cincinnati. So was there a particular juror that you had in mind? There is, and I use I partner in my trials with, with, a jury consultant. I guess you would call them, but they're only with me for purposes of picking the jury, and they're of like, mind as I am. And these approaches, and they've, they help with the background information. So when I'm doing voir dire, I don't have a pen. I'm not writing anything down. I'm just talking with the jurors. And my team, including these people, are gathering the data. And, of course, everything's, you know, algorithm now. Right? And to the extent they have an algorithm, but I'm basically trying to in the limited time you have, Andy, I've, I've learned not to just rely on my gut in that moment, which is hard for me because I rely on that a lot. In trial, I've learned to go with an approach and it feels so much better. It's basically the following. I want to identify the leaders verse non leaders. So I have a scale of is this person a leader or a follower. And then I have a scale. Is this person tend to lean more personal responsibility I think Larry David from Curb Your Enthusiasm. Right. So something bad happens. It was your fault. Exactly. Don't complain about it. So personal responsibility, up to social responsibility. Somebody who's at the other end, a Larry David who would say, hey, if something bad happens, there's probably a reason it happened. And we should work on preventing the reasons, and we should take care of each other. And so I try to, when in doubt, I get rid of the leaders because a leader can hurt you. You could. You could have the jury going your way. You have one strong leader against you. They could flip the whole jury. So that's really the scale I'm using. And I'm trying to find jurors, who are leaders that tend more personal responsibility. I don't I don't care if it's I don't do Republican or Democrat or, there's certain characteristics I am looking for that will help identify leader, but, that that's really the scale that I try to use. You have to do a seminar on that at some point, because it's such a fascinating approach. And it's a it's a great that you stick. Do you believe in your approach so you follow it? Yes. Do you have any information on the jurors before your you start the process? You know, it's different in every courthouse and in this courtroom. We got a, a list. And they actually do their own questionnaire, which is incredibly helpful. And this judge, every morning, she had a pretty active criminal docket that she was very committed to. So we started late. And so we got those, questionnaires and we had about a good hour, to look at them. And my, my person that, that I bring in for that, you know, they were just putting in all the data and researching these folks and they were very, very helpful. So we kind of knew where to focus our questions once we, once we got them on the panel. That, that that's great because in Cuyahoga County, I mean, as you know, you're sitting at the trial table. The jury is on their way up and you're literally handed a sheet with a name, spouse's name, and employers. If you get all that. If you get it. Yeah, exactly. So you and panel, the jury, it's time for opening statement. Anything that you did that you could help. Like what are some good tips that we could take away from your opening? In this particular case. My fundamental rules for opening is I want to win the case in the opening statement. I'm a big believer in period. I spend more time neck preparing my opening statement. I agree than any other aspect of the case. I may agree days and days, and I will rewrite every word a thousand times to make it perfect. Totally agree. So we did that. We had a lengthy PowerPoint. I mean, that is the one part of the trial. I want to show the story, and I am of the belief. I do not advocate, I do not want to be perceived as advocating. And I always, you know, I cut stuff out. And Dustin so what we got to keep it. I'm like, it's too much advocacy too early. I don't want to advocate early. And so I've got a method that I kind of in these medical cases, I start off with what I call a mini med. You know, a lot of people say, oh, you should talk about rules in opening, and I do. I like that, and it's easy. And, you know, a rear end case to say a driver must keep their eyes on the road. Right. Everybody knows that. Right? But you stand up and say, you know, when when a patient is showing signs and symptoms of a systemic infection, you know, people don't know any of that. So I do a mini med and it gives me an opportunity just for the first, you know, two, three, four minutes with some demonstratives, very simple demonstratives to just say you're going to hear about some medical conditions. In this case, the doctors are going to come in and explain this, and I think it helps me one to get going for sure. And two, to demonstrate to these jurors that I've mastered this information. But I'm not condescending about it. I'm talking to them like a normal person would talk and say, I had to learn this stuff and the doctors are going to come explain it to us. And my demonstratives are very simple. So I do a mini med and then by the end of the mini med, when I announce the rules in the case. And so always, almost always three. Yeah. The jurors are like, well, yeah, of course that makes a ton of sense because you just explained, you know, a, an infected super pubic catheter can lead to sepsis. And this is what sepsis is. And the doctor should tell you if you don't treat sepsis early. So by the time I come in and announce a rule, sepsis is a medical emergency that must be treated as soon as possible. To avoid that, everybody's nodding along. It's a really good approach and it goes back to credibility. Right. You're educating the jury. The jury is now looking to you as someone that they trust, and that they could count on to understand what is going on. At the same time, you're subtly framing the case and the question is the way you want the jury to think about the case. It's a great approach. So my approach is when I'm drafting an opening, I do the similar in the sense that I always have an introduction, and my introduction focuses on theme and motive, and sometimes it backfires, right? Because for the same reasons we talked about, they're saying, why are we talking about motive? It's too early to talk about motive, but it helps me frame the reason behind everything. I'm a believer that juries aren't going to do something in your favor unless they know why. They sure do something in your favor. Sure, absolutely. You get done with opening. Did you have a number of experts in the case? We did. And, as Dustin and I often do, we we didn't call. I think three out of the five experts. That's not amazing how you have this huge case that you build and spend years building. You spend so much money. Yeah. And then you you throw out three quarters of your exhibits, you throw out some of your witnesses. Yeah. It just always works that way. Right? So, we, you know, I think experts, we love them. We talk about them in settlement negotiations. I mean, the fewer experts I can put on the stand, the better. So we we whittled our experts down to just two, and, we we tried to call as few witnesses as possible. That's that's Dustin and I try to get our case in as soon as possible. I've got a kind of a rule. If I can't get my case in and, you know, 3 to 4, maybe five days, then I need to go back to the drawing board, because, it shouldn't take longer than that. Do you take that simplicity approach throughout trial? Meaning when you put on a witness, you might be able to spend a day with that witness. But do you focus maybe on three things that you want to get, even though there's a lot more to discuss? Get those out of that witness and then get away? Yeah. And something Dustin does, and this is a mark linear tactic if you've seen him do it. And so when I try cases with Dustin, I try to follow the same theme. But we'll put up in front of the jury. We use an IP vo it's a, it's a document camera. And we just put it up there and we'll literally he draws much better than I do, but we'll put up in front of the witness. This is the roadmap. We'll say, you know doctor or Mr. or Mrs.. I want to talk to you about three things. You know first we're going to talk about this. We can we talk about that today. Yeah. Okay. After that we're going to talk about this. And it the jurors told us that how much they like that because some sometimes you see a lawyer who's very effective put a witness on the stand. And it's not until about 15 minutes in that the jurors go, I know why I should listen to this person. So, that's helped us to really focus things in. Now, it happened in this trial. In any given trial, you take your roadmap and say, well, after that, direct that roadmap out the window. So you have to react. You can't be too rigid. But I've found that helps me, you know, basically if I've got a roadmap with 20 stops on it, it's usually three, right? Maybe with a couple subsections and, you know, after about an hour of direct or cross, there's got to be a good reason as to why I would need to keep going with any given witness. No, no question about it. And it's funny that I'm laughing to myself, as you were telling that what Dustin does, because I do the exact same thing. And by the way, I stole it from Mark leader. There you go. And and it really is a great approach, and I sometimes will even do it in deposition. Yes. And I'll just tell it to witnesses is exactly what I want to talk about. It's almost like starting a meeting, right? You say we're having a meeting. Here's what I want to talk about today. Yeah. And and I think the jury appreciates. And you and I know sometimes our best cross is that if we say, oh, man, I really got that witness on that cross. And if you're not conscious enough, some of those times, the jury doesn't like that. The jury feels like you manipulated that witness. The jury feels like you did a tricky lawyer move. I think when you tend to say, hey, doctor, we're going to talk about these three things today. Is that okay with you when you start off that way on a cross, you know, the jury's more willing when you do get to the parts where you're, you know, doing your your impeachment or your heavy cross, you kind of already started off with the jury. Feels like I was treating this witness fairly. I didn't just jump at him and pull a document out that they hadn't seen. Right. I told them what we were going to talk about, and then we talked about it. And it's a good approach. And ultimately what happens by doing that is when the witness starts getting evasive. It makes the witness that bad. It doesn't make you look bad. Absolutely. You've tried a lot of cases with Dustin, Yeah, we've had a good run. Dustin and I, in fact, after this one, he said they're not going to they're going to stop letting us try a case against that. Never think we're going to try another one together. This December. But I mean, you know, some pairs and I would try a case with just about any lawyer. But but Dustin and I are just a good team. What what makes you such a good team? You know, I've. I first chaired this trial. I've second chaired a trial that Dustin first chaired. And what a great experience. You know, Dustin was was younger at that time, too. The only thing more rewarding than doing it yourself is sitting there and watching somebody that you care about do it right. And that was just wonderful to sit in the second chair with meaningful responsibilities. But to watch Dustin, you know, do it and just nail it, as the first chair. So, he's he and I just kind of know what each other need. We know what his strengths are and my weaknesses, and we're just very complimentary for each other. I mean, Dustin's approach is very different than mine. I have a very different demeanor than he does, and I think it just complements each other well. It's so important, you know, with these larger trials, you almost have to have a team now. Absolutely. Quanah, who's who's actually with us sitting behind the camera right now, has been with me for 20 years. And and she tries all these cases with me. She's not an attorney, but I couldn't do it without her. I mean, she is literally there helping with the witnesses, keeping things organized, preparing the demonstratives, preparing the trial graphics. And in our last trial, she became so instrumental that the other side was actually looking to her for help with their exhibits, because they were they were so important. And you need you need that perspective of somebody you know and trust who's not afraid to tell you, you know, like you were being you were being a jerk with that witness. Absolutely. Dustin. You know, he'll he'll he'll send me a note across the table. And sometimes it's just a smiley face and they'll just right be nice. And because I'll tend, you know, left to my own devices, I can tend to, you know, start turning into, like, what you've told me you've experienced, where it's like, you know, you're the the prototypical lawyer. I know I got the goods and I'm on a roll. And so every now and again, I need somebody like Dustin to pull me back and say, hey, you know, remember, this isn't about you. It's about the jury. And so just be be nice. And that's very helpful at a time when I need somebody to tell me that, Are you calm in trial or you more demonstrative and almost not want to see dramatic? Because that's too far of a word. But do you show any emotion in trial, or are you very, very matter of fact? Both, I think I think I'd like to think that I, I can feel what the moment is calling for. And there are times where it's calling for something very somber and quiet. I'm very conscientious about my positioning and movement in the courtroom from this last trial. Just give you one example. And you understand a lot of lawyers would say to me, how do you get a verdict where you have two adult sisters, one of whom was in her 50s and one of whom was in her 60s? They're not even presumed under the law to have damage. When I got to the point with my primary plaintiff, the power of attorney, the woman who had the closest relationship, when I got to the point where it was basically you ask the question, you know, this is this is your opportunity, your only opportunity. I need to ask you how losing your sister, the way you lost her has affected you. And, when I did that, the way this courtroom was set up, the jury, the witness box was, like, in front of the the bench pointed directly at the jury and, like, didn't have anything to hide your legs. Okay. And so, the witness was very exposed to the jury, and I just recognized in that moment one she she couldn't answer the question. Right. We've all seen that. She just got so emotional that she had to. It was so it was just silence. And I noticed I was standing a little bit between her and the jury and, and I just very intentionally, you know, put my bowed my head down and walked across the table and almost out into like, where the gallery would sit. And I just walked out there and I stopped looking. I don't know why, but I wouldn't even look at her or the jury. You know, my own mind. I thought I was just giving the jury an opportunity to just have a moment just between them and my client. Oh, I was. Up that and it lasted for. I got to the point where it was starting to get a little too much, and I was going to maybe have to be faced with the decision of saying to the judge, you know, judge, I don't have any questions. I'm not going to keep her up there twisting like this. But she started getting going and she gave a good answer. So those kind of moments, I just, I feel I've tried enough cases. I rely on my gut and my instincts. I do look for those moments. There are times where, you know, it's it's bluster, but they're very few and far between. Yeah. Well, that's that's another good lesson. And takeaway from this podcast is sometimes we need to get out of the way. Exactly. And when you ask that question and you could feel the emotion in the courtroom, it's, it's it's this it's really an indescribable feeling how tense and emotional and the jury is just locked in. Just get out of the overwhelming. Heavy silence. And I think that's what helped drive the the verdict. And, you know, that's not something that shows up in an appellate record. Right. And I was dealing post-trial with defending this exorbitant verdict, as it was described, and trying to recreate that no appellate panel is going to feel that. I know the trial court did. And so those moments, they're there for the taking, and you have to be receptive to them, and you have to be willing to do things that you hadn't planned for. And, you got to look for those opportunities. I had another trial once where the way the courtroom was set up, I had a defense expert twisting on the stand, and he started looking through his bag for something that I knew didn't exist. And I said, go ahead, doctor, take your time. Keep looking, because this is important. And that the end of that jury box was just open. And I remember looking at the jurors, I was a young lawyer and my partner, the partner I was trying the case was looking like, what are you doing? I remember looking at the jurors and without saying anything, we're all waiting. I kind of looked at an open chair next to one of the jurors, and the juror kind of nodded like, yeah, go ahead, sit down. I was sitting in the jury box. That's great. And the judge kind of looked over like, what you're doing. Okay, I and I sat there and I was sitting there and we were letting the expert twist in the wind, and I looked over at the jury and they looked at me and they nodded like, yeah, he's had enough. And I said, and I stood up, walked out of the jury box and said, you know what, doctor? Don't worry. The reason you won't find it is because it doesn't exist. So great. Now you know those moments you can't plan. That you cannot. And what makes what separates the great trial lawyers from the good trial lawyers is they know how to feel a courtroom, and they're not afraid to go off script. They stop listening. They stop feeling, they stop just being. And you almost have to put yourself in the jurors shoes. You have to know when to shut up. Right. And you have to know when to get out of the way and sounds like you do. You did that and did it really well. Yeah. In a tough, in a tough damages case with a huge verdict in frankly, a pretty conservative area. Yeah. Well, that defense lawyer we've been talking about so glowingly, he said, you know, a case worth$1 million in Cuyahoga County is worth $300,000 in Hamilton County. You know that historically, that's been kind of the understanding amongst the bar. So it is a little more conservative than up here in Cleveland. Yeah. And Nick, I it reminds me of and I actually printed it because I loved a quote that I read from you after the verdict. You probably don't even remember this. I'm going to read it to you. All right. It's such a great quote. You said you've got one side saying the sister should get nothing. An hour side demanding something around 20 million. This is the pinnacle of trial practice. We're going to put it in the hands of the jury. I love that that is what trial lawyers do. And you are a true trial lawyer. I am so appreciative that you came on this podcast. Hell of a verdict. What was the total 17 point. 17.65? I'll just say, Andy, the very last thing I said to this jury in my close, close was we trust you. Wow. So to to your point that you just made with that that quote for me, that was the very last thing I said to. And that it's probably the way you started knowing you. Yeah. Great job. Nick. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this conversation, and I can't tell you how much I've learned from this. I mean, I could go for another two hours, but listeners probably won't, like, won't like that. But maybe at some point we get together and talk more because it was just fascinating and I learned a ton. Thank you so much for doing. Thanks for having me.